A DOG'S PURPOSE | 01.27.17 | Universal | final gross ● 64.51M

[dudalb]

 

20 minutes ago, Jayhawk said:

Lol, didn't hear about this until a couple of hours ago. Damage is done, but it seems like everything was blown WAY out of proportion.

And the damage might be fatal. They have just totally alienated their core audience...people who love Dogs. When your film basic appeal it how cute and lovable the main character of the dog is, a story like this is basically kills the film, period.

And apparently they might be in legal trouble as well. Total fiasco.

What gets to me is they were stupid enough to think in a age of social media, they could get away with something like this.

Edited January 19, 2017 by dudalb

[RandomCat]

Nothing intelligent to say here.

Edited January 19, 2017 by RandomJC

[Poseidon]

11 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

That would make it manipulated. Not showing it in it's original form, crafting it in a purposeful way, is manipulating it.

 

I would say, it's manipulative.

For me, "manipulated" would mean, it shows something, that didn't happen. 

[RobinHood26]

Not taking sides yet, but it should be known, the guy "throwing the dog in" is probably his owner/trainer who has been with him every movie/TV show he's done. He loves that dog more than anyone and knows his limits more and takes care of him outside of work too most likely. Its not like a random PA is in charge of the dog, this stuff is contracted out. 

[Fancyarcher]

4 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Not taking sides yet, but it should be known, the guy "throwing the dog in" is probably his owner/trainer who has been with him every movie/TV show he's done. He loves that dog more than anyone and knows his limits more and takes care of him outside of work too most likely. Its not like a random PA is in charge of the dog, this stuff is contracted out. 

 

 

 

Although I won't defend supposed animal cruelty, that's a good point. Dude was probably a dog trainer, so he likely knew what he was doing. 

Edited January 19, 2017 by Fancyarcher

[RobinHood26]

1 minute ago, Fancyarcher said:

 

Although I won't defend supposed animal cruelty, that's a good point. Dude was probably a dog trainer, so he likely knew what he was doing. 

 

Wether or not he was the owner is debatable, but he 10000% was a dog trainer. No one handles animals besides animal trainers on set, these rules are not broken. Film sets are very tight ships. People do NOT touch stuff that is not there department. 

[Jandrew]

7 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

 

Wether or not he was the owner is debatable, but he 10000% was a dog trainer. No one handles animals besides animal trainers on set, these rules are not broken. Film sets are very tight ships. People do NOT touch stuff that is not there department. 

 

This is the kind of stuff the studio needs to be communicating out to people. What are they waiting on? I don't think many people have any idea of this. IDK who the studio is but they should've had some kind of press release or something out by now. 

[junkshop36]

5 minutes ago, jandrew said:

 

This is the kind of stuff the studio needs to be communicating out to people. What are they waiting on? I don't think many people have any idea of this. IDK who the studio is but they should've had some kind of press release or something out by now. 

 

 

I don't think it would matter at this point. The damage has been done. 

 

I've had multiple people post this video on my Facebook feed and the response is pretty universal. They no longer have any interest in seeing this movie. 

 

This movies gonna be DOA 

[Jandrew]

2 minutes ago, junkshop36 said:

 

 

I don't think it would matter at this point. The damage has been done. 

 

I've had multiple people post this video on my Facebook feed and the response is pretty universal. They no longer have any interest in seeing this movie. 

 

This movies gonna be DOA 

 

Trust me, they can save face. I study PR and when people react to something in such a snap way, it's not that hard to pull them back if you can show them their snap judgement was ill founded. It becomes hard to pull them back when the facts are present from the get go. People become more stubborn and rightfully so.

 

If it can be proven that this was all out of context then everyone sharing those articles will change their minds, or at least reconsider, because they can see two sides to the issue and think for themselves, rather than follow what the media says, which everyone is currently doing. 

[filmlover]

The story's probably overblown (who knows), but yeah, the damage is done. This movie's existence will be completely forgotten by the time Valentine's Day comes around.

[Jandrew]

Everyone who is saying the damage is done must not study public relations. Wasn't the "damage done" when BP spilled oil all over the Gulf? Welp, BP has been forgiven now. Why? They took the necessary steps to win the public back. This situation is no different. Yes it comes out tomorrow (or tonight whatever), but if the studio had tough leadership, then they could have a plan to get this back on track and save face. The problem is they are dragging their feet. I think the intelligence of the GA, and this movies target audience, is being underestimated.

Edited January 19, 2017 by jandrew

[Alli]

It's better not to comment. If they comment the story will only get bigger. it's better to ignore. the damage is done anyway

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

5 minutes ago, jandrew said:

Everyone who is saying the damage is done must not study public relations. Wasn't the "damage done" when BP spilled oil all over the Gulf? Welp, BP has been forgiven now. Why? They took the necessary steps to win the public back. This situation is no different. Yes it comes out tomorrow (or tonight whatever), but if the studio had tough leadership, then they could have a plan to get this back on track and save face. The problem is they are dragging their feet. I think the intelligence of the GA, and this movies target audience, is being underestimated.

