This movie will be promoting the bloody bullfights. Real bulls are going to be used and Adrien Brody will learn how to "make the moves" from a bullfighter. But for the "dangerous" parts, a professional matador will perform in the ring.
Why is it that they are promoting bullfights AND using real bulls? It seems like it's the same story as Hable con Ella again, where 6 bulls were killed for the movie? When does this adoration of animal killers stop finally?
Probably, no bulls are going to be killed. Bullfight doesn't mean killing a bull (normally it does, but not always). I hope that this film only shows footage of bulls being killed, not real bull slaughter. Keep in mind that this, despite it has a spanish producer, is a film aimed to foreign audience (not like Hable con ella), and bullfighting is not understood outside Spain. This film is going to be about the love beetween Manolete and actress Lupe Sino, not about Manolete as a bullfighter.
Moreover, PETA will probably report animal cruelty if this happens, and all critics will impact negatively to the film, like happened for example at Lars von Trier "Manderlay" film. All animal appearance in any film is treated seriously, and almost every film or TV show (and even ad spots) that has an animal also has an observer in order to guarantee the integrity of animals.
Personally, as a Spaniard, I think that bullfighting is outrageous and it should be bannished. It makes no sense that this primitive tradition is still allowed in a country that is considered civilized
But, you're confusing a film about a bullfighter with killing bulls support. Manolete was a very outstanding figure in Spain, as a international representant of culture in the post civil war in spain. He helped in times of need, in times of hunger and in a totally divided country. he also presented outside the country the good side of spain, while the dictatorship of General Franco. Please inform before disgracing the name of Manolete.
[deleted]
Yes, in this movie real bulls are going to be tortured and killed. Thats fine to honor a great and well known person, but just for the movie to use real bulls that will be tortured and killed is awful! AND in todays time, petroleum is places in their eyes to blur their vision, neck muscles cut so they cant raise their heads all the way up, and they are drugged before entering the ring.
ANYWAY, in the movie, Metador, graphic computerized images were used instead of real bulls. Why cant in be like that in this movie too??
*PETA had an article about this movie.
Source that isn't PeTA?
Oh, and...
CGI RIGHTS!!! STOP CGI CRUELTY!!!
-- Ruadhan McElroy
PETCA (People for the Ethical Treatment of CGI Aminals)
Real bulls are going to be used for this movie. they will be tortured in the rink, humiliated, and then killed, according to PETA.org. It's not right and I can't believe Adrien Brody would agree to this. He's a wonderful actor, but his decision to do this horrific and cruel movie has made him a killer in my eyes.
shareSource that isn't PeTA?
Oh, and...
CGI RIGHTS!!! STOP CGI CRUELTY!!!
-- Ruadhan McElroy
PETCA (People for the Ethical Treatment of CGI Aminals)
I read this script 6 years ago... it is not about bullfighting, nor does it promote bullfighting, any more than does someone buying a 1970s AMC Matador (it's a car model that was made by AMC).
share[deleted]
6 years ago???? OMG, How come you read it 6 years ago? who gave it to you, the script??????
The more you learn, the more you forget. The more you forget, the less you know
Aleco, please, could you tell me something about the role of Penelope Cruz in the screenplay?.
Is important the character of Lupe Sino in it?.
Thanks a lot.
Holy smokes! [and this is off the movie topic for just a second, sorry... but:]
Aleco- you are the only person I've seen who knows what the AMC Matador is. [Besides the folks that saw mine in person, that is.] Thanks for the memory! ;)
Ok- back onto the movie. I will ABsolutely not see this film if it contains real footage. No WAY no how. That's about the last thing I want to see, which is unfortunate, since Adrian Brody is one of the first things I'd *like* to see.
:(
Perhaps anyone against it could email the director, producer, etc. and kindly request they use CGI instead? I have... I figure it's worth a shot.
Thanks for listening~
E.N.
I'm Spanish and I don't like very much bullfighting, I think it's a bit boring. However, I understand that it's a tradition of my country and I don't want it to be banned. A lot of people enjoy bullfighting and they consider it as an art.
