Disturbing leaked video of animal abuse on set of A Dog's Purpose

[asal]

27 minutes ago, Little Gifts said:

The delay in releasing the film could be nothing to do with this issue though. They give new movies to test public audiences and will often go back and re-edit based on the feedback. They've been known to change whole endings because of this feedback and to even go back and reshoot new scenes. Given the use of animals there would need to be a lot of editing for continuity too as the dogs probably just did a couple of tasks at a time rather than a whole continuous scene. So this means you have a longer editing period after shooting has finished. They also hold over films if other films being released at a similar time by different companies might take away their box office impact or if there is some big world event happening that might distract people from hitting the cinema. It is all about money.

 

Asal you are right that we made assumptions about what we saw but I never saw the trainer pull the dog back up - I saw the dog clawing its way back up and the trainer still giving it commands to go in and rearranging its body so it could do so. As I said in a previous post I would assume the dog was trained for this purpose but something on the day was clearly terrifying it. That's the trainer's job to manage (ie protect the dog) because the dog can't talk and call cut or for a break. Maybe it was the wind machine noise or something we are not privvy too but for that particular section of filming that dog was clearly terrified and actively avoiding getting into the water.

at the 46 second mark he can be clearly seen to pull the dog right out of the water and back up to him.  then as the chap says the rest of the video was taken at a later time and spliced to make it apper he went into the water.

 

watch the second counter and there it is, bit surprised they didn't cut it out?  although its very short and visually looks like most of you missed anyway, it maybe they did too. and I'm referring not the the release date of the movie but the release date of the tape, they sat on it for a year before they did anything? why not name and shame at the time if they truely cared about the welfare of the dog and not when it might get the most bang for their buck exposure.

 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by asal

[Little Gifts]

I will watch it again, The image of the dog trying to claw its way back out was very powerful for me so that is what I remember most. There was real fear there. From what I read it was TMZ who released it and of course they did it for maximum impact at the time of the movie's release. Whoever shared it with TMZ probably got paid for it too (which sucks). You are right, they should've gone straight to animal welfare the same day with their evidence, particularly if the film was still underway and more animals were still being used. Hopefully the correct authorities will investigate this and determine if any wrongdoing happened and if it is required, hopefully they will take a more stringent animal welfare approach to the filming of movies of this nature in the future.

[Simply Grand]

I really don't think anyone was trying to make it look like the video wasn't cut and showing two separate events, it's a very clear cut, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that wouldn't be obvious to people.

 

Regardless of the second part of the video in the first part the dog is clearly scared from the beginning, does not want to go into the water and is desperately trying to get away. It's unclear to me who is talking in the video but they are laughing at the dog's panic and saying to just throw him in. The handler continues forcing the dog in as it desperately pulls itself out and at the end of the first part if the dog hadn't been desperately gripping the edge of the pool he would have been fully submerged, he is in up to his shoulders. Yes the handler then pulls him out but that doesn't make him a great hero (or protector of the dog) in my eyes, his only other options were to leave the dog struggling desperately or peel his paws off the edge and shove him in.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Simply Grand

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

If PETA provided the video to TMZ - why did PETA wait over a year to do that? 

i really can't trust PETA about anything to do with pets. 
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

[rubiton]

Exactly - activists always edit and then use the videos at a time they think it will cause the most damage - in this case right before the films release.  Never straight to the correct authorities and never releasing them when they get them in their original form and usually with some kind of information that leads the viewers to a particular view.

[The Spotted Devil]

3 hours ago, Simply Grand said:

I really don't think anyone was trying to make it look like the video wasn't cut and showing two separate events, it's a very clear cut, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think that wouldn't be obvious to people.

 

Regardless of the second part of the video in the first part the dog is clearly scared from the beginning, does not want to go into the water and is desperately trying to get away. It's unclear to me who is talking in the video but they are laughing at the dog's panic and saying to just throw him in. The handler continues forcing the dog in as it desperately pulls itself out and at the end of the first part if the dog hadn't been desperately gripping the edge of the pool he would have been fully submerged, he is in up to his shoulders. Yes the handler then pulls him out but that doesn't make him a great hero (or protector of the dog) in my eyes, his only other options were to leave the dog struggling desperately or peel his paws off the edge and shove him in.

Yes I agree. Particularly with your second paragraph. 

[rubiton]

And there you go - it could have been done better (as in trainig the dog to be fine from both sides) but activist edited to get the reaction they got

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/4/14508808/investigation-a-dogs-purpose-video-faked-video

[asal]

16 hours ago, rubiton said:

And there you go - it could have been done better (as in trainig the dog to be fine from both sides) but activist edited to get the reaction they got

http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/4/14508808/investigation-a-dogs-purpose-video-faked-video

The most famous case of video faking was the one that the Australian Government were so outraged over they shut down the live export market and cost graziers billions, many lost their properties and some their lives because of the stress.

 

In that case too the outrage swept all before it and government acted without investigating its authenticity.  It was many months before it was learned the workers in the video had been asked to perform for the video and none of the cattle in it were Australian and the ear tags displayed supposedly of the cattle slaughtered in the video had been taken from cattle already slaughtered legally in another facility,, weeks before the video was filmed.

 

as far as I am aware those responsible have to date, not been charged or held accountable for the tremendous damage they caused?

[Rozzie]

On 1/26/2017 at 0:06 AM, asal said:

rewatch the video

 

the dog never went in all the way, its hinds legs and its hips went in then the trainer pulls the dog up back to him its cut  the second the trainer begins lifting the dog back up out of the water ,  YOU DO NOT SEE IT GOING INTO THE WATER. your mind is finishing what isn't there. so frankly I believe the chap below.. agree the trainer should have stopped immediately the dog said no.  as said above so many have assumed what actually didn't happen too.

 

 

I don't need to rewatch, thanks. I was talking about the dog before he got wet,

[Simply Grand]

Interesting, I've just seen that my local cinema is only charging $5 for all tickets for the movie when it comes out this week. I wonder if it's because people have been boycotting it, and whether it's the cinemas initiative or the production company has done some kind of deal to try and get people in.

[german_shep_fan]

On 1/26/2017 at 6:27 PM, Mrs Rusty Bucket said:

If PETA provided the video to TMZ - why did PETA wait over a year to do that? 

i really can't trust PETA about anything to do with pets. 
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

Exactly. AR groups always have an ulterior motive