09 Oct 2020, 11:39 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Any animal cruelty you see on film is all fake and staged. They create puppets to look like the actual animal when they torture it on film. They wouldn't actually set live animals on fire or have actors beat them or be cruel to them. They create robots and make them look like an actual animal and they are called puppets.
I have never seen the film and never heard of it until you mentioned it and it's an old film from the late 1970's.
I have never seen the film and never heard of it until you mentioned it and it's an old film from the late 1970's.
It's an old movie that's notorious for the scenes involving animal cruelty being real and not staged as you suggest. It has no disclaimers about 'no animals were harmed' because animals were harmed.
The absence of information is sometimes better than brutal honesty, unless there is a valid reason for it.
What was the purpose of your post, btw?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,239
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 Oct 2020, 11:50 pm
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Any animal cruelty you see on film is all fake and staged. They create puppets to look like the actual animal when they torture it on film. They wouldn't actually set live animals on fire or have actors beat them or be cruel to them. They create robots and make them look like an actual animal and they are called puppets.
I have never seen the film and never heard of it until you mentioned it and it's an old film from the late 1970's.
I have never seen the film and never heard of it until you mentioned it and it's an old film from the late 1970's.
It's an old movie that's notorious for the scenes involving animal cruelty being real and not staged as you suggest. It has no disclaimers about 'no animals were harmed' because animals were harmed.
The absence of information is sometimes better than brutal honesty, unless there is a valid reason for it.
What was the purpose of your post, btw?
Pretending away reality doesn't alter it. If someone wants to insist that everyone else is over-reacting to something that's fake, (if they're incorrect) it's probably best to point out that it's not an over-reaction and that they're reacting to something real. It spares the person who's incorrect from continuing to state an opinion that's based on being misinformed.
Someone you hold in very high esteem has the signature Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken. I figured you were a fan of truth-telling.
Last edited by funeralxempire on 09 Oct 2020, 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,239
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 Oct 2020, 11:53 pm
Joe90 wrote:
envirozentinel wrote:
^I agree. But it was a long time ago and things have improved since then, with legislation being passed to protect animals of all kinds and prevent that sort of abuse from happening.
But the rodent was inhumanely stabbed alive and it was screaming as loud as it possibly could. I feel like I want to cry. Why didn't they just knock it out before cutting it open, so that it wouldn't feel any pain?
I'm just freaking out about it because I have rodents myself. I know rodents get eaten by cats in the wild but I think this poor thing went through more pain being held and slit open than one would be when getting killed by a cat. And rodents instinctively know that cats are predators so I think most rodents die of fright before being eaten by cats. But in this movie, the poor thing didn't have time to die of fright.
Regardless of the details of the experience, cats need to eat, humans don't actually need violent entertainment. It's really not reasonable to compare killing for survival with killing for entertainment**.
** not to suggest that you're treating them as morally equal, it's quite clear that you're not
10 Oct 2020, 12:06 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Any animal cruelty you see on film is all fake and staged. They create puppets to look like the actual animal when they torture it on film. They wouldn't actually set live animals on fire or have actors beat them or be cruel to them. They create robots and make them look like an actual animal and they are called puppets.
I have never seen the film and never heard of it until you mentioned it and it's an old film from the late 1970's.
I have never seen the film and never heard of it until you mentioned it and it's an old film from the late 1970's.
It's an old movie that's notorious for the scenes involving animal cruelty being real and not staged as you suggest. It has no disclaimers about 'no animals were harmed' because animals were harmed.
The absence of information is sometimes better than brutal honesty, unless there is a valid reason for it.
What was the purpose of your post, btw?
Pretending away reality doesn't alter it. If someone wants to insist that everyone else is over-reacting to something that's fake, (if they're incorrect) it's probably best to point out that it's not an over-reaction and that they're reacting to something real. It spares the person who's incorrect from continuing to state an opinion that's based on being misinformed.
Suggesting/speculating it was animatronics or CGI is not an over-reaction, imo.
Well, not from me.
Who criticised anyone for over-reacting?
Please name names, produce phone numbers and addresses.,
I have some valium for them.
I suspect it is *you* who is over-reacting.
Please prove me wrong.
From my point of view, I don't think I was presenting a false reality.
I suggested it was probably CGI, if it is a new movie, since there are laws in place which criminalises cruelty to animals, these days.
Also,
I did make an enquirery as to the age of the movie.
This was an information gathering process.
Therefore:
*MY* hands are clean in regard to perverting the truth.
Consider:
The OP expressed distress over the incidence.
Your brutal truth, assuming it is true, did nothing to allieviate that distress.
It looks like a case of: "The operation was a success, but unfortunately, the patient died."
I will do my own reseach into the movie.
Something I would have preferred not to do.
10 Oct 2020, 12:09 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Joe90 wrote:
envirozentinel wrote:
^I agree. But it was a long time ago and things have improved since then, with legislation being passed to protect animals of all kinds and prevent that sort of abuse from happening.
But the rodent was inhumanely stabbed alive and it was screaming as loud as it possibly could. I feel like I want to cry. Why didn't they just knock it out before cutting it open, so that it wouldn't feel any pain?
I'm just freaking out about it because I have rodents myself. I know rodents get eaten by cats in the wild but I think this poor thing went through more pain being held and slit open than one would be when getting killed by a cat. And rodents instinctively know that cats are predators so I think most rodents die of fright before being eaten by cats. But in this movie, the poor thing didn't have time to die of fright.
Regardless of the details of the experience, cats need to eat, humans don't actually need violent entertainment. It's really not reasonable to compare killing for survival with killing for entertainment**.
** not to suggest that you're treating them as morally equal, it's quite clear that you're not
This is a non-sequitur.
10 Oct 2020, 12:18 am
10 Oct 2020, 12:26 am
Joe90 wrote:
About 2 years ago I watched the movie Cannibal Holocaust, which was great with how they made it all look so realistic. But one scene did disturb me and to this day I still feel distressed whenever I think about it. It's where the people cut into a rodent (I think it was a rodent) while it was still alive, and it was screaming helplessly. I heard this scene was actually live, which is why I find it extremely distressing. Why didn't they knock the poor thing out before cutting its body open? Then it wouldn't have felt any pain.
My empathy for this poor creature is very overwhelming. Can someone please help me to stop thinking about it?
My empathy for this poor creature is very overwhelming. Can someone please help me to stop thinking about it?
I watched this move a long long time ago and it wasn't just a rat. A turtle and pig were also killed while alive.
What makes this worse is the director had to shoot the scenes multiple times so multiple animals were slaughtered while alive until the director was happy the scene was perfect.
Due to animal ethics violations the film was banned in 40 countries between 1980 - 2001.
10 Oct 2020, 1:16 am
cyberdad wrote:
Joe90 wrote:
About 2 years ago I watched the movie Cannibal Holocaust, which was great with how they made it all look so realistic. But one scene did disturb me and to this day I still feel distressed whenever I think about it. It's where the people cut into a rodent (I think it was a rodent) while it was still alive, and it was screaming helplessly. I heard this scene was actually live, which is why I find it extremely distressing. Why didn't they knock the poor thing out before cutting its body open? Then it wouldn't have felt any pain.
My empathy for this poor creature is very overwhelming. Can someone please help me to stop thinking about it?
My empathy for this poor creature is very overwhelming. Can someone please help me to stop thinking about it?
I watched this move a long long time ago and it wasn't just a rat. A turtle and pig were also killed while alive.
What makes this worse is the director had to shoot the scenes multiple times so multiple animals were slaughtered while alive until the director was happy the scene was perfect.
Due to animal ethics violations the film was banned in 40 countries between 1980 - 2001.
Quote:
How can I stop being so disturbed by this???
And your comment relates to the title of this thread how?
10 Oct 2020, 1:49 am
10 Oct 2020, 2:39 am
Pepe wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Joe90 wrote:
About 2 years ago I watched the movie Cannibal Holocaust, which was great with how they made it all look so realistic. But one scene did disturb me and to this day I still feel distressed whenever I think about it. It's where the people cut into a rodent (I think it was a rodent) while it was still alive, and it was screaming helplessly. I heard this scene was actually live, which is why I find it extremely distressing. Why didn't they knock the poor thing out before cutting its body open? Then it wouldn't have felt any pain.
My empathy for this poor creature is very overwhelming. Can someone please help me to stop thinking about it?
My empathy for this poor creature is very overwhelming. Can someone please help me to stop thinking about it?
I watched this move a long long time ago and it wasn't just a rat. A turtle and pig were also killed while alive.
What makes this worse is the director had to shoot the scenes multiple times so multiple animals were slaughtered while alive until the director was happy the scene was perfect.
Due to animal ethics violations the film was banned in 40 countries between 1980 - 2001.
Quote:
How can I stop being so disturbed by this???
And your comment relates to the title of this thread how?
Well the film was banned, so there should have been some type of warning prior to watching it...
10 Oct 2020, 2:42 am
10 Oct 2020, 2:43 am
10 Oct 2020, 2:47 am
10 Oct 2020, 2:53 am
envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,226
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria
10 Oct 2020, 4:52 am
10 Oct 2020, 5:16 am
The following reinforces the belief in the perversity of the human psyche:
Quote:
Cannibal Holocaust premiered on 7 February 1980 in the Italian city of Milan. Although the courts later confiscated the film based on a citizen's complaint, the initial audience reaction was positive.[1][4] After seeing the film, director Sergio Leone wrote a letter to Deodato, which stated, "[Translated] Dear Ruggero, what a movie! The second part is a masterpiece of cinematographic realism, but everything seems so real that I think you will get in trouble with all the world."[22] In the ten days before it was seized, the film had grossed approximately $2 million.[1] In Japan, it grossed $21 million, becoming the second highest-grossing film of that time after E.T. the Extraterrestrial.[1] Deodato has claimed the film has grossed as much as $200 million worldwide in the wake of its various re-releases.[1]
Quote:
Robert Firsching of Allmovie made similar criticisms of the film's content, saying, "While the film is undoubtedly gruesome enough to satisfy fans, its mixture of nauseating mondo animal slaughter, repulsive sexual violence, and pie-faced attempts at socially conscious moralizing make it rather distasteful morally as well."[27] Slant Magazine's Eric Henderson said it is "artful enough to demand serious critical consideration, yet foul enough to christen you a pervert for even bothering."[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibal_ ... l_response
Humanity, as a whole, is a truly perverse and disgusting creature.
What next?
Feeding autists to the lions?
Thank you evolution.
