Finding Dory will have an anti-SeaWorld message, says Ellen DeGeneres

[Sarah Brozdonis]

In finding nemo, it is referenced a couple of times, I think, that 'fish belong in the ocean, not a tank'.....and all of the fish are scared of the kid! I'll still see the movie...am wondering how the sequel will be so long after the original.

 

[sndral]

Sigh, when did journalists become so inaccurate? Unless Finding Dory has marine mammals in it any subtle conservation message is most likely to be directed at the irresponsible collection of fish from coral reefs and resultant negative impact on those ecosystems. Blackfish the movie, despite the name, was about the largest member of the dolphin group - Orcas aka killer whales who are mammals not fish. Thus Ellen's comments about fish aren't relevant to Orca captivity.
Some animals can humanely be kept in captivity, others not so much. Although less than ideal, sometimes individual animals incapable of living in the wild due to injury, captive raising or even threatened extinction may end up in less than ideal captive conditions. For example, where I volunteer we have a captive raised albatross - because of an injury suffered in the wild she cannot fly (and that's what albatrosses do - nonstop days on end flying) so for her the options were death or a life in captivity. Fortunately she's adapted remarkably well.

 

[JimmyV]

Sigh, when did journalists become so inaccurate? Unless Finding Dory has marine mammals in it any subtle conservation message is most likely to be directed at the irresponsible collection of fish from coral reefs and resultant negative impact on those ecosystems.

The Yahoo article linked on page one makes it very clear that Finding Dory has an Orca subplot.
I suspect that the "political message" (which is really a horrible misuse of the word "political"...there is no politics involved. Only social issues), will be about on par with Wall-E. Disney had no qualms tackling WalMart type stores as "Buy-N-Large", and had no qualms about tackling issues that ranged from irresponsible landfilling to lazy humans who have sparked an obesity epidemic. A production studio that does this should have no problem taking a jab at a marine park that keeps Orcas in captivity.

As for the "Disney hypocrisy", I suppose there is some. But many of the large mammals kept at WDW are either highly endangered, at which point captivity may in fact be the best place for them to be seen, studied and reproduced, or the animals were rescued and have no real chance of survival in the wild. To the extent (if at all) that Disney captures, (or pays for the capture) of truly wild animals to house in its zoo, then yes, that would be hypocritical. To the extent that Disney is furthering the prolonged existence of endangered animals, or is housing rescued animals, then there is no comparison to the plight of the Orcas at Sea World.

 

[sndral]

Thanks for referencing the article - I didn't click on the link before, and if the article is correct, then I will be very curious as to how the ending vis a viz the Orcas plays out, interesting.

 

[eXo]

Pseudoscience is always a problem, but I don't actually find Jenny McCarthy's nonsense any more harmful than the huge numbers of people on social media and the internet in general who are propagating it. As the father of a child with Aspergers I have lost count of the number of times discussions on that topic have ended with the anti-vaxxer dismissing actual research with "well that's your opinion" and then proceed to spout their nonsense at everyone who will listen. There's no separate rule for celebrities and there shouldn't be.

Believe it or not, but celebrities actually influence people. While I don't see anyone here suggesting there should be separate rules for celebrities voicing opinions, to state that there is no difference between a celebrity's opinion and your average person is surprising to me. You or I could spent half our life researching something and release our findings and we have the same chance of winning the lottery in regards to getting our worked picked up by the media (which is about the only way the general public will hear about it). On the other hand someone like Jenny McCarthy can spout off about something she knows nothing about and not only is it re-tweeted, reported on, and spread like wildfire - but it is friggin QUOTED as a viable source by those who buy into it!

Jenny McCarthy single-handedly created hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-vaxxers. How can you say that isn't any more harmful than anyone else?

Some people have influence. Some people don't. The simple fact we are in this thread proves my point. Ellen makes an offhand comment about the movie being about fish in the ocean and here we are in a thread about an article that goes so far as to claim Finding Dory is anti Seaworld propaganda. How many people do you think are going to read that articles title, assume it is true, and start bashing Disney OR suddenly supporting Disney (based on whichever side of the Blackfish coin they fall on). The fact that countless people out there form unwavering opinions based on sound bites and uneducated celebrity opinions is a problem when it leads to health detriments.

Scientology explicitly understands the value of celebrity opinions, which is why it is part of their business plan to target celebrities, which in turn influences other people.

Charles Barkley once said "I am not a Role Model". Guess what? People looked up to him for saying that. eg: making him their role model.

