Badmovies.org Forum

Just saw The Butterfly Effect last night. Aside from a couple of aspects of the time tampering that made no sense, I found it an interesting movie overall.

What I found most disturbing was the scene where Tommy, the rotten little kid, decides to teach Evan a lesson by putting his dog in a sack, dousing it with lighter fluid and, well, you get the picture. Fortunately, they stopped short of showing him light it.

The interesting thing is that while I was outraged by this (I wanted to throttle the little bastard), I can watch essentially the same thing, and worse, done to a person in other movies, and not react nearly as strongly. Is it because the dog is helpless, innocent, dumb animal that isn't even aware of what's going on? Is it because dogs are cute.

One thing I did think about was the thread about movies hated for a single scene. You see, I've never been a pet owner until I married a dog person in 2002. Now the dogs are a big part of my life, and I've really bonded with them. Watching that scene, I couldn't help but think of my own dogs. Makes me wonder how parents in the audience reacted to the baby that gets blown up.

Dogs, on the whole, are much better than people.  I can't stand to see a dog die in a movie-- of course I am a dog lover.  Actually I don't like seeing any animal hurt in a movie, even though I know it's make believe.

Thanks for the warning about the Butterfly Effect.  I won't see it.

My ex-girlfriend (sob) was the same way.  

Either way, isn't there a movie rule or something like that?  If you kill a dog in a film, you won't survive?

I think that's right.  You can't harm a dog, or small children.

"Is it because the dog is helpless, innocent, dumb animal that isn't even aware of what's going on? Is it because dogs are cute."

I think there's a psychology at work here AndyC - stay with me.  Unless you're from Haiti or West Africa, people getting lit on fire is not a part of your reality.  When you see it dramatized on film, you know it isn't real and you don't internalize it because it's just a movie.  But I bet most American kids do have a first hand experience with seeing kids do cruel things to animals (granted, maybe not that extreme)...  so you have a frame of reference, and you cannot remove yourself as readily from what you are seeing on film.

I knew a little twat in grade school who would hunt squirrels with his pellet gun, skin them, and then make squirrel puppets that he would have talk to each other.  Nobody really liked the twisted little creep very much.  According to the last class newsletter, he works as a programmer for Bell Atlantic and is not married.  Figures.

Was anyone else rooting for the dog in Cujo??

The sad part is the lighting the dog will probably show up on DVD in the deleted scenes section, unless PETA, SPCA or someone says something. I like dogs and would have a hard time watching that, even though a real dog wasn't harmed.

raj wrote:

> I think that's right.  You can't harm a dog, or small children.


The exception to this being Halloween, where Michael Meyers killed the dog partway thru the movie.

"The exception to this being Halloween, where Michael Meyers killed the dog partway thru the movie."

Actually, dogs eat it quite often in the movies.  Signs, Jaws, Alien3, just to name a few.

"Was anyone else rooting for the dog in Cujo??"

Against Dee Wallace?  You bet I was.  Interestingly, the movie departed from the book to adhere to the "don't kill kids" rule.

One good exception to the dog thing is in There's Something About Mary.

That was hilarious!

Eirik wrote:

> Interestingly, the movie
> departed from the book to adhere to the "don't kill kids" rule.

Yeah, that was why I did not like the movie Cugo....I am not for killing kids in movies, but in the book, that made the story VERY, VERY powerful.  Horror should not always have a happy ending.  If you are going to change the fundamental essence of the story, frankly, I'd just assume the movie not be made.

But that's just me, I suppose.

"Yeah, that was why I did not like the movie Cugo....I am not for killing kids in movies, but in the book, that made the story VERY, VERY powerful. Horror should not always have a happy ending. If you are going to change the fundamental essence of the story, frankly, I'd just assume the movie not be made."

I remember feeling the same way at the time (I had read the book in anticipation of the movie coming out, finished it three days before opening day, and went to the first showing on opening day)...  I wanted the movie to be just like the book - which I agree had a powerful ending.  But now, I don't think I'd want to see a movie end like that book did.  Maybe it's because I'm a dad, I don't know.  But the essence of the story - as you put it - wasn't so much the kid dying as it was about sort of the reverse evolution of an animal we thought we had domesticated.  I thought King worked that theme very well in the book, and I don't think the director did a good job of putting it on screen.  Mostly, he smeared gook on a rolly polly St. Bernard that looked like it just wanted to play catch.

I hate demonstrations of animal cruelty in films when they serve no purpose to the story, aren't used for comedy, or are just there for shock value.

