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

[filmlover]

Has anyone else noticed that BOM only has this listed as "Wide" next weekend? If this ends up having its release scaled back so much because of this then yeesh.

[Jandrew]

10 hours ago, SteveJaros said:

 

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. 

 

I didnt say anything about yall. Im talking about the GA.

[Jandrew]

Im baffled that some of you are still angry even after we know theres likely more to the story. 

 

Reacting on emotions. Nothing else.

[robertman2]

21 minutes ago, jandrew said:

Im baffled that some of you are still angry even after we know theres likely more to the story. 

 

Reacting on emotions. Nothing else.

Facts hurt people's brains too much.

Edited January 20, 2017 by robertman2

[Beals]

I am amused by the fact that both sides of this argument are claiming that they are 100 % right. Although it could be said that there is no certainty that the dog was unequivocally, 100 % abused/mistreated, the same thing can be said about not being any certainty that the dog was unequivocally, 100 %NOT mistreated. Although all I need to know is right there on the video, everyone is acting on impulse. So those who are acting all high and mighty with their "facts hurt!" and "you don't know shit!"...please, you are on the same boat. 

[SteveJaros]

1 hour ago, jandrew said:

Im baffled that some of you are still angry even after we know theres likely more to the story. 

 

Reacting on emotions. Nothing else.

 

Whether we have the full story or not (and no, we don't know that it is 'likely' that there's more to the story, at least not more that would mitigate what we've seen so far), it's reasonable for people to react negatively based on what we know so far.

 

If facts later emerge that mitigate the situation, then opinions can be adjusted accordingly. 

Edited January 20, 2017 by SteveJaros

[That One Girl]

Fuck TMZ.  That's all I have to say.

[Jandrew]

3 hours ago, Beals said:

I am amused by the fact that both sides of this argument are claiming that they are 100 % right. Although it could be said that there is no certainty that the dog was unequivocally, 100 % abused/mistreated, the same thing can be said about not being any certainty that the dog was unequivocally, 100 %NOT mistreated. Although all I need to know is right there on the video, everyone is acting on impulse. So those who are acting all high and mighty with their "facts hurt!" and "you don't know shit!"...please, you are on the same boat. 

 

I don't see anyone saying the dog was for sure not mistreated. What are you talking about.

 

 

[dudalb]

17 hours ago, CJohn said:

If I worked at Universal, I would pull this movie. The topic is too hot right now.

They are not pulling it, but they cancelled all the publicity tours for the movie,and would not be surprised to hear they are cutting the last minute advertising budget, In other words, dumping it.

 

Edited January 20, 2017 by dudalb

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, filmlover said:

Has anyone else noticed that BOM only has this listed as "Wide" next weekend? If this ends up having its release scaled back so much because of this then yeesh.

Remember this is a low budget film and really a minor release for Universal, so at this point distancing themselves from a PR disaster that could damage the company as whole is worth sacrificing a film that was not that important to the company anyway. If it had been a big budget, film, Universal would have a problem.

[Morieris]

6 hours ago, filmlover said:

Has anyone else noticed that BOM only has this listed as "Wide" next weekend? If this ends up having its release scaled back so much because of this then yeesh.

 

Is there a difference between "wide" and...idk, "wide release"? I've lived my life thinking "wide" was highest.

[RandomCat]

I'm probably going to see this movie anyway.

[dudalb]

15 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

A film can be "Sweet and Innocent" and still be absolute garbage. Film never looked any good to me...just an exercise in "aww,look at the cute dog".

 

[dudalb]

1 hour ago, jandrew said:

 

I don't see anyone saying the dog was for sure not mistreated. What are you talking about.

 

 

But you are sure hell assuming the TMZ video was a fake and Universal is the victim without waiting for more facts.

 

[franfar]

9 hours ago, Arlborn said:

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?

 

 

 

For real. All the bad stuff from 2016 didn't happen in a vacuum. We'll feel the effects for a long time...

 

4 hours ago, SteveJaros said:

 

Whether we have the full story or not (and no, we don't know that it is 'likely' that there's more to the story, at least not more that would mitigate what we've seen so far), it's reasonable for people to react negatively based on what we know so far.

 

If facts later emerge that mitigate the situation, then opinions can be adjusted accordingly. 

Wrong. Here's could possibly happen:

 

Facts would emerge that rectified the situation. Doesn't matter. People have already made up their minds and retreated to their biases.

 

PETA and other organizations will lead a boycott of the film. This has happened already.

 

The film's reputation will tank. Already happened.

 

People will avoid the film out of principle and social reasons. 

 

The film bombs at the box office. 

 

 

[RandomCat]

5 minutes ago, dudalb said:

But you are sure hell assuming the TMZ video was a fake and Universal is the victim without waiting for more facts.

 

 

No one has called it a fake. We've pointed out there is a massive edit in the middle of it.

[AndyLL]

1 minute ago, dudalb said:

But you are sure hell assuming the TMZ video was a fake and Universal is the victim without waiting for more facts.

 

 

Nobody says it is a fake.

 

Many say it was edited in a way to make the incident look worst than it was and would like more facts before condemning the film.

 

Is universal the victim?  Considering that someone held on to the video and released it at a time that would result in the worst damage to the film as possible than yes I'd guess someone is the victim.  The author and the human society that was using the film to promote responsible dog ownership are the victims.

 

If the person filming this was really concerned about how the dogs were treated it would have been released back then when something could have been done about it.

 

I'm guessing the person was a plant whos goal was to find & film something that would hurt the film.  Likely PETA since they hate animals being used in movies.

[That One Girl]

This entire situation is the most enraging film related incident since the female Ghostbusters hate train and The Interview's terrorist threats/Sony hack.  Fucking hell.

[robertman2]

The amount of PETA supporting celebrities absolutely sickens me

[franfar]

Universal needs to sue PETA and TMZ in the ground for defamation if there's a longer video out there. Neither of those organizations are forces of good in the world