S04.E10: Flesh and Blood/S04.E11: Tales from the Island

[cooksdelight]

I will be OK with a redemption show if Fuckin' Larry comes back. He should have an entire menu of mouse dishes by now.

[rmontro]

Wow, I think I am less excited about a redemption season than I was to hear they were going to have partners.  About the only non-winners that I would ever care to see again are Nicole and maybe Jose (he had that bad bit of luck falling into the water).

Like Humbleopinion said, it probably saves the producers money by not having to put them through the survivor course again.  They can probably get by with a refresher.

[ramble]

Meh, blah & yawn. What a lackluster end to a boring season. What set this show apart was the alone aspect and taking that away severely lessened the show's impact. A human being in trying conditions facing everything alone was different and often provoked some really interesting introspection. Even though there were some enjoyable people on the season it was simply another reality show about survival. 

[TVbitch]

What shall we call next season: Alone Again?  

[cooksdelight]

.....Naturally

 

sorry, I am a longtime Gilbert O'Sullivan fan

[Snarklepuss]

Well, it ended like we all feared it would and I'm disappointed but it is what it is.  The brothers did seem a little more tolerable toward the end, and appreciative of each other, but I'm still not fond of them and their "crob trops", LOL (thanks, Cooks!)

Pete is one tough SOB and he was my hero this season, and my inspiration.  I don't think the Butt Bros. have anything on him in the suffering department!

The new season's gimmick will be second timers, oh joy.  Something else to ruin the show.  They seem determined to desecrate the magic of season 1 yet again.

So the new season will be in a new location?  I wonder where.  I've been in Maine this week, and I thought maybe this would be a good location for the show but they'd have to steer clear of the snowy time of year.

Alone again.....naturally LOL  I thought the same thing, Cooks!  That was practically my theme song when I was about 14 years old.

[Subrookie]

Did they say where the next season would be? I couldn't stomach watching the after show so I haven't watched it. Filming costs are probably cheaper in Canada, so it would be a little more interesting (to me) if they picked a lake setting in the northern Prairies or maybe Newfoundland or Labrador. 

Honestly, they need to make an effort to win me back. This season was a big step back for me as a fan of the show. Not sure I'll hang around long if they do another season that gets away from all the reasons I liked this show in the first place. 

[cooksdelight]

Mr. Cooks' take on it: "So.... the two guys with a crappy tent just reserved their energy and outlasted the other people? I guess that's how they've all won?"

[MrFymie]

Well good riddance to a very underwhelming season. The winners were, IMO, undeserving whinge bags who crapped on and moaned the whole time. I hope they go back to the original format for the new series, but then again, I think I am over this show now. This season ruined it for me. 

[Vicky8675309]

12 hours ago, piequinn35 said:

That was not the reunion, that was tales from the island, the reunion is on Sept 17th. I don't know why we have to wait for 1 month.

Was I hallucinating on the reunion on Sept 17th? different show? 

Is there another reunion or shall I say, a real reunion? Strange because they showed the tease for next season after this "tales from the island" and didn't mention anything about a reunion with all the cast. I really don't know.

[rmontro]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

Mr. Cooks' take on it: "So.... the two guys with a crappy tent just reserved their energy and outlasted the other people? I guess that's how they've all won?"

It looks to me like they won by foraging all those limpets and gunnel fish from that rocky beach.

I didn't want the brothers to win either, but it's wrong to say they didn't deserve it.  They stayed on Vancouver Island longer than any other people in the history of the show.  Ted carried most of the weight for awhile, until he got sick, then Jim picked up the slack.  Like it or not, they acted like a team when it counted.  A dysfunctional team, but a team nonetheless.

[holly4755]

12 hours ago, DNOMAD said:

you know what would make a good season,a season of us internet "experts" competing on the show.I would be a train wreck in slow motion

that would last about 1 show as we all see bird droppings and decid we could get attacked by birds. Trust me it cold go bad, I had wild turkeys live in my yard for 6 weeks. it was horrible, couldn't go out without and umbrella, not to fend off droppings. but to open and close and scare turkeys  away that I was growing bigger.  you pull  into your drive way and they surround your car pecking at the windows, ugh, and then you sit there for 45 minutes until they get bored. I had to pick up my mail, the mail man would not come near my house because turkeys would chase him down the street. yet they never bothered my neighbors, it was like they knew the property lines and respected fences.

