BLACKFISH

[wcjordan06]

Does anyone know which artists are left, now that seven have cancelled from the music fest? I don't see anything listed on the Sea World site. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

SeaWorld reps said they took it down but are signing new acts that will be re-posted soon.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I'm well aware if the thread name, just as I'm aware he's using this site to reach more than his Twitter account would....

And why not? Isn't concern about animal cruelty an across-the-board issue?

You are absolutely correct about animal cruelty being an across the boards issue, but this is a very specific issue that these artists are responding to.

 

[wm49rs]

You are absolutely correct about animal cruelty being an across the boards issue, but this is a very specific issue that these artists are responding to.

No, they're responding to peer pressure and Change.org petitions....

 

[919Florida]

How is it curious that these artists did not have an issue performing at a bar-b-cue (or however you spell it).

They are not claiming to be vegetarians, when last I checked. They are not protesting baby back ribs.

It is about whales in concrete bath tubs.

Its curious because Willie Nelson and several others have performed at SeaWorld before and had no issues with it then.

Secondly I am so tired of you people saying the whales are in a bathtub. Can you tell me the last time you were able to go swimming in your bath tub yet alone have 7 other people in the bath tub with you and still have enough room to fast swims from end to end. Obviously its not as large as the ocean but its no bath tub. Over 7 MILLION gallons of water and as deep as 40 ft.

They are very well taken care of whether you want to believe it or not. Animal Care team at SeaWorld is staffed by well over a hundred people who are keeping care of them in addition to the trainers.

 

[wcjordan06]

You are absolutely correct about animal cruelty being an across the boards issue, but this is a very specific issue that these artists are responding to.

Do you really think these artists care about the same issue you do? Maybe the first to bail but I'm pretty sure the others (at least most) are out because of these groups spamming their social media sites trying to act bigger than they are. With all this bad press being stirred up they don't want their name attached to it as that means a possible loss of weight in their wallets, not so much about the whales. This song and dance has been played out before during other media crusades of all kinds of issues.

This event will go on, SEA may need to drop a little more money in it but every artist has their price and it will pack SEA even more.

 

[BuddyThomas]

http://www.avclub.com/article/do-documentaries-need-to-be-fair-to-both-sides-of--86478

Do documentaries need to be fair to both sides of an issue?
By Noel Murray
Oct 10, 2012 • 12AM
Last week, I reviewed Eugene Jarecki’s very good documentary The House I Live In, about the pervasive, destructive failures of America’s “war on drugs.” But as sympathetic as I am to the movie’s explanations of how our drug policies have led to a self-sustaining industry of prisons and law-enforcement equipment—with no vested interest in rehabilitation—I couldn’t help thinking throughout the movie that Jarecki did his case a disservice by not giving his opposition a strong voice. Most of the pro-drug-war points made in The House I Live In come from footage of old political speeches, and not from people who necessarily believe in the cause, or can argue for it intelligently. And this is a common problem with issue docs, which frequently don’t allow the other side to advocate strongly for itself. It doesn’t matter whether I’m in agreement with the filmmaker. Without a forceful counter-argument, I feel like documentaries are fudging something.

Let me clear: I am in no way saying that documentaries about hot-button issues need to remain neutral or objective. One of the biggest problems with the news media today is that in the interest of fairness, reporters give both sides of a debate equal weight, even when one side is either lying or crazy. Documentaries are a different kind of journalism, more like magazine reportage or a non-fiction book, where a strong point of view isn’t just allowable, it’s preferable. But one of the other biggest modern problems with the media—and politics, for that matter—is that too much of it is designed to play on emotions, not reason. In the documentary Windfall, for example, the argument against wind farms is largely carried by the story of one rural community that was torn apart and perhaps permanently ruined by the arrival of “big wind.” And while that’s a moving story, and one worth telling, it’s ultimately too personal and constrained to one perspective to be as persuasive as it could be.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan adviser Ed Meese was quoted as saying that reports of hunger in America were possibly “anecdotal,” which left-wingers cited for years as an example of the Reagan administration’s insensitivity. But with each passing year, the more I get what Meese meant, though I still disagree with how (and why) he expressed it. It’s not that Meese was denying the existence of the poor; he was only saying that if one were describing the state of the union in the early ’80s, it would be inaccurate, statistically speaking, to say that the small percentage of people struggling to afford food represented what was happening in the country as a whole. (The irony of all this was that few politicians were more committed to using anecdotes as a substitute for data than Reagan, who earlier in his career helped conjure the specter of the “welfare queen.”)