Spoken like a true PR man. The problem, unlike BP, is that this is a movie depending on extremely short/forgiving memories.

[Jandrew]

3 minutes ago, Alli said:

It's better not to comment. If they comment the story will only get bigger. it's better to ignore. the damage is done anyway

 

And people continue to say this...again have you studied or worked in public relations? "Ignoring it" is one of the worst things you could do and will not make the problem go away. You can ignore your crazy ex-girlfriend stalker. She's still gonna stalk you and probably tie you up until you actually take action and get that restraining order.

 

Everything the studio needs to do a lot of yall have already outlined:

 

1. Josh Gad needs to be made aware the video was possibly manipulated. You need to get his ass to post a retraction saying he jumped to conclusions, he's sorry, and that he doesn't know the entire story and will wait until everything to come out to make his judgement.

 

2. Make a press release. The released needs to be pushed to all the trades and get top billing on Facebook and Twitter, and in it, it needs to be explained that:

 

a. The video doesn't tell the whole the story and they are working to find the truth.

b. Only certified trainers are allowed to work with animals on set. (and if that trainer has a relationship with the dog, it needs to be made known).

c. Make it known that working on set with animals is tight and regulated, as Jay Hollywood said. No animals were harmed in this filming needs to be harped on.

d. Apologize. Say you're sorry for even letting it get to this point and the studio will ensure that these issues wont happen again, and if it found that animals was mistreated, disciplinary action will be taken.

 

3. They need to threaten legal action if the video was manipulated.

 

THAT is how you handle something like this. You don't ignore it, you take responsibility and accountability and let the public KNOW.

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, jandrew said:

 

This is the kind of stuff the studio needs to be communicating out to people. What are they waiting on? I don't think many people have any idea of this. IDK who the studio is but they should've had some kind of press release or something out by now. 

Studio responded but it was very much standard PR release rhetoric,not much specifically answering the charges.

Real problem is with a film that obviously was meant to appeal to people's fondness for animals,a animal cruelty issue is the worst thing that could happen. Even if there is explanation, it just does not look good with this type of film.

 

[Jandrew]

6 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Studio responded but it was very much standard PR release rhetoric,not much specifically answering the charges.

Real problem is with a film that obviously was meant to appeal to people's fondness for animals,a animal cruelty issue is the worst thing that could happen. Even if there is explanation, it just does not look good with this type of film.

 

 

Where? I haven't seen it. Either way, sounds like it was written effectively.

 

This is still the top trend on Facebook and all i'm seeing is PETA being PETA. Have seen any news from the other side, still the same one-sided affair. I understand how bad it looks, but again you can't just say "oh well!" Again, that's underestimating the audience.

Edited January 19, 2017 by jandrew

[dudalb]

3 hours ago, jandrew said:

Everyone who is saying the damage is done must not study public relations. Wasn't the "damage done" when BP spilled oil all over the Gulf? Welp, BP has been forgiven now. Why? They took the necessary steps to win the public back. This situation is no different. Yes it comes out tomorrow (or tonight whatever), but if the studio had tough leadership, then they could have a plan to get this back on track and save face. The problem is they are dragging their feet. I think the intelligence of the GA, and this movies target audience, is being underestimated.

You are forgetting that the whole appeal of the film is "Awww,look at the cute dog doing cute things". This kind of story is fatal to that kind of movie.

[Jandrew]

8 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You are forgetting that the whole appeal of the film is "Awww,look at the cute dog doing cute things". This kind of story is fatal to that kind of movie.

 

No I'm not. You're forgetting that the GA isn't total morons.

[AndyLL]

16 minutes ago, dudalb said:

You are forgetting that the whole appeal of the film is "Awww,look at the cute dog doing cute things". This kind of story is fatal to that kind of movie.

 

Which is why they have to respond better than a press release stating that the video was a out of context.

 

They say they stopped when they realized that Hercules was too stressed.  They say they were able to calm him down and he did the stunt with no issues later.  They say they had practiced the stunt with no issues.  How about some video of all that?

 

How about they get the handler to explain himself/apologize about what happened.

 

I believe this was the 2nd unit... how about whomever was in charge have some balls and take responsibility?

 

How about managing the actors and crew and asking them to wait for the facts before throwing the film under the bus and trying to cover their owner asses. The author had a great statement.  Said he didn't like what he saw on the video but that he'd wait until he had all the facts before rushing to a judgement.  

 

How about they show some film of the other dogs and the conditions they worked under.

 

How about bringing in a respected 3rd party to investigate the treatment of animals on the set.

 

All this should have been happening today and should continue to happen until opening.

 

[The Futurist]

8 hours ago, DAJK said:

French teacher brought this up at the beginning of class, trying to start a class discussion. It's crazy how divided everyone is, almost exactly half the class is against the movie, the other half says the video was exaggerated and it's better to wait until the whole story is known.

 

Then name calling started, people started getting mad at each other, and they just abandoned trying to speak in French. 

 

A NATION DIVIDED