I think this year they came later than any other,  the salmon run seemed over, previously they got there before it started.  the fish stopping for everyone also seemed new. They didn't show us a lot of the end days, I think it was probably because no one went out and filmed much. I know taht Pete was talking aobut the possibility of Frost bite and the brothers were talking about how cold they were all the time.  

In truth the brothers won using the Alan method, stay in your sleeping bag and eat limpets. But without the wit and wisdom. . 

[derriere]

I have no problem with the winners. Alone is about as close as you can get to a meritocracy in a reality TV format and it's just plain impossible to win without deserving it. They weren't my favorites - Brooke is effing amazing! - but I wish them both the best and hope all their dreams come true.

 

Back to single contestants next season please, Show.

[ClareWalks]

The Ginger Bros definitely deserved the win. I thought Ted was a goner with the GERD, but he lasted for WEEKS with that shit. Their strategy was 100% correct: feed yourself and embrace the suck. They proved it. Although they are still dumb, LOL. Stop cutting yourselves on things, fellas! I was impressed and surprised when Jim really stepped up after Ted got sick, since Jim had been the one talking about tapping out for a long time. They should go out to a karaoke night and sing Celine Dion's "Because You Loved Me" to each other.

[Pine]

I was happy with who ever from the final three won.  The Gingies had the best strategy going in, and from what was shown at the beginning, the Gingies came in with a lot of survival skills in pretty harsh Northern environs. The other two both were great, but had different strategies, and knew that the use of their stamina building a shelter could be their demise.  I don't know why no one fished a lot at the beginning, and smoked up some reserves.  Being from the PNW, I know that you can just lightly rake in gravel and bring up a lot of tasty clams when the tide is out.  Clamming in sand is harder.  :)  Cheers to the winners though.  I found all the groups entertaining.

[Dittohead]

On 8/18/2017 at 9:59 AM, humbleopinion said:

Next season will be in a new location but with Retreads.

Alone Season 5: Retreads...I'll Try Harder This Time... Honest...

Will be severely disappointed if the next cast contains any of the young punks that bailed and tapped within 24 hours of drop off this past season

 

On 8/18/2017 at 10:01 AM, cooksdelight said:

I sure hope not, @humbleopinion. It had better be the ones who came within striking distance of winning.

Because if it's the early bailers, the season will be over in 2 weeks.

I was hoping the new season's contestants would include the ones from this season who wanted to stay but their partners wanted to/had to tap out way too early, like the guy whose partner tried to b.s. him into believing he needed to be home for his kid's birthday, and the one who had to leave when his severely injured partner had to be airlifted from the woods before he could make it to camp.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Dittohead

[maczero]

On 8/18/2017 at 3:38 AM, holly4755 said:

I think part of the failure here is the season started the latest of all seasons and that lead to the real dearth of food.  No one tried mouse meat though. 

Why do they film in the fall/winter?  Are the producers hoping that harsh weather and less food resources will result in quicker tapouts?

17 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Mr. Cooks' take on it: "So.... the two guys with a crappy tent just reserved their energy and outlasted the other people? I guess that's how they've all won?"

Pretty much.  The well liked Alan barely bothered building a shelter and didn't bother moving if it was raining.  So the Bairds deserved their win just as much as any of the past winners.

[cooksdelight]

2 hours ago, maczero said:

So the Bairds deserved their win just as much as any of the past winners

I agree. Many may not agree with their strategy and shelter, but it worked for them and the being the last one -- by any means possible -- is all that counts.

[TVbitch]

Watching the Forum come to grips with the Baird's win is like watching people going through the 5 Stages of Grief. The anger and depression is starting to inch toward acceptance.

[ClareWalks]

31 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

Watching the Forum come to grips with the Baird's win is like watching people going through the 5 Stages of Grief. The anger and depression is starting to inch toward acceptance.

Truth! It's hard to argue with their results! Although I will go to the grave thinking they were IDIOTS for not using their boat to set the trot line.

