Yes, Facebook is such a reliable source of information.
Those of you that love this movie, ignore the detractors. Most of them sound like PETA members, and you should never trust those sorts about animal issues any farther than you can throw them (and there are reasons for this, ie, animal shelter kill rates, ideology vs. informed opinion, etc).
Yes, the cat was scared in some scenes. So was the character, naturally. But you know what? Animals can't pretend, they can't act. If a movie shows a dog growling or whimpering, it really is angry or scared. All movies that use animals in that manner have to induce fear or aggression in the animals involved. Heck, that's one aspect of training an animal: fear (ie, how do I keep my dog from getting too close to the road when I let him run loose? Positive reinforcement won't work here. I have to make him afraid of that area). Animals can't think, so we have to manipulate their primal reactions to get them to do what we want them to do. It's not always pleasant for them, but is that a reason we should never use animals in movies? No. Animals are not people. They are not equal to people, and they don't have the same rights as people. If you eat meat or animal products, you can't say that. You can't make an exception for dogs, cats, or other "cute" animals, either. I had pepperoni with my lunch. It is pig meat. You know what? Pigs are just as smart as dogs. Many keep them as pets. An animal is an animal.
The only scene I thought was somewhat out of hand was the cliff scene. Although it is clear that the cat was not hurt from the fall (you can see it swimming away), they could have used a posed, stuffed cat, not done the shot in slow motion, and achieved the same level of believability. The scene with the bear, I have to agree with some of the others. The animals were playing, and the bear was being pretty gentle. He might have even been sedated somewhat. The growls you heard were probably recorded...at least, that's how they sounded to me. The waterfall...some people seriously think the cat was hurt in that shot? Frankly, that looked like fun. The box went down incredibly smoothly, no tumbling or turning over and the cat was back up and looking around as soon as it got to the bottom.
We have no idea what kind of safety precautions they took. How many animal handlers were standing just off-camera during the bear scenes, ready to intervene if something went wrong? Don't you think they had tethered crew members standing in the river waiting to catch the box or the cat? There are so many ways that this movie could have been shot safely. You all are acting like it was just two dudes filming animals with a handheld camera instead of a professional crew filming a movie.
I think I'll go submit this to Snopes...see if they can come up with a better story than poorly thought out comments about animal snuff films...
reply
share
bigboom431
13 years ago
Well, speaking of Snopes...on their boards, one user did make a well-cited post on this topic:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/74/t/000778.html
Points to consider: The director owned all of the animals used. He is a zoologist who owns a large ranch. Dozens of "Milos" and "Otises" were used because it took 4 years to film...the kittens and puppies would get too old to play kittens and puppies, and the adults would show signs of age. Also, some animals may have performed better at certain tasks. I find this to be a more likely explanation for the number of animals used than "all of the others died during filming".
I will post this link to a new thread so that, hopefully, newcomers to this page will see some decent research into the subject instead of these ideological, emotional, ill-informed diatribes.
reply
share
orbit92256
13 years ago
don't some of you dumb asses know that cats are considered good luck in japan and are pretty much protected by all. chew on that.
reply
share