Croc Hunter's widow opposes showing death film

[owl]

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1055466

 

Maybe they posed the question like this:

 

Ms. Irwin, is it true you're opposed to showing you're husband's death on television?

 

May we ask why?

 

Seriously, though. What the hell? TV people are assholes. Did anyone think for a minute that she'd be unopposed to showing the footage? Christ!

 

This has to win most obvious headline of the day.

 

Or- Methinks the lady dost protest too much?

[embiggen]

what's yer pernt?

[owl]

I guess just that...I don't know.

[embiggen]

I guess just that...I don't know.

 

 

do you really want to see it that badly?

[Analogman]

I think I saw this advertised on the TV guide channel the other day - some pay per view thing.

[MrRain422]

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if she felt as though he would have wanted it aired. But it also doesn't surprise me a bit that she doesn't want it aired. Whatever.

[owl]

 

do you really want to see it that badly?

 

I don't want to see it at all. I have no morbid curiosity for that kind of thing (I'm remembering how people were so into watching Iraq beheadings on the Internets).

 

I meant to be sarcastic. I think that TV and media people are assholes for even thinking about the possibility airing it (or anything like it).

 

[JUDE]

This will show up on you tube within a month.

[embiggen]

I don't want to see it at all. I have no morbid curiosity for that kind of thing (I'm remembering how people were so into watching Iraq beheadings on the Internets).

 

I meant to be sarcastic. I think that TV and media people are assholes for even thinking about the possibility airing it (or anything like it).

 

 

I don't think it should be seen. but it was Steve Irwin's wish to have his death seen if it was captured during a show. very odd. I'll be surprised if the family releases it.

[owl]

It was? That's really weird.

 

I also remember recently seeing replay after replay of teenagers beating (and murdering) a homeless man, and I know that it all just boiled down to sensationalism. Gross.

[embiggen]

It was? That's really weird.

 

yeah, supposedly, he wanted anything captured on tape to be broadcast. but from what I've heard, the family just doesn't want this to happen.

 

 

I don't get why these kids beat up on poor homeless people. maybe I'll report them.

[bobbob1313]

There are pictures in the National Enquirer. I did not look at them though.

[quarter23cd]

it was Steve Irwin's wish to have his death seen if it was captured during a show. very odd.

Wow, that's amazing. I mean, I suppose (taking a very detached point of view here) that its true that he was in the business of documenting how animals act in the wild--and part of that job is that he frequently showed them defending themselves against each other, sometimes brutally and lethally. So, following that logic, this was simply an instance of an animal defending itself against a perceived threat and thereby was a very natural thing.

 

Still (kudos to Steve for his altruism if that is really how he thought of it) I dunno that it makes it necessarily ok to show, because I can't think of a way that it can be done without being horrifically exploititive. Because its not going to be an example of "Look at the way this animal reacts to his environment", rather it would inevitably be "Hey, check out this celebrity snuff film!" Which is undoubtedly not what he would have wanted.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

It doesn't make it ok to show, imo, if it's against his family's wishes.

 

Surviving family members wishes> Dead guy's wishes.

[owl]

Yeah, exactly. I find it pretty gross that this kind of thing makes it onto the airwaves all the time, even more frequently (but lest sensationalized) when it's not a celebrity.

 

Also- From what I understand, the Enquirer photos are reproductions showing what it "would've looked like."

[Sir Stewart]

I also remember recently seeing replay after replay of teenagers beating (and murdering) a homeless man, and I know that it all just boiled down to sensationalism. Gross.

That was just a bit of the ol' ultraviolence, mate.

[aricandover]

That was just a bit of the ol' ultraviolence, mate.

 

[myboyblue]

I guess this is as good a place to post as any... guys, if I die at my desk at work, I want the world to see it. Umkay?

[Elixir Sue]

I guess this is as good a place to post as any... guys, if I die at my desk at work, I want the world to see it. Umkay?

I'm sorry...I just can't allow that.

[renic]

Surviving family members wishes> Dead guy's wishes.

 

 

is that just in this instance or all the time? i'm curious.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Most of the time.

[ction]

Most of the time.

 

I find your opinion interesting. Please elaborate.

[owl]

There's no mandatory rule that says you have to follow the dead guy's wishes. I think that following the wishes is more for the family's sake, less for the dead guy's. If the family's not up to it, they're under no obligation.

[ction]

What if he included a provision about this in his will?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Wills are a legal matter, not a matter of would or should. If he had put it in his will that, in the event that he died on camera, the footage should be aired on television then no station would be obligated to air it unless he had made prior arrangements with them--failing that, I assume most would defer to his family. If I wrote in my will that I wanted my body hung from a flagpole in front of U.S. Cellular Field for 14 days after my death, no one would be obligated to do it, and I'm sure my family would think it distasteful and not helpful in the mourniwing process.

 

The main purpose of wills, as far as I'm concerned, is to prevent conflict within a family by specifying which assets should go to each person.

 

Some people may choose to plan out their funeral in advance. Most families would want to honor the deceased by generally following those wishes, but if they felt that adjusting it somewhat or scrapping it all together helped them to better mourn and remember, then I think the should be able to do so.

 

The main thrust is this: whatever happens after someone dies is a part of the survivors' lives and not part of the deceased's life. We should act accordingly. Funerals are more for the living than the dead, etc.