Re: Countdown to Release [2] SPOILER THREAD

[Eldorion]

Matt Dravitzki is identified in the article as a spokesman for Peter Jackson in his capacity as trilogy director, not for any company.

Hell, WingNut might very well be responsible, but given how muddled the reporting in the AP article is I don't feel confident throwing around blame at this point.

[Pettytyrant101]

It seems reasonable to think that the associated press faced with an accusation from wranglers that the production company was responsible would ask the production company responsible for a comment- which they did and got a comment from Wingnut Films.
I dont think thats much of a leap therefore to see that Wingnuts films are responbile for such oversights in NZ.

[Eldorion]

My issue is that the AP does not identify WingNut films as the source of their information nor is it entirely clear how they contacted the spokesman. They name him simply as a spokesman for the director, which suggests to me that they tried contacting PJ directly rather than the production company. I wish the article were written clearer though.

This whole tangent seems pretty pointless though (not trying to blame anyone for it). What it comes down to for me is that I don't think we can reasonably hold PJ responsible for the animal deaths given our current lack of knowledge about the case.

[Pettytyrant101]

"AP does not identify WingNut films as the source of their information"- Eldo

No but the spokesman they do name happens to be a member of the Wing nuts production team. Bit of a coincidence.

It would be better if the article was more specific about whetther they were only trying to get a PJ comment (and he put up a spokesmen from his own company to answer for him) or if they were asking the production company responsible for the oversight for a comment- I agree that if we knew that 100% either way it would clarify greatly who is responsible.
I still think it is more probable the associated press would go to the prodution company for a response given it is they who are accused, but I dont deny they may just have decided to go for the 'name' instead- thats the problem with modern journalism to a certain degree- a name can sell your story more than doing the right journalistic thing.

[Eldorion]

Yeah, I'm taking a journalism class this semester so I'm supposed to be on the lookout for stuff like this as part of my homework. I think that's part of the reason why this is bugging me so much.

EDIT: In response to your edit...

No but the spokesman they do name happens to be a member of the Wing nuts production team. Bit of a coincidence.

Not really, since PJ is the founder of WingNut and the guy is PJ's spokesperson. It makes sense that he is/has been involved with WingNut in the course of his career. The question is in which capacity was he interviewed.

[Pettytyrant101]

I wonder if its possible to contact the AP and ask them!
Bloody shoddy journalism leaving important blanks in the reporting.
You dont get this problem with the NotP you always no exactly who they are accusing.

[Eldorion]

For the hell of it I sent an e-mail to the AP after you mentioned the idea. I'll post the response (if any) here, though I'm not really holding my breath for something inconsequential like this.

[Mrs Figg]

well obviously its all PJs fault. He also caused the last earthquake and the explosive poo's I had last week. Stands to reason.

[Eldorion]

The Tolkien Estate is coming after my LOTR slot machines!

Tolkien Estate [and HarperCollins] sues WB and Saul Zaentz - TheOneRing.net

Tolkien Estate and HarperCollins are suing The Saul Zaentz Company and Warner Bros. Tolkien Estate alleges that the companies are merchandising beyond the bounds of what was agreed in the 1969 deal with the studio and rights holder Saul Zeantz.

“The original contracting parties thus contemplated a limited grant of the right to sell consumer products of the type regularly merchandised at the time (such as figurines, tableware, stationery items, clothing and the like). They did not include any grant of exploitations such as electronic or digital rights, rights in media yet to be devised or other intangibles such as rights in services,” says the 26-page complaint.

“Not only are gambling services outside the rights granted, but this exploitation of Tolkien’s well-loved work has offended and distressed Tolkien’s devoted fans, harming Tolkien’s legacy and reputation,” The Tolkien Estate said in a separate statement to Deadline.

[RA]

What goes around, comes around, Eldo.
WB deserves it.

[MeikoElektra]

As someone who has been closely involved with horses I can tell you that for most of them they are remarkably good at injuring themselves. I've known so many horses kept in perfect conditions that have managed to kill themselves. At the same time, as David said, there are horses out there (like mine) that have the sense to avoid paddock injuries by watching where they're going and using their freaking brains. My horse Brock would not be happy stabled though - he'd survive but he'd kill a few people in the process... But for stabled horses colic is a major issue and many horses are susceptible to dietary change or particular feeds - it's hard when the feeders and handlers do not actually know the horses and if the owners don't provide enough info this is always a risk.

