Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Image

Discovery Claims It Will Show a Man Being "Eaten Alive" By an Anaconda 164

An anonymous reader writes Have you ever wished that you could watch a man be eaten alive by an anaconda from the comfort of your own home? The Discovery Channel is betting that the answer is yes with their upcoming special, Eaten Alive. The channel says wildlife filmmaker Paul Rosolie will don a custom-built snake-proof suit, and go inside a live anaconda. They've even released a teaser. It's unclear what scientific conundrum will be solved in the process of feeding Paul to the snake, or how he plans to get out.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Discovery Claims It Will Show a Man Being "Eaten Alive" By an Anaconda

Comments Filter:
  • Oh good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by paiute ( 550198 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:12AM (#48324071)
    Now I can literally watch another formerly decent channel turn to shit.
    • Re:Oh good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:23AM (#48324111) Homepage

      If by "formerly" you mean "long gone".

      • Re:Oh good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Andrio ( 2580551 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @09:34AM (#48325109)

        Yeah, I have childhood memories of watching the Discovery/Learning channel, and seeing so many documentaries and things about technology, science, and just plain learning.

        That went away a long, long time ago.

          Discovery = Reality shows targeting men
          TLC = Reality shows targeting women

        • by Agares ( 1890982 )
          I miss those days, I quit watching both channels for the simple fact that they are no longer educational.
        • by Krojack ( 575051 )

          Oh but you still can! You just have to pay even more hard earned cash to get the Discovery2 channel! And if/when that becomes popular they will turn it into another 24/7 reality station and make the Discovery3 channel which will require even more money.

          Keep in mind you won't be able to get the Discovery3 channel unless you also pay for the Discovery2 channel which you also can't get unless you pay for the Discovery channel.

          • Re:Oh good (Score:4, Insightful)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot@worf.ERDOSnet minus math_god> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @12:50PM (#48326823)

            Oh but you still can! You just have to pay even more hard earned cash to get the Discovery2 channel! And if/when that becomes popular they will turn it into another 24/7 reality station and make the Discovery3 channel which will require even more money.

            Keep in mind you won't be able to get the Discovery3 channel unless you also pay for the Discovery2 channel which you also can't get unless you pay for the Discovery channel.

            Everyone who wants A La Carte, well, this is what happens when channels have to compete for your attention rather than being able to specialize because they were included as part of a bundle.

            First, the stations are moving their popular shows around - if you want the full complement of good shows requires buying all the channels in the network.

            Second, channels having to compete means even the best channels will only cater to lowest common denominator. Because who wants to run a specialized show that'll be interesting to a few when you can run a crap show that'll get millions of viewers?

            Pretty much about the only "good" TV left is PBS, and that's because they don't need to compete for viewers (they're forced by law to be carried by everyone) and through funding arrangements and donations, means they don't have to rely on commercial sales. Which is why their programming is practically commercial free and is ridiculously long (an hour show with 55 minutes of content? Compare to traditional TV with 42). And why they can show programs that are higher quality that appeal to fewer people - they don't need to compete for eyeballs and ads and thus don't have to dumb down TV for ratings purposes.

            Discovery, History, etc. - they're all suffering because they know their specialized channels will no longer be viable because the programming appeals to too few, so they'll have to dumb it all down just to appease the masses. So see more stupid reality drama shows and less intelligent programming.

            • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

              Everyone who wants A La Carte, well, this is what happens when channels have to compete for your attention rather than being able to specialize because they were included as part of a bundle.

              I don't understand how you can hold up Discovery/TLC as an example of the problem with A La Carte programming, instead of being part of a bundle, because... that's exactly how the system is now. TLC and Discovery are both "basic cable" channels, and are bundled, along with MTV, Comedy Central, Food Network, etc. Yet, despite being in this bundling where they should be able to continue their educational lineup, subsidized by other more popular stations, they too are being changed in content and degrading in

        • "Connections" was great. It was old even when they aired it but still, you weren't going to get to see that again on PBS and I watched the follow up series too. Definitely long gone. I miss that stuff badly. Television today is abysmal
        • by antdude ( 79039 )

          Does any channels show stuff? Even PBS doesn't do much either. :(

      • I was shocked the last time I was in 'Murica. The fucking Weather Channel wasn't even showing weather anymore. It was all reality shows.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:37AM (#48324157)

      They have a comedy show coming called: "Ow! My Balls!"