If you're not Spanish, you can't understand the beauty of bullfighting. I don't like foreigners who protest against a tradition that has been in Spain for centuries. Bullfighting is an icon of our country!!!
You make a very good point estel777 =] I'm a foreigner (to Spain...and 99% of the rest of the world), I don't like animal cruelty; but I do understand how bullfighting is a tradition in your country that has been going on for centuries. I do see bullfighting very iconic- it's one of those things you think of straight away when you hear the name of a country (eg. Australia- koalas & kangaroos, Opera House [heard this from tourists 'cause I'm from Oz]; France- Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame, etc. etc.). I don't think it should be banned- like you said, it's an art to your country and is FAMOUS for it. I do agree that it is a very dangerous tradition (sport/art), but it is the choice of the man who is willing to participate in it.
When bulls are becoming almost extinct like whales, maybe I'll change my mind on it.
~raelin~
Thank you very much for understanding what bullfighting means for Spaniards ;)
share[deleted]
Yes, of course, Mexican bullfighting is very important too.
No, I didn't. What happened?
You didn`t know??? I was there! well not exactly there, I was a little up but thats not the point. A bull called "Pajarito" that in english means "little bird" jumped to the public!!! it was the first time that something like that happens in the world! it was so scary.
share[deleted]
The particular breed of bull used for bullfighting " Toros Bravos" WOULD become extinct if it wasn´t for bullfighting. There simply would be no reason to raise them, as they are harder to handle than "normal" meat cattle and have to keep a very good selection of bloodlines to keep the purity and bravery of the breed. A lot of bullfighters have their own bullfarms, with their own brand. So if the fighting were to be banned, they would become extinct. Also, they have to be bred and raised on very large extensions of land, called dehesas, which preserve a type of mediterranean forests and countryside typical only of the south of spain, and which are not good for agricultural farming. So, it would not be cost effective for these land owners to keep these beautiful farms, and the beautiful landscape would be filled with more residential areas, cities, factories... Mmmm. How "lovely"
share[deleted]
so these animals are raised specifically to be tortured and killed? yeah, that's a GREAT reason to keep them from going extinct.
shareExactly, funky. Great reason. Sheesh.
..and not that I beleieve the brilliant 'extinction' theory for a second, but even if that were true? What would most *people* rather be? Not around anymore?
...or would they prefer to be kept around so they could be drugged, nearly blinded [why do you think they need the moving flash of red?! It doesn't piss them off, it's nearly the only thing VISIBLE to them], have muscles sliced to weaken them, then stabbed repeatedly in the back in front of a cheering crowd, only to finally fall, then have an ear SEVERED while still concsious? Then dragged from view to die a slow, painfull death.
Yeah...
GREAT reasoning there.
Look, I respect different cultures and ways of life. But honestly, how can you be proud to have a national icon incorporating the torturing and killing of innocent bulls? I'm not Spanish, so I probably don't understand the "beauty" of bullfighting. You probably don't like me, cos I'm a foreigner who protests ... but hey, I'm compassionate. THe bulls haven't done anything wrong, why should they be punished for tradition's sake?
shareIn fact, fighting bulls are not extint THANKS to bullfighting. The bulls used in bullfighting are of a special kind, very brave, and are not found in nature anymore.
Moreover, they grow up in the country, completely free for 4 or 5 years. In a huge country as the united states this can not be that expensive but in overpopulated europe, the preservation of this huge lands only to have bulls runing around is very expensive, and if bullfighting was banished nobody will breed them anymore and they will become extinct.
Spanish ecologist organizations (serious ones, like Greenpeace, not some crazy group of people) are not against bullfighting, because thanks to bullfighting this special breed of bull is preserved and more important, a lot of lands are preserved and keeped natural, without buldings, roads, etc... The "ganaderÃas" (the places were bulls grow) are properties of thousand of acres kept natural and inhabited by many kinds of other animals, birds, small mammals, etc, that are perfectly preserved this way since they are not used neither for agriculture or building.