The cat scene in "Boondock Saints" didn't bother me, mostly because it was done for comedic effect. Plus, it was one of the few clever scenes in a very overrated movie that wasn't as hip, clever, or smart as the people making it thought it was.

The bar scene in "The Rookie" where Charlie Sheen shoots the dog attacking him didn't bother me either. It made sense to the movie and I liked seeing a character use a direct brutal approach to dealing with an attack dog in a movie for once.

The horse slap and horse punch in "Pocket Money" are funny, mild compared to the scene in "Butterfly Effect", and serve the plot and character development.

>The interesting thing is that while I was outraged by this (I wanted to throttle the little bastard), I can watch essentially the same thing, and worse, done to a person in other movies, and not react nearly as strongly. Is it because the dog is helpless, innocent, dumb animal that isn't even aware of what's going on? Is it because dogs are cute.<


I guess it's because we see murder and violence against people all the time.  Alot of us watch horror films and are used to that sorta thing I guess.

Maybe we are just desensitized to the violence towards humans [Jeez, I sound like my old english teacher!]

For example, in American Psycho, I found alot of Bateman's killings to be quite straightfoward, run of the mill [and a bit funny as well!].   Whatever.  But when he held that kitten to the Atm and was ready to 'feed' it, I was a bit disturbed.  Maybe because we can accept the fact that a serial/violent killer can kill a human without remorse nor reason, we understand this, but when the same brutality is done to an animal, it's just a sick easy kill that really served no purpose.  That's a true sicko; the animal killer.  

That's why animal killings in movies like Signs, Jaws and Aliens aren't that bad; they're done by other animals hence we expect that more. [though I was a little sad about it in Signs]

There it is, my lengthy psychological analysis of the human mind.  Give me money and a nobel prize now please...

The movie AFRAID OF THE DARK has a scene where a dog has his eyes poked out (by a knitting needle, I think . . . I haven't seen the movie in a long time).

Then, of course, there was the REAL LIFE tragedy that occurred a few years ago when a boy around 12 or 14 years old (I think), cut a dog's eyes out with a pocket knife and the dog had to be euthanized.  The kid said that he did it because we wanted to "see what would happen."

I could have gone my whole life without knowing something like that happened.  Would have been a nice life, too.

Not that it surprises me in any way.  In my something something years of existence, I've heard plenty of things I would have been happier not hearing.

The kid probably ought to be watched for the rest of his life.  Or, at least in some form of counseling.

One last thing - am I the only person who read that and instantly thought of Edgar Allen Poe's "The Black Cat"?

I only ask to see just how off the bubble I really am.

Cullen wrote:

>
> The kid probably ought to be watched for the rest of his life.
> Or, at least in some form of counseling.
>

Absolutely.  Many studies have shown that most serial killers begin with animal torture.  That's one of the behavioral triad that is linked to sexually motivated killing: bed wetting, arson animal torture.

An adolescent exhibiting any two of these three is in significant danger of developing psychopathic tendacies in later life.  (Note that the bedwetting refers to kids older than where it is 'normal' ...).

I knew about the animal torture part, but not the other two signs.  Very interesting.

Thanks for the Info.

---

Cullen wrote:

> I knew about the animal torture part, but not the other two
> signs.  Very interesting.
>
> Thanks for the Info.
>

---

Two books by John Douglas (Mindhunter and Journey Into Darkness) are fascinating looks into the minds of serial killers and sexually motivated killers.  If you are interested in this sort of topic and have not read these two books, they are worth a read.

If you have kids, Journey Into Darkness will also be a bit disturbing since much of the book focuses on child kidnappings and stuff....but there is good info on how to possibly spot a pedophile or child predator.

I was going to mention these in my last post, but could not think of the title of Journey Into Darkness..was drawing a blank.

Seeing a dog hurt or killed ina movie makes me sad for the rest of the night.  Nothing in the world  can make me happier than a puppy.  I love dogs.  Torture the hell out of the humans in the movie, but leave the dogs alone.

Brother R

I don't need bad deeds done to good animals. Defending aginst an unproviked attack (The rookie) i can accapt, ....lets include Jurassic park, now that i think about it....but, while it makes the villian badder, how its depicted determins how well i handle it.
Humm...does it affect anyone, with the "Mongo punchs horse" gag in Blazeing Saddles?

Flangepart wrote:

 
> Humm...does it affect anyone, with the "Mongo punchs horse" gag
> in Blazeing Saddles?
>

I thought of that while reading this thread.  The movie itself is a fun bunch of silliness that I think it is easy to not take that punch seriously.  I don't know how they did the effect, but I guess we (or at least I) always assumed it did not harm the horse in any way.

