Kenneth Branagh Settles With PETA (What A WUSS!)

[arwalden]

http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/mndwebpages/branagh%20settles%20with%20peta



11/10/2005 17:16

KENNETH BRANAGH has defused a People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) protest after agreeing to retire all of the ducks who appear in his London play DUCKTASTIC to a sanctuary when the show finishes its run on the West End.

Animal rights activists were outraged when they discovered 46 Indian runner ducks were taking to the stage every night - insisting robotic birds are the only ethical option.

<< ME: Oh brother! Those poor poor mistreated ducks. :eyes: >>

But the HARRY POTTER star has succeeded in striking a deal with PETA, who regularly target celebrities who they believe violate animals' rights.

A PETA spokesperson says, "Ducks don't belong on stage any more than Mr Branagh belongs in a pond. What's wrong with mechanical ducks?"

<< ME: They don't look real... that's what's wrong with them. >>

[CanuckAmok]

1. Yay! A new sig for me!!

What does Queer Duck think about this? I bet he's torn.

[arwalden]

2. LOL!!

[CanuckAmok]

3. You know, because he's a supporter of the arts, but he's also a duck.

Ethical dilemma, thy name is Queer Duck.

[arwalden]

4. You Nailed It!!

[CanuckAmok]

6. And what the hell is SIR Ken doing involved with a show called Ducktastic?

That's the real story, right there.

[Susang]

9. I agree!

Enquiring minds want to know! :D

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. Oh, for the love of God.

Did they object to Lassie, too?

[CanuckAmok]

7. I object to Lassie. She's a bitch.

[Montauk6]

106. Wasn't Lassie, in effect, the RuPaul of his/her day?

[mr blur]

8. Very boring, over-rated actor, don't you think?

I'd rather watch the ducks.

[arwalden]

10. PETA is trying to ruin his career!! They are... CAREER ASSASSINS!

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhollyHeretic]

16. I could say the same thing about the constant frothing

veggie-bashing crew. It's pretty sad really.

[friesianrider]

21. Methinks like you.

Boy oh boy...someday maybe they'll actually manage to contain themselves for an entire week.

[Rabrrrrrr]

30. Yep, fuck those asswipes, too

They're even worse than the PETA assholes.

I've never understood why people feel the need to bash vegetarians just because they're vegetarians. Never made sense to me. Bash if they're holier-than-thou, sure - but then it's bashing because the asswipe fuck is holier-than-thou, not because they're vegetarian.

[Zomby Woof]

12. PETA kills animals

http://www.petakillsanimals.com

They care more about publicity and bringing in money than caring for animals. They have no interest in maintaining no-kill shelters, so they euthanize thousands of animals, while publically scolding and attempting to harrass people for doing less harm than PETA itself does.

Biggest hypocrites outside of the religious right.

[Beaverhausen]

13. oh look- I can post a link too

This is the group that runs that PETAKILLSANIMALS website

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

talk about hypocrites.

[LeftyMom]

14. That's a right wing corporatist source

do you have a more legitimate link to share?

[Chan790]

18. Better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom.

So the enemy of humane treatment of animals is a right-wing corporatist front for the tobacco lobby?

I love it. It has a nice effect of combining everybody I hate under one catch-all group, making it so easy for me to despise them all-at-once.

[WhollyHeretic]

15. Before you call others hypocrites maybe you should look at the

stuff your posting. That's right-wing propaganda.

[flvegan]

20. Kool-Aid, anyone?

[ronnykmarshall]

25. Here's some popcorn ....

:popcorn:

[flvegan]

41. Thank you. I love popcorn.

[CanuckAmok]

51. that better be a soy-based topping.

[flvegan]

55. Most popcorn

at least the movie theatre kind are nothing but chemicals. For me, that'll work. For the rest, eat it if you got it.

[Lavender Brown]

17. He's just afraid they'll hit him with a pie

It would ruin his hair. :P

[flvegan]

19. I'll bet that you didn't know that the supplier/trainer of said ducks

has been cited NUMEROUS times by the USDA for violation of the Animal Welfare Act? Probably not. Here's a short list:
*failure to provide minimum space
*failure to provide clean bowls
*failure to provide clean water...adequate space...mental stimulation...adequate shelter from weather...