      It'll be broadcast opposite ABC's version - "America's Funniest Home Videos"

    • Discovery is crap for years. I remember it was OK long long ago.

    • Now I can literally watch another formerly decent channel turn to shit.

      "Literally." I don't think that word means what you think it does.

      • Re: Oh good (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:28AM (#48324595)

        I think he did, and was making a joke. We're talking about watching an animal ingest a human. The next step is digestion, which leads to feces. The actor doing the transformation is a representative of the channel in a way. Thus, we would be watching the first step of the channel (its representative) turning to shit.

        Doesn't explaining a joke make it hilarious?

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        You must not have received the memo. Literally now means [merriam-webster.com] both in a literal sense, as well in a not so literal sense.

        • I gotta start reading those Monday morning emails. I had a look in the trusty OED, and the earliest listed usage of literally in that sense was actually 1769. Who would've thunk?
      • Re:Oh good (Score:4, Informative)

        by ericloewe ( 2129490 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:35AM (#48324621)

        He can literally watch it turn into figurative shit.

      • Now I can literally watch another formerly decent channel turn to shit.

        "Literally." I don't think that word means what you think it does.

        I guess you didn't hear about their new reality show. "Little people swamp loggers taking a big shit in a pawn shop.

        • Now I can literally watch another formerly decent channel turn to shit.

          "Literally." I don't think that word means what you think it does.

          I guess you didn't hear about their new reality show. "Little people swamp loggers taking a big shit in a pawn shop.

          Not enough Alaska or gold.

      • It does now.

    • I'd say Discovery has now truly jumped the shark, except snakes can't exactly jump, and aren't sharks.

      • No, they did that when their Shark Week got so ridiculous that shark experts have now reached an informal agreement never to appear in a Discovery show. The channel has had to resort to lying about their affiliation to get interviews, or settle for less-respectable experts without any actual qualifications who'll say anything to get on TV.

    • by chinton ( 151403 )
      I remember when The Science Channel, National Geographic, and Discovery showed actual science programming. Now they are filled with programming about loudmouth d-bags and their "dangerous" jobs, or redneck-backwoods survivors, or people doing stuff naked... I also remember when MTV played videos... Get off my lawn!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Now I can literally watch another formerly decent channel turn to shit.

      I propose they rush straight to rock bottom...

      "Kim Kardashian being eaten alive by an Anaconda."

      I'd watch. No scientific justification required.

    • I think it turned to shit some time ago. Of course they must be new at it, because they're doing it wrong: If they want to appeal to the Vore fettishists, they need to have the anaconda eat a girl.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:13AM (#48324073)

    And this year's Darwin Award goes to...

  • Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:14AM (#48324079)

    There is no way for the Anaconda to survive this. There is no good research that can come from actions like these and the Discovery channel has really reached a new low. Used to love hard-facts documentary channels but now it's just hype and reality tv rubbish.

    • Re:Disgusting (Score:4, Informative)

      by bruce_the_loon ( 856617 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:11AM (#48324259) Homepage

      Constrictors are able to regurgitate their meal in a danger situation. If they succeed in getting the snake to swallow an uncrushable prey item in the first place, it's pretty easy to corner it, provide a visual threat and have it regurgitate him.

      Youtube clip of one getting rid of a dog. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Ge4Xsuijs [youtube.com]

      • Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:31AM (#48324311) Homepage

        Regardless, it should be pretty obvious that survival of the Anaconda is a secondary concern.