Not making excuses so much as pointing out the pitfalls of playing around with horses! Have no idea about sheep, chickens etc...

[Norc]

here Peter Jackson's respond to it all. May give a clearer view (or not) since all what we've hear are one sided and probably many rumors. I am not too steady with english (very formal language) so if anyone would try and help me understand what he is actually saying, that would be good ^^

The Hobbit production has always instituted swift and immediate investigations in to any concerns of any kind over the treatment of animals under its care. A prompt and thorough investigation into the recent unsubstantiated allegations by the American organisation, PETA, in to the ‘hobbling’ of a horse during the making of The Hobbit was undertaken. No evidence of such a practice was found to have occurred at any time. Further, the production contacted the owner of the horse concerned who provided the following statement: “I am 100% happy with the return of Shanghai and his condition. In the term that he was leased he was picked up and returned to me two times. On both occasions there was not a mark on him and he was healthy and happy. He has shown no signs of ill-treatment. I would not hesitate in leasing him to the movie again.”

To date, the only horse wranglers whose treatment of animals fell below the production’s standard of care seem to be the two wranglers who have chosen to level this new accusation on the eve of the premiere of the first Hobbit film and who were dismissed by the production over a year ago. Reports of their actions are documented in several written statements dating back to October 2011.

The production regrets that PETA has chosen to make such a serious accusation, which has distressed many of the dedicated Kiwis who worked with animals on the films - including trainers, wranglers, care-givers, farm workers and animal health care professionals - without properly vetting the source from which they received this information.

The production has been inundated with calls of support as regards to this matter, including the following statements:


FROM: DR JULIA BRYCE BVSc
“From December 2010 till July 2012, this practice was the primary Veterinary care giver for the horses and livestock in the care of “Three Foot Seven”.

During this period we were consulted promptly in cases of injury and illness. We were also consulted routinely about ongoing veterinary care and preventative medicine.

If referral was required to a specialist clinic or Massey Equine Clinic, this occurred promptly. As occurs in normal practice there are incidences and injury which may result in an unfavourable outcome and others that recover completely; like the young goat who fractured a front leg but recovered completely after 6 weeks in a cast and hospital rest, or the rooster who spent two weeks at our clinic with a foot infection.

These and other animals in the care of Three Foot Seven Limited received the best available treatment to ensure their recovery, their welfare and return to good health was paramount to those in charge. At no time were we concerned about the welfare and on-going treatment of animals under our care.”


FROM: JOY GRAY - FARMER
“I was appalled to hear of the wild claims being made in the media by PETA. I and my family own the farm which the Hobbits used to train their animals. Myself, my manager, my children and grand-children saw nothing to make us uncomfortable or give us cause for concern. We all had totally free access to all activities at all times. In fact, the animals were wonderfully looked after, being well-fed, well-housed, and well-treated. As both farmers and dedicated horse people ourselves we would have stood for nothing less. I myself ride horses, all my children rode competitively and now my grandchildren ride.

I was involved in Pony Club for many years and was District Commissioner for the Wellington Pony Club. My manager was totally aware of all that was happening with the Hobbits and he is outraged at these false claims.

The sixty horses, the cattle, oxen, sheep, goats, dogs, pigs, hens etc. were given professional and humane treatment.”


FROM: JED BROPHY - ACTOR (NORI)
“As an actor and animal trainer who has worked on large scale productions here in New Zealand, in particular The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and more recently, The Hobbit, I am flabbergasted to read this morning of the accusations levelled at the production by PETA. With a production as large as The Hobbit, filmed over such an extensive period the care of the animals used in filming was exceptional. The entire time we were on set, and when we were training with the animal wranglers employed to look after and train the animals for filming, I observed no mistreatment - in fact the opposite is true.

