Can't get over the killing of the donkey
-
icarus77 — 14 years ago(May 21, 2011 08:18 PM)
Agreed, killing an animal for a few seconds of footage is utterly pointless no matter how it's dressed up. The producers of 'Patton' allowed two mules to be poisoned via arsenic to play the animals 'shot on the bridge'. Actually shooting them would have been far less painful than what they suffered for a moment of screentime from an arrogant person.
Why does nobody question the mentality of people who order this type of thing to be done? Regardless if you eat meat or are vegan a person should have no right to kill another animal solely for filming purposes, or more accurately, just because they want to.
It is the domain of the spoiled. ignorant or psychopathic. Or all three. -
rooprect — 14 years ago(May 21, 2011 09:40 PM)
The producers of 'Patton' allowed two mules to be poisoned via arsenic to play the animals 'shot on the bridge'. Actually shooting them would have been far less painful than what they suffered for a moment of screentime from an arrogant person.
You're kidding me. For that 2 sec shot filmed from 100 yards away, they killed 2 mules? They could've thrown a sack of potatoes over the bridge and I wouldnt've known the difference. That's absolutely sickening. And you're right, it's not a question of killing because of diet. It's a question of killing because you're a douchebag. -
psdhart — 14 years ago(September 24, 2011 07:30 AM)
I did know that, some will say because the film was made in the 60's/70's, you are right, it is sickening
Jeez, I only read the first 2 pages of this thread, and unfortunately the knee-jerk responses are too predictable.- Person A exposes a crime.
- Rather than focus on the crime, Person B attacks Person A for different crimes.
I urge everyone to look up the phrase tu quoque which refers to this flawed reasoning. If Johnny stole a cookie from Suzy, you cannot defend Johnny by saying "Well Suzy stole a cookie from Jimmy!" You'd all be kicked out of my courtroom and forced to wear a dunce cap.
The point the OP was making is valid, regardless of if the OP eats meat, wears shoes or pees in a bucket. Shame on you, Lars von Trier.
P.S. It also does not negate the act of killing just because he cut the scene from the final edit. That's gotta be the dumbest argument I've heard in my entire life.
Agreed too, "Dogma" seems to require these kind of scenes
John C Reilly appartently walked out over this scene, good on him
-
PoppyTransfusion — 14 years ago(September 13, 2011 01:55 AM)
I agree with what you post and the OP and don't understand why the OP attracted so many sarcastic responses that just show the posters missed the point, which you put well:
Why does nobody question the mentality of people who order this type of thing to be done? Regardless if you eat meat or are vegan a person should have no right to kill another animal solely for filming purposes, or more accurately, just because they want to.
Exactly.
I'm a fountain of blood
In the shape of a girl -
Gloede_The_Saint — 14 years ago(January 05, 2012 08:12 AM)
I'd say putting down an animal for a movie is far more respectable and morally correct than doing it for fashion purposes, not that I have a big problem with that either. I eat meat, so as long as the animal doesn't suffer I see no reason to complain. Furthermore, from how you explain it this scenario seems as humane as plausible. I really don't see a problem here at all. Unless you think humans and animals are equall, and that humans should never kill animals from self-centered purposes: Food, clothes, art - you should simply not be complaining.
My 500 favorite films -
Finnish-man — 13 years ago(August 22, 2012 04:56 PM)
Ummhave you ever killed a fly or any other bug? I'm quite sure you have and surely most of the film directors in the world have too. Should you just stop watching movies completely because these people have killed an animal for solely self-centered reasons or perhaps for no reason at all?