Fake, fake, fake, fake!

Thank you for your reply, you make some valid points there.

After I submitted my last post, I went and looked at the programme's website. It does a good job of allaying viewer's doubts. For example they confirm the introduction of two additional caymans (or caimans), lining the water hole so it didn't dry out and planting some extra edible plants. Does that add to the fakery? IMHO, no it doesn't. Particularly as they admit to it. It's a bit of setting the scene as it were. The world being as populated as it is, if there is a patch of it capable of supporting human life then chances are it is already occupied, so no good for this experiment/show. What the makers have done is made the island capable of supporting a group of 13 men for that period of time. It's the mens' responsibility to gather the resources.

Incidentally, my query of their emotional state wrt slaughtering the cayman wasn't a reference to fakery. I was just a little surprised that's all. If I had been without a decent meal for that long, I would be giving serious consideration to eating the person next to me. Or perhaps one of my own feet. Don't put me on an island! ;-) But I certainly concur when you point how anything can tip you over the edge when you're cold, wet, exhausted, starving, whatever.

When I originally posted, my feeling was that the cayman had not just been introduced to the island. It was almost as if it had been placed there for them to 'catch' for the tribe. But now I doubt that theory. What I don't think however is that they went to the mangroves with the intention of catching a cayman. If that were the case, they were woefully ill-equipped. It didn't seem like a good time of day to attempt it either. (Feel free to correct me here, this is my best guess) I would have thought the best time would be just after first light before it had time to warm up and get more active. I took it they had gone to that spot to check a fishing net and bagged the cayman instead.

Sorry I haven't watched either Born Survivor of Man v Wild, let alone how they film either of them. So I can only imagine the lengths they go to. I would be particularly disappointed with this point if it had been stage managed. I wouldn't have cared in the slightest if one of the cameramen had appeared in shot. They do so quite often, particularly around the camp (obviously because there both cameras are more likely to be in the same location). So I wouldn't like the idea of someone saying something like "ok chaps, if you'd just like to go back up the beach again with your catch? We'd just like to do another take." Not just exhausting for them, it just seems unnecessary for the programme.

I realise there has to be stage management to a certain degree obviously though. This may be a bit of a social experiment, but it is financed by a tv company with a responsibility to put something decent together for its sponsors. After all, 99% of home videos are eye gougingly unwatchable. So even with two professional cameramen living in the tribe (a brave step in itself), I would like to think the stage management is as light touch as possible.

To date, I haven't traveled enough to have heard of Baker's Bum, let alone known what it is, or experience it (I am happy to wallow in blissful ignore here, BTW!). However I can certainly agree with you that the average European bloke would buckle once separated from the most superfluous creature comforts.

P.S. Apart from Civilization, what else have I missed?