(May 21, 2020 at 8:31 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: How did the lion die?

Doesn’t really matter, for the purposes of the hypothetical. As long as it wasn’t killed for the express purpose of making the costume, I can’t see any moral or ethical objection to using the pelt.

Boru

(May 21, 2020 at 8:31 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: How did the lion die?

Not the point. How did the hurricane start? I am being silly.

Back then the idea of big game hunting and wearing fur was normal, it wouldn't matter if the animal died by hunting or natural causes. The public back then didn't know what conservation was as a majority.

(May 21, 2020 at 8:37 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:31 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: How did the lion die?

Doesn’t really matter, for the purposes of the hypothetical. As long as it wasn’t killed for the express purpose of making the costume, I can’t see any moral or ethical objection to using the pelt.

Boru

Help me out, how do we know that wasn't the case? And if we do know why would it matter? Given the gimcrackery in that movie a fake lion fur wouldn't have been noticed. A well done fake lion fur costume would have been less likely to give the actor heat stroke.

(May 21, 2020 at 8:40 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:37 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Doesn’t really matter, for the purposes of the hypothetical. As long as it wasn’t killed for the express purpose of making the costume, I can’t see any moral or ethical objection to using the pelt.

Boru

Help me out, how do we know that wasn't the case? And if we do know why would it matter? Given the gimcrackery in that movie a fake lion fur wouldn't have been noticed. A well done fake lion fur costume would have been less likely to give the actor heat stroke.

We DON’T know it wasn’t the case. I’m simply pointing out that using an actual lion pelt for a costume isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If the producers of the film had said, ‘We need a lion skin for a costume, let’s kill a lion’, I would object. If (as seems more likely, if only from a cost standpoint) they purchased a pelt or had one taking up space in the props department, what’s the harm?

Boru

(May 21, 2020 at 8:45 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:40 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Help me out, how do we know that wasn't the case? And if we do know why would it matter? Given the gimcrackery in that movie a fake lion fur wouldn't have been noticed. A well done fake lion fur costume would have been less likely to give the actor heat stroke.

We DON’T know it wasn’t the case. I’m simply pointing out that using an actual lion pelt for a costume isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If the producers of the film had said, ‘We need a lion skin for a costume, let’s kill a lion’, I would object. If (as seems more likely, if only from a cost standpoint) they purchased a pelt or had one taking up space in the props department, what’s the harm?

Boru

Creating a market for lion pelts is as good a putting the rifle in the poacher's hands.

(May 21, 2020 at 8:48 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:45 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: We DON’T know it wasn’t the case. I’m simply pointing out that using an actual lion pelt for a costume isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If the producers of the film had said, ‘We need a lion skin for a costume, let’s kill a lion’, I would object. If (as seems more likely, if only from a cost standpoint) they purchased a pelt or had one taking up space in the props department, what’s the harm?

Boru

Creating a market for lion pelts is as good a putting the rifle in the poacher's hands.

I really don’t think that MGM created a market for lion pelts. And - as much as I despise trophy hunting - not all lion kills are the work of poachers. Not now, and certainly not in 1939.

And you’re still assuming the lion was killed to make the costume. 

Boru

Some googling around to various sites it appears that the costume was made from both lion pelt(s) and human hair. In order to match colors on the entirety of the costume, various pieces were stitched together. Due to color variations and scarring I would imagine it would be difficult to find a perfect one off to make the costume out of. I can't find anywhere that says a lion, or lions, was/were killed and skinned solely to make a costume to fit Mr. Lahr.

The movie was made 80 years ago. Today a costume could be made that would look better than the real thing used when the movie was made.

Wait - why is this an issue? ...now?

(May 21, 2020 at 8:45 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:40 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Help me out, how do we know that wasn't the case? And if we do know why would it matter? Given the gimcrackery in that movie a fake lion fur wouldn't have been noticed. A well done fake lion fur costume would have been less likely to give the actor heat stroke.

We DON’T know it wasn’t the case. I’m simply pointing out that using an actual lion pelt for a costume isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If the producers of the film had said, ‘We need a lion skin for a costume, let’s kill a lion’, I would object. If (as seems more likely, if only from a cost standpoint) they purchased a pelt or had one taking up space in the props department, what’s the harm?

Boru

Still missing the point. 

Back then, big game hunting and the sale of pelt for clothing was normal.

It doesn't matter how the lion died back then.  

I still love the movie, always will. But if the movie were made today, natural death or by hunting, that wouldn't happen today.

(May 21, 2020 at 8:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:48 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Creating a market for lion pelts is as good a putting the rifle in the poacher's hands.

I really don’t think that MGM created a market for lion pelts. And - as much as I despise trophy hunting - not all lion kills are the work of poachers. Not now, and certainly not in 1939.

And you’re still assuming the lion was killed to make the costume. 

Boru

People kill animals for their pelts because they can make money from selling the pelts. No demand, less killing. People kill 5,000 pound rhinos for their horns, the rest is left to rot in the veldt.

---

(May 21, 2020 at 8:53 am)arewethereyet Wrote: Some googling around to various sites it appears that the costume was made from both lion pelt(s) and human hair.  In order to match colors on the entirety of the costume, various pieces were stitched together.  Due to color variations and scarring I would imagine it would be difficult to find a perfect one off to make the costume out of.   I can't find anywhere that says a lion, or lions, was/were killed and skinned solely to make a costume to fit Mr. Lahr.  

The movie was made 80 years ago.  Today a costume could be made that would look better than the real thing used when the movie was made.

Wait - why is this an issue? ...now?

The casual attitude carries through.

(May 21, 2020 at 8:48 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 21, 2020 at 8:45 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: We DON’T know it wasn’t the case. I’m simply pointing out that using an actual lion pelt for a costume isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If the producers of the film had said, ‘We need a lion skin for a costume, let’s kill a lion’, I would object. If (as seems more likely, if only from a cost standpoint) they purchased a pelt or had one taking up space in the props department, what’s the harm?

Boru

Creating a market for lion pelts is as good a putting the rifle in the poacher's hands.

BINGO.

Even if the studio didn't use a hunted lion, back then, big game hunting was popular. Remind me to keep you on speed dial for my next hurricane.