The Boycott of the Movie "The Grey".

[Jaythulhu]

I have an issue with people killing animals for the sake of killing something, and if the producers/directors of the movie have done anything that could have put the animals' lives in jeopardy, then they will be investigated & possibly prosecuted by the american equivalent of the RSPCA.

That said, I won't boycott this movie because of potential wrong-doing, I'll boycott it from the point of view that it looks like an incredibly dull movie with a boring premise, same way I've boycotted most films that hollywood has ejaculated over us for the past few years.

----------

off-topic completely: could we get something better than re-captcha as an anti-bot thing? I've had to click refresh 15 times to get something that a) uses the standard qwerty keys, b) uses real words, and c) isn't impossible to read due to the large black spot thumped over the 2nd word?

 

[kyle_silver]

I'm not going to see the film..And on a side note, I absolutely Adore wolves; and I hope to see one in the wild. Kind of hard near where I live.. Now OT I am okay with people killing animals for food, legally and or for survival.. I do not like how Wolves are portrayed. And Again Off topic a bit.. I used to have a fear of Spiders, but I faced it. They still creep me out, but I don't hate them...And I have a slight phobia of Birds..And I'm referring to the Intelligent ones.

 

[Aulleas123]

To me, it seems a bit like a group boycotting "A Perfect Storm" because it unfairly shows the savagery of a weather pattern (sarcasm). I respect their point, but there are lots of other things to gripe about other than a movie director making a survivor film and using wolves as the back drop.

I still won't see this move because it looks stupid and yes, wolves don't act like this in real life.

 

[babychic]

My problem here is with the thought they trapped wolves to use in the movie and maybe eat.

For use: There are plently of wolves trained to be used in movies and tv. They were used in Twilight for example. There would be no need to go out and trap a couple.

To eat: To make immersion...thats sorta dumb. Thats like using recently dead humans to eat in zombie movies. Also...they would not be eating them to survive, but killing them for the entertainment value. Thats what I think most people have the problem with the rumor. Killing an animal because you have to survive is one thing...killing them for entertainment value is something entirely different.

 

[Aabglov]

I find it hard to believe that anyone actually ate a wolf in preparation for this film, let alone Liam Neeson.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I do admit that I have a phobia of sharks though. Emphasis on irrational fear.

Yeah, but that's what makes 'm cool, doesn't it?

I've seen plenty of shark shows depicting the great white as a peaceful and placid creature, but I really don't care about that; I wanna see them eat shit, not swim around and be gentle.

OT: If this is true than that's a big fat fuck up from the moviemakers' end. Killing an animal for entertainment purposes is widely regarded as a severe no-no, and Hollywood has wisely stayed away from this type of behaviour, atleast since the 70's. The only movie I can remember having an onscreen animal death was Apocalypse Now where they chopped up a buffalo.

 

[Nadhammer]

I can't be arsed to read the entire thread, but I hope this has been posted:

Wolves used to be our pretty much number 1 concern. People and their livestock used to get attacked all the time. Ever heard the term "bounty hunter"? It's because the government put a bounty on each and every wolf in the country and you could hunt them for profit.

tl;dr Wolves aren't a problem anymore but they really used to be dicks.

 

[Gatx]

To eat: To make immersion...thats sorta dumb. Thats like using recently dead humans to eat in zombie movies. Also...they would not be eating them to survive, but killing them for the entertainment value. Thats what I think most people have the problem with the rumor. Killing an animal because you have to survive is one thing...killing them for entertainment value is something entirely different.

I don't see how killing a wolf and eating it, as long as the species isn't endangered, even without being out of necessity, is wrong in anyway. People go out and hunt deer, duck, etc. as a socially acceptable pass time. Hell, even fishing applies. Why is it that there's a perception that certain animals are okay to be killed and eaten, and others aren't (again, if being endangered isn't part of the equation).

OT: If this is true than that's a big fat fuck up from the moviemakers' end. Killing an animal for entertainment purposes is widely regarded as a severe no-no, and Hollywood has wisely stayed away from this type of behaviour, atleast since the 70's. The only movie I can remember having an onscreen animal death was Apocalypse Now where they chopped up a buffalo.

I don't think it's an onscreen animal death. Eating wolf meat was supposed to be a form of method acting to help the actors get into the mindset of the characters in the movie. Apart from the diners being actors working on a movie, the death of the wolves is no more related to entertainment than the death of the cow that went into a hamburger.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Wolves may not be psychotic death machines. That doesnt mean they are passive though.

 

[Danny91]

The Internet phenomenon of the Wolfaboo is actually pretty interesting by this stage, it's worth looking into if you enjoy seeing what new little sub-cultures have been spawned recently.

 

[Stinkfist]

I don't wish to be a snob, but i don't think i would trust much written about the issue on a website called 'wild earth guardians'.

As someone said earlier, it needs more input from neutral sources.

 

[weker]

I don't think it's anything that bad to boycott, after all when was the boycott for black sheep ¬_¬

 

[Tom Artingstall]

Pointless killing, but there's plenty worse instances of animal cruelty to get up in arms about. This seems more like the whole PETA vs Mario thing all over again. They're basically trolling us to raise awareness of themselves.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

*insert links to rather sketchy assumptions from eco-paranoid sources*

My aunt used to teach Environmental Education. She was the dean for her program and pretty much worked to find ways to impart basic skills in a way that would be fair for the environment - which especially applies in areas where widespread clear-cutting or burgeoning industry without much legislation is the norm. Places like the Amazon river, for instance, or Second World economies like Bolivia.

This has shown me that you can have two attitudes, when it comes to environmental activism. You can try to understand why the offending parties are convinced they have no other choice but to operate as they do, after which you do what you can to change their perception.

Or you can just start screaming and flailing about, hoping that pure and simple outrage is enough to get things done. It isn't. As much as I can understand that animal rights watch groups have the right to do their job, these sources are forgetting that Hollywood has been using CGI, animatronic or puppet replacements for animals in the more problematic shots for decades. I'm pretty sure that if these rumors about the case of the movie needing to tear into a real wolf were real, we'd have heard from it by some of these very same actors - who would've walked out of the project in sheer disgust.

I don't remember which movie started this sort of level of care towards animals, but I remember hearing somewhere that the last animal to be killed for the sake of a movie was a horse. Seeing it be thrown off a cliff was so hard on some viewers that laws and regulations had to be put in place.

 

[Al-Bundy-da-G]

My thoughts: "Lol."

It's a Liam Neeson action flick. These people are probably putting more thought into the film than the filmmakers did!

Almost as funny as the people who protested Orphan.

I felt the same way until I read where it said "the filmmakers apparently hired a trapper to catch four wolves, two to be used as props and two others to be eaten by the cast (to raise the immersion)."

Hunting wolves while still legal isn't really worth the meat. Tried it a couple years ago, real tough, stringy, you have to slow cook it just get it tender since there's almost zero fat on the damn things...

[sub]I wonder if anyone has started a hunting thread yet...[/sub]

 

[rcs619]

I felt the same way until I read where it said "the filmmakers apparently hired a trapper to catch four wolves, two to be used as props and two others to be eaten by the cast (to raise the immersion)."

That just sounds like of silly. Yes, let's capture wild goddamned animals to use around the million dollar actors and a full film crew, and let's pray they are super-intelligent enough to be trained in a few months and also not have rabies or other such shit.

No one would use a wild animal as a "prop" because...its a wild animal. Non-domesticated animal species are notoriously difficult to train and work with as it is, since you often can't completely train the wild out of them, and they still retain some of that unpredictability. If they killed the wolves to turn them into props, well then it goes back to the legality. Would it be wasteful, sure, but no worse than someone sticking a deer head over their fireplace.

As for the part about eating a wolf, I doubt that, but so long as it was done legally, there's nothing to be too upset about.

Really, I think people are greatly over-thinking this movie. It's a survival flick, about a group of people crashed in a remote, frozen region. It's a movie about man vs nature, and most of these kinds of movies need some sort of antagonist. They can't really use a moose or a herd of reindeer, can they? While its not common, wolves do attack people in the real world. Could a group of wolves in a super-remote region, who may have never seen humans before, be more likely to attack a group of humans? Ones who might be wounded from a plane crash? Yeah, I think that's within the realm of believability.

Its a survival/action flick about a bunch of guys getting chased by a bunch of over-sized dogs. There's no need to over-think things too much. If you want to get upset about the treatment or depiction of animals, go lash out against real animal abuses.

 

[anthony87]

Christ, you can't do or say fucking anything these days without a bunch of uptight pricks with their holier-than-thou attitudes getting all huffy about it.

 

[RJ 17]

People are pissed off at this show for depicting wolves as vicious animals that hunt humans. I don't recall a protest (and I could be wrong about this, I fully admit) for the movie The Ghost and The Darkness about those two killer lions in Africa...was this just because it was based on a true story?

And what about that movie Grizzly Man or whatever where the guy spends a few months with a bunch of bears and ends up getting killed by them?

How about Piranha?

Alright...so here's a good little conundrum for you to ponder over.

How about M. Night Shabamalamading-dong's movie: The Happening, which depicts all plants as human-hating creatures that cause mass suicide? Where were the protests for that?

Apparently the standard is that all humans are evil, sinful creatures and Nature has every right to kill us. But to create a fictional (or non-fictional, I don't know anything about The Grey) story about nature being evil and wanting to kill helpless little humans is wrong now?

That said, however, I will say that if it's true that "they" caught 2 wolves to kill and feed to the cast...yeah, that actually is something I'd say would be boycott worthy if you're the boycotting type.

 

[werty10089]

Almost as funny as the people who protested Orphan.

Red fish, Blue fish. Obvious PR stunt, Another obvious PR stunt. Still, no one is ever going to see either of those movies.