 

[Eoghann]

Believe it or not, but celebrities actually influence people. While I don't see anyone here suggesting there should be separate rules for celebrities voicing opinions, to state that there is no difference between a celebrity's opinion and your average person is surprising to me. You or I could spent half our life researching something and release our findings and we have the same chance of winning the lottery in regards to getting our worked picked up by the media (which is about the only way the general public will hear about it). On the other hand someone like Jenny McCarthy can spout off about something she knows nothing about and not only is it re-tweeted, reported on, and spread like wildfire - but it is friggin QUOTED as a viable source by those who buy into it!

Jenny McCarthy single-handedly created hundreds, if not thousands, of anti-vaxxers. How can you say that isn't any more harmful than anyone else?

Some people have influence. Some people don't. The simple fact we are in this thread proves my point. Ellen makes an offhand comment about the movie being about fish in the ocean and here we are in a thread about an article that goes so far as to claim Finding Dory is anti Seaworld propaganda. How many people do you think are going to read that articles title, assume it is true, and start bashing Disney OR suddenly supporting Disney (based on whichever side of the Blackfish coin they fall on). The fact that countless people out there form unwavering opinions based on sound bites and uneducated celebrity opinions is a problem when it leads to health detriments.

There is no difference between their opinion. The results of them sharing that opinion may be different (not universally in a positive way for them mind you) but it is still just an opinion.

Place the blame where it belongs, not on a celebrity for sharing an opinion, or even the media for publishing it. Blame the morons who can't fact check or even apply basic logic to their thought processes. Don't gag celebrities, teach people to think.

Did McCarthy create thousands of anti-vaxxers? Probably, though there's really no way to quantify her impact in those terms. You know who created even more? Andrew Wakefield. The man who produced the original fraudulent study. He wasn't sharing an opinion, he lied. You know who else continues to create thousands? The websites by non-famous people who propagate misinformation. Most of which is not quotes of McCarthy. In fact when I debate people on that topic, McCarthy is never a source that they raise. They've got far more "credible" sources to spout. Fake doctors, dubious research or wild speculation written in a report somewhere.

To dismiss the problem of anti-vaxxers as "if only Jenny McCarthy hadn't spoken up" is reductionist to the point of misrepresentation.

 

[eXo]

There is no difference between their opinion. The results of them sharing that opinion may be different (not universally in a positive way for them mind you) but it is still just an opinion.

Place the blame where it belongs, not on a celebrity for sharing an opinion, or even the media for publishing it. Blame the morons who can't fact check or even apply basic logic to their thought processes. Don't gag celebrities, teach people to think.

Did McCarthy create thousands of anti-vaxxers? Probably, though there's really no way to quantify her impact in those terms. You know who created even more? Andrew Wakefield.

And who popularized Wakefield's study? McCarthy. Who went on shows like Oprah and Dr. Oz, where people actual watch and consume this crap and then trust it (not because they trust McCarthy, but because they trust Oprah or Oz)? Mc Carthy, that's who.

You can blame the people who buy into all you want, but pretending all the blame lies with them is ignorant. Snake oil salesman are responsible for what they sell. Buyer beware and all that, but it doesn't remove the responsibility from the peddler. You have an apologist stance that suggests anyone can go around and say whatever they want, no matter how factually incorrect, no matter how damaging, and no matter how far it goes towards taking advantage of others. And that this is totally fine because it falls on the person to know better. Must be nice living in such a black and white world.

To dismiss the problem of anti-vaxxers as "if only Jenny McCarthy hadn't spoken up" is reductionist to the point of misrepresentation.

You have a really bad habit of reading into what people are saying and adding a lot to it just to turn around and attack what you added. No one here ever said celebrities opinions should be treated differently. The OP simply said she was tired of it. Then you came along and said it was no different and they shouldn't be treated differently. Why do you care if the OP is tired of celebrities spewing crap? No one ever suggested that they be censored.

Now you have suddenly decided that someone here is placing all the anti-vaxx blame on McCarthy, when all I said is that she has single handedly converted thousands to believe in it. It's two totally different things. Are you debating with me, or yourself here?

 

[Eoghann]

And who popularized Wakefield's study? McCarthy. Who went on shows like Oprah and Dr. Oz, where people actual watch and consume this crap and then trust it (not because they trust McCarthy, but because they trust Oprah or Oz)? Mc Carthy, that's who.

That conveniently ignores the fact that McCarthy isn't that well known in the UK or Australia and yet the study caught on there too.

You can blame the people who buy into all you want, but pretending all the blame lies with them is ignorant. Snake oil salesman are responsible for what they sell. Buyer beware and all that, but it doesn't remove the responsibility from the peddler. You have an apologist stance that suggests anyone can go around and say whatever they want, no matter how factually incorrect, no matter how damaging, and no matter how far it goes towards taking advantage of others. And that this is totally fine because it falls on the person to know better. Must be nice living in such a black and white world.