Issue-driven documentaries don’t need to be wonky per se, but if a filmmaker is trying to define a right and wrong side of an issue, hard data doesn’t hurt. Nor is it a bad idea to provide some appropriate perspective, to give a sense of how important the issue actually is. Is this one of those “the balance of nature is about to be upended and we’re all going to die” kind of problems, or is it just that something that used to be nice is going to become a little bit less so? A lot of agit-prop docs stack the deck in that way as well, turning every matter of public policy—from gerrymandering to school lunches into the last stand for civilization as we know it. Watch enough of these films, and the standard for genuine alarm gets higher by the frame. (This may be why I enjoyed the recent Side By Side so much; it’s a documentary about digital filmmaking that presents strong arguments for and against shooting digitally, and never presumes that this is a life-or-death matter.)

Oddly, the best way to avoid the trap of making every issue doc too scarifying and one-sided is to narrow the focus. This has actually been a very good year for documentaries overall, and the best have been narrative-driven, exploring larger issues through a single story: For instance, The Queen Of Versailles looks at how the financial crisis affected one ridiculously rich family, in the process offering some clues to how the economy got screwed up in the first place. Jiro Dreams Of Sushi considers tradition, taste, and foodie culture in the context of one brilliant Japanese chef. The Imposter is a tricky true-crime doc that manipulates the audience to show how the film’s subjects could’ve been similarly misled. And arriving this weekend are two more very good, blessedly “small” docs: The Iran Job, which shows life in a complicated Islamist republic from the perspective of an American basketball player who joins an Iranian pro team, and Ross McElwee’s beautiful Photographic Memory, which is sort of about how modern technology is widening the generation gap, but is mostly about how McElwee understands his teenage son too well, and sees rough roads ahead for the boy.

McElwee is one of the pioneers of the first-person documentary style, later popularized by Michael Moore. This can be a powerful tool for documentarians, to put themselves in front of the camera and thus put their agenda and opinions front and center, openly eschewing objectivity. Or it can be a terrible distraction, turning complex sociopolitical problems into a feature-length ego-stroke for the filmmaker. One of the better recent examples of how to do first-person in an issue doc is You’ve Been Trumped, in which Anthony Baxter makes himself part of the story of Donald Trump’s seizing of Scottish farmland, mainly because Trump’s people forced the issue by having Baxter arrested in the middle of an interview. But even though Baxter is an unabashed on-camera advocate against Trump, he still shows himself trying to get answers and explanations from Trump and his lackeys throughout the film. And whether Baxter’s efforts were genuine or not (I imagine they probably were), it’s easier to take You’ve Been Trumped seriously because it at least seems sincere in its efforts to cover the story comprehensively.

The real question may be whether documentaries should be considered as journalism or cinema, and whether the same standards apply for both. I have friends who are only interested in documentaries as movies, and as such, tend not to like many docs, because they feel they’d be better-served by reading about the subject in a magazine article than watching fuzzy video images of dull talking heads. I get that. When I’m watching documentaries at film festivals in particular, I often think of what my friend Scott Renshaw (critic for City Weekly in Salt Lake City) says: If you can learn just as much from reading the description in the festival program as you can from watching the movie, then it’s a bad documentary.

But for the most part, I tend to judge documentaries based on what they’re trying to be. If they’re narrative-based, I’m interested in how well they tell the story. If they’re abstract and arty, I consider the imagery and the rhythm more. If they’re personal, I look for passion and insight. And if they’re issue docs, I want sound journalism.

Again, I’m not saying documentarians should come at their subjects without opinions to express, and I’m not even saying it’s a problem when they stack the deck in favor of those opinions. But it’s always frustrating to me to watch a documentary in which some corporate spokesman spouts the company line, and then the filmmaker cuts to another interviewee who thoroughly refutes the spokesman’s statement. I always want the filmmaker to cut back to the spokesman and present the case we just heard, to spark a real debate. When that doesn’t happen, the documentary loses some of its credibility. If the movie has the form of journalism, it should be journalism. Otherwise, the filmmaker should’ve found a different way to get the point across.

