Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 20415]

Without footage of the dog entering the water it's really difficult to pin down where actual cruel treatment begins. It makes me question TMZ's intentions but at the same time I don't exactly want to give that trainer the benefit of the doubt. As someone who's worked with dog trainers, it did seem like he was trying to coax the dog into the water on his own terms instead of by direct force.

Well, you're right... hard to tell where it begins, but you can certainly fucking see where it kicks into overdrive. That dog went down under the water in some rough conditions... the shot is set up to show a struggle, and dogs can't act. So they put him in a position where he would literally struggle, and then could have easily severely injured or killed that dog.

 

[Galang]

Wow this is horrible. No way I can bring myself to watch this..

 

[Alcoremortis]

I watched Homeward Bound for the first time in over 20 years with my son the other day and I was wondering how they shot the cat in the river scene.

Probably like this =[

Actually, the scenes with Sassy in the river in Homeward Bound were largely filmed with a fake cat (you can even kinda see that it's a puppet in the movie).

 

[Reg]

Wow, fuck this movie.

 

[Hitman]

1) That video was not that disturbing.
2) Filming of animals should be done with the utmost care for their safety and comfort.
3) The people in this video thought the dog would be fine once in water. Like most dogs are.
4) They made a mistake judging the power of the motors.
5) What was done to the dog was only slightly more harmful than people who try to bathe their cats.
6) I guarantee there are animal movies out there that have had more disturbed animals than this. That no one has batted an eye to.
7) I really doubt the makers of this film had intentions to hurt the dog.

 

[Into the Light]

1) That video was not that disturbing.
2) Filming of animals should be done with the utmost care for their safety and comfort.
3) The people in this video thought the dog would be fine once in water. Like most dogs are.
4) They made a mistake judging the power of the motors.
5) What was done to the dog was only slightly more harmful than people who try to bathe their cats.

Ok, cuz I am tripping here wondering if I should cancel my tickets.

 

[Arkeband]

The commercials for this movie made it look like an abject piece of shit so I'm really not surprised.

At this stage in the game if your movie's hook is "dog" you're probably an idiot for making it and you're an idiot for wanting to see it.

 

[EatChildren]

The question of ethics in all these situations is that animals are not actors able to comprehend and rationalize a scene with stunt risks where they can make a conscious assessment and decision as to how to approach the situation. The usage of animals in films comes at an ethical cost of the animal in question as they will approach scenarios with instinct and believability. It doesn't matter how well trained an animal is or what they've been through; a rushing body of water is a rushing body of water, the risks are interpreted no differently to being out in the wild, and instinct of survival instinct kicks in just as strong.

We'd feel uncomfortable if a human actor was thrown into a situation like this against their will and choice. Doing so with an animal is no different, no matter how subjectively difficult they are to work with. To throw an animal into a stressful situation it is instinctively rejecting is effectively using them as a disposable tool that exists to serve at whatever expense to the animals physical and psychological wellbeing purely for the sake of entertainment.

It is deeply wrong and disturbing and grotesquely unethical.

 

[Jaeger]

After hearing of all the animal abuse stories from Hollywood for decades, anytime real animals are involved I pretty much always assume they were mistreated or worse.

 

[sixteen-bit]

poor doggo

 

[SeanC]

It's supposed to be "A Dog's Purpose" not "A Dog Porpoise."

 

[ohhthegore]

It's supposed to be "A Dog's Purpose" not "A Dog Porpoise."

get out

 

[Preacher]

1) That video was not that disturbing.
2) Filming of animals should be done with the utmost care for their safety and comfort.
3) The people in this video thought the dog would be fine once in water. Like most dogs are.
4) They made a mistake judging the power of the motors.
5) What was done to the dog was only slightly more harmful than people who try to bathe their cats.
6) I guarantee there are animal movies out there that have had more disturbed animals than this. That no one has batted an eye to.
7) I really doubt the makers of this film had intentions to hurt the dog.

Seriously I have no idea why some of you are overreacting. And to the people who were originally going to watch this movie, seriously? The movie looked like shit from the onset

Anyway the video isn't really as bad as everyone is trying to make it. They obviously aren't trying to endanger the dog. They made a mistake like most people often do
The way some people are talking about them and comparing them to Milo and Otis is honestly annoying and disingenuous. You know considering Milo and Otis had allegations of breaking a Cat's paw and actual murder. This is just them assuming a Dog can doggy paddle whilst they even show concern towards the end. Even the guy in Green in the first half doesn't just let the Dog sink into the water as he picks it back up over the ledge.

