A DOG'S PURPOSE | 01.27.17 | Universal | current gross ● 64.25 M

[DAJK]

4 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

That s why Disney went full CGI for their "live action" Jungle Book, they wanted to avoid what is happening to this movie an Disney will continue to not use real animals in their future movies.

 

 

I dunno, I feel like NOT going full cgi for jungle book would have been dangerous. Like, this would look like nothing compared to if Jon Favreau was eaten by a tiger.

[MrPink]

6 minutes ago, Beals said:

Why would TMZ concoct a smear campaign around such a non-blockbuster film with no big stars or big expectations? I mean...what are they gaining?

 

Dennis Quaid must have did them wrong back in the day

[Talkie]

9 minutes ago, Beals said:

Why would TMZ concoct a smear campaign around such a non-blockbuster film with no big stars or big expectations? I mean...what are they gaining?

 

Clicks.

[DAJK]

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2017/01/19/a-dogs-purpose-video-controversy-is-pure-hypocrisy/

[AniNate]

Let's be honest, would this movie have registered on most of our radars at all if it weren't for this story? I'm suspicious this was at least partly a stunt.

[SteveJaros]

2 hours ago, robertman2 said:

No it doesn't. The dog was never in danger when he was being dipped in the water.

 

You keep missing the point: It makes no sense to argue that because the dog is now "100% OK", that the mistreatment he may have suffered is somehow a minor thing. A person or animal can suffer terrible abuse,  a lot worse than what this dog seems to have suffered, and yet recover to be 100% OK. Our bodies are resilient that way. But that doesn't mean the abuse they suffered wasn't bad and whoever did it should get off scot free or be minimized.

 

Trumpeting the "dog is 100% OK" line would only make sense if the story was being told that he had been killed or permanently maimed. But nobody has claimed that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by SteveJaros

[filmlover]

My mom actually forwarded an email to me and a bunch of family members/friends tonight saying "BOYCOTT A DOG'S PURPOSE! ANIMAL CRUELTY! HIYA!" This movie is without a prayer now.

 

God, who would've thought this would be the first major film-related controversy of 2017? I feel bad for everyone involved in the film.

[SteveJaros]

2 hours ago, jandrew said:

 

This is still trending on Facebook and the first thing you see is a giant "PETA calling for boycott." And the 2nd post is from USA Today 5 hours ago just regurgitating what's already been said since yesterday. So this still looks like a completely one-sided affair.

 

Yes, nobody should assume that the posters in this thread crying foul about TMZ or otherwise defending Universal/Amblin represent what's happening in the real world. Just a quick glance at Facebook and Twitter makes it clear that the public reaction as of now is massively negative towards the film and its makers. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by SteveJaros

[DAJK]

Why couldn't this have happened to Rings... or another movie that looks like garbage. To the most sweet and innocent looking movie ever

[Gokai Red]

Apparently, my local theater (and work place) won't be showing this movie anymore next Friday. They made the announcement earlier today (Thursday).

[Krissykins]

2 hours ago, DAJK said:

Why couldn't this have happened to Rings... or another movie that looks like garbage. To the most sweet and innocent looking movie ever

 

Obviously not as sweet and innocent as it looks! 

[Krissykins]

I can't support anything that involves cruelty to animals.

 

So I hope this film dies a painful death at the box office. 

[Beals]

Yep...this film's box office prospects are pretty much dead. Serves them right...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/a-dogs-purpose-premiere-cancelled-controversy-966354

The Hollywood Reporter: Universal Cancels Premiere of A Dog's Purpose

[That One Girl]

This is so depressing.

[Arlborn]

Just remember folks: It's 2017; Trump is the president and facts do not matter, only perceptions.

 

You really think this year is going to be better than 2016?

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by Arlborn

[chrisman0606]

Basically this movie is screwed as this is Universal The Interview situation they are facing. They have two choices: Theater loss support and very bad box office result or cancel Theatrical release. 

[Morieris]

7 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

Let's be honest, would this movie have registered on most of our radars at all if it weren't for this story? I'm suspicious this was at least partly a stunt.

 

The trailer popped up in front of three out of five movies I've seen in the past month, besides an "Oh, goddamnit, the dying dogs again." not really

[filmlover]

4 hours ago, Gokai Red said:

Apparently, my local theater (and work place) won't be showing this movie anymore next Friday. They made the announcement earlier today (Thursday).

It would be insane if this got The Interviewed.

[Blaze Heatnix]

Rated 1/10 on imdb, lol.

 

Hell, even Uwe Boll's movies are rated higher than that.  That's really not a good sign.

 

The movie is doomed, that's a fact. People are angry, another fact.

 

The video was edited ( I'm not sure about what happened between the dog being afraid of the water and then leaving the water ). Is is the same dog? What happened? We don't know and we never will, probably.

[misafeco]

I feel bad for the people involved. Very sad situation, because of a mistake this movie won't be able to make a profit.