Originally Posted by M.C
I never said Bear's entertainment show wasn't entertaining. I said the reason why many like Survivorman better is because he's actually surviving, it isn't fake, where as Bear's is 100% fake. He's never in danger, he's never in any positon that would even be considered dangerous. His leaps over cracks in the ground and his rolls down hills and his crazy things are all acted, none of it is real, he's not doing anything dangerous. It would be like saying Jason Statham is in constant danger during his movies. Both Jason and Bear have entertaining shows, but they are both completely, 100% fake.
It is you who is missing the point, not me. I'm not saying his show isn't entertaining, I'm saying the reason why many like Survivorman more is because his show is real, where as Bear's is not and is acted like a movie is acted, none of it's real, and people generally have more respect for someone actually out there doing it, rather than pretending to do it like Bear does.
Also, no, Survivorman doesn't have a crew following him. They are close enough to where they can reach him swiftly via flying, incase anything happens. They monitor his location, etc. He is, in fact, alone though, and is not fed/sheltered/watched over the whole time he's out there.
Either way, it's just a TV show, I like both shows. It's just you asked the question "why do people like survivorman more" or something like that, and that's just my answer to your question.
"I don't get why people liked Les Strouds survivorman better." was rhethorical. I wouldn't argue taste.
That is the first point you missed. The second point you missed was that it was all about entertainment value, not about what they do and don't do.
As for your points, you have just made the assumption that you can manipulate your way in this discussion by saying things like "100% of Bears shows are fake, just like Jason Stathams movies" without actually providing evidence. Either you provide evidence, or we'll just simply agree that you are making this up.