 

[Nathan_Drake]

Story is blowing up on FB. I bet it hurts it somewhat. Hulu airs the hell out of the commercial. I had no interest to begin with.

 

[styl3s]

Shades of Milo and Otis.

Part of my childhood died when i read up about Milo and Otis years ago.

As for this i hope everyone involved gets blacklisted from hollywood and to people defending it the dog clearly is destroying the side of the pool not wanting to get in but is thrown in anyways how exactly is that ok and fine? Eh fuck it instead of spending some time getting him used to this and comfortable let's just force the dog in because it can't say no!

 

[old manatee]

Seriously I have no idea why some of you are overreacting. And to the people who were originally going to watch this movie, seriously? The movie looked like shit from the onset

Anyway the video isn't really as bad as everyone is trying to make it. They obviously aren't trying to endanger the dog. They made a mistake like most people often do
The way some people are talking about them and comparing them to Milo and Otis is honestly annoying and disingenuous. You know considering Milo and Otis had allegations of breaking a Cat's paw and actual murder. This is just them assuming a Dog can doggy paddle whilst they even show concern towards the end. Even the guy in Green in the first half doesn't just let the Dog sink into the water as he picks it back up over the ledge.

There's zero reason for a dog to even have to do a stunt like that anymore.

 

[Preacher]

There's zero reason for a dog to even have to do a stunt like that anymore.

Again it's poor judgement. Stating that doesn't change anything and it's just argumentative. Especially when the person you're replying to already states that they made a mistake.

 

[Alienfan]

It's pretty fascinating seeing people on Facebook repost the video, decrying the abuse and yet they'll have no issue chowing down on a chicken burger tonight I bet - selective caring I suppose. Whatever I guess, that dog clearly wasn't trained for that stunt, the more people that complain about this the better, I just hope people can extend that passion to even more abusive culprits of animal cruelty and not just the ones that affect the cute animals

 

[Shaanyboi]

It's pretty fascinating seeing people on Facebook repost the video, decrying the abuse and yet they'll have no issue chowing down on a chicken burger tonight I bet - selective caring I suppose. Whatever I guess, that dog clearly wasn't trained for that stunt, the more people that complain about this the better.

We don't breed dogs for food. Chickens aren't common domesticated household pets.

 

[N.Domixis]

Never knew about the Milo and Otis abuse, fucking disgusting.

 

[Kinyou]

Why wouldn't they at least secure the dog with a line? They literally just throw it in

 

[disappeared]

Never knew about the Milo and Otis abuse, fucking disgusting.

Oh no. I don't know if I'm prepared to read about that.

 

[F0rneus]

Jesus shit, that is VILE. Director is a complete twat.

 

[gotoadgo]

Without footage of the dog entering the water it's really difficult to pin down where actual cruel treatment begins. It makes me question TMZ's intentions but at the same time I don't exactly want to give that trainer the benefit of the doubt. As someone who's worked with dog trainers, it did seem like he was trying to coax the dog into the water on his own terms instead of by direct force.

The dog had no intention of ever going in that water, it's pretty damn clear. The noises being made by the fucking boat motors would have freaked it out, let alone being thrown in to rushing water.

1) That video was not that disturbing.
2) Filming of animals should be done with the utmost care for their safety and comfort.
3) The people in this video thought the dog would be fine once in water. Like most dogs are.
4) They made a mistake judging the power of the motors.
5) What was done to the dog was only slightly more harmful than people who try to bathe their cats.
6) I guarantee there are animal movies out there that have had more disturbed animals than this. That no one has batted an eye to.
7) I really doubt the makers of this film had intentions to hurt the dog.

1. Kinda was.
2 No shit.
3. Like most dogs are when in calm water, not rushing water near boat engines.
4. Again, no shit.
5. You can't be serious with this statement. Bathing a cat is in a fucking bathtub of calm water, not a giant pool near boat motors. I mean, really?
6. So because there's been worse done, this is OK? You're that person who tells someone about the starving kids in Africa when they don't want to eat something they don't like.
7. You'd fucking hope not, but who knows? The guy in the video is laughing the whole time.

Seriously I have no idea why some of you are overreacting. And to the people who were originally going to watch this movie, seriously? The movie looked like shit from the onset

Anyway the video isn't really as bad as everyone is trying to make it. They obviously aren't trying to endanger the dog. They made a mistake like most people often do
The way some people are talking about them and comparing them to Milo and Otis is honestly annoying and disingenuous. You know considering Milo and Otis had allegations of breaking a Cat's paw and actual murder. This is just them assuming a Dog can doggy paddle whilst they even show concern towards the end. Even the guy in Green in the first half doesn't just let the Dog sink into the water as he picks it back up over the ledge.

They even show concern towards the end, you know, when the dog they threw in strong currents is about to drown. Such humane treatment, such lovely people!

That dog was terrified the entire time it was inside and outside of the water and there was never a need to subject it to such treatment with the kind of VFX we have access to these days.

 

[jett]

What the fuck? I'm not watching that footage.

Literally motherfuck every single piece of shit that worked on this garabge and every studio suit that approves its release now that this revelation has come forward. Fucking scum.

 

[RumblingRosco]

1) That video was not that disturbing.
2) Filming of animals should be done with the utmost care for their safety and comfort.
3) The people in this video thought the dog would be fine once in water. Like most dogs are.
4) They made a mistake judging the power of the motors.
5) What was done to the dog was only slightly more harmful than people who try to bathe their cats.
6) I guarantee there are animal movies out there that have had more disturbed animals than this. That no one has batted an eye to.
7) I really doubt the makers of this film had intentions to hurt the dog.

You're saying, if it were a child that didn't want to swim in a pool, it'd be acceptable to push the kid in anyway and film it for a scene despite the kid obviously showing sincere distress about going into the water? That's basically what you're arguing here and I'm suspecting you're just completely devoid of empathy.

 

[Easy_D]

Doubly disappointed as a Swede in the director, fuck him, fuck the crew. :|

 

[SummitAve]

They don't seem very good at making movies.

 

[Bob White]

What in the fuck? This is some Milo and Otis type shit.

 

[HeisenbergWW62]

Don't want to watch, but completely disgusting. I hope no one supports this film

 

[LightofRohan]

Normally I complain about the overuse of CGI in modern movies, but I think that scenes where animals are doing stunts should be 100% animated. There are so many confirmed horror stories like Milo and Otis, or Flipper, and so many more movies and tv shows where the animals look visibly terrified.

This goes for everything though, people complain WAY too often about CGI in films. If it helps the safety of actors (human and animal) then I say it's a great way to fix the ethical issues that plague most films.

CG all the dangerous shit, there is no need for them to actually put themselves in danger for sad people eating popcorn.

 

[Mentosrock]

1) That video was not that disturbing.
2) Filming of animals should be done with the utmost care for their safety and comfort.
3) The people in this video thought the dog would be fine once in water. Like most dogs are.
4) They made a mistake judging the power of the motors.
5) What was done to the dog was only slightly more harmful than people who try to bathe their cats.
6) I guarantee there are animal movies out there that have had more disturbed animals than this. That no one has batted an eye to.
7) I really doubt the makers of this film had intentions to hurt the dog.

...WHAT? That dog was clinging to the edge of that wall like its life depended on it and it was surrounded by a group of assholes who it clearly recognized were trying to push it into a raging river (which most dogs would likely spot as a deadly threat). That's not disturbing. OKAY.

 

[old manatee]

Again it's poor judgement. Stating that doesn't change anything and it's just argumentative. Especially when the person you're replying to already states that they made a mistake.

You said that people were being annoying and disingenuous by comparing it to Milo and Otis. I think that it's a fair comparison. Modern filmmakers have the option of CGI, so my bar for what I consider acceptable use of animal stunts is much higher than it used to be.

 

[Lemaitre]

Was going to watch this if the reviews were halfway decent.

This movie can go fuck itself now.

 

[Sou Da]

endless trash.

 

[Biske]

I think the dog is probably fine.

We've all tried to make pets do stuff and gotten similar reactions. But still.... dick move.


Could have.. I dunno trained the fucking dog. Start with calm water... a little choppy, a little choppier and so on.

Kind of like training.

Supposedly they have animals trained for shit.


You are telling me they dont have some asshole in hollywood who have trained dogs to love choppy water?

 

[jstevenson]

...WHAT? That dog was clinging to the edge of that wall like its life depended on it and it was surrounded by a group of assholes who it clearly recognized were trying to push it into a raging river (which most dogs would likely spot as a deadly threat). That's not disturbing. OKAY.

to be mildly fair about this - my Beagle acts exactly like that if I try to put her in the bathtub with 2 inches of water.

Not trying to say that makes what they did right at all. Just saying that the dog's reaction can't be the only thing we go on here.

The frantic everyone trying to save the dog at the end might be the part that bothers me most.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Yikes. This is very bad for them.

 

[Brinbe]

Fucking hell. How did no think that through.

 

[99Luffy]

I dont get it, that pretty much looks like every dog trying to avoid a bath.

Raging river really? It had 2 handlers in the same pool with it.

 

[darscot]

It was very unexpected to see the dog concerned. This doesn't add up to animal cruelty in my eyes. Just a weird issue with a dog. Seems like they had the wrong dog for the shot. If it was my dog I would think nothing of just throwing him in.

 

[Hypron]

We don't breed dogs for food. Chickens aren't common domesticated household pets.

That doesn't make it any better tbh

 

[ZOONAMI]

They can't just video a dog swimming if its own volition? Scumbags

 

[Mentosrock]

to be mildly fair about this - my Beagle acts exactly like that if I try to put her in the bathtub with 2 inches of water.

Not trying to say that makes what they did right at all. Just saying that the dog's reaction can't be the only thing we go on here.

The frantic everyone trying to save the dog at the end might be the part that bothers me most.

You're right. It is not the only thing, but it is a very important thing. If a dog is being hired to film something like this, you would expect them to have some expertise in the given scenario. Like they wouldn't have a reaction of absolute terror before jumping into a raging pit of water. It should be a good sign that the dog is not ready, and that what is about to happen next is clearly not going to be good. They didn't care enough to not endanger the dog, and the callousness of the people watching this is what's so distressing.

 

[Preacher]

You said that people were being annoying and disingenuous by comparing it to Milo and Otis. I think that it's a fair comparison. Modern filmmakers have the option of CGI, so my bar for what I consider acceptable use of animal stunts is much higher than it used to be.

Bro Milo and Otis had allegations that they killed 20 cats and broke actual paws.

Those allegations aren't even a joke. That isn't a fair comparison at all unless you're a student at the school of false equivalencies.
And Ok, they should have used CGI? Point being? I agree they should have used CGI but this isn't as bad as anyone's making it regardless of your personal bar for animal stunts. They assumed it could swim and they had people on hand to make sure no physical harm came to the dog.

 

[Arkeband]

Oh no. I don't know if I'm prepared to read about that.

No one's positive that there was animal cruelty but there are certain scenes where they're pretty goddamn sure there was no other way to film it.

So it's Schrodinger's cat and pug, if you want to look at it that way.

 

[old manatee]

Lasse Hallström's Hachi movie is pretty much a textbook example of whitewashing. He needs to back away from dog movies.

Bro Milo and Otis had allegations that they killed 20 cats and broke actual paws.

Those allegations aren't even a joke. That isn't a fair comparison at all unless you're a student at the school of false equivalencies.
And Ok, they should have used CGI? Point being? I agree they should have used CGI but this isn't as bad as anyone's making it regardless of your personal bar for animal stunts. They assumed it could swim and they had people on hand to make sure no physical harm came to the dog.

I'm not your bro, man.

 

[17 Seconds]

if they were willing to let it get that close, then they were willing to let that dog drown. it was in trouble long before it actually went under water, and when it did go under water, it was down there for a while.

 

[Wandering Robot]

I hope the dog's all right. This was poor decision-making all around.

There was a huge story in the Hollywood Reporter a few years ago that detailed the limited power of AHA monitors, for those who are interested. I will caution you, it is a disturbing read.

It's all just horrible.

 

[Grisby]

Seems like a poorly setup stunt. Dog clearly doesn't want to go in.

Not too visually disturbing until the end when he gets submerged. Luckily, people looked like they were jumping into action.

"Just got to throw him in." Argh.