Terrence malick really had dog killed....
....cause he is such a slave to authenticity! No wonder this bastard is a recluse, he'd be beaten to death!
shareCan you provide any sources for proof on this? If it's true then that is very unfortunate and would definitely detract from my appreciation of the film, especially in the case of a guy like Malick who is supposed to be such a man of nature and this would be an unnecessary "authentic need" as the shot only lasts for about 4 seconds. However, I haven't been able to find any verification for this on web searches so you need to cite some type of reliable source of information, until then he'll have to remain innocent.
share[deleted]
Has the OP even watched a Malick film before? Malick clearly has an unending love for nature & I can't imagine he'd kill a dog- something real- for a movie.
There. It's on the Internet. Thus it's official
yeah - i think Malick wouldnt even literally hurt a fly
Leisure Rules
You know how they say "no animal was harmed for this movie"? That's because they used to harm animals for movies all the time. I'm not saying it actually happened in this case, i don't know, but once upon a time, it wouldn't have caused such a scandal.
shareI'm pretty sure the horse's head in GF1 was actually severed from a live horse. Maybe I'm wrong about them actually killing a horse, but I know that it was a real horse head.
_____________________________________________________________
Live and learn. At least we lived.
" I'm pretty sure "
" but I know "
Which is it?