[mlp]

Quote

The well liked Alan barely bothered building a shelter and didn't bother moving if it was raining.  So the Bairds deserved their win just as much as any of the past winners.

The thing about Alan is that he was able to live in his own head for a long time because he had a lot in there to begin with.  The Bairds...not so much.

[GreyBunny]

11 hours ago, maczero said:

Why do they film in the fall/winter?  Are the producers hoping that harsh weather and less food resources will result in quicker tapouts?

Ding ding ding!  

If they drop them off in the spring they'll be there all spring and summer and well into the fall.   They dropped them off around October 20th when it wasn't long before the edible plants die off, the animals hide in their dens, and the fish move to deeper waters.  

Edited August 20, 2017 by GreyBunny

[cooksdelight]

Alan came home in late October. I cannot remember Dave's timeline... but they are definitely leaving them out there later.... Sam and Pete mentioned missing Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

[simplyme]

18 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Watching the Forum come to grips with the Baird's win is like watching people going through the 5 Stages of Grief. The anger and depression is starting to inch toward acceptance.

The thing is that you have to accept it. The winner(s) is not to blame if you don't like the result because they went out there and did what they could with what they had. Rejecting it isn't fair to the winner(s) because they legitimately won based on the structure of the show. IMO it's fair to be happy for the Bairds, yet disappointed for others.

I am, however, really bothered that the structure of the show favors people with more meat on them. I am not a survival expert in any way, and I'm disturbed that I appeared to have more actual knowledge than the winners. A show full of people who stick a tarp on a stick and only move out of bed to find firewood and food (especially seaweed and limpets) and which comes down to size and metabolism is going to be really, really boring.

I was fine with Fowler winning because he did a lot of stuff. He made things: shelter, traps, a duck hunter, spoons, his memory stick, a dock, the path down to the lake. I even would have been okay with Megan winning last season. She foraged, explored all over, tried to trap, fished, and talked a lot about nature and what she came across.

I guess what it comes down to is that I feel disillusioned that a show about trained survival experts cast people I felt clearly were not... and then they won. Which is not the fault of the Bairds. It's to their credit. But it leaves me going, "So... the point of survival skills is... nothing? Why am I watching?"

ETA: Sorry if this post was sort of stream-of-conscious. I was sorting out my feelings and why I felt them as I typed.

Edited August 20, 2017 by simplyme

[cooksdelight]

In order for a level playing field, they should start each season in the same place, same date. Otherwise, it's just a matter of who will not starve out first.

[Chit Chat]

15 hours ago, simplyme said:

I guess what it comes down to is that I feel disillusioned that a show about trained survival experts cast people I felt clearly were not... and then they won. Which is not the fault of the Bairds. It's to their credit. But it leaves me going, "So... the point of survival skills is... nothing? Why am I watching?"

Well said!  Also, sending people on a 10-mile trek through the dense forest was boring, IMO.  I wish they would've cut that down to 5 miles.  The footage by all of them during their hike got old in a hurry.  About the only thing I enjoyed this season was watching Brooke build her initial shelter and listening to her commentary.  The rest of it?  Meh.  There's only so much of the "I'm starving" storyline that I want to hear. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by ChitChat

[Snarklepuss]

16 hours ago, simplyme said:

I was fine with Fowler winning because he did a lot of stuff. He made things: shelter, traps, a duck hunter, spoons, his memory stick, a dock, the path down to the lake. I even would have been okay with Megan winning last season. She foraged, explored all over, tried to trap, fished, and talked a lot about nature and what she came across.

I guess what it comes down to is that I feel disillusioned that a show about trained survival experts cast people I felt clearly were not... and then they won. Which is not the fault of the Bairds. It's to their credit. But it leaves me going, "So... the point of survival skills is... nothing? Why am I watching?"

ETA: Sorry if this post was sort of stream-of-conscious. I was sorting out my feelings and why I felt them as I typed.