I perfectly well understand that bullfighting may seem cruel and barbaric for a foreigner, but think about this:
when you eat meat, you eat it from a cow that has been raised in a small stable, never allowed to run free. the calves sometimes go mad because they are separated so early from their mothers and they never have a chance to run.
Even if you don't eat meat, to get eggs chickens are kept in small cages were they can't even move, completely mad, with their beaks broken so that they don't hurt each other.
Bullfighting bulls have a bit longer death that other animals (15 minutes, not that long) but they have completely free lifes for 4 5 years (for males) and their whole like (females).
What's worst a free life in the country for 5 years and a 15 minutes death or a short life of six month, emprisoned in a cage, never going out and a shorter death?
Just because a tradition is part of someone's culture and has existed for centuries does not mean it should continue to thrive if it can be seen as cruel to living things. The practice of FGM [female genital mutilation] in Africa contests to that. As socities and cultures change with time they drop activites that were once considered 'normal', that's why Romans aren't killing Christians in the colleseum anymore and slavery is banned in the majority of the civilized world. But I guess since I'm not an Ancient Roman or Southern plantation owner, I can't see the beauty in those traditions.
sharePretty arrogant to state only Spaniards can understand bullfighting. Moreover, wrongs done by another religion, culture or state are wrong I don't care how long they have been practiced. Is female circumcision ok since it has been practiced for centuries? Maybe we shouldn't have given women and minorities the right to vote simply because it had not been allowed for centuries? If it is wrong, it is wrong, period.
And before you get your panties in a wad, I could care less if there is bullfighting. I just think your blanket statement and point that cultural practices are protected from outside criticism is ridiculous.
I am from Spain, and we prefer kill bulls in bullfighs than kill women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or the people executed in USA ( death penalty ).
shareI'm from USA and I don't like killing bulls or people in Iraq. I do like to see egotistical Spanish men die in the bull ring, however.
share[deleted]
"I'm from USA and I don't like killing bulls or people in Iraq. I do like to see egotistical Spanish men die in the bull ring, however."
Then you'd probably love bullfighting.
You can't compare them! Just because one is wrong and happens doesn't mean that the other is okay to do! I am an anti-death penalty american. I absolutlely do NOT think we should be going to war in Iraq. I also don't support the senseless murder of bulls in the name of tradition. It's cruel and unneeded.
shareAnimals die. All of them. Bulls and humans. It happens.
shareAccording to PETA, bulls are going to be tortured and killed in the making of this film. Adrien Brody is learning how to be a bullfighter, which i think is disgusting. Isn't it bad enough having professional bullfighters working on the set? Now they're promoting the activity amongst the cast as well.
Anyway, this PETA link has more information about it. It is due to start filming in March, so guys, if you are against it, PLEASE email the people listed to stop the cruelty.
http://peta.org/feat-manoletemovie.asp?int=weekly_enews
I'm sure the bulls will get over it.
shareHow can they get over something when they're dead?
shareEver read Epicurus? Death is the end of all feeling, including and especially suffering. Given that most other complex animals certainly do have emotions that parallel those of humans, if a bull is dead, then, much like a person, it certainly doesn't care one way or another anymore.
I'll leave it to the other posters to duke it out over whether or not this particular species would have any continuing purpose were it not for bullfighting, or perhaps to compare the staged, phallocentric theatrics of the "sport" to American professional wrestling. My only point is that there is always going to be Pain, Viciousness, and Death in the lives of every conscious being on the planet. Nothing will ever change that. Nothing. Ever.
"there is always going to be Pain, Viciousness, and Death in the lives of every conscious being"
True, but that doesn't mean we should be participating in it. Nature provides plenty of pain for every living thing without humans purposefully adding to the suffering of the world.
