Wolves attack human? - The Grey (2012) Discussion

[–] SeasonalAffective 9 years ago

Wolves have attacked humans before. It's true that they're not depicted as completely true to life in this movie, but this movie isn't about wolves; they're just a tool of the story.

Dinosaurs can't be brought back to life, and time travelling robot assassins don't exist either, but that didn't stop people from appreciating Jurassic Park and Terminator 2.

reply

[–] nedeljkodjukic88 9 years ago

Dinosaurs can't be brought back to life, and time travelling robot assassins don't exist either, but that didn't stop people from appreciating Jurassic Park and Terminator 2.

Yes, but those are SF and fantasy films and things like that are expected in them. This is not that genre.
And wolves did attack humans, I said so, but only rabid wolves. Or really starved wolves, and always children or women, that's also only recorded in the territory of the old USSR. They are to scared to attack adult men.

reply

[–] SeasonalAffective 9 years ago

Yes, but those are SF and fantasy films and things like that are expected in them.

Irrelevant. I could have used the example of the movie "The Game," with Michael Douglas. That's not a sci-fi movie or a fantasy film by any means. You think a special service would really be hired to strip a man of all his money and legitimately make him think he's being hunted and attempted to be killed on multiple occasions?

The way it's told isn't as important as the story itself. This isn't a film about wolves or even wilderness survival.

reply

[–] nedeljkodjukic88 9 years ago

OK, I guess that's the reason why I didn't like The Game. I did like this movie though - me mentioning wolves doesn't mean the opposite. I liked Neeson as always, his presence only is more worth than the best acting some other can give. I like the action, drama, the relations between men is somewhat developed and Ottway's attitude towards God and life throughout the movie. Those are all parts of the movie and two segments of it are the wolves and survival in wilderness. Tool of the story, whatever... But the better you use this tool, the better the movie and it's point will be. Bergman, Tarkovsky, Powell, etc. tried so hard about every single detail in order to make the movie as close to perfect as possible. And they did it for a reason.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

Yes, but those are SF and fantasy films and things like that are expected in them.

Exactly! And totally relevant when discussing the bogus and irresponsible portrayal of something that actually exists. It's a shame that wolves can't sue for defamation. Carnahan would get raked over the coals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't see where you said that you didn't like The Grey. Maybe you should explain that to the above doofus. He seems to think that everyone who takes issue with the portrayal of the wolves is a hater. If that's not his angle, at the very least he finds those who take issue as being incapable of "appreciating" the movie; as if his way is the only way to do so. It also must be impossible to A) get that the wolves are in fact a "tool of the story" and B) take issue with the way they were portrayed. It's like he thinks they're mutually exclusive; like the fact that they're a tool of the story should negate any concern one might have about the portrayal. Nope, can't do that! Doesn't work! 

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] The_Wood 9 years ago

You also have an angle which we've discussed. You just can't stop yourself from coming back to this forum. Did Carnahan hurt you? It's time to open up boss. There's something stewing...

Talk to me.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

I don't discuss with amateurs or children. Besides, that dime store degree you worked so hard to achieve should bestow upon you the necessary insight to know exactly what I'm all about without discussion. You disappoint me, Jethro.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] The_Wood 9 years ago

You are right. I don't need you to talk back. Just observing your comments I have had you pegged since day one. You're welcome.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

http://tinyurl.com/pr9rnw7

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] The_Wood 9 years ago

For you I'd gladly do a pro bono. Let's start with your sexual attraction with Wolves.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

You shouldn't be talking about giving pro boner freebies and sexual attraction. Makes you look like a perv... carrying a torch. 🔥



I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] The_Wood 9 years ago

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tzjgy

reply

[–] kidzbpq 9 years ago

time travelling robot assassins don't exist either

Well of course they don't exist now. They'll exist in the future.

reply

[–] Mattc164 (609) 6 years ago

You can't prove that time traveling robot assassin's don't exist... Maybe they just never came to our time period... Yet.