Also, failure to COMPLY with veterinary care requirements. Filthy cages...failure to allow access to the property for inspection...FAILURE TO APPLY VETERINARY CARE TO SUFFERING ANIMALS...

there's more, btw...but I digress.

So..."they don't look real" trumps a shitty organization making money off the backs of animals, all the while treating them poorly.

Just checking...

[alarcojon]

23. Then I would demand that the animals receive ethical care

but PETA, of course, goes further, arguing that the ducks shouldn't be on stage no matter how well they're being treated.

Not that I have a particular horse in this race, but I would lean towards allowing the ducks on stage.

[Beaverhausen]

24. Ducks should suffer for their art, is that it?

Whatever...

[alarcojon]

27. I clearly stated the ducks should be treated ethically

can you prove that it is not possible for the ducks to enjoy themselves during the performance? If not, aren't you assuming that any art involving humans and animals is inherently exploitative of the animal? If so, I disagree.

[Beaverhausen]

29. How is putting ducks onstage treating them ethically?

They are wild animals. They don't belong on any stage. Anywhere. They belong outside living free.

I really can't see any situation that you can put an wild animal on a stage and call it "ethical."

[alarcojon]

32. I guess, like I mentioned above, that we'll have to agree to disagree.

Peace

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. Do you have pets?

Personally, if we're gonna go the animal rights route, let's take it to its logical conclusion and finally admit that keeping pets is utterly unethical.

[Beaverhausen]

39. I have two housecats. Cats have been domesticated for centuries

not a good comparison.

[AlGore-08.com]

98. I'm not taking sides, but ducks have been domesticated for over 2000 years

eom

[flvegan]

40. Breeding/buying pets in unethical. Having pets is not.

That's not an "animal rights" issue.

And don't bother throwing Ingrid's out of context quote at me (the one about dogs and cats "dying out" or whatever). It's tired.

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Who's Ingrid? And what's the quote?

So, if breeding them or buying them is unethical, then how can having them NOT be unethical?

[flvegan]

44. Okay, sorry, my bad...I assumed.

Showing my "anti-PETA" scars here. A quote made long ago, 'twas anti-dog breeding, where Ingrid (Newkirk, PETA head honcho) stated that if breeding were outlawed, the breeds would die out. Natch, folks lost their minds. It gets tossed around here a lot in these threads.

ANYway, breeding/buying is unethical because of the business behind them, for one. In addition, while we're euthanizing 5-7 million adoptable animals in our shelters each year, to breed or buy, while homeless animals die, is, unethical.

When you adopt, or take one into your home, you're giving a home to an otherwise, well, dead animal. It's saving a life (or two, depending upon how you see it). It goes beyond the pleasure we might get from them. That's ego. It's also about what we can do to help or care for this "product" that we've not taken care of as we should have.

[Rabrrrrrr]

45. Interesting.

So let ask two more questions: I assume that this means that Ingrid felt that breeding animals is okay; and that the folks who lost their minds were PETA supporters who felt she was selling them out?

Or is that Ingrid IS in favor of letting them die out, and the folks who lost their minds non-PETA folk?

And yes, much of the breeding/buying I agree is not done ethically or very fair, and we have shitloads upon shitloads of unwanted pets in this country (and worldwide).

I *do* have fish, and I sometimes wonder even of the ethicalness of that - they are rarely bred in captivity (though some species are easily done so) and so are generally netted in the wild. Granted, so far as I know, for the vast majority of tropical fishes, these nettings do not have any appreciable effect on the environment (though with the salt water fish, there is a lot of illegal catching), but I still wonder, is it okay to take a creature from the wild? But on the other hand, mine is a better, safer home for them. 'Tis a tough question.

[flvegan]

47. Sorry for the late reply. I missed your response/questions.

No, Ingrid (I think, as I'm not her) thinks breeding animals in this way is not okay. The folks that lost their minds are folks that took her statement to mean she wished for the abolishment of pets.

As far as Ingrid being in favor of them die out, I really don't know. I think she's in favor of them not being perpetuated.

Tough questions, indeed. I tip my cap to you for your open-mindedness as well as your forthright opinion, not that I expected less of you.

[Rabrrrrrr]

63. Thanks - it was somewhat ambiguously said in your first post.

I can see why people would take that to mean that she doesn't want people to have pets.

