Is this horse still alive? (Warner Brothers)

Earlier today, The Observer wrote an article that detailed the controversy surrounding the deaths of 27 animals at a Warner Brothers-owned farm in New Zealand. The Wellington farm housed trained animals for Warner's $500 million production of The Hobbit.

While we cast some doubt over the timeline of the events that apparently exonerated both Peter Jackson and the American Humane Association (which is the only organization allowed to issue those "No Animals Were Harmed"™ disclaimers) from investigating the deaths, PETA--which is protesting the film's release--offered us some insight into the matter.

From our inbox:

Thank you for your thoughtful and challenging piece on The Hobbit. I can address this:

"The timeline is also dubious, because the wranglers who stepped forward to identify themselves to the press—Chris Langridge, Lynn Langridge and Johnny Smythe—had all complained about the conditions of the animals during 2011, and were either fired for arguing with their bosses, or quit in frustration after getting no reply from management about the letters they sent. Letters about horses with broken backs and sliced-open legs, and mysterious cover-ups on autopsy reports."

The whistleblowers initially came to PETA in September this year after seeing that we exposed the deaths on Luck as well as issues on more than a dozen AHA-monitored films. (I put AP in touch with them.) Johnny Smythe had initially tried to get press attention on the horse deaths in 2011, but it never got out of a local paper in New Zealand.

American Humane inspects housing all the time, so I don’t know why they’re pretending they don’t. And they certainly knew of issues as far back as 2011. Below is an email sent to them by a New Zealand reporter in November 2011, which was leaked to us. AHA also acknowledges in its review of the film that it wasn’t present for all filming of animals, so I don’t know how Mr. Jackson can claim they were.

All best,
Kathy Guillermo
Senior Vice President
--
From: Tom Hunt [mailto:Tom.Hunt@dompost.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 4:18 PM
To: Media American Humane
Subject:

Hi,
I am a reporter for New Zealand newspaper The Dominion Post.
I received a tip this morning that animals being used in the making of the Hobbit films have been mistreated. According to the person who gave me the tip, so far 3 horses, 6 goats, and 5 sheep have all died preventable deaths.
In one case I understand a small pony was put in a paddock with a larger, violent horse, which killed it. Another horse fell off a bluff, and another died from being given too much 'hard feed'.
Goats have apparently been put into paddocks with no roughage.
I was wondering if your organisation had received any complaints along these lines and if you had any concerns?
Thanks for your time.
Tom Hunt.

Tom Hunt
Reporter
The Dominion Post
www.dompost.co.nz

Checking the date of the journalist's email, he sent it in November of 2011, well after the "early 2011" upgrades the Mr. Jackson and the AHA claimed they made.

Guess how many animals made it out of this film alive. (Warner Bros.)

Yesterday afternoon, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit hit its first scandalous speed bump after the AP spoke to several animal wranglers who claimed to have witnessed the deaths of at least 28 animals housed at a Warner Brothers-owned Wellington farm that was being used as a holding pen for the film's four-legged characters.

After the leak about the avoidable demise of horses, sheep, goats and chickens, all there is left to do is find out who will fall on their mighty Glamdring for this PR disaster.

So far, the likely candidates include:

A) The owners of the Wellington training farm, a k a Warner Brothers, which housed 150 animals in conditions that have been described as "death traps";

B) Peter Jackson, for putting his film before the well-being of the animals that may or may not be featured in the final version;

C) The American Humane Association, for pulling another Luck and falling asleep on the job by not monitoring the safety of the animals involved in the film;

D) The "disgruntled" wranglers themselves;

E) ORCS??!

From the damage control done so far, we can eliminate B and C from the list: Peter Jackson and the producers have already released the following statement, claiming that the wranglers that brought up the allegations were angry ex-employees who were fired from The Hobbit over a year ago.

STATEMENT FROM PETER JACKSON & THE HOBBIT PRODUCERS
The producers of The Hobbit take the welfare of all animals very seriously and have always pursued the highest standard of care for animals in their charge. Any incidents that occurred that were brought to their attention as regards to this care were immediately investigated and appropriate action taken. This includes hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent on upgrading housing and stable facilities in early 2011.