reply

[–] ruebelsk3 9 years ago

Yes they do....I was attacked by three just a fort-night ago

reply

[–] pugsley_lover27 9 years ago

I just saw this for the first time today and although I liked the film, and I understand the wolves were part of the story and making them "the bad guys" just made the story that much more interesting but I worry about the idiots out there who might think wolves really act like that and therefore should all be killed. Wolves are awesome and should be protected. They always get a bad rap and that upsets me. In this film they were depicted almost as supernatural monsters. I must say that part in the beginning where Liam Neeson's character shoots that wolf, really bothered me a lot.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

Carnahan took a lot of flak over the portrayal. What struck me was how he defended it by pointing to historical accounts of wolves attacking humans and other anomalous behavior, essentially saying that because of that his portrayal was not ridiculous and irresponsible.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] foster1234 9 years ago

You Obviously don't know crap about wolves

In a world where a carpenter can be resurrected, anything is possible.

reply

[–] pol-edra 9 years ago

I'm watching this right now and all I can think of is this falls more into the category of werewolf movies than anything else. These wolves are nothing like realistic wolves, they are the kind of super-intelligent, almost humanlike wolves you would expect in a supernatural story about the fine line between humanity and bestiality. I'm including it in my werewolf syllabus.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] Okeelani 9 years ago

For starters....SeasonalAffective is exactly right.
This movie is not about wolves....or the wild.

However, even for the people who want to focus on the irrelevant (do wolves really attack humans?)......certainly this is possible. I live in Chicago, and I'm constantly hearing stories of dogs (even domesticated dogs) attacking and even killing joggers and pedestrians. If some domesticated PET dogs can attack people......wild, hungry, threatened wolves can. Of COURSE this is possible.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

SA is right only in that the movie isn't about wolves. BFD! But saying that the movie isn't about wolves doesn't excuse the portrayal, nor does it mean that it's wrong to or shouldn't be discussed. That's like saying that a wrong and totally unsupported portrayal of gay people in a movie isn't an issue that should be focused on and discussed because the movie isn't actually about gay people. Gay people were just a tool of the story, like the wolves in The Grey. That's such a BS argument. It's just slight of hand that those who really like or worship this movie do to draw attention away from the most conspicuous flaw in the hope that more people will like this movie and maybe see it for the masterpiece THEY think it is.

It's never been just about whether or not wolves have or can attack people. The issue is much deeper than that. Of course they can, they're wild animals. Swans and beavers have attacked and killed people. The bogus portrayal of wolf behavior is just a single brush stroke in a much larger portrait of crap that Joe Carnahan put to film.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] Okeelani 9 years ago

Given that the wolves are a metaphor....they can take on different, exaggerated, imaginative....even mystical qualities. If you can't suspend disbelief enough to allow that to happen, you're not going to get the bigger picture. You're too hung-up on the literal.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

I understand totally what Carnahan was shooting for. And I've never had a problem suspending disbelief. So stow your straw man.

It doesn't matter that the wolves were a metaphor. What matters is that the movie established itself as taking place in reality and not in some alternate one. That being the case, these "different, exaggerated, imaginative....even mystical qualities" need to be portrayed as SEEMING to be taking place, when in reality they are not. It needs to be in the minds of the human characters. Would that have been so difficult? Now that would have been inspired filmmaking for Carnahan and one that should garner praise, considering the way wolves have been so misrepresented throughout history.

But no.

What Carnahan did was create a totally fictitious portrayal of wolves and their behavior and place it in reality, therefore the only excuse for this nonsense that works is to suggest that the men were already dead and in purgatory or something. And believe me, this argument has been put forward many times here.

When you have to stretch the envelope to the breaking point to defend a movie, that's a clear indicator of poor filmmaking.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] Okeelani 9 years ago

The movie exaggerated wolf behavior. I'm willing to forgive that. It made for a much more exciting and interesting movie. Jaws exaggerated shark behavior. The Ghost and the Darkness took liberties with lion behavior, etc, etc..........

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 9 years ago

It didn't exaggerate wolf behavior, it presented a wrong and totally unsupportable portrayal of wolves as a whole. Jaws was about ONE rogue shark. It wasn't suggesting that all man eating sharks behave that way. I haven't seen the other movie, but the synopsis suggests it's about anomalous behavior. Taking liberties is one thing, but....

All Carnahan had to do was have Ottway the wolf expert say that the behavior of those particular wolves went against what he knew about wolf behavior. THAT'S IT! Instead he portrayed them as if ALL wolves behave that way. But Carnahan was pretty much effed from the beginning when he had a lone wolf charge those workers. He started out with BS and then went hog wild with it.

I've fallen it's true, but I say to you, hold your tongues until after I've spoken.

reply

[–] Okeelani 9 years ago

Carnahan demonized the wolves. It was necessary, and it TOTALLY worked for me. If the wolves just scurried away and never returned, it would have been a pretty boring story. The wolves were....death, closing in. The information Ottway was saying about the wolves, for the most part, was not far off. And really, he didn't say all that much about wolf behavior. He did intimate wolves don't (normally) attack humans....unless their den was threatened. I'll buy that. The movie worked for me--quite well. To each their own.

reply

[–] mato-juhas 8 years ago

Dogs attack humans exactly because they have been raised by humans and they don't inherently fear them. Wolves, on the other hand, fear humans very much, inherently. Wild and hungry wolf has a lot of prey to feast upon, particularly in winter when lots of animals die because of cold and snow.

reply

[–] beierfilms 8 years ago

I think it's tough.

I enjoyed the film despite being VERY aware how silly it's portrayals of wolves was. The film treats the wolves as kind of a metaphor for death (along with the rest of nature). It's one of those things where the emotional truth clicks but the literal truth does not. As a film-goer, I was able to turn off "scientific" mind and enjoy what the film as trying to do.

HOWEVER, I am left feeling conflicted because of the the lingering portrayal of wolves that people who don't know the truth might get. There have been periods where the mistaken belief that wolves were out to kill humans caused them to be hunted. Of course people should defend themselves if actually threatened by wolves (or if their pets are) but the belief that they're blood thirsty beasts that are a serious danger to humans is flat out wrong. I feel bad knowing that the continued image of super-agressive wolves leads to their deaths.

I'm not quiet sure how the filmmakers should have reconciled the truth with the themes they were going for. I suppose that they could have suggested that the wolves were rabid but then we'd get another extreme. As is my understanding, a rabid wolves (and most animals), are so *beep* crazy that they just insanely attack on sight until they're dead. It would make for a very short film where we'd lose the ability for the men to be picked off one at a time and struggle with their own mortality.

reply

[–] JohnnySodoff 9 years ago

Wolves are Apex predators and will hunt anything weaker than them.

Yes, wolves do tend to avoid humans, mostly because wolves (especially in America) have been conditioned to fear us due to hunting and guns. That said, plenty of people have been killed by wolves, not just rabid ones, over time.

Usually it's the victims fault, they got too close to mama wolf's babies or they teased/provoked the animal. These attacks are also usually NOT fatal, usually just a bite or two and lots of growling/barking/go away-ing. When the victims do get killed usually they are not eaten because the wolf was not hunting them, merely defending itself/it's territory.

However, especially in undeveloped countries wolves can be a serious threat and in villages where people still live in huts they have been known to waltz quietly into them at night and make off with small children by biting their face to silence them.

I don't want anyone to think wolves are particularly dangerous to humans because they're generally not (poor judgement aside,) But to say they NEVER attack unless they're rabid is incorrect.

