There are many people who won’t watch the seminal splatter flickCannibal Holocaustbecause it contains the actual slaughter of animals (which were eaten by the crew), yet they have no problem sitting down and enjoyingThe Adventures of Milo & Otis, which is alleged to contain the wholesale obliteration of dozens of kittens. You might think thatThe Adventures of Milo & Otis, a story about a kitten and a pug having adventures in the wilderness, is one of those great American kid movies. You’d be really wrong, since the film is actually a re-edit of a Japanese movie calledKoneko Monogetari: The Adventures of Chatran. Filmed over four years and culled from 400,000 feet of footage,Chatranwas seen as a little too Japanese, and the Oscar winning Jim Clark (he won for editingThe Killing Fields) took the 70 hours of extra footage and re-arranged it. Clark felt that the original film, which wasn’t really a kid movie, was too artsy. Some of the animal on animal violence was toned down, and so was some of the scariest stuff. A scene where the cat (renamed Milo for America) was thrown into the ocean was kept, but what was cut was a lengthy bit where the soaked, terrified animal tried to climb out of the surf and up a cliff.
Skip to 7:53 on this video:
There were animal cruelty allegations in Japan upon the original film’s release. It was claimed that dozens of cats were killed during the production. WhenMilo & Otisopened in Australia, local animal rights groups called for it to be banned. Jacqui Kent of Animal Liberation Queensland said that she had been told up to 20 cats had been killed, while at least one cat had its paw broken to make the animal unsteady on its feet.
The American Humane Society looked into the claims, but came up empty. The group put its stamp on the movie despite having no representatives on the set; the film’s closing credits say ‘The animals used were filmed under strict supervision with the utmost care for their safety and well-being,’ but makes no claims about the animals being unhurt. And it’s easy to see why – the film itself has animals blatantly and obviously being hurt. A cat is bit on the face by a snake; crabs and birds attack a cat; a pug and a baby bear battle; a cat is hurled into rough seas as well as sent down rapids in a cardboard box that is constantly in danger of tipping. These animals were put into these situations by human beings – the snake bite isn’t the natural result of a curious kitten meeting a snake in the garden. Someone put those animals in proximity, and a camera man sat and watched it all unfold.
And even if the animals were, miraculously, unhurt, they’re obviously scared shitless. There’s simply no way to throw a cat off a cliff into the ocean without at least freaking it the fuck out. If you did that to your pet cat, filmed it and put it on YouTube, there’s a good chance you’d find police knocking on your door to ask you about some animal cruelty allegations. It’s simply unacceptable to place animals in dangerous or scary situations just for entertainment.
In the end no one has ever been able to prove the claims of mass animal deaths one way or another. The Japanese film industry has a less than shining record when it comes to animal abuse, but that doesn’t mean that kittens and puppies were murdered on the set ofChatran. There were definitely dozens of kittens and puppies used to play the leads, but that would have to be the case due to the production taking four years (another problem is the admission that animals were specifically bred to resemble the original leading cats and dogs; such selective breeding is destructive and genetically unwise). The lack of a specific ‘No animal was harmed’ disclaimer is troubling – the language used feels legalistic and filled with loopholes – but the boilerplate you see today at the end of all movies featuring animals didn’t become the standard for years afterMilo & Otis’release. It is bothersome that the American Humane Society put their seal on the film without having an agent present, and one assumes the lingering doubts and concerns about the film have led them to be more strict.
So the next time you’re watchingThe Adventure of Milo & Otis,think about the traumas and horrors visited upon the tiny animals in the movie. Consider whether that’s something you want to share with your kids.
I always found the Otis giving birth scene traumatizing as a child. "Mommy, what is that slimy, bloody thing coming out of Otis?" "That's a baby." Blew my 4-year-old mind.
Phil Owen04.21.2010
That's nothing compared to what's happening in my basement….
Dru04.21.2010
This is terrible. But I don't see how it would have been better if the film crew had eaten the animals after having tortured and killed them (as you suggest by mentioning Cannibal Holocaust). Is it better to kill animals because we like to eat them (when we could just as easily, and more healthfully, eat something else) than because we like to watch them for our entertainment (when we could just as easily watch something else)? There's not really an ethical distinction there.
Holy crap…I just watched this on cable for the first time in about 17 years but this time my two year old was watching it with me. I was sitting there thinking "Wow, this is a lot more crazier than I once thought…" But now? Jesus, I kinda feel gross…when I was a ten year old I thought it was a movie about a cat and a dog but after the last viewing which was monday, and this article, I doubt I'll ever watch it or let her watch it again. Thanks Devin.
Three Oranges04.21.2010
Scaring an animal is just as bad as harming one? Then I must be the cat Hitler, because I vacuum around my cat a few times a month. Also, my captcha for this one was "cat pay," which is an amusing coincidence.
molly04.21.2010
just so you know, the link to The Cultural Gutter article is broken (just redirects to this article.)
poor animals. 🙁 thank you for writing this in a reasonable manner.
Baytor04.21.2010
Dru:
If you watch Cannibal Holocaust, the only case of animal cruelty in the film is the Coatmundi (called a muskrat) which was rather slowly killed. The rest of the animals are instantly killed including the snake, spider, pig, both monkeys (only one ended up in the film), and the infamous turtle. The turtle is shown being eaten in the film and the pig and monkeys were literally just something the villagers were going to eat soon anyway. Only the "muskrat" suffered.
Dru04.21.2010
@Baytor: You're using a lot of words loosely here. It's pretty common even in the animal ethics discourse to not regard killing as a harm in and of itself, but sorry, I don't buy it. If you kill me painlessly, I agree that it's better than killing me slowly and painfully, but I'm still not all that happy about it. Killing is itself a harm, regardless of how protracted or minimized the suffering is. Killing is animal cruelty. (And so is scaring them for our amusement, for that matter. Hopefully Three Oranges doesn't vacuum purely to scare his/her cat.)
Anonymous04.21.2010
Dru: I don't think killing animals to eat and torturing animals for the sake of entertainment are the same thing. Most meat-eaters do not want their food tortured. Many people are still unaware that it happens. Lots of people have heard the words "factory farm" but have no idea what it entails.
I guess I'm as evil as a bloodthirsty dog murderer because I don't think it's wrong to kill animals–as long as it's done humanely and, preferably, non-wastefully.
Dru04.21.2010
@Unknown: Killing animals to eat and torturing them for the sake of entertainment are the same thing in most circumstances. There's no biological need for humans to eat animal flesh. If we choose to eat it, then, it's for reasons of preference. We prefer to eat this way, and damn the consequences for those we harm in the process. It's as unnecessary as dog-fighting or the film described in this article.
SeXX ED04.21.2010
Good for you, Devin. The harm inflicted on these animals in this movie is just terrible. This is something that a lot of people are unaware… or just haven't thought of. Thanks for exposing this film for what it is.
birdy birdman04.21.2010
this is fucking hilarious, goddamn agoraphobic socially retarded cat people
Jay04.21.2010
Way to blow the lid off of this 20 year old movie in timely fashion, Devin!
asfm04.21.2010
Never heard of this film. Will definitely avoid it.
Anonymous04.21.2010
Between this and The Cove, I'm pretty sure we didn't drop enough A-bombs.
JoeViturbo04.21.2010
If you are against all forms of selective breeding I can't honestly give any credence to any statement made in this article. Selective breeding is what even the most basic forms of animal husbandry is based around.
Astrolupine04.21.2010
I'm highly disturbed, but I still highly enjoy this movie. Does this make me a bad person? I'm sorry if it does.
Critch04.21.2010
So, um, any scoops on anything else happening in THIS century?
[A]04.21.2010
..and I paid to watch Chatran in the movies
Murderdroid04.21.2010
I heard that the original Otis was decapitated by John Landis.
s4u3yu04.21.2010
Dru, we do actually need to eat meat. Meat contains special vitamins and minerals that prevent us from turning into giant pussies/bores like you.
Anonymous04.22.2010
Fantastic scoop, Devin. Maybe next time you can talk about how you can see the strings on the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. You are truly an investigative reporter of the highest order!
Jess04.22.2010
@ #15: Dude you are so right.
Dru04.22.2010
@21: So, I guess we've arrived at the point in the discussion where the defenders of animal use have run out of "reasonable" arguments to support their actions and have to resort to personal attacks? OK then.
Sam04.22.2010
Nevermind that the film is completely dull and uninteresting.
Meat Eater04.22.2010
@Dru: actually meat is very important for humans to eat and was essential in human evolution. There's a reason we have sharp teeth.
@26: I don't doubt that meat-eating was essential to human evolution. But that's no reason to continue eating it. Human slavery was essential to the development of the U.S. economy, but that's not a compelling argument for continuing the practice, is it? The article that you cite doesn't make any claim that meat or other animal products continues to be essential for human health, and I'd not read compelling evidence of such an assertion anywhere else either. As for the teeth issue, carnivores tend to have gaps in between their teeth, which facilitates the eating of flesh better than the gapless rows that we humans have. If we look at the dinosaurs, our teeth more closely resemble that of the brontosaurus (a herbivore) than a tyrannosaurus (a carnivore). If we look at other animals, we're closer to cows (herbivores) than cats (carnivores).
