BLACKFISH

[CaptainessKylie]

Haven't you been keeping score?

Former Sea World employees turned activists who contradict your previously-held beliefs: BIASED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lawyer who represents amusement parks tearing apart a film critical of an amusement park? Seems legit.


Dogs are domesticated animals; they are genetically distinct from wolves. Friendliness and compatibility with humans have been artificially selected for for literally thousands of years. Orcas are wild animals.

Because we made them domesticated! They didn't just turn up in your living room one day and settle down! And the way they are bred, eek there is an article from about a week ago floating around showing breeds in the victorian era to now and how we have bred them to look "good" but be in terrible pain etc

So in 100 years we can say it's ok whales are domesticated? I just find it very hypocritical. Dogs were wild animals once, every animal kept in a house were wild animals, how many people do you know keeping snakes in tiny tanks, birds in tiny cages, all were wild and we made them domesticated. I just don't like the hyprocrisy of it all. You either 100% agree with it or you 100% don't.

 

[Master Yoda]

Yes, I hear you, but as long as everything that comes out of my mouth is the God's honest truth, I have nothing to worry about. If the truth is on my side, I'm fine. I get what you are saying. Editing can do wonders, but if I have nothing to hide, bring it on.

Anyway, I think that ultimately, people on this thread mainly have their hearts in the right place, whether you are of the "whales do not belong in concrete tanks" or the "Sea World does so much for animals" camp.

There is common ground here and while I do not think my debate skills are expert enough to change someone's mind, I just hope you all might keep a slightly, slightly open mind as to whether it is a great idea to keep some of the most intelligent creatures on this planet (scientifically proven -- they are not domesticated dogs or cats) locked up in pools for tourists.

I don't want Sea World to shut down. I want them to prosper and continue their conservation efforts but as has been said here time and again by those in my camp, the whale show has got to go.

Have you ever actually seen a documentary? Facts are irrelevant. Editing can make someone say virtually anything. Willfully giving an interview to a documentary filmmaker is the equivalent of giving ammunition to a person that wants to kill you. What Ben Stein did to Richard Dawkins in "Expelled" is a perfect example of this.

I would not give an interview on the mathematical plausibility of the equation 2+2=4 if I knew it was for a documentary.

 

[JPatton]

Excuse me, but Sea Workd knew this film was being made, was contacted for interviews to express their point of view, and surprise, surprise, surprise, they refused.

Not only that, but Ms. Cowperthwaite has said that she even offered to give SeaWorld her questions in advance. That is something that documentary filmmakers NEVER do. She bent over backwards to accommodate SeaWorld.

SeaWorld is on the wrong side of this issue. They are on the wrong side of history.

 

[wm49rs]

Not only that, but Ms. Cowperthwaite has said that she even offered to give SeaWorld her questions in advance. That is something that documentary filmmakers NEVER do. She bent over backwards to accommodate SeaWorld.

SeaWorld is on the wrong side of this issue. They are on the wrong side of history.

Did she provide any guarantees of how their answers would be used or edited into the film? Or offer them any form of editorial oversight? I'm fairly certain she didn't. So in the end she was just seeking free publicity from the large entity that is Seaworld to help achieve her ends.

That sounds vaguely familiar....

 

[919Florida]

Not only that, but Ms. Cowperthwaite has said that she even offered to give SeaWorld her questions in advance. That is something that documentary filmmakers NEVER do. She bent over backwards to accommodate SeaWorld.

SeaWorld is on the wrong side of this issue. They are on the wrong side of history.

Oh give me a break. She did not bend over backwards to accomdodate Seaworld. Far from it. She is on a mission to destroy them. If she wasnt she would have put a more fair and balanced documentary together. SeaWorld has done a world of good and she did not even try one bit to show that.

SeaWorld is on the right side of history. I would lvoe to be known having saved 23,000 plus animals and counting, donating all the money I have to help the animals in need and the world class care the animals get and the scientific research that has been learned. They will be just fine

 

[JPatton]

Did she provide any guarantees of how their answers would be used or edited into the film? Or offer them any form of editorial oversight? I'm fairly certain she didn't. So in the end she was just seeking free publicity from the large entity that is Seaworld to help achieve her ends.

No---wm49ers---she didn’t offer to let them make the movie for her. She decided to make it herself.

Four people had been killed by captive, performing orcas. She had an important story to tell. One that needed to be told.

