Eddie Vedder — End Of The Road
Album: Into The WildAvg rating:
Your rating:
Total ratings: 1723
Length: 3:15
Plays (last 30 days): 3
share
tweet
Won't be the last
Won't be the first
Find a way to where the sky meets the Earth
It's alright and all wrong
For me it begins at the end of the road
We come and go
Won't be the first
Find a way to where the sky meets the Earth
It's alright and all wrong
For me it begins at the end of the road
We come and go
Comments (109)add comment
That fantastic voice.
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
A healthy dose of skepticism towards any journalist feels pretty well placed to me. And Mr. McCandless died a pretty sad death by the sound of it. But apart from all that, I think Eddie Vedder pulled out a tenner on this album. I love every track of it.
A healthy dose of skepticism towards any journalist feels pretty well placed to me. And Mr. McCandless died a pretty sad death by the sound of it. But apart from all that, I think Eddie Vedder pulled out a tenner on this album. I love every track of it.
bseib wrote:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
A knife, potable water, and a rifle with more power than a 22LR.
Krakauer recently published more of his findings regarding the plant toxin that killed McCandless: https://medium.com/galleys/how-chris-mccandless-died-992e6ce49410
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
A knife, potable water, and a rifle with more power than a 22LR.
bseib wrote:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
So isn't it evident that most of us survived and are here over the eons because of experiments? The experiments are much more sophisticated now. Thank goodness. Give credit to pioneers! Our existence depends on them.
Krakauer recently published more of his findings regarding the plant toxin that killed McCandless: https://medium.com/galleys/how-chris-mccandless-died-992e6ce49410
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
So isn't it evident that most of us survived and are here over the eons because of experiments? The experiments are much more sophisticated now. Thank goodness. Give credit to pioneers! Our existence depends on them.
bseib wrote:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
I see false logic in your statements.
You state: Grasspea has been known to be toxic for 2,400 years.
But McCandless didn't eat Grasspea.
Then: an amino acid in Grasspea makes it toxic and Krakauer found the amino acid in a plant McCandless likely ate.
The presence of that amino acid in the plant that McCandless ate was not noted to be part of collective human knowledge.
So unless you left bits of info out, the toxin in the plant was not known.
Krakauer recently published more of his findings regarding the plant toxin that killed McCandless: https://medium.com/galleys/how-chris-mccandless-died-992e6ce49410
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
I see false logic in your statements.
You state: Grasspea has been known to be toxic for 2,400 years.
But McCandless didn't eat Grasspea.
Then: an amino acid in Grasspea makes it toxic and Krakauer found the amino acid in a plant McCandless likely ate.
The presence of that amino acid in the plant that McCandless ate was not noted to be part of collective human knowledge.
So unless you left bits of info out, the toxin in the plant was not known.
The end of this movie was so sad, but not completely unexpected — and no, I wasn't familiar with his story. I guess you can only put yourself on the edge for so long before it takes you.
I can relate to this song now on such a foggy and gray Sunday afternoon 
ExploitingChaos wrote:
I'm glad those words weren't in a different order
That Organ hits hard in the feels
Such a superb album.
And film.
That Organ hits hard in the feels
Without any advanced notice, the Alaska National Guard slapped chains on Fairbanks City Transit System Bus number 142 and hauled it out of the wild today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/19/into-the-wild-bus/
Unc, read the book, you're wrong about many things but you're right about prep! There's no replacement for it, when it's you against mother nature, she wins in the end. Re Everest, everyone conquering this mountain these days, uses gas. See all the tanks? The number who make it without oxygen is tiny, but even if you buy the best gear and get into incredible shape, if the Sherpa's decide to strike, you personally would still likely die with or without O2... Chris lived on nature for that entire season as he was cut off to return. He's lucky he found that abandoned bus out there. He died by eating one of the many berries he knew of and ate for months whilst staying alive, a few weeks more and he could've walked to civilization. That berry plant which killed him looks near identical to the one he had been eating. I highly recommend the book. An urbanist like you will find it fascinating despite all my spoilers. Krakauer is an outstanding nonfiction writer who also wrote Into Thin Air (Mt.Everest). He was on the expedition... the one that took so many. It wasn't like today (see photo below) and I couldn't put that novel down. I called in sick to my office so I could finish it lol. If you're quarantined, I can't think of a better use of many hours! You'll actually feel like you made the summit.
unclehud wrote:
As you reported, the "gaps" were filled in, just not in Mr. Krakauer's or Mr. McCandless' "frontiers of knowledge". And why should these gentlemen be expected to know about the dark corners of botany or biology? That's not either's vocation.
The bottom line is that Mr McCandless dropped out of society and off the grid, indeed, but without adequate training or preparation.
Urban dwellers (and that's me, too) need to prepare their bodies, minds, and backpacks before heading out into the woods. Your destination matters: it's one thing to camp in a state park campground; a riskier adventure to go beyond cell phone range for multiple days; and a deadly serious thing to trek into the Alaskan backcountry for weeks at a time.
unclehud wrote:
As you reported, the "gaps" were filled in, just not in Mr. Krakauer's or Mr. McCandless' "frontiers of knowledge". And why should these gentlemen be expected to know about the dark corners of botany or biology? That's not either's vocation.
The bottom line is that Mr McCandless dropped out of society and off the grid, indeed, but without adequate training or preparation.
Urban dwellers (and that's me, too) need to prepare their bodies, minds, and backpacks before heading out into the woods. Your destination matters: it's one thing to camp in a state park campground; a riskier adventure to go beyond cell phone range for multiple days; and a deadly serious thing to trek into the Alaskan backcountry for weeks at a time.
bseib wrote:
As you reported, the "gaps" were filled in, just not in Mr. Krakauer's or Mr. McCandless' "frontiers of knowledge". And why should these gentlemen be expected to know about the dark corners of botany or biology? That's not either's vocation.
The bottom line is that Mr McCandless dropped out of society and off the grid, indeed, but without adequate training or preparation.
Urban dwellers (and that's me, too) need to prepare their bodies, minds, and backpacks before heading out into the woods. Your destination matters: it's one thing to camp in a state park campground; a riskier adventure to go beyond cell phone range for multiple days; and a deadly serious thing to trek into the Alaskan backcountry for weeks at a time.
...
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them.
...
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them.
...
As you reported, the "gaps" were filled in, just not in Mr. Krakauer's or Mr. McCandless' "frontiers of knowledge". And why should these gentlemen be expected to know about the dark corners of botany or biology? That's not either's vocation.
The bottom line is that Mr McCandless dropped out of society and off the grid, indeed, but without adequate training or preparation.
Urban dwellers (and that's me, too) need to prepare their bodies, minds, and backpacks before heading out into the woods. Your destination matters: it's one thing to camp in a state park campground; a riskier adventure to go beyond cell phone range for multiple days; and a deadly serious thing to trek into the Alaskan backcountry for weeks at a time.
bseib wrote:
Probably not, period.
