SlickShoes
Member
What? He was shoving it down into the water and only pulled it our because it was in danger of panic drowning. Dunking it in when it was clearly refusing then hauling it out by the collar isn't very humane.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A Dogs Purpose (film) accused of animal cruelty after disturbing footage emerges
- Thread starter jambo
- Start date
- Status
What? He was shoving it down into the water and only pulled it our because it was in danger of panic drowning. Dunking it in when it was clearly refusing then hauling it out by the collar isn't very humane.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Editing doesn't matter when the "trainer" is shown mishandling the dog trying to force her into the water.
I doubt he was on set for this going by the trailer.
I saw Milo and Otis once as a kid, didn't like it and never saw it again.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Unless TMZ doctored the footage, we still someone trying to force a clearly unwilling dog into the water and then we see adog submerged because it's having trouble swimming.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Can I make the point that "actual murder" would mean that a human was killed and another human was tried and convicted in a court of law for murdering that person, and as such one could say that you're overreacting about Milo and Otis?
I mean you're not, what happened was terrible, but this is not a good thing that happened by any means. It was horribly irresponsible of the crew to have allowed the situation to escalate the way it did, and even the animal supervisor wasn't keen enough to see the potential risk of harm to the dog.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
My dogs react the same when I have to bathe them, such a pain.
I hope the doggie is ok though when it goes under at the end is horrible
I hope the doggie is ok though when it goes under at the end is horrible
Can you show me a video of the dog signing a contract to be in the movie?
Miles Quaritch
Member
NoRéN;228666105 said:
Dogs are property. Let's not be ridiculous.
A Link to the Past
Banned
The law recognizes living property as having certain protections.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Right, but the owner here signed the contract. It's ridiculous to ask where the dog signed because by law it doesn't have a say.
Yeah, let's not.
BiGBoSSMk23
A company being excited for their new game is a huge slap in the face to all the fans that liked their old games.
Yeah, folks in here obviously never bathed a skittish pup.
You have to reassure them constantly and to a bystander it may look like you're deliberately torturing the animal.
The shot of the handler dipping it in the water must have been to get it acclimated.
Ideally the most trusted person by the animal should go in with it.
Ofcourse, one thing is to bathe a pup, another is shooting a movie with a bunch of strangers in a noisy water contraption.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
It's not acceptable to treat human beings like this then it shouldn't be acceptable to treat animals like this. This is fucked up.
FunnyBunny
Member
I found the video disturbing.
I believe some people who think it's not a big deal aren't considering the context. No, this is not like a dog freaking out at bath time.
Bathing a dog is to improve its health and wellness, and it's in no real danger. Yes, a dog can show signs of stress before getting in the tub but it's never in harm's way.
This dog clearly was in harm's way. It was in dangerthat's why the were spotters. And this stunt had nothing to do with health and wellness.
This dog was put in a genuinely dangerous situation against its will. That's messed up.
I believe some people who think it's not a big deal aren't considering the context. No, this is not like a dog freaking out at bath time.
Bathing a dog is to improve its health and wellness, and it's in no real danger. Yes, a dog can show signs of stress before getting in the tub but it's never in harm's way.
This dog clearly was in harm's way. It was in dangerthat's why the were spotters. And this stunt had nothing to do with health and wellness.
This dog was put in a genuinely dangerous situation against its will. That's messed up.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Yeah, it's a pretty darned big false equivalence. It'd be like arguing that you have to take your dog to the vet in your car - no matter how alarmed it is to be in the car - as justification for why a dog was involved in a dangerous vehicle stunt.
Muskieratboi
Member
ffs, just CG the fucking dog, jeez!
Reading reddit comments makes it seem not that bad as tmz is making it out to be though.
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/com...eatment_of_animals_in_a_dogs/?sort=confidence
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/com...eatment_of_animals_in_a_dogs/?sort=confidence
xrnzaaas
Member
The sad truth is that animals are abused in a lot of films, because CG is too expensive or trained animals are too expensive (in this case even that wouldn't be an excuse). This is just one of the rare cases where it becomes public knowledge.
PS. I hope that the movie bombs hard.
PS. I hope that the movie bombs hard.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Good to know. Thanks.
The Wise Old Man
Member
Nice bait post.
If a person punches a piece of their own property such as a pillow or a toaster it doesn't automatically make them more predisposed to do the same thing to another human being. If they do that to a dog, it does.
Two things about this bothers me greatly.
1. The way they don't stop trying when the dog extremely clearly can't stand the setting. A panicked dog like that will not swim properly. Heck, any responsible dog owner in sweden uses a life jacket on a dog you bring to a harbor, island, boat, place with strong rivers or just any place where the dog can jump/fall in without it reaching down to the bottom (so a beach is usually fine). We have been taught that even great swimmers can suddenly drown from a multitude of reasons.
2. The way they don't rescue it when it's way off course and up against the wall but still above water. It should have been very clear even to these stupid people that the shot was a failure at that point. But no, they wait until the dog goes under before they rescue him. Terrible people.
Edit: Alright, read that it was on two completely different days. The first part shows what some say is the handler "trying to help the dog get used to it" but that handler must be incompetent af then. The pulling, dropping down and pushing won't help and can hurt the dog quite a bit. You can't do that to a dog's neck!
That sort of training should be done with a beach/ramp setting where they go in together and the dog can stand on something, and where the dog has an esy and clear escape route.
My second point still stands. The dog was pushed up against the wall and clearly distressed before it went under. Sure, he's fine but he could just as likely not have been.
1. The way they don't stop trying when the dog extremely clearly can't stand the setting. A panicked dog like that will not swim properly. Heck, any responsible dog owner in sweden uses a life jacket on a dog you bring to a harbor, island, boat, place with strong rivers or just any place where the dog can jump/fall in without it reaching down to the bottom (so a beach is usually fine). We have been taught that even great swimmers can suddenly drown from a multitude of reasons.
2. The way they don't rescue it when it's way off course and up against the wall but still above water. It should have been very clear even to these stupid people that the shot was a failure at that point. But no, they wait until the dog goes under before they rescue him. Terrible people.
Edit: Alright, read that it was on two completely different days. The first part shows what some say is the handler "trying to help the dog get used to it" but that handler must be incompetent af then. The pulling, dropping down and pushing won't help and can hurt the dog quite a bit. You can't do that to a dog's neck!
That sort of training should be done with a beach/ramp setting where they go in together and the dog can stand on something, and where the dog has an esy and clear escape route.
My second point still stands. The dog was pushed up against the wall and clearly distressed before it went under. Sure, he's fine but he could just as likely not have been.
lightskintwin
Banned
Oh it will, I'm pretty certain this video will go viral and every entertainment/news website will cover it.
One thing that you don't fuck with is dogs. People love their dogs
Maybe they really took the shots in separate days and waited until the dog was OK to shoot the scene, but the way the trainer puts the dog into the water is fucked up. You can´t convince someone that it´s a nice environment when they are hanging by the neck in that position, the poor dog was terrified. What could have happened if the dog, in it´s terror, had slipped from the trainer´s grip? The whole situation shows little regard for the dog.
Yeah, and "property" isn't real. A dog is.
Anyway if a trained dog acts like that after rehearsal there is definitely something wrong
Miles Quaritch
Member
The post was a reply to the post asking where the dog signed a contract. In the eyes of the law and society at large, the dog is property.
It wasn't a bait post nor was it something to try and claim dogs (and cats) don't have certain rights to protect them from abuse.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Huh? Of course property is real.
If you mean living, sure. A house isn't 'real' but I still own the house as I'd own a dog. Both are property.
You can't get arrested for cruelty to a house.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Vandalism/destruction of someone's house usually leads to arrest.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Makes me wonder how Benji in Benji the Hunted was treated, or Milo and Otis
But not your own. Why even bother with such a fallacious response?
Miles Quaritch
Member
I can be arrested for damaging my own house. If I set fire to my house, I'm endangering life and will be arrested. Same if I damage my house to such an extent that it affects my neighbours.
I thought that was obvious.
Scrooge McDuck
Member
My god. That response is to somebody wanting to see if the dog signed a contract as if that matters at all.
