Disturbing animal cruelty - Sleepy Hollow (1999) Discussion

[–] Stratego 11 years ago

This is a horror movie. Human beings get decapitated, impaled and shot. Wouldn't you also say that's sick, cruel and disturbing?

reply

[–] LaPfieffer92 11 years ago

yeah but when its a poor animal that is even worse for me, especially in a movie. cmon who really cares so much if a person ges killed, but the poor defensless animals matter more. i cant even watch all dogs go to heaven.

reply

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

You're either trolling or you should stop watching made up films.

I find the fact that you so devalue human life compared to 'poor' animals quite disturbing.

I guess it comes down to personal taste. I myself am offended by your inability to spell, and I bet you care not a jot.

Plot Hole - the most oft used and least understood phrase at IMDb

reply

[–] LaPfieffer92 11 years ago

What Are You Talking About?

firstly i love the movie. secondly YOU sound like the troll and 3rdly anyone who points out grammer on a message board shows that you lack any brains to present a valid argument against the poster your responding to. spelling dnt count fr sh** online. git ov'r eet.

Realism ruins movies!

reply

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

It's 'grammar' and you still don't deserve an answer. You're either trolling or mind-numbingly stupid. Wasting more than point eight of a nanosecond on answering your post point-by-point would be a criminal offense.

Plot Hole - the most overused and least understood phrase at IMDb

reply

[–] LaPfieffer92 11 years ago

ok going on the ignore list.

Realism ruins movies!

reply

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Add something of substance or stop bothering. You can iggy, I'm marking as a troll.

Plot Hole - the most overused and least understood phrase at IMDb

reply

[–] s1106634 11 years ago

Will you children stop fighting?

I also find it very hard to deal with when animals are killed in films, even animated films.
I think because we're so used to seeing humans being killed in a hundred different ways in films now when a film really wants to demonise a character they have they be cruel to an animal; humans we can justify may have been a bad person and deserved it somewhat, whereas animals are innocent.

I don't think Burton or the creators of this film have any bad feelings towards animals what so ever, I think it was a way of showing the characters barbarity.

reply

[–] petercumerford 9 years ago

great---you're both nuts---me too---bat died quickly so it ain't cruel---besides it was prob'ly a toy bat---

reply

[–] nine_inch_nailed 9 years ago

I thought this thread would be about the horse that deliberately gets tripped up

________
Armchair Critic Law 38:

If a film has a plot twist, over analyse.

reply

[–] glisscpc 8 years ago

lol i was going to say the same thing. not only did they make the horse fall down (and fall down HARD, I just re-watched the scene) but they made it lie on the ground to be filmed as it "died." Isn't lying flat on the ground like that really uncomfortable for horses? And it was a REAL animal unlike that bat

reply

[–] chattykathee29 (2) 6 years ago

Those horses are trained to do those kinds of stunts without getting hurt.They are movie horses trained for the movies. And no laying down is not uncomfortable for a horse. I have seen them lay down in the pasture just to sun themselves. It's just that most horses down lay down much. In the U.S. you don't have to worry about them really getting hurt in the movies because the humane society monitors that. They usually have a representative on the set. Lots of times if you read the credits after the movie they will say that. I too love this movie and always watch it around Halloween, since Sleepy Hollow is my favorite fairy tale. The horse that the horseman rode was beautiful, I think they said there were two of them. They have stand ins' for animals too in case one gets tired. As far as the bat goes. I find it hard to believe that they would use a real bat for a movie since most of them carry rabies. I bet that was put in with a computer.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kurt7825 11 years ago

i agree. animals and children are innocent beings and should not be shown being murdered

reply

[–] armalite1016 11 years ago

It's pretty sick that you find it more disturbing to watch a bat get killed than a human being get decapitated. Get your priorities straight.

reply

[–] mandycw 9 years ago

What about the child? The midwife's 4/5 year old child is murdered. Just because they didn't show it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Imagine his terror.

I understand your point about animals being killed. I don't understand how you can go on about a bat and not think of a child who is a HUMAN being that you don't mind being killed.

smh

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kungfulord (957) 3 years ago

cmon who really cares so much if a person ges killed, but the poor defensless animals matter more

Are you a real person or just a meme?

reply

[–] pajamawolfie 8 years ago

I agree with you, but most of the humans were murdered with a specific motive (revenge, eliminating witnesses, committed crimes), whereas the bat didn't *do* anything to deserve death. So I see where OP is coming from.

The character was a witch, and movie witches do things like that. She (presumably) had dealings with the devil and got demon possessed and told where a murdering ghost guy was coming from. Why should she care about an innocent bat?

I value human life much more that bats, puppies, whatever animals, but seeing a corrupt preacher or politician getting offed in a movie bothers me less than seeing an innocent get killed for no reason. Like if someone killed a baby in a movie, I'd laugh when the murderer got decapitated. Well actually that happened to an unborn one, not to mention another little kid who was hiding under a floor. Hell, I felt a little bad when the helpful bat-eating witch got killed by her own sister.

Personally, I didn't really care about the bat scene other than thinking "Ew that's gross, poor bat". It's how I felt a little bad for the sharks in the Sharknado, since they weren't evil, just confused and thrown from their home, but I'd still cut as many of them in half as I had to to save my family or other humans.

There is no objective reality... and that's Sucker Punch

reply

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

I agree with you, but most of the humans were murdered with a specific motive

But that doesn't mean they did anything to "deserve death" either. I don't see how Van Garrett, his son, the widow Winship and her baby did anything wrong. Or the midwife and her family. Or young Masbeth's father. Or even Baltus Van Tassel. They were just as innocent as the bat who needed to die to perform the spell.

reply

[–] pajamawolfie 8 years ago

You're right that they didn't do anything to deserve death. As I mentioned before, they were witnesses, loose ends, or in the wrong place at the wrong time and were going to get in the way of an evil witch's plot. They didn't deserve it, hence the reason Lady Van Tassel is evil: she murders innocents, amongst her other charming personality traits.

I'm just saying that the bat couldn't even make an accusation. Maybe give someone rabies or be a pest in their attic, but that's about it for the harm the bat could cause.

There is no objective reality... and that's Sucker Punch

reply

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Well, the bat wasn't killed by Lady Van Tassel, but by a witch who needed his blood for a ritual. It's pretty close to slaughtering a pig to feed oneself.

reply

[–] pajamawolfie 8 years ago

No argument there. Townspeople eating chickens, Ozzy Osborne—I mean that witch eating bats. LOL

There is no objective reality... and that's Sucker Punch

reply

[–] Stratego 8 years ago

Mmm, I suddenly got an appetite for bat. Maybe I'll go and ask Ozzy for some recipes.

reply

[–] NOLA_Adam 11 years ago

Troll of the world unite!

reply

[–] LaPfieffer92 11 years ago

I hope your not talkin about me cuz im not trolling, I love the film but this part got to me. I agree with the other poster, sometimes its to show the cruelty of the charcter, but not always. take the movie the Thing. one of the reasons I hate the movie much is the whole dog kennel scene which is disgusting and tasteless and just made want to shoot john carpenter for filming such a vile scene.

Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies!

reply

[–] masterofallgoons 11 years ago

"cmon who really cares so much if a person ges killed, but the poor defensless animals matter more."

How can you wonder why people are calling you a 'troll?' I kind of know what you're saying, but a statement like that is completely impossible to take seriously.

In this case also you don't need to put quotes around the word 'real' in your original post. It isn't 'real' or real. It doesn't even look realistic. It's a moment that borders on camp. While it may be a bit disturbing it sets the proper tone for that scene and character. There is a purpose to be served there.