      • There are already people carrying the snake around, and a man (not the snake's favorite meal) is dressed in a thick rubber suit with electrical gear on. What are they going to do to scare the snake after that?
      • Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:41AM (#48324647) Homepage

        Yes, but doing so puts the snake's health at risk. A snake regurgitating a meal could injure itself and so only does it in an emergency situation. This person is putting the snake's life at risk. This isn't for scientific advances or to somehow help other snakes around the world. This is just a publicity stunt. What's next? Holding a shark still while a guy climbs inside its mouth and videos the way down? I'm sure Discovery could play this next Shark Week alongside their latest "documentary" featuring CGI footage being passed off as real proof that a long-extinct species of shark is swimming around our oceans.

        • Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Jeff Flanagan ( 2981883 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @10:05AM (#48325377)
          Yes, you are correct, and everyone involved in this is an asshole.
        • Yes, but doing so puts the snake's health at risk. A snake regurgitating a meal could injure itself and so only does it in an emergency situation. This person is putting the snake's life at risk. This isn't for scientific advances or to somehow help other snakes around the world. This is just a publicity stunt. What's next? Holding a shark still while a guy climbs inside its mouth and videos the way down? I'm sure Discovery could play this next Shark Week alongside their latest "documentary" featuring CGI footage being passed off as real proof that a long-extinct species of shark is swimming around our oceans.

          If you watch the youtube video for this special, you'll see that a few years ago Discovery already did the "eaten alive" bit with a shark. Allegedly it was a real incident, but I'm not going to watch it to find out.

          Discovery has been pure shit for over a decade. The only nugget of gold in that pile was Dirty Jobs. (Hint: Mythbusters is trash, and no, it didn't encourage interest in science.)

      • One of those times I wish we had the "true, but still disgusting" moderation options.

  • Discovery? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frikken lazerz ( 3788987 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:17AM (#48324089)
    The channel isn't about learning anymore. Just TV's version of clickbait (advertising, probably misleading, to draw in gullible folks).
    • You're better off reading a book than watching this stuff.

      Outside of a snake, a book is man's best friend.

  • Poor animal. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:44AM (#48324175)

    How are they gonna get him out again? Cut the snake open?

    How about giving the beast some real food and/or just leave it alone?

    Or film it from a distance and watch it eat some of its natural prey.
    Isn't that what discovery channel usually does?

    And, btw, AFAIK boa constrictors - which include anacondas - prefer their prey not breathing anymore. And they don't really care if it's bottled air you're breathing or not. They constrict you 'till you stop breathing. Hence the name. Duh.

    To be honest, I kinda hope this snake teaches the guy a lesson and get's away with it. Now *that* would be some news. :-)

    • Re:Poor animal. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @06:47AM (#48324183)

      Same thing I'm thinking. There's no way to do this that isn't a serious violation of ethics standards. If you want to give people an inside look feed the poor critter a small camera it can just shit out later.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      >Or film it from a distance and watch it eat some of its natural prey.
      >Isn't that what discovery channel usually does?

      This bullshit is offcourse a new low, but a friend of mine who worked a biologist in africa witnessed Discovery filming a 'documentary' about snakes about 10 years ago which involved catching (endangered) snakes and throwning them out of a tree (sometimes killing the snake) to film a 'hunting snake jumping on it's prey from a tree'. Or killing pisonous snakes and then wiggling them aro

    • Re:Poor animal. (Score:5, Informative)

      by jythie ( 914043 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:55AM (#48324749)
      Yeah, somehow 'death of defenseless creature' as entertainment feels really crummy. Even if one is an omnivore and allows for use of animal products in their ethical framework, the idea of doing something that gruesome 'for the fun of it' can still cross lines.
      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Yeah, somehow 'death of defenseless creature' as entertainment feels really crummy.

        Sure, it's an unethical way to treat a TV presenter, and yet, if the Anaconda does crush him before swallowing, I'll feel somehow satisfied.

    • > [My english is better than most other people's german, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]

      Nothing wrong with your english, and definitely better than this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:06AM (#48324239) Journal

    I've already had all of this sort of thing I could take with this horrifying video of a man being eaten alive excruciatingly slowly by an arctic fox. (NSFW)

    http://youtu.be/43dAN0C4J_0 [youtu.be]

    • by Megane ( 129182 )
      HOLY CRAP why didn't you warn me that the link contained vertical video?!?!?!?!!!! Have some consideration for other people, bub!
  • by tverbeek ( 457094 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:08AM (#48324247) Homepage

    And some people wonder why I don't have cable-TV service.

