Was it eaten? They never really show? And was the "killer" guy eaten also? In the book too? We never really see any of these things happening so it is hard to tell. It's just suprising to me that that would be added to any childrens book or film.
Lizabeth
"What we lack in brains, we make up for with good intentions."
[deleted]
Of course the dog was eaten. The shot cut with the monster's jaws less than ten feet away and closing, with the dog trapped in the open. And no more is seen of it afterwards, and remember it was constantly barking before this. The "killer guy" too disappears and probably suffers a similar fate. This movie was intended for adults and children, so these adult realities are handled in a way adults understand, but not too graphic for children. Remember if the kid wasn't pulled away by the handyman, that it probably would have eaten him to when it was enraged by the attacks. The early legends stated they were maneaters, including the original Nessie, but being intelligent as well, knew better than to do this very often in modern times when people had guns. If real, this may be why they are so secretive today.
It would be interesting to find out what the book says, but the book may be quite a bit different from the movie, just like Beowulf. In this case they bascailly just stole the names of the characters and made a very different story.
[deleted]
<The "killer guy" too disappears and probably suffers a similar fate>
Just finished watching the movie and the "killer guy" knocked out the handyman then tried to shoot Crusoe. The gun was empty, so he dropped the gun and ran into the brush, and we didn't see him again. I loved this movie. :)
The dog is not shown being eaten, so we can assume whatever we wish. One of the men swam ashore and the boy made Crusoe release the other man. No people were hurt, only endangered.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
I thought none of the men were eaten. I believe I remember them swimming off. The dog...i think it was eaten. Gotta remember the dog was the nemisus of Crusoe the whole movie......Crusoe ate the dog......I believe.
shareThe mean man washed up on the beach claiming that he was almost eaten. The dog is left up to you. I prefer to think he got away and wasn't barking anymore because he had met his match and was chastised.
shareI just took my 4 yr old to see this over the weekend and he really liked the movie as well as I did. However, he was worried about what happed to the dog just like every one else. I used your explanation to explain it to him and I think he accepted it. I think it would have been acceptable for the film to show the "monster" growling at the dog and the dog whimpering and running away scared. I think many children would have liked to see that. I would've brought closure to the dog's fate. You know kids, Always worried about what happens to the typical pet creatures.
share[deleted]
I concur with your feelings. Today's kids are way to protected from "hurt feelings".. I have two children, both girls; one is married (with two kids) and another is in second grade.. the differences in the school system between the two is BIG time different.. as in the schools "should not use RED ink to correct papers cuz it might cause harm to thier little egos".. give me a break!! Oh.. and UNLIKE LOTS of todays kids.. Even though my two girls are 12 years agart.. they both have the SAME mom and dad!
and yes the dog was eaten, and a few of the crew on the boat was eaten off screen. Just count the survivors.
REVISED. The above sentence I want to correct... There were THREE on the boat when hit by the Water Horse, TWO ended up on shore. The third has three fates; Eaten, Drowned, or Hanging onto the boat and MAYBE lives.
[deleted]
"You have one child who's married with two kids of their own and another in second grade? You must be the father then, right? I don't see how else that would be possible."
Just randomly throwing this out there, but it is a very possible situation. I'm actually 15 years older than my youngest sister. My mom had me when she was 20, and then had more kids when she got into her 30's. When my youngest sister is in 2nd grade she'll be around 7 or 8, so I'll be at least 22 years old. I don't want children that young, but it would be possible for me to have a family of my own by then.
And on the subject of the thread, I've got to say the dog was eaten. Kids shows today almost always bring back a character that met an unsure fate to show that he/she is alright. They didn't do this with the dog, and considering the close proximity of the two enemies, it seems as though the pooch met an untimely end.
[deleted]
I just finished watching it on iTunes. I do think they meant to imply that Crusoe ate Churchill, but I'm glad they didn't show it on screen. I would have preferred it, though, if they'd rounded things out by making it clear one way or the other. I did feel unsettled by not knowing for sure.