In The Thing, I don't necessarily enjoy that scene, but that movie was intending to be taken seriously to a greater extent than this one (to arguably degrees of success) so that scene certainly served to raise the stakes. It wasn't just a gratuitous scene. The dog trainer came in and was devastated that the dogs were killed. The audience is meant to be horrified there as well. If that's the effect is has than Carpenter achieved what he wanted. But your desire to shoot a human for faking the death of a dog is stupid and ridiculous.

I do understand that there is this sort of visceral feeling of unease when an animal is harmed in a movie. Especially a dog because people have a natural connection to dogs. And I think it's not there with people in movies because that sort of violence is very routine and easier to separate the fiction form the reality, even when it is very compelling. But when you say that in real life animals matter more than people you will never be taken seriously by anybody ever.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LaPfieffer92 11 years ago

masterofgallons, you completely miss the point of my post. both films are meant to be taken seriously DUH. but both films feature a scene, especially the latter, that are extremely horrible animal cruelty, whether real or not. the fact someone would think up something as heinous as that just shows how sick people are. hence why I don't usually give a *beep* if I see a guy get killed in a movie, cuz people are cruel and disgusting.

Realism, Remakes and Unnecessary Sequels are ruining movies!

reply

[–] masterofallgoons 11 years ago

Sleepy Hollow is much more fantasy and takes place more in a 'movie universe.' It isn't really meant to be taken seriously. It's supposed to feel like an old fashioned Hammer horror movie and has a camp value to it The Thing doesn't have at all.

I suppose I did miss the point of your post. I tried to apply some humanity and logic to it, but I didn't realize that you are apparently just a misanthrope who despises all of humanity. It's amazing to me that anybody would say that depicting a fake animal death is cruel and heinous and reflects badly on humanity but doing the same with people is perfectly fine and doesn't reflect poorly on people. That logic makes no sense to me. Perhaps you should live in the woods with nature and avoid interacting with people or watching movies.

reply

[–] cgrill8 11 years ago

"cuz people are cruel and disgusting."

Your logical is so flawed. Not everyone is 'cruel and disgusting'. How vauge is that? I don't understand such convoluted reasoning when there are plenty of creatures and animals that are more cruel than any person alive. The animal kingdom is cruel and unforgiving. Life goes on. (Cirle of life, ain't all warm & fuzzy) Reality has to set in at some point. Plus, it gets so old saying 'It's just a movie' over and over. That's like saying Percy was so wrong beheading Medusa.... "she was just making living in this tough modern world..." yeah, right. Not every animal is 'innocent'. Not every person is innocent either, but not "EVERYONE". There is something called 'civilization', but culture divide helps divide and conquer what is left of civilization.

reply

[–] brunhilda2013 10 years ago

I understand exactly where you're coming from. Animal cruelty sickens me, mainly because animals are helpless compared to humans. Yes, they can be cruel to each other but it isn't malicious, just in their nature. Animals aren't capable of empathy and have no understanding of right and wrong. Humans do and that's what makes us accountable. And before anyone calls me a sicko who cares more about animals than humans, I'll have you know I'm training to be health professional so I can help people and am presently sponsoring a little disabled girl in Mexico.

reply

[–] fede_4488 10 years ago

It's a movie! It's not real!!!

Oh, and I forgot : "awwww"

reply

[–] jmarkoff2 10 years ago

Disturbing animal cruelty? Welcome to the 18th century.

reply

[–] prydain17 8 years ago

Animals aren't capable of empathy

This is utterly false just FYI.

___________

"No! He is imprinted on you like a gay duckling. If you don't wean him off you slowly, he'll die."

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mijotter 10 years ago

I'm the same way. In fact I check movies before seeing them if there is any such kind of actions down to animals or children. I don't see the point. And it doesn't entertain me at all. If I don't want to see/hear about it from the news why would i want to watch it in a movie that i paid to get entertained by even if it is fake.

