Printable View
Obviously, I just watch the whole movie. And obviously they don't care and it WAS put on a DVD, which is why it's here in my living room.Quote:
And you know for a fact they actually do hurt the animals? It seems to me that if they honestly were putting the animals in serious danger, they wouldn't put the making of it on the DVD...especially in this day and age.
Alright...here we go.
1. Settle down
2. Back off
No one is saying they think animal cruelty is cute...I would've thought you knew better than that....
luckies4me, the movie was not made in the dark ages before animal cruelty laws were passed. It was made in 1989. I am sure the cat WAS wet, but not put in the middle of an actual river. I am sure the bear was a trained actor bear ( there are such things), and the cat was acting, and was never in danger. I am sure those are not real chicks the cat swats at.
Forward to the end of the movie, I'll be $10 there's a "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie" statement.
It's just a story, honey. It's not real life.
Do those birds look fake to you? Don't think so. I am going to take screenshots now of the movie. They can't fake birds that real, no one can.Quote:
Originally posted by Karen
luckies4me, the movie was not made in the dark ages before animal cruelty laws were passed. It was made in 1989. I am sure the cat WAS wet, but not put in the middle of an actual river. I am sure the bear was a trained actor bear ( there are such things), and the cat was acting, and was never in danger. I am sure those are not real chicks the cat swats at.
Forward to the end of the movie, I'll be $10 there's a "no animals were harmed in the making of this movie" statement.
Even IF the bear was trained, there's NO reason for it to be smacking a cat who is obviously freightened.
And of course I know there are trained animals. gee.
I haven't seen Milo and Otis in a long time.
Here is the info on the International Movie Database.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0097050/
One. this movie was made in Japan. Two, it was made in 1986. Special Effects in movies were well in place since at least 1977 when Star Wars came out. (George Lucas started ILM just to make Star Wars).
To me, it's an earlier version of Homeward Bound. In that movie, a dog gets a face full of porcupine quills. Sure looks real, but I doubt the dog was actually injured.
Here is a great website if there is ever any doubt if an animal has been injured or not:
http://www.ahafilm.org/
(Couldn't find Milo and Otis in the list... must be because it's a Japanese film)
Everyone take a deep breath and calm down. :)
I read somewhere that Otis and the bear grew up with each other.
I hate repeating myself and everyone else, buuut...once again...Quote:
Originally posted by luckies4me
Even IF the bear was trained, there's NO reason for it to be smacking a cat who is obviously freightened.
It's just a movie!!
Quote:
Originally posted by Moose
I hate repeating myself and everyone else, buuut...once again...
It's just a movie!!
Your point?
Just because they were well in place then doesn't mean that all these scenes I see are done with special effects. And to clarify it took four years to make this movie.Quote:
Originally posted by ramanth
I haven't seen Milo and Otis in a long time.
Here is the info on the International Movie Database.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0097050/
One. this movie was made in Japan. Two, it was made in 1986. Special Effects in movies were well in place since at least 1977 when Star Wars came out. (George Lucas started ILM just to make Star Wars).
You should call the producers of the movie. Or write your Congressman. Or PETA. If there actually was anything going one, I am certain PETA is all over it.
Personally, I loved that movie. Thought it was sweet and touching.
Well I have not seen Milo and Otis, but I think both sides of the argument are getting more intense than need be :(. I'd understand if it looked bad that you would feel upset, but maybe the best way to go about it is to really research more into the making of that movie? I don't really know how possible that is.
On another note, I have seen how they can take like a cat batting at a kitty toy on like a blue background, then somehow blend it in with another animal and background and in the end, it looks amazingly real and like the cat is batting at the other animal.
I don't say this because I want to prove you're wrong, but because I hate seeing you so upset. It could be it really isn't what it appears like, but if you really feel strongly that it is, perhaps you could try doing more research or questioning about how those scenes were done?
Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I'm just going off of conjecture here, but I have seen a lot of animal movies that really looked questionable and later some special will come on like on Animal planet and they will show how they really did some of those things.
Oh OK. What a splendid idead....*picks up phone and calls PETA* :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by 2kitties
You should call the producers of the movie. Or write your Congressman. Or PETA. If there actually was anything going one, I am certain PETA is all over it.
Personally, I loved that movie. Thought it was sweet and touching.
Look, these are MY opinions, so whatever, don't worry about it. I will think what I want to think until I am proving wrong, so there is no need to argue about it. But I will never watch the movie again, and it's going in the trash.
I dont want to get in a fight with anyone here, but I think that the animals were being neglected in that movie, people shouldent have a kitten romping around a bear and then falling down a river. it is rediculas, and then at the end when the females have puppies and kittens, thats just sickening.. I wanted to barf, I cant believe they would breed these pugs, and then tape them giving birth in dirt. It is just wrong. The cats look like kittens that bred and birthed kittens :eek:.. I didnt like the movie at all. It really bothered me.
Altghough I always thought the film was cute, I agree with Cass that there are some cruel and neglegant acts in this film. I've done research on this movie before, and there are no special effects. The animals do their own stunts. The director apparently took very good care of the animals, and there is even a note at the end of the film saying that no animals were injured, they were under supervision, etc. However, I also believe I remember hearing of some things that 'went wrong' in the movie (if you know what I mean) and so it had to be edited down quite a bit. It was such a long time ago that I don't know if we'll ever know the truth.