The Kitten
-
crissttigaldames — 9 years ago(June 06, 2016 01:02 PM)
Except that that's exactly what they did in Koneko Monogatari (Milo and Otis).
Your argument would exclude the possibility of animals ever being killed in movies. Yet they have been, mainly in the past but even rather recently, for example Talk to Her and Manderlay. -
jsk32870 — 9 years ago(December 26, 2016 10:07 AM)
First of all, you (and anyone else who posted that the kitten was fake) appear to be wrong. I just watched that scene several times (after finding this thread) and the kitten is real, up to and including the final shot, when Alice throws it to the ground. As she is holding it by the neck, right before she throws it down, you can clearly see the kitten try to clear its throat a few times, the lower jaw moves at least twice. Fake kittens/props can't do that. That certainly appears to be a real kitten throughout the scene.
Second, are you unable to differentiate between posts discussing
what happened to an animal while filming
, and
what happens to characters in a film
? They are two very different things. No one was talking about the characters and how they died. We are fairly sure the actors portraying those characters went on to live beyond the making of this film. However that wasn't so obvious for the kitten. I am not sure how you are not able to differentiate between the two. -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 07:02 AM)
I watched it frame by frame. The kittens body is moving in every single shot, except the last one. It's a real kitten.
Even in the last shot where it's not moving, the kitten is most likely being supported and dropped on a cushion which is out of the camera view. The only dangerous segment is the first when she initially grabs the kitten and its body seems to be bent backwards.
The limbs can be seen flailing, and technology like that wasn't available too make a mechanical kitten in 76. Kittens don't have a lot of weight and are extremely flexible, so while looking quite horrifying, I doubt the kitten was hurt.
I watched this scene several times in regular motion and frame by frame. It's a real cat. When she grabbed it, I don't think she expected the kitten to twist the way it did in her hand. -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 09:40 AM)
Actually, there was a decent amount of that type of technology and camerawork available in the mid-70s, whether it was used in this film or not. Interesting you felt you needed to do a frame-by-frame analysis. The point is, a kitten was NOT killed. And the "death" scene is obviously a fake cat. Does it really matter if a real cat was used for the initial part of the scene?
-
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 09:25 PM)
There was no death scene with the cat. She picked it up and dropped it to the ground and when it fell to the ground, it was out of the cameras view.
The reason I went frame at a time is because people were questioning whether it was a real kitten. I took industrial design. We did special effects, life casts, animatronics, cgi, stop motion, and NO, I've been around since before that film was made and they did NOT have the technology to make a cat look that real.
They couldn't even make people look real falling off buildings back then. You could always tell it was a flimsy lifeless dummy, even in higher end movies. I don't think a cheap film like this was going to pay for an elaborate cable controlled cat for 4 seconds of film time.
The reason people feel it matters is because the kitten could have been injured the way it was handled. When she grabbed it off the dresser, she rotated her wrist and the kitten was no longer being held by the nape, but rotated in such a manner that its neck could have snapped. -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 20, 2016 11:28 AM)
Are you a complete moron? I didn't even need to ask that, of course you are. Obsessive? Let's see, correct me if I'm wrong.
This IS a discussion forum, yes or no?
Do people come here to discuss movies?
Did someone ask a question about a particular scene in this film?
Did other people along with myself, participate in answering this question?
You just got your panties in a twist because your answer was stupid and you didn't even know what actually happened in the film. So, you get mad at me for providing accurate details because you suck and your answer was completely baseless and ignorant.
Let me ask, WhyTF did you bother answering when you had zero details as to what happened?
And you're upset about my answer when yours was for 5hit?
Then you follow up with nonsensical responses like a 5 year old because you're wrong. Go cry to mommy. -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 03:33 PM)
Actually, the fact that you took the time to do a frame-by-frame "analysis" of something already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain is the textbook definition of obsessiveness.
Your answer was far from informative it was opinion, based on what you
thought
you saw. That's fine, but don't state it as fact. Other claims you made were simply patently false.
Seems like you;'re the one getting upset because someone dared to say your opinion isn't gospel. That, little nama, makes you the ignorant one who sucks. Not to mention the fact you're an arrogant ass. -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 04:41 PM)
And you're wrong. It wasn't obvious, and you know why?
NO, YOU don't know why, because you have a lack of comprehensive skills.
SO, let me fill in the obvious that you can't seem to get.
SOMEONE ASKED A QUESTION ON THIS FORUM!
SEE, if it was SO obvious, you first of all wouldn't have had a question to answer, but someone asked. So what does that tell you?
IT WASN'T OBVIOUS!
Secondly, look at the various answers. You know what that means?
IT WASN'T OBVIOUS!
