OT: RIP Crocodile Hunter

[swardle]

You're awfully negative, do you know that?

 

 

Negative? I'm not the one calling him heroic for acting in a way that ultimately ended his life. Anyone who encourages others to perform activities that needlessly risks one's life....now that's being negative.

[Henway_piano]

Anyone think it's too soon to ask Terri out on a date?

[T-Bot]

Originally posted by swardle Negative? I'm not the one calling him heroic for acting in a way that ultimately ended his life. Anyone who encourages others to perform activities that needlessly risks one's life....now that's being negative.

Oh please, and anyone who encourages you to be a musician is trying to ensure you don't suceed in life.

Im calling him heroic for doing what he loved, he lived life more in his 44 years than most would if they ilved to 100. Im calling you negative because you are pissing on a man who had the gonads to do things you obivously never could.

[blue halo]

Originally posted by T-Bot Oh please, and anyone who encourages you to be a musician is trying to ensure you don't suceed in life. Im calling him heroic for doing what he loved, he lived life more in his 44 years than most would if they ilved to 100. Im calling you negative because you are pissing on a man who had the gonads to do things you obivously never could.

Well put, mate.. Well put.

[3p0]

First of all, he loved animales, he didn't tease them, from what I understood.

Stingrays actually aren't that dangerous.... It is indeed, like MartinHines said, quite rare to die from one's sting...

Steve Irwin was so enthusiastic , and he was a great man.
I even saw him once.

Great guy, shame to loose him.

[Outkaster]

Originally posted by swardle Negative? I'm not the one calling him heroic for acting in a way that ultimately ended his life. Anyone who encourages others to perform activities that needlessly risks one's life....now that's being negative.

 

 

Do everyone a favor and leave this board.

[swardle]

Im calling you negative because you are pissing on a man who had the gonads to do things you obivously never could.

You are right about one thing. I don't have the tenacity to go out there and stir it up with animals that could easily kill me. But that has nothing to do with lacking courage (or as you put it, having the gonads). It has to do with having a brain and using it.

Hmm...if I want to live, I should probably not play around with dangerous animals...hmm

Do everyone a favor and leave this board.

Instead of barking orders at me, why don't you find the ignore feature on this board and learn how to use it?

[pighood]

Yeah, Solaris goon!

[hyperstationjr]

Originally posted by swardle You are right about one thing. I don't have the tenacity to go out there and stir it up with animals that could easily kill me. But that has nothing to do with lacking courage (or as you put it, having the gonads). It has to do with having a brain and using it. Hmm...if I want to live, I should probably not play around with dangerous animals...hmm Instead of barking orders at me, why don't you find the ignore feature on this board and learn how to use it?

 

 

Sure, but if people all lived with that mentality, about the only musical instrument we would all have would be a rock...

 

It is a dark, dark day when the Crocodile Hunter goes down... He definitely didn't "tease" animals... he went out into the wild, found something, and showed your average joe just how real and vast the world they live in is, including all the animals that live in it.

 

I agree, this guy had one of the greatest lives anyone could ask for and though it ultimately ended his life, what better way to go?

[swardle]

I agree, this guy had one of the greatest lives anyone could ask for and though it ultimately ended his life, what better way to go?

 

 

I'm sorry, but I think messing around with nature in the manner that this guy did is human arrogance. How would you like it if some strange species walked into your habitat with a {censored}ing camera and started spouting off what he thinks you are all about? You'd probably be at least mildly suspicious and maybe even feel a little threatened, wouldn't you? Hell, you'd probably want to kill him, wouldn't you?

 

See, there you go.

 

That's the distinction I have been TRYING to make here. This Steve Irwin guy, while charming and entertaining to the simple-minded, got what he deserved.

[TowJam]

while charming and entertaining to the simple-minded,

 

 

What a dickheaded statement.

 

Far more "simple minded" people than just those of us who post on HC (the Australian Parliament for example) found him "charming and entertaining". Oh yeah, and educational.

[blue halo]

Originally posted by swardle That's the distinction I have been TRYING to make here. This Steve Irwin guy, while charming and entertaining to the simple-minded, got what he deserved.

 

No one deserves that. Not at all. And he was charming and entertaining to far more than the simple-minded. He seemed pretty good at making sure that the animals whose habitats he entered calmed down pretty quickly if he got them spooked. If they didn't he usually left them alone. The sting-ray incident seems like a freak accident.

[swardle]

No one deserves that. Not at all.

I'll try to remember that when the next TV-Animal Genius has an "accident".

He seemed pretty good at making sure that the animals whose habitats he entered calmed down pretty quickly if he got them spooked. If they didn't he usually left them alone. The sting-ray incident seems like a freak accident.

So, perhaps you're suggesting that the Sting Ray incident wasn't about an animal feeling threatened, but that Irwin wasn't quick enough in working out a peace treaty. I see...