It's disgusting to just sit there and say, "the bulls will get over it." I can't believe how disgusting, horrible, and cold-hearted people are towards other creatures. The point is that bulls are animals that can feel pain just as humans feel pain. Do we stick people in pathetic arenas and run around stabbing them? Um, no, we don't. People think it is okay to hurt other creatures because they view themselves as the "stronger, more powerful species." Likewise, women are beat up because they are the "weaker sex" and children are beat up because the adults who hurt them are "stronger and more powerful." Similarly, you can see parallels with elderly abuse and slavery ( and abuse of slaves) back before slavery was abolished. Scientific research has found links between abuse towards animals and abuse towards children, women, etc. It is sadistic that people can harm other animals with no regard to the pain or well-being of the animals. Further, I feel that there is a great degree of ignorance among the general population concerning animal welfare, and I feel that education and continued activism is the best way to stop animal cruelty.
share[deleted]
That is your own opinion. You can think whatever you want.Further, I am not wound up over this issue in particular. I am bothered by people's disregard for other animals in general. I won't continue to argue with you about this because obviously you unclear about what is going on in this world regarding animals and you really aren't worth arguing with- no offense.
shareThe last post was in response to Jackgrace's comment on Sat Feb 25 2006 04:08:36. Sorry for the confusion.
share"education and continued activism is the best way to stop animal cruelty."
Couldn't have said it better myself. Actually, the whole paragraph sums up a lot of my thoughts. And i know the only evidence is the article from PETA, a "publicity seeking" animal rights organisation, but the thing is, we know for a fact that bullfighting does happen.
Does anyone know about legislation for the ethical treatment of animals in movies? I'm pretty sure this would be illegal (not bullfighting in itself, which is legal in Spain, but harming animals for movies)
Hey, cool down, it's just bullfighting! As savage and cruel that it may seem to a lot of people, it still does not equate to beating up women, children or enslavering people; no matter what your "scientific research" says. Great world acclaimed artists like Picasso and others saw beauty and poetry in bullfighting, just as a greek tragedy or the everlasting fight of human vs beast, reason vs the irrational. I am Spanish and have never been to a bullfight; honestly, I couldn't care less about it, but it is a part of my country's culture, just as Don Quixote is. My dad likes bullfighting and rest assured that he is a sensitive, cultured and educated man that has never beaten up his wife or children.
In your post and in many of the opinions of the so called animal rights defenders, I see hatred and, to some extent, self loathing. I mean there are wars going on, human beings killing human beings, and you people get annoyed by people enjoying a fight between a man/woman and a 600 kilo bull. Visit a farm, stop drinking milk (ever saw the pumps?). Relax!
I have "scientific research" as opposed to your opinions, which are obviously ignorant, as your last posting shows an inability to understand psychological research and relationships between variables. There are scientific links between abuse towards animals and women, children, etc. It may be just bullfighting to you, but it is not just bullfighting to a lot of other people. It is harming another living, sentient being. Additionally, just because an artist found beauty in something does not make it right. How does beauty equate to goodness?
shareMy opinions are as valid as your opinions. As for my ignorance, you do not know me. Show for people at least some of that respect and love you say you have for animals.
You seem to forget that bulfighting is not animal cruelty per se, is not infringing harm for the sake of doing harm, bullfighting is a FIGHT between a human being and an animal, and the bullfighter is constantly risking his/her life. Manolete died fighing with a bull. Isn't that considered cruelty against humans by animals?
Bullfighting has been part of my country's culture and tradition for thousands of years, and that some foreigners legitimally don't like it, won't make us change our traditions, just like the fact that millions of people around the world see the invasion of Iraq as a violation of international law did not stop the US government from attacking Iraq and the US voters from reelecting the president that caused that mess. Fighting bulls may seem more cruel to you, but is not that obvious for a lot of people.
I do respect your despising of a part of Spanish culture. You already know you won't be seeing the movie. I know i will enjoy it.
"bullfighter is constantly risking his/her life. Manolete died fighing with a bull. Isn't that considered cruelty against humans by animals? "
in a lot of bullfights, the bull is injured or disabled in some way before the fight even begins.
"I mean there are wars going on, human beings killing human beings, and you people get annoyed by people enjoying a fight between a man/woman and a 600 kilo bull."
I can't believe you don't see the hypocrisy oozing from that statement. You are disgusted by humans killing humans, but you think we shouldn't even be annoyed by humans killing animals just as vicously, and for even more frivolous a purpose? Do you think dogfights and cockfights are acceptable forms of entertainment as well?
