agree with Neckbeard. Haines Pass snow pack sucked this year.
Printable View
agree with Neckbeard. Haines Pass snow pack sucked this year.
As evidenced at 2:10 in this movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdork
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0OOt3wrFps
People will say he died doing what he loved. The important thing to remember is that he lived doing what he loved. That's the best any of us can hope for.
Current Warren Miller films get after it as much as the next, or close. Billy Poole was filming for Warren miller when he passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by puregravity
There is back-tracking going on right now. Not everyone will mellow out, but there is small movement in snowboarding and skiing to not push it so much. This article explains some of it:
http://www.powder.com/the-end-game/
^ good read.
No backtracking. Like said above guys and gals will keep doing this stuff and occasionally dying.
In part its just the risk of being in the game of skiing in this sort of terrain. Look at the stuff that these people who have died have been skiing, when they died, but also in previous adventures.
Its exciting to see (and hence why the films are successful) but I can't help but think when I see some of these movies or even TRs on here - "that guy/girl is cruisin' for a bruisin' and either they'll change their ways or its just a matter of time."
Maybe its just the nature of the game but the only thing I wonder about is the younger end of the Pros - they can't really have the knowledge or experience to temper the risks. They are stellar athletes but I think that their skiing skills and their accolades outpace their abilities to mitigate the risk. Maybe its just the price to be paid to play at that level and in that terrain, but maybe rather than really having talent for decision making as well as the physical skills for skiing that type of stuff, they just go and charge it.
They win events, get articles published, filmed in movies, join the ranks of the "elite," hit big objectives, etc. but at the age of 20, 21, 29, or 31 can you really have enough experience to make fully informed decisions about traveling in this terrain and skiing this sort of stuff?
Its not my place to decide whether they should take these chances, but I just think the whole industry has a tendency to puff up egos and false senses of expertise.
There will be no backtrack whilst consumers give the producers a profit.
That won't change until consumers get over the need to be entertained by so-called 'stars'. It is almost a bizarre fetish; the idolatry of 'heroes' and 'celebrities' and the desperate dependency on being entertained by them, in their living or in their death (see Prince and the social media account being used by the coroner to release autopsy results). That dependency won't change until there are less people in the suburbs with mortgages and credit card debt and 50 hour work weeks and retirement at 65 and only 10 days skiing each season... and an iphone. That will never change, unless price changes.
I think bankers should pay back past bonuses when they lose money. Similarly, I think film producers should use profits to insure athletes, seeing that they profit from the skills of people who are unable to insure their own incomes against the risky activities they provide to film producers. Currently, ski film producers privatize the gains and socialize the losses, just like bankers.
When risks and externalities are priced into products correctly, then you will see changes in how those products are produced and consumed. Currently the risks inherent with being a ski film athlete are not being priced into the production costs of those ski films. Not unlike carbon currently not being priced into consumer goods.
Whenever there is a disequilibrium in pricing, someone disproportionately gains whilst someone disproportionately loses. In banking, the losers are all non-bankers when banks fail. In the carbon producing industry, the losers are the environment and future generations. In the ski film industry, the losers are the dead and injured athletes and their families, plus fans and the sport in general. In each instance, the winners are obvious.
We live in a mostly-freemarket capitalist world, and only...
1) Regulation,
or
2) "Social Responsibility Marketing" strategy based on action not words,
or
3) Personal ethics.
...can potentially lead a producer to correctly account for the full cost of production and pass that cost onto the masses of consumers who need the entertainment.
The other side of the coin is that the athletes want to do this stuff. It's incredibly thrilling, and what they've been working hard for most of their lives. Sure there may be cases where they have a little voice in the back of their heads saying what the fuck but at the same time they feel they #gottagettheshot. Those times are few and far between and going into the high consequence lines with doubt in your head is about the worst thing you can do. Hopefully the production companies are clear that if they have any doubt, back the fuck out. But even if that mantra is clear, everyone knows that if at the end of the year you haven't produced you're not coming back next year.
