PDA

View Full Version : The turtle's copped it!


Richard Stuart
05-28-2003, 11:34 AM
Do you think real-life animal torture/death is justified in horror films, like in the notorious Cannibal... etc. movies? Do you think it's overstepping the mark to include genuine suffering in horror, or is it valid?

RogueSpear
05-28-2003, 12:28 PM
No it's not justified. It's despicable actually. I've already been involved in a lengthy debate on this subject. There's absolutely no reason why real animals needed to be killed and tortured for those movies. It's not entertainment and it wasn't needed in order to prove a point or send a message. Animal cruelty in real life, let alone in a movie, it's not needed at all.

MacReady
05-28-2003, 12:31 PM
Hell No! I think it's arrogant to believe your movie's worth sacrificing animals no matter how good it is! I usually respect a schmoe's different opinion but if you think it's okay to kill animals to be entertained your one sick bastard! Even if Deodato was trying to prove a point about us being savage he didn't need to kill innocent creatures who just wandered into your path. It's like if Darren Aronofsky (hope I spelled it right) would have taken alot of drugs while filming Requiem For A Dream.

countchocula
05-28-2003, 01:39 PM
LOL, I'm sitting this one out!

Romero&Juliet
05-28-2003, 01:54 PM
Weren't the animals eaten??


I guess that'd put the entire thing into a BIGGER, GREYER area, but I dont see the big deal, really..

We're going to find something entertaining about any flick. If that, in your opinion, is a showcase of the movie, there may be something wrong. I wouldn't necessarily call it sick, but still..

Requiem-for-a-Dream
05-28-2003, 02:06 PM
Oh man, there was a huge debate going on in a thread I started awhile ago.

I think I'll go with Count and sit this one out.

Matt

Romero&Juliet
05-28-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Requiem-for-a-Dream
Oh man, there was a huge debate going on in a thread I started awhile ago.

I think I'll go with Count and sit this one out.

Matt

lol, I know..

I'm REALLY trying to tiptoe here, but I think I've already bitten off more than I can chew..


What happened to the good, ol' fashioned Jason V Freddy Topics?!?!!? :D :D

Cronos
05-28-2003, 02:14 PM
no its not justified or valid, its trashy, vile and unorofessional, id give films like cannibal holocaust and ferox a watch eventually but i doubt id own a copy or watch them repeatedly because of this

RogueSpear
05-28-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Requiem-for-a-Dream
Oh man, there was a huge debate going on in a thread I started awhile ago.

I think I'll go with Count and sit this one out.

Matt

I know. There's no use rehashing everything that's already been said. I've said my peace and I'll be sitting this one out as well.

Requiem-for-a-Dream
05-28-2003, 02:32 PM
Those were the days, when every schmoe heard about the Freddy Vs. Jason movie coming out and wanted to give their two cents.

Well, I will say this much. Cannibal Holocaust, is (IMO) one of the greatest horror films ever made. The animal violence in cannibal flicks can never be rightly justified, it's killing either way you look at it but I would consider myself a hypocrite if I decided not to watch these films for that reason alone. I've seen them all (except for Emmanuelle and The Last Cannibals which I have on order right now) but the only one that has the emotional impact delivered in a mature fashion is Cannibal Holocaust. Millions of animals are killed every day, I don't like it but I have to live with it. If a film used the killing of animals to deliver a message about the evil in modern society, well I would have to see it to judge it on it's merrits. That's what I did when I first heard about Cannibal Holocaust. I wanted to see it because it was supposedly very powerful and disgusting. Part of it was curiosity but for the most part, I was interested in the message delivered.

The animal killings aren't excusable but I WILL NOT judge a film because another person had a differing opinion than me. Deodato obviously felt that killing the animals wasn't an evil act because the animals were used for food afterwords. True, that doesn't mean killing animals is right but it does give him a strong argument and in the end, isn't that what happens every day? Two of the three animals here were decapitated, that's a quick death and it's humane as far as I'm concerned. It's just like killing a cow or a chicken but instead they kill a turtle and a monkey. I know that cows are shot in the head but chickens are still decapitated on many farms.

This movie tries to capture human evil and I believe it does that remarkably. Killing animals is wrong any way you argue it but the movie is too powerful to give up just because a few acts of animal violence were used. The movie Apocalypse Now has the slaughter of a cow on screen. This is a real cow and it's chopped up with a machete. I don't know how many people can see this act but it's towards the very end of the flick (won't say any spoilers) and it's intercut with another similar act.

Apocalypse Now is one of the greatest films of all time and I won't condemn it just because a few tribesman killed a cow. All acts of murder are wrong but I think it's easier to justify the killings in Cannibal Holocaust and Apocalypse Now than it is to justify the mass-slaughter of millions of these animals every day.

Everyone can disagree with my comments, that's cool but I won't be drawn into another debate. My opinion stands as is and although it's controversial, I stand by it. I have already argued this point to death in the other thread and I don't wish to do it again.

What we all need to understand is that this is a touchy subject and although it's hard to understand for some people, the deaths in these films aren't as evil as evil to some of us as they are to others. We can't change the views of others but we can try and understand them without being rude. No one has been rude as of yet but I just want to say that before it happens and hopefully prevent it. Lets keep this clean everyone.

Matt

ofmknockoff
05-28-2003, 03:57 PM
Well said Requiem, I have almost the same views myself.

The scene that is being discussed is the only time that a movie has caused me to genuinely (sp?) feel the urge to vomit. But it is almost necessary to the integrity of the film. They didn't torture the turtle, they mearly decapitated it, which is hardly torture but what they did to it after it was dead was what upset me.

I don't feel that killing for the sake of entertainment is right, but if the animal is used for other purposes, that does not bother me.

Hey, I almost brought the Cannibal Holocaust thread up but then I decided it wasn't a good idea.

KillerKlown
05-28-2003, 06:17 PM
Hmmm...I think I'm going to keep my mouth shut on this one.

Requiem-for-a-Dream
05-28-2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by ofmknockoff
Well said Requiem, I have almost the same views myself.

The scene that is being discussed is the only time that a movie has caused me to genuinely (sp?) feel the urge to vomit. But it is almost necessary to the integrity of the film. They didn't torture the turtle, they mearly decapitated it, which is hardly torture but what they did to it after it was dead was what upset me.

I don't feel that killing for the sake of entertainment is right, but if the animal is used for other purposes, that does not bother me.

Hey, I almost brought the Cannibal Holocaust thread up but then I decided it wasn't a good idea.

Thank you very much.

The turtle scene was grossest after the decap. It was already dead though, that's why I didn't bring it up. I almost up-chucked too.

Matt