Jump to content

SeaWorld Misses Targets, Stock Plummets


Recommended Posts

Stepping back from the one sidedness of the documentary it is well done. It is out together nicely, uses music to effect mood, gets it's point across, and gets people talking.

Just because you don't agree with the message doesn't make it bad. They presented one side of the story. Right or wrong Sea World chose not to be part of it.

Every story has 3 parts, my side your side and the truth. Blackfish tells one of those parts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Private equity. Blackstone. Acquired, and has already gotten back its investment and more, by milking the parks. This is what Mr. Kinzel and Apollo would have done to Cedar Fair. Thank goodnes

I still believe if Sea World would have come right out and fought Blackfish from the beginning it would never have been so harmful, but the approach to ignore a National story is the worst move possib

I have a degree in Anthropology. We had to write papers in college, about theories, and had to back them by trying to disprove them. My senior paper was "I Learned More From Bugs Bunny Than I Ever Di

Like shark said, it's important to note that Blackfish is put together very well, and is a captivating documentary. However, especially with news outlets with as much clout as the New York Times, you would think the reviewer would take the time to investigate the other side of the story as well.

SeaWorld does need to take some of the blame though, or at least the PR team. While the facts in the documentary may not be accurate, SeaWorld and 42West (the PR agency SeaWorld hired) did a terrible job of presenting their information, and made it far too easy for the film makers to respond.

What does SeaWorld do in response? They haven't completely accepted the fact that their awful financial situation is due in part to Blackfish.

What do they need to do? I believe SeaWorld is stepping in the right direction with expanding its tanks, but a 2018 completion date may be too little too late. I think that, if possible, SeaWorld needs to move up that completion date.

I also believe that SeaWorld needs to take responsibility for Blackfish, and show their publics what they are doing in order to make the orcas lives better. While the larger environments are a good step, a news release is not going to be picked up by the mainstream media (and more importantly, read by Blackfish supporters) unless Blackfish is brought up. Essentially SeaWorld needs to say "We've heard your voices, now here's how we're trying to help."

I also believe SeaWorld needs to center its focus on the many many things the park does for marine life, including its animal rescues, efforts in the BP oil spill, etc.

I could go on and on... :)

Also, this Rick Munarriz article is a great read from a PR standpoint of what SeaWorld should do

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2014/04/08/4-things-that-seaworld-can-do-to-turn-things-around/

And another interesting article from the Washington Post, but this is a different conversation for a different time

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/08/19/after-blackfish-seaworld-hurt-financially-but-keeps-up-political-spending/

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had difficulty appreciating the quality of the film due to the many clips that came from outlets like You Tube. If you look, it's clip-interview-clip-interview, etc.. As a documentary, it's not truly informative, and it's not even up to par with Discovery channel. It's just inflammatory and appeals to head nodders. Why would I look further into the matter if it were truly informative? It would have answered all my questions if it were.

So much clipping that a dark haired girl being interviewed about riding a whale was overlaid by a video willowy blonde riding the whale.

So many clips straight from the park, it mesmerized me into looking into going to the park.

I do agree that the PR department should have looked sharp as soon as the film hit. I think they should hit back with a positive film. Yes, it would look like a Public Relations stunt. They should relate to the public what's going on with their programs that are helping animals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Seaworld the reason we cut up our six pack rings, so animals don't get hurt and trapped? If I recall correctly, they are the organization that brought this to our attention.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Documentaries dont have to be informative to be quality. I am not defending the implications made by the film, but a documentary takes a thesis, shows your its supports, and lays out its closing argument. Blackfish did it.

Is Sea World still installing raising floors into their show pools or is the new tank going to supersede that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A fairly good Opinion article. FYI the opinion is that Orcas shouldnt be pinned up because they are huge predators.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130803-blackfish-orca-killer-whale-keiko-tilikum-sea-world/

But does touch a bit on the PR snafu by Sea World

SeaWorld had helped Cornell save Keiko's life. In the Mexico City theme park where Keiko lived and Free Willy was filmed, the whale was confined to a tank too cramped and warm. He was in terrible health, scarcely moving so as not to overheat, his pectoral fins warty with papilloma virus. SeaWorld experts advised that chillers would help solve the problem, and they sent those down. From SeaWorld San Diego, on hearing Cornell's report that Keiko's diet was poor, they trucked down high-quality fish. "He was eating fish that were not really stored properly," Cornell told me. "They would cut the heads off and gut the fish and feed him the fillets. What he was missing was bone and all the vitamins and minerals that come from the liver and the organs of an animal. It's very important for a wild predator to eat everything."