SeaWorld had dominated the conversation for 50 years.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite and her producer, Manny Oteyza, have done the public a great service in researching this story and producing their film, BLACKFISH.

 

[wm49rs]

No---wm49ers---she didn’t offer to let them make the movie for her. She decided to make it herself.

Four people had been killed by captive, performing orcas. She had an important story to tell. One that needed to be told.

SeaWorld had dominated the conversation for 50 years.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite and her producer, Manny Oteyza, have done the public a great service in researching this story and producing their film, BLACKFISH.

Not what I asked, but that's not unexpected either....

 

[Hakunamatata]

Not only that, but Ms. Cowperthwaite has said that she even offered to give SeaWorld her questions in advance. That is something that documentary filmmakers NEVER do. She bent over backwards to accommodate SeaWorld.

SeaWorld is on the wrong side of this issue. They are on the wrong side of history.

List of questions or not, editing is where agendas get supported. People who use Hollywood as a source to learn history are generally ignorant of factual history.

 

[RonAnnArbor]

First of all, whether you agree with the basic tenet of the film or not (I am one who does not - it's heap of propaganda), SeaWorld will be just fine.

Was just there again last week and it was PACKED. There wasn't a single protester out front. There was no mention of the movie by anyone that I ran into inside the park. There has been no change in financial donations to their animal outreach and rescue divisions, and there sure hasn't been an impact on park attendance.

Ignorant bands canceling performances at the park? Big deal. SeaWorld tried to create this event after they became an independent park from AB to try to pump up some additional interest and funds -- overall, it hasn't been highly successful with or without uninformed liberal performers pulling out -- just as many would be happy to get paid to jump in -- though its probably an event that should be cancelled overall -- it probably costs them more to do the event than the money it brings in overall, and the only folks missing out on income are the bands that are canceling. Their (and their fans) loss.

Sam Champion's highly successful tv series partially sponsored by SeaWorld Rescue is bringing in far more new people to the parks than Blackfish will ever turn away. The show is wildly popular and sponsors are clamoring to get their products places on the show.

What Blackfish does is what it intended to do from the start -- polarize people on both extremes and essentially make zero impact, just like any other documentary historically has had zero impact.

 

[919Florida]

First of all, whether you agree with the basic tenet of the film or not (I am one who does not - it's heap of propaganda), SeaWorld will be just fine.

Was just there again last week and it was PACKED. There wasn't a single protester out front. There was no mention of the movie by anyone that I ran into inside the park. There has been no change in financial donations to their animal outreach and rescue divisions, and there sure hasn't been an impact on park attendance.

What Blackfish does is what it intended to do from the start -- polarize people on both extremes and essentially make zero impact, just like any other documentary historically has had zero impact.

Totally agree here and thank you for backing up what I have been saying. SeaWorld is packed lots and lots of guests are there and you are hearing basically no mention of this film. All blackfish is doing is giving the anti cap people something to stand behind and waive in peoples faces.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite and her producer, Manny Oteyza, have done the public a great service in researching this story and producing their film, BLACKFISH.

They did very little research on their so called documentary. So much is left out and untold or told in non factual ways. How can you say this movie was researched well??????

 

[neoshinok]

Yep, things are lookin up at SeaWorld

http://www.wkrb13.com/markets/24102...r-delaware-l-p-sw-sells-18000000-shares-seas/

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/in-in...ne-sells-majority-of-seaworld-shares-cm312294

 

[Cosmic Commando]

Because we made them domesticated! They didn't just turn up in your living room one day and settle down! And the way they are bred, eek there is an article from about a week ago floating around showing breeds in the victorian era to now and how we have bred them to look "good" but be in terrible pain etc

So in 100 years we can say it's ok whales are domesticated? I just find it very hypocritical. Dogs were wild animals once, every animal kept in a house were wild animals, how many people do you know keeping snakes in tiny tanks, birds in tiny cages, all were wild and we made them domesticated. I just don't like the hyprocrisy of it all. You either 100% agree with it or you 100% don't.

I 100% disagree with your false dichotomy. You're confusing the issue by talking about what pure breeds have become. The domestication of dogs happened because it was beneficial for both sides. They didn't drop some bombs to corner some wolves and keep them in a cage and *poof* dog. Sea World is sort of doing the opposite of domesticating; they've been breeding everyone with a whale that has killed multiple people... they're essentially creating "extra killer" whales.

