Grizzly Man

[Yeager]

I know parents who would not let their kids watch him (Irwin) because he was an idiot.

These posters are trying to make a distinction between Irwin and Treadwell when there is none.
====
two real gems here fellas.  Read em and weep

[FUNKED1]

Irwin was a one trick pony.  "Watch as I provoke this daaaaaaaaaaingerisss animal into a defensive fight-or-flight response!"  That's how he made his money and that's how he died.  In a way Treadwell was better.  He may have been an idiot but he wasn't stupid enough to intentionally provoke violent behavior.  My apologies to fanbois of either example of natural selection.

[Dinger]

hate to burst your troll-bubble, Funked, but only Treadwell was an example of natural selection. Irwin was killed after he reproduced and secured a comfortable existence (=enhanced reproduction opportunity) for his children.

[Jackal1]

Irwin provoked and left them provoked.
Treadwell seemed to think that he could either coexist in the wild without ramifications or domesticate to a point.
Either is idiotic. Park bears that have to mingle and interact with humans are some of the most dangerous of them all due to their lack of fear of human beings.
To say that the grizzly did something unexpected or unnatural is just plain hooey.
Grizzlies are predators. Big , powerfull predators at that.
If you play with snakes, gators or whatever long enough you are going to get bit eventualy. It`s the law of averages.
To think that you are going to continualy invade grizzly turf and not end up as the blue plate special is insane. They are not big , misunderstood , cuddly play toys.

[LePaul]

They both played with fire.  It was only a matter of time til they got burned

[Mini D]

Originally posted by deSelys
According to your logic, you should only travel on foot.

No. According to my logic, insisting that driving on ice isn't dangerous will drastically increase your chances of nature resetting things.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Neubob
It was an analogy.

Duh?

Regardless, the point is valid. As crazy as Irwin seemed to be, his level of training and conditioning and control over the situations in which he placed himself were that much more advanced than that of Treadwell.

This is where your analogy will come back to bite you in the butt.

There is no "level of training or conditioning" here.  A chemist that believes he knows enough to mix dangerous chemicals without wories is just as dangerous as someone that is doing the same thing without understanding the risks. There is no ammount of "control" that prevents these things.

On a seperate note, Treadwell seemed to be more self-serving and self-indulgent than he was interested in the bears. His flights of emotion compeltely put him out of the realm of professionalism.

The were both self serving. You're quibling over degree.

[Yeager]

Treadwell was visibly insane on his last trip into the grizzley maze and directly brought about his own grizzley death (no pun intended)  through his complete ignorance and lack of understanding of the natural world (grizzley bears are not sweet little people wrapped in fur blankets, you do not coo and caw at these bears like they are children to be manipulated).  Finally, Treadwell contributed directly to the death of an innocent yet tragically ignorant woman.

Again, there is no comparrison between the Irwin and Treadwell.  Zero, zilch...nada.  Irwin truly was inspired to educate and entertain and fought to protect and preserve all wildlife. Treadwell was a nutjob.

[IgnorantJoe]

Wasn't the bear guy an addict before he had a revelation?

[storch]

could it be??? are you fellows going to start a flame war over these two sad events??  good

[Yeager]

unlike the thread starter, I dont recommend watching this movie in light of Irwin getting stabbed in the heart by a largely harmless innocuous ray (only 3 deaths in Australia by Ray in over 100 years).  To do so would be genuinely disingenuous.  

On the contrary, I recommend watching Grizzley Man because it is simply a mind freak to watch Treadwell go insane.  Also, if your a musician there is a wonderful segment in the extra features part of the DVD about the musicians and recording of the soundtrack.  The music was tastefully done.

[deSelys]

Originally posted by Mini D
No. According to my logic, insisting that driving on ice isn't dangerous will drastically increase your chances of nature resetting things.

Going at 50 mph, even on a dry road, isn't natural for the man.

And flying? Do you qualify the Wright Brothers as suicidals?

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Mini D
The were both self serving. You're quibling over degree.

I'm also apparently quibling over the degree to which these guys calculated their risks when engaging in their activities of choice. After a bit of research, I'd have to conclude that Irwin, having spent his whole life around reptiles, was in his element around the animals. IE, he felt at home near them, and had reason to. Yes, there was risk, but with nearly 4 decades in close proximity with a variety of dangerous organisms, it is probably safe to say that he was aware of those risks to the point of professional certainty. Not 100 percent, but close enough.

Treadwell, although having spent a whole bunch of time with the bears (no variety, just one species), never really made it past the point of giving them human names and whispering sweet nothings into their ears while prancing around the forest on what appears to have been an extended acid trip.

Yes, both served their own interests, both did things that I would not want my children to do. One was killed by the very animals he supposedly specialized in, where as the other really was a victim of a freakishly rare attack--not killed by a Crocadile, which would have been his equivalent.

Does this make them inherently different? I think so. I admit, however, that my judgment is steered not just by their backgrounds, but also by the fact that I found one to be likeable, and the other, nothing but an acidic, overzealous moron.

[Estes]

I caught Treadwells documentary on the discovery channel a while back while he was on one of his "rants". As many have already said he was nuts. While both cases are tragic (irregardless of stupidity etc.,) it was going to happen sooner or later.

As I said on the FDB board, they both lived on borrowed time doing what they did.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by deSelys
Going at 50 mph, even on a dry road, isn't natural for the man.

And flying? Do you qualify the Wright Brothers as suicidals?

Ah... you're stretching to make absolutely no point.

Going into the woods: No problem

Going up to a grizzly: Problem

Snorkling: No problem

Snorkling over a stingray: problem

Driving: No problem

Driving on ice: problem

Both of these guys did very stupid things with dangerous animals. Despite yeager's assertion that there is a big difference, the point is missed. One was a likeable sort that made incredibly stupid things look routine. That is every bit as bad as a loon doing the same things. Nature wins again.