Krakauer recently published more of his findings regarding the plant toxin that killed McCandless: https://medium.com/galleys/how-chris-mccandless-died-992e6ce49410
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
Probably not, period.
Great song, great album, great film!!!
Made me think of the sound of some of the songs on The Cure's Boys don't cry album. Gritty guitar and bass.
Also, that's such a good film and the songs are a real match for it.
Thanks B&R
Also, that's such a good film and the songs are a real match for it.
Thanks B&R
Lol!
Not his best effort. That said, if you ever get a chance to see him live and solo, take it. Saw him at the Ohana festival last year and he was fantastic!
Krakauer recently published more of his findings regarding the plant toxin that killed McCandless: https://medium.com/galleys/how-chris-mccandless-died-992e6ce49410
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
That prompted my thoughts on the topic:
If you read or watched "Into the Wild", you know the story about Chris McCandless, who took himself into the Alaskan wilderness in the spring of 1992 to leave society and live off the land. In the fall of 1992, Chris died from eating the wrong plant.
Jon Krakauer, the author of the book "Into the Wild" just shared his latest research regarding McCandless's death, 20 years after his book was originally published. It seems Krakauer likes to get the facts right. He tells the story of his investigation of the plant(s) involved, and how they were tested for alkaloids as a toxin, with no luck finding a smoking gun.
In 2012 Krakauer got a new lead from another writer who had remembered reading about symptoms similar to McCandless's occurring at a World War II concentration camp, Vapniarca. The prisoners of that camp were subjects of a cruel experiment, having been given food made from the "grasspea", a plant that humans have known for 2400 years to be toxic. It turns out to be an amino acid that makes the grasspea toxic, as well as the plant that McCandless ate. So when Krakauer searched for this kind of amino acid, he succeeded in finding what very likely killed McCandless.
I find it interesting that the "frontier of human knowledge" and the literal/physical "frontier of wilderness" can have such gaps between them. Generations of successively standing on shoulders have allowed humans to evolve our societal blueprints; we've increased our probability of survival living together vs. going it alone. But knowledge, even if recorded somewhere, is useless unless it is present at the moment that it has the greatest utility. Think about how we go about our daily routines. The various knowledge we must apply to our daily lives in order to "not die today", is pretty narrow. And should something life threatening confront us, living in a herd has its benefits. But leave society. Go off the grid. And here's a known toxin that exists in a plant. And it got eaten. So even if McCandless had all the up-to-date, current human knowledge at his fingertips while he was in the Denali Borough, would that have allowed him to survive alone in the wild?
I have just seen the movie last night. Isn't it amazing? Nothing is just a hazard.
kcar wrote:
I respect Jon Krakauer a great deal, but I wonder whether McCandless's story carries any big moral about the dangers of idealism. It strikes me that publicized stories like these two movies distort or overextend the facts to fit preconceived lessons that can be made into commercial successes.
A healthy dose of skepticism towards any journalist feels pretty well placed to me. And Mr. McCandless died a pretty sad death by the sound of it. But apart from all that, I think Eddie Vedder pulled out a tenner on this album. I love every track of it.
I respect Jon Krakauer a great deal, but I wonder whether McCandless's story carries any big moral about the dangers of idealism. It strikes me that publicized stories like these two movies distort or overextend the facts to fit preconceived lessons that can be made into commercial successes.
A healthy dose of skepticism towards any journalist feels pretty well placed to me. And Mr. McCandless died a pretty sad death by the sound of it. But apart from all that, I think Eddie Vedder pulled out a tenner on this album. I love every track of it.
I love this and love the movie. Just touches the heart in a real way. Tough choices, tough life, see the beauty where you can. Vedder for president. ;)
I agree, each person should just do SOMETHING if you disagree with the current standards. Just as a legend, the film illustrates the point with an extreme response.
And it is so emotive ... My uncle went to Alaska alone on his bike for several weeks decades ago. He was prepared and came back, and now this film further illustrates to me the feelings he described ...
kcar wrote:
"But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment."
I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but I remember reading the Jon Krakauer article on McCandless in Outside Magazine. If as you say he was driven too much by "anger and understandable disappointment", remember that he was quite young and idealistic. I think he wanted to challenge himself, to be pure and committed to an ideal of solitary living and independence. If I recall correctly, he wanted to live on his own terms. I'd say he didn't have enough experience to understand and assess risks properly.
"Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death."
Should his death have been important or notable? I don't remember that he was trying to prove a point to anyone or impress someone. I think we can all find different meanings in the facts that an idealistic yet unprepared young man died alone while still quite close to civilization and medical help. We can say that he was stupid or threw his life away or claim that idealism can't survive in a modern world. But I think we're all overlaying our own outlooks and opinions onto Chris McCandless's story. His death is mostly an unlucky accident to me.
This reminds me of a similar incident, the one about the guy who cut off his arm with a pen knife after he became trapped in a pocket canyon. Aron Ralston's story got turned into "127 Hours", starring James Franco (who as an just doesn't do it for me...). That's another movie I haven't seen, but I remember that Ralston was celebrated for his courage and will to survive. He became a celebrity appearing in advertisements, endorsing products.
But Ralston took the same sort of risks that McCandless did: he failed to learn about the wilderness conditions he was going to face, did not travel with companions, did not tell people where he was going and when they could expect to see or hear from him again, did not bring adequate survival resources or means of communicating to others during emergencies. The former Boy Scout in me thrilled at the notion of the Great Adventure these guys went on but once you go on one of those Great Adventures and hit some trouble (like I did--fell into a very cold Maine river on a canoe expedition), you remember that the Scout manuals warn you against doing exactly what those guys did. Yet McCandless becomes a sort of beautiful loser sacrificed to his idealism while Ralston is a resourceful superhuman hero. There may be kernels of truth in those pigeonhole judgments but I think it's easy to take those conclusions too far.
I respect Jon Krakauer a great deal, but I wonder whether McCandless's story carries any big moral about the dangers of idealism. It strikes me that publicized stories like these two movies distort or overextend the facts to fit preconceived lessons that can be made into commercial successes.
And it is so emotive ... My uncle went to Alaska alone on his bike for several weeks decades ago. He was prepared and came back, and now this film further illustrates to me the feelings he described ...
kcar wrote:
"But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment."
I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but I remember reading the Jon Krakauer article on McCandless in Outside Magazine. If as you say he was driven too much by "anger and understandable disappointment", remember that he was quite young and idealistic. I think he wanted to challenge himself, to be pure and committed to an ideal of solitary living and independence. If I recall correctly, he wanted to live on his own terms. I'd say he didn't have enough experience to understand and assess risks properly.
"Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death."
Should his death have been important or notable? I don't remember that he was trying to prove a point to anyone or impress someone. I think we can all find different meanings in the facts that an idealistic yet unprepared young man died alone while still quite close to civilization and medical help. We can say that he was stupid or threw his life away or claim that idealism can't survive in a modern world. But I think we're all overlaying our own outlooks and opinions onto Chris McCandless's story. His death is mostly an unlucky accident to me.
