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

[robertman2]

7 minutes ago, franfar said:

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 

I hope they go the way of Gawker

[cookie]

Jesus this thread.

 

Reminds me of the flame wars on theme park forums whenever the topic of SeaWorld comes up.

[cannastop]

15 hours ago, Krissykins said:

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

 

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

So are you not going to watch any movies with animals in them?

[dashrendar44]

Is that footage from the new Alejandro G. Inarritu's movie?

 

(Oh snap, that's a dog not a human being...)

Edited January 21, 2017 by dashrendar44

[The Futurist]

9 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

Is that footage from the new Alejandro G. Inarritu's movie?

 

(Oh snap, that's a dog not a human being...)

 

Funnily enough, to avoid this kind of situation most animals in The Revenant were CGI.

[dashrendar44]

11 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

Funnily enough, to avoid this kind of situation most animals in The Revenant were CGI.

 

You mean DiCaprio didn't eviscerate a real horse after falling from a cliff nor eat real buffalo live?

 

Fake artist! Give back your Oscar!

 

(Yeah, they CG dead people nowadays and in the era of Jungle Book, you tell me a VFX house can't make a 3 seconds shot of a CG shepherd dog double jumping in a fake river made in a pool. The shots were always bound to be tricked in post-production as you can see big blue blocks to replace the background so why not CG the dog stunt if the dog is scared. Then you'll got people bitching it looks fake and they should have thrown a real dog in there ).

Edited January 21, 2017 by dashrendar44

[RobinHood26]

Just for the sake of argument here....

 

When stuntmen die making a movie nobody cares, The Dark Knight and Resident Evil 6 should have been Boycotted THEY KILLED A FUCKING PERSON! A HUMAN! 

 

37 animals were KILLED making the Hobbit, yet nobody cares. 

 

 

But one dog doesn't wanna get wet it means boycott? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CoolioD1]

they could've american snipered it and got an obvious toy dog like in no country for old men.

 

[Alli]

4 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Just for the sake of argument here....

 

When stuntmen die making a movie nobody cares, The Dark Knight and Resident Evil 6 should have been Boycotted THEY KILLED A FUCKING PERSON! A HUMAN! 

 

37 animals were KILLED making the Hobbit, yet nobody cares. 

 

 

But one dog doesn't wanna get wet it means boycott? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LMAO 

[SteveJaros]

9 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Just for the sake of argument here....

 

When stuntmen die making a movie nobody cares, The Dark Knight and Resident Evil 6 should have been Boycotted THEY KILLED A FUCKING PERSON! A HUMAN! 

 

37 animals were KILLED making the Hobbit, yet nobody cares. 

 

 

But one dog doesn't wanna get wet it means boycott? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ya think that maybe one wee difference here is that the movie was pitched at dog lovers, and maybe it's not all that surprising that dog lovers would be particularly sensitive about mistreatment of a dog?

 

Bottom line is that you Universal lovers and TMZ haters can wail all you want, but dog lovers didn't like what they saw and this film's box office is going to suffer significantly as a result. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by SteveJaros

[robertman2]

1 minute ago, Alli said:

LMAO 

He's partially right.

 

27 minutes ago, dashrendar44 said:

 

You mean DiCaprio didn't eviscerate a real horse after falling from a cliff nor eat real buffalo live?

 

Fake artist! Give back your Oscar!

 

(Yeah, they CG dead people nowadays and in the era of Jungle Book, you tell me a VFX house can't make a 3 seconds shot of a CG shepherd dog double jumping in a fake river made in a pool. The shots were always bound to be tricked in post-production as you can see big blue blocks to replace the background so why not CG the dog stunt if the dog is scared. Then you'll got people bitching it looks fake and they should have thrown a real dog in there ).

I don't think they had the budget to CG it.

[dashrendar44]

14 minutes ago, robertman2 said:

He's partially right.

 

I don't think they had the budget to CG it.

 

 A 3 seconds shot? They had the budget to create a fake practical river, all the background is blue screen that was going to be replaced in post-production. Some VFX art school could do that for free.(See Beasts Of The Southern Wild VFX when they asked VFX students from San Francisco to do most of the CG work for free. Not advocating that practice mind you but if they wanted that VFX shot they could have easily find a way). You tell me an Amblin Entertainment/Dreamworks production doesn't have the budget to do that? 

Edited January 21, 2017 by dashrendar44

[Frozen]

32 minutes ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Just for the sake of argument here....

 

When stuntmen die making a movie nobody cares, The Dark Knight and Resident Evil 6 should have been Boycotted THEY KILLED A FUCKING PERSON! A HUMAN! 

 

37 animals were KILLED making the Hobbit, yet nobody cares. 

 

 

But one dog doesn't wanna get wet it means boycott? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not that the dog didn't want to get wet. The situation they were putting the dog in was dangerous and the dog knew it. A dog does not have the swimming ability to keep afloat in a current like that. 

[SteveJaros]

4 hours ago, franfar said:

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

 

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

 

The only fact that could actually mitigate the situation for me would be if it was shown that the video that we have seen is actually fake, or it is really a video of something that was actually not a part of the movie's production.

 

But since Amblin/Universal has already conceded that the video is real and it depicts an event that did occur during their production, that is extremely unlikely.

 

Because for my part, I've seen enough, the dog was in distress and being mistreated for the duration of what is depicted in the video, enough so to turn me off to the movie, so it doesn't matter to me what the rest of the unedited video shows.

