Hmm. Sounds like that was avoidable.
:down::down::down::down::sad: That is still animal cruelty. One does not house/keep animals in unsafe conditions.
...one "preventable" death is to many...let alone this fatal farce...hopefully some heads roll for this, courtesy of an Orc's axe...
Which means that Shasta will not be going to see this movie....
Enjoyed the first three films, but think they made enough money in them to house the animals used in this production humanely..why does Anna Sewell's children's book Black Beauty come to mind? Not right to use them for profit and not look out for their welfare..:glare:
Peter Jackson's statements denying the production's role in the animal deaths seems pretty legit to me. I agree with PETA in principle, but that organization is run by lunatics; it seems to me like they were wrong to immediately brand the production as being at fault. And odds are they knew that, and took this action only to get themselves some free publicity. Two wrongs rarely make a right.
PETA has been known for their dramatics, and I personally do not agree with a lot of their actions. However, the wranglers who cared for said animals where the ones who brought this situation to light. They are the ones who said the production co. was responsible. The American Humane Ass. oversaw only the filming, not the facilities where the animals were kept. The wranglers expressed concerns to their supervisors, and the production co- Warner Bro.
The buck stops at the one who produced this film, who chose the facility site and ignore repeated concerns. If you produce a film you take responsibility for your actors as well as any animals involved. One can delegate to others, but in the end they are responsible.
One death, one injury was too much. Situation was brought to light and ignored.