This reminds me of a similar incident, the one about the guy who cut off his arm with a pen knife after he became trapped in a pocket canyon. Aron Ralston's story got turned into "127 Hours", starring James Franco (who as an just doesn't do it for me...). That's another movie I haven't seen, but I remember that Ralston was celebrated for his courage and will to survive. He became a celebrity appearing in advertisements, endorsing products.
But Ralston took the same sort of risks that McCandless did: he failed to learn about the wilderness conditions he was going to face, did not travel with companions, did not tell people where he was going and when they could expect to see or hear from him again, did not bring adequate survival resources or means of communicating to others during emergencies. The former Boy Scout in me thrilled at the notion of the Great Adventure these guys went on but once you go on one of those Great Adventures and hit some trouble (like I did--fell into a very cold Maine river on a canoe expedition), you remember that the Scout manuals warn you against doing exactly what those guys did. Yet McCandless becomes a sort of beautiful loser sacrificed to his idealism while Ralston is a resourceful superhuman hero. There may be kernels of truth in those pigeonhole judgments but I think it's easy to take those conclusions too far.
I respect Jon Krakauer a great deal, but I wonder whether McCandless's story carries any big moral about the dangers of idealism. It strikes me that publicized stories like these two movies distort or overextend the facts to fit preconceived lessons that can be made into commercial successes.
kittycat2012 wrote:
I can only agree with your post. and I loved the movie either. But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment.
You wouldn't need to go that far into the wild without any preparation just to feel free.
Just take your money, live small. Do something you love, something to the benefit of mankind. Walk a dog at an animal shelter, protest at a speakers corner, help old grandmas over the street or go bigger, help kids in africa, be an independent reporter, doctor, lawyer for poor countries, use the education he had at Greenpeace, Amnesty International, wherever! with people who share your passion for freedom!
Do ANYTHING BUT NOT "escape", running away driven by sheer anger and fear of a world that doesn't seem to understand you.
Just laugh in its face and say: this is my way, here I come and you're not gonna change me.
Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death. He fell cheap victim to the people who wanted to see him like that.
Not every destiny will be made into a movie, and this topic is now covered by Into the Wild, imo.
I'm glad this is his legacy. But if it wasn't, his death would have been forfeit. He could've changed so much more with his life and anger.
Although I know it's not always possible to think as free. Sometimes (most often) our hurt soul is stronger and make us do shit like that :/
"But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment."
I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but I remember reading the Jon Krakauer article on McCandless in Outside Magazine. If as you say he was driven too much by "anger and understandable disappointment", remember that he was quite young and idealistic. I think he wanted to challenge himself, to be pure and committed to an ideal of solitary living and independence. If I recall correctly, he wanted to live on his own terms. I'd say he didn't have enough experience to understand and assess risks properly.
"Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death."
Should his death have been important or notable? I don't remember that he was trying to prove a point to anyone or impress someone. I think we can all find different meanings in the facts that an idealistic yet unprepared young man died alone while still quite close to civilization and medical help. We can say that he was stupid or threw his life away or claim that idealism can't survive in a modern world. But I think we're all overlaying our own outlooks and opinions onto Chris McCandless's story. His death is mostly an unlucky accident to me.
This reminds me of a similar incident, the one about the guy who cut off his arm with a pen knife after he became trapped in a pocket canyon. Aron Ralston's story got turned into "127 Hours", starring James Franco (who as an actor just doesn't do it for me...). That's another movie I haven't seen, but I remember that Ralston was celebrated for his courage and will to survive. He became a celebrity appearing in advertisements, endorsing products.
But Ralston took the same sort of risks that McCandless did: he failed to learn about the wilderness conditions he was going to face, did not travel with companions, did not tell people where he was going and when they could expect to see or hear from him again, did not bring adequate survival resources or means of communicating to others during emergencies. The former Boy Scout in me thrilled at the notion of the Great Adventure these guys went on but once you go on one of those Great Adventures and hit some trouble (like I did—fell into a very cold Maine river on a canoe expedition), you remember that the Scout manuals warn you against doing exactly what those guys did. Yet McCandless becomes a sort of beautiful loser sacrificed to his idealism while Ralston is a resourceful superhuman hero. There may be kernels of truth in those pigeonhole judgments but I think it's easy to take those conclusions too far.
I respect Jon Krakauer a great deal, but I wonder whether McCandless's story carries any big moral about the dangers of idealism. It strikes me that publicized stories like these two movies distort or overextend the facts to fit preconceived lessons that can be made into commercial successes.
I can only agree with your post. and I loved the movie either. But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment.
You wouldn't need to go that far into the wild without any preparation just to feel free.
Just take your money, live small. Do something you love, something to the benefit of mankind. Walk a dog at an animal shelter, protest at a speakers corner, help old grandmas over the street or go bigger, help kids in africa, be an independent reporter, doctor, lawyer for poor countries, use the education he had at Greenpeace, Amnesty International, wherever! with people who share your passion for freedom!
Do ANYTHING BUT NOT "escape", running away driven by sheer anger and fear of a world that doesn't seem to understand you.
Just laugh in its face and say: this is my way, here I come and you're not gonna change me.
Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death. He fell cheap victim to the people who wanted to see him like that.
Not every destiny will be made into a movie, and this topic is now covered by Into the Wild, imo.
I'm glad this is his legacy. But if it wasn't, his death would have been forfeit. He could've changed so much more with his life and anger.
Although I know it's not always possible to think as free. Sometimes (most often) our hurt soul is stronger and make us do shit like that :/
"But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment."
I haven't seen the movie or read the book, but I remember reading the Jon Krakauer article on McCandless in Outside Magazine. If as you say he was driven too much by "anger and understandable disappointment", remember that he was quite young and idealistic. I think he wanted to challenge himself, to be pure and committed to an ideal of solitary living and independence. If I recall correctly, he wanted to live on his own terms. I'd say he didn't have enough experience to understand and assess risks properly.
"Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death."
Should his death have been important or notable? I don't remember that he was trying to prove a point to anyone or impress someone. I think we can all find different meanings in the facts that an idealistic yet unprepared young man died alone while still quite close to civilization and medical help. We can say that he was stupid or threw his life away or claim that idealism can't survive in a modern world. But I think we're all overlaying our own outlooks and opinions onto Chris McCandless's story. His death is mostly an unlucky accident to me.
This reminds me of a similar incident, the one about the guy who cut off his arm with a pen knife after he became trapped in a pocket canyon. Aron Ralston's story got turned into "127 Hours", starring James Franco (who as an actor just doesn't do it for me...). That's another movie I haven't seen, but I remember that Ralston was celebrated for his courage and will to survive. He became a celebrity appearing in advertisements, endorsing products.
But Ralston took the same sort of risks that McCandless did: he failed to learn about the wilderness conditions he was going to face, did not travel with companions, did not tell people where he was going and when they could expect to see or hear from him again, did not bring adequate survival resources or means of communicating to others during emergencies. The former Boy Scout in me thrilled at the notion of the Great Adventure these guys went on but once you go on one of those Great Adventures and hit some trouble (like I did—fell into a very cold Maine river on a canoe expedition), you remember that the Scout manuals warn you against doing exactly what those guys did. Yet McCandless becomes a sort of beautiful loser sacrificed to his idealism while Ralston is a resourceful superhuman hero. There may be kernels of truth in those pigeonhole judgments but I think it's easy to take those conclusions too far.
I respect Jon Krakauer a great deal, but I wonder whether McCandless's story carries any big moral about the dangers of idealism. It strikes me that publicized stories like these two movies distort or overextend the facts to fit preconceived lessons that can be made into commercial successes.
heathenchild wrote:
Just say nothing if you don't like the song because nobody says "ya, man, I hate that band too!" we just think "this guy is a downer"
You sure haven't been visiting song comments very long, have you?
Just say nothing if you don't like the song because nobody says "ya, man, I hate that band too!" we just think "this guy is a downer"
You sure haven't been visiting song comments very long, have you?
Love EV's rich, moody voice
If 'Alex Supertramp' wanted to run away from society's rules and civilization, he did. If he wanted to commit suicide, well, he did that, too.
To me, his death is poignant because it serves as one of ten thousand (ten million?) instances where idealism lost the fight with reality. His drive for escape pushed him into physical — and spiritual — spaces for which he was terribly inexperienced and unprepared. Living in the wilderness requires training and equipment, whether it's in Alaska or in your own soul.
(yes, I think that's the appropriate word ...)
poignant (adj): Evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret: "a poignant reminder".
To me, his death is poignant because it serves as one of ten thousand (ten million?) instances where idealism lost the fight with reality. His drive for escape pushed him into physical — and spiritual — spaces for which he was terribly inexperienced and unprepared. Living in the wilderness requires training and equipment, whether it's in Alaska or in your own soul.
(yes, I think that's the appropriate word ...)
poignant (adj): Evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret: "a poignant reminder".
kittycat2012 wrote:
...
You wouldn't need to go that far into the wild without any preparation just to feel free.
...
He wasn't that far into the wild. He was around 20 miles from one of the biggest highways in Alaska. Poor decisions and poor preparation.
...
You wouldn't need to go that far into the wild without any preparation just to feel free.
...
He wasn't that far into the wild. He was around 20 miles from one of the biggest highways in Alaska. Poor decisions and poor preparation.
iTuner wrote:
The soundtrack is great.
Correct.
Correct.
Debatable.
Wrong. (Oh, all right, not simply "wrong." But McCandless was not simply anything, either.)
The soundtrack is great.
The book was good.
The movie pretty bad.
The kid was a dumb shit.
Correct.
Correct.
Debatable.
Wrong. (Oh, all right, not simply "wrong." But McCandless was not simply anything, either.)
Thanx!
KristianGregory wrote:
I can only agree with your post. and I loved the movie either. But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment.
You wouldn't need to go that far into the wild without any preparation just to feel free.
Just take your money, live small. Do something you love, something to the benefit of mankind. Walk a dog at an animal shelter, protest at a speakers corner, help old grandmas over the street or go bigger, help kids in africa, be an independent reporter, doctor, lawyer for poor countries, use the education he had at Greenpeace, Amnesty International, wherever! with people who share your passion for freedom!
Do ANYTHING BUT NOT "escape", running away driven by sheer anger and fear of a world that doesn't seem to understand you.
Just laugh in its face and say: this is my way, here I come and you're not gonna change me.
Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death. He fell cheap victim to the people who wanted to see him like that.
Not every destiny will be made into a movie, and this topic is now covered by Into the Wild, imo.
I'm glad this is his legacy. But if it wasn't, his death would have been forfeit. He could've changed so much more with his life and anger.
Although I know it's not always possible to think as free. Sometimes (most often) our hurt soul is stronger and make us do shit like that :/
I haven't read the book, but I thought the film was great. (...)
I can only agree with your post. and I loved the movie either. But it also made me think he was driven a little too much by anger and understandable disappointment.
You wouldn't need to go that far into the wild without any preparation just to feel free.
Just take your money, live small. Do something you love, something to the benefit of mankind. Walk a dog at an animal shelter, protest at a speakers corner, help old grandmas over the street or go bigger, help kids in africa, be an independent reporter, doctor, lawyer for poor countries, use the education he had at Greenpeace, Amnesty International, wherever! with people who share your passion for freedom!
Do ANYTHING BUT NOT "escape", running away driven by sheer anger and fear of a world that doesn't seem to understand you.
Just laugh in its face and say: this is my way, here I come and you're not gonna change me.
Someone who does what he did dies a lonely, unimportant death. He fell cheap victim to the people who wanted to see him like that.
Not every destiny will be made into a movie, and this topic is now covered by Into the Wild, imo.
I'm glad this is his legacy. But if it wasn't, his death would have been forfeit. He could've changed so much more with his life and anger.
Although I know it's not always possible to think as free. Sometimes (most often) our hurt soul is stronger and make us do shit like that :/
I haven't read the book, but I thought the film was great. It had a profound effect on how I think about freedom on an overpopulated planet, where 'the wild' is no more. Vedder's music provided the perfect soundtrack.
I really admire McCandless. Societal rules dominate almost everything we do at the moment, and with nowhere left to hide, how can we be free? For me, McCandless is one of very few people who managed to live free from the rules, if sadly for a very short time. It's also sad he had to create a 'wild' to escape into by ignorance. There was no real 'wild' there, but without compass/maps, it was a fair equivalent.
I think why some people see him as an idiot is because they believe living as long as possible is an important goal. McCandless didn't intend to die young, but took his chances because he prioritised a free life. McCandless desired freedom like Icarus desired to fly, but he also flew too close to the sun.
I really admire McCandless. Societal rules dominate almost everything we do at the moment, and with nowhere left to hide, how can we be free? For me, McCandless is one of very few people who managed to live free from the rules, if sadly for a very short time. It's also sad he had to create a 'wild' to escape into by ignorance. There was no real 'wild' there, but without compass/maps, it was a fair equivalent.
I think why some people see him as an idiot is because they believe living as long as possible is an important goal. McCandless didn't intend to die young, but took his chances because he prioritised a free life. McCandless desired freedom like Icarus desired to fly, but he also flew too close to the sun.
love this song.
the guitar sounds so sonic youth-ish —- i like that.
the guitar sounds so sonic youth-ish —- i like that.
Cynaera wrote:
Boy, Eddie Vedder's music sure polarizes people here. Me? I love this. Haven't seen the movie, and I'm not sure I want to - but I'm seriously considering buying the soundtrack. The music is, to me, pretty poetic and dream-inspiring.