Edited January 21, 2017 by SteveJaros

[AndyLL]

Statement from the author of the book:

 

Official statement from W. Bruce Cameron

First I want to thank everyone—and there have been literally thousands of you—who have written to express support. Your words and thoughts mean the world to us.

I found the video we’ve all seen to be shocking because when I was on set, the ethic of everyone was the safety and comfort of the dogs.

If the people who shot and edited the video thought something was wrong, why did they wait fifteen months to do anything about it, instead of immediately going to the authorities?

I have since viewed footage taken of the day in question, when I wasn’t there, and it paints an entirely different picture.

The written commentary accompanying the edited video mischaracterizes what happened. The dog was not terrified and not thrown in the water—I’ve seen footage of Hercules earlier that day joyfully jumping in the pool. When he was asked to perform the stunt from the other side of the pool, which was not how he had been doing it all day, he balked. The mistake was trying to dip the dog in the water to show him it was okay—the water wasn’t his issue, it was the location that was the issue, and the dog happily did the stunt when he was allowed to return to his original spot.

I also didn’t like it when Hercules’s head briefly went under water, but there was a scuba diver and a trainer in the pool to protect him. He loves the water, wasn’t in danger, and wasn’t upset.

On a movie where the mantra was the safety and comfort of the dogs, mistakes were made, and everything needs to be done to make sure those errors are not repeated. But the reason American Humane certifies that no animals were harmed during the making of the film is that no animals were harmed during the making of the film.

I celebrate animal rescue and am proud of the values that show up in A Dog’s Purpose. -- W. Bruce Cameron 1/20/17

 

 

And later

 

 

I am trying to politely and respectfully answer comments, but my wrists are sort of giving out. A lot of your comments are the same, so I will try to respond here.

First: thank you for the lack of profanity and flamers. They add nothing to the discourse.

Second: screenwriters make no more money if the movie is a box office hit or if it is a flop. I am proud of the messages in the movie and the book and support both.

I have asked that the original footage be released and am hearing that this is unlikely because it would have to be edited for length and once it is edited, well, then it is no better than the TMZ video, is it? I still think they should release it, but it isn't my call.

I think reasonable people can disagree about whether the dog was "terrified" or was experiencing some other emotion. In my view, since the dog had been fine swimming in the pool the whole time, it had more to do with being unhappy with being asked to jump in from the wrong side. And that's the point, isn't it? The dog was unhappy. We can all agree on that. I believe it was a mistake to try to continue to persuade Hercules to get in from that side once it was clear he didn't want to. Once he could jump in from the correct side, he was happy.

I am trying to say that people make mistakes, even when they are supposed to be committed to a firm, established principle of behavior. If you cannot forgive this mistake, I accept your decision. I have made mistakes myself, and hope that when no permanent harm is the result, I might be forgiven.

[AndyLL]

He is correct of the dog practicing the stunt and than doing it on film.

 

Unfortunately I think they'd rather just take the loss on the movie than try to fight public perception.

 

 

[Mango]

Honestly it doesn't look bad to me. Anyone who has ever trained dogs knows sometimes to teach them how to do something they have to leave their comfort zone for a bit. Now obviously when rushing water is included there it gets a bit harder to judge, but it's pretty clear that was a very controlled environment.

 

The best thing they can do is release the original footage the author mentions. Don't cut it for length, release it as one big clip and the outlets will do the editing once they realize they have to correct a story.

 

Another good idea would be to have the trainer/owner of the dog appear on social media or something reaffirming the fact that the dog is 100% fine. One Instagram or Facebook post is all it takes there.

 

Also I'd sue the ever loving fuck out of TMZ. Textbook libel.

 

On the other hand I'm really glad I chose PR as my major.

[franfar]

1 hour ago, AndyLL said:

He is correct of the dog practicing the stunt and than doing it on film.

 

Unfortunately I think they'd rather just take the loss on the movie than try to fight public perception.

 

 

IMO, it wouldn't hurt to just release the full tape like @Mango suggested. They can cut their losses 

[Jandrew]

3 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Just for the sake of argument here....

 

When stuntmen die making a movie nobody cares, The Dark Knight and Resident Evil 6 should have been Boycotted THEY KILLED A FUCKING PERSON! A HUMAN! 

 

37 animals were KILLED making the Hobbit, yet nobody cares. 

 

But one dog doesn't wanna get wet it means boycott? 

 

 

When I played Far Cry 4, my gf would legit get mad at me for killing wolves - that attacked ME as I leisurely strolled around the map.

[Talkie]

4 hours ago, Jay Hollywood said:

Just for the sake of argument here....

 

When stuntmen die making a movie nobody cares, The Dark Knight and Resident Evil 6 should have been Boycotted THEY KILLED A FUCKING PERSON! A HUMAN! 

 

37 animals were KILLED making the Hobbit, yet nobody cares. 

 

 

But one dog doesn't wanna get wet it means boycott? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Movies in which stuntmen died or were seriously injured sometimes use the deaths in their marketing. I can remember one movie long ago that had trailers touting the death of a stuntman in an underwater sequence. That horrified me as a kid, but plenty of others were thrilled for whatever reason. You can bet that no studio would ever brag that animals died on set for fear of eliciting a violent reaction from the public. The sad truth is that many people value the lives of animals far more than those of their fellow humans.