Not the dog!

[AndyC]

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.

[raj]

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.

[-=NiGHTS=-]

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?

[raj]

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

[Eirik]

"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.

[ulthar]

Was anyone else rooting for the dog in Cujo??

[Johnny Z]

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.

[Neon Noodle]

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.

[Eirik]

"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.

[Eirik]

"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.

[Ash]

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

That was hilarious!

[ulthar]

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.

[Eirik]

"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.

[yaddo42]

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.

[dean]

>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...