Animals in Movies and Television

[Spirited]

I would be interested to know what your opinions on animals which appear in movies and television including advertising. For the purpose of this discussion, I would assume that the animals in question are not treated cruelly as that is really a seperate issue and doesn't address whether it is wrong to do it in the first place.

Some things to consider:

Do you feel differently about exotics being used in films than you do about regular domestic animals?

Do you feel differently about the use of gregarious animals such as dogs, opposed to quieter animals such as guinea pigs?

How do you feel about films such as 101 dalmations, Harry Potter and Babe, after which there was a rise in the demand for dalmations, owls, pigs and border collies respectively?

What about advertisements and films which treat animals as objects of humour, do they encourage people to treat their animals any worse?

To be honest I haven't made my mind up on this issue. I think care should be taken on the use of animals and to make sure the 'message to pet owners' is one of respect but I'm not sure whether it is wrong altogether or not.

[daftscotslass]

I'm a bit confused over the issue, too. I think it is the duty of film-makers to highlight the problems that might arise from the likes of, say, 101 dalmations and "mummy, I want a puppy". I also recall that Rodney, the guinea pig from Dr. Dolittle, ended up in a rescue somewhere in California.

The recent Egg (a credit card) adverts in the UK treat guinea pigs as an object of humour. I do, however, think that the undertones suggest that it's more the term "being a guinea pig" that was being poked fun of. Even funnier, I think, is the idea that they didn't make guinea pigs do the funny things you see in the adverts. Humans dressed up in guinea pig suits and the CGI people worked their magic on putting real guinea pig heads on the bodies. See http://members.aol.com/dunxuk/guineapig_advert.mpg

[Sabriel]

Many films now don't even use as many real animals as they used to. The Harry Potter films have a cast of like 4 or 5 owls. The rest are CG copies of the real owls.

I think films almost need animals (CG preferably) to remain realistic. If there were no animals at all in films: No birds, bugs, dogs, cats, etc how unrealistic would they seem? Animals are part of almost everyone's lives, from pets to the sparrows outside almost everyone must see at least one animal a day.

The only film that I have watched in the past month (and I watch a ton of movies a month as I live across the street from Blockbuster) is Serenity. But that was a sci-fi/space film.

[DaCourt]

I know when they filmed 101 Dalmations, they did not send out a casting call for puppies until the last minute. That way, people whould not have time to go out and breed them for the movie.

I do think it depends on the animal. I think many dogs love to perform. Take the Air Bud movies. The dogs that made those movies loved to perfom. In fact, the original dog perfomred all those tricks and just a house pet, not a movie animal. I had a chance to see the current one of the dogs perform and he loves it. After all, he is a Golden and they crave attention.

If you put animals in a situation like that, such a guinea pig, I don't think it is right. Too stressfull.

[rabbitsncavyluv]

Yeah, but after the Dalmations movies, everyone wanted a Dal. They became 'popular.' Kind of like the celebs on TV carrying around tiny dogs in their purses. "Designer accessories", the smaller the better.

Dals are high maintenance and have special needs, like most breeds. They started popping up in pet stores and pounds in increasing #s.

They are supposed to be treated humanely during filming, but guess what happens to most after filming? I know 30 rabbits were dumped at an area pound after being used in a commercial. I know the gps that were used in Doolittle 2 were dumped on a dog rescuer. Those are some of the better cases.

Those buns and pigs were allowed to breed too.

[DaCourt]

That's true....everyone wants what they see. And Dals, even though they are great dogs, are not the best for young kids.

[Faerysprite]

One of the most recent movies I was excited to see was the Brothers Grimm. I had no clue I would be so shocked. First animal cruelty scene is the bad guy setting fire to two horses rear ends, not there saddles, their actual behinds. Second is this cute little kitten walking under the bad guys feet, the bad guy is startled and kicks the cat into some razor grinding thing, and the blood is slightly graphic.


I was speechless after those two scenes. The awful part was the kitten scene was treated like it was comical! Now I am fully aware that these two scenes (had better) been done with special effects and no animals were actually harmed. It isn't so much that which gets me angry as that these scenes put ideas into people's heads. People who really shouldn't have these ideas in the first place. Now you have people setting cats on fire for fun and kicking animals around for laughs.

I thought the movie was fantastic, but I thought it was very sad and pathetic that the director felt it necessary to put those scenes in the movie. It wasn't necessary. We understand from plenty other scenes that this guy is bad, so we don't need to see animal torture to get it.