 

[englanddg]

Yep, things are lookin up at SeaWorld

http://www.wkrb13.com/markets/24102...r-delaware-l-p-sw-sells-18000000-shares-seas/

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/in-in...ne-sells-majority-of-seaworld-shares-cm312294

These are silly stories. First, SEAS IPO was this year in April...they don't even have 52 week averages to look at. This is just an IPO stock normalizing. Nothing more.

Here, if you really want to see what impacts the market (while this is far from comprehensive) it's a lot better than some random links.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/interchart/interchart.asp?symb=SEAS&insttype=&time=12&freq=2

 

[BuddyThomas]

Editing could make your interview say whatever the filmmaker wanted you to say. Doesn't matter how truthful you are during the interview. Film is an inherently manipulative medium. It's no wonder SeaWorld declined to be interviewed.

Have you ever actually seen a documentary? Facts are irrelevant. Editing can make someone say virtually anything. Willfully giving an interview to a documentary filmmaker is the equivalent of giving ammunition to a person that wants to kill you. What Ben Stein did to Richard Dawkins in "Expelled" is a perfect example of this.

I would not give an interview on the mathematical plausibility of the equation 2+2=4 if I knew it was for a documentary.

No, I've never actually seen a documentary. Please.

If things get twisted in the way you describe, that is what lawsuits are for.

 

[BuddyThomas]

First of all, whether you agree with the basic tenet of the film or not (I am one who does not - it's heap of propaganda), SeaWorld will be just fine.

Was just there again last week and it was PACKED. There wasn't a single protester out front. There was no mention of the movie by anyone that I ran into inside the park. There has been no change in financial donations to their animal outreach and rescue divisions, and there sure hasn't been an impact on park attendance.

Ignorant bands canceling performances at the park? Big deal. SeaWorld tried to create this event after they became an independent park from AB to try to pump up some additional interest and funds -- overall, it hasn't been highly successful with or without uninformed liberal performers pulling out -- just as many would be happy to get paid to jump in -- though its probably an event that should be cancelled overall -- it probably costs them more to do the event than the money it brings in overall, and the only folks missing out on income are the bands that are canceling. Their (and their fans) loss.

Sam Champion's highly successful tv series partially sponsored by SeaWorld Rescue is bringing in far more new people to the parks than Blackfish will ever turn away. The show is wildly popular and sponsors are clamoring to get their products places on the show.

What Blackfish does is what it intended to do from the start -- polarize people on both extremes and essentially make zero impact, just like any other documentary historically has had zero impact.

"any other documentary historically has had zero impact"

Huh???????

I seriously hope that someone is not ignorant enough to believe this.

Look at the Paradise Lost documentaries for concrete proof. Those guys are out of jail now and would not be if not for the massive attention garnered by the films.

There are many, many other examples, but since I've just been accused by another poster of never having seen a documentary, I'll just let you search them out on your own.

 

[englanddg]

If things get twisted in the way you describe, that is what lawsuits are for.

Incorrect.

First, when you consent for an interview for a documentary, you generally must consent to an agreement to allow the documentation to edit the video "as needed for the presentation of the material", or some vague term like that. This is reasonable, as if you get into an overly technical explanation (for example), the editor and director should have the right to splice and cut your statements to make for a more cohesive story. Because that is what it's really about...a story (be it an article or a documentary).

Second, you consented to provide the material. I'm not sure what the press credentials are for the group who put this together, but, once you say something, with consent, in public (remember the whole "off the record, on the record" thing)...then, it's free for them to use as they see fit. The only thing that is required of them is that, if they edit your statements, they acknowledge that. In writing / journalism there are whole sets of rules regarding this, but with newer mediums, the line is blurred.

Third, there are no federal slander or defamation laws in the US. 4 states recognize defamation / slandar as a civil court matter, and Florida is not one of them. Neither is Texas, California or New York...any of the markets where a direct case could be filed by Blackstone Group or under the operating name of Sea World. There is no legal case there. Plus, considering the financials have changed little (and, stock price is not the indicator, gate ticket sales year over year are), then there may (and probably isn't) an argument at all.

In any case, nothing said in the movie is patently or blatantly false (part of the tightrope to walk when making a smear piece...regardless of topic). There's a lot of supposition, plenty of repetative interviews with the same "sources" who could be trusted to tote the message, and probably some back end script coaching to make highlights for the movie.