Unkadug, you know I like you, and we may even find ourselves drinking around drunkytown together, but the way this film maker got her point across was footage. I don't see how actual tape of things that happened can be disputed. Anyway, I've posted too many times tonight. Sorry, but not finding a thing on tv, dammit.

 

[919Florida]

Does anyone know which artists are left, now that seven have cancelled from the music fest? I don't see anything listed on the Sea World site. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

Really don't want to tell you so you can go spam these people to the end of the world. Yes I do know who they are though.

 

[JPatton]

"Most of what they tell people about killer whales is wrong. We’ve been studying these animals now for about 50 years in the wild in a lot of different places. In all of those many thousands of hours of observation we’ve never seen one killer whale kill another. Whereas in captivity these altercations, these aggressive interactions, actually occur relatively frequently. Animals are injured all the time."

"And in one case we know that a female who would never have had this interaction in the wild because she was from Iceland and the other whale was from the Pacific Northwest so they were from completely different oceans---completely different populations. But she attacked another whale so violently she rammed this animal so hard that she broke her own jaw. She broke a bone in her jaw. She sliced an artery and in front of an entire audience of people at SeaWorld she bled out and died. That sort of incident has never been observed in the wild."

"Nobody has ever recorded a [wild] killer whale killing a human being. Whereas in captivity dozens of people have been injured. And again, it’s not because the whale doesn’t know that a person is a person or might be injured. It’s because they are frustrated and they are put in such close confinement that what might be a normal degree of aggression escalates very quickly. In the open ocean that just doesn’t happen."

"Of all the species that don’t belong in captivity—do not thrive there---are of no value in education or conservation by being in captivity---orca is top of the list. But it’s not just whether you acquire these animals from the wild. It’s whether they thrive and do well once you have them confined. SeaWorld for the last 50 years has been telling people that Orcas thrive in captivity. They do great there. They breed. They’re happy. And they are none of those things. They don’t live as long. Their birth rate is abnormally high quite frankly because they don’t allow the females to have a normal interval between births. They are pumping out babies so quickly they die young. How is any of that good from either a welfare or a conservation perspective?"

"In the wild a killer whale mother might have her first calf at between the age of 12 and 15 and she will have a calf every 5 years after that on average. SeaWorld and the other facilities in the industry claim that they only separate mothers and calves when it’s for the good of the individual animals—when it benefits them."

"There’s absolutely no benefit to separating a mother and her calf before the calf is ready. So in captivity they are separating them at 18 months---at 2 years. That is the same as taking a toddler away from his or her mother. The reason they separate mothers from their calves is because at that age---just like the terrible two’s in human beings--- they become disruptive to the show. Whenever they do that they are breaking a bond that in nature would last for life."

"I feel very strongly that most of these animals can be returned to a state where they are sort of semi-independent. Where they can come and go. Where humans are still there to take care of the needs that they can’t satisfy themselves. There are about 45 captive orcas in the world today. I think every single one of them can be retired to a seapen. And quite frankly if they’re in a seapen you can have it open to the public. People can buy tickets to go see that. So the facilities don’t even have to lose out financially. I just don’t see why this isn’t an option for them."

"SeaWorld is a corporation. It’s a business. It makes money. Once it hears what its public wants it will change its practices. That’s how every bad practice has ever been changed in history. It’s when the public has finally stood up and said no. They have to write a letter. Change their vacation plans. Let SeaWorld know they changed their vacation plans. That’s how this is all going to change."

From An Interview with Dr. Naomi Rose
BLACKFISH DVD
Special Features

 

[BuddyThomas]

Its curious because Willie Nelson and several others have performed at SeaWorld before and had no issues with it then.

Secondly I am so tired of you people saying the whales are in a bathtub. Can you tell me the last time you were able to go swimming in your bath tub yet alone have 7 other people in the bath tub with you and still have enough room to fast swims from end to end. Obviously its not as large as the ocean but its no bath tub. Over 7 MILLION gallons of water and as deep as 40 ft.

They are very well taken care of whether you want to believe it or not. Animal Care team at SeaWorld is staffed by well over a hundred people who are keeping care of them in addition to the trainers.

Are you seriously saying that you think these whales and dolphins are happy living in concrete tanks? Do you think they would prefer that, or being in the ocean with their pods? Do you think they enjoy jumping up and hitting hanging balls for popcorn munching tourists? Might they possibly enoy being in the open ocean a bit morethan that? May I please store you in a similar space for ten years and see how you turn our afterwards? Kidding.