Coat me in candy and call me a sucker.
Coat me in candy and call me a sucker.
The soundtrack is great.
The book was good.
The movie pretty bad.
The kid was a dumb shit.
Sasha2001 wrote:
I'm not a psychologist, per se, but I do watch a lot of daytime talk shows so I think that makes me uniquely qualified to have an opinion about your "negativity." Based on your comments about music that is accepted by all people - including terrorists - I'd say you have a repressed and latent fear of dying in a rock concert stampede. Is this close?
No, I do not do crowds however I do have a latent fear of Rutabagas animating and developing a taste for human flesh.
I'm not a psychologist, per se, but I do watch a lot of daytime talk shows so I think that makes me uniquely qualified to have an opinion about your "negativity." Based on your comments about music that is accepted by all people - including terrorists - I'd say you have a repressed and latent fear of dying in a rock concert stampede. Is this close?
No, I do not do crowds however I do have a latent fear of Rutabagas animating and developing a taste for human flesh.
sirdroseph wrote:
Credibility? What does crediblity have to do with the price of eggs? Song comments are to express individuals opinions of each song that they comment on. I do not like those particular songs and about 80% of Pearl Jams songs, that is my opinion and I expressed it. Would you like me to lie and say that I like them or only express my opinion of songs that I like? (of which I have numerous times, I have made many more positive comments on songs than negative.... by far.) Since you seem to enjoy researching my song comments perhaps you would like to take the extra step to see all of the positive comments and I accept your apology.
I'm not a psychologist, per se, but I do watch a lot of daytime talk shows so I think that makes me uniquely qualified to have an opinion about your "negativity." Based on your comments about music that is accepted by all people - including terrorists - I'd say you have a repressed and latent fear of dying in a rock concert stampede. Is this close?
Credibility? What does crediblity have to do with the price of eggs? Song comments are to express individuals opinions of each song that they comment on. I do not like those particular songs and about 80% of Pearl Jams songs, that is my opinion and I expressed it. Would you like me to lie and say that I like them or only express my opinion of songs that I like? (of which I have numerous times, I have made many more positive comments on songs than negative.... by far.) Since you seem to enjoy researching my song comments perhaps you would like to take the extra step to see all of the positive comments and I accept your apology.
I'm not a psychologist, per se, but I do watch a lot of daytime talk shows so I think that makes me uniquely qualified to have an opinion about your "negativity." Based on your comments about music that is accepted by all people - including terrorists - I'd say you have a repressed and latent fear of dying in a rock concert stampede. Is this close?
Cynaera wrote:
I am hereby candy-coated. Please refrain from sucker jokes.
Boy, Eddie Vedder's music sure polarizes people here. Me? I love this. Haven't seen the movie, and I'm not sure I want to - but I'm seriously considering buying the soundtrack. The music is, to me, pretty poetic and dream-inspiring.
Coat me in candy and call me a sucker.
Coat me in candy and call me a sucker.
I am hereby candy-coated. Please refrain from sucker jokes. sirdroseph wrote:
Credibility? What does crediblity have to do with the price of eggs? Song comments are to express individuals opinions of each song that they comment on. I do not like those particular songs and about 80% of Pearl Jams songs, that is my opinion and I expressed it. Would you like me to lie and say that I like them or only express my opinion of songs that I like? (of which I have numerous times, I have made many more positive comments on songs than negative.... by far.) Since you seem to enjoy researching my song comments perhaps you would like to take the extra step to see all of the positive comments and I accept your apology.
Just say nothing if you don't like the song because nobody says "ya, man, I hate that band too!" we just think "this guy is a downer"
Credibility? What does crediblity have to do with the price of eggs? Song comments are to express individuals opinions of each song that they comment on. I do not like those particular songs and about 80% of Pearl Jams songs, that is my opinion and I expressed it. Would you like me to lie and say that I like them or only express my opinion of songs that I like? (of which I have numerous times, I have made many more positive comments on songs than negative.... by far.) Since you seem to enjoy researching my song comments perhaps you would like to take the extra step to see all of the positive comments and I accept your apology.
Just say nothing if you don't like the song because nobody says "ya, man, I hate that band too!" we just think "this guy is a downer"
Boy, Eddie Vedder's music sure polarizes people here. Me? I love this. Haven't seen the movie, and I'm not sure I want to - but I'm seriously considering buying the soundtrack. The music is, to me, pretty poetic and dream-inspiring.
Coat me in candy and call me a sucker.
Coat me in candy and call me a sucker.
lemmoth wrote:
Opinoins and different tastes are fine man, but when you express the opinoin through the RP rating system that David Bowie's Heroes, Smashing Pumpkin's 1979 and every single song by Pearl Jam are horrible songs, you have no credibility.
The vast majority of us have groups and artists on RP that we are not particularly fond of but you are an extreme case.
Credibility? What does crediblity have to do with the price of eggs? Song comments are to express individuals opinions of each song that they comment on. I do not like those particular songs and about 80% of Pearl Jams songs, that is my opinion and I expressed it. Would you like me to lie and say that I like them or only express my opinion of songs that I like? (of which I have numerous times, I have made many more positive comments on songs than negative.... by far.) Since you seem to enjoy researching my song comments perhaps you would like to take the extra step to see all of the positive comments and I accept your apology.
Opinoins and different tastes are fine man, but when you express the opinoin through the RP rating system that David Bowie's Heroes, Smashing Pumpkin's 1979 and every single song by Pearl Jam are horrible songs, you have no credibility.
The vast majority of us have groups and artists on RP that we are not particularly fond of but you are an extreme case.
Credibility? What does crediblity have to do with the price of eggs? Song comments are to express individuals opinions of each song that they comment on. I do not like those particular songs and about 80% of Pearl Jams songs, that is my opinion and I expressed it. Would you like me to lie and say that I like them or only express my opinion of songs that I like? (of which I have numerous times, I have made many more positive comments on songs than negative.... by far.) Since you seem to enjoy researching my song comments perhaps you would like to take the extra step to see all of the positive comments and I accept your apology.
sirdroseph wrote:
Dude, I might just create a template of this and send out as needed, which is quite often. Oh, I will be sure and give you the royalties, which of course, there won't be any. But man, so many people take opinions sooooo personal, I mean, remember when Bush got in trouble for not liking broccoli, I mean, I love broccoli, but don't recall getting angry. Well said.
Opinions and different tastes are fine man, but when you express the opinoin through the RP rating system that David Bowie's Heroes, Smashing Pumpkin's 1979 and every single song by Pearl Jam are horrible songs, you have no credibility.
The vast majority of us have groups and artists on RP that we are not particularly fond of but you are an extreme case.
Dude, I might just create a template of this and send out as needed, which is quite often. Oh, I will be sure and give you the royalties, which of course, there won't be any. But man, so many people take opinions sooooo personal, I mean, remember when Bush got in trouble for not liking broccoli, I mean, I love broccoli, but don't recall getting angry. Well said.
Opinions and different tastes are fine man, but when you express the opinoin through the RP rating system that David Bowie's Heroes, Smashing Pumpkin's 1979 and every single song by Pearl Jam are horrible songs, you have no credibility.
The vast majority of us have groups and artists on RP that we are not particularly fond of but you are an extreme case.
HokieRider wrote:
... I think there is a little Alexander Supertramp in all of us...
- not since I got that shot of penicillin. superfido wrote:
Dude, I might just create a template of this and send out as needed, which is quite often. Oh, I will be sure and give you the royalties, which of course, there won't be any. But man, so many people take opinions sooooo personal, I mean, remember when Bush got in trouble for not liking broccoli, I mean, I love broccoli, but don't recall getting angry. Well said.
Funny that when someone dislikes something, others think the person does not understand it. Often it has to do with differing tastes and not due to the fact that one person is too "thick" to get the deep intellectual meaning behind whatever it is that is being discussed. Like the movie in this case.
the "point" of that movie is not exactly difficult to understand. It does not mean the movie itself was good just because many of us can relate to living in a world that values superficiality and also relate to a feeling of being disassociated from that which society calls normal.
And really jhorton, if anyone should go back anywhere, you should go back to whoever and take a charm course man. Your comment is unnecessarily rude.
the "point" of that movie is not exactly difficult to understand. It does not mean the movie itself was good just because many of us can relate to living in a world that values superficiality and also relate to a feeling of being disassociated from that which society calls normal.
And really jhorton, if anyone should go back anywhere, you should go back to whoever and take a charm course man. Your comment is unnecessarily rude.
Dude, I might just create a template of this and send out as needed, which is quite often. Oh, I will be sure and give you the royalties, which of course, there won't be any. But man, so many people take opinions sooooo personal, I mean, remember when Bush got in trouble for not liking broccoli, I mean, I love broccoli, but don't recall getting angry. Well said.
ceviche wrote:
That's the best summary I've ever read of this story.
The film's soundtrack added so much. This is one of the best songs, about the "end." While most Hollywood movies have neat, happy endings, this true story didn't. It showed that a story of alienation and a search for self can end with finding the answers — but those answers sometimes come too late.
... the film and book were only superfically about survival, adventure, and Alaska. Really it was about alienation and finding a place in this society. Sometimes much more complicated than finding food.
That's the best summary I've ever read of this story.
The film's soundtrack added so much. This is one of the best songs, about the "end." While most Hollywood movies have neat, happy endings, this true story didn't. It showed that a story of alienation and a search for self can end with finding the answers — but those answers sometimes come too late.
jonahboo wrote:
Ya got that right!
SONG = A DUD
Ya got that right!
Eddie Vedder - End Of The Road
Neil Young - Helpless
Counting Crows - Angels of the Silences
Van Morrison - Saint Dominic's Preview
....god, I LOVE RP! Thanks Bill & Rebecca!!!
Neil Young - Helpless
Counting Crows - Angels of the Silences
Van Morrison - Saint Dominic's Preview
....god, I LOVE RP! Thanks Bill & Rebecca!!!
ceviche wrote:
Yeah, and also the kid was not really a sympathetic character in the film. He took himself way too seriously. His gripes about his parents were quite petty, I thought.
Liked the flick and the soundtrack. And to the tough guy hard case who lived in Alaska, the film and book were only superfically about survival, adventure, and Alaska. Really it was about alienation and finding a place in this society. Sometimes much more complicated than finding food.
Yeah, and also the kid was not really a sympathetic character in the film. He took himself way too seriously. His gripes about his parents were quite petty, I thought.
Liked the flick and the soundtrack. And to the tough guy hard case who lived in Alaska, the film and book were only superfically about survival, adventure, and Alaska. Really it was about alienation and finding a place in this society. Sometimes much more complicated than finding food.
These songs were the PERFECT background for the film, but they don't stand up very well on their own.
SONG = A DUD
superfido wrote:
Yea, charm school. lol
Funny that when someone dislikes something, others think the person does not understand it. Often it has to do with differing tastes and not due to the fact that one person is too "thick" to get the deep intellectual meaning behind whatever it is that is being discussed. Like the movie in this case.
the "point" of that movie is not exactly difficult to uderstand. It does not mean the movie itself was good just because many of us can relate to living in a world that values superficiality and also relate to a feeling of being disassociated from that which society calls normal.
And really jhorton, if anyone should go back anywhere, you should go back to whoever and take a charm course man. Your comment is unnecessarily rude.
the "point" of that movie is not exactly difficult to uderstand. It does not mean the movie itself was good just because many of us can relate to living in a world that values superficiality and also relate to a feeling of being disassociated from that which society calls normal.
And really jhorton, if anyone should go back anywhere, you should go back to whoever and take a charm course man. Your comment is unnecessarily rude.
Yea, charm school. lol
jhorton wrote:
Okay, so we are all clear that you are too thick to understand the character of the movie, so at what point do we stop reading your drivel?
I lived in Kodiak '78-'80. I was seventeen when I got there twenty when I got out alive. What are you trying to teach me?
Yeah, just what I thought.
You have no f'ing idea what you are talking about.
Back to mama, boy.
Funny that when someone dislikes something, others think the person does not understand it. Often it has to do with differing tastes and not due to the fact that one person is too "thick" to get the deep intellectual meaning behind whatever it is that is being discussed. Like the movie in this case.
the "point" of that movie is not exactly difficult to uderstand. It does not mean the movie itself was good just because many of us can relate to living in a world that values superficiality and also relate to a feeling of being disassociated from that which society calls normal.
And really jhorton, if anyone should go back anywhere, you should go back to whoever and take a charm course man. Your comment is unnecessarily rude.
Okay, so we are all clear that you are too thick to understand the character of the movie, so at what point do we stop reading your drivel?
I lived in Kodiak '78-'80. I was seventeen when I got there twenty when I got out alive. What are you trying to teach me?
Yeah, just what I thought.
You have no f'ing idea what you are talking about.
Back to mama, boy.
the "point" of that movie is not exactly difficult to uderstand. It does not mean the movie itself was good just because many of us can relate to living in a world that values superficiality and also relate to a feeling of being disassociated from that which society calls normal.
And really jhorton, if anyone should go back anywhere, you should go back to whoever and take a charm course man. Your comment is unnecessarily rude.
parrothead wrote:
Okay, so we are all clear that you are too thick to understand the character of the movie, so at what point do we stop reading your drivel?
I lived in Kodiak '78-'80. I was seventeen when I got there twenty when I got out alive. What are you trying to teach me?
Yeah, just what I thought.
You have no f'ing idea what you are talking about.
Back to mama, boy.
