TV & Film "Fake" Animal Cruelty in Films?

[Andy_T]

Funny.

Yes, I think that animals definitely should not be used for making movies (or anything else, for that matter).

But it gives me pause, that we discuss here whether it is ok to have animated violence to animals or not, while, at the same time, there are thousands of films where human actors are killed, tortured, maimed, brutalized and what else in vivid graphic detail (only acting, of course, and everybody knows it), and we seem to be fine with that.

 

[FortyTwo]

Funny.

Yes, I think that animals definitely should not be used for making movies (or anything else, for that matter).

But it gives me pause, that we discuss here whether it is ok to have animated violence to animals or not, while, at the same time, there are thousands of films where human actors are killed, tortured, maimed, brutalized and what else in vivid graphic detail (only acting, of course, and everybody knows it), and we seem to be fine with that.

I think the difference for most people comes from the fact that human actors consent to these scenes, and know what they are getting into beforehand. And if something goes wrong and they're actually hurt, they have the means to hold the people who hurt them liable.

Animals, on the other hand, don't have any context for a movie, and so they can't consent to being in a film. If a chicken becomes sick or dies on set (looking at you An Unexpected Journey), it's swept under the rug as an unfortunate accident and the movie can still get a clean bill of health with no issues.

I do think there is an ethical way of involving animals in filming, but I think it's hardly ever employed.

 

[Andy_T]

I do think there is an ethical way of involving animals in filming, but I think it's hardly ever employed.

Yes, there is. It's called CGI (Computer graphics).

Being an abolitionist vegan myself, I do not think animals should be used for filming (or riding, police work, assisting handicapped people or as pet "slaves" - as opposed to rescued companions), but of course, most people see this different.

 

[FortyTwo]

Yes, there is. It's called CGI (Computer graphics).

Being an abolitionist vegan myself, I do not think animals should be used for filming (or riding, police work, assisting handicapped people or as pet "slaves" - as opposed to rescued companions), but of course, most people see this different.

Most people see this different because it's ridiculous.

I'm on board with the idea that animals probably shouldn't be used for trivialities such as films, but once you attack assistance animals... I'm sorry but you are throwing logic and compassion out the window simply because you want to take something to its most radical extent.

Anytime there is interaction between humans and animals there is the potential for abuse. But it is definitely possible, and not even difficult, to have an animal act as a helper and be in a mutually rewarding relationship with a disabled person. Dogs, specifically, love interaction with people, and enjoy performing tasks that they perceive as play or for a reward. If this behavior can be tweaked to benefit a person who is literally incapable of going about their daily business without help, in a way that is rewarding for the dog, then why not? Because of some ideal that humans should never "use" animals? What you're saying, then, is that an unreachable ideal is more important than the quality of life of disabled people.

And what exactly differentiates "slaves" from rescued companions?

(I understand this is very off-topic, perhaps a thread split might be in order?)