As for whether such a harsh reality is appropriate in a children's story, I think it is. As noted by sloopydrew, such elements have not been unheard of in children's books and movies. I feel there's always a way to convey troubling incidents so that children needn't be given nightmares, but are still exposed to the concepts of death and grief, or just plain scary stuff. Learning to cope with these things is an important part of growing up. Hey, the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz gave me the yips when I was 9, but my 6-year old sister and I willingly exposed ourselves to them as we fell asleep listening to an audio recording of the movie every night for about a year (around 1970). I love dogs, and Churchill was a beautiful bulldog, but in this story, the sea monster eating the dog who terrorized him from infancy makes perfect sense.
If only the cessation of Churchill's continuous barking had been preceded by a quick, off-screen yelp, I believe we'd feel a sense of closure on this one issue. I was even thinking that, after they showed Crusoe bearing down on Churchill, and the men realized they couldn't hear him anymore, it would have been good story-telling to then show Crusoe spitting out Churchill's leather collar as he hovered above Sgt. Strunk's head (the cook who was also Churchill's master), just before he picked him up and shook him like a rag doll. Remember how Crusoe spat out that piece of Angus' dad's shoe leather early on? I know his size at the end made it more than possible for him to swallow a hundred such collars in one gulp, but I think such a moment could have played well, and would certainly have helped put a period on the end of that paragraph. (But since a collar-spitting probably wasn't in the book, they wouldn't have done it even if they'd thought of it.)
By the way, if a plesiosaur (or whatever Crusoe was) shook a man like that in real life, the guy's spine would have snapped in two, let alone the bones that would have shattered when he got flung hard onto the shore. I mean, Strunk was not a young man! He should have had at least a broken pelvis or femur! But hey, I guess a dog (maybe) getting eaten off-camera is probably enough "reality" for a kid's story. Having Crusoe actually injure or kill a human would have painted him with a PG-13 brush instead of just PG.
Anyway, I really liked the movie, and I think it's fine for kids as young as 8, even with a dog being eaten by a sea monster.
*NOTE: Regarding the fate of the third man who was not seen again after Crusoe upturned the boat, I believe we are meant to assume he swam to shore and ran to safety. I just don't believe the director would have allowed a dead or injured human to go unaddressed. Certainly, Captain Hamilton would have been otherwise occupied than to help a sea monster escape to the ocean if one of his men had been killed.
Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.
interesting theory. Sometimes over protecting is better then none.
I'm a master of fright, and a demon of light
Just saw the film and the kids and I loved it.
It is assumed the dog is eaten. The "killer" guy washes up on shore and then tries to shoot Crusoe with his gun but it won't fire so he runs away.
The trailer we saw here concluded with a scene of the dog face-on with Crusoe. Crusoe roared and the dog whimpered, then ran away.
I was kinda surprised that wasn't in the movie proper.
Dog was presumed eaten, 3 Men on the boat 1 was throwen on shore (the chef) not eaten, The other was the killer who tried to shoot nessie with a gun failed and ran away and the last was the person who made the distress call on the boat and wasnt seen again after it was capsized. And the reason they went to New Zealand its cheaper to film over there for some reason.
share[deleted]
I LIKED the dog. I'd hate to think it was killed. The dog never did anything wrong. The dog was just being a dog when he chased after Caruso.
share[deleted]
The dog was killed. They just didn't want to emphasize it to keep that thing looking 'cute and innocent'. Teh.
I hate most people
[deleted]
1) It was pretty clear the dog was eaten.
2) Two of the three men on the boat were clearly seen getting away. However, "Wormsley", who seemed like a decent guy, is never seen again once he's in the water.
I like that it lets you draw your own conclusion. But a movie like this would certainly have shown the fate of the dog had it gotten away. Since it didn't and the dog is never seen again, ADDED to the obviousness of the dog vs. monster scene on the beach, one can easily assume the dog was a snack.
If that thing killed my dog, I'd blow the water to hell and slap that kid in the face if he tried to stop me.
share