To those who think he was stupid…
-
Albert_Ingalls — 10 years ago(June 19, 2015 07:08 AM)
He was an idiot. The guy was unprepared for his little adventure and starved to death. The idea of his journey is not the issue, it's the fact that he was so full of himself he thought he could just go live in the wild with out being prepared. He was stupid.
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(June 19, 2015 11:45 PM)
The whole point was to be unprepared (hence the burning of money) Nobody is prepared for living naturally in the wild, because nobody does that anymore. Everyone lives safely within the confines of modern civilization, with your basic needs handed to you and luxuries afforded at will. His idea was to go back to a more natural, humbled lifestyle that he was raised to detest. I mean come on man this was practically spelled out in the film.
-
Ruispuuro — 10 years ago(June 23, 2015 06:13 AM)
Yes if he had studied and prepared for living in the wild then it would've not been the same because then he would've just followed rules and it was the rules he was escaping. Of course because he failed then we can call him stupid but if he had succeeded we would call him a hero and a genius. The line between the two is very very thin.
-
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(July 28, 2015 04:29 PM)
You probably missed the part where he died.
Evidently you didn't read the first post of this thread Again, it seems the entirety of this movie went over your head. It's understandable that your students didn't understand it because they're young, but you have little excuse as an adult. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 04:42 PM)
No one forgot that he starved to death, it's the most dramatic part of the film and a crucial part of his story. So what you're saying is invalid. As far as equating death with stupidity, people consider dying for a greater cause all of the time. They're called
martyrs
or
heroes
, and I find it hard to believe you've never heard of this idea before, as there are many people who have done this throughout history. You don't seem like a deep thinker, sorry. -
caulkins69 — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 04:49 PM)
Disregarding the laws of man is one thing, but trying to ignore the laws of nature is the height of foolishness. Had McCandless lived, I doubt we would even have heard of him, let alone describe him as a hero or genius. McCandless was a defective person who self-selected out of the gene pool. Hmm, now that I think about it, maybe it isn't such a bad thing if similarly-minded people are inspired to do the same. Darwin Awards all around!
-
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 11, 2015 04:58 PM)
You're right. Although his intention was to go
"Into the Wild"
unprepared and naive. The point of his story is to show that we are all too comfortable living in an immoral modern society and that we should get back to our roots and relearn how to live the right way. To train and prepare for his adventure would defeat the purpose and would just be a standard camping trip. It's because he was unprepared that we was reborn.
I felt that he was smart enough to know the amount of risk he was taking weighed against reward of his experience.
This is also right, he knew what the risks were but decided living was worth dying for. That's why he was happy when he died. -
ljshorts — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 08:21 PM)
Sure, but his psyche and his past traumas are almost irrelevant as far as why he left, because if the society that he was living in was right and moral, then he could have just stayed and prospered where he was. It was society that motivated him to leave and and allow himself to actually live before dying instead of becoming an slave to America and dying unfulfilled.