# A Dog's Purpose



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

I am sure that many of you have also seen the leaked video of filming from the movie "A Dog's Purpose" where the German Shepherd dog is being forced into a tank of turbulent rushing water against his will by now. It was shown on Good Morning America (although interestingly a local station reported on, but did not show the video with the comment that their producer felt it was too graphic). I will not provide a link since you can search for it if you want to see it for yourself.

Here are my immediate issues:

1. A local kennel club is sponsoring a screening before the movie opens to the public as a fundraiser. While I like the causes for which funds are being raised, I am not happy over the idea that a kennel club (I'm not a member) is supporting the film while this controversy is underway.

2. Although I am not a fan of PETA, they are calling for a boycott of the film. I am interested in hearing what you think about a boycott.

3. What are the larger implications of the compulsive work of animals in entertainment for animal welfare? What does that disclaimer that no animals were harmed really mean? How strong is monitoring of animal safety in these circumstances? What are we willing to say and do to ensure that working animals are truly safe?


----------



## Dechi (Aug 22, 2015)

I have seem the footage and the poor dog is terrorized. This could have been avoided with training prior to shooting, but of cpurse it takes more time and costs a little bit more money...

I wanted to see this movie but after seeing this, I doubt I will. With today's knowledge on training and animal suffering, there was no reason for this.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Dechi, my mom and I went to see "Hidden Figures" on Saturday and there was a trailer for "A Dog's Purpose" that tugged at my heartstrings and had me thinking I would spring for seeing it in the theatre (I rarely go out to movies, usually wait for On Demand), but I am now determined to pass on it too.

Do go see "Hidden Figures" folks. It was terrific!


----------



## Click-N-Treat (Nov 9, 2015)

We put our dogs through things that stress them out. Vet visits, nail trimmings, but these things benefit the dog. There was nothing about dragging a scared dog into the water for our entertainment that benefited the dog. There are so many ways they could have desensitized the dog to the churning water. Turn on one water jet, and just watch it from outside the pool with no swimming. Swim, turn jet on one second, turn off, cheer for the clever dog. A week of practice would have had a happy dog on set, instead they had a schedule to keep and a movie to make. As long as the dog didn't die on set, who cares? I do. I won't go see it.


----------



## asuk (Jan 6, 2017)

I don't disagree the poor dog was terrified. But I also read PETA shortened the video. There was a part where there's 5 swimmers in the pool "waiting" for the dog in case something goes wrong?

I am not a fan of movies/shows with an animal as the main character, unless of course it's animation. I wonder how many people will go get a GSD after watching this movie, now that is a scary thought.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

The version of the video I saw was fairly long and included the dog disappearing under the water long enough that one of the people in the tank went in and pulled him up.

I did note that I am not a PETA fan and have no doubt that much of their propaganda is edited to suit their agenda, but I don't think the version that I saw on GMA was their version. I do doubt that the full truth is well known here at this point.

Our third dog is a GSD and he loves swimming way more than both of our poodles, however we would never have dragged any of them into the still water of our pool as shown in this video where clearly the turbulence of the water is scaring the dog.


----------



## snow0160 (Sep 20, 2016)

I had really wanted to see Hidden Figures. I am glad it is good so now i must see it. 
I think the questions you've raised are excellent points. I think hollywood is never going to stop producing these pet movies that can be agonizing for dogs. Working on set requires hours of your day sometimes 12 hrs or more. A really good friend of mine works from 9am to 1am and has been MIA for months at a time due to their crazy shooting schedule. It is pretty inhuman for people who actually get paid good money to do so but terrifying for dogs. I am not sure what kind of reward there is for them.


----------



## LittleAussiePoodle (Jun 2, 2016)

I am now considering skipping the film. Elsewhere, I mentioned thoughts on whether it was curel or not, but since you here seem to agree with my side of things, I would just like to bring up several points I found to be very important to myself:
1. Saddle Patterned GSDs are a dime a dozen, and common as stunt animals. If this dog could not swim or was not reliable, why was another dog not cast as a back up? The water was so rough and misty that the small differences between such generic dogs would be easily missed by an audience.
2. Extending on my last point, why was there no back-up dog? Films with leading roles who do dangerous stunts always have a stunt-man, why didn't this film have a second dog around to fill the role? This is extremely common in animal movies because animals usually look pretty much the same as each other, so why was there no back-up dog ( or if this was it, why couldn't/wouldn't it swim?).
3. Was there no option for CGIing the dog? Was there no option for putting the dog in a harness and CGIing the harness away? Was there no option for CGIing the water to look rougher?
4. If things were as claimed, and the dog could do the stunt but did not want to on that day, why on earth did the handler not call it quits? I get it, extra shoots are time consuming and expensive, but I would expect that a handler who had properly trained the dog and spent many months or even years doing so would not want to push his dog. This makes me wonder if this dog is a stunt dog at all.
5. Why did nobody consider the fact that when dogs are panicked they often can't swim properly and drown? Were they simply ignorant? Were they after the fast paddling of a scared dog? Another note, why did the handler, if he wanted the dog to swim, not throw him in? I am totally against that, of course, but he pushes the dog in, holds onto both the collar and side of the dog by it's skin and pulls it up again. Why?
6. Is this all that has/is/will go on during the making of this movie? I know I saw prong collars in that trailer, and while I chose to overlook that by itself, I am now wondering just how these dogs were trained.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 29, 2016)

I highly recommend Hidden Figures - excellent movie. The book was good too, especially since it covered a much longer range of time and changes. It was an assigned book in my science book group and while everyone loved it, all agreed it was an inappropriate choice for our book group which normally reads more scientific books. This is more a journalist's story about people in the community where she grew up discovering their history and importance to society.

A Dog's Purpose is the assigned reading for my community book group that meets next Monday night and OMG - I couldn't get past the second chapter - story about torturing a dog with firecrackers -I'm still having nightmares. I can't finish the book and I'm not sure if I'll go to the meeting because I'm not sure I want to hear any of the discussion. I can't believe it was made into a movie - I will not go. I can't get beyond the 2nd chapter to see if there is anything of value in the book. I just put a treasured 15 year old Ragdoll cat - my gentle giant, the one people were always shocked at how large he was (and he wasn't fat, just a really large boned cat) to sleep before Thanksgiving (miss him horribly), I have another cat that is not well, my best friend just put her elderly cat to sleep right after she came home from Xmas vacation - she has horrible guilt over that but she took her cat to the vet two days before she left and vet said cat was in good enough health to be boarded. And I'm tightly bonded to Babykins plus I'm just too sensitive about these sorts of things. I know they happen in real life and I have DH trained to immediately turn the channel when one of these torturing of animals, children or helpless adults stories comes on the news.

I happen to not eat any animal products but I do wear leather sometimes and I feed my cats and dog meat so I'm not an official vegan. I do respect some of the work of PETA but not all as they have made mistakes. I haven't seen this video, in fact I hope I never see it but my friends were discussing it today. It makes me serious ill, just the idea that the dog may appear to have been harmed. I'm boycotting this movie.


----------



## snow0160 (Sep 20, 2016)

Skylar said:


> I highly recommend Hidden Figures - excellent movie. The book was good too, especially since it covered a much longer range of time and changes. It was an assigned book in my science book group and while everyone loved it, all agreed it was an inappropriate choice for our book group which normally reads more scientific books. This is more a journalist's story about people in the community where she grew up discovering their history and importance to society.
> 
> A Dog's Purpose is the assigned reading for my community book group that meets next Monday night and OMG - I couldn't get past the second chapter - story about torturing a dog with firecrackers -I'm still having nightmares. I can't finish the book and I'm not sure if I'll go to the meeting because I'm not sure I want to hear any of the discussion. I can't believe it was made into a movie - I will not go. I can't get beyond the 2nd chapter to see if there is anything of value in the book. I just put a treasured 15 year old Ragdoll cat - my gentle giant, the one people were always shocked at how large he was (and he wasn't fat, just a really large boned cat) to sleep before Thanksgiving (miss him horribly), I have another cat that is not well, my best friend just put her elderly cat to sleep right after she came home from Xmas vacation - she has horrible guilt over that but she took her cat to the vet two days before she left and vet said cat was in good enough health to be boarded. And I'm tightly bonded to Babykins plus I'm just too sensitive about these sorts of things. I know they happen in real life and I have DH trained to immediately turn the channel when one of these torturing of animals, children or helpless adults stories comes on the news.
> 
> I happen to not eat any animal products but I do wear leather sometimes and I feed my cats and dog meat so I'm not an official vegan. I do respect some of the work of PETA but not all as they have made mistakes. I haven't seen this video, in fact I hope I never see it but my friends were discussing it today. It makes me serious ill, just the idea that the dog may appear to have been harmed. I'm boycotting this movie.