The animals were treated with the utmost care and responsibility. The farm in which they were housed had excellent facilities for the care and maintenance of the animals’ health. So much so that I moved my own horse on site so I could ride him for training exercises. At all times on set we had experienced Wranglers and Animal health Authorities on hand and Vets to monitor the welfare of the Animals working for the film. It has been my experience working for this film company that they take every conceivable precaution and employ the very best practitioners in every department and that includes the animal department.

I feel that there is a certain amount of personal vindictiveness levelled at the production from individuals with their own agenda. As is often the case in these situations, organisations will leap at the chance to gain publicity for their cause without seeking the truth. Being an experienced horseman and having worked as a wrangler and rider in the past, I would not have allowed myself to be a part of any production that knowingly employed unsafe practice in the workplace in this way. I can say with absolute certainty the production went out of their way to treat animals with the upmost respect and care.”

[MeikoElektra]

PETA were up in arms about hobbling?? Forget that it may not have even happened, hobbling is pretty common practice here in Aus, especially among the stockhorse community... PETA people are crazy and ignorant though so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. *sigh*

[Ally]

I'm a member of Peta UK. And to be honest, Peta could do with the attention.

[MeikoElektra]

Not sure what it's like in the UK Ally but PETA in the US have come out with some ridiculous stuff about practices in the Australian wool industry that actually improve sheep wellbeing/comfort, and they have done some very irresponsible "protest" stuff that has resulted in injured or dead animals, purely for the publicity. I am very passionate about animal rights and call people out on it (especially with birds, fish and horses as I have hands on knowledge there) but I see a very ignorant and poorly researched view being put forward in many of PETA's campaigns.

[Ally]

I'm not an active campaigner but I appreciate how these sorts of campaigns whip up public support and donations on which they are exclusively dependent on.

[Norc]

yepp, there is defo something to that.

up here reindeers are killed with a knife that the EU meant wasn't the most human, and said that they should transport the animals to a real butcher. What they didn't think of is that it really is the best way for the animal to day. I've seen it. No stress for the animals what so ever, no unnecessary transport and yeah..

also reminds me that the EU had heard there were a cold-record in Finnmark and they had an aircraft loaded with aid ready to go.. LOL.

[MeikoElektra]

That's all well and good so long as they're based on fact though. PETA in Germany are going after rollkur (a training method common in dressage which is really pretty awful) and for that I applaud them. I just get rankled when elements of the organization make a fuss over practices that they don't understand - especially as it undermines the credibility of campaigns against truly barbaric practices and all people who care about animal welfare end up being labelled loonies by public commentators. And a few campaigns have resulted in worse conditions for animals because of lack of research into complexities (not just PETA at fault here - the closing of American slaighterhouses was terrible for the horse population but many groups were behind that).

[David H]

PETA were up in arms about hobbling?? Forget that it may not have even happened, hobbling is pretty common practice here in Aus, especially among the stockhorse community... PETA people are crazy and ignorant though so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. *sigh*

Yeah! Hobble training if it's done well is one of the best things that can be done to protect a horse from the kind of injuries with wire fences described earlier. It teaches them that they are to stand calmly whenever a foot or leg gets caught on something.

The horse's natural instinct when it feels something grab its foot or leg is to kick and run with a LOT of power and speed. If the horse has accidentally gotten caught on wire, this will often cut to the bone! I know some respected horsemen who consider hobble training as important as training to lead.

[Pettytyrant101]

I am not too steady with english (very formal language) so if anyone would try and help me understand what he is actually saying, that would be good- Norc

As with all english written statements Norc its in the ambiguities and the absences you have to look. Although I am not saying that is the case in particular here- just with official statements of any kind it is a good rule of thumb and this a good opprotunity to demonstrate it.

Examples

'In the term that he was leased he was picked up and returned to me two times'

- this sounds positive and probably is, but as we are not told what the terms of the lease were for all we do know it might have included hobbling and this statement would still be true.'

'and who were dismissed by the production over a year ago. Reports of their actions are documented in several written statements dating back to October 2011.'