It's a difficult dilemma, is it not? Obviously, SOME of the animals HAVE to be bred, or else they *will* die out. I wouldn't want species going extinct.

But on the other hand, there's 5-7 million animals euthanized every year...

So who decides who gets to breed and who doesn't? That's the tough question.

Like most everything involving humans, it's an awful mess with no easy - nor even a good - solution.

[flvegan]

87. You, sir

have made quite excellent points. You know that, and don't need me to validate, but I thought proper to do so.

I think of what it would actually be like without dogs...cats...how understandably horrible for people. But, there needs to be middle ground...your "tough question"

Awful mess...yes. No easy solution...yes. It's quite the dynamic. I don't have the answer. I just work towards what I hope the answer could be.

Thanks, Rabrrrrrr.

[flvegan]

26. Animals in entertainment rarely do.

Circus...dog racing...cruelty is behind every door.

Allowing...not really. More forcing, don't you think? Naturally, would the ducks be on stage?

Didn't think so.

[alarcojon]

31. I agree

circuses, zoos, dog racing, and many other uses of animals are exploitative and cause unnecessary suffering to the animals involved.

And the people handling these ducks are treating them poorly.

But I was raising a hypothetical - can humans and animals share a stage in a non-exploitative way?

Of course the ducks wouldn't "naturally" be on the stage. That doesn't prelude them getting something out of the experience. How many environments we humans have set up are "natural" for US?

[flvegan]

37. Very good points.

As to your hypothetical...I don't see why that isn't a possibility, no.

[alarcojon]

42. Okay....

From my reading of the article, PETA doesn't want the ducks onstage no matter how well they are being treated. Maybe the spokesperson is being quoted out of context. I don't know. But taken at face value, even if my hypothetical is possible, they still wouldn't want the animals and humans interacting on stage. That takes it too far for me.

If PETA's stand is that the ducks should be assured all the things you mention - including clean cages, clean bowls and water, adequate space, shelter, and mental stimulation - and then be allowed to perform, then be returned to an appropriate natural environment; then I would support that position wholeheartedly.

[friesianrider]

22. Ha!

Proof PETA accomplishes some good in this world (watch your tongue!).

Read it and weep, PETA-haters. :P

[Fox Mulder]

28. PETA annoys me.

I mean, really annoys me.

And they wonder why no one supports them.

[flvegan]

34. No one? You sould check your facts.

No one, indeed.

[Fox Mulder]

35. Okay...so ten people.

I'm sure you're one of them, eh?

[flvegan]

38. 10? Try 750,000 at last count.

And yes I am, but not in absolution. Why?

[LeftyMom]

58. More than that just on DU

:raises hand:

[chaska]

46. I support PETA.

[friesianrider]

50. I support PETA.

:shrug:

A lot of things, people, and groups annoy me. It's called life; get over it.

[really annoyed]

68. I don't support PETA

You are not alone here. There is a lot about the group that is not ethical - supporters of the group should really look into what they do with their money and what organizations they ally themselves with. It's pretty shocking.

They've made a mockery out of animal welfare.

After I heard a story about PETA harassing school children at their bus stop, I'm not too keen about the whole lot of them.

But I guess disrespecting humans for animals rights is a liberal value we should cherish?

Take Ingrid Newkirk's (president of PETA) words....

“Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

Gee, what a hero.

If you really want to help animals, try the local animal shelter.

I have NO problem with vegans and people who support the welfare of animals. However, PETA does not fall into that category. They are fanatics hellbent on forcing people to their point of view, even if they have to use violence to get that point across.

The good people here at DU should not support them. There is no doubt that the majority of people who post at DU support animal welfare.

I don't want to show any disrespect to the good people here at DU. I don't hate your contributions to animals! I just don't like PETA.

[Fox Mulder]

85. That's the very reason why I don't support them.

I love animals. I think we should help them any way possible. I just doing think you should be going to extreme measures like PETA to promote an agenda.

They don't realize that some of us actually want to eat meat. Let me eat my big hunk of steak in peace, for crying out loud.

[WillParkinson]

100. So.....

Do you agree with every stance taken by any group to which you belong? I agree with many of the things that PETA stands for and does. I disagree with many other things. Do I support them? Yes, to a point.

But to paint all members or supporters of any group by the actions of some of their members is, at best, elitist.