Alaska does have a very good record of human wolf-relations though...

reply

[–] nedeljkodjukic88 9 years ago

Usually it's the victims fault, they got too close to mama wolf's babies or they teased/provoked the animal. These attacks are also usually NOT fatal, usually just a bite or two and lots of growling/barking/go away-ing. When the victims do get killed usually they are not eaten because the wolf was not hunting them, merely defending itself/it's territory.

All well said, but that's exactly what I meant. All these attacks are so-called defensive attacks. Not what I would call attack anyway. If you're getting on domestic cat's nerves for too long, she'll scratch you in the end. But that's not an attack. Wolves don't go: "Hey, there's a couple of men there - let's eat them!", because humans aren't their natural prey and they would never attack an adult man intentionally - as in this movie. As you've said:

Wolves are Apex predators and will hunt anything weaker than them.

They don't perceive adult humans as weaker than them.

reply

[–] sgreen4 9 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks

reply

[–] nedeljkodjukic88 9 years ago

You have to put it between the link brackets.
I've already explained my view in previous message(s).

reply

[–] hgmichna 9 years ago

Thanks for your posting. I was wondering too, because I knew that wolves do not hunt humans.

As a nature lover I will not watch this movie. I prefer movies that show nature as it is.

reply

[–] nedeljkodjukic88 9 years ago

No problem, hgmichna. As another nature lover, I think you would like Yugoslavian movie from 1972 called Vuk samotnjak, but I pretty much doubt there's a version with English subtitles or synchronization...

http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0069478/?ref_=ttrel_rel_tt

reply

[–] avia2 8 years ago

Wolves only avoid humans if they know we can hurt them, not because they have some mystical reverence for mankind.

I know this film is exaggerated, but please give wolves at least a little credit.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 8 years ago

How do they know if we can hurt them?

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

[–] avia2 8 years ago

If they've observed humans before, they may have an idea of what humans with weapons can do, and might avoid antagonising us. Of course this film is total fantasy, though.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 8 years ago

I don't know if wolves possess that kind of rationale. I doubt it. I know that canines can be conditioned, like Pavlov's dog, but I doubt that they can make such a determination simply by observing. I think that they need to be directly affected. They have to be hurt to know that something can hurt them.

I'm sure that many squirrels have seen other squirrels get hit by cars, but that doesn't seem to stop them from running across the road, stopping two feet from the other side and turning around and heading back again, all while a car is bearing down on them. In other words it doesn't stop squirrels from acting squirrely.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

[–] avia2 8 years ago

Not sure whether you're arguing wolves will or won't attack humans. Personally I find wolves beautiful and intelligent creatures worthy of our respect, but I just think people underestimate their power by saying things like "man is not their natural prey". Kangaroos are not their natural prey either, but I doubt they'd last long in wolf territory. Saying that wolves can eat man doesn't mean they are monsters.

reply

[–] Seventy_Two_Raisins 8 years ago

I just don't think that wolves are as smart as you think they are. After all, they're really nothing more than wild dogs. They're smart animals, don't get me wrong, but they're not as smart as you and others try to make them out to be. Some people go to the length of - like this movie did - anthropomorphizing. And I think that you're edging into that a bit too.

I wouldn't argue that wolves won't attack humans because it's well documented that there have been attacks. They're rare, yes, but they have happened. Still, humans are NOT wolves natural prey. That's not underestimating their power (whatever that may be), that's just stating fact.

And no, wolves are not monsters. Far from it. They have gotten a bad rap over the centuries, but that stems from a lot of tall tales, bad movies (wink wink), and TV shows.

I'd argue that to portray them as monsters - like The Grey did - you'd have to employ some serious anthropomorphism. You'd have to make them seem like people. And it's a good thing they're not. So be careful about how intelligent and powerful you'd like them to be.

There's a reason why The Grey won the 2013 Scat Award from the International Wolf Center.

http://www.wolf.org/wolf-info/wolf-news/scat-awards/

Look what the 2014 nominee is.

Monkey with small testicles roar loudest -- Confucius

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]