Considering the second half of your post that is an incredibly ironic statement.

You have a really bad habit of reading into what people are saying and adding a lot to it just to turn around and attack what you added. No one here ever said celebrities opinions should be treated differently. The OP simply said she was tired of it. Then you came along and said it was no different and they shouldn't be treated differently. Why do you care if the OP is tired of celebrities spewing crap? No one ever suggested that they be censored.

If I say I'm cold I'm implying I would like to be warmer. If someone says they are tired of celebrities offering opinions, they are implying they want celebrities to stop.

Now you have suddenly decided that someone here is placing all the anti-vaxx blame on McCarthy, when all I said is that she has single handedly converted thousands to believe in it. It's two totally different things. Are you debating with me, or yourself here?

Again the implication of your post and indeed this post, by failing to acknowledge any other factors, is that you think McCarthy is the primary factor.

 

[eXo]

If I say I'm cold I'm implying I would like to be warmer. If someone says they are tired of celebrities offering opinions, they are implying they want celebrities to stop.

How is implying that you wish a celebrity would stop bleating psuedo science the same thing as having separate rules for them, which is what you seem to have a problem with?

You have taken implication, extruded the implied meaning (wish celebrities would stop) to an abstract meaning (there should be different rules) and then began arguing against the new extracted implied meaning that you made up yourself. Still with me? Had to jump through several logic hoops there, which is how I have felt in replying to these posts.

What is ironic here is that you are fighting for the right to a celebrity to voice their own opinion by trying to invalidate the opinion of a user that is tired of celebrities voicing pseudo science opinions.

Nobody except you has suggested that celebrities opinions should be policed in any way. Others simply said they were tired of them. You responded by saying a celebrities opinion does no more harm than any one else's, which is demonstrably false. When I give you examples of celebrities who have influenced swaths of the general public, your only response is to try and delegitimize the celebrity. Nothing you can say can change the fact that McCarthy was on national TV spouting this crap, released a book (or several books) blaming vaccinations for her sons condition. You would have to believe that none of that media influenced anyone in order to stand by a ludicrous statement like 'celebrities opinions are no more harmful than anyone else's'.

And even if she isn't the sole reason people believe in it - she INFLUENCED them to look into wackos like Wakefield, who otherwise would have languished in obscurity. Arguing that she isn't popular in other countries is just ridiculous. It doesn't change the fact she was influential in the US. The whole crux of your statement was that celebrities opinions are no more harmful. I show otherwise and your best response is, "oh yea, well... not in that country over there!". That doesn't change or disprove anything. That is the logical equivalent of saying, "There's a three-headed monkey behind you!"

Which leads me to this gem:

Again the implication of your post and indeed this post, by failing to acknowledge any other factors, is that you think McCarthy is the primary factor.

No, she is a major factor, not a primary one. YOU decided that I think Jenny McCarthy is the sole reason an anti-vaxx movement exists simply because I pointed out that she was influential in the spread of it. So you see how far you bastardized what I said? How much of your own assumptions you added to it? By polarizing what I said into something as elementary as this, it gives you an easy target to argue against. The problem is, it's a target you invented and is not reflective of what I have been saying at all.

Examples of celebrities pushing misinformation that gets picked up by news sites, gossip sites, facebook shares, and retweets are numerous. Everything from eating placentas, to home birth, to Scientology. Some of these things are harmless and others put people at risk. While I am very proud for you that you are so scientific minded that you have the resources to make up your own mind about things (while simultaneous stuffing words in my mouth), there are thousands of people (which is still a statistical minority) who take things they read for face value. Do you have any idea how many Onion articles get shared on facebook as true stories? So yes, everyone has responsibility for the ideas they put out there. The more people who can hear your voice, the more responsibility you have. Guess who, in first world countries anyways, have the loudest voices? Celebrities.

Fashion trends, lifestyles, what people eat, how they talk, and yes - even what they believe can all be influenced by celebrities. And no, don't put words in my mouth, I'm not saying every single person is susceptible to this. I am saying enough of the general populace is susceptible that misinformation CAN be harmful. ESPECIALLY with kids and teens, who are even more prone to picking up the ideas that are presented to them. Why do you think mascots exist? Coming from Mr. Greed, I would assume you understand just how manipulative mascots/celebrities can be with the public. Yet here you are arguing that their opinions mean nothing more than any random social media mob? Pshhh.

 

[ucfknight]

As for the "Disney hypocrisy", I suppose there is some. But many of the large mammals kept at WDW are either highly endangered, at which point captivity may in fact be the best place for them to be seen, studied and reproduced, or the animals were rescued and have no real chance of survival in the wild. To the extent (if at all) that Disney captures, (or pays for the capture) of truly wild animals to house in its zoo, then yes, that would be hypocritical. To the extent that Disney is furthering the prolonged existence of endangered animals, or is housing rescued animals, then there is no comparison to the plight of the Orcas at Sea World.

Strictly speaking of marine mammals as the movie is about creatures from the seas, the hypocrisy would come into play in the form of the many dolphins which have been wild-caught over the years to fill the waters of SeaBase at the end of the attraction now known as The Seas with Nemo and Friends.

 

[JimmyV]

Strictly speaking of marine mammals as the movie is about creatures from the seas, the hypocrisy would come into play in the form of the many dolphins which have been wild-caught over the years to fill the waters of SeaBase at the end of the attraction now known as The Seas with Nemo and Friends.

Do you know if they are wild-caught and not rescues? There is a marine life center near where I live that used to have rescues on display. When they have none in residence, (either because they have been returned to the ocean, or died), then the display remains empty. They do not go out and "source" new ones. I don't know what Disney's policy is.

 

[ucfknight]

Do you know if they are wild-caught and not rescues? There is a marine life center near where I live that used to have rescues on display. When they have none in residence, (either because they have been returned to the ocean, or died), then the display remains empty. They do not go out and "source" new ones. I don't know what Disney's policy is.

They've certainly wild-caught dolphins much more recently than SeaWorld has wild-caught an orca. The original dolphins which inhabited The Living Seas were all wild caught, and 4 died within 5 years of the attraction's opening:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-08-22/news/9008220244_1_dolphins-marine-parks-permits
http://www.freethedisneydolphins.org/p/about-dolphins.html

 

[JimmyV]

They've certainly wild-caught dolphins much more recently than SeaWorld has wild-caught an orca. The original dolphins which inhabited The Living Seas were all wild caught, and 4 died within 5 years of the attraction's opening:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-08-22/news/9008220244_1_dolphins-marine-parks-permits
http://www.freethedisneydolphins.org/p/about-dolphins.html

This is pretty dated stuff. It would seem to indicate that at least at one time, Disney was guilty of housing wild-caught dolphins in its exhibit. But I'm not sure an article from 1990 tells me the chain of custody of the animals that reside there 25 years later. I am not saying that you are wrong, as I have no knowledge one way or the other. Its past practices can be considered hypocritical in relation to SW, but if it has amended its ways in the recent past, that would have to count for something.

 

[ucfknight]

This is pretty dated stuff. It would seem to indicate that at least at one time, Disney was guilty of housing wild-caught dolphins in its exhibit. But I'm not sure an article from 1990 tells me the chain of custody of the animals that reside there 25 years later. I am not saying that you are wrong, as I have no knowledge one way or the other. Its past practices can be considered hypocritical in relation to SW, but if it has amended its ways in the recent past, that would have to count for something.

Sure the first article is dated, but it shows Disney captured dolphins using their own permits at least 7 years after SeaWorld took its last wild orca. And I never said all dolphins there now were caught in the wild. According to the 2nd link which is more recent information (says 2013) only one of the current ones was, "Today, four male dolphins are held captive at Disney's Epcot park, Ranier (captured from the wild), Khyber (Keebler), Calvin and Malabar."

I'm just saying it would be hypocritical for Disney to slam SeaWorld over holding orcas in captivity when:
1. Disney hold marine mammals in captivity
2. Disney captured healthy wild marine mammals more recently than SeaWorld captured an orca

 

[JimmyV]

I'm just saying it would be hypocritical for Disney to slam SeaWorld over holding orcas in captivity when:
1. Disney hold marine mammals in captivity
2. Disney captured healthy wild marine mammals more recently than SeaWorld captured an orca

I guess this is where we part ways on the concept of what it means to be hypocritical. The mere act of holding marine animals in captivity does not make Disney hypocritical. If they have a manatee on display that was severely injured by a boat propeller and cannot be returned to the wild, the very act of holding it on display is not a negative thing. So too with dolphins. Or orcas. So #1 above, in and of itself, is not a show of hypocrisy.

And as for #2, timing doesn't really matter after a sufficient period has lapsed. The U.S. would not by hypocritical in calling for the end of human slavery in another country simply because slavery used to be legal here. It doesn't matter who is "last" if neither participates in the behavior any more. If SW took its last wild orca in 1989 and WDW took its last wild dolphin in 1991, but neither does it anymore, then there is no hypocrisy to complain about. Now, if the dolphin "Ranier" was wild caught by Disney recently, I see a problem. If Ranier was wild-caught 10 years ago and WDW now has abandoned the practice, that would be different. And if Ranier was wild-caught by some other entity but came to live at WDW under other circumstances, (such as the original captor going out of business), then there should be no problem with that either. In the end, if Ranier could be safely returned to the ocean, that would be best. But if that ship has sailed, so to speak, best that s/he live out its life well, even if that is in captivity. It would be nice to see some sort of pledge that WDW will not longer obtain wild-caught mammals, however.

 

[nugov2]

I guess this is where we part ways on the concept of what it means to be hypocritical. The mere act of holding marine animals in captivity does not make Disney hypocritical. If they have a manatee on display that was severely injured by a boat propeller and cannot be returned to the wild, the very act of holding it on display is not a negative thing. So too with dolphins. Or orcas. So #1 above, in and of itself, is not a show of hypocrisy.

And as for #2, timing doesn't really matter after a sufficient period has lapsed. The U.S. would not by hypocritical in calling for the end of human slavery in another country simply because slavery used to be legal here. It doesn't matter who is "last" if neither participates in the behavior any more. If SW took its last wild orca in 1989 and WDW took its last wild dolphin in 1991, but neither does it anymore, then there is no hypocrisy to complain about. Now, if the dolphin "Ranier" was wild caught by Disney recently, I see a problem. If Ranier was wild-caught 10 years ago and WDW now has abandoned the practice, that would be different. And if Ranier was wild-caught by some other entity but came to live at WDW under other circumstances, (such as the original captor going out of business), then there should be no problem with that either. In the end, if Ranier could be safely returned to the ocean, that would be best. But if that ship has sailed, so to speak, best that s/he live out its life well, even if that is in captivity. It would be nice to see some sort of pledge that WDW will not longer obtain wild-caught mammals, however.

I guess I am curious if seaworld only rescues and no longer captures why is anyone including Ellen up in arms over a practice that the company she is making a movie for practices. That to me is hypocritical and also if Pixar/Disney includes the message that keeping marine life in captivity is wrong that they acknowledge that what they are doing in Epcot is no longer a practice they advocate and will be looking to return them to the wild. There are success cases of them thriving in the wild after being in captivity, but Disney would have to be willing to let the experts come in and assess if their dolphins fit the criteria.
In the meantime they can come up with a better environment for the dolphins in their care. The environment at Epcot is borderline cruel. They get no exposure to fresh air or natural light in that tank. I don't think that is a very good environment for dolphins even if they cannot live in the wild.

 

[andyman8]

What really bothers me is how celebrities, much like regular people, are jumping onto this Blackfish bandwagon and not taking into account the ENORMOUS violations of journalistic ethics that occurred in that film. CNN Films (which just slapped its name on that film in an effort to get a ratings surge) called that a "documentary" but in fact it was far from it. While documentaries can present an opinion generally, they also have to present facts and the truth to make their point; they must remain truthful. Making glaring omissions, dressing people up to appear as doctors, scientists, and professionals, and misleading viewers in the fashion they did, in my opinion, discredits that film entirely. I think there is a perfectly legitimate argument to be had about whales, other sealife, and animals in captivity, but you can't lie just to make your point that much clearer. The only reason I bring up Blackfish is because that is what seemed to relaunch and popularize this whole discussion, but if you research it, you find that they introduced "facts" into this discussion that are more opinion than fact. It goes to show that celebrities and people in general will often jump on a cause just because it's the cause everyone is talking about. I'm absolutely not insulting anyone who agrees with Blackfish's sentiment bur rather suggesting that that film alone should not be the basis of your opinion.

 

[dinolounger]

Wow, people have short memories. The first Shrek movie took huge digs at Disney in the whole arrival at Duloc sequence (probably a lot more vicious than anything about Seaworld that will be in the Nemo film):

 

[cleverclovers]

When a celebrity uses their fame/power to forward an 'opinion' steeped in pseudoscience or ignorance (think Jenny McCarthy's anti-vax antics), and a large amount of people begin to see that opinion as fact, THEN it becomes an issue.

Well said!

 

[chartle]

Wow, people have short memories. The first Shrek movie took huge digs at Disney in the whole arrival at Duloc sequence (probably a lot more vicious than anything about Seaworld that will be in the Nemo film):

I don't think thats at all a good comparison at all. Even Disney makes fun of themselves with the jokes on Jungle Cruise.

I'm not really on one side or the other. But you do know that those are puppets not real children in say a ride like Small World.