The Gun Counter

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/colony/about/colony.html

What would you do in the wake of a global catastrophe? How would you find food? Water? Shelter?

The Colony is a controlled experiment to see exactly what it would take to survive and rebuild under these circumstances. For 10 weeks, a group of 10 volunteers, whose backgrounds and expertise represent a cross-section of modern society, are isolated in an urban environment outside Los Angeles and tasked with creating a livable society.

With no electricity from the grid, no running water and no communication with the outside world, all the volunteers have to work with are their skills and whatever tools and supplies they can scavenge from their surroundings.

Experts from the fields of homeland security, engineering and psychology have helped design the world of The Colony to reflect elements from both real-life disasters and models of what the future could look like after a global viral outbreak.

Over the course of the 10-week experiment, the Colonists must work together to build the necessities of survival, such as a water-filtration system, a battery bank that powered their electricity, a solar cooker, a shower system and a greenhouse – and even some niceties (a coffee maker!).

Tune in Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at 10 p.m. ET/PT to see who thrives and who fails to survive

Should be interesting.

Probably degenerate into another Corporate Lightweight Yuppie backstabbing game show like the abominable and misnamed "Survivor".

...isolated in an urban environment...

Bullshit Flag raised. First thing I'm doing is clearing the hell out of that area for open, non-urban/suburban terrain. Cities will be killing grounds with way more ways to die than in a natural environment. Anyone that would prefer to stay in an urban location in this kind of scenario is no one I want around me in a survival situation.

...a battery bank that powered their electricity...

Unless I've got a reasonable hope of getting help/rescue via radio, screw wasting time on that. That would be way down the priority list.

...a greenhouse...

E&E out to some actual farm land. Even if the climate requires a greenhouse part of the year, you will be way ahead of the power curve.

a coffee maker!

Oh for deity's sake, get a camp pot on an open fire and we're done. Suck it up yuppie scum.

...who fails to survive

Anyone between me and open country. I got a date at the NoR/GC Liberated Zone Rally Point and BBQ.

About the first season of Survivor, my best friend and I came to a conclusion. They'd never let people like us (he and I, at the time, but the Guncounter crew in broad acceptance now) on that show. Simply put, we have skills, they couldn't film us whining about no food, no fire, no shelter. We'd make for horrible TV. Within 48 hours, with minimal supplies, anybody worth keeping alive in that situation should have some sort of shelter, some breed of food and water, and a fire. It's really not that difficult to come up with a workable version of the basics.

A bit OT, but since "Survivor" was based on a Swedish reality show (yes, really), I thought it worth mentioning. First season in Sweden they had on a real survivor, a preacher from the swedish mountains, used to survive on his own. I didn't watch any of it, but since it was wildly popular I couldn't avoid hearing about it. This man was a huge asset to his initial team, but the others regularly didn't listen to him. This was part of them being stupid, and part of them recognizing him as a future threat, and wanted to keep him from running things but still keeping him around as an asset. I think the man in question was simply too honest to see it himself. The eventual "winner" helped him get all the way to the final four, then pulled away the chair under him to make sure he'd win himself. Too many people with no practical skills will do the same thing, try to cash in on others skill while backstabbing them at the same time.

If they do this right, like the show about replicating the first colonist in Virginia, I think it could be worth watching. It would show the problems they'd face, and how they find solutions. If they put too many survival experts in there it wouldn't be "ordinary people", and if they just make it a "last man voted off the island" it wont be watchable and few of them will even try to fix anything.

Even if the rest of us think going away from an urban area is a better idea, it's still interesting to see the problems people face when they decide not to.

Unless it's just "survivor" with a new twist, then it's not worth watching.

Lokidude wrote: Within 48 hours, with minimal supplies, anybody worth keeping alive in that situation should have some sort of shelter, some breed of food and water, and a fire.

Ray and I used to call "Survivor" by a far more appropriate name "Who likes me best?"


HTRN

HTRN wrote: Ray and I used to call "Survivor" by a far more appropriate name "Who likes me best?"

That was the whole idea of the Swedish original. From what I understand, the US version puts more emphasis on the survival part, trying to make it look tougher, but the whole point of the show is still that it's a social competition and not a survival contest. It promotes those that can make allies and build alliances and then turn on them when it suits them.

The production company even casted it to make for more intriguing, like putting a militant vegetarian together with a hunter or farmer, and an emotional weak person close to a bully. Several of the people on the show has emotional problems. The Swedish first season even had one of the guys that was kicked of early commit suicide. Emotional stability makes for low ratings, so that's the kind of people they put on the show.

In the first season the competitors that didn't understand the basic premise was easy prey to those that did. Nowadays most people that sign up knows what it's about, and usually spend most if not all their energy on scheming against the others.

I suspect there are no competitions here. I will check it out, but let's see...

For a good "survival" type show(s) check out the two PBS did a few years ago, one was Frontier House and one was a "colony" early American type. Both had conception problems but were interesting. I saw a "Iron Age" british one, but it was a joke from the start, all urban whiny hippies and the nannies of government were everywhere. Most unrealistic ever.

CombatController wrote:For a good "survival" type show(s) check out the two PBS did a few years ago, one was Frontier House and one was a "colony" early American type. Both had conception problems but were interesting.

I think that's the one I saw, it was really interesting. It showed off all the problems they had with it, and showed the characters sometimes "going out of character" by bringing their modern views into it. Which somehow made it more real to me.

I've seen similar Brittish shows set in other eras, like a Victorian house where ladies and gentlemen are gathered during a summer. I find that type of show really interesting, it shows real people in a historical setting, trying to live it as true as they can. There's no game in it to distract from the purpose of stepping into that environment and making it real.

Yeah, the Victorian house was a real eye opener. The "Lord and Lady" really got into the role.

CombatController wrote:Yeah, the Victorian house was a real eye opener. The "Lord and Lady" really got into the role.

I think the father was the only one having fun to be honest. Out of all the "house" series, I think that one was the best.


HTRN