Hugs! I'm sorry about your cat. I also have a cat who is getting older so I can sympathize a lot with what you've said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MollyMuiMa (Oct 13, 2012)

saw the news report this morning and it made me soooooo mad and then sad. I pretty much in my head asked the same questions as AussiePoodle did...........and want to add, who ever was handling that poor dog had no empathy for that animal, he just wanted a 'scene'.......this movie is one I really wanted to see with my G-Kids because we had lost our 'Bailey' who was also a retriever and I thought it would kinda give us a sense of 'maybe he's still out there'.............now I don't think I can because of the image in my head of a scared dog being almost drowned!


----------



## Carolinek (Apr 2, 2014)

Saw a feed on FB this AM about this and just knew there'd be a good discussion on PF. Count on the group here to lend a good perspective to this.

I'm boycotting it as well-I read the book and originally questioned whether I would bother with the film....crying on my couch and crying in a public theater are two very different things! I knew this would tug at my heart - but now, no way will I give my money to this endeavor and I hope the author of the book is as outraged. 

Saw Hidden Figures last weekend too. That was worth the price of a movie ticket.


----------



## LittleAussiePoodle (Jun 2, 2016)

I would never see this in movie in a theater! I cried during the trailer, I would be a mess by the end of the actual thing. And yes, I too think I will skip this movie. It's a shame, me and my friends were all going to watch it, but two of us have both decided to give it a miss.
I'm sure there's a lot of effort, time, and money put into this movie and I'm sure it'll be great, but I just don't want to endorse forcing a dog into a pool of raging water, or having prong collars on your canine actors. Who knows what else has gone on.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Skylar I think it is very cool that you belong to a science book club! There is just one more reason that adds to why I like you.

Also don't forget that your dog is an obligate carnivore. No getting around that...


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

I couldn't watch the PETA clip. I thought Hollywood had come a long way in the humane treatment of animal actors and was sad that maybe it hasn't come far enough. Because the dog in the picture was a GSD, I reminded myself to read a recent biography of Rin Tin Tin and his owner. I have an outrage limit in 2017

The animal trainer or training concession gets a film credit. This is the worst p.r. that a dog centric film could get and this is where the karma bus will stop. The trainers needed to advocate for their dogs and they didn't. Lots of ways to get an effect or the illusion in Hollywood. The dog doesn't really have to jump off the cliff...Hollywood will remember and hopefully the trainers never get kibble again in Hollywood.


----------



## Poodlemanic (Jun 27, 2016)

Welll....couple of thoughts. Animals are not people, and they often are much harsher than people when left to establish their own societal hierarchy. But, my family and I take our dogs swimming in the summer, and we'd never push one of our dogs in the water, if they didn't want to go. We ride our horses in the river too, and we'd never make one go in the water if they were afraid, or one of our cows or goats either. On the other hand, I'm a vegetarian, but most people in this country eat meat. And we sometimes raise livestock for meat on our property. It's certainly a conflict for me, but sometimes one has to ask, why do people freak the heck out when a dog is pushed into water, but accept that animals who wanted to live were killed so people could have a Big Mac? Vegetarian options certainly exist, and it's not like we need to eat or be eaten in this country. Things that make you go, hmm. All the same, I won't go see the movie but because it's based on a silly Disney premise that I don't believe in.


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

Per their PR machine, Hercules loves the water and it was a bad take. Really bad take!


----------



## Mfmst (Jun 18, 2014)

Just read that the premiere and promotional tours were cancelled.


