Turtle killing
-
smoko — 15 years ago(November 18, 2010 03:03 AM)
@FreddyGSanford I got goosebumps and pain in my feet, which is how my body reacts when I'm shocked by something. I'm no horror buff, but there aren't many times when I have that reaction. At least with a horror movie you know that it's not real, not with that scene though.
-
Xeokym — 14 years ago(March 31, 2012 10:14 PM)
I have have watched any and every kind of horror movie there is but that scene did it for me.I told myself it couldnt be that bad and watched it through that link.when they decapitated the poor thing I felt a jolt through my body and a horrible headache following it.No other scene in history has ever hit me that.I agree,we really didn't need that scene.still in shock.Still want to see the film though.(without the animals)I can handle everything else.
Being on the internet, it's surprising to some degree that you've never seen any disturbing videos of
real
murders, accidents, etc. I guess if you never search for that kind of stuff you can avoid it, but usually someone, somewhere gives a link or talks about something (like the various beheadings) horrible either caught on tape, or intentionally filmed. Once you see that stuff, every horror movie in existence seems TAME by comparison.
yes quite disgusting because its a real animal.
As opposed to a fake animal?
|{(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language. -
Kammurabi — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 11:08 PM)
I've seen plenty of real human deaths on film. Me and a couple friends were on that kick in college. We took every opportunity to watch. anything from beheadings to falls from buildings and mountains to the suicide of that politician which seemed staged because it was filmed in such loving detail as his blood gushed in a torrent from his mouth.
I barely flinched from any of it.
However, the muskrat and turtle scenes from CH were worse than all of those to me.
Probably because I believe in the future of the Earth and prefer humans die instead of animals.
. -
r-taylor13-848-416837 — 13 years ago(February 09, 2013 06:11 PM)
Yeah I was like wtf when they killed that rodent. So unnecessary, nothing artistic about it. Pathetic. Needless to say, I didn't make it much further in the movie.
I can understand when a film has some controversial animal abuse scenes, like in Andrei Rublev, when it adds to the story, symbolism or characterization of the movie in some way. But this was just straight up sensationalism. A gory gimmick so sickos can watch an animal being killed. -
SawyerVsSylar — 15 years ago(December 14, 2010 11:09 PM)
That's where I am right now. Watched it for the first time last night and every time I go to eat something it pops in my head, and I really wish it wouldn't.
"A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan -
Horrorible_Horror_Films — 15 years ago(June 24, 2010 06:10 AM)
Yea, you know I agree with you. (Although, come onyou can understand the sympathy and revulsion people have over the animal scenes, right?)
Those animals were killed for food, would have been killed for food anyway. Animals kill each other constantly, and people kill animals for food constantly. Right this second I'm sure there is a ton of nasty stuff going on - which is one reason why this film is so important, it makes you think, it forces you to think, it confronts you weather you're ready for it or not.
If the animal killing scenes bother anyone so much, then should absolutely be a vegan and never, ever use animal products of any kind ever again if they are so against these scenes. Personally I'm not, I eat meat and I understand and know and respect where my food comes from.
But if you protest against the turtle/monkey/river rat scene, then you go eat McDonalds or something, then you're just a hypocrite.
You've got the touch! You've got the power! -
oliveira-leonardo — 14 years ago(October 31, 2011 05:09 PM)
You're wrong! It's real torture, mutilation and murder. People also get killed everyday: would it make it acceptable in a movie? Animal creation for food can be really protestable, it's part of discussing ways of life, but it's still very different from mutilating and killing an animal for a movie. And to be sensitive with this doesn't mean you don't care for other cruelties!
-
Horrorible_Horror_Films — 15 years ago(June 24, 2010 04:24 PM)
Yea, you know I agree with you. (Although, come onyou can understand the sympathy and revulsion people have over the animal scenes, right?)
Those animals were killed for food, would have been killed for food anyway. Animals kill each other constantly, and people kill animals for food constantly. Right this second I'm sure there is a ton of nasty stuff going on - which is one reason why this film is so important, it makes you think, it forces you to think, it confronts you weather you're ready for it or not.
If the animal killing scenes bother anyone so much, then should absolutely be a vegan and never, ever use animal products of any kind ever again if they are so against these scenes. Personally I'm not, I eat meat and I understand and know and respect where my food comes from.
But if you protest against the turtle/monkey/river rat scene, then you go eat McDonalds or something, then you're just a hypocrite.
You've got the touch! You've got the power! -
Horror_Metal — 15 years ago(June 27, 2010 12:19 AM)
But if you protest against the turtle/monkey/river rat scene, then you go eat McDonalds or something, then you're just a hypocrite.
That's funny, because I actually WORK at McDonald's but for some reason can't remember the last time I tortured and killed a live animal while filming it for entertainment purposes. I also love and respect this movie, but that comparison you made was a bit ridiculous. Sure these animals were used for food later, but the sole purpose of killing them was to make a movie. I find that a bit repulsive. And it's not like they were killed instantly with no pain either, most of them were struggling and fighting for their lives which is absolutely horrible. I'm sure the animals that are butchered and made into burgers aren't exactly treated well either, but again this is solely for food and not entertainment purposes. The people who eat at McDonald's don't have to witness cows being slaughtered and made into burgers, now do they? Sorry if I sound a bit preachy here but I thought I would contribute my thoughts to this conversation. I am also not protesting this great film.
Horror_Metal -
-
-
evildead2099 — 15 years ago(August 13, 2010 08:53 PM)
Still it was for entertainment purposes. They basically died for nothing
The only animals which died for nothing but 'entertainment purposes' were the spider and the snake; the other four animals whose real deaths were filmed (The coatamundi, the turtle, the pig and the monkey) were consumed as food.
For the record, I am upset that animals died in the process of Cannibal Holocaust's filming. I am not trying to excuse what the director permitted with respect to animal deaths. The only thing I am trying to do is clarify that only two animals died purely for 'entertainment purposes.'
The deaths that bothers me the most are toss-ups between the coatimundi's, the spider's, and the snake's. The deaths of the spider and the snake bother me because the killings cannot be justified on grounds that the animals were used for food. The coatimundi's death bothers me greatly because the manner in which it was knifed caused it to suffer much longer than it needed to.
The other slayings were also unpleasant to watch, but at least those animals died as quickly and with as minimal suffering as possible. The only one of those deaths that bothers me nearly as much as the snake, spider, and coatimundi's is that of the pig. Although the pig died reasonably quickly after being shot, I resent the fact that it suffered unnecessarily because an actor kicked it once just before shooting it. It didn't seem to suffer too much from the kick, but causing unnecessary suffering upon non-consenting life forms is abhorrent -
ryans_olson — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 09:03 AM)
THE TURTLE SCENE IS DOWNRIGHT DISTASTEFUL. They didn't cut off the head first, they cut off the tail- they didnt cut off the head until the very end. That's where the problem lies. The rest of the animals were killed quickly for food. They weren't tortured first. No, they didnt die quite as quickly as they could have in some cases, but it was still pretty damn fast. In my opinion, the killing of animals on camera should definitely be allowed, if its in the same style as that of, say, Apocalypse Now. Yes, a real animal is dying, but in reality it's not for the sake of entertainment, and it was going to die in the exact same way, regardless of whether there was a film crew ther to witness it or not. instant or nearly instant death is not cruel, even when it's filmed. It happens. But torturing animals on camera for pleasure is just simply not acceptable.