Just seen this movie not too long ago. I was very disapointed. Something was not right with it. IMO it should have started out as a grand adventure instead it was blotched up story of a young man with a good future in front of him just turned off by his loving families gifts and support. Then the next scene he's on the road with out a dime and nothing to eat. Not much character building in the first 45 minutes or so in the movie. Then he's in Alaska fighting off bears and flys. We all know what happened in the end. Sean Penn could have done a better job of getting into his head and bring out what he was really about rather than making him appear as aimless dumb ass with no direction or motivation to take care of himself.
Okay, so we are all clear that you are too thick to understand the character of the movie, so at what point do we stop reading your drivel?
I lived in Kodiak '78-'80. I was seventeen when I got there twenty when I got out alive. What are you trying to teach me?
Yeah, just what I thought.
You have no f'ing idea what you are talking about.
Back to mama, boy.
parrothead wrote:
The book and the movie really do speak to a lot of youth who feel like this society we live in is a poor excuse for living. its not that the generosity is not appreciated, its for the absense of something deeper thats missing from these relationships that cause people to wander aimlessly and reject that which is given... maybe a desire to be in touch with our survival at it's basest level. I think Bill is speaking to us in this set.. something a bit more existential than the "genius" of the character. He is real and alive in America today and that's the relevent part
Belly - Gepetto
The Pretenders - The Nothing Maker
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Gold And Silver
Eddie Vedder - End Of The Road
Just seen this movie not too long ago. I was very disapointed. Something was not right with it. IMO it should have started out as a grand adventure instead it was blotched up story of a young man with a good future in front of him just turned off by his loving families gifts and support. Then the next scene he's on the road with out a dime and nothing to eat. Not much character building in the first 45 minutes or so in the movie. Then he's in Alaska fighting off bears and flys. We all know what happened in the end. Sean Penn could have done a better job of getting into his head and bring out what he was really about rather than making him appear as aimless dumb ass with no direction or motivation to take care of himself.
The book and the movie really do speak to a lot of youth who feel like this society we live in is a poor excuse for living. its not that the generosity is not appreciated, its for the absense of something deeper thats missing from these relationships that cause people to wander aimlessly and reject that which is given... maybe a desire to be in touch with our survival at it's basest level. I think Bill is speaking to us in this set.. something a bit more existential than the "genius" of the character. He is real and alive in America today and that's the relevent part
Belly - Gepetto
The Pretenders - The Nothing Maker
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Gold And Silver
Eddie Vedder - End Of The Road
Hannio wrote:
Good analysis of the movie, but maybe that is exactly what he was and Penn got it right.
Love the Eddie. Liked the movie. The book was disturbing — what a waste.
Good analysis of the movie, but maybe that is exactly what he was and Penn got it right.
Love the Eddie. Liked the movie. The book was disturbing — what a waste.
QueenLucia wrote:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but you summed up the book perfectly. It was not a grand adventure—it was the sad ending of an aimless young man.
"Aimless"? What book did you read?
I haven't seen the movie yet, but you summed up the book perfectly. It was not a grand adventure—it was the sad ending of an aimless young man.
"Aimless"? What book did you read?
I appreciate the work of this "part" of the P.J. - 7.
a_genuine_find wrote:
I laughed when this image appeared for both the preceding Neil Young song and this one. I could not possibly agree more.
I laughed when this image appeared for both the preceding Neil Young song and this one. I could not possibly agree more.
parrothead wrote:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but you summed up the book perfectly. It was not a grand adventure—it was the sad ending of an aimless young man.
Just seen this movie not too long ago. I was very disapointed. Something was not right with it. IMO it should have started out as a grand adventure instead it was blotched up story of a young man with a good future in front of him just turned off by his loving families gifts and support. Then the next scene he's on the road with out a dime and nothing to eat. Not much character building in the first 45 minutes or so in the movie. Then he's in Alaska fighting off bears and flys. We all know what happened in the end. Sean Penn could have done a better job of getting into his head and bring out what he was really about rather than making him appear as aimless dumb ass with no direction or motivation to take care of himself.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but you summed up the book perfectly. It was not a grand adventure—it was the sad ending of an aimless young man.
parrothead wrote:
Read the book. See the movie again. Keep trying—you'll get it.
Just seen this movie not too long ago. I was very disapointed. Something was not right with it. IMO it should have started out as a grand adventure instead it was blotched up story of a young man with a good future in front of him just turned off by his loving families gifts and support. Then the next scene he's on the road with out a dime and nothing to eat. Not much character building in the first 45 minutes or so in the movie. Then he's in Alaska fighting off bears and flys. We all know what happened in the end. Sean Penn could have done a better job of getting into his head and bring out what he was really about rather than making him appear as aimless dumb ass with no direction or motivation to take care of himself.
Read the book. See the movie again. Keep trying—you'll get it.
parrothead wrote:
Good analysis of the movie, but maybe that is exactly what he was and Penn got it right.
Sean Penn could have done a better job of getting into his head and bring out what he was really about rather than making him appear as aimless dumb ass with no direction or motivation to take care of himself.
Good analysis of the movie, but maybe that is exactly what he was and Penn got it right.
Just seen this movie not too long ago. I was very disapointed. Something was not right with it. IMO it should have started out as a grand adventure instead it was blotched up story of a young man with a good future in front of him just turned off by his loving families gifts and support. Then the next scene he's on the road with out a dime and nothing to eat. Not much character building in the first 45 minutes or so in the movie. Then he's in Alaska fighting off bears and flys. We all know what happened in the end. Sean Penn could have done a better job of getting into his head and bring out what he was really about rather than making him appear as aimless dumb ass with no direction or motivation to take care of himself.
renegade_X wrote:
Took a left at the big pink house out on the Nome Highway...
Did anyone else wonder how the hell that bus made it all the way out there?
Took a left at the big pink house out on the Nome Highway...
Cool. I have been thinking about getting the book. Thanks.
renegade_X wrote:
Quick synopsis... it actually sits on a trail and was drivin (or towed, I forgot) back there by a crew of workers to be used for a shelter. After they finished the project, they just left it there.
Read the book. It explains it pretty well.
Did anyone else wonder how the hell that bus made it all the way out there?
Quick synopsis... it actually sits on a trail and was drivin (or towed, I forgot) back there by a crew of workers to be used for a shelter. After they finished the project, they just left it there.
Read the book. It explains it pretty well.
Did anyone else wonder how the hell that bus made it all the way out there?
stubbsz wrote:
Didn't know there was a movie til now. Great Book, I'll have to check it out
It is a great movie, I have yet to read the book though.
I actually walked past the DVD at Blockbuster for months because every time I saw it, I immediately thought it was a Pearl Jam convert DVD, or documentary since I had seen it here, on RP for the longest time. I kept thinking to myself "Who rents a Pearl Jam documentary from Blockbuster.. That's stupid".
xc_para_puravida wrote:
Long Live Alexander Supertramp!
Uh, dude, like... he already died, man.
Rickvee wrote:
Good song but there are at least 5 other tracks from this album that blow this one away. "Ride" is a good place to start.