Look, I'm sure you're a nice person who likes animals. If not, you would not be interested in places like Sea World. But for the love of God, can you not understand the issue at play here?

 

[919Florida]

Are you seriously saying that you think these whales and dolphins are happy living in concrete tanks? Do you think they would prefer that, or being in the ocean with their pods? Do you think they enjoy jumping up and hitting hanging balls for popcorn munching tourists? Might they possibly enoy being in the open ocean a bit morethan that? May I please store you in a similar space for ten years and see how you turn our afterwards? Kidding.

Look, I'm sure you're a nice person who likes animals. If not, you would not be interested in places like Sea World. But for the love of God, can you not understand the issue at play here?

I can not say for a fact they are happy or not just like you cant say they are happy or not so stop saying it like that. Pretty much all the dolphins and whales at SeaWorld were born at SeaWorld they dont know the ocean. They are used to what they are living in. Very taken care of and have lots of enrichment.

Every behavior at SeaWorld in the shows are natural behaviors that you will see the animals do in the wild.
And I will also say again what I have said before the animals are asked what to do they are not told what to do. If they don't want to do it they are not going to be forced to do it. And guess what!! If they don't do it they are not going to starve the animal. They still get all of their food unlike this so called movie wants you to think.

I also have to say no I do not understand the issue at play here. I have posted time and time again that SeaWorld does amazing things for the animals they care for hundreds and hundreds of animals a year. There is no better place in this country that takes better care of their animals then SeaWorld. When SeaWorld receives an animal from a rescue their first and foremost goal is to get that animal back to health and released.

 

[TalkingHead]

Having just seen Blackfish, I was surprised it was so focused on Tilikum and his past incidents. Free the whales, maybe. But not free the penguins, free the dolphins, or free the seals. Maybe those animals don't present the same level of dramatic interest since they aren't "killers."

Sorta makes me wonder if the filmmakers were more interested in telling a compelling story, or if they actually cared about the lives of all animals used in theme park entertainment.

If the purpose of the documentary is to question keeping orcas in captivity, I think it effectively made its point. Even before seeing the documentary, I felt ambivalently about the Shamu show. So little of SeaWorld is devoted to education, that it's hard for me to believe that the Shamu show (or any of the other shows) do much to educate the audience about marine life.

Is the Shamu show barbaric? It's as barbaric as any other circus or zoo exhibit. I chuckled when the former trainer claimed in 50 years we'll look back at this as ugly, barbaric behavior. He's more optimistic than I am, because I suspect we'll still have zoos and aquariums in 50 years.

I found it rather easy to believe that SeaWorld is run like a corporation looking out for its own butt. That makes it no different than Disney and Universal. (Remember the animal deaths at DAK early in that park's history? Disney had to deal with bad PR, although it had plenty of zoologists approving of DAK's operations.) Corporations generally aren't a good measure of ethical behavior, so it wouldn't surprise me if SeaWorld has been shady over the years. I know a few years ago I contacted SeaWorld about an injured sandhill crane, and they weren't any help. But they get lots of good PR when they release a manatee into the wild. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

Overall, I thought the documentary took the easy way out by only questioning the orcas' captivity and then, specifically, by focusing on Tilikum. At times, it plays like a (quasi?) snuff film -- while rhetorically effective, it makes the documentary feel more interested in the salacious death scenes than making an environmentally-conscious argument about the treatment of animals in captivity.

 

[JPatton]

Is the Shamu show barbaric? It's as barbaric as any other circus or zoo exhibit. I chuckled when the former trainer claimed in 50 years we'll look back at this as ugly, barbaric behavior. He's more optimistic than I am, because I suspect we'll still have zoos and aquariums in 50 years.

Yes, we'll have zoos and aquariums in 50 years.

We will not have captive orcas on display in the United States in 50 years.

 

[englanddg]

Having just seen Blackfish, I was surprised it was so focused on Tilikum and his past incidents. Free the whales, maybe. But not free the penguins, free the dolphins, or free the seals. Maybe those animals don't present the same level of dramatic interest since they aren't "killers."

Sorta makes me wonder if the filmmakers were more interested in telling a compelling story, or if they actually cared about the lives of all animals used in theme park entertainment.

