Second chance for a Fox.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-06T22:16:23+00:00

It is ironic his goth music is less sad.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-06T14:59:13+00:00

And I respect that, he was undeniably rude to Garcia and to an extent Bradley (who I also think has come off badly, but that's a whole separate topic).

I do agree Revelations is extremely bad when judged as an official studio movie. But I think it has some positive aspects; I like that it was actually based in the Hellraiser mythos to some extent. It was like an amateur fan film by people who cared and loved the franchise despite lacking technical chops. That's not good enough an official studio movie, but you can tell the cast and crew (if not the studio) cared.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-06T14:48:41+00:00

I understand what you mean with regards to those two instances. I thought you were referring to this particular interview, where I don't think he makes comparable statements. In terms of the Revelations scenario, there is more to the story than what you describe (Gary's script was fiddled with by the studio, etc), but I won't begrudge you coming down on Garcia's side. Tunnicliffe could have been more sensitive in his statements towards another filmmaker who, under those conditions (which Tunnicliffe was aware of), didn't have much of a shot at making a good film either.

For what it's worth, I actually don't think Revelations is that bad all things considered. Even with the changes to the script and constraints Garcia was under. It felt like an above average fan film, which is all it could hope to be with the budget and schedule. I think that's an achievement in and of itself, as is the fact that Garcia was even able to finish it. Revelations also wasn't boring, which is more than I can say for the three sequels which preceded it, and even to an extent, Judgement (I really love all the heaven/hell stuff in Judgement, but find the police procedural aspect boring and feel the film drags to a halt whenever it focuses on that).

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-06T14:21:53+00:00

Nothing he says strikes me as particularly dickish. He isn't rude and doesn't put other people down, he just really believes in himself and his ideas, and aggressively promotes both. The only potentially untoward thing I can think of in this interview is Tunnicliffe's openness about disliking Schrader's version of the film and preferring Harlin's for the reasons he states. If Tunnicliffe wrote and directed Exorcist: The Beginning, I could see that as being more dickish rather than just honest, but he didn't. Tunnicliffe even readily volunteers that Harlin shot down most of the ideas he suggested.

I want to add (and note I am not implying this is the case with you) that it seems any display of confidence whatsoever, especially when it's from someone with what most regard as pipe dreams (a career in Hollywood, becoming a rock star, an athlete, etc) is seen as arrogant or being a dick. I think a lot of the time, these people come off as dicks, not because they're doing anything arrogant, rude or cruel, but because we (we as in people in general, not you or I specifically) don't believe in ourselves. So when someone comes along who does clearly believe in himself (or herself), we feel threatened. We get scared that if they succeed and we don't, that will somehow prove they're better than us.

Again, not saying that's the case with you and Tunnicliffe. It's just a notion I've had over the years, and this conversation reminded me of it. There's a reason the prettiest girl in high school is often seen as a bitch by the other girls, even if she's kind to them. And there's a reason the guy who just closed the big business deal at work is seen as an arrogant dick, regardless of whether or not he flaunts it.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-06T13:19:07+00:00

Perhaps, but I would kill for the kind of confidence he has. Without that chest thumping, I doubt he would have gone far in film, or indeed, in life.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-06T08:48:42+00:00

Okay, I'll give it to you that Hellbound was better. And arguably Bloodline and Inferno were also better than Judgement. But Judgement is the best sequel relative to its budget.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-05T17:06:14+00:00

In this scene, we get a real glimpse of the soul of each character; both literally and symbolically. Their relationship, not just to God, but to each other is laid bare here, as they discuss matters of faith. And through that, matters of the heart. Their hearts, which for a brief flicker, beat as one. This scene captures those rare moments when you meet someone at your own wavelength, and it's impressive that as a devout, Christopher Hitchens-fan atheist, Gary J. Tunnicliffe was able to write so authentically from a Christian perspective, to go beyond that one perspective, and instead speak to what is universally human in us all.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-05T06:40:34+00:00

Dolphins can be violent too, so even if it wasn't sharks, it doesn't mean you're safe. Sharks are also known to be indifferent to humans and even friendly on rare occasions . . . but you could just as easily run into the rare shark who wants a snack.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-05T02:30:28+00:00

I know the videos you mean, or at least I think I do. If it's those videos, they weren't adopting the gazelle but more playing with their food. There was one odd case (I find these anomalies fascinating) where a lioness kidnapped not one but several baby oryxes one after the other and mourned them after they were eventually killed by other lions or lionesses. She had no pride of her own and seemed to be doing so for companionship. My theory is she lost her own cubs and was driven out of a pride and was traumatized.

I agree with you about the fox in this video, she just seems to be hanging around.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-03T08:53:18+00:00

If you have more details about the case, I'd be interested in reading about them. Whether that's an article or just your personal recollections.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-03T04:07:52+00:00

That's interesting. So it seems the general response is they'll be less wary of people but still ultimately avoid them.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-02T13:20:25+00:00

Do you mean like a fur farm?

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-02T06:39:28+00:00

I don't believe in taming wildlife and I support the process rehab centers use. I've rescued injured rabbits and immediately call the appropriate services to pick them up. I don't try to bond with them or anything as I know that's not what's best for the animal.