I think it is just different in a comedy....

I thought the horse punch was real, and was one reason given for letting ASPCA onto movie sets.  Great movie even with the horse punch.

The horse punch was too ridiculous to bother me. The horse is so much bigger and stronger than Alex Karras, that it's going to take a lot more than a punch in the face to do it harm. That's why it's funny when he knocks it out.

Come to think of it, I also got a kick out of the dead horse gag in Animal House.

I wonder if it's generally less bothersome because fewer people own horses or have much experience with them. Also, the horse has traditionally been a working beast, pulling wagons and plows and such. People have used whips and spurs on them. Dogs, while some of them do work, are close companions.

I think it's our familiarity with dogs that makes it so upsetting to see them come to harm in a movie. A lot of people have dogs, and understand what loving,  trusting, social animals they are. It's hard to see anybody mistreat one, even when it's faked.

Cats, on the other hand, are aloof and detached, and generally crueller predators than dogs. They might rub around your leg or enjoy a scratch behind the ear, but it's all about their pleasure. I always enjoyed the saying that your size is the only thing keeping your cat from trying to eat you. Thus, I can laugh my butt off as someone beats a rug with one in Holy Grail.

What you say about cats is only partially true.  I grew up being a dog person, and only really had my first cat given to me when I was about 26 or so.  She was very affectionate, would come lay her head on my neck if I was sad, etc.  True, she had her aloof times, and cats in general DO have attitude.  She died last year, and I do miss her.

The cat we have now (gotten before the other one died) is completely different.  When she is affectionate, it is ONLY in her terms.  She follows me around the house and stays very close, but will *not,* except in extraordinary circumstances, sit on my lap!  She also has a bit of a temper.

And having watched a cat on more than one occasion absolutely torture a smaller animal (such as a mouse), I must agree that they are cold predators.  Very good hunters, too.  I have to respect that.

I would not want to see cats mistreated/victims in movies any more than dogs.  Although I must say, Re-Animator is a favorite and the cat scene is intense.

(Cat scenes in Pet Semetary are intense, too, but I quick watching that movie because of the child aspect discussed at length in previous threads).

Saw another interesting example of this when I rented Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidora: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (great title). A bunch of young hooligans, in the middle of trespassing, breaking and entering, and so forth, decide to drown the cute little watchdog. They put it in a box with a heavy (and significant) stone figure, row out into the middle of the lake. As they're dumping it overboard, Mothra comes out of the lake and kills the lot of them.

Shortly after, as the incident is discussed on the TV news, we see a brief shot of the dog being rescued from the box. Twenty people dead and wrapped in cocoons, but the dog is OK. Phew! That was lucky.

Interesting to see a trick like that in a Japanese movie. Shows it's not just a North American or European thing. Mind you, it probably wouldn't work in any Asian country where dogs are on the menu.

.  .  Everyone seems to find it offensive, as do I, but Lloyd Kaufman has noticed the hypocracy as seeing a dozen or so children killed in a "Beware: Children at Play" promo drove audiences out of a test screening of either "Terror Firmer" or "Tromeo and Juliet" (I think the latter), but he recieved few complaints, (I mean comparitively [Morton Downey]) compared to the "Not the dog!" scene in "The Toxic Avenger."  Which was part of the 1st Troma Intelligence Tests on the DVD's, as being the most complained about scene... from Troma, no less.

Noticed that too, AndyC. I think the innocence of the dog was its protection....corse...how do ya explain the people who must have been trampled by the other monsters?
Oh, wait....this is Kaiju...we don need no stinkin' logic!

Well, they did make a point of explaining that the guardian monsters were protectors of the land itself, and not the nation. I figured the intention was to allow them to wreck buildings and kill people while still being the good guys. They're neither hostile toward the Japanese, nor do they particularly care about them. On the other hand, Godzilla was just plain mean in that movie. Of course, you'd be mean too if somebody decided that everything you'd done since 1954 had never happened.

Incidentally, my favourite line in the movie had to be the discussion of the giant monster that attacked New York a few years ago. "Some American scientists believe it was Godzilla, but we don't think so."

Hah! Loved that! "Our experts don't think so..."
Hey, that makes us experts on Godzilla! Cool!
Oh, i'm SO looking forward to the G Vs. MG disk due out in, March i think. YES!
Godzilla : Kickin' major metropolitan butt for half a century!

Can we talk about ferrets, now? I basically had that same feeling everybody else has mentioned when that ferret died in "The Beastmaster." (Film reviewed at this site.) How many people died in that  film, including children? But, I felt worst about the ferret dieing, then I did any of the people dieing.