As to me analyzing the film, what's the issue? I've done stop motion photography. I animate stop motion puppets ONE FRAME AT A TIME! You know how long it took me to check out all 20 some frames, about 20 seconds. How is that ocd when I'm watching the film and take a moment to analyze it?
And NOW you're lying. First, you didn't even know what occurred in the scene, stating the cat was killed. Wow, very observant. She picked it up and dropped it, and you're telling me I'm false in my comments? Do you ever pay attention when you watch anything?
What was false about my comments?
Let's give an example of who's point might carry more weight.
The scene shows a REAL kitten being picked up and dropped from a height of 3' and is not shown being killed.
Viewer #1 says: That was a fake cat that was used in the part where they killed that cat. They had the technology back in 1976 to make a fake cat look as impressive as a cgi cat from a jurassic park style movie, but with practical effects for a cheap movie.
Viewer #2 says: This movie was done on a shoestring budget and couldn't afford much in the way of special effects considering not much of anything was shown as far as visual effects. After taking a minute to analyze the film, I've established it was a real kitten picked up and dropped.
So, in your opinion, number 1 is correct, since number 1 obviously doesn't even remember the scene at all, thinking it was a kitten being killed in the scene, when it was picked up and dropped?
I'm hardly upset, but I do have the ability to express my opinion, you know, because this is a forum about films, and unlike you, when commenting, I know what I'm talking about, and it's obvious you don't.
And it's obvious you only bothered to comment because you like to stir up crap when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The arrogant ass is the one who didn't watch the film, know about the scene, and bothered to tell someone who just watched it that they are wrong. Dumb dick! -
noveltylibrary — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 06:00 PM)
You are correct, it was not obvious. Obnoxious for anyone to say that. I just watched it again and it was live until the last second where it seems to be fake. But the point was the kitten was flailing wildly beforehand. btw I'm glad sane thinking posters outweigh the others:)
-
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 08:04 PM)
I appreciate your response. If I'm wrong about something, I'd at least admit it. I worked with a guy like this years ago. Someone would be commenting on a show (Madmen) they watched, and this guy would start telling them that's not the premise of the show, and then we look at each other like, wtf is he talking about? Then we find out he didn't even watch it.
You're left shaking your head as to why someone would comment if they didn't see it. Like what's his end game? -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 21, 2016 09:39 PM)
Well,you're obviously the kind of clueless, arrogant idiot who has to be right all the time, even when you're wrong, which you are. And again, you weren't expressing opinion, you were stating your opinion as fact.
And you have no idea why I commented; more incorrect assumption from an arrogant turd.
But you believe what you want. You're the type os asshat who would even when the truth is in front of you (not referring to this film).
BTW, learn basic English, genius. It's "years," not "year's". Third-grade level stuff -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 08:09 AM)
What is it that I'm wrong about? Someone else just watched it and backed up my conclusion.
Oh, sorry my swype did a word replacement and I didn't catch it. Damn, you've got me pegged over a spelling error.
And man, are you and angry upset little child.
COLDNAPS: "Waa waa! I was wrong and I can't admit it, so I'll keep making more crap up in an attempt to defend myself, because my parents were mean to me and never let me be right. Even though I'm clearly wrong, I'll fight tooth and nail with someone who corrected me about a scene in a movie I probably never saw since I didn't even describe it correctly."
THAT is arrogance. Your inability to see that you're wrong.
When was the last time you saw this film?
Why didn't you know that there was no kitten murdered in this scene?
What would make someone think a kitten being picked up and dropped 3' to the floor, could be concluded as a violent death scene of an animal?
What would make anyone think they needed an elaborate effect of a fake animal for 3 quick shots barely lasting 4 seconds in a cheap movie?
BTW, when correcting others about their spelling, check your own!
You're the type
os
asshat -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 22, 2016 11:02 AM)
"os" is a typo. "Year's" is a lack of knowledge of English grammar. But nice try.
And I never said a kitten was actually killed in making the film. As a far as the scene goes, the fact that you hear the fat guy screaming through the door, "You killed my cat!"
would seem to point to that. Guess you missed that in your careful scene-by-scene analysis, huh, Cecil B? -
namaGemo — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 07:43 AM)
^^^
Doesn't know the difference between people complaining about a death scene being shown VISUALLY and one that isn't shown. What was shown was the girl picking up the cat and dropping the cat. At NO TIME was an actual death of a kitten shown. It was IMPLIED by the fat man after the door was closed. -
coldnaps — 10 years ago(January 23, 2016 10:12 AM)
Never said an actual death was visually depicted, did I? Reading comp problem, Cecil B?. However, in the scope, world, universe whatever term you choose of the film, the cat was killed. Didn't matter whether we actually see it or not; the fat guy confirms it.
And BTW, what, exactly, is "wad the fork?"