One thing I feel is true is that if the athletes weren't making movies, the only thing that would be keeping them from skiing these lines is the lack of access and support to get to them. The money isn't the important factor.
i pass no judgement on others level of risk tolerances, and offer only vibes for losses for fellow addicts
I have done over 2000 Heli runs in Alaska and never filmed a single one. The point being people are doing this stuff either way. However there is a limit to the whole progression thing. For me, in the end it all comes down to each persons personal level of risk. Or as I like to say, how bad do you want it. That is why I stopped guiding heli skiing, I didn't like making that decision for other people. Each person needs to decide for themselves.
On the other hand, a shit-load of people die in car accidents every day. My local mountain-bike trails have seen several deaths in the last few years, mostly from heart attacks. Better than sitting on the couch I suppose.
Not making light of anything, and neither way can be fun, but just sayin'. Maybe it just is what it is and that's okay.
It is all very sad. While I agree that film crews, pay checks, sponsorship and all that can influence decision making lets not forget the elephant in the room. Personal accountability.
This is backcountry skiing. Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own decision making. There is all kinds of noise that can affect our decision making, but it is own responsibility to be aware of factors that can cause poor decision making. If you can own that, stick to the chair lifts. Seriously. I've preached it before and I know nothing about the Haines Pass (or any other) incident, but when we are talking about "experienced" backcountry skiers, the inability to making good decisions is the problem.
You could put a pot of gold at the bottom of the line, fly a Red Bull helicopter around and the best guides in the world could be telling me "it's good to go". But the go/no go is on me.
Ive often wondered the same sort of thing about pro kids in the park. How much bigger can these jumps get? How many pros have ended a career from one failed landing? But like big mtn riding, it doesnt matter as there are a whole buncha other kids who'll hit it for a red bull sticker and ball cap ...
The pressure to get the shot here and now must be huge!
Traveling the world riding big lines always in different places and snow packs, whilst relying on "experts" opinion of conditions doesn't sound safe ...
Oh, wait! Where do I sign up for that redbull ball cap ???
I don't think you can stuff the genie back in the bottle, I think there will always be an up-and-comer ready to huck large on bike or skis
^^
Yep.
It's pretty fucking hard to deny the rush associated with any adrenaline sport. I used to say I was an adrenaline junkie. Now, if I could, I'd be a stem cell junkie to heal all the broken bones and connective tissue those rushes left their collective marks upon. But, hey, if someone told had me you couldn't dive off a 100 ft high bridge, huck an 80 foot cornice or ride a 30 foot north swell all the way to the beach, I would have laughed in their face and told them they should not leave the safety of their home. And no one was taking my picture.
Edit: With the beards panties in a twist, I'll elaborate; People doing it for the film glory of next years movie need a reality check. Don't subsidize suicidal behavior with some imaginary security blanket. There are two champs out there who are cripples. Show the ruins, the death and the reality. Play the footage. Demonstrate what can happen.
Somewhere beyond neckbeard's utopian brainfart is the reality that insurance companies are in business for two purposes: 1) to make money for investors and 2) to minimize risk. If a film company bought insurance for an athlete who got killed filming, chances are 99.999 out of 100 the insurance company would go after the film company for negligence at some level, essentially shutting down said film company. When an insurance company says it reduces risk, it has nothing to do with someone's life. It's about reducing financial risk to the company. Insurance companies don't own skyscrapers because they pay claims.
Personal choice, personal risk, personal reasons, personal suffering. Why should a film company be bankrupted because an athlete went over the top for the glory and got killed?
All the fancy articulation of fantasy doesn't mean shit to the facts.
Jer, please come back.
Is that your way of saying my experience irritates you, beard? Perhaps you missed the point. Or is your take on shit exclusive?
People gonna be taking risks whether it's on film or not. Max was a damn good friend of mine. Is it my place to second guess his decision making? Not in my mind, cause I wasn't there. So until people riding murdercycles and mountain bikes are enveloped in full steel cages, cars are limited to 5 mph and no one steps out their front door, people will die pursuing their own sense of what makes their existence work for them. Like piggity said, it's all personal accountability. And as sfb says, all we can do is grieve their loss.
Because whilst (only Brits and US douchebags use that word) you want everyone in the ski industry to cover the losses of film skiers who get injured or killed and liability to fall on anyone making money ( a total non-analogy to bankers taking felonious profits), you might also include the manufacturers of every product that could hurt people, from stairs to socks and hey, wtf, let's throw in weathermen and astrologers while we're at it. People are gonna do whatever the fuck they want with regards to their own personal safety whether it's out their door or in their homes. If you are stupid enough to think everyone should have assurance or insurance that their poor choices, accidents or bad luck will be covered and their losses renumerated by any person or organization making a profit by filming their activities, whether directly or remotely, you might want to start a class action suit against youtube before someone beats you to it.
It was your lack of humility, talking about yourself in a grand sense (again). Oh, and the use of the term "30 foot swells". Did you learn that one watching Point Break? ;)
I never mentioned your friend, this is a general topic.
My post was a thought experiment, not an opinion. Your response above is not 'thought', not even close. Take that on the chin like a man. And look up cognitive dissonance whilst you are at it.
RIP to your friend. It hurts. I am sorry. Genuinely. ok?
I understand your cognitive dissonance. Because you think everyone who goes beyond the edge should somehow be covered by someone else, I wanted to say that some of us have done it, do it, purely for the thrill without seeking someone else to hold accountable or be on film. When your haole self can relate to body surfing the north swell in the islands through some means other than tv shows, come back and talk about it. Maybe you'll see some other haole snap his neck on the beach break and find a way to sue the ocean. Just my experiential thinking, you know.....maybe i should get a more concrete grasp on my thought process before typing. ;)
You have totally misunderstood what I wrote. Good luck.
Yeah, for sure. It sounded all intellectual and stuff. But it boiled down to complete horseshit.
I'd welcome a more mature conversation.
Hypothesis: There is a mispricing of risk, and someone is benefiting from it (both producers and consumers), someone else is wearing the cost (athletes and their families)
1. The true cost of producing extreme ski movies is not being reflected in the retail price of those movies.
2. The missing cost is that of providing life insurance and compensation for the high-risk skiers and their families. Some producers are not currently burdened with that cost. Some people think they should be.
3. If that cost was incurred and taken into account and passed onto the consumer, perhaps extreme ski movies would retail at (hypothetically) $60 per copy.
4. At that price, perhaps the consumer addicted to the risk, but mostly unaware of the true cost of producing that risk, would change their appetite for the product, therefore the demand for risk would go down. Or, they would pay the higher retail price and the movie producer would be able to cover the full cost of producing movies.
No one ever mentioned suing anything. No one ever mentioned that risk-taking should be reduced. No one ever mentioned that life was safe or the universe was fair. But a commercial price-driven resolution is usually the best solution in commercial environments. In this case, correctly pricing the risk into the cost of the product. The alternative is a workers union representing skiers and forcing regulation onto film producers.
Neck beard your solution is an interesting thought exercise, but not applicable to the modern ski "film" economy. Sure there are a few companies doing big, yearly films that you could maybe pin your insurance idea on, but the reality is in 2016 yearly films from those types of companies accounts for a pretty tiny percentage of the total ski film media made every year.
Look at Cody Townsend's video from last year for example - I admittedly haven't seen it and don't know who paid for it, but I believe he "produced" a lot of it, right? How would that fit in your model?
Or what about the POV hero racking up thousand of YouTube views from the video he shot and edited himself?
I don't have answers for the above questions - but the ski media world is way too complicated to try and create some (most likely illegal) laws about insurance.
Honestly guys - ski films are made for one purpose: to sell skis, boots and soft goods. Thats literally it. It's just marketing. You want to make a change? Publicly call out the gear companies supporting small time film companies and sketchy skiers that have a suspect safety record. You still have a snowballs chance in hell of changing things, but at least that way you're going after the root of the issue and not the middlemen.