If the purpose of the documentary is to question keeping orcas in captivity, I think it effectively made its point. Even before seeing the documentary, I felt ambivalently about the Shamu show. So little of SeaWorld is devoted to education, that it's hard for me to believe that the Shamu show (or any of the other shows) do much to educate the audience about marine life.

Is the Shamu show barbaric? It's as barbaric as any other circus or zoo exhibit. I chuckled when the former trainer claimed in 50 years we'll look back at this as ugly, barbaric behavior. He's more optimistic than I am, because I suspect we'll still have zoos and aquariums in 50 years.

I found it rather easy to believe that SeaWorld is run like a corporation looking out for its own butt. That makes it no different than Disney and Universal. (Remember the animal deaths at DAK early in that park's history? Disney had to deal with bad PR, although it had plenty of zoologists approving of DAK's operations.) Corporations generally aren't a good measure of ethical behavior, so it wouldn't surprise me if SeaWorld has been shady over the years. I know a few years ago I contacted SeaWorld about an injured sandhill crane, and they weren't any help. But they get lots of good PR when they release a manatee into the wild. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

Overall, I thought the documentary took the easy way out by only questioning the orcas' captivity and then, specifically, by focusing on Tilikum. At times, it plays like a (quasi?) snuff film -- while rhetorically effective, it makes the documentary feel more interested in the salacious death scenes than making an environmentally-conscious argument about the treatment of animals in captivity.

No, it dilutes the message.

It's, as you well put it, "snuff" films like this that make the underlying REAL discussion more difficult, as they insert half-truthes, misrepresentations and emotions into a more complex issue.

Orca trapping is no longer legal, hasn't been for a long time. So the film didn't serve that purpose. So, what was it's message exactly? Except to garnish self-serving attention for the production team?

I watched it, months ago. It was a well done movie. Well edited, good emotional music. The production values were top notch, and really tug at the heart strings.

All that being said, there are a few telling points. I highly doubted that the more "loyal" interviewees statements were not reviewed by a writer for alliteration and review. They were too scripted, too well stated, and fit far too well to tie together the "story" of the film.

The one that stuck out to me the most was towards the end of the movie where they had interviews with someone a bit defensive of SeaWorld and their mission...and the answers to his questions (in defense of Sea World) were cut off, to be "countered" by others. I won't review the whole movie at this point to get his name...but I can if you care to debate.

The fact is, like a Mike Moore movie, this is extremely well done, and has some excellent points, but misses any real social value, because it has no solution. It doesn't foster discussion, it is merely accusation.

Meaningful change does not come through accusation and rhetoric alone. It comes through understanding and discussion. If only accusation and rhetoric is used, then all that happens is tyranny of the prevailing opinion.

Some are happy with that. I, personally, am not.

Had the show ended with a "Here's what we suggest for the Orca's" moment...I would have felt differently.

But, it didn't. Therefore, it's a hit piece intent on basking it's creators and blind followers in their own "glory" for being "morally" correct for an issue they have created for themselves.

 

[TalkingHead]

Yes, we'll have zoos and aquariums in 50 years.

We will not have captive orcas on display in the United States in 50 years.

And that was one of my issues with the documentary -- it has a very narrow view of the ethical issue of animals in captivity. Is it more ethical to keep large sharks in aquariums? They aren't expected to perform, but they're kept in a relatively confined space.

 

[englanddg]

And that was one of my issues with the documentary -- it has a very narrow view of the ethical issue of animals in captivity. Is it more ethical to keep large sharks in aquariums? They aren't expected to perform, but they're kept in a relatively confined space.

Well, they don't kill in captivity being forced to perform tricks...

Unlike Tigers.

 

[englanddg]

Tigers are pussy cats.

 

[TalkingHead]

No, it dilutes the message.

It's, as you well put it, "snuff" films like this that make the underlying REAL discussion more difficult, as they insert half-truthes, misrepresentations and emotions into a more complex issue.

Orca trapping is no longer legal, hasn't been for a long time. So the film didn't serve that purpose. So, what was it's message exactly? Except to garnish self-serving attention for the production team?

I watched it, months ago. It was a well done movie. Well edited, good emotional music. The production values were top notch, and really tug at the heart strings.

All that being said, there are a few telling points. I highly doubted that the more "loyal" interviewees statements were not reviewed by a writer for alliteration and review. They were too scripted, too well stated, and fit far too well to tie together the "story" of the film.

