MovieChat Forums > Project Nim (2011) Discussion > How can Insensitive movie makers put out...

How can Insensitive movie makers put out a movie such as this?

posted 13 years ago by Strict_Vagetarian
31 replies | jump to latest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXVQuW6T5-Q

when this ^ woman was attack by a chimpanzee! this woman lost her face because her friend kept a WILD animal in her home. And when the WILD animal went crazy and tore off Charla Nash's face all her friend did was scream and call the police. No, not get a knife to kill it! Charla Nash will never even get to see this movie because she's now blind.

WILD animals should be left in the wild, not raised in people's homes ready to attack them.

suck my robot balls

[–] tsw453 13 years ago

Actually she did stab it at least once. I think that is when it fled from the house to the streets where police shot it then it ran back home and died in it's bed. Really sad and tragic story. I felt just as bad for the chimp as I did the woman to be honest.

[–] Zikten 13 years ago

if everyone thought like this, we would have no pets. Because all animals, even cats and dads, were wild once. we would also not have farm animals. no cows, no chickens. no goats or horses. because those are all wild animals andthey do not belong with humans according to Genius C

[–] Strict_Vagetarian 13 years ago

dogs and cats are domesticated. That chimpanzee was not and pull both of the woman's hands clears off as well as ate her face. most dogs would just lick you, most chimpanzees will not.

suck my robot balls

[–] tsw453 13 years ago

Agreed! And I must say my dad was pretty domesticated. All jokes aside as I am sure that was an auto complete mistake. Cats and Dogs have been domesticated over thousands of years. Some animals are just not meant to be domesticated. It was a wild and dangerous animal meant to stay in the wild. I think this woman is living proof of that.

[–] dtechba 13 years ago

Big difference between domestic animals that have been domesticated for thousands of years (maybe ten's of thousands) and a wild animal you decide to try to tame. Huge difference...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joezeph 12 years ago

No steak? Yuck.

[–] kubrickation 13 years ago

Agreed. The woman is a victim, certainly, and I feel terribly for her. But this poor animal was ripped from his natural parents and environment and forced to live in a habitat that is completely biologically inappropriate. What's more, no one around him could understand what HE was communicating; they could only teach him how to communicate in their language. The neighbor didn't deserve what she got, but then again, neither did the chimp. Regardless of how "nice" this family was, they were not a proper substitute for an actual family of chimps. To perform or participate in something like this is completely irresponsible. This is what happens when the arrogant and ignorant decide to conduct experiments.

That being said, I cannot judge the film since I haven't seen it. This is more of a response to the situation.

"I'm not living, I'm just killing time"
Mista Yorke

[–] DontMentionThatWhoreToMe 13 years ago

People should not be allowed to keep wild animals as pets.

I'm no PETA member, but to be honest I find something inherently unsettling about Zoos. Just another example of human arrogance writ large.

"Is this not a reasonable place to park?" - Raoul Duke

[–] grazatt 13 years ago

Nim was also a mean little devil, he beat the crap out of two cats once and smashed a poodle into a bloody pulp.It is all there in the book Nim:The chimp who would be human

[–] dan_cristofori 13 years ago

INSENSITIVE MOVIE MAKERS????!!

This film does not glorify owning a chimp in anyway, infact quite the opposite.
Nim beet a dog to pulp, bit a hole in the face of one of his owners, attacked another owner and bashed her head in the ground repeatily. and at the end, after the woman who raised Nim as a baby returns when Nim is much older, Nim viciously beats the hell out of her.

The film talks about all these incidents. This isn`t a fun loving film about owning a cute monkey, it`s a docomentry about the interesting and trafic life of a chimp who was part of an academic experiment.

It has nothing to do with the woman who was attacked, and if anything, makes one relize the dangers in trying to own an animal like this.

[–] grazatt 13 years ago

you forgot to mention the cats he attacked

[–] Eightythreeyearoldguy 13 years ago

I wonder if the OP has even seen the film. The makers of the film shouldn't be criticized for insensitivity if it hasn't been seen.

Life, every now and then, behaves as though it had seen too many bad movies

[–] uglyredhill 13 years ago

How insensitive is this?!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0331509/

Your nearest video store probably has it in stock right now, in spite of a woman having her face clawed off by one of these wild beasts. If Charla has children they'd have to narrate it to her because she's now blind. Ban this filth.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] blueeyesentertainment 13 years ago

I don't find it fair that you call it insensitive just becaue you don't agree with the subject matter. Did you know that around 15,000 people in the USA have pet chimps? Attacks are extremely rare. Plus you don't know the whole background story. Was the chimp brought up from a baby or was it adopted, it may have been abused, etc. There is nothing wrong with keeping a pet chimp aslong as it is properly looked after, but i don't agree with the testing on animals.

[–] dtechba 13 years ago

Wrong!!!! Attacks are rare because people tend to have them during their youth and get rid of them when they mature. Moreover, 15,000 may be how many there are in the country but that is not how many individual owners have them. This docomentray is the story of almost ALL wild animal pets. The owners get them when they are young and get rid of them when they mature. Just why in the Hades do you think we have a snake problem in Florida? Just what personal need do you have that drives you to have that "unique" pet? It is the same "look at me" syndrome that drives people to do all kinds of ridiculous things.

[–] blueeyesentertainment 13 years ago

I don't agree with you atall tbh. That's like saying anyone who keeps any pet, such as a dog, rabbit or even a goldfish does so becasue of attention seeking? People buy snakes, becasue they like snakes funnily enough and the same would apply for chimps.

[–] dtechba 13 years ago

People get dogs as companions or even as work animals. Snakes are not companions or work animals. People get snakes for some kind of cool factor. Lots of data on why people get exotic pets and most of it isn't very complimentary of them.

[–] Mydoona 13 years ago

this is NOT the movie you think it is.....
Nim actually died of a heart attack in a zoo when he was 28.
The story is a woman looked after him till he was 5 then he was taken by the government to a lab and experimented on for many years.
It is also the bases of 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes'.

[–] TheSummer2012 12 years ago

I find it somewhat difficult to take anyone seriously who, as the OP, makes a point about animals but can't even spell vegetarian.

As for "taken by the government to a lab" - I didn't know NYU was a government agency?

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] poizon-4 12 years ago

Who the f cares? This movie isn't about Charla Nash, and even if it was how is it being insensitive? Grow a pair.