Michael Maier |
September 6th, 2006 02:49 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Frick
Chris nailed this one...this guy lived in the same house as he did before he started doing these shows. He did it to educate people about the animals that he loved. Much of the money he made went to buy land to secure habitats for wildlife. In my opinion he was the single most important conservation figure of his generation right up there with Jane Goodall. He went about it in a different way, but in a time when people are so wrapped up in their onw lives he got their attention and made them give a damn. He did make a difference changed peoples attitudes about relationships between wildlife and people. We will be missed!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco Wagner
Thank you for that post. I feel the same. He never succumbed to the "hollywood" syndrome and was one of the most REAL people out there. It is very sad that people still have to nitpick at his methodology even after his death. Wildlife is dangerous period, regardless, he didn't deserve such an untimely death. It is more sad that the U.S. audience practically banished him over the baby incident. LONG LIVE REAL PEOPLE, RIP Steve. We already miss you.
|
These 2 posts say it all!
About the people who nitpick on his methods, have you ever noticed most of them are involved with some sort of wild life filming or work in general? Yeah, most of them make a living with wild life. What does that tell you? I will tell you, I smell jealousy and a “why didn’t I think of that first” syndrome. Because he was original, he was famous and was making millions. But the audience loved him and that’s what matters. The opinion of those people matter as much as the opinion of critics in say how good a movie is. It doesn’t affect it at all!
His criticizers picked on when he hugged the whales like if he was hurting them, a gigantic animal of that proportion. Give me a break. Last time I checked a hug was a gesture or love, which Irwin clearly had lots for wild life. If there was somebody at risk of getting hurt in those situations was Irwin. The animals were never at risk, not the Whales, not the Snakes, not the Crocs, none of them, so I don’t know why all the critic. It can only be because he got rich doing that and people are jealous. There’s no other explanation.
About the crocodile and the baby thing, I can see how a normal member of the audience could think the baby was in danger there, but it really makes me think about people’s photographic skills in this forum when people here say the kid was in danger. Being at least a video enthusiast, not even professional, one should know just by looking at that compressed shot they were using a telephoto focal length to make the croc look closer than it was and make it look like Irwin just dropped the meet chunk in the croc’s mouth while in fact he threw it forward. It was just TV magic. Oldest trick on the book to make things look more risky. When you see the scene from a different camera angle, a side one, you see the croc was actually much farther way and there was no way that croc could snap the baby out of Irwin’s hand and Irwin had a good grip on the baby with his arm completely and firmly around it. The croc would have to be a panther to snap the baby from that distance, but he wasn’t a mutant croc, just a real life one. Those can’t jump 6 feet in the air.
Give Irwin a rest. All those critics can live 200 years and will most likely never live as much as Irwin, or make the difference he did or even accomplish more in life.
R.I.P. Steve. Nevermind the naysayers.
|