3 ms·

Animals Were Harmed (2013)

11 points by optimalsolver 6y ago

setr 6y ago
This article is weird — it seems to be making the claim that any damage to an animal, intentional or not, related to the filming or not, should void the label — which is to me wholly unreasonable. A lack of sufficient precaution I’d agree with, like the ocean explosion or the lion example — same as with a human injury on set - but the article uses as examples death by cancer (dogs) and age (elderly giraffe) which IMO is one hell of a stretch. The label, in my mind, is to represent that the animals were not abused or in poor condition or poorly considered to make the film — accidents that occur despite preventative measures are just that, accidents, and blameless. Long term disease is also blameless.
- Maursault 6y ago
  > it seems to be making the claim that any damage to an animal, intentional or not, related to the filming or not, should void the label — which is to me wholly unreasonable. I strongly disagree. A movie where a horse was accidentally impaled and subsequently euthanized due to that injury at any point during production or under contract should not get to make and advertise the claim "No Animals Were Harmed in the Making of This Film," and that claim be certified by an organization that's only purpose is to grant such a disclaimer, because the claim would then be patently false. Quite obviously, in very many and possibly most if not all cases, "No Animals Were Harmed" is a lie used in I would think all cases to prevent the production from losing money. Personally, I have no trouble spotting this as immoral behavior. IMO the American Humane Association should be shuttered, and any subsequent false of use of that label should come down to false advertising and cruelty to animals prosecutions. Making a movie, especially those with animals, takes a lot of people, so any idiot involved thinking secrets can be kept can attempt to keep them without the need of any fake oversight organization.
burntoutfire 6y ago
What is the point of caring about few animals that are used every year in movie productions, when hundreds of millions suffer in factory farming?

11 points by optimalsolver 6y ago

setr 6y ago

This article is weird — it seems to be making the claim that any damage to an animal, intentional or not, related to the filming or not, should void the label — which is to me wholly unreasonable. A lack of sufficient precaution I’d agree with, like the ocean explosion or the lion example — same as with a human injury on set - but the article uses as examples death by cancer (dogs) and age (elderly giraffe) which IMO is one hell of a stretch. The label, in my mind, is to represent that the animals were not abused or in poor condition or poorly considered to make the film — accidents that occur despite preventative measures are just that, accidents, and blameless. Long term disease is also blameless.

Maursault 6y ago
> it seems to be making the claim that any damage to an animal, intentional or not, related to the filming or not, should void the label — which is to me wholly unreasonable. I strongly disagree. A movie where a horse was accidentally impaled and subsequently euthanized due to that injury at any point during production or under contract should not get to make and advertise the claim "No Animals Were Harmed in the Making of This Film," and that claim be certified by an organization that's only purpose is to grant such a disclaimer, because the claim would then be patently false. Quite obviously, in very many and possibly most if not all cases, "No Animals Were Harmed" is a lie used in I would think all cases to prevent the production from losing money. Personally, I have no trouble spotting this as immoral behavior. IMO the American Humane Association should be shuttered, and any subsequent false of use of that label should come down to false advertising and cruelty to animals prosecutions. Making a movie, especially those with animals, takes a lot of people, so any idiot involved thinking secrets can be kept can attempt to keep them without the need of any fake oversight organization.

burntoutfire 6y ago

What is the point of caring about few animals that are used every year in movie productions, when hundreds of millions suffer in factory farming?