pacific - too much money?

Am I the only one who wonders if 250 million dollars for Pacific was an act of cruelty?

Why do I say it is an act of cruelty??

A recent programme on BBC 'The Forgotten Children of Zimbabwee' demonstrated a child panning for gold in a river - if he made 2$ that week then he may have be able to go to school and have an education.

His mother had to cook a few beans (their only meal that day) that if not boiled several times they would be poisonous???

He said to the camera while trying to control his crying 'it weighs heavy on my heart those who have when I do not! '

He cannot remember the last time he ate meat???

Another 7 year old's mother had recently passed away from Aids. She was trying to look after her baby sister. She said 'I have to hide the fact that my mother is dead. If they find out they will come and take us away.'

Now I'm a writer - I want to make a film but where does the cost and big budget like this become a moral question - I am very sorry but 250 million$ to preserve a piece of history is immoral.


What could Tom Hanks do with all that money - build lots of schools and hospitals. He is a man who has been given a gift, an audience that will listen. He could and can change peoples lives.

He could ensure that children do not suffer. Every child deserves shelter, clean water and food every day of their lives.


Will he give something back to charity now? - he may do already - but a couple of hours television however visually stunning, it is does not justify the cost or a child dying in poverty.