To me it's a life lesson.  Obviously, our survival on this planet in any sense does not depend solely on skill.  If it did, we would all get out of life exactly what we put into it and what we feel we "deserve".  But survival (and success at anything) also depends on things like luck and pluck.  Strategy and mental/emotional determination are as important or more important than anything else.  And that includes a strategy that takes short cuts and doesn't involve much work or effort.  It's like when I watch people that have absolutely NO talent somehow work their way into being rich or famous with no education or training in anything, meanwhile I struggled, studied hard, worked my tail off, tried to be the best I could be and yet somehow never got a real break in my career.  I think if we want things to be "fair" we might have to find another universe.

[Snarklepuss]

16 hours ago, simplyme said:

I am, however, really bothered that the structure of the show favors people with more meat on them. I am not a survival expert in any way, and I'm disturbed that I appeared to have more actual knowledge than the winners. A show full of people who stick a tarp on a stick and only move out of bed to find firewood and food (especially seaweed and limpets) and which comes down to size and metabolism is going to be really, really boring.

I actually find all of this fascinating.  It's not the show that favors people with more meat on them, it's nature.  I realized in the first season of this show that nature is very pragmatic.  It's structured such that "whatever works" is the successful route.  If that means hunkering down and not expending much energy as a way to slow down the starvation when in a situation of food scarcity, that's going to be the best strategy.  I guess nature doesn't put a value on any one strategy being the "best" or "more admirable" just because we think it involves more work or skill.  Those are human values, not nature's.

[simplyme]

2 hours ago, Snarklepuss said:

I actually find all of this fascinating.  It's not the show that favors people with more meat on them, it's nature. 

An excellent point. Pointing out that nature favors certain body types in certain situations was exactly the right thing to say to make me feel a bit better. Thank you. :)

[Snarklepuss]

58 minutes ago, simplyme said:

An excellent point. Pointing out that nature favors certain body types in certain situations was exactly the right thing to say to make me feel a bit better. Thank you. :)

Isn't it ironic that being a bit overweight is an advantage in certain situations?  This show has made me feel like it's actually advantageous out in the wild to be a little overweight, especially as one ages.  It's also interesting that several studies have backed up being "overweight" as associated with greater life expectancy and resistance to certain diseases.  Of course, they're talking about being mildly overweight, not morbidly obese.

[rmontro]

23 hours ago, simplyme said:

I guess what it comes down to is that I feel disillusioned that a show about trained survival experts cast people I felt clearly were not... and then they won. Which is not the fault of the Bairds. It's to their credit. But it leaves me going, "So... the point of survival skills is... nothing? Why am I watching?"

There is such a thing as heirarchy of needs, however.  Some aspects of survival are more important than others.  If you can't feed yourself, it doesn't matter how well you can whittle a spoon.  And that's what happened this season, the Bairds were able to feed themselves, while the Whipples and Brockdorffs were not.  That doesn't mean that the contest was fair though, because maybe the other teams had no access to a rocky beach full of limpets and gunnel fish.  Or maybe they did, and just didn't know how enough to use it.

I think it's kind of funny that in the beginning of the season, everyone was speculating that the Bairds were too tall and heavy, that they were at a disadvantage because they would need more calories to sustain themselves.  And now, people are talking about how being overweight helps you. 

[Robodude]

I hate to say I TOLD YA SO....but I did...

Every season's winner did so because they came in with weight to lose.  When you think that there were really only 3 teams competing to the end, Brooke didn't have a chance if they didn't catch fish and Sam's dad just didn't have the strength to keep going with no food.  The Tweetle Brothers had a whole bag full of those rock fish at the end while the others had nothing.

If you saw the reunion show and compared the mass of the Baird Bros to the other teams, you'd have to see that they were simply built better to survive the show. 

I also mentioned in other threads that the Gingers were going to go further just on their Bro-tastic/Brother's Keeper attitudes.  Neither was going to let the other quit....and in the end, when one was down, the other picked it up.

ALL THAT SAID....this season was easily the worst so far.   Alone should be....  ALONE.

[roamyn]

Okay, who do we want to re-visit on a S5?

S1:  Mitch, Lucas, Joe (who lost his Ferro rod)

S2:  Nicole, Larry, Justin, Mike & Barbara (hee)

S3:  Three others

[simplyme]

6 hours ago, rmontro said:

There is such a thing as heirarchy of needs, however.  Some aspects of survival are more important than others.  If you can't feed yourself, it doesn't matter how well you can whittle a spoon.  And that's what happened this season, the Bairds were able to feed themselves, while the Whipples and Brockdorffs were not. 