True. "Society," for certain. All in all, a super collection of songs.
philbertr wrote:
I agree completely that reading the book first greatly adds to understanding the movie--though I must say that this is one of the best book adaptations to the screen I've seen in a long time. Books are almost always so much better than movies--if only because the author can include so much more detail and nuance--but this one really conveyed the essence of the book.
And, oh yea, his death seems really stupid to the casual observer, but as is so often the case, reality is a lot more complicated and not so obvious.
Mu husband and I have both read the book many times and I felt at times that we were the only ones in the theater that knew what was going on.
And even knowing what was coming, I don't think I took a breath for the entire scene when Alex died. Amazing filmwork. Sean Penn nailed this one.
Reality is always more complicated than what Hollywood would have us believe. Not everyone has the white picket fence and 2.5 children at home. Not everyone has a perfect life, but as long as you live your life as fully as you can, its never a waste.
philbertr wrote:
I agree completely that reading the book first greatly adds to understanding the movie--though I must say that this is one of the best book adaptations to the screen I've seen in a long time. Books are almost always so much better than movies--if only because the author can include so much more detail and nuance--but this one really conveyed the essence of the book.
And, oh yea, his death seems really stupid to the casual observer, but as is so often the case, reality is a lot more complicated and not so obvious.
Didn't know there was a movie til now. Great Book, I'll have to check it out
HokieRider wrote:
If you go see the movie, I highly recommend reading the book first. Helps to understand and gives good background.
Incredible film. I think there is a little Alexander Supertramp in all of us.
I agree completely that reading the book first greatly adds to understanding the movie--though I must say that this is one of the best book adaptations to the screen I've seen in a long time. Books are almost always so much better than movies--if only because the author can include so much more detail and nuance--but this one really conveyed the essence of the book.
And, oh yea, his death seems really stupid to the casual observer, but as is so often the case, reality is a lot more complicated and not so obvious.
Josephine wrote:
... "live in the moment" and not "Live for the moment" which I think is totally different. "Living in the moment" is really about being present, while "Living for the moment" is still like hoping that there is something better that you need to attain or move towards. We all have the ability to "live in the moment" whether we are behind the desk or in the forest, it's a state of mind. The more we practice "living in the moment" the more open things become. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter! Cheers!
That's Beautiful Thinking. Thank you Josephine.
AphidA wrote:
And die of starvation in summer 20 miles off the Park's Highway. Right.
This is key: Don't eat the wrong berry.
Very good movie, fascinating story, great soundtrack. Also, a real pleasing style of cinematography. Sean put a lot of work into this one I'm guessing.
Good song but there are at least 5 other tracks from this album that blow this one away. "Ride" is a good place to start.
Josephine wrote:
Funny, how you chose to look at my words, to each his own interpretation.
For me though,living more like an Alexander/Alexandra Supertramp means intent to 'live' and 'be' in those moments that comprise our life. Get out of the office and get out into nature. Don't let one's life be so rigid, be resourceful, practice a simpler way of doing things, engage in conversations with strangers, have some adventure....get the pic...
We can be thankful there are guys like Alexander Supertramp out there to remind us of how fragile life is and how awesome nature can be, and how his young life was filled with adventure and his personal truth!!!
I personally am all for this kind of philosophy of life, and would love it if people in general were more open and emotionally generous and receptive and all that. It is hard to "leave the office and go outside" when you have multiple overlapping commitments. In my more cynical moments I think that the "live for the moment" philosophy could have only been concocted by someone who doesn't have to work for a living. :)
Josephine wrote:
Society needs to tap into the 'Alexander/Alexandra Supertramp more often though. We can't just have it in us, we have to act on it. live it, breathe it, be it...
And die of starvation in summer 20 miles off the Park's Highway. Right.
Society needs to tap into the 'Alexander/Alexandra Supertramp more often though. We can't just have it in us, we have to act on it. live it, breathe it, be it...nookie wrote:
Here is Ed again!!
Great album, a bit short unfortunatly.
Album is great, and if you buy the version at iTunes, also included is a shockingly good anti-war song called "No More." In two versions, live from Pearl Jam, and an acoustic version. Highly recommended. As far as I can tell, Pearl Jam has not recorded this song (probably some big PJ fan will write in to tell me how ignorant I am, but still -- worth checking out).
What's the rating for "boring" or "who cares"? Ho Hum or Marginal?
mefrombrazil wrote:
WHAT A STRANGE WAY TO TAKE A BUS.
This comment is why I keep reading these boards. Love it!
If you go see the movie, I highly recommend reading the book first. Helps to understand and gives good background.
Incredible film. I think there is a little Alexander Supertramp in all of us.
Soundtrack is amazing as well. Highly recommend. The biggest complaint I have is that some songs are short and leave you wanting more.
Long Live Alexander Supertramp!
follow my lead Eddie 
WHAT A STRANGE WAY TO TAKE A BUS.
a_genuine_find wrote: 
Oh, Eddie!
the puppet seems like LULA.
Oh, Eddie!The movie was really great. Stunning vistas.
Oh, Eddie!
Here is Ed again!!
Great album, a bit short unfortunatly.
Carl wrote:
Just experienced Into the Wild this past weekend and it is one of the best movies I'm seen in a few years. Don't recall this song in it but overall the music was great for the story.
Jon Krakauer is a great writer. His other books are very good.
Another good adventurer storywriter is Jeff Long for any serious rock climbing lovers out there.
Is this track sounding a bit funky to anyone else? The tinny and corrupted type sound that crops up every so often...
Just experienced Into the Wild this past weekend and it is one of the best movies I'm seen in a few years. Don't recall this song in it but overall the music was great for the story.
seesaw wrote:
I like it. Wish the instrumental part went on longer.
Ditto.
yogaboat wrote:
Barely caught the tail end of this one so the jury's still out, but I wanted to say I'm really looking forward to the movie - the book was great.
"Into the Wild" may be the most stirring drama you ever see about failed ambitions. But even if it makes you think twice about that camping trip, it's a journey worth taking.
-a review from msn (for what it's worth)-enjoy
On_The_Beach wrote:
Eddie is a big Neil Young fan and it shows here.
yeah, i know. that's what i was referring to.
lattalo wrote:
This is good, hows the rest of the CD??
it absolutely wonderful. every. single. track.
grace6697 wrote:
i love that this came after Neil Young.
Eddie is a big Neil Young fan and it shows here.
This is good, hows the rest of the CD??
Krispian wrote:
That didn't suck at all
Yeah, and Vedder wrote a song called "No More" that he's been playing live with PJ. Best (that is, most musical) anti-war song I've heard in years.
i love that this came after Neil Young.
That didn't suck at all
I like it. Wish the instrumental part went on longer.
Barely caught the tail end of this one so the jury's still out, but I wanted to say I'm really looking forward to the movie - the book was great.
I always feel sorry for songs that have to follow Quadrophenia. Need a couple more listens on this one, for sure.