The producers completely reject the accusations that twenty seven animals died due to mistreatment during the making of the films. Extraordinary measures were taken to make sure that animals were not used during action sequences or any other sequence that might create undue stress for the animals involved. Over fifty five per cent of all shots using animals in The Hobbit are in fact computer generated; this includes horses, ponies, rabbits, hedgehogs, birds, deer, elk, mice, wild boars, and wolves.

The American Humane Association (AHA) was on hand to monitor all use of animals by the production. No animals died or were harmed on set during filming.

We regret that some of these accusations by wranglers who were dismissed from the film over a year ago are only now being brought to our attention. We are currently investigating these new allegations and are attempting to speak with all parties involved to establish the truth.

Meanwhile, the AHA is busy covering its own ass, claiming (like Jackson) that it went above and beyond its duty to ensure that animal safety was the top priority ... both on and off set. The last thing it needs is another Luck on its hands:

AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION CALLS ANIMAL DEATHS

ON ‘THE HOBBIT’ UNACCEPTABLE; RENEWS CALL TO EXTEND MONITORING

OFF THE SET AS WELL AS ON

“There are too many incidents off set and they must stop,” says AHA President

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 19 -- American Humane Association, which has protected more than a million animals in film during the 70+ years of its famed “No Animals Were Harmed®” program with a 99.98 percent safety rate on set, called the injuries and deaths of animals living at the working farm where some of the animal actors from “The Hobbit” were also being housed needless and unacceptable. The organization renewed its call to the entertainment industry asking for additional jurisdiction and funding to keep animal actors safe not only while they are working on set, but off set as well to address illegitimate suppliers of animals and to ensure proper training, housing and retirement of these important and beloved co-stars of film and television. In January 2012, American Humane Association sent letters to industry leaders seeking ways to work together to improve the welfare of animals off the set as well as on.

“We are currently only empowered to monitor animal actors while they are working on production sets,” says American Humane Association President and CEO Dr. Robin Ganzert. “We do not have either the jurisdiction or funding to extend that oversight to activities or conditions off set or before animals come under our protection. There are too many incidents off the set and this must stop. It is vital that we work with the industry to bring the kind of protection we have for animals during filming to all phases of production.”

Because of American Humane Association’s monitoring of the animal action which included having a licensed veterinarian on the scene, no animals were harmed on set during filming of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” However, upon learning of injuries and deaths of animals while being housed at a working farm 186 miles from the main set and 26 miles from the soundstage, American Humane Association went beyond its jurisdiction and authority to visit, examine and make safety recommendations and improvements to the farm. These recommendations were implemented a year ago, bringing a higher level of animal welfare to all animals living on the site into the future.

Which leaves just the animal wranglers, or the orcs. (And possibly Warner Brothers, who we assume are the "producers" referred to in Jackson's letter, although it makes no mention of them owning the farm where the beasts were living.)

Except a closer reading of both Jackson and the AHA's press statements reveal a level of hand-washing that would make Lady Macbeth proud.

For instance, Jackson's letter claims: "Any incidents that occurred that were brought to their attention as regards to this care were immediately investigated and appropriate action taken. This includes hundreds of thousands of dollars that were spent on upgrading housing and stable facilities in early 2011."

Which, in real-speak, means that there were events precipitating unnatural deaths in the animals ... at least enough to raise alarm bells for the producers, who were suddenly willing to shell out "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in 2011 to change and upgrade their facilities. That's not something most producers are willing to spring for over some "natural deaths" ... the only kind Jackson claimed to be aware of.

So no, it doesn't hold water that Peter Jackson and the producers are just finding out now about the one wrangler who had to bury three horses, six sheep, six goats and about a dozen chickens ... all before "early 2011," when the film company sprang for more hospitable living conditions thanks to the AHA alerting them.

The timeline is also dubious, because the wranglers who stepped forward to identify themselves to the press--Chris Langridge, Lynn Langridge and Johnny Smythe--had all complained about the conditions of the animals during 2011, and were either fired for arguing with their bosses, or quit in frustration after getting no reply from management about the letters they sent. Letters about horses with broken backs and sliced-open legs, and mysterious cover-ups on autopsy reports.

Then there's the fact that the AHA letter highlights the physical distance between the farm and the set (186 miles) in order to prove how extra-diligent they were for even investigating the matter, without mentioning once that the establishment happened to be owned by the film's producers, Warner Brothers.

Jackson's spokesperson declined to tell the AP who currently owns the farm, or whether the animals who live there may be used for another Hobbit film in the trilogy. However: "Jackson himself adopted three of the pigs used."

Which is all not to say that Jackson, the producers or AHA is necessarily responsible for the animals' deaths. After all, this does fall into a murky gray area for the AHA, which is supposed to investigate the background of animals used on-set, but doesn't have much authority beyond telling producers not to use those from a certain breeder or seller. And it's understandable that The Hobbit’s creators might overlook a couple routine fatalities off-set, as they were focused more on the safety of the animals on-set than the ones housed 186 miles away that might not even be used in the film.

Still ... yikes, what a mess. PETA, obviously, is planning to protest the film. And with the premiere edging closer by the day, the most the filmmaker and Warner Brothers can hope for is that when the blame is finally done shuffling, it's the Orcs who are left holding the hot potato.

The Hobbit

Whether you love The Lord of the Rings trilogy or find it to be pompous nerd bait, one thing is undeniable: Those movies are successfully epic on a scale that few films have been in the last 20 years. It goes to reason that The Hobbit could follow suit, especially if Peter Jackson winds up directing, as rumored. Of course for that to happen, there would need to be a budget and money to pay said budget, but those are semantics! Here's guessing some other studio figures out at a way to make this movie—and its sequel—happen by 2015.

The Next James Bond

James Bond will return in Don't Hold Your Breath. The next Bond film was put on hold "indefinitely," meaning that established talent like Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig will probably have to move on. Upside: New Bond rumors!

The Three Stooges

If it feels like you've been hearing about the Farrelly Brothers attempt at The Three Stooges with Benicio del Toro and Sean Penn in lead roles for years, that's probably because you have. Alas, prepare to hear about it for a little bit longer. Still, if this fever dream project ever does happen, expect it to be awesome.

The Materese Circle

Back in February 2009, Tom Cruise had his pick of the studio litter ... and wound up choosing Knight & Day (then called Wichita). But The Materese Circle still feels like the best film out of that lot. At the time, Cruise, Denzel Washington and David Cronenberg were working on the project—a spy thriller from Robert Ludlum that would be oh-so-prescient because of the fact that one of the characters is a Russian spy. How 2010!

Cabin in the Woods

It's a horror movie in 3-D—so, demerits—but this one has Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford playing the leads who may be baddies, a bunch of fresh-faced youngsters in a cabin and dialogue courtesy of Joss Whedon. Man, poor Whedon—can't that guy ever catch a break?

I’m no fan of Peter Jackson, but as much as I hated the 2005 remake of King Kong and all of those silly, overrated Lord of the Rings comic books, the New Zealand director’s trademark recipe of fantasy, realism and computerized visual effects turns The Lovely Bones into a thrilling adventure. I love the exquisite blend of chilling murder mystery, suspenseful crime story and domestic melodrama, and especially the way Mr. Jackson lets his imagination run barefoot through the flames to deal with very difficult material indeed. My heart was pounding in my throat from start to finish. Take a Valium. The suspense could kill you.