The problem here is that I don't believe the Bairds were able to feed themselves while the other two teams were not. If this went on indefinitely, I'm pretty sure what we'd discover is that none of the teams would avoid starvation. :P It's just that both of the Bairds were young and had a significant amount of mass to live off.

 

6 hours ago, rmontro said:

I think it's kind of funny that in the beginning of the season, everyone was speculating that the Bairds were too tall and heavy, that they were at a disadvantage because they would need more calories to sustain themselves.  And now, people are talking about how being overweight helps you. 

Er, "everyone" is a bit of an overstatement, imo. Both sides were pointed out. If you're active and a large person, it generally takes more calories to sustain you. That said, if you're slender, you don't have nearly as much wiggle room in how much weight you can lose before you're pulled. If you need a reminder on how adamant some posters were about this, try rereading the posts for the last episode of S3. Yikes.

Most of the posts I recall from early season that speculated that the Bairds would be gone soon had absolutely nothing to do with their size and everything to do with them not knowing their own gear or the wildlife. They came off as idiots to several posters (me as one, obviously).

Ah well. On to season 5...

Edited August 22, 2017 by simplyme

[holly4755]

5 hours ago, roamyn said:

Okay, who do we want to re-visit on a S5?

S1:  Mitch, Lucas, Joe (who lost his Ferro rod)

S2:  Nicole, Larry, Justin, Mike & Barbara (hee)

S3:  Three others

Barbara and Mike would have been a natural for this season only he would not want her to be alone anywhere any time, he also would have gotten there ina few hours because... Barbara. 

[rmontro]

6 hours ago, Robodude said:

I also mentioned in other threads that the Gingers were going to go further just on their Bro-tastic/Brother's Keeper attitudes.  Neither was going to let the other quit....and in the end, when one was down, the other picked it up.

Maybe it was like neither one was going to give the other one the satisfaction of tapping out.  It struck me that if they had lost, the guy who had wanted to stay would have never let the guy who hit the button live it down.  It would probably be a subject of Thanksgiving dinner fights 30 years from now.

56 minutes ago, simplyme said:

The problem here is that I don't believe the Bairds were able to feed themselves while the other two teams were not. If this went on indefinitely, I'm pretty sure what we'd discover is that none of the teams would avoid starvation. :P It's just that both of the Bairds were young and had a significant amount of mass to live off.

Oh, they would have starved eventually.  But I don't think there's much doubt that they were getting more to eat than the other two teams were.

As for them being idiots, I remember several remarks being made about how that boat would never float.  I even said that myself.  But it actually looked like it was one of the more "seaworthy" boats that have ever been built on the show.  I was not of fan of the gingers either, but they must have done more right than the internet snark is giving them credit for.

[Snarklepuss]

5 minutes ago, rmontro said:

As for them being idiots, I remember several remarks being made about how that boat would never float.  I even said that myself.  But it actually looked like it was one of the more "seaworthy" boats that have ever been built on the show.  I was not of fan of the gingers either, but they must have done more right than the internet snark is giving them credit for.

You know, after I saw the brothers on the "Tales from the Island" segment I realized that they were responding to the extreme situation by regressing into childhood bickering because they're not like that at all under normal circumstances.  I actually think that they were engaging in coping behavior as a way to "stay sane" when under extreme mental and physical stress.  Plus as Pete mentioned, the effects of the starvation made him more irritable and not himself.  I think the bros. were just being generally "hangry" and regressed into former versions of themselves to the extreme.  Obviously this phenomenon affects some people more than others since Brooke and Dave seemed remarkably normal despite the difficult circumstances.  So I'm actually now entering the "acceptance" phase of Kubler-Ross "death stages" about the ginger brothers winning (thanks to whoever mentioned that upthread as I was LOL). 

[rmontro]

11 minutes ago, Snarklepuss said:

Plus as Pete mentioned, the effects of the starvation made him more irritable and not himself.

Being hungry can definitely make you irritable.  I've seen this play out in real life in many ways.

As for the Bairds winning, I wasn't rooting for them, but fact is they won.  It is what it is.  Doesn't change my life.  It's not like I'm going to lose sleep over it.

[cooksdelight]

9 hours ago, simplyme said:

It's just that both of the Bairds were young and had a significant amount of mass to live off.

Age definitely was a factor in this game. Sam looked like he could have stayed out there all year, compared to his father. 

[ClareWalks]

I have no problem with certain body types being better suited for this game. A 6'5" 230-lb dude will never win the Olympic marathon, after all.

[Robodude]

I REALLY hope this doesn't come across as anything but an observation based on facts available.....

It would be GREAT if it happened, but I honestly don't think a woman will ever win Alone. 

I've mentioned many times about the need to bulk up to handle the extreme weight loss that is inevitable.  Each of the past winners were men who had relatively large frames to begin with (even Fowler).  They could pack on extra pounds prior to the event and still manage doing the every day tasks while losing huge amounts of their mass.

For a woman to win, she'd have to have a decent sized frame to start with which usually (not always, usually) means they aren't "survivor/alone ready" (wood gathering, fishing, shelter building, bear repelling, etc)....then pack on a bunch of lbs going in. 

It's possible, but maybe not probable.  I just don't know if they could go 70-80 days and lose 50-60 pounds and still have medical let them stay.  In the end, this is how Fowler won last year.

I am SO SORRY to anyone who finds this misogynistic.  That is not my intention.  Just observations.  I would love to see a woman come out on top....just not sure it's feasible.

[riverheightsnancy]

3 hours ago, Robodude said:

I REALLY hope this doesn't come across as anything but an observation based on facts available.....

It would be GREAT if it happened, but I honestly don't think a woman will ever win Alone. 

I've mentioned many times about the need to bulk up to handle the extreme weight loss that is inevitable.  Each of the past winners were men who had relatively large frames to begin with (even Fowler).  They could pack on extra pounds prior to the event and still manage doing the every day tasks while losing huge amounts of their mass.

For a woman to win, she'd have to have a decent sized frame to start with which usually (not always, usually) means they aren't "survivor/alone ready" (wood gathering, fishing, shelter building, bear repelling, etc)....then pack on a bunch of lbs going in. 

It's possible, but maybe not probable.  I just don't know if they could go 70-80 days and lose 50-60 pounds and still have medical let them stay.  In the end, this is how Fowler won last year.

I am SO SORRY to anyone who finds this misogynistic.  That is not my intention.  Just observations.  I would love to see a woman come out on top....just not sure it's feasible.

I agree based on what we have seen. Dave was probably the smallest of all the male winners. Brooke was great, but couldn't go any farther. The lady (who used to be a cop-cannot remember her name) that tapped early in a prior season was zaftig, I really wonder how far she could have gotten if she hadn't tapped due to psychological issues.

[ClareWalks]

4 hours ago, Robodude said:

For a woman to win, she'd have to have a decent sized frame to start with which usually (not always, usually) means they aren't "survivor/alone ready" (wood gathering, fishing, shelter building, bear repelling, etc)....then pack on a bunch of lbs going in. 

Your post is good and I agree with it generally. I think it is *possible,* but any woman who won Alone would have to be tall. I am 5'11" and currently weigh 166 lb. I could probably pack on about 25 lb and maintain a decent amount of strength and cardio endurance required to establish a homestead on this show (of course, I lack the skills, but that's not the discussion right now, LOL). If I started at about 190 lb I would have 55-60 lb of cushion to lose before I'd be medically pulled. A shorter woman would not have that large of a "healthy range" to work with, so I think a tall woman could win Alone, but not a woman under, say, 5'8".

[Robodude]

1 hour ago, ClareWalks said:

A shorter woman would not have that large of a "healthy range" to work with, so I think a tall woman could win Alone, but not a woman under, say, 5'8".

Great observation!  If height and weight go together, a 6ft tall woman at 190 is probably in much better physical shape (and therefore better suited to handle the survivor/alone situation) than a 5'2" woman at 190.