[arwalden]

73. And Their Supporters Wonder Why They Are Viewed As KOOKS.

:eyes:

[WhollyHeretic]

76. I think it's a little past kooky for someone to be so obsessed

with an animal rights group. I'm sorry you have no compassion, it must be a bleak world you live in.

[friesianrider]

91. It is...typical obsessive anti-PETA zealot.

[arwalden]

103. I Do Not Understand This Comment, Friesianrider

[arwalden]

102. I'm Sorry, GreenJ ...

I have no idea what you're going on about.

[smbolisnch]

77. Why, exactly?

[Fox Mulder]

84. You're telling me.

[Ekirh]

33. Okay

why I'll agree I find the notion of robotic ducks kind of silly . .


I don't see any problem with the settlement that the ducks be retired to a sanctuary.. it seems to me everyone wins. . . He gets to use the ducks. . . and in the end they get ummm "retired" to a sanctuary.

I don't see why we need an argument here. I'm not a huge supporter of P.E.T.A But I don't see this worthy of bashing them. It's obviously an agreement was reached and that's that.

Just my opinion of course.

[PittPoliSci]

48. and tonight's PETA related flamebait goes to...

Kenneth Branagh!

By the way, Warm Springs was great. I think Branagh should be cast as the Joker in the next Batman movie, his over-the-top acting would be great for the part.

I like Branagh by the way, there's no sarcasm thrown in here.

[Skip Intro]

49. GOOD for Him (and PETA, and the ducks). PETA is right.

Absolutely right.

WE have no RIGHT to do what we do to animals. Especially for fashion and entertainment.

Maybe the guy thought about it and evolved a little.

[friesianrider]

53. "Maybe the guy thought about it and evolved a little."

How 'bout that, eh? You're absolutely right.

I'm still waiting for some on DU to think about it an evolve a little past being such knuckle-dragging neanderthals (not naming names, of course ;)...but I'm not holding out much hope :P

[arwalden]

65. Oh Brother...

:eyes:

[friesianrider]

89. GREAT response!

:thumbsdown:

[arwalden]

64. Or Maybe He Just Caved In To PETA Harassment.

And didn't want to deal with the intimidation, vandalism and stalking. (Perhaps Jennifer Lopez called him to warn him.)

[Skip Intro]

80. That Damn PETA!

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

105. Huh?? --- What Does That Have To Do With Anything, Friesianrider?

<< Again. You don't have to capitalize every first letter in every word....just so you know. Your illogical "arguments" don't sound any better, sowwy. : thumbsdown : >>

I don't see how that has anything to do with the actual message. It seems to be more of a personal cheap-shot at the messenger.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

52. Mr. Branagh, thou art weak! WEAK!!

PETA is an extremist group, plain and simple.

[friesianrider]

54. And yet, PETA got exactly what they wanted.

Kudos to them. And to the PETA-haters, I say :rofl: !! Read it and weep!

They're doing something right when the animals ultimately win. If that's extremist, so be it.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

60. People come first. eom.

[Skip Intro]

62. Where do you draw the line - cockfighting? firecracker up a dog's ass?

Where do the rights of the animal overtake the whims of man?

[arwalden]

67. Animals Have No Rights. Rights Are For People, Not Animals.

[really annoyed]

74. I agree

Support animal welfare, not animal rights. There is a big difference between the two. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of people here at DU support animal welfare.


There are many wonderful organizations that support a positive goal of welfare. However, PETA is not one of them. They are disrespectful to people and have supported criminal and terrorist organizations.

I think people who support PETA should really take a look into their organization and see where the money they collect goes. It's not pretty.

That's all I have to say on the matter. :)

I will donate money to a good animal welfare organization in honor of DU! :thumbsup:

I'll even take suggestions on what group! PM me with any good ones.

[Skip Intro]

79. You have to be being sarcastic. Are you asserting that

skinning a cat alive is acceptable - no penalty to the sick fuck who does, non-humans have no rights. Pay Per View cockfights would be fine? Just flat out brutality to any non-human should be greeted with a wink and a nod?

Animals do have rights, my friend, you just fail to recognize them.

[Skip Intro]

82. woops

[arwalden]

107. That's Absurd. I've Never Suggested Such A Thing.

<< skinning a cat alive is acceptable >>

Please link to the statement or suggestion by me or anyone else that such a thing is "acceptable".

<< no penalty to the sick fuck who does, >>

Laws, rules, and ordinances for animal WELFARE are just that. But they aren't "rights".

<< non-humans have no rights. >>

That is correct.

<< Animals do have rights, >>

That is NOT correct.

<< my friend, >>

sir,

<< you just fail to recognize them. >>

Apparently it takes a more vivid imagination than I have... because they do not have rights.

Rights are for people. Not animals.

[Skip Intro]

83. You ARE being sarcastic, faceitous, whatever. Damn, you had me.

Nobody with Sam in his sig could argue for animal cruelty.

[arwalden]

108. That's A Silly Thing To Say. I Have Done No Such Thing.

<< Nobody with Sam in his sig could argue for animal cruelty. >>

I'm not arguing in favor of animal cruelty.

[friesianrider]

92. Tee hee...

Somewhere, arwalden, the world'd tiniest violin is playing for you and your obsessive anti-PETA rants. :nopity:

Cry me a river...another victory for PETA and the animals! Huzzah! :hi:

[arwalden]

109. Huh?? -- Well, Friesianrider...

... I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic of this thread. It seems to be more of a cheap-shot and personal attack.

[WillParkinson]

101. Oh my god...

I cannot believe you just said that.

Rights are for sentient beings. Period.

That comment sounds just like the anti-marriage people. Marriage is a right for straights only.

Just remember, it wasn't all that long ago (and some still do) that some believed Gays didn't deserve rights. Blacks didn't deserve rights. Atheists don't deserve rights. And many other groups, simply because they were not or were less than human.

[arwalden]

110. Believe It.

<< I cannot believe you just said that. >>

I cannot believe you just said that you cannot believe I just said that.

<< Rights are for sentient beings. Period. >>

Rights are for people! Exclamation point.

<< That comment sounds just like the anti-marriage people. Marriage is a right for straights only. >>

Oh brother :eyes:

<< Just remember, it wasn't all that long ago (and some still do) that some believed Gays didn't deserve rights. Blacks didn't deserve rights. Atheists don't deserve rights. And many other groups, simply because they were not or were less than human. >>

But animals ARE NOT human. Are you arguing that they ARE equal to humans?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

99. I thought cockfighting was illegal. I certainly don't advocate

placing firecrackers up a dog's ass. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like you're being serious here. Clearly I don't advocate cruelty to animals, but some groups take it too far, committing violence against humans (and animals as well, ironically enough), to make their statements. 99% percent of people are pretty sensible about this. It's the crazy 1 percent that one ought to worry about.

[arwalden]

66. Another Victory For The PETA Criminals & Terrorists... Hurrah!

:eyes:

[friesianrider]

90. Yep, read it and weep!

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Obsessed, much? :hi:

[arwalden]

111. Well, Friesianrider ...

... it's a *subject* that interests me. But frankly, it's not about me, so I'm not sure what personal cheap-shot comments like that have to do with the subject of this thread.

[Ekirh]

57. Weak for agreeing

to put them in a sanctuary after the performance?

He still gets to use the ducks . . . and in the end the ducks get to umm well retire. I don't see that as weak . . I see that as listening to the complaints and coming to an agreement with the group. I say P.E.T.A in this case doesn't come off as extreme and Kenneth doesn't come off as weak . . I think they both come off as two sides that come to somewhat of a understanding. . .

I'm not a huge supporter of P.E.T.A. . . but I see no huge problem in this instance.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

59. I was sort of being facetious. Branagh's a reasonable guy,

but PETA is an extremist group.

[Ekirh]

71. Fair enough

I think we can both agree that Kenneth was a reasonable guy in this instance.

Don't get me wrong I'm not a huge P.E.T.A supporter and I don't agree with how they proceed with everything. I just think in this instance we had a scenario where Kenneth decided instead of ignoring their complaints. . he agreed to said sanctuary to keep them satisfied and he is still able to use the ducks for the performance. . . I just thinking the end result did work out for both.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

56. PETA's sort of schizophrenic

They came to WV and did a great undercover job of exposing horrifying conditions at a chicken plant.

Then they turn around and attack Kenneth Branagh over ducks onstage.

Really, they're sorta "one step forward,two steps back."