The movie’s based on the acclaimed Alice Sebold novel about a serial killer on the loose in a placid Pennsylvania neighborhood and a dead 14-year-old girl who helps solve her own murder from beyond the grave; this was challenging stuff on the printed page, almost impossible to adapt to the screen. But great acting, relentless fantasy sequences and dark undercurrents of terror propel the creepy narrative with a cinematic rhythm as sinister as it is mesmerizing. Since we know the identity of the gentle-looking maniac who rapes and kills teenager Susie Salmon on her way home from school, you might think the plot is ruined from the beginning. Wrong. Susie’s friends and her parents (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz) will not abandon the search for the missing child, even after the police have given up. In the movie, like the book, Susie is stuck somewhere between heaven and earth, where she relives her life posthumously, feverishly sending clues and signals about Mr. Harvey, the weird neighbor who watched her unnaturally from the green house down the street, and the fatal day she allowed him to lure her into a candlelit playroom beneath the cornfield, filled with toys, teddy bears and comic books. As the years pass, forensic evidence like the blue jacket and yellow corduroys Susie wore home that day is juxtaposed with the surreal spaces and seasons of an in-between place beyond life where Susie waits to be rescued. This is the blue horizon of Salvador Dali beaches, leaves that blow from tree branches and back again like detachable feathers, a lighthouse rising out of the misty murder scene. The cinematography is breathtaking. Even a shot of a sailing ship in a glass bottle looks like an oil painting brushed with polyurethane. When your hair isn’t standing on end, you always have something to look at, peruse, sift through like a police file. The scene where Susie’s suspicious sister (Rose McIver) sneaks into Mr. Harvey’s house and rummages through his desk drawers while he slowly climbs the stairs is as bloodcurdlingly scary as anything I’ve ever seen on film.

The performances are truly remarkable, from Ms. Weisz as a mother so anguished that she leaves home to pick fruit in California; to Mr. Wahlberg as a father so driven by grief that he loses reason; to Susan Sarandon as a chain-smoking grandmother who runs the vacuum cleaner in her mink coat and copes with a bottle of kitchen sherry. But two electrifying performances, without a hair out of place, dominate this film and leave you drained from excitement: As the tortured victim seeking closure, the fetchingly beautiful young Irish actress Saoirse Ronan (the lying little sister who caused all the trouble in Atonement) makes a memorable Susie; and as the benign monster with yellow hair, spectacles and a voice soft as a kitten’s tongue, living in the sinister house down the block, Stanley Tucci gives one of the most sensational performances of his versatile career. Look for him to make some noise when awards season arrives.

The Lovely Bones is a complex and unusual film, alluring, enthralling and perturbing. Weeks after seeing it, it still gives me nightmares.  rreed@observer.com

We love a good round of blogosphere-led hand wringing, so the news that Vertigo Entertainment is planning a reboot of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer franchise totally tickles our fancy. Rather than include creator Joss Whedon or any of the beloved supporting characters he created for television, Vertigo is relying on the immortal Fran Rubel Kuzui, director of the long-forgotten original Buffy with Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry, to produce a film that “compliments” Mr. Whedon’s niche series. Think Star Trek, if J.J. Abrams kept Captain Kirk but replaced the crew of the Enterprise with some other dudes.

It goes without saying that this is a hilariously misguided idea, but it doesn’t seem worth the apoplectic reactions splattered about the web, specifically with regards to Mr. Whedon’s potential lack of involvement; as an intrepid blogger over at Entertainment Weekly put it: “Worst Idea Ever of the year!” Is it though? Mr. Whedon is talented, sure, but his absence from a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie doesn’t necessarily mean it will, well, suck (pun most certainly intended!). Fact is, beyond the Buffy-verse, Mr. Whedon hasn’t done anything to warrant his status as a sacred cow; being one of four screenwriters on the original Toy Story is nice, but that achievement clearly gets canceled out by being the only writer for Alien Resurrection.

Anyway, all this got us thinking: Who are some other wildly overrated Hollywood commodities? Here are three of our favorites.

Danny Boyle

There was a meme running through the Oscar season last year which seemed to say that Danny Boyle was “due” for some Academy recognition. Come again? We love Trainspotting too, but this guy is not markedly better than other genre filmmakers in his peer group. And his work on Slumdog Millionaire felt like nothing more than warmed over Tony Scott. Needless to say, that is not a compliment.

James Cameron

Not even we can deny that the King of the World is one of the biggest directors ever: Aliens, T2, Titanic; any filmmaker would love to have one of those movies on their resume, let alone all three. The reason Mr. Cameron skates into the land of overrated, though, is because there seems to be this feeling amongst journalists and tastemakers that audiences are waiting with baited breath for what he does next. But by the time his 3-D-palooza, Avatar, is released in December, thirteen years will have passed from when Mr. Cameron ruled earth with Titanic. Does anyone even remember back that far? And, more important, did everyone forget that underneath all its technical prowess, Titanic was purely a mediocre melodrama?