[qtpye]

On 8/22/2017 at 0:32 AM, Snarklepuss said:

You know, after I saw the brothers on the "Tales from the Island" segment I realized that they were responding to the extreme situation by regressing into childhood bickering because they're not like that at all under normal circumstances.  I actually think that they were engaging in coping behavior as a way to "stay sane" when under extreme mental and physical stress.  Plus as Pete mentioned, the effects of the starvation made him more irritable and not himself.  I think the bros. were just being generally "hangry" and regressed into former versions of themselves to the extreme.  Obviously this phenomenon affects some people more than others since Brooke and Dave seemed remarkably normal despite the difficult circumstances.  So I'm actually now entering the "acceptance" phase of Kubler-Ross "death stages" about the ginger brothers winning (thanks to whoever mentioned that upthread as I was LOL). 

They did somewhat redeem themselves.  I liked the fact they admitted how stupid they looked and did not make any excuses for their behavior.  Do you guy remember crazy Dave from last season?  He looked repulsive and insane on the show (the guy was kicked out for being too skinny and had like 47 fish filets in his shelter) and then looked healthy and not insane by the reunion.  I would not say it was that level of a transformation, but the brothers came off well on the Tales from the Island show.

[rmontro]

12 hours ago, Robodude said:

For a woman to win, she'd have to have a decent sized frame to start with which usually (not always, usually) means they aren't "survivor/alone ready" (wood gathering, fishing, shelter building, bear repelling, etc)....then pack on a bunch of lbs going in. 

You know, I used to watch Survivor for many seasons, and I often thought that the women dealt with the lack of calories better than the men did, generally.  Just because the men needed more calories to maintain their weight, and I thought they were more affected physically and mentally.  Maybe I was wrong but I came away with that conclusion.  And IIRC, Survivor doesn't last near as long as Alone does, so maybe they only do better in the earlier stages of starvation.

I think it is definitely possible for a woman to live Alone, but the odds are against them to begin with, because there simply aren't as many women contestants.  I assume not as many women sign up.

[cooksdelight]

10 hours ago, rmontro said:

And IIRC, Survivor doesn't last near as long as Alone does, so maybe they only do better in the earlier stages of starvation

Plus, they eat VERY well on Survivor. My friend Abi was on twice, she bulked up a little for the second time, but she is still a small woman. She came in 5th both times so she was out there at least a month. Again.... they get feasts for rewards. This show has no food rewards.

[rmontro]

3 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Plus, they eat VERY well on Survivor. My friend Abi was on twice, she bulked up a little for the second time, but she is still a small woman. She came in 5th both times so she was out there at least a month. Again.... they get feasts for rewards. This show has no food rewards.

I haven't seen the show in years.  In the very early years they didn't get much food.  Then they started adding more food rewards and making sure everyone was fed, because they wanted the drama and interaction, and starving people were too sedate.  Certainly by the time I had stopped watching it, they were getting a lot of food.

[Robodude]

25 minutes ago, rmontro said:

I haven't seen the show in years.  In the very early years they didn't get much food.  Then they started adding more food rewards and making sure everyone was fed, because they wanted the drama and interaction, and starving people were too sedate.  Certainly by the time I had stopped watching it, they were getting a lot of food.

You really can't compare Survivor with Alone.  As mentioned, not only do they have regular rewards but they always seem to have SOME rice or beans or other food sources.

[rmontro]

4 minutes ago, Robodude said:

You really can't compare Survivor with Alone.  As mentioned, not only do they have regular rewards but they always seem to have SOME rice or beans or other food sources.

Again, I was comparing it more with the early years of Survivor.  They would give the group a bag of rice, but that's comparable to someone taking a food item on Alone.

Alone reminds me of Survivor because Alone is the show I was wanting to watch when I was watching Survivor.  Survivor just happened to be the closest thing to it at the time.

The bad thing about Alone is there are too many restrictions.  They're stuck in a relatively small area, they isn't any real game to hunt, they don't really have adequate weapons, and they don't get a chance to stock up for winter.  I wouldn't mind seeing a group competition, but maybe in an area where they might stay out there for a year, and actually build something substantial instead of living under a tarp for two or three months.