My wife and I are big fans of similar PBS programs. We wanted to like this, but, it was impossible. The disregard for animal welfare was incomprehensible. It become evident to everyone in production and the neighboring community that the "pioneers" would never make it through winter, and that would mean the demise of the show. Poor casting, planning and little training, as the other reviewer said, was at fault here. It seems the contingency plan for only having enough footage for 1/2 the year was to cheat and allow the community to bring the "pioneers" food in exchange for "work" and help with labor in exchange for money or "work". This, as Alana said, ruined the entire experience for her, and for us.
Everyone knows pioneer life was hard. The reason we live a modern life today is because of the earlier generations that wanted to make life better and more comfortable for their children. So, yes, we know there are the obvious difficulties of civilization without luxury, but we've seen all that on Survivor, Colony, and other shows. What comes to mind when you think about pioneers though, and what we thought would make this program stand out, is getting a feel for their isolation; the quiet, the solitude, the bond they shared by common need for survival. The dependency only on yourselves and a handful of neighbors IF you were lucky. That's what made them pioneers...they were the FIRST.
Instead, our "pioneers" were constantly talking to the crew as friends, who gave them security and companionship. One of the cast even said they had no worries, and this pioneer life - aside from hard work - was great because of that. In REAL pioneer times there was probably never a minute they weren't worried. For their safety, their children, their crops, having enough shelter, enough to eat. Our "pioneers" were jovial, laughing most of the time and cracking jokes. The women didn't stay in pioneer attire at all times, as they should have. Yes, it was really hard to live in a long skirt and do the work they did, but that's what women did. They also wore bonnets every day, not bandannas, and they never EVER wore gold hoop earrings. Seriously?
Many pioneer families were given land free or almost free to settle it. No matter how they came upon their land, they were large parcels with no one around for miles. We had thought there would be two camera crews and two homesteads, with the couples able to work together and help each other, but not share one homestead, let along one tent! If this wasn't feasible budget-wise, it would have been better to have a large family with several children then, rather than two couples. It was already unrealistic to have two unrelated couples living together. How would the land be divided among their children? Every pioneering family's land was their heritage and it belonged to ONE family.
Also, not having children cast in the show took a lot out of the experience away. For as much as the couples received help at every turn, it would have been perfectly safe, too. Children would have both helped and hindered, and brought so much more reality to the pioneer struggle. Keeping them safe, teaching them, worrying about feeding them, and the toll it would have taken on the women to have even MORE to deal with than they already did. There would have been more cooking, washing, an endless amount of work, and we would have been able to experience, REALLY experience, what it was really like, with a child born nearly every year, likely in poverty, with most of the weight of their care on the mother.
Instead, we got two couples that didn't get along that well. This was totally unrelated to a pioneer experience and just like any traditional reality show like Big Brother; you stay in the game and win money. In reality, it didn't much matter if pioneers didn't like each other. They were happy for the occasional company, the much needed help, exchange of food/gifts, and news.
In the 1870's, which is when the show was set, people weren't getting visits every day (they were busy working their land/hunting), they weren't riding in parades and having their photos taken like celebrities. In giving our "pioneers" constant reminders of reality, all they had to do was endure and wait for their paycheck. They aren't really experiencing anything other than early farming with deplorable living conditions, and we didn't either.
Lastly, pioneers valued their animals as family. Without their animals they'd never survive, and they treated them with care and respect. Allowing the chickens and roosters to be crated for days, fighting; not building proper shelter or taking proper care of the cow and horses; allowing the pregnant sow to catch fire, absolutely unforgivable. The animals didn't sign up for the show and weren't rewarded for being in attendance. They should have been a top priority for the producers at all times.
There should be a warning before the start of each episode, especially for children. There was nudity (the older man's behind); talk about sex (the older couple having sex in the tent with the younger couple inside, etc); graphic slaughter of animals with no camera cut-away as they do in most shows; the pig burning and being shot, etc. These were probably intended to be the "real" moments in the show, but felt more like they were there for shock value and ratings.