They're goofier than a Unitarian at a Snake-handling Church ("Well, your beliefs are certainly valid . . . OUCH . . . that little bastard BIT me!") but they DO have a place. It would be nice if they could figure out where it was.

[arwalden]

69. You're Right... But I Refer To Them As KOOKS.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

78. But they're NOT KOOKS

when they're showing us the real meaning of "Corporate Chicken."

My Mom (SRHS) used to kill a chicken every Sunday for dinner. There was a brutal aspect, but it was minimized and the chickens led a pretty decent life.

On the other hand, in the PETA video, workers at the plant were shown kicking chickens, stomping them, throwing them into walls and otherwise tormenting them.

That was a valid service. And as a West Virginian, I appreciate that scar being ameliorated.

It seems they're suffering from a leadership ADD problem.

[friesianrider]

96. You're on to something good here...

"My Mom (SRHS) used to kill a chicken every Sunday for dinner. There was a brutal aspect, but it was minimized and the chickens led a pretty decent life."

This is a very different than what happened to the chicken you're eating from your favorite restaurant or the cow you're eating at Chili's - and I have little problem with animals being raised in a normal, healthy environment until the time comes a family needs to eat them. I still wouldn't eat it for healthy, personal ethical and environmental reasons, but I'd feel MUCH more at ease with the killing.

Now I do not agree with everything ANY group I generally support does. While generally I support PETA, I would not want to make eating meat illegal. I think what most of us would like to see is animals leading a pretty good, normal life before the time they are killed (if they must be killed). I have little - if any - ethical problems with someone raising an animal with fresh air, good pasture, shelter, good food, good care, etc etc. and then when the family needs dinner they kill quickly and as humanely as possible. Most people I know take issue with the way animals are treated before and during transportation to the slaughter house, and the way they are treated in the slaughterhouse...not so much the actual eating of the meat. It is my personal belief that eating meat is destructive to the environment and unhealthy anyway, but a good 95% of my problem with eating animals is their brutal and inhumane treatment. I just want people to know that many (of course not all) animal rights people take issue most with the factory farming and the inhumane and disgusting way these animals are treated. I just think at the end of the day you're just eating misery and suffering. I personally wouldn't eat meat even if all animals were killed after a semi-normal life as you mentioned, but I wouldn't be anywhere near against it as I am now given the way animals today are treated.

It's my belief that PETA does a lot of good. Do I agree with everything? Of course not. I don't agree with everything the Democratic Party does but I'd never be ashamed to be aligned with them. Some things PETA has done before has made me cringe, but nothing that would cause me to reevaluate my support of them. They do a lot of good, and until they give me reason not to I'll always be proud to be apart of their organization.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynneSin]

61. You know Kenneth Branagh is very sexy - did you have to pick that picture

[arwalden]

70. Did You Like His Work In The Harry Potter Movie?

[LynneSin]

72. I haven't seen or read any of the Harry Potter stuff

he was in it?

[arwalden]

75. Yes, It Was Really An Entertaining Role.

[Rabrrrrrr]

88. And that picture you aren't so enamored of is from the Harry Potter movie

That was his role, a wizard who is really vain and stuck on himself because he's beautiful, and often wins the "best smile" award from Wizarding Daily, and other awards based on his charms and beauty.

[AlGore-08.com]

86. I gotta go with LynneSin on this one

But that photo you used makes me even more glad I've never seen the Harry Potter films...

[gardenista]

81. You know, I love Kenneth Brannaugh, but that picture reminds me of

the Riverdance guy dressed as a drapery.

As for the duck thing, I think it sounds like a good compromise.

[Dastard Stepchild]

93. Well, that seems fair to retire them to a sanctuary...

I don't know much about ducks, but it seems like they would have a hard time being reintegrated into their "natural world," so to speak, after being raised and trained by humans. Probably the safest place for them would be a sanctuary. In fact, I don't know that this is necessarily an unusual practice. At least - in theory it is not. I believe they tried to do this with the whale from Free Willy, but I think that story ended rather tragically.

[bridgit]

95. oh no, conan is going to be in such trouble for making the bear...

masturbate :nopity:

[Montauk6]

104. Are they saying that Mr. Branagh doesn't have the right to swim in a pond?

[BigMcLargehuge]

112. Locked

This thread has become uglier than a Freeper baby shower.

Big McLargehuge
DU Moderator