----------



## aasteapots (Oct 6, 2013)

*I'm just going to leave this right here......*


----------



## LittleAussiePoodle (Jun 2, 2016)

I will say this:
Phillip is not a dog trainer, a vet, or any kind of dog professional. No, we don't see the dog getting/being forced in, but that is not the main argument being made. The dog was not scared because he thought the water was cold. 
It wouldn't matter if the dog got in by himself, which I doubt anyway. No dog trainer should force his dog into water. Try to put yourself in the dog's shoes, and ask what the dog is learning by being pushed into the water and pulled out again. This is very different to a human willingly putting a foot into water to feel how warm it is.
That's not even to mention that the water should not have been so strong that the dog was pulled under, or that there should have been a harness or life jacket on the dog if the water did have to be that strong.
If the dog could do the stunt, he would have gone in on cue, or after a toy. Under no circumstances would a dog who could do the stunt need to "Test the water." Look at that dog's body language. Does that look like a dog who is a tad uncomfortable? Because to me, that dog look like one who is at least a bit more than that.
Furthermore, if this dog had spent years training like any good stunt dog, his handler wouldn't want to risk endangering or traumatizing him. This leads me to believe that either the handler was an idiot, the dog was not a real stunt dog, or both. My personal opinion as a dog trainer is that this dog was not properly prepared for the shoot.
The dog was being flooded and the handler obviously didn't know enough about dogs or his dog to see/do something about that.


----------



## aasteapots (Oct 6, 2013)

THe point is ... don't get all riled up before you know all the facts when you only have a tiny slice of the story edited to cause hysteria.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 29, 2016)

I wanted to update what I posted, but the PF won't allow me to edit, so I'm making a new post. 

I did finish reading the book. Warning - plot disclosure. I had assumed the cruel character was going to torture/kill the dog with firecrackers - that was his intention - but after talking to friends who had read the book, I was told the dog escaped unhurt. I forced myself to finish reading the book. Indeed the dog was able to avoid being harmed at that time. This book is extremely popular and has a very high rating on Amazon. I felt it was too juvenile (dog is the narrator) and a tear jerker - not my kind of book.

After reading the book, I have no interest in seeing the movie. I know they are reviewing the dog's treatment on the set - hopefully we will get an update by a trustworthy source. If you do go to see the movie- bring a box of Kleenex if you're sensitive about pets like I am.


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

It was certainly not my thinking to provoke nor to respond to hysteria, but rather to have a discussion about working dogs in the entertainment industry. As I said when I started this discussion I am sure that there has been a fairly biased editing of the video and that I was not doubtful of PETA's intentions to try to provoke a strong response. I still am disturbed by the various versions of this video that I have watched several more times than I had before I started this thread and in different source sites, including Snopes. 

I think quite frequently about the welfare of working animals as I regards my dogs as workers. No, they don't go to movie sets day in day out week after week, but they work with me in my teaching and training at my club and with my own clients. I use Lily as a good neutral dog around reactive dogs. How does she feel when I do that? Is she nervous? Is she just happy to have a chance to come and do things with me? When she struggles in a performance ring I always look at the balance of how she seems to feel when we finish. Is she carrying stress with her after the ring? Is she happy? How did she do at collecting and recovering during our routine? I would stop with no regrets if I thought she did not benefit from the work we do together. We don't have a lot of money at stake in what we do, so it is easy for me to say I could stop. Is it so easy to do that if there is a big money contract at stake? And how much does that cloud the judgement of the handler in that situation?


----------



## Sammy the spoo (Jul 7, 2016)

Lily - I like your questions in the second paragraph. They are all valid questions. Thanks!


----------



## Skylar (Jul 29, 2016)

With today's sophisticated technology in movie making, it's sad to think that animals are harmed in making movies. 

I googled to look at animals harmed in making movies and found this very sad list - not sure about this source, but it seems reasonable. Yes, animals were harmed: 21 films and TV shows that killed or hurt animals  · Inventory · The A.V. Club


----------



## lily cd re (Jul 23, 2012)

Skylar the saddest part of that list is that the movies and shows are not all "ancient history," but rather that quite a few of them are quite recent. Some are clearly based in feeding the depravity of what I hope are people who have fallen off of the fringes of decency, but others are pretty mainstream entertainment and involve well known people.

It was tough for me to even read the descriptions of some of those films and what happened to animals in them, let alone look at any of the clips. Once seen these things can't be unseen.

Again it is my hope that things like the current controversy will result in reasonable discussions that lead to more safety measures and more reliable monitoring of safety for animal actors along with human ones.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

The scene with the dog terrified of the water made me ill. Absolutely despicable. And the movie to me just looks lame. Animals definitely deserve better treatment in the entertainment industry. They are just used for money, unlike our pet dogs who are worked to satisfy their physical and emotional needs.


----------



## LittleAussiePoodle (Jun 2, 2016)

At the same time, when I saw this happening as a younger person who is very much on top of what's happening in pop culture, I couldn't help the bitter taste of irony when this story blew up. Yes, it's horrible, and I made several arguments against the handler and producers in several different places, including PF, but I then remember that 27 animals died during the making of the Hobbit, 2 horses died during the making of Flicka, a horse or more died during the making of Luck, and I could probably search online and find many more cases.
Nobody seemed to particularly care about those stories. Was it because there was no video, because nobody else seemed to care? That's not even to mention that to get the, "No animals were harmed," seal, just means that no animals seemed to be intentionally injured during filming.
Dogs - or rightly any animal - could be trained in the most brutal of ways, be shaking in terror on set, and even be handled poorly like this dog, and nobody would care. They would still get the seal. I believe, though I could be wrong, that Flicka still got the seal, because their horses died unintentionally (or so we're told, at least).
By harmed, they really mean, "No, nobody took a knife to an animal or fed it to another animal during the takes." There are even examples of animals dying in their housing off set, like the Hobbit, and while I'm not sure if they got the seal, not even the producers seemed to care about that.

I am terribly saddened by this dog's treatment, because it makes me wonder what else they did, but at the same time, I can't help but wonder why this dog being forced into water with a questionable cut at the part where the dog goes in earned so much fury.
I have stated my point on this, and it's that no dogs should ever be treated that way. I just thought I'd add my two cents on the human side of things.


----------



## zooeysmom (Jan 3, 2014)

LittleAussiePoodle said:


> *Nobody seemed to particularly care about those stories. Was it because there was no video*, because nobody else seemed to care?
> I am terribly saddened by this dog's treatment, because it makes me wonder what else they did, but at the same time, I can't help but wonder why this dog being forced into water with a questionable cut at the part where the dog goes in earned so much fury.
> .


I really do think you're right on that it was the video that got people so upset. Seeing something with your own eyes has so much more power than just reading about it in an article.


----------



## LittleAussiePoodle (Jun 2, 2016)

Maybe it's that they can see it with their own eyes. But then you wonder how half of these people can watch dog trainers do the exact same thing - that is, forcing a dog into a situation that is potentially dangerous and that it is not mentally prepared for - without batting an eyelid. It seems like it was all some kind of domino effect.
One person cared, so another one did, and eventually, almost everybody was jumping on the boat. They could see it, and people were acting like it was a terrible thing, so they just went along with it. I tried to look at the dog and the situation objectively, but I can see how it happens, especially when there is a video to see, where the dog nearly drowns. 
It looks awful, and the part where he went under really did make my heart skip a beat, but I can't imagine people would have cared as much if we were just given the statement from the film company, with no video being leaked.


----------



## LittleAussiePoodle (Jun 2, 2016)

Turns out it was fake news. 
The shots were from different days, supposedly. The dog is said to have been given the day off after the first scene, and not filmed with again after the second. 

I am not sure whether I believe everything the humane society said about the events, and I still don't think the treatment of the dog in either scene was anywhere near ideal, but it seems that the video was shared at an opportune time to spread the most amount of outcry possible, as is typical with fake news.
More information would be great, but I think that's all we are going to get. I just hope the prong collars in the trailer are props and not real. I don't think this is the full story, and the humane society have lied about things before. That said, at least this has been laid to rest.


----------