[deleted]
Source that isn't PeTA?
Oh and...
CGI RIGHTS!!! STOP CGI CRUELTY!!!
-- Ruadhan McElroy
PETCA (People for the Ethical Treatment of CGI Aminals)
Here's an article. Actually I just sent a letter to the producer today :
PETA has received word that a new film, Manolete, starring Adrian Brody and Penelope Cruz, will contain scenes of bullfighting in which real bulls will be tortured and killed. PETA has contacted the producers and director of the film but has received no response despite our advisement that no response would be taken as confirmation that they will be abusing and killing real bulls.
Bullfights, illegal in the U.S., involve the deliberate torment, torture, and bloody, painful killing of bulls, who are often purposely physically debilitated in advance of the fight. The Associated Press reported on a study showing that at least 20 percent of bulls are drugged before they step into the ring. Former bullfighters admit that bulls are fed laxatives to debilitate them days before the fight, have their neck muscles cut in order to prevent them from lifting their heads up all the way, and have petroleum jelly smeared into their eyes to blur their vision.
The excellent 2005 film The Matador used carefully crafted computer-generated images (CGI) and stock footage of past bullfights rather than harming more bulls. Please contact the following people and urge them not to contribute to the horrific cruelty of bullfighting but to opt instead for CGI technology, which provides the look of a bullfight without requiring additional cruelty and killing. Tell them that bullfights are cowardly affairs that have no place in a modern world.
The movie is scheduled to start filming in March, so time is of the essence. (Click here to see our most recent letter.)
Producer
Andres Vicente Gomez
Lolafilms
Calle Velazquez 12-7
28001 Madrid
Spain
(Note: Postage to Spain is 84¢.)
011-34-91-436-74-00
011-34-91-435-59-94 (fax)
[email protected]
Director
Menno Meyjes
One William Morris Place
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
USA
310-859-4000 (Ask for the agent who represents Meyjes, Gaby Morgerman)
310-859-4462 (fax)
[deleted]
I agree with JackGrace . All we know is that the movie will be about the famous bullfighter Manolete and his love story with Lupe Sino and that it will star Adrien Brody and Penelope Cruz . And all that has been said about the bullfighting is that (if you read the article posted by JG) the movie will revolve around the love story and that it will not glamourise bullfighting so based on that reason i doubt they would hurt any bulls in the process.
And i remeber reading a few interviews with Adrien Brody where he mentions that he is against animals being hurt and isn't partial to bullfighting but agreed to do the movie because of its beautiful love story. And knowing what i know about Adrien, he would never agree to be involved in anything, or let alone be in a movie where animals will be killed on set . Like JG mentioned they might show some old footage in what little scenes they have in the ring since the movie will be mainly about the love story .Or better yet they might even use technology or some other kind of way to fake the fights. PETA just suddenly jumped to conclusions about the movie and is trying to start a contoversy without even considering the facts and understanding more about the movie.
I'm optimistic about this movie and i am sure that with all the people involved in it and from what i've read about it, it will turn out to be a promising movie . Ofcourse it could be if the PETA doesn't try and ruin everything over nothing. Give this project a chance people and wait for more confirmation on the subject at hand from the film makers of the movie before signing a petition over nothing and keeping this movie, that a lot of other people want to see, from being made.
Since the producers indicate it's mainly a love story anyway, why don't they address the concerns people have over animal welfare and just get on with it? Agreeing to keep animal cruelty out of the movie and just using stock footage and computer generations is a win-win situation for everyone. This movie is getting off to a bad start and the animal welfare issue must be resolved or the box-office bottom line will be severely affected.
shareRefushing to get return PETA's voice-mail is neither confirming nor denying anything. The PETA article even basicallt *said* "PETA has contacted the producers and director of the film but has received no response despite our advisement that no response would be taken as confirmation that they will be abusing and killing real bulls."