And, I really must tip my hat for the brilliant editing and musical score.

Truthful things can be said about many subjects, with facts to back them, without providing the "real truth", which is a balanced story.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Incorrect.

First, when you consent for an interview for a documentary, you generally must consent to an agreement to allow the documentation to edit the video "as needed for the presentation of the material", or some vague term like that. This is reasonable, as if you get into an overly technical explanation (for example), the editor and director should have the right to splice and cut your statements to make for a more cohesive story. Because that is what it's really about...a story (be it an article or a documentary).

Second, you consented to provide the material. I'm not sure what the press credentials are for the group who put this together, but, once you say something, with consent, in public (remember the whole "off the record, on the record" thing)...then, it's free for them to use as they see fit. The only thing that is required of them is that, if they edit your statements, they acknowledge that. In writing / journalism there are whole sets of rules regarding this, but with newer mediums, the line is blurred.

Third, there are no federal slander or defamation laws in the US. 4 states recognize defamation / slandar as a civil court matter, and Florida is not one of them. Neither is Texas, California or New York...any of the markets where a direct case could be filed by Blackstone Group or under the operating name of Sea World. There is no legal case there. Plus, considering the financials have changed little (and, stock price is not the indicator, gate ticket sales year over year are), then there may (and probably isn't) an argument at all.

In any case, nothing said in the movie is patently or blatantly false (part of the tightrope to walk when making a smear piece...regardless of topic). There's a lot of supposition, plenty of repetative interviews with the same "sources" who could be trusted to tote the message, and probably some back end script coaching to make highlights for the movie.

And, I really must tip my hat for the brilliant editing and musical score.

Truthful things can be said about many subjects, with facts to back them, without providing the "real truth", which is a balanced story.

Thanks for this. All useful info. But as I understand it, even if a consent form is signed, if what you have said is grossly misrepresented, you have a case. I am not a lawyer but I've been told that this is true.

 

[englanddg]

"any other documentary historically has had zero impact"

Huh???????

I seriously hope that someone is not ignorant enough to believe this.

Look at the Paradise Lost documentaries for concrete proof. Those guys are out of jail now and would not be if not for the massive attention garnered by the films.

There are many, many other examples, but since I've just been accused by another poster of never having seen a documentary, I'll just let you search them out on your own.

What you just described is exactly what myself (and others) have been saying.

This movie is a documentary in the modern sense. But, with how it presents the material, it is just as much advertisement for a cause. It presents only part of the story. And, it presents it very well (hence why both sides are probably frothing at the mouth about it, and it's still even a topic).

However, to negate the opposing view, to alter and edit the material to make it fit the agenda and story, and then declare it a "success"...meh.

In 3 years no one will even remember, and Tilikum will probably still be in Sea World Orlando.

The first step to discussion is awareness, but both sides must be willing to discuss. The supporters of this film are not, from what I can tell. They merely wish to demonize.

 

[BuddyThomas]

What you just described is exactly what myself (and others) have been saying.

This movie is a documentary in the modern sense. But, with how it presents the material, it is just as much advertisement for a cause. It presents only part of the story. And, it presents it very well (hence why both sides are probably frothing at the mouth about it, and it's still even a topic).

However, to negate the opposing view, to alter and edit the material to make it fit the agenda and story, and then declare it a "success"...meh.

In 3 years no one will even remember, and Tilikum will probably still be in Sea World Orlando.

The first step to discussion is awareness, but both sides must be willing to discuss. The supporters of this film are not, from what I can tell. They merely wish to demonize.

I am not looking to demonize at all. I've already said several times that I support Sea World's conservation efforts. In my mind there is but one issue here: whales (and frankly dolphins too) in captivity.

 

[Voxel]

I feel the need to point on here a scientific fact that seems to mistaken or just lazily put to the side. Technically Sea World only has one species of whale and less then 7 of them in captivity in the United States. The beluga whale. The killer whales are dolphins not whales despite their name . But does this change the argument. Probably not bit it should be taken into to consideration. Many people are against "whale" captivity but are okay with dolphin captivity but it's one in the same.
But point aside I agree with what was stated about the conservation efforts and sea world being for the good. Most intelligent humans would allow "mistreatment" of themselves if they knew it was for the betterment of their specie. I know I would. And I am sure many of you would say the same. It's an ethical question. The loss of one to save many. Or do you save one with the risk of lossing many.