- note it does not say what they were dismissed for- the dismissed wranglers say it was for trying to flag up the mistreatment- the opening of this statement does not actually challenge this, it only says they were dismissed.
The second sentence is worded to give the impression the two who were dismissed were dismissed after a series of 'actions'- this creates the impression they were not doing their job properly and were rightly sacked but does not tell us what the actions were, so we cannot judge.
However they give the impression of having evidence of these actions going back a year to back up their claim- but again they do not tell us what their actions were- only they were reported.
Again the sacked wrnaglers claim they did make reports before being sacked- so again it does not actually challenge the wranglers version of events, just words it to imply that it is.

'During this period we were consulted promptly in cases of injury and illness.'

- this and the following sentence when examined actually says nothing of import as it gives no outcomes. But it does create a postive impression in the mind of the reader.

'If referral was required to a specialist clinic or Massey Equine Clinic, this occurred promptly.'

- again if the animal was already dead this statement has no bearing, but continues the positive implications.

'As occurs in normal practice there are incidences and injury which may result in an unfavourable outcome'

- this is a best worded admission that there were in fact deaths among the animals as the wranglers claim. But the delibrate use of suggestive terms 'may result in' and even 'as occurs normal practice', creates the impression there is nothing unusual in animals dying in this manner without denying thee wranglers claims of how they died.

The rest of that paragraph completes the effect of postivity by listing things that didnt go wrong and end up in deaths.

'These and other animals in the care of Three Foot Seven Limited received the best available treatment'

- best available does not mean it was actually good or up to scratch. This is a classic lawyer trick- it implies the care was good but dos not actually say so.

'their welfare and return to good health was paramount to those in charge.'

- Again this is statement does not deny any incompetence, just that those invovled thought the animals health important - it does not exclude the possibilty that they were still incompetent in doing so.

'At no time were we concerned about the welfare'

- for all we know from this they may not have had concerns because they were getting sheds load of money, which was more important- this statement would still be true if this was so.

'Myself, my manager, my children and grand-children saw nothing to make us uncomfortable or give us cause for concern.'

- the exact same thing applies to this statement too.

'My manager was totally aware of all that was happening with the Hobbits and he is outraged at these false claims.'

- this is the first actual claim of falsehood in the piece. And note it does not come from the production company but from the farmer, and it is a second hand quote attributed to someone else. This a means of putting a lot of legal distance between the production company and the accustion of falsehood, but still saying it.

'I observed no mistreatment - in fact the opposite is true. '

- again there is no denial of mistreatment here- only of a lack of observing any.

'there is a certain amount of personal vindictiveness levelled at the production from individuals with their own agenda'

- another classic lawyer trick, to make the accuser seem like they are the guilty party by casting doubt on their motivations. Note also they do not risk naming the individuals or the agenda- but leave both delibretly vague.

'organisations will leap at the chance to gain publicity for their cause without seeking the truth.'

- once more this does not actually tell us what the truth is, also it seeds a motivation, 'publicitly' in the mind of the reader but does not actually ascribe it to PETA- merely organisations- making it a generic staement and not a targeted one. Nice and safe legally.

'of any production that knowingly employed unsafe practice in the workplace'- the key word here is 'knowingly'

- the wranglers did not accuse of them doing it knowingly.

Now before anyone (Mrs Figg, yes, I'm looking at you) leaps up and down on me I am not saying I think these statements are false or not.
It just seemed a good opportunity in lights of Norcs question about the English language to point out how, especially in official statements which have been throught the lawyers, as this clearly has been before release, language can be used to hide as much as it reveals.

My own view is that this statment does not provide anything definitive which says the accusations leveled against them by the wranglers (not Peta- I dont know about it) are false.

[Norc]

thanks Petty, that was exactly what I wanted. This shows that you have to have a third, objective party to be the judge. This is neither a confirmation or a denial or an apology or anything from PJ and co (I am saying co because PJ did not write this, lol) only idk.. vaguely hinting the facts, although there are many holes in it so they are not lying or telling the truth per se. (omg.. hope no misspelling .. )

[halfwise]

One might think you have legal training Petty; that was a remarkable tour de force of textual analysis.

[Pettytyrant101]

Work for the NotP for long enough and it sort of rubs off on you.

[Norc]

or maybe you're just smart

[Pettytyrant101]

(takes a look round at life) Nope- pretty sure it aint that.