MovieChat Forums > The Breed (2007) Discussion > Did they really kill a dog?

Did they really kill a dog?

posted 14 years ago by timarmstrong2483
31 replies | jump to latest

near the end after M-Rod blows up the building.. Eric lively and O. Hudson are surrounded by dogs and then here comes Michelle with the car. She hits one dog in the face, and the second dog gets ran over. I know this is low budget, so I have to believe this wasnt "Computer Imagining", however, it does appear they edited the part where the dog is actually under the car.

I dont care at all about the harming of dogs in movies or ANYTHING peda stands for. I did notice this and I cant believe I'm the only one to mention it.

[–] rinkrat726 14 years ago

There are things called dummies and stuffed props you can just chuck under a car. And you really should care if an animal gets harmed but then again I guess they don't care if you get run over by a car

[–] timarmstrong2483 14 years ago

The first dog is plainly hit by the car, it's no dummy or stuffed prop, they dog is moving before and after, and the second dog is ran over and the screen does flip and the dog is flopping. My guess is they made it outside of the US, and that dog was ran over... Play it slow for yourself. U will see

[–] kc_0312 14 years ago

You really do come across as a total moron but to humour you - it is CGI!

[–] travers-211-525695 12 years ago

To put your mind at rest Tim, the film was shot here in South Africa and NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED WHILE FILMING IT and the dogs were handled and supervised by caring qualified professionals.

I'm glad you found the visual effects convincing though as the film had little else to offer...

[–] psdhart 12 years ago

yeah there is a the usual disclaimer at the end
the animal anti cruelty league monitored this film

[–] kullprit 14 years ago

Even low budget movies can do CG nowadays.
It doesn't take much work to get it done.

[–] Christoast 14 years ago

Jesus Christ, Tim you are one *beep* stupid god damn person.

[–] Kumbao 14 years ago

Yes, in fact they killed that dog. It's sad, but it was neccessary because of the low production volume. Unfortunately this dog had puppies, so they had to sell them to a nearby chinese restaurant.

Let me hear you make decisions, without your television

[–] snikt_snakt 13 years ago

They also couldn't afford to fake the arrow through the leg scene, so Michelle Rodriguez took one for the team.

She's a real trooper.

"What the f-ck is the internet?" -Jay, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

[–] juicebox07 13 years ago

LMFAO!

[–] catmartin 13 years ago

Just for the record Tim, it's PETA, not peda. It stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. And if you really don't agree with anything they stand for I sure hope you aren't a pet owner.

[–] Nicols 13 years ago

And if you really don't agree with anything they stand for I sure hope you aren't a pet owner.

Or for that matter responsible for any living thing, human or otherwise

I'm rolling along like a train. Only Denzel can stop me now!

[–] ye_river_xiv 13 years ago

You guys think Michelle Rodriguez might have driven over, or allowed her character to drive over a dog?

I'm no rocket scientist, but I think that would have pretty much ended her carreer.

[–] RuehlM 12 years ago

Actually, if you DO agree with anything PETA stands for then I sure hope you aren't a pet owner. People, please support LOCAL Shelters ONLY and start believing in Animal Welfare and NOT Animal Rights; HSUS/PETA/ASPCA. These groups do not believe that any animal should be kept as a pet, including dogs and cats. They believe that your little Chihuahua is a slave to you... and would rather have a dead dog than one being kept as a pet. Do your research, PETA sucks!

[–] FourthYear 12 years ago

Tim, also don't watch "Independence Day." They blow up the White House.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] psdhart 12 years ago

agreed lol

[–] pangurban44 9 years ago

Hahahahahaha!!!💀

[–] unknown_soul278 10 years ago

I have to agree about PETA... I work in animal rescue and am a huge supporter of animal welfare. PETA is for animal rights, and most people don't understand the huge differences in rights and welfare. PETA euthanizes over 90% of the animals they 'rescue'. They think no animal should ever be owned and that they are better off as strays or dead instead of as a member of a loving family. I will believe that the day one of the countless strays that has wandered up to my house willingly walks away from here for good. We don't fence the strays but they learn very quickly we will give them food, shelter and love, and we will try to find them a good home... but PETA thinks that is wrong. They think all shelters and rescues should be 100% kill with no adoption allowed.

PETA wants headlines and they want to make trouble, but the headlines and publicity are their main concern, not the animals they claim to speak for. I agree with some of their campaigns, especially those against wearing fur, but for the most part I have very little respect for them. If they show up to help bust a puppy mill or dogfighting ring and hang around for the stomach-turning cleanup I might change my mind, but they haven't yet and I doubt they will. The bust may occasionally make headlines if it is big enough, but the aftermath is of little interest to the media so it is of no interest to PETA. I have had a lot of rescue workers beside or across from me when a rescued animal is so far gone the only option is euthanasia, but not a single one of them has ever been a member of PETA.

[–] unknown_soul278 10 years ago

But HSUS and ASPCA are actually about welfare, not rights. I have worked and maintained contact with some of their members and they want adoption, good living conditions, and sterilization for population control. They know in most rural areas (like mine) overpopulation is so extreme that euthanasia is a necessary evil, but they want to get things to the point that it is not necessary for healthy animals. They do know that at times an animal can be so sick or badly injured so that euthanasia really is the kindest option, but they don't like it any more than we do. It is really a battle with law enforcement at this point; the laws are clear and existing. But getting them enforced is difficult.

[–] mickmaxy 9 years ago

Oh wow...I had it wrong all this time?!? I thought it was People Eat Tasty Animals. I love dogs. Couldn't eat a whole one though...

[–] CannibalCraig 11 years ago

Being a guy that lives with 8 dogs, I care a lot. And no, I don't support PEDA in any way, shape, or form. But my dogs are my brothers and sisters and your statement is just offensive.

I'm just a guy that likes horror flicks.

[–] timarmstrong2483 11 years ago

"Dog lovers with soft hearts should be forewarned that the dogs endure some gruesome abuse in the course of the picture. ?-Paul Gaita" -- The Breed review

... plus I've read in several reviews and articles CGI was not used...

Like I said.. Zero "computer imaging". Low budget. CGI might be more common today but in 2006, for this movie, it wasn't used. Glad to here it was actually made in Africa. Although animals were in fact harmed. Everybody has a smart ass remark but nobody had any proof. The arrow comment was retarded. I'm pretty sure this lame film cut away in that scene... But I got the proof for what i was talking about yrs ago. if u think I'm ignorant and misinformed, u might wanna do ur homework. Can't believe this is still ongoing.

[–] skorkk 11 years ago

How exactly is that quote proof?

So if a review for a movie like saw warned people with a weak stomach not to watch it because there are a lot of gruesome deaths would you take that as proof that the actual actors were literally tortured and murdered during filming?

[–] MrZoolook 7 years ago

I watched Volcano just earlier before this. I can't believe they let John Carrol Lynch jump into lava and let him melt like that. There's a real method actor!

[–] TeaBunny 11 years ago

>> CGI might be more common today but in 2006 >>

Yeah all the way back in 2006 before they even had color film and it was a nickel to see a movie!

You cannot harm animals in movies. It is against the law. The ASPCA and Humane Society are on hand to make sure of it. It has been this way for DECADES. Come on, are you 9 years old? Jeez.

------------------------
"Love means never having to say you're ugly." - the Abominable Dr. Phibes

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vestdennis 11 years ago

I'm not a fan of PETA either but I am totally opposed to any mistreatment of animals. But no, they didn't run over a dog and it should bother you too. Animals are not made for us to just "run over" b/c we want to make a movie.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]