Keiko was not SeaWorld's whale; there was no profit for them in their good deed—not even as a public-relations coup.

SeaWorld's Letter of Denial

Public relations at SeaWorld remain dismal. In the case of Blackfish, the PR sin has been not been omission, but commission. SeaWorld must have known the content of Blackfish since at least January, when the film screened at the Sundance Festival, but for months the company simply kept quiet—the smart thing to do, obviously. Why risk the "banned in Boston" effect? Why publicize the efforts of the enemy? Then at the last moment the company changed course, sending out its letter to film critics ("In the event you are planning to review this film, we thought you should be apprised of the following.").

Worth the read.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had difficulty appreciating the quality of the film due to the many clips that came from outlets like You Tube. If you look, it's clip-interview-clip-interview, etc.. As a documentary, it's not truly informative, and it's not even up to par with Discovery channel. It's just inflammatory and appeals to head nodders. Why would I look further into the matter if it were truly informative? It would have

You are correct. Majority of the footage they even used for the docufiction was ripped off loyal patrons like myself (a lot of it was very close friends of mine) for it without consent. Even better... a lot of the "Tillikum" footage isn't even Tillikum at all. *rolls eyes* A lot of that material could be found on the net 5+ years before Blackfish even existed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.reelseo.com/youtube-copyright-ownership/

"The truth is, something close, but not quite." She says. "Meaning, YouTube always allows the owners to retain ownership of their work. But what they require in their terms of service is that you grant to YouTube a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual license to freely sub-license, re-distribute, re-publish, monetize, and whatever they may want to do with your video. They're basically requiring that you grant YouTube all of the same rights that you have with your video, short of turning over your rights to them." (I.e., assigning to YouTube your complete rights.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still don't change the fact they rip 5 year old (or older) footage off saying it is "new and ground breaking evidence".

The one person I know who granted the OK to use her footage (footage of Kohana at Loro Parque interacting at the glass with some patrons) said they could only as long as she was credited. What happened? No credit and they manipulated it by dubbing orca vocals on top of the footage saying she was making distress calls. (they weren't even Kohana's own calls to begin with but then again she was portrayed as Tilli in the film as well)

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

That means YouTube can do that.

Others?

Terp, who likes to ask questions.

Its been about a year since I watched Blackfish, did they credit YouTube for the use of the footage? Did YouTube require they be documented.

If your friend has it in writing, Im sure she has a case, if it was an oral agreement (which is done by many filmmakers) then well, who knows. (Im not a lawyer, but during my production days, whenever I sent out my own film to be used by others, I had a written agreement, usually in email).

Im not defending the thesis Blackfish presents, but I am willing to defend it as a film/artistic representation of what it wants to do. By defending the things we hate, we preserve the rights of the things we love.

IMHO:

Sea World should have been more proactive from the start. Release its own documentary. Get big ratings. Work with Discovery channel to do a Orca week. Sea World has been pretty silent when it comes to being proactive on its part. Sure a press release here or there, but that does not reach the word of mouth.

Show video of an Orca striking and killing a dolphin or sea lion. Show what makes Orcas more frightening than a shark. Orcas are cool. But I mean no one relates the Orcas in the Happy Feet movies with the same ones in Sea World.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Show video of an Orca striking and killing a dolphin or sea lion. Show what makes Orcas more frightening than a shark. Orcas are cool. But I mean no one relates the Orcas in the Happy Feet movies with the same ones in Sea World.

Funny thing SeaWorld will (or they did once upon a time) show wild orcas snatching up on sea lions on some of their educational videos however they never went into excruciating detail beyond that. I think SeaWorld always could go into more detail when they talk about orcas, I felt (still do) the Shamu Story shows were a positive route with the whales as it was a nice break from in water ballet performance that Believe was, and One Ocean is only slightly better than Believe. Believe was when SeaWorld really began to do more entertainment than education with the whales, personally I was never a fan for that show actually... shows before that were more educational. Heck, I remember Cedar Point's dolphin shows being fairly educational compared to KI. So yeah, Shamu Story, Beluga Story and Sea Lion Story are all welcome presentations. Irritating for me that people now act like they want educational when for the longest time they probably would have snored at such shows. Shows themselves continue on the whales own schedules, not the trainers if they don't want to do a show then oh well lol... trainers just give speeches. You can not force an animal that weighs over a ton what to do. I seen it happen at least once every time I go to their parks, orcas themselves run the show, the trainers do not and they the trainers know this very well.