I don't understand the human mind sometimes

[fallen__angel]

The brown pony in Racing Stripes the brown one looked just like my old pony.

[Spirited]

I'm sure the filmmakers (being Disney and unlikely to want a bad reputation) took care over the pups they used. The problem is after the film, the demand for dalmations goes up, the bad breeders come out of the wood work and well... breed inappropriately, and suddenly there is a rise in the number of dalmations with genetic difficulities such as deafness.

It certainly is a complex issue, because even animated movies could cause people to want a particular animal. Maybe a disclaimer on movies which have animals featured reminding viewers that a lot of work and money goes into keeping them?

I do agree that gregarious animals such as dogs actually benefit from and enjoy positive training and that there can't be a lot wrong with letting them do tricks etc in front of a camera. It's also true that movies can have a powerful positive impact on the way we view animals - the orca used in the Free Willy movies was rehabilitated and released after the film caught the hearts of many animal lovers, and the actors from the Born Free film were so touched by the experiance that they set up the Born Free foundation which has helped so many wild and captive animals.

I would also probably not have the same passion I have for wildlife today if it hadn't been exposed to such films a youngster. I think the thing is that first the actual animals used in filming should be thought of, and the impact the film may have on an impulse demand for a particular animal and the message about animals it sends out altogether (are animals amusing objects or are they intelligent creatures which need respect).

Spirited

[rabbitsncavyluv]

Disney didn't ''buy" the pups probably though. They merely 'borrowed' them or rented them. Who knows what happened to them. I doubt the corporations look after them.

They went back to the trainers/breeders/owners. I think for the last one, they may have used CGI.

[smoot]

I don't think movies should be blamed for things like 101 Dalmations. Parents need to take some responsibility for this. After all, who are the idiots that are buying the dalmations for their children? If they did even a little bit of research beforehand, they would know that dalmations are not ideal dogs for children. I'm just tired of the media getting blamed for lazy parenting. There have been tv shows showing people running about with guns since the 40s, yet there were no school shootings until recently. Obviously, it's not the media that made them do it if generations of Americans watched this stuff unscathed.

I learned how to treat animals from my parents. I watched a lot of nature shows when I was a kid so I knew a lots about animals and ecosystems at a young age. I was allowed to have pets so I learned that pets are a lot of hard work. This is all stuff every kids should know.

And how about the breeders? They're the ones selling dogs/owls(!)/border collies/pigs/guine pigs to any idiot who can pony up the cash.

Something that bothers me more are movies like Finding Nemo, where the ending shows Nemo escaping in fresh water. That blatant misinformation led to many a fish being flushed down the toilet by young children who intended to free the fish, not realizing that the fish could not survive in fresh water.

As for the violence in Brothers Grimm, I don't think there is ever a good reason to show graphic violence on-screen, human or animal. People argue that it's artistic expression, and that they need it to tell the story. Movies have been made for decades without showing graphic violence but have still been able to get the point across. If a director can't get his message across without using graphic violence, I think he's just a poor director who can't grasp the subtleties of moviemaking.

[WritingLife]

So long as the animals are domestic and are treated well, it's not much different from working animals in any other situation. Using trained wild animals starts moving into gray areas -- where did the animal come from, and why isn't in the wild? In some cases, they're rescued and rehabilitated animals that can't be returned to the wild. But I don't want audiences to get the bright idea that they can run out into the woods and catch an animal to keep. A lot of my biology students don't know that's illegal.

After hearing Jane Goodall speak at a science teacher's conference, however, I learned that we should all be strongly objecting to the use of any of the great apes in film, photography, and other commercial ventures. The chimps and other apes they use are infants or youngsters, and they aren't bred for the purpose. They were removed from the wild when their mothers were shot for the bushmeat industry. The bushmeat trade is not subsistence hunting. It's largely controlled by gangs of thugs who terrorize villagers into hunting for them. Hunters will shoot anything and everything that moves, from snakes and lizards to chimpanzees. The meat is sold to well-to-do people in the cities who prefer the taste of wild meat. Here's more info:

http://www.janegoodall.org/africa-pr...fact-sheet.asp

If an adult chimpanzee with a baby is shot, the hunters will take the baby, put it in a cage, and sell it on the open market. Some chimp babies make their way to circuses, animal trainers, and other commercial ventures. A few may get lucky enough to be rescued by zoos with the facilities to care for them properly. Most get severely depressed and die.

So those humorous greeting cards with the dressed-up chimps? They've all got blood on them.