Do you know what that means? That's means the same thing as a schoolyard wise-ass saying "If you don't fight me tomorrow, that means you eat poop and I'm going to declare victory!" A kid who doesn't want to deal with such antics wouldn't show up to the fight because, well, if some other kid wants to believe he eats poop and lost a fight without any evidence to back it up, why should he care?
Maybe I need to be twelve years old again to *really* understand why even ignoring PeTA's threats of libel is such a bad thing, but then again, even when I was twelve, I didn't get it.
'The end justifies the means' has also been the format of every defense of bullfighting so far.
The "art," the "beauty," the "tradition," etc. are all listed as justifications for what amounts to sticking a bull like a pincushion with pikes that resemble whale harpoons more than anything else, until so much blood drains out of it that it can no longer move - then adding to its indignity by lopping off an ear and dragging it away. I, for one, do not think the torture of a living, feeling creature is an acceptable means to the end that is a supposedly artistic and beautiful tradition.
I am not Spanish, but I DO understand bullfighting. There's nothing more to understand than the cruelty of it. It doesn't matter whether you consider it art. It doesn't matter whether it is a national tradition. All that matters is that humans do not have the right to inflict torture on animals just because we can. But bullfighting is ALL ABOUT the cruelty and torture. Nobody would go watch it if it were "humane." It wouldn't be that exciting if the matador first rendered the bull unconscious with a captive bolt gun, then went to work on its motionless body, would it? I understand the entertainment value of watching a CGI bullfight that reflects the historical significance of a famous matador, but to want to see the real thing is to have a desire to witness brutal violence for brutal violence's sake - and nothing more. After all, in war movies we don't have people torturing other people for real just because it is a tradition (and torture IS a tradition in war, don't lie). We know such a thing would be unconscionable, so it is believably but knowingly faked. How is it any different with a bull?
The question of whether or not Peta gave the filmmakers enough time to respond has already been answered. JackGrace, did you look at the dateline of the London Times article you yourself previously posted? It's December 11, 2005. Peta has obviously been discussing this issue for over two months, and the filmmakers have remained silent that whole time. Those who want to "wait and see what the filmmakers say" are going to find that the bullfighting scenes have been finished before that happens. Then, no matter what side of the issue you're on, it's too late.
And why do you think that the filmmakers AREN'T saying anything? Everyone keeps calling Peta a "publicity-seeking" group, but does nobody see the irony in that statement? The filmmakers are eating this up! They aren't saying anything because it's free publicity FOR THEM, not Peta. Peta is the one speaking out, which means THEY are the one having to go to the trouble and expense of getting the word out. This isn't free for them. Didn't ANYONE take a marketing class? Mark my words, the filmmakers will speak about the issue sometime AFTER filming of the bullfighting scenes has been completed. Then, if they do use real bullfights staged specifically for the film, there will be a HUGE controversy about it and their little film will be plunged into the limelight of the media. They will gain far more interest in the film over the media hooplah than they will lose over the cruelty issue, because your average Joe Moviegoer wants to see what all the hype was about. THAT'S what publicity-seeking is about.
Finally, (I know this is a long post - sorry folks) what's the harm in contacting the filmmakers? Some of you seem to think that you couldn't possibly presume to write to them before you know all the facts, but that's naive. If the filmmakers are NOT going to film real bulls being killed then a letter politely asking them not to do so will cause no harm. However, if they ARE planning to do so, then the letter will hopefully help to prevent that. The only bad idea is not sending a letter at all. That would leave the matter completely ignored, which should never happen in the case of possible cruelty.
[deleted]
You already agreed that sending a letter will have no ill effects. So whether or not Peta is "jumping the gun" is irrelevant. All they're asking people to do at this point is to write the filmmakers and ask them not to use real bullfighting in the movie. If it was unnessesary to do so all along, then the only negative effects will have been the slight waste of a few minutes time and a few cents postage on the part of the letter writers.
Even if you are correct in your assumption that Peta would stoop to hack journalism techniques, the filmmakers now know with 100% certainty that thousands of people would like an answer as to whether they will be using real bullfights in the film. If they do not come out immediately (within the next week at the most) with that answer then their silence will be quite telling - and Peta will have been proven correct in their reporting that the filmmakers refuse to comment.