And, if it failed, it failed. Better to make it a mini-series instead, than a sham. The second couple to arrive saw a way to manipulate the show, the neighborhood, and the viewers; and the producers allowed it to happen so everyone could make money, choosing instead to rob the viewers of a true experience and their time.
Shameful. Expected better from PBS.
Everyone knows pioneer life was hard. The reason we live a modern life today is because of the earlier generations that wanted to make life better and more comfortable for their children. So, yes, we know there are the obvious difficulties of civilization without luxury, but we've seen all that on Survivor, Colony, and other shows. What comes to mind when you think about pioneers though, and what we thought would make this program stand out, is getting a feel for their isolation; the quiet, the solitude, the bond they shared by common need for survival. The dependency only on yourselves and a handful of neighbors IF you were lucky. That's what made them pioneers...they were the FIRST.
Instead, our "pioneers" were constantly talking to the crew as friends, who gave them security and companionship. One of the cast even said they had no worries, and this pioneer life - aside from hard work - was great because of that. In REAL pioneer times there was probably never a minute they weren't worried. For their safety, their children, their crops, having enough shelter, enough to eat. Our "pioneers" were jovial, laughing most of the time and cracking jokes. The women didn't stay in pioneer attire at all times, as they should have. Yes, it was really hard to live in a long skirt and do the work they did, but that's what women did. They also wore bonnets every day, not bandannas, and they never EVER wore gold hoop earrings. Seriously?
Many pioneer families were given land free or almost free to settle it. No matter how they came upon their land, they were large parcels with no one around for miles. We had thought there would be two camera crews and two homesteads, with the couples able to work together and help each other, but not share one homestead, let along one tent! If this wasn't feasible budget-wise, it would have been better to have a large family with several children then, rather than two couples. It was already unrealistic to have two unrelated couples living together. How would the land be divided among their children? Every pioneering family's land was their heritage and it belonged to ONE family.
Also, not having children cast in the show took a lot out of the experience away. For as much as the couples received help at every turn, it would have been perfectly safe, too. Children would have both helped and hindered, and brought so much more reality to the pioneer struggle. Keeping them safe, teaching them, worrying about feeding them, and the toll it would have taken on the women to have even MORE to deal with than they already did. There would have been more cooking, washing, an endless amount of work, and we would have been able to experience, REALLY experience, what it was really like, with a child born nearly every year, likely in poverty, with most of the weight of their care on the mother.
Instead, we got two couples that didn't get along that well. This was totally unrelated to a pioneer experience and just like any traditional reality show like Big Brother; you stay in the game and win money. In reality, it didn't much matter if pioneers didn't like each other. They were happy for the occasional company, the much needed help, exchange of food/gifts, and news.
In the 1870's, which is when the show was set, people weren't getting visits every day (they were busy working their land/hunting), they weren't riding in parades and having their photos taken like celebrities. In giving our "pioneers" constant reminders of reality, all they had to do was endure and wait for their paycheck. They aren't really experiencing anything other than early farming with deplorable living conditions, and we didn't either.
Lastly, pioneers valued their animals as family. Without their animals they'd never survive, and they treated them with care and respect. Allowing the chickens and roosters to be crated for days, fighting; not building proper shelter or taking proper care of the cow and horses; allowing the pregnant sow to catch fire, absolutely unforgivable. The animals didn't sign up for the show and weren't rewarded for being in attendance. They should have been a top priority for the producers at all times.
There should be a warning before the start of each episode, especially for children. There was nudity (the older man's behind); talk about sex (the older couple having sex in the tent with the younger couple inside, etc); graphic slaughter of animals with no camera cut-away as they do in most shows; the pig burning and being shot, etc. These were probably intended to be the "real" moments in the show, but felt more like they were there for shock value and ratings.
And, if it failed, it failed. Better to make it a mini-series instead, than a sham. The second couple to arrive saw a way to manipulate the show, the neighborhood, and the viewers; and the producers allowed it to happen so everyone could make money, choosing instead to rob the viewers of a true experience and their time.
Shameful. Expected better from PBS.