Did they really kill the fish in the film?

I as well thought the supposed killing looked fairly natural. Yet, I highly doubt they killed a real fish (or more if you need to take additional cuts for the scene).

As to how they did it I leave that up for filmmakers to explain, but could imagine they used some kind of sedative. Which the pill basically was...

And I can't voice back that it ruined my experience of the film. Rather, the whole scene added more depths to it. You can take it either way but the filming of "Hubert Josse"'s supposed death was grand. In a way the fish represented Paloma's life which was somewhat "bowled" as well. No way out. It also let Paloma experience what her own planned death looks like. And finally she probably wanted to save the fish from her superficial sister.

Well they didn't use a stunt fish, they obviously killed the fish and how many more in different takes on the scene. Cruel and it did put a pall on the movie after that scene. I couldn't get past it and it made me not sympathetic to the girl. Mean kid, animal (or fish) cruelty is a sign of a disturbed person, more so than a superintendent dying could fix.

That *ruined* the film for you? Really? Don't you think that's a little ridiculous?

Even if they didn't kill the fish, let me tell you what happened to me yesterday. I was at a restaurant and I ordered a salmon. It tasted awful, so I returned it to the chef and ordered Tuna instead. Nobody's gonna eat that salmon now. Here you go: a wasted fish.

In the book the goldfish gets hit by a semi truck on the freeway. Filming it that way for the movie really would have put you over the edge, eh?

Or maybe they just went to a petshop and asked for an already dead fish? Fishes dies of natural causes (diseases) all the time, probably not that hard to find one or a couple..

What an important reason to reject wathing a movie! I hope they put them who are responsible for this in jail!

Geez Americans.