Inferno313
Banned
Yup, I'm an aspiring filmmaker, I'm someone who really values practical effects, but the more stories I read about the way animals are handled and sourced in Hollywood, the more I believe that the only animal that ought to be in a big film is a CGI one.
Nah, the social contract that you own a house is real. You don't actually own it though, and you don't own an animal
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Morality? Your version of morality hasn't existed in humanity, well, ever. For all of human history we have generally done what we needed to in order to support ourselves as a species. This is natural selection at work, and we are the dominate species. Arguments of human morality really don't extend into the animal kingdom very far, unless the action somehow runs counter to the role we have given the animals subservient to us (see domestication).
For example, we have given status to dogs and chickens (and other subservient species), each has had a role to play in the hierarchy. We actually created the modern dog through artificial evolution. They would not exist if not for our need for protectors. The first "Dogs" were just grey wolves that were either taken as pups or just befriended man for their own reasons (likely easy access to food). In return for taking care of them we trained "Dogs" to be protectors and warn us of danger. Today you have protector dogs and companion dogs (or a combination of the two). That is their current role, and it affords dogs a special status that sees us extend our morality to include them. Dogs have never really been seen as a food either. Also, it helps that dogs are seemingly more intelligent than other animals. Hell, some dogs can exhibit emotions or have personalities that are eerily "Human-like".
A Chicken's role is to provide sustenance in the form of eggs or meat. They have no other worth to humanity as a whole. Since they are lower in the hierarchy very few humans feel morally obligated to them. Historically chickens have been food. I would wager most humans see them as closer to plants than dogs.
Throughout our evolution the extent of which we cared about animals was "What can said animal do for me". If the animal had a role to play we domesticated them. If they didn't we tried to leave them alone (we failed at this a lot, see hunting things to extinction). I am sure some psychologist would say that early humans desensitized themselves to eating certain animals which we still do today, and I would agree with that.
Lastly, morality is something that is fluid. It is not set in stone. Generally morality is defined by a people's culture and that culture can be vastly different. I mean, there are cultures on earth right now where eating beef is immoral and others where eating dog is moral.
Living in the west, eating chicken is moral, and harming dogs isn't. If that bothers you, well, sorry but your feelings as an individual don't matter. Only the collective culture matters. That doesn't mean you can't have your own values, but don't feign surprise when the average person goes against them.
As for this video, as a dog owner and lover (she comes to work with me!), this video wasn't really that disturbing. I have had dogs fight me like that just to take a bath! That said, while I don't find it "disturbing", I don't think they had adequate safety measures in place and they should be fined for that.
Again, you're deliberately ignoring the point and straying into other crimes such as noise disturbance and fire hazards.
It's so dumb it's embarrassing.
Compare: taking a sledgehammer to a non-load bearing drywall in your own house and taking a sledgehammer to your dog. Both are property, amirite?
The Hermit
Member
Scrooge McDuck
Member
Don't be dumb. You are making an argument against nobody. You just read the word "property" and let your imaginations run wild, without taking into account why that comment was made and by whom.
JigglesBunny
Banned
Animal safety is constantly compromised during shoots and the story never fucking surfaces. I have heard so many fucking horror stories from buddies of mine and it's honestly why I refuse to write an animal into my projects because I just don't feel confident in the handlers that are working on these sets.
This is a particularly extreme example of the animal's safety being put at risk for a shot. Why they didn't opt for a CG stand in or just the cut the scene entirely is beyond me, but this is some fucking despicable shit right here and there's no excuse for this. That poor fucking dog, man. I hope this video kills the careers of those responsible for letting this happen.
This is a particularly extreme example of the animal's safety being put at risk for a shot. Why they didn't opt for a CG stand in or just the cut the scene entirely is beyond me, but this is some fucking despicable shit right here and there's no excuse for this. That poor fucking dog, man. I hope this video kills the careers of those responsible for letting this happen.
Then he won't mind confirming the difference instead of continuing to argue in bad faith, will he?
Miles Quaritch
Member
Ridiculously extreme example for the sake of trying to shutdown the argument, but unsurprisingly still doesn't refute the point that dogs are property.
They might have more rights in some countries than say a house, but that doesn't change my initial point.
You're free to argue dogs aren't property. I'd actually like to see that argument.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked