So I’ve started watching Man vs Wild, hearing from everyone that Survivorman is in fact, the more badass show. After watching a bit of each show, I can definitely say I prefer Man vs Wild a lot more. Way higher production quality, dialogue, locations, and host.

I suppose the argument is that Man vs Wild got in a bit of trouble for “faking” certain scenes, though the only conclusive info about this deception is pretty minimal. In certain situations, such as when he was climbing down a waterfall, they concealed a climbing harness on him for safety. While this is admittedly a rather lame thing to do when you specifically tell audiences that you received no help, I can understand why they were concerned about safety. Whats more, Discovery then altered the disclaimer and show structure to “present situations” to the host to demonstrate survival skills.

This structure makes a lot of sense, and when its combined with a professional camera crew and a badass host, it creates an awesome show. Survivorman, on the other hand, is one guy with all the camera equipment with him, surviving on his own. This format may lend a bit more credibility to the show, but I think its ultimately the downfall. The host, Les Stroud, is a lot more conservative than Bear Grylls (Man vs Wild) in his survival techniques, and I almost felt like I was watching a PBS educational program on wildlife conservation.

While Les Stroud is completely unsupported, he doesn’t seem to go into nearly as remote or dangerous locations, so while there may be more credibility, the relative risk is lower than in Man Vs Wild.

So from an entertainment standpoint, Man vs Wild has Survivorman beat by a long shot, but in terms of show credibility, survivorman wins. Even so, I think Man vs Wild is simply the better show, and the support Bear recieves in particularly dangerous situations simply demonstrates the risk associated with survival.