    • It's precisely because thinking folks don't watch much cable television that this tripe is what's left to scavenge ratings from.

      I'm sure this is a prerecorded event, but if it were live, I'd be rooting for the snake to win in the style of Grizzly Man.

  • How's he gonna get out?

    "That's not a knife. This is a knife."

  • PETA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:17AM (#48324269)
    It's spectacles like this which have the potential to harm or kill an animal for the sake of entertainment that makes me side with PETA on occasion. Otherwise PETA is too radical for me. There is no science in this.
    • PETA is mostly composed of people who just like animals and want to see them treated well - but all flocked around a band of hardcore crazy that actually runs the organisation.

  • Skip Discovery and learn more from about anacondas from a music video parody:

    http://www.collegehumor.com/vi... [collegehumor.com]

    Sure not all the facts are correct, but still more accurate than Discovery.

  • Interns are snake food.

    Has anyone mentioned yet that this sounds like a stunningly poor idea?
  • by Simulant ( 528590 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:38AM (#48324351) Journal
    I'm less disgusted by the people responsible for this than I am by the people who are going to tune in to watch it, but not by much.
  • by queazocotal ( 915608 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:42AM (#48324369)

    that it turned out that the anaconda had a fondness for bread products, and would not eat anything without at least some in.
    The handler turned to the director, and said 'My anaconda don't want none unless she's got buns hun'.

    • There have been a few other people to invoke Sir Mix-a-Lot so far in these comments, but your set up was by far the best.
  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:42AM (#48324371)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by wbr1 ( 2538558 )
      They have the rights to Honey Boo Boo. TLC is part of the Discovery Networks Garbage Corporation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
    • Honey Boo Boo is canceled. Or more accurately, not being renewed after the current production season.

      HBB's Mother has started dating her old boyfirend, who just got out of a ten-year jail sentence for rapeing HBB's older sister and is not going to be living alongside HBB herself. There are some levels of shame - and more importantly liability, if they should end up filming child abuse for the sake of entertainment - that even TV executives won't brave. Yet.

  • That's the weirdest Slashdot story I've ever seen. (Also, pretending to be food is not nice to the Anaconda.)
  • And no I don't mean "what next" as far as what the discovery channel will do, I mean what next after TV? Seriously, we're out of ideas for movies and shows, obviously. People love TV so much, why not just combine it with something important, like school? So rather than sit around watching a bunch of desperate idiots attempt to "entertain" us with some new show as ridiculous as this one, broadcast stuff that teaches people things. Remember that show "E.R."? So many people watched it. They could have th
    • It's called "The Discovery Channel", but if they show us a man being eaten by a large snake, what is the discovery there?

      The Learning Channel used to feature shows that had some educational value. They've long since dropped that and changed their name to TLC. Perhaps Discovery Channel will do the same and change their name. They might not be able to use "DC" though, because the garbage they show is completely different from the garbage that takes place in Washington, DC.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Xest ( 935314 )

      Becareful what you wish for, the BBC has basically gone down the path of doing shows you can learn something from and apart from a few good Attenbroughs and a few good Brian Cox's every few years you basically have 3 choices:

      1) Generic medical drama #125423523
      2) Generic cooking show #35263463
      3) Generic 1800 - 1930 show #43634633

      I swear the BBC lost their costume cupboard in their move to Salford and all they could find afterwards were the 1800s clothes because if you turn the BBC on nowadays you'll either g

    • It's called "The Discovery Channel", but if they show us a man being eaten by a large snake, what is the discovery there?

      The discovery is that if you try to do commercial educational programming on cable, this is what happens. I'm waiting to see if it ends up as 24hr pro wrestling. So the whole thing's gone meta. Don't watch the Discovery channel. Observe it.

  • um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps ( 1157495 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @07:49AM (#48324399)

    So they fired Kari Byron.
    And now they are showing the poop shoot of a snake?

