Turtle killing
-
Horrorible_Horror_Films — 15 years ago(June 24, 2010 04:24 PM)
Yea, you know I agree with you. (Although, come onyou can understand the sympathy and revulsion people have over the animal scenes, right?)
Those animals were killed for food, would have been killed for food anyway. Animals kill each other constantly, and people kill animals for food constantly. Right this second I'm sure there is a ton of nasty stuff going on - which is one reason why this film is so important, it makes you think, it forces you to think, it confronts you weather you're ready for it or not.
If the animal killing scenes bother anyone so much, then should absolutely be a vegan and never, ever use animal products of any kind ever again if they are so against these scenes. Personally I'm not, I eat meat and I understand and know and respect where my food comes from.
But if you protest against the turtle/monkey/river rat scene, then you go eat McDonalds or something, then you're just a hypocrite.
You've got the touch! You've got the power! -
Horror_Metal — 15 years ago(June 27, 2010 12:19 AM)
But if you protest against the turtle/monkey/river rat scene, then you go eat McDonalds or something, then you're just a hypocrite.
That's funny, because I actually WORK at McDonald's but for some reason can't remember the last time I tortured and killed a live animal while filming it for entertainment purposes. I also love and respect this movie, but that comparison you made was a bit ridiculous. Sure these animals were used for food later, but the sole purpose of killing them was to make a movie. I find that a bit repulsive. And it's not like they were killed instantly with no pain either, most of them were struggling and fighting for their lives which is absolutely horrible. I'm sure the animals that are butchered and made into burgers aren't exactly treated well either, but again this is solely for food and not entertainment purposes. The people who eat at McDonald's don't have to witness cows being slaughtered and made into burgers, now do they? Sorry if I sound a bit preachy here but I thought I would contribute my thoughts to this conversation. I am also not protesting this great film.
Horror_Metal -
-
-
evildead2099 — 15 years ago(August 13, 2010 08:53 PM)
Still it was for entertainment purposes. They basically died for nothing
The only animals which died for nothing but 'entertainment purposes' were the spider and the snake; the other four animals whose real deaths were filmed (The coatamundi, the turtle, the pig and the monkey) were consumed as food.
For the record, I am upset that animals died in the process of Cannibal Holocaust's filming. I am not trying to excuse what the director permitted with respect to animal deaths. The only thing I am trying to do is clarify that only two animals died purely for 'entertainment purposes.'
The deaths that bothers me the most are toss-ups between the coatimundi's, the spider's, and the snake's. The deaths of the spider and the snake bother me because the killings cannot be justified on grounds that the animals were used for food. The coatimundi's death bothers me greatly because the manner in which it was knifed caused it to suffer much longer than it needed to.
The other slayings were also unpleasant to watch, but at least those animals died as quickly and with as minimal suffering as possible. The only one of those deaths that bothers me nearly as much as the snake, spider, and coatimundi's is that of the pig. Although the pig died reasonably quickly after being shot, I resent the fact that it suffered unnecessarily because an actor kicked it once just before shooting it. It didn't seem to suffer too much from the kick, but causing unnecessary suffering upon non-consenting life forms is abhorrent -
ryans_olson — 15 years ago(August 29, 2010 09:03 AM)
THE TURTLE SCENE IS DOWNRIGHT DISTASTEFUL. They didn't cut off the head first, they cut off the tail- they didnt cut off the head until the very end. That's where the problem lies. The rest of the animals were killed quickly for food. They weren't tortured first. No, they didnt die quite as quickly as they could have in some cases, but it was still pretty damn fast. In my opinion, the killing of animals on camera should definitely be allowed, if its in the same style as that of, say, Apocalypse Now. Yes, a real animal is dying, but in reality it's not for the sake of entertainment, and it was going to die in the exact same way, regardless of whether there was a film crew ther to witness it or not. instant or nearly instant death is not cruel, even when it's filmed. It happens. But torturing animals on camera for pleasure is just simply not acceptable.
-
e25171971 — 12 years ago(April 03, 2013 06:11 PM)
which is one reason why this film is so important, it makes you think, it forces you to think, it confronts you weather you're ready for it or not.
Wait wait wait, are you really telling me that this movie is taking a stance against violence?
Has it even seen its own promotional material? -
SpiritedAway86 — 14 years ago(May 17, 2011 12:28 AM)
Hmm I don't know any movies where the women were ACTUALLY raped for real in order to film the rape scene, do you? That is why the animal killing scenes in this movie are so horrible and shocking to so many people. It's one thing to watch rape, murder, torture, and mutilation in movies knowing full well that it is all FAKE, and that it's just a movie. It's a completely different thing to watch a movie and know that 7 animals were really killed and that you are actually watching their deaths happen on screen. I don't care if the animals were eaten afterwards or not (do we really know for sure that they were actually eaten??), it still doesn't make it right to kill animals for entertainment purposes and the fact that they killed the animals and filmed it and we watch their deaths happen on screen feels very exploitative to me. The director even said he regrets doing this so that tells you something. Something just doesn't feel right about watching the animal killings in this movie and the thing that sucks for me is that I would absolutely love this movie if those animal killings weren't real. CH is a great movie with a great message and it's the kind of movie I typically like but the real animal killing scenes just did not allow me to enjoy the movie as much as I would have if they were not in fact real. The thing that bothers me is that they didn't HAVE to kill the animals for the movie, they could have used special effects like every other movie does. They didn't really chop a dudes penis off or drive a pole through a woman's body or rape a woman with a rock, so why did they HAVE to kill a bunch of animals for real!
-
enlil01 — 15 years ago(August 13, 2010 08:40 AM)
I couldnt watch it, I just covered my eyes and asked my sister "is it over yet?". So, i can't explain any of the animal killing scenes. But i have to say it again (i just came from other thread about this topic) I think it's wrong to kill and abuse animals or humans for entertaining reasons.
-
xauyala — 15 years ago(November 11, 2010 12:43 PM)
Visit here:
http://www.jeffandcourtney.com/jeff/photography/pics/Turtle_Stew_Cayma n_Islands.jpg -
laserdiscforlife — 15 years ago(December 19, 2010 10:16 PM)
While I can understand killing for food, I think it was wrong how the turtle was killed. They cut off all of it's legs and it's tail first then decapitate it. Then, after cutting the bottom of it's shell, you can see it's heart is still beating and is possibly still alive (we have all heard the rumor that you can still live shortly after decapitation). Even if it didn't feel it, it is still disgusting that the people then went ahead and started scooping it's guts out and eating them. I love this film though, and I think it makes a great statement about humanity.
Movies Last Seen
127 Hours: 4.5/5
My Soul to Take: 2/5
Easy A: 3.5/5