But yeah, I never disagreed with the fact SeaWorld needs to push harder in the educational aspect, they are after all considered the experts of not only orca care in the zoological community but when it comes to just about marine mammal. It's SeaWorld facilities like Marineland France, Loro Parque and even Kamogawa SeaWorld in Japan as well as the many zoos up along the east and west coast of our country turn to in case of emergencies and/or dealing with rescues/strandings.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

....Irritating for me that people now act like they want educational when for the longest time they probably would have snored at such shows.....

But yeah, I never disagreed with the fact SeaWorld needs to push harder in the educational aspect, they are after all considered the experts of not only orca care in the zoological community but when it comes to just about marine mammal. It's SeaWorld facilities like Marineland France, Loro Parque and even Kamogawa SeaWorld in Japan as well as the many zoos up along the east and west coast of our country turn to in case of emergencies and/or dealing with rescues/strandings.

I think that has a lot to do with the medium you are using. People who go to the shows probably enjoy the entertainment more than the information. But when it comes to a movie, I think the education can happen.

Could you imagine a week long event like Orca week? Here is a 45 minute documentary about the Killer Whale vs The Great White Shark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS53yy_2R0Q

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

(emphasis added)

http://www.reelseo.com/youtube-copyright-ownership/

"The truth is, something close, but not quite." She says. "Meaning, YouTube always allows the owners to retain ownership of their work. But what they require in their terms of service is that you grant to YouTube a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual license to freely sub-license, re-distribute, re-publish, monetize, and whatever they may want to do with your video. They're basically requiring that you grant YouTube all of the same rights that you have with your video, short of turning over your rights to them." (I.e., assigning to YouTube your complete rights.)

Source: Who Owns Your YouTube Video? YouTube Copyright & Ownership Answers http://www.reelseo.com/youtube-copyright-ownership/#ixzz3BVc05W5Q

©ReelSEO.com, All Rights Reserved

That means YouTube can do that.

Others?

Terp, who likes to ask questions.

As I understand it, per the word I emphasized, yes, YouTube can sub-license all of those rights to anyone they want to.

That may make it legal, but it doesn't make it ethical. There's a difference between copyright infringement (a legal issue) and plagiarism (an ethical issue).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plagiarism is taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own.

This is part of the reason why I plaster a watermark on all my cetacean photos. This and plus my photos were also victim to the media plastering them all over TV right after the 2010 incident in Orlando.

I love the documentary about the orcas and great white sharks. Jaws was inaccurate in that sense, sharks don't typically go out of their way to mess with a pod of orcas (unless it is a sick/old individual all alone that is about to die anyway), orcas on the other hand....will go after great whites.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My professors were punks. I was always told to try to disprove my theories, not ignore what disproves my theory.

I don't know if I'd want a show like Believe, but yes, I'd like to see the whales do what they do in nature, and many times, they execute that behavior due to a trainers giving signals. There's no reason for them to do those behaviors otherwise.

I saw the film Blackfish twice, because I didn't get the prescribed message, I got the "wow, that's really a great looking park" message. The second time, I watched it because I would stop it, research what was being said, then start it again.

There are students out there that strive for their own footage. They actually stand up from the computer chair, strap on a camera, and go out there and work for it, same as the photographers and video artists that got out and tape scenes to present in their documentaries. There are people here that present me with great photos, I'm not going to 'save as' and present them as mine, no matter how many I paste together in a sequence.

I think it truly is unfair and unethical, despite You Tube contracts, for a person to sit in the AC, cool their jets and copy and paste other people's work from the computer, and then call it 'their' film.

The opening of the film was the worst taste for me, the 911 call compiled with the footage of a trainer doing a stunt. I don't think a good documentary should rely on bait and switch stunts.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a degree in Anthropology. We had to write papers in college, about theories, and had to back them by trying to disprove them.

My senior paper was "I Learned More From Bugs Bunny Than I Ever Did from You."

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was about the Trickster character. The Native American Trickster is often depicted as a rabbit, and Bugs Bunny did a lot of the same things that are in the Rabbit Trickster stories.

I was positive that the WB animators were taking fro these stories, but found out otherwise, through the help of the now director of Animation Resources in Los Angelos. I guess cross dressing rabbit humor is universal.

I did learn more from the animators than I did from the professors and doctors at the university.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...