The one that stuck out to me the most was towards the end of the movie where the answers to his questions (in defense of Sea World) were cut off, to be "countered" by others. I won't review the whole movie at this point to get his name...but I can if you care to debate.

The fact is, like a Mike Moore movie, this is extremely well done, and has some excellent points, but misses any real social value, because it has no solution. It doesn't foster discussion, it is merely accusation.

Meaningful change does not come through accusation and rhetoric alone. It comes through understanding and discussion. If only accusation and rhetoric is used, then all that happens is tyranny of the prevailing opinion.

Some are happy with that. I, personally, am not.

Had the show ended with a "Here's what we suggest for the Orca's" moment...I would have felt differently.

But, it didn't. Therefore, it's a hit piece intent on basking it's creators and blind followers in their own "glory" for being "morally" correct for an issue they have created for themselves.

Yes, I tend to agree with what you said.

Toward the end, one of the former trainers mentions that she thinks Tilikum should be moved to a large "pen" in the open ocean somewhere. None of the trainers suggests euthanasia, nor was it brought up, which I found interesting.

I know the interviewee who seems to support SeaWorld's practices, and like you said, his statements are immediately countered by other trainers who disagree.

It's manipulative, which I expect with documentaries. What's unfortunate is how many people are taking the opportunity to "take a stand" -- but for what? Closing SeaWorld? Freeing orcas? Ending orca trapping? (Notable that the film didn't point out it's been outlawed.)

Also, I lose a little respect for any documentary that uses a clip of Jane Velez-Mitchell to make a point. That shrill, grating voice -- she's no better than Nancy Grace.

 

[englanddg]

Yes, I tend to agree with what you said.

Toward the end, one of the former trainers mentions that she thinks Tilikum should be moved to a large "pen" in the open ocean somewhere. None of the trainers suggests euthanasia, nor was it brought up, which I found interesting.

I know the interviewee who seems to support SeaWorld's practices, and like you said, his statements are immediately countered by other trainers who disagree.

It's manipulative, which I expect with documentaries. What's unfortunate is how many people are taking the opportunity to "take a stand" -- but for what? Closing SeaWorld? Freeing orcas? Ending orca trapping? (Notable that the film didn't point out it's been outlawed.)

Also, I lose a little respect for any documentary that uses a clip of Jane Velez-Mitchell to make a point. That shrill, grating voice -- she's no better than Nancy Grace.

They want "change"?

 

[TalkingHead]

Well, they don't kill in captivity being forced to perform tricks...

Unlike Tigers.

I get the joke, but that's another thing Blackfish doesn't really argue -- it never says these orcas don't like the tricks. It's main contention is that the orcas need more space and that they need to remain with their family pods.

But there's not a clear argument that these animals are harmed because they do tricks.

As for the trainer deaths? I don't care how naïve you are going into the job. You're getting in the water with huge, toothy animals. The job comes with risks.

I wonder how well the trainers are paid. Do some of these people keep working there because of the financial perks?

 

[englanddg]

I get the joke, but that's another thing Blackfish doesn't really argue -- it never says these orcas don't like the tricks. It's main contention is that the orcas need more space and that they need to remain with their family pods.

But there's not a clear argument that these animals are harmed because they do tricks.

As for the trainer deaths? I don't care how naïve you are going into the job. You're getting in the water with huge, toothy animals. The job comes with risks.

I wonder how well the trainers are paid. Do some of these people keep working there because of the financial perks?

It was a half hearted joke. Any death shouldn't be made too light of...but, my point was made.

They made that choice, just like Roy did.

And, sometimes, when you are dealing with an animal...this happens. With housepets, it sometimes happens. My cat used to claw the crap out of me when I'd try to bath her. Does that mean I'm a terrible pet owner? She would be better as a feral cat out on her own without me to watch over her, keep her fed, take her to the vet, etc?

When you break the arguement down (as presented by the movie...as I stated, the debate is far more complex than that, just going off how the movie presents it), it's overly simplistic, and well...rather childish.

The Cove was a far more compelling film.

Blackfish...was schlock. Amusing to watch.

It's like the "Kony" thing a few years ago, where they tried to use facebook and social media to fight a real dictator. It made a lot of people feel good to "fight Kony" on the Internet...

I'm sure he cared. And, is he still alive and doing all the bad stuff now? Yep...

As I said, I watched the movie, I actually enjoyed it and was moved by it. But, at the end I was left thinking...meh.