Peter Jackson

We don’t think we’ve liked a Peter Jackson movie since The Frighteners. His laborious Lord of the Rings adaptations were bad enough, but what really pushes him over the top is King Kong. Here’s an idea, let’s take a fun creature feature and turn it into a three hour prestige picture. Ugh! Perhaps his take on The Lovely Bones, due in December, will fare better. At least in that film, we’ll be assured of seeing no ice skating giant apes.

Now at the risk of getting our geek bonafides torn to pieces by irate comic fans, and at least one fellow member of the Culture Czar, since Tintin is being scripted by Doctor Who mastermind Steven Moffatt, we'll ask: why is Steven Spielberg wasting his time directing a movie based on a Belgian comic strip?

We don't know enough about Tintin to trash it. Until this morning, we actually thought the little dog was named "Tintin" and not the Archie knock-off lead character, a reporter who gets in adventures with that trusty dog, actually named "Snowy." But after the slightly disastrous (and we're being kind, because we sorta liked it) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we figured Spielberg would want to dig into something a little more substantial. Doing a 25-year passion project seems like a fool's errand; just ask Martin Scorsese, who was never able to bottle the ends on Gangs of New York. Even the long-gestating Lincoln would be a fine follow-up: a paint-by-numbers period piece with a big star turn by Liam Neeson that will inevitably have a lousy third act and be filled with some bizarrely lit Janusz Kaminski shot compositions (it is Spielberg after all.)

However, a motion-capture animation, star-free, 1940s comic-strip adaptation? It just sounds like a project more suited for Robert Zemeckis.

Maybe it's our vanity. We admit we find it hard to believe that something we've barely heard of could draw names like Spielberg and Jackson, not to mention millions of studio dollars and three planned movies. But, this just sounds like a big dud to us. If Spielberg is going to adapt something scripted by Steven Moffatt, with merely a cult following and not much penetration here in the colonies, why not just take the reigns on Doctor Who?

So considering that the filmmaker’s executive assistant Matthew Dravitzki, his New Zealand-based attorney Michael Stephens and his Hollywood power lawyer Peter Nelson are all listed in city records on twin penthouse purchases in Tribeca, it seems likely that Mr. Jackson has some new New York real estate.

According to those records, the two-unit, 10-bedroom, $17.35 million penthouse duplex on Franklin Street was bought in two separate purchases, adding up to one of Tribeca’s most expensive apartment deals.

The buyer, who is listed anonymously but has Mr. Stephens’ New Zealand address, signed the contract for both sprawls in January 2007, less than a week after Robert Shaye, the co-CEO of New Line Cinema, publicly vowed to never work with Mr. Jackson again because of a Rings money feud. The smaller north unit closed that June; the New Line feud was settled in December; and the $13.5 million deal for the south unit closed late last month.

Both belonged to the building’s developer, the contractor Chris Clark, who had lived in the bigger unit and rented out the other. “It wasn’t listed,” he said about the second, “but when the right buyer came along, they wanted the privacy of having the whole top floors.”

The Web site PropertyShark puts the two penthouse units at a combined 8,018 square feet; Mr. Clark said there was
another 4,000 square feet of outdoor space, including a thickly planted wraparound terrace, caked in apple and pear trees, tulips and clematis. “All you see,” he said, “are plants and trees and the New York skyline.”

Mr. Clark, who would comment on the apartment but not the buyer or the money paid, said his family’s unit had “six bedrooms, plus a family room, library and a 2,300-square-foot living room. That’s just on my side.” (He said the smaller unit has another four bedrooms.)

That steroidal size can’t really be found anymore: The top floor of the building was added by Mr. Clark thanks to a city planning loophole that has since been closed.

mabelson@observer.com

Of course, a long and difficult movie like King Kong is bound to be full of little filmic blunders, but around here we want to hear from New York history wonks, not film editors. Write in with more.

Oh: And we know the picture above is not from King Kong. It's Singin' in the Rain, which just seemed appropriate today.

- Tom McGeveran