It would also attract all of the best athletes, which means TGR would produce the best movies, which would help offset the profit drop. It may also mean that in 10 years from now the industry still actually exists - in an evolved state - rather than as an extension of the current trend. Who knows what is around the corner: if it is a trend, or just a blip, but people are talking "tipping point" already. Salomon are making changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by puregravity
But there is also a lot or actual reality in this as well:
But to be clear, I never proposed regulatory driven change. Rather, it was market driven approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by benfjord
+Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
Well, then that would give some folks the idea that you could just ski all of these steep lines and nothing is going to release. Showing the slides at least gives proper perspective to the risks being taken.Quote:
Originally Posted by puregravity
Appreciate you sharing that link.Quote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
Also 1+ on your analysis; I don't think that there is a "safe" or "responsible" way to ski the terrain that we are talking about. It's a #s game and there are a lot higher numbers out there today than even 10 years ago. What previously was a Coombs-pioneered big line is now done regularly when the conditions allow it; hell there are at least 20 guys waiting for the combo of weather/free-time/funds/coverage/partners to ski any objective you can name. I don't think that was the case 20+ years ago. But I wasn't talking about skiing on forums 20 years ago either, so I can't be sure.
I was an electrician at KSC & CCAFS back home while they were doing a bunch of retrofit work after the summer of hurricanes damaged the entire state of Florida. Got to see lots of cool stuff but I never wore the bomb suit... During my tenure some dude sawzalled through a 440 line while hanging 300 feet up on the side of the Vehicle Assembly Building. Turned out that someone had locked out the wrong breaker box, and misidentified the conduit to be cut... Somehow the guy who cut the line lived. The Sawzall, unfortunately, did not make it. I say: Never trust your producer or your manager. Due diligence may save your life one day.Quote:
Originally Posted by TEXASS
Looks like we've gone down the path of "ski filming as work", insurance and such. I'm sure some of your know these answers:
Are the "athletes" employees (of whom) or self-employed contractors? What about the "guides" (if any)?
Who pays their workman's comp or do the "athletes" file a workman's comp liability waiver? What about liability insurance?
Do "extreme skiers" carry life insurance or are they uninsurable? What are the conditions of their policies?
I know plenty of people, myself included, who have suffered substantial work related injuries and walked away from profitable opportunities because the risk wasn't worth it. If the conversation is about "skiing as a job", the framework for the above is already legally established. It is no different than carpenters, underwater welders, or NFL players. If the "industry" is ignoring this, it is no different than Juan and Pablo jumping up on your roof to fix the chimney with no workman's comp or liability, not following OSHA procedures and then getting dead. I'm sure this differs from TGR down to the YouTube sensation.
That said, none of the rules, regulations and insurances make any decisions for you. If you are an employee and your think your employer is putting in a position where you don't feel comfortable with the risk, you quit (Whistle blow if you want). If you are a contractor and you are not comfortable with the risk inherent is the job, you don't sign the contract. If you want to bend the rules for a paycheck, that's on you. It happens all day everyday.
It's a big, mean dangerous world. Watch your own ass because nobody is gonna do it for you. Decision making is on you!
I'm not sure that's true. These athletes are risk takers by nature. Perhaps some would be attracted by insurance, likely most would not. The other side is when the insurance companies start assessing risks and dictating what they will cover and what they won't. Who's going to want to work for a company when someone is standing over you saying "I'm sorry, i can't let you ski that".Quote:
Originally Posted by neck beard
Most cannot get insurance coverage anyway, so the insurance angle on this discussion is kind of a moot point. Red Bull couldn't get them insurance, either. They are large enough to underwrite it themselves however...
I think neck beard is overestimating any tangible benefit of a film company having "the best athletes". These days the level of talent in ski films across the board is almost completely indistinguishable to all but tiniest percentage of viewers.
And honestly as the end viewers are any of you actually paying retail for a ski film? I'm sure many of you go to see ski films when the tour comes to your house in the fall, but would you pay double to get into that flick if you knew the skiers were really, really good and had insurance? Not a chance.
Finally, all this hand wringing is interesting, but remember that every post we make here is probably indirectly helping TGR make more money. And TGR made a transparent effort to promote and market the worst crashes in their film last year to drum up sales for Paradise Awaits:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bf3EkZRdYio
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MvQxVE32BQo
And that marketing camping paid off huge with spots on major news networks, good morning America, etc.
Sounds like you dudes ^^^ are kinda on the inside so you probably know the answers to the questions I'm asking. Really, I'm wanting to know if the ski movie industry is an way legitimate in terms of existing employment, contracting and insurance regulation.
I'm sure [insert large diversified extreme sports video company] carries liability insurance. I'm sure given the nature of their business they have an annual insurance audit. If they are writing checks to "athletes" either as employees or contractors their liability and/or workmans comp insure will be kicking the tires to analyze risk.
What part of this do I have wrong?
I don't see how it's any different from playing off their successes like MSP with Cody's line. If anything, his involved much more risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by benfjord
My voice is that besides clicking through a handful of online videos a year, I don't help the industry monetize anything. Regulation usually comes into play when the free market creates outcomes unacceptable to society. The argument that "if you don't watch it, "athletes" won't push the envelope" is a bit utopian don't you think?Quote:
You want to make a change? Insurance isn't it. Use your voice to call out TGR when they inevitably do the same marketing push that plays off their athletes failures next Fall.
What type of employment rules are being followed?
What do you think about the ultimately responsibility lying with the athlete to ski/not ski?
Haha I just deleted that so your quote busted me. I deleted cause Im not sure I actually support calling TGR out for marketing those falls, cause I totally understand in a biz sense it's smart on their part to do what they can to get interest in the film. And since neither of their skiers got hurt it seems like fair game to me.
That said the difference between Cody and those TGR vids is simple for me: MSP promoted the success of their athlete. TGR promoted the failures. One promotes the glory of risk, the other taps into people's desire to see blood/injury. Take that however you want, but I think that's a far more interesting conversation to have, and a far more realistic place to start trying to make a change than "oh my god we have to save athletes from predatory film companies and get them all insurance."
Foggy I can't really answer your questions about the employment side of things. I'd be surprised if any film companies are treating skiers like employees as usually it's their sponsors thatpay and employ them, but I'm not involved enough to really know that to be the case anymore.
That's a complicated question but to me it ultimately sides with the athlete.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
It's pretty infrequently that an industry leading company fundamentally changes their product for the benefit of their "labor" when a relatively unlimited supply of labor is will to supply their skills at a relative bargain. It is usually about the profit motive.
For every Mike Douglas and Cody Townsend in the ski industry, there are probably 100 up an comers who can't properly analyse the risk/reward and are willing to "go" at almost any cost.
I brought up all the insurance, employment, contractor stuff to see where the conversation went. My honest opinion is that it doesn't matter. The reality is that a skier triggered avalanche is a result of either bad decision making or a tolerance for the inherent level of risk of avalanches. The world is full of people making bad decisions and/or having high tolerance of risk. "The camera made me do it" is weak sauce.
I see Neckbeard's point as in-line with the discussion of making money off someone else's risk: it's not that insurance needs to be a major change agent so much as that insurance companies won't lose money, so if the "industry" is buying insurance then the "extra" profit they are making from the athlete's risk is at least addressed. It reduces the hand wringing over whether someone made them do it or applied undue influence to make a buck. Or it just moves it to the paying audience.
Trashing footie of slides that turn out ok is interesting, though; it adds a second risk that is more likely/lower consequence, and the cost of which falls on the producers. All those things seem likely to result in more careful investigation and better decision making. You want to start calling out every film that features too-heavy sluffs? Maybe form an athlete-protection group that certifies movies' filming safety like the animal rights folks? Nothing sounds attractive, really, but anything from the audience seems preferable to some regulation.
There is all kinds of regulation all ready in place. It is pretty straightforward and anyone that owns a business and either contracts out work or employees people will be familiar. I'm sure there is an extreme variation in compliance between Big Time Film Company and Up and Coming YouTube Edit Guy. None of that matters when there is an infinite supply of "Athletes" willing to put it all on the line for a cheeseburger, a pair of skis and 15 seconds of fame on the internet.