A very over rated film definitely NOT for dog lovers

Your reasoning needs some adjustment. There's a fundamental flaw in it which has made you act "sick" by making unfounded and unfair accusations.

Understand that an image is itself 100% real, and that it has absolutely real effects. This is true regardless of whether the means of creating it were artificial or not, and regardless of whether a viewer is aware it was created by artificial means or not. It makes little difference to the experience of the result -- the image -- since it, and what it means, is real.

The end result, what an image means and the emotions it provokes (intentionally or not), are the operative qualities. How it was made is not. We willingly open ourselves to this end result, to this experience (aka, "the willing suspension of disbelief"). Once we have done so, our experience is the full freight, no limitation, no going back.

A terrible memory isn't the real event. It's a total fabrication. The past has passed. So why does the memory still grip us in the middle of the night? Because it's primal experience, which knows nothing of time. Its images and sounds are 100% real, even though the event no longer exists -- possibly not for decades.

When people view a painting or a photograph, they may feel dread or disgust, even though they know the images were created with artificial means. In fact, the artist may intentionally make those means blatant in order to make just this point, that the final result has power despite the fact that the fake process of manufacture is right in your face. For example, dread with a Francis Bacon portrait, or revulsion with a Cindy Sherman photograph of decay and body parts. These artists don't try to disguise the artifice, they make it prominent. And yet we feel what we feel anyway.

People who are sensitive to depictions of animal deaths/killings understand that the means of creating the images in The Babadook were artificial. They know the animal didn't die to make the image. And yet, there is the image, undiminished for that knowledge. That's because the process is separate from the result. You've concentrated on the means, but have neglected the nature of the end result. That fundamental error has led you to embrace "sick" judgments of people's experience.

As for the accusation that people are more upset about an image of an animal's killing than a human's, you have also overlooked some fundamental context. For another day.


"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

No need to respond to you, Anizar_Wifi fag or whatever it is you call yourself. No,kidding, that's the name he picked. I see others have already responded to you, though you probably don't deserve It. Still adding you to the 'ignore' list saves me from ever having to come across you again at the IMDB.

Agreed. Anyone who is bothered by the killing of animals more than the killing of human beings is sickening.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Again, the warning is for dog lovers as is clearly stated. People like you will not understand and should simply ignore the warning and move on. That should not be very hard to understand even for someone like you, mountaindewslave. And perhaps you should cut back on that mountain dew you name yourself after. It seems to be making you hyper. Don't expect a further reply to your trouble making rants.

Strazd, How old are you like 10 ? You made no sense. Happily this is the last inane ranting I'll waste timeI reading from you.

Bet they all eat chicken and steak

Good, for you. Shred_Master. The warning was for those of us who are bothered by seeing a cute faithful family dog killed for entertainment, real or not. What innocent people did you see killed in this film ? It was only the dog. I also found it distasteful the way she treated her son while processed of whatever, she at least did not kill him. If it doesn't bother you seeing that "fictional" dog strangled or get it's neck broken than simply ignore the warning to my fellow dog lovers and "enjoy" a film for people like you. To me, even taking the dog killing out, it was a mediocre film at best. And, yes, I fully admit it bothers me to see fictional animals and children killed or seriously hurt in movies much more than adults. Perhaps it's because to me they represent innocents. I'm not sure, but that's the way it is. So sue men. My warning to those who share my feelings stands.