[flattop]

Originally posted by swardle I'll try to remember that when the next TV-Animal Genius has an "accident". So, perhaps you're suggesting that the Sting Ray incident wasn't about an animal feeling threatened, but that Irwin wasn't quick enough in working out a peace treaty. I see...

To follow your logic then, you do not drive/travel in a car, motorcycle, boat, ski, hunt, swim, walk across a street, etc.....

All these activities are far more dangerous than swimming with a sting ray or much of what Steve did.

Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org/

[Outkaster]

Originally posted by swardle You are right about one thing. I don't have the tenacity to go out there and stir it up with animals that could easily kill me. But that has nothing to do with lacking courage (or as you put it, having the gonads). It has to do with having a brain and using it. Hmm...if I want to live, I should probably not play around with dangerous animals...hmm Instead of barking orders at me, why don't you find the ignore feature on this board and learn how to use it?

No one is barking orders but don't come on here with 197 posts and think by posting that your not going to get backlash. The guy {censored}in died give him a break.

[swardle]

The guy {censored}in died give him a break.

Like I said, I tend to go by what I see. With this Irwin guy, the evidence against him is overwhelming!



Indictment #1: Getting caught in an attempt to chomp down on an crocodile hoagie. CRIKEY!



Indictment #2: Mother crocodile getting ready to "chew Irwin's ass" for teasing her babies.



Indictment #3: Putting a sleeper hold on a real crocodile.



Indictment #4: Attempting to hang a crocodile for no good reason.



Indictment #5: Giving a crocodile a Vulcan death grip.



Indictment #6: Another sleeper hold.



Indictment #7: Feeding babies to sharks.



Indictment #8: Baiting a crocodile with false treats.


Obviously, this list could go on and on. But there is enough evidence here to support my view.

[MartinHines]

Originally posted by swardle Like I said, I tend to go by what I see. With this Irwin guy, the evidence against him is overwhelming! Obviously, this list could go on and on. But there is enough evidence here to support my view.

 

 

The only "evidence" you provided is that he puposely put himself in dangerous/risky situations.

 

However, you have NOT proven your other accusations:

-- that he "teased" animals

-- that he "deserved" to die

 

I think Formula 1 race car drivers and skydivers also put themselves in dangerous/risky situations. However if one of them died, I certainly would not say they "deserved it".

[flattop]

Ditto for Firemen, Policemen, etc..........

Since it is appropriate today, how many Firemen, EMT's, and Policemen were lost 5 years ago because they were selflessly attempting to help others? They knew they were in an extremely dangerous situation. I, for one, appreciate their *human arrogance*.

Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org/

[Amos]

WARNING! LONG_ASS POST AHEAD!

Sit down and grab a snack; if you have made it this far into the thread then you might enjoy reading the following essay on Steve Irwin's life and death and the media, written by my wife on Sept. 6th 2006.

Here you go...

" I have been an avid collector and lover of nature documentary filmmaking my whole life, ever since I saw Sir David Attenborough's epic debut of the 1979 series "Life on Earth" at the tender age of 5. It influenced my whole life, and at this time my collection includes the entire Attenborough 'Life Series', eight series running over 80 hours total-- as well as a great number of other high quality presentors such as Nova and Nature. With this in mind, I found myself full of mixed feelings on hearing the news of Steve Irwin's untimely death at the barb of a stingray.

Let me say here that it is indeed tragic news. When I read about this "accident" with the same surprise as much of the world, a reflexive tear welled in one eye, but never made it down my cheek-- and I am one who typically mourns the passing of any individual who has made a lasting change, good or bad, on the cultural backdrop of my life. But even then I knew why- Irwin was the figurehead of the modern school of anti-classical documentary filmwork, and had as such been an "enemy" of my favorite form of popular media presentation. However much I have empathy- tremendous empathy for his wife and children, for his colleagues and for the truly great Australia zoo, I couldn't deny my personal feeling that something noble was tarnished by this popular style of presentation.

I have to wonder though- how much is really his doing, personally? There has been a dichotomy of classical versus sensationalist documentary filmmaking my whole life, and for a considerable time before. In the 1950's, right at the dawn of broadcast television, was the Disney "True Life Adventure". Some of these were quite pioneering in technique, but almost all are known today for truly over the top anthropomorphism ("Now old man Mr. Bear wasn't about to come down out of his tree without making a hullabaloo...") as well as less frequent moments of animal mishandling and capture techniques now considered downright cruel. And the public loved it. Later we had Wild Kingdom- born in the late 1960s it shaped most of the popular documentary programs I saw in my early childhood. Many will remember Marlin Perkins' sometimes humorous relationship to his sidekick, Jim Fowler (who was later a close friend of Steve Irwin). That millions-wide television audience tuned in to Wild Kingdom every week, often with the hope of seeing Jim cornered by an angry rhinocerous or running from a wildebeest, and despite the implications of danger it did strike people as funny, funny enough to become the model for the classic Ren and Stimpy "Untamed World" series of spoofs and more.