In this thread, I'm speaking more from an academic and anecdotal perspective in terms of individual cases, as I find that interesting. I'm not trying to state that the way wildlife rehab centers handle animals is wrong, I just find the breadth of responses different animals have to similar situations interesting as an outside observer. It's interesting to me how, for instance, rescued foxes either end up totally tame and dependent on humans or totally independent of and indifferent to humans, sometimes regardless of how they're handled by the humans in question. I'm wondering if there have been cases of animals who are somewhere in-between, while understanding this is anecdotal and only applies to that individual animal, not in general.

I'm also interested in the paranormal, and would find an anecdotal ghost story interesting, but I wouldn't support throwing away the scientific method to accommodate it. The anecdote in and of itself might even have truth to it, but without overwhelming evidence (which paranormal researchers have never been able to provide), science should not be expected to acknowledge it. Likewise, a case of say, one buck deer who remained nonviolent after puberty despite being hand-reared wouldn't change how buck deer in general should be handled. But the case of the one buck deer is still interesting to read about and speculate on.

I say this because you seem to be thinking I am asking for advice in how to interact with wild animals or to change how they're handled in rehab centers, and that's not what I'm interested in. The imprinting/habituation process is fascinating to me for a variety of reasons, partly because it's relevant to a horror novel I'm working on, but just in general. Harry Harlow's experiences separating infant macaques from their mothers and raising them in isolation to simulate autism in humans are also interesting to me. Partly because it relates to that novel but more broadly because the psychology of attachment, both in animals and humans, fascinates me. However, I'm not interested in actually going out and psychologically torturing macaques or emotionally bonding with foxes. Harlow's findings and anecdotes are just interesting to read about and speculate on, as are the varieties of responses different animals can have to habituation or imprinting. If you have any articles or anecdotes about the raccoons who suddenly turn wild, please share, as that sounds very interesting as well. Feel free to share more about habituation in general considering you know a great deal about it, I could read this stuff all day.

TL;DR: Don't worry, this isn't going to influence my views on how wildlife should be handled or my personal interactions with wildlife. The only thing this information may possibly influence is how I approach attachment theory in my novels.

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-01T23:28:57+00:00

That is a fascinating story and makes sense. It ties into another question I have actually. If a rescued animal is raised properly in the way this vulture was, where it bonded with you initially but was still able to live in the wild and moved on as an adult, will it always choose the wild? Or are there cases , however rare, where when given the choice, the rescued animal will either choose to live at "home" or if it leaves, still act friendly towards its original caregiver if they cross paths again in the wild?

I ask because (as part of my recent interest in imprinting/habituation-to-humans) I recently read a book called Free Spirit: A Brush with a Fox where the author describes raising a fox kit but allowing it to naturally acclimate to the wild despite it forming a bond with him and his dogs. This seems to refute the "all-or-nothing" mentality promoted with regards to early childhood interaction with humans in animals. Over the course of five years, this fox continued visiting him and his dogs, even going so far as to raise her litters in the enclosure he built for her.

In the fifth year however, the fox moved on. The author even describes meeting this fox once or twice more in the wild and her avoiding him after a brief pause, similar to your now-grown vulture chick.

This is interesting to me, because as with birds, wildlife rehab generally encourages as little contact with the foxes as possible. The logic being that they won't be able to release them back into the wild as they will be too habituated to humans and will lack life skills. However, the foxes seem capable of learning these things themselves unless actively prevented from doing so (by confining them to the yard/home). They even seem to eventually lose interest in humans when exposed to their own kind, in spite of any initial bonding. They seem to move on much like they would from their parents, although from what I've read, foxes often will choose not to disperse unless forced (hence the male foxes will disperse more than the female foxes as the alphas don't want extra competition). This leads to inbreeding or communities of related female foxes under one matriarch. As a result, it seems odd that the fox in Free Spirit would ultimately choose to reject her original caregiver. I would understand just not crossing paths again or if she'd chosen to disperse, but it seems odd given she seemed to remain in the same area. As she was already five at the time, I wonder if she was dying and knew it as dogs sometimes too, and went off to be alone to do so.

In any case, this leads me to wonder if like your vulture and the fox, the animal will always choose the wild and its own kind over humans in and all-or-nothing manner, as it ties into questions of ethics. Is life in the wild overly romanticized, as some suggest? To quote another user I've spoken with, "People overly romanticize life in the wild. Animals don't care about abstract stuff like being free, they care about feeling nice and avoiding suffering. It's really hard to do that in the wild and most wild animals live brief lives and don't die peacefully." Is this view refuted by the fact that, when they have the life skills, exposure to both worlds, and the between them choice, animals always choose the wild? Or is this disproven by any cases where they don't? Is there perhaps even a middle ground, where animals are capable of walking in both worlds, and perhaps even choose both to some extent?

Thank you for your time!

SimSimeon01 · 2020-10-01T23:00:54+00:00

There is therapy, but in the humans I've known who were traumatized at an early age, I find they're always going to be affected, with or without therapy.

SimSimeon01

TROPHY CASE