    Man... they're on a roll.

  • It sounds to astonishingly outrageous that one has to expect that it is simply a variant of the old joke about the 'Man eating chicken': Sounds like 'Man-eating chicken', but is actually 'Man, eating chicken'.

  • is that the Discovery Channel is directly competing with Maury Povich for sleaze.
  • by Ogive17 ( 691899 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:10AM (#48324521)
    The downfall of Discovery Channel was a main reason I "cut the cord" about 2 years ago. They use to be one of my go-to channels when I had some free time. After the success of the crab fishing show (which names annoyingly escapes me right now), they basically switched direction and turned themselves into a reality tv channel.

    On the bright side, I am saving $1020+/year for not having cable.
    • by RyoShin ( 610051 )

      After the success of the crab fishing show (which names annoyingly escapes me right now)

      Deadliest Catch. [wikipedia.org]

      Which, while being part of the whole reality-TV craze, I did enjoy when I caught it now and then. It was at least a bit educational, in how they do their job and handle problems, but mainly because it was narrated by Mike Rowe and I really enjoy his voice. (Speaking of Mike Rowe, Deadliest Catch started after his Dirty Jobs show, which was psuedo-reality-TV.)

      Honestly, whatever channel turns into 24 hou

  • When you've already got a whole week dedicated to them?
  • by Rick in China ( 2934527 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:42AM (#48324657)

    Many people will complain about this. I initially thought along the same lines as many of the above posters when reading the blurb about what's about to happen - and also think it's terrible. What will happen, though, is the extremity and sleaziness also strikes enough interest that people _will watch it_, even if they hate Discovery channel while doing so. They'll get the viewers. They'll get attention. It'll be passed around. They surely know already that they have a reputation dive akin to GT Advanced's stock dive, so when you're deemed a channel with momentum diving downward so quickly I suppose they thought along the lines of: Embrace It...there are enough people who eat this shit up that it'll likely be their best ratings in recent memory.

  • by __aaltlg1547 ( 2541114 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @08:43AM (#48324665)

    Freedom of the press, I mean.

    This is not what it's for.

    Here's the way I figure it. If the man survives, it's homicide. If the man suffers serious injuries (you, know, from being crushed by a giant snake), it's felony maiming (or whatever it's called in whatever non-jurisdiction they're planning to do this). If he survives without harm, it's reckless endangerment. If the snake is injured or dies, it's animal cruelty.

  • PETA! HELP! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shadowrat ( 1069614 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @12:32PM (#48326637)
    If there was ever a need to let the dogs of peta run wild, it's this. This is disgustingly shameful. It serves no purpose other than to abuse a snake for entertainment.

    Nothing can be gained from this. We already know the snakes can eat a person. We can already send far less obstrusive sensors safely through a snake if we really need to see what's going on in there.

    c'mon a show in which ted nugent would kill and eat an anaconda before our eyes would be more on the up and up than this crap.
    • i'm not really condoning the nug' kills a snake. obviously that snake is guaranteed to die where this one might just be uncomfortable,
    • We do not know that they can eat a person. We know they can kill a person however our shoulders cause issues for any snake trying to swallow us whole. Beyond that they tend eat things smaller than us. Consuming a 200 pound animal makes it very difficult for the snake to react defensively or flee from any threats.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
      Relevant passage:
      Many local stories and legends report the anaconda as a man-eater, but little evidence supports any such activity.

      Regardless, this is stupid and it

      • Yeah, i didn't mean that we know they have consumed people. Just that there is a high probability that the largest of the big snakes are physically capable of swallowing a person. It likely wouldn't go well for the snake either. There are a number of verified stories of snakes of all sizes suffering after swallowing too large of a meal. That's what i find seriously concerning about this effort.

        I also find it hard to believe that you could coax a snake into swallowing a guy in a big suit too. I've been bi
  • by jtwiegand ( 3533989 ) on Thursday November 06, 2014 @03:11PM (#48327935)
    Gonna get eaten by this snake.

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...