[deleted]
I suppose you should be referring to individual people then, rather than the Peta organization as a whole. Some of the people who have posted in this thread, as well as other threads for this movie, have been speaking of uncertainties as absolute truth. But that is just their own oversimplification of the issue. Peta has never said that the movie WILL contain true bullfighting scenes. They clearly stated that they were basing their request for letters on the fact that the filmmakers had refused to reply. Peta is not claiming to know all the facts. I can understand being skeptical of some of the things Peta says and does, but a knee-jerk reaction accusing them of irresponsibility in this case is unwarranted.
share[deleted]
Well, with your past experience you may very well be more informed on reporting strategies, and better able to identify the one with which Peta made such a statement. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Personally, I don't think an organization that is merely acting (in this case) as a watchdog group with a particular issue in mind should be held to the same strict reporting standards as newspapers and other legitimate journalism. They are, after all, merely trying to get some letters sent to a producer in time to prevent some possible severe animal abuse.
I do feel the need to point out that if an issue closer to your heart were the one at hand I doubt you would hold the reporting organization to such high jouralism standards, either. I have no idea what issues pluck your heart strings, but lets take, for example, child abuse. Nobody sane can argue that that's a good thing. If a child advocacy group came out saying that they suspected an actual child was going to be beaten for real just for the sake of realism in a film, I don't think you would still be so worried about reporting strategies. Most people in that situation would immediately take pen to paper, just in case. And few would fault the child advocacy group, even if it were wrong. That's all that's happening here, except that animals are involved instead of children.
[deleted]
It's not hard to use child beating as an example because this argument has nothing to do with legality. Obviously, bull fighting is legal in Spain. I think that many people on the message board are looking at the cruelty of bull-fighting as a moral issue.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
JackGrace, pull up your pants... your bias against Peta is showing.
Seriously, where is your proof that Peta's source was their own imagination? You're doing exactly what you're criticizing them for: reporting negatively when you have no proof whatsoever of the facts. How do you know they didn't have inside information coming from someone in the production? As someone who claims to have reporting experience, you must realize that sometimes you can't reveal your sources, and it may look like you're making something up even if you're not. Obviously there was some impetus that started all this. Peta had to have heard at some point that there was at least a possibility of using a real staged bullfight for the film. Just because they did't list where they got that first clue doesn't mean they pulled it out of thin air.
This is NOT a "made-up" controversy. This was a case where Peta feared that animals were going to be abused. So they asked people to write letters to make sure that didn't happen. Many people did, including myself (I wrote a polite, non-threatening letter simply asking for an answer, and recommending against using a real bullfight). Now the filmmakers have come out and said they are not going to harm bulls, and that the bullfight scenes will be done with CGI. Therefore, the objective of Peta's request has been achieved. It doesn't matter whether or not the filmmakers planned to use CGI all along. What matters is that they were refusing to answer questions about it, and now they have. Game over. No harm, no foul.
The analogy works fine, you simply refuse to acknowledge it because it supports my points. Why are you assuming the child abuse film would be produced in the US (or any other developed country), when you know location has alot to do with the bullfighting issue?
All we have to do in order to make a letter-writing campaign against child abuse believable is move the production of said child abuse movie to a country where child abuse is not illegal - trust me, unfortunately there are still countries where you can legally beat kids.
Just like Manolete being filmed in Spain, where bullfighting is legal, there would be nothing you could legally do about the child abuse - but you bet your ass people would write letters.
Viola... valid comparison.
[deleted]
I'm making perfect sense. Again, you are just unwilling to admit the similarity. But with that last post you actually made my point for me. Yes, movies are pretend. That's why bullfighting in movies should also be pretend, which is what I was saying all along.
You are correct in the fact that this is now a moot point, but you are making a large assumption when you say "Manolete was never going to have real killing in it." All we know is that Manolete is NOW not going to have real killing in it - not that it was NEVER planned that way. We don't know whether people's concerned letters made them change their plans or if they never did plan on killing bulls and the letters simply made them say so.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank you for your input. IT is very helpful to know that there is a large group of people in Spain who do NOT treaure bullfighting. Some of the other poster would have us all believe that there is not a soul living in Spain that does not adore the bloodsport.
