Kristatos wrote:The charge was that he had no right to speak out against the treatment of circus animals, because circus animals were used in Octopussy 30-odd years ago. As if people's views can't change over time.
this joker was demanding Moore donate his "bond millions" to animal rights groups. And his connection I think was his uncle was moores double or something.
The charge Moore has no right to speak out is laughable so I ignored it. If you want to complain this guys family who worked for eon is more culpable than the actor who just showed up with no production input.
Obviously this is hitting roger Moore because he is a easy target and this is a easy story to get picked up. Borderline extortion, maybe not borderline.
Most circuses are failing, Ringling brothers is done, zoos struggle to exist. Mainly because of the cost of insuring their operation, next would be the cost of feeding and care.
Me guess is in another 20 years these animal rights groups will bemoan the lack of institutions to care for some of these animals which no longer will be found flourishing in the wild.
I'm not a big fan of animals like lions and elephants in captivity but not all these species thrive in the wild any more. The big cats in particular.
I'm more concerned of extinction if mankind doesn't continue preserves and habitats.
The snowflake overreaction to animals in captivity may doom some species.
I do agree about some of the cruel treatment, but imho some of it is misunderstood because these groups don't understand how big animals need to be handled.
targeting a 30 year old movie is only driven by sensationalism. Even back then Roger Moore was not a driving influence in how the movie was made, imo the fact he lent his name to help animals get better treatment over the years is what should be applauded.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro