A Dogs Purpose under fire after TMZ publishes leaked video of German shepherd

[neesaki]

I'm with the others... can't watch the video. 'Just knowing about this hurts my heart.

I wish I hadn't watched it, now I can't forget it, it's sickening. And I don't believe the dog wasn't harmed, he was scared to death aka traumatized. I call BS, it's all about money to them.

 

[zencompass]

I wish I hadn't watched it, now I can't forget it, it's sickening. And I don't believe the dog wasn't harmed, he was scared to death aka traumatized. I call BS, it's all about money to them.

I agree completely, Neesaki

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

 

[zencompass]

'Dog's Purpose' video mischaracterized events on set, investigation finds

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/entertainment/a-dogs-purpose-disturbing-video-investigation/index.html

A spin of the truth is a lie

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Independent Investigative Report on “A Dog’s Purpose” Finds Edited Video Mischaracterized What Happened on the Set

http://www.americanhumane.org/press...eo-mischaracterized-what-happened-on-the-set/

The decisions by the individual or individuals who captured and deliberately edited the footage, and then waited longer than 15 months to release the manipulated video only days before the movie’s premiere, raise serious questions about their motives and ethics.

I read that the scene was filmed in October 2015 and wondered why someone would wait that long to release the video. Now I know.

 

[zencompass]

My pet peeve is when people minimize violence or cruelty of any kind.

 

[Tawny]

I feel that if animal rights groups have investigated and say that no abuse occurred, I'll go with that.

I was also suspicious when I found it the video was released 15 months later and just in time for the premiere. Makes you wonder who had a bone to pick with whom.

 

[JohnPaul]

I feel that if animal rights groups have investigated and say that no abuse occurred, I'll go with that.

agreed....

this is a perfect example of why nobody should ever be judged on a short video clip,

nothing more to see here,

in the words of Apu (the simpsons)...."Thank you, Come again"

 

[kanzz]

PETA Responds: No, American Humane, ‘A Dog’s Purpose’ Is Not to Be a Prop

AHA’s bread and butter is the use of animals in film and television, and animals are paying with their lives for what many of us believe is an overly cozy relationship with animal trainers. In recent years, 27 animals died on the set of “The Hobbit,” three horses died during the production of HBO’s “Luck,” a giraffe died during the production of “Zookeeper,” a shark died during the production of a Kmart commercial, and a bulldog died during a shoot for a Vicks commercial — and all these productions were supposedly monitored by AHA.

 

[gregjrichards]

PETA Responds: No, American Humane, ‘A Dog’s Purpose’ Is Not to Be a Prop

I'm with PETA on this issue I don't agree with them always but I'm glad they are standing up for the rights of Hercules and animal actors.

 

[Tawny]

PETA wanted to release all "captive" animals using the umbrella of the 13th Amendment. I can't take them seriously. If you enjoy any type of animal performances, including TV and movies, I personally wouldn't back them. If it were up to them, no animals would ever come in contact with humans at all, to include service dogs etc.

 

[kanzz]

OK. Let's take PETA out of the equation.

American Humane Association (AHA) has a vested interest in saying what they did. They are funded by the Screen Actors Guild. They are the ones who put the “No Animals Were Harmed” disclaimer in the movie credits - i.e. they make money for providing this disclaimer.

Is the fox guarding the henhouse?

 

[DexterMorgan]

I'm with PETA on this issue I don't agree with them always but I'm glad they are standing up for the rights of Hercules and animal actors.

Thanks for the support. I just read about this in the paper.



Lol.

 

[coeurfragile]

What I don't understand about these reports about animal actors being in possible dangerous conditions while working....

It's 2017. They hologrammed (I think? Or maybe just cgi'd?) Carrie Fisher into a Rogue One. We have superhero movies and things like Magical Beasts from Harry Potter, etc. with all the lifelike CGI and Holograms and other wizardry nowadays (no pun intended) why in the world are we still using real animal actors for dangerous or possibly dangerous stunts?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they shouldn't be used in movies at all. But IMO there is no valid reason in this day and age why animals should be put in those situations for entertainment value.

So personally, whether PETA or AHA is ultimately correct in their statements, I won't see the movie. Which is a shame because it was an excellent book. Reminds me of the controversy a few years ago when another excellent book-turned-movie Water for Elephants came under fire for the treatment of some of their animals, too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JohnPaul]

What I don't understand about these reports about animal actors being in possible dangerous conditions while working....

It's 2017. They hologrammed (I think? Or maybe just cgi'd?) Carrie Fisher into a Rogue One. We have superhero movies and things like Magical Beasts from Harry Potter, etc. with all the lifelike CGI and Holograms and other wizardry nowadays (no pun intended) why in the world are we still using real animal actors for dangerous or possibly dangerous stunts?

same thing could be said about human actors,

maybe all movies should be animated from now on? :facepalm:

 

[coeurfragile]

same thing could be said about human actors,

maybe all movies should be animated from now on? :facepalm:

Human actors have the voice and choice in what they're willing to do or not. Some do their own stunts, dangerous or not. Some hire body doubles.

But the difference is that the animals don't have that choice, and the only way they can express that is by being distressed on set while doing a stunt. With the technology so readily available, I just wonder why studios think this type of bad press is productive. I would even be ok with the real dog doing the rest of the movie. But they can easily and readily create a cgi likeness of the dog for dangerous stunts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JohnPaul]

But the difference is that the animals don't have that choice, and the only way they can express that is by being distressed on set while doing a stunt.

i have watched this video 10+ times and the reason why i don't believe the animal/dog felt like it was in distress or in danger is because the animal/dog did not make a single sound during the entire video,

if an animal/dog feels like they are in distress or they feel uncomfortable, or they feel like they are in danger, the very first way they show that is with sounds....a cry, a moan, a whimper, a growl, a bark, etc etc....and i dont hear any of that in these videos, not a single sound,

it seems to me like the dog was a bit nervous, but the dog was trusting his handler, we are not talking about a poodle here, if that dog felt like he was in distress he could have easily ripped the handler apart in 5 seconds or less,

i have seen first hand what a dog like that is capable of, and it aint pretty,


.

 

[coeurfragile]

i have watched this video 10+ times and the reason why i don't believe the animal/dog felt like it was in distress or in danger is because the animal/dog did not make a single sound during the entire video,

if an animal/dog feels like they are in distress or they feel uncomfortable, or they feel like they are in danger, the very first way they show that is with sounds....a cry, a moan, a whimper, a growl, a bark, etc etc....and i dont hear any of that in these videos, not a single sound,

it seems to me like the dog was a bit nervous, but the dog was trusting his handler, we are not talking about a poodle here, if that dog felt like he was in distress he could have easily ripped the handler apart in 5 seconds or less,

i have seen first hand what a dog like that is capable of, and it aint pretty,


.

But it's still clear that the dog did not want to be there. The dog does not have the language to say to you "hey I'm uncomfortable here" or "maybe after a few more tries, I'll get over this fear."

My feeling is this: if this were a human actor who was in a pool of churning water and he or she had a panic attack or felt uncomfortable and wanted out of the pool (or would not go in it in the first place) would you throw him and keep him in there? Probably not. They easily could have asked the actor If they thought a few more tries would do it, or if they would need to call in a stunt double. I just doubt that they would keep him in there against his will.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JohnPaul]

The dog does not have the language to say to you "hey I'm uncomfortable here"

yes he does,

did you read my previous post regarding noises?

 

[coeurfragile]

yes he does,

did you read my previous post regarding noises?

I'm talking actual language. A very clear and resonating "no I do not want to do this."

Not all dogs make noises when they are terrified or uncomfortable and don't want to do something. would say the way the dog scrambled and forced the handler to pick him up and dump him in the pool signaled to me that whether he made noises or not, he did NOT want to be in that pool. Yet they threw him in.

But each interprets this video differently. No harm in that. I was just stating my opinion of it being silly to force a dog to do something it clearly doesn't want to do and could possibly be harmful or dangerous, for the sake of a shot. There are plenty of alternatives that could be utilized instead.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[zencompass]

Human actors have the voice and choice in what they're willing to do or not. Some do their own stunts, dangerous or not. Some hire body doubles.

But the difference is that the animals don't have that choice, and the only way they can express that is by being distressed on set while doing a stunt. With the technology so readily available, I just wonder why studios think this type of bad press is productive. I would even be ok with the real dog doing the rest of the movie. But they can easily and readily create a cgi likeness of the dog for dangerous stunts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You said it all and perfectly!

There is a reason we are the advocates for vulnerable people and animals.

We are their voices.



Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk