I was glad to see a realistic treatment of carnivorism in a kids' movie for once -- but that the "solution" was for Alex to start eating fish ?! No, that only works because the filmmakers chose not to anthropomorphize them the way they did all the other animals. There could just as easily have been fish characters in this movie who'd object to being eaten every bit as much as the other animals. Something to think about.
shareThis was the first thing I thought about when I first saw this 4 years ago. I saw it on tv tonight so I thought I'd be cool and start a thread titled "It's ok to eat fish, 'cause they don't have any feelings". But then I saw your thread sooo...
Yeah, ask Nemo if sushi is the solution. The movie brought up a moral dilemma that became a central part of the story, and then didn't bother dealing with it, just passed it off with a hypocritical solution.
Of course the snarky ignorant reply is "it's just a kid's movie". 1. They shouldn't have brought it up then. 2. This is a very human conflict. Our modern tech society has become isolated from the death our species necessarily needs to cause to survive. This to the point where meat-eaters will stick their snooty nose up at hunters and slaughter houses. And vegetarians are even worse. Vegetarians are Kingdomists, they are prejudiced against any Kingdom of life other than their own. Plants are living too, and vegetarians have no problem killing thousands of lives to eat salads. In order for one to live, one must kill. This movie sold out on the lesson.
This movie sold out on the lesson.
That would have been a funny and twisted solution. I think it's funny they couldn't dream of animating a lion just rip an animal apart, but parents probably wouldn't think twice about letting kids watch Animal Planet, Discovery, or National Geographic networks. It won't scar them if done right.
shareIf the lion were to eat the foosa, I would imagine this would be done subtly. I could see the creators implying that the lion eats them by walking into the forest with a determined look, steak knife in one hand and fork in another.
Treat each day as if it were your last. Please be a child sponsor for World Vision.
[deleted]
Wrong actually--plants do move, all the time, and can react to stimuli, meaning they can feel. (Mind you, I don't endorse vegetarianism or anything. Plants are food and so are animals.)
Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.
Sorry for the necropost ...
Wrong actually--plants do move, all the time, and can react to stimuli, meaning they can feel.
Spoken like a true kingdomist! Plants are living too. Just because they can't cry and beg for mercy doesn't mean they like being ripped apart in your maw.
shareI truly despair when I see people comparing killing animals with killing plants and usually the argument is that plants respond to stimuli too. Plants don't have a brain or nerves to respond to the world like animals. They are not sentient. To say that picking a lettuce is the same as killing a cow is absolutely ridiculous. i-phones and computers respond to stimuli as well are we also going to compare them to animals and plants?
shareIt's a dumb and dull movie.
share
I agree with the original poster, JetSetThomas (despite the silly nickname).
Dolphins were 'sub-animals' in this movie - they couldn't speak. Spiders could speak, so they couldn't be killed in the movie, but apparentl fish rate below insects in the movie (which is of course ridiculous), so they can be killed. And I suspect the lion in the movie would have no problem eating dolphins as well, because they can't speak in this movie either.
Think about the lion from this movie, eating the macril from "happy feet 2". Macril should be even more ok to eat than fish, according to this movie's premise. But how shocking it would be to the audience.. what would they think of the lion then?
So, the original poster is absolutely correct. The filmmakers made some curious choices as to who to give the voice to, and who not to. Why not make the lion a herbivore while you are at it. How about not even having a flesh-theme and glorifying carnivores in a kid's movie?
[deleted]
I personaly have no problem with anyone eating only plants or someone no only eating plants but alsomeat. That said I should some people view fish as a barely living being or breathing decorantion. I am slso sure plants are not living beings in minds of vegetarians. Yes, the movie could have went farther and explained something must die for something else to live. Maybe they did not want to sound preachy. However, their honesty on meat eaters was something new. In this day and age they were lucky to get away with the subtle adult content. This was cartoon that was brave enough to have honesty in it (like the Lion King in some ways). I have no problem with the penguins giving Alex fish but it would I also would have found it interesting to see Alex going after the Fossa (granted like someone else pointed out maybe see him go on the fossa side with a knife and fork).
shareSharks are fish. Sharks are known to eat people.
shareWait, this movie wasn't an anti carnivore flick... it's a cartoon about some stranded zoo animals. Alex ate steak at the beginning of the movie. Crazy to think, but animals do eat meat in the wild.
sharehe should have wiped out some foosas. get rid of the nasty little buggers. that would have sorted his hunger pangs
shareIt was a dumb, cheap solution, yeah. It would've been much better if he feasted on the hyenas.
--------------------------------------------
I own you.
What's wrong with teaching children that just because they are animals doesnt mean they dont taste good. I'll have no problem telling my son where the meat comes from even if does like cartoon animals like them (cant think of any chickens, cows or sheep right now). What next? We dont eat M&M's because the advert characters have feelings?
share