Oh and btw, when getting in a friendly dispute you all of a sudden become the worlds best english teacher nad start ragging on someone for their grammar, then you are the troll sir.

reply

[–] PopSixSquish 10 years ago

Seeing nonhuman animals suffering or dying on-screen usually also bothers me much more than seeing it happen to human characters...seems to be the case for many...we're just used to watching humans get fake-killed in the most gruesome ways imaginable, and we know it isn't real, but mere special effects. Once upon a time animals WERE actually sacrificed for the sake of "art" (more like money, really)...and now one of the worst things a screenwriter can do is to "kill the dog," heh. That's like a sign that they really mean business. The AHA monitors film and TV sets using live animals in the USA and around the world, so nowadays you can thankfully rest assured that even if you still experience a stronger emotional response to a relatively helpless and innocent creature's death, the actual animal didn't even get a scratch. If it was a live animal at all. Yeah, that scene was appalling and horrible, but ultimately I'm just glad this wasn't a documentary! ;) I'm certain that no one involved in the making of the film had any desire whatsoever to endorse or glorify any form of animal cruelty. Thinking of something and showing it on-screen does not mean that you like it; very often it's quite the opposite. Otherwise movies would only ever be able to depict sunshiny, blissful glee and happiness for all.
And I'm not of the belief that we're the only species with a sense of empathy and goodness; I've known and loved far too many non-humans to think that.

reply

[–] Rena_Mahone 10 years ago

Yes, the scene sure wasn't a pleasant one, but the bat was fake - no big deal. If it was a real one, it would have been appallingly cruel and unforgivable.
What's even more disturbing than the scene itself, it's the replies to this thread. Really some very sad people out there, claiming that animals being tortured or killed for real is acceptable.

I am more interested, though, in the reason why one of the horses used in the film was going to be put down. Was it Tim Burton's decision? Thank God Johnny Depp adopted him.

🐺 Boycott movies that involve real animal violence (& their directors) 🐾

reply

[–] Stratego 10 years ago

What's even more disturbing than the scene itself, it's the replies to this thread. Really some very sad people out there, claiming that animals being tortured or killed for real is acceptable.

No one claimed such a thing in this thread.

I find the OP's attitude towards human life much more disturbing.

reply

[–] juxtapose70 9 years ago

Innocent animals shouldn't be hurt even as a suggestion in films. However, as a human, I tend to stick with my own tribe and therefore found it much worse that a tiny lad watched his mother be beheaded in front of him and then was beheaded himself. In films, puppies and children are off limits. And Burton didn't have to off the boy (think about it)....it almost ruined the movie for me.

"I have nipples, Greg. Could you milk me?"

reply

[–] Stratego 9 years ago

Innocent animals shouldn't be hurt even as a suggestion in films.

Why not? It happens in real life, so why should it be ignored in movies? If you don't want to watch movies in which innocent animals are hurt, that's your choice.

In films, puppies and children are off limits

But innocent adults being horribly murdered is okay?

reply

[–] masterofallgoons 9 years ago

I understand why people are more sensitive to seeing children and animals be hurt in movies, but saying they're off limits is pretty god damn stupid.

reply

[–] crissttigaldames 8 years ago

Well, it wasn't a real bat. It was still disturbing, but that was the point. This film has a few such disturbing scenes.

I agree btw that animals and children being hurt in movies is more disturbing. They're innocent.

BTW, the AHA does NOT oversee movies made in countries other tan the US. It is the American Humane Association after all. So we actually can't know whether animals have been hurt in movies made in any other country. I asume they usually aren't, because it's not considered aceptable nowadays, plus there are animal rights groups who will make a big deal of it if it happens, one would hope at least.

Examples of animals actually being killed on set rather recently, and there being some scandal about it so, at least if you tried to find out, you would: Talk to Her (several bulls) and Manderlay (a donkey,though the scene was ultimately cut out of the movie due to the scandal).

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 3 years ago

I liked watching the bat die. The fact that it bothers the odious OP doubles my pleasure.

It wasn’t a real bat, jackass.

reply