Animal abuse real?? **SPOILERS**

It says in the trivia that the hamster they used in the cigarette scene was already dead.

Janerhynn, your story gave me the chills.

As for the hamster, he didn't really do much when the cigarette came down on his head. Animals under torture tend to squeal and scream and fight like demons. Since the hamster flying into the fire looked very fake, I suspect Gordon's ok.

Every time you read this signature, an orphaned puppy gets fed into a meat grinder.

well the movie that caued the animal rights uproar was patton and that came out before this so i guessing the gerbil was not really burned. at least i hope not.

dewey dewey dewey

you could tell the hampster was a dummy when he threw it in the fire, but, it was a sick, sick scene and what amazed me was the killing didn't seem to really bother the teens. they just sort of went oh well, it's gone. another scene that we really didn't need to see. I just hate animal cruelty of any sort, even if faked, it does not belong in movies. and I"m not some fanatic peta person or some such who thinks fish have feelings and putting a collar on a dog is cruelty.

I don't know the real story on that at all, but it absolutely sickens me! Animal abuse, torture, and killings, even simulated, have no place in movies or tv. Martin Sheen probably remembers the real story on what went on and Jodie Foster might possibly remember. Maybe they'll speak out someday but I doubt if they are willing to, because maybe they don't want to rock the boat or open a can of worms that could lead to them losing future work. Who knows, maybe they don't want to tick off the studios if they were to confirm that yes, there was real animal abuse on the set, cause an uproar, and people start boycotting films made by that company. I think the entire scene should have been scrapped from the script. I wish Martin Sheen would have pushed to have it removed altogether before they started shooting. It has been a long running gimmick in Hollywood to get the audience to hate a villain by showing the villain as an animal abuser, but Sheen's character was plenty hateful enough without having to throw that hellish scene in. It was a totally unnecessary scene. I hate it, and it ruins the movie, for me.

When they released it on VHS and DVD and whenever they show it on tv, they should at least cut that scene out entirely. No I don't like censorship any more than anyone else does, but that crosses the line, and has no place in film or cinema, unless somebody is filming an actual documentary like for example, exposing the horrors of "puppy mills", in an effort to try to help the animals and eradicate a tragic situation.

And if they say, "well the hamster was already dead" what the hell does that mean? Does that mean they got the prop man to kill it? Absolutely revolting.

I wish we could get the real story once and for all about what really happened on that set by somebody who was there and not afraid to tell.

Who cares, its a damn rat...I hate PC.....

You Have a Hard Lip, Herbert..

Better Living Thru Chemistry

[deleted]

I must have seen a different version of this scene than everybody else. I had read that a dead hamster was used for the scene, and that Jodie Foster was still very upset, so I was watching very closely. In the scene I saw, Martin Sheen threatened the hamster, Jeffrey, with a cigarette, and when the cigarette got close, Jeffrey bit him. He then made some exclamation and dropped Jeffrey. The Jeffrey in this scene was very much alive. At no time did I see a burned or dead hamster or a hamster going into the fireplace. I was actually relieved. Was this a recut scene or one made specially for television?