This was really just an extension of the sort of presentations where animals were only featured on variety and talk shows, exotic creatures dragged into hotels in cages so that they could later be carried onto a studio set, where hopefully they would pee on Johnny Carson's snazzy blazer. This unsettling talk show spectacle continues to this day, and still with the same goal- to make it look educational and controlled while people gawk at the animal and hope it will piddle in the floor at least. And even that was just the film equivalent of a very long tradition of sensational popular science writing-- I have children's books dating from the late 1800s grotesquely embellishing such child inappropriate subjects as tiger and 'possum hunts. Rough and ready oversimplifications of sensationalized nature have always been popular with the lay-public, and there will always be someone there to supply this demand.

There is another style of exploitative and oversimplified nature presentation that was popular in the 1980s and 1990s, the cute-and-cuddly pageant of fuzzy baby animals caught in perinnial play. This was best epitomized by Marty Stouffer and his homegrown Americana series "Wild America", one of the first popular weekly animal programs on the then-new Discovery Channel. These were actually quite lovely in their own way, and I admit that in the modern presentation climate I have grown a bit nostalgic for it, but the lessons learned from them were equally simplistic and inaccurate, with nature at it's worst being just a bunch of rascally critters, and at best being living teddy bears.

These are all reasons that Attenborough's type of presentations have been revolutionary- combining argueably the best photographers the field has ever known with a sweeping big-picture view of a rather unsentamentalized yet elegant natural world. At the dawn of the '80s this had never been done, and at least for the more thoughtful and asthetic viewers, collectively we were blown away. This is still true to this day, despite the prevalance of the Irwin style. In watching Attenborough's most recent series "Life in the Undergrowth", I remember smiling when I heard David talking about a giant earthworm-- saying essentially that we don't know how long they get, and you see this one here, it's quite delicate, so we mustn't molest it. "If I were so unfeeling as to pick it up..." said Attenborough- he was chiding the industry, and it was clear just which aspect he meant (that is as strong a phrase as I ever have ever heard from such a diplomatic man).

That said, the classical presentations, if anything, occur with greater frequency and from more teams of filmmakers now than at any point of my youth-- even though there may be five channels showing daily lowbrow Animal Planet, there may be five truly epic multi-episode series' in the classical form each year (not to mention the popular Imax format, which can go either way between classical and sensational). The difference now is really that there's so much more of everything, but I truly do not believe that the Steve Irwin's and (far, far worse) Jeff Corwin's shows have ever threatened the classical programs as the pinnacle of the art. The people who those shows reached best can see the difference, and DVD sales of series like "Blue Planet, Seas of Life" reflect this. As for the grabbing-snakes style shows, they seem to reach best to people who have never liked educational television at all, and are more of a naturalist version of professional wrestling. But unlike pro wrestling, viewers have actual information basically snuck to them- whatever vicarious thrill they may have been seeking, many well go away knowing things like what a Gila monster looks like, and that it's earth's only venomous lizard. Given that the same children may have spent the day with Grand Theft Auto spiced with South Park (which I love btw, don't get me wrong), I can't help but feel it's a good thing despite it's flaws.

It was society, essentially, that made Steve Irwin's empire. His first film was a presentation on reptiles from the zoo where he worked, and was quite like any zoo presentation- I'm certain many of us can remember some uniformed man showing up at our school with a giant python for all of the kids to handle, and what sort of fluffy banter accompanied this. And every one of those touring presentations by their very nature involves hefting reptiles and such out of cramped cages and passing them around to people who probably have no business manhandling them, but are delighted nonetheless. But Irwin had that outrageous accent, was cute enough for TV, and was immediately seen as a profitable commodity. Doubtless he played up to this, and you can see his antics grow more pronounced as the years rolled by (and as the more original material grew terribly trite).

The craving was always there in the populace, and many including myself suspect that Irwin used this as a positive means of generating popular interest, and money for conservation- of which he gave free and copious amounts while maintaining a fairly modest lifestyle Sure he had some control, but I don't think that any of us can know how much. If there is any doubt as to that, just consider the number of headlines there are today, saying "Irwin pulled out barb on camera". This morning, The Asheville Citizen Times website has a daily poll that says; " Should the video of Steve Irwin's fatal run-in with a stingray be released?" Even in his death, the public clamours for dangerous nature, exciting nature- SNUFF nature. And the public morbid fascination will likely be sated, if not by the death footage itself (may it never be released), then at least by the reams of footage that Irwin has worked in recently that remains to be aired on television. This aspect of the initial public reaction to his death is a certain sign that the public itself is largely responsible for the existance of these shows, just as certainly as Hollywood filmmakers would make good movies if the public simply stopped giving money to low quality movies. It may not be much of an exoneration for Irwin's film style, but it's enough to stir just a drop of my sympathy for all who survive him and knew him as a "good bloke".
"