Most of what you said is intelligent and enlightening. However, your assumption that those who support Peta ignore humantarian causes is quite the opposite of the truth. In fact, the average Animal Rights activist is MORE likely to support humanitarian, Civil Rights, environmental, and other progressive causes than a non-AR activist. And most AR activists do not put Animal Rights above Human Rights - they consider the two to be equally important.
It is shortsighted to assume that a person or group must only concentrate on one issue at a time. I would take your second to last sentence and change it to "If we agree that all animals deserve to be treated with dignity we should begin with ALL animals at once (including our our own species)."
[deleted]
Everybody has their "pet cause" - The one that they seem to promote more than any other. But that does not mean that they do not do great work for other causes, too. Many of the famous people that I'm aware of that are AR activists also support human-centered activism. I'm not sure which stars you are referring to when you say many of them promote AR at the expense of human issues, but it does not trivialize Human Rights just to be more public about your support of Animal Rights. We humans need to get over our anthropocentric attitudes and realize that our rights are not more important than those of other animals. Humans do not have a monopoly on suffering and pain.
Regarding publicity, I'm sick of people claiming that publicity-seeking is always a bad thing. All progressive movements seek publicity. In that respect AR groups are no different than human-centric ones. In order to get your message heard, you have to be able to deliver it to people. That's what publicity is. One may disagree with the WAY a certain group gets publicity, but criticizing a group for seeking publicity at all is misguided.
[deleted]
That's exactly what I'm talking about. People think that because we have war, crime, poverty, etc., that we humans are the only beings in this world that suffer, or that only human suffering is worthy of attention. All I'm saying is that suffering is suffering, whether it is being felt by a human or a non-human animal. Both beings are equally worthy of having their suffering brought to the attention of those who would help stop it.
The argument "we should start with (insert your favorite cause here)" has been used for as long as people have been fighting injustices. But the problem is that not everyone agrees on what the "worst" injustices are. Also, starting with any one issue assumes that one day that particular problem will be solved, so that we can move on to another problem. I'm sorry, but the world is not - and never will be - a utopia. We will never end suffering completely. We will never completely get rid of human suffering so that we may move on to tackling animal suffering next. Yet we must still try to reduce all suffering as much as we can. Therefore, the only sensible and humane thing to do is to spread our efforts accross all of the problems that we can simultaneously. We should start with human suffering AND animal suffering AND any other issues there are - not just one at a time.
Answer me this .
the iberian bull is a agresive animal.
you cannot leave bulls on natural parks because they are very agresive . to all type of animals.
you cannot farm the bulls for eat because each bull takes 4 to 5 years to become eatable.
you need 7 to 8 to can use his skin .
If you bane the bullfigthing it means around 6.000 bull farmers will have not reason to keep it.
Then the iberian bull will follow the destiny of the black vulture and the royal eagle .
Nowdays the bullfigthing is the only thing than keep the animal alive .
Ask yourself this.
has you seen a bullfigthing where you hear insults neo nazys dudes with flags or than people kill themselves for the sport ?.
Now ask yourselv on the football or soccer look at what happens on the stadiums the deaths.
[deleted]
me arse the iberian bull is not agresive.
Links
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2875474&dopt=Abstract
this animal is takes 5 years to grow
http://www.utterlyhorses.com/model-horses.asp?catid=209&subcatid=137&prodid=76614
http://www.utterlyhorses.com/model-horses.asp?catid=209&subcatid=137&prodid=76614
the breeding of the iberian bull to become more agresive started on the year of 1247.
The dehesas are giant farms or land areas for agriculture.
the bull will ruin .
Have you seen any bull farm ? i guess not.
Again who will take care of the nowdays 7.000 bulls on spain .
the state ?.
on 2001 the junta of andalucia admit than if they ban the bullfigthing they just could take care of 100 animals.
[deleted]