JoeViturbo04.24.2010
Disregarding the pros and cons for an all vegetable diet based upon human physiology (which seem at best, ambiguous), it is painfully obvious that a vegetarian diet is the privilege of rich citizens of a 1st world country. Don't get me wrong, various cultivated vegetables (namely rice, multiple bean species, and corn) are often associated with commoners and peasants. However, the necessary supplementary vegetables that would provide a balanced diet cannot be provided to everyone, everywhere, in large enough proportions to ensure abundant supply and quality. Currently, the majority of crop production requires the sophisticated, and some would say destructive, use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides as well as genetically modified plant species, a problem that must be addressed and solved before a transition to an all vegetable diet would become feasible. Additionally, the over-consumption of certain cultivated species has been associated with hormonal imbalances and other health issues. Now, to be honest, current practices in the production of livestock are similarly disappointing, with poor living conditions and improper processing resulting in the spread of disease and toxins (a problem not only limited to meat by the way). This seems less a result of poor availability of meat and more the result of attempts to drive the cost down. The argument that animals should not be eaten because of the pain and torture they suffer while being killed is a fallacy at best. Vegans assure themselves that since no identifiable pain receptors, or even basic nervous systems, have been found in plants they can't feel pain and thus suffer less than actual beings with brains, spinal cords, and pain receptors. In this way, the life of a cute doe-eyed cow is valued far above that of the smelly, dust-covered asparagus. Such close-minded dismissal of any organism regardless of genetic similarity is deplorable. Which brings me to fruitarians who use a deficient knowledge of the history of plant cultivation to justify their consumption. To them, the fact that the food they eat comes from hybridized, twisted abominations that only resemble their wild ancestors in the loosest of definitions never enters into the equation. In sum, nobody can claim innocence based on their food choice for we all kill and maim to eat. It is up to the individual to determine what level of massacre they can live with on their conscience and allow other individuals the right to choose differently. I'm going to stick with my corn-fed beef, foie gras, farm-raised shrimp, apples, carrots, etc. and sleep soundly at night knowing that I am the dominant predator, having subjugated all other organisms to my purposes, designs, and whims.
Dru04.25.2010
@JoeViturbo: What a sprawling, confused mess of an argument you've presented. You basically have two points that are interrelated, and both are fundamentally wrong based on the same principle. The first point, that all-vegetable diets are the privilege of the first world, is quite wrongheaded because it assumes that animals don't have to eat anything themselves. Let's say that you can feed 1 person with 1 cow. What that 1 cow eats in order to bulk up to feed that 1 person could feed several people. It's a completely inefficient system of agriculture. Why are there shortages of usable farm land? Because we waste so much edible food to feed "food animals." It would be far more cost-effective as a system to feed people with these vegetables that would otherwise go to cows and other "food animals." Your second point is wrong for the same reason. The argument that vegans are ruthlessly killing vegetables in greater numbers than omnivores is ridiculous, because the animals that omnivores are eating have had to eat so much plant-life themselves to grow to the point that humans will eat them. Cows are part of the food chain too, you know. It's simple math: fewer plants are consumed overall on a vegan diet than on an omnivorous diet. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the lower you eat on the food chain, the more environmentally and economically efficient your diet is. (Why do you think carbon footprint calculators ask you about your eating habits?) If you were actually concerned about the "pain and torture" inflicted upon innocent asparagus, you'd be vegan yourself. Based on your own argument and in your own words, to do otherwise would be "deplorable." (And as a side note, the "hybridized, twisted abominations" in vegetable agriculture are terrible, I agree, but at least they aren't sentient. "Food animals" today have been bred and modified such that turkeys and chickens can't even stand under the weight of their breasts. They can't reproduce naturally, because the males of the species are physically unable to mount the females. You want to talk about abominations…)
Lynn07.18.2010
Let me start off by saying you people who endorse this film are absolute idiots! Sure I admire I grew up watching this film i loved the song at the beginning but as soon as I grew older I started thinking wait a very realistic cat being thrown off a waterfall there was no way to fake even that one point. i couldnt even watch all the deleted footage it made me sick seeing the cat trying desperatly to climb up the cliff.
Second obviously fear should be considered a harm to ones self. theres even quotes about how fear can be worse then death itself. Anticipation to bad events is usually just as bad as the event. like going for a needle your usually more freaked ou t about it then the actual shoot.
Thirdly ive been a vegetarian for almost 4 years and I can speak confidently to say that m such healthier. Plus vitamins and minerals come in almost everything a glass of freaking milk has 7g protein, dandelions have almost every kind of vitamin plus meats are pumped with steroids and hormones that make people go into early puberty and meats also take longer to digest because were no equiped carnivores have special enzymes used to break it up. Plus your an idiot if you think are incisors are like carnivores there much too thick and arent pointed enough to make a real incision there worn like plant grinding teeth and maybe a few hard shelled fruit and bugs. plus have you seen a chimps canine there huge for grinding plants and territory protection . take a biology class for pete sake. Also the slow digestion of meat as well as sugars makes you tired. Tofus like a dollar for a weeks supply and alot of veggies are cheap. also new studies suggest early humans didnt eat animal because there was no fire at the time and are stomach couldnt handle the bacteria(they can tell from the teeth on fossils/ thep ortein and certain grooves) drumrollll please……………………..because were not freakin carnivores or true omnivores. Lets not forget were not equiped to kill with no nails or sharp teeth or fast speed. I find it hard that we could kill too many animals with spears considering you to be fairly close to the animal and herbivores tend to runaway when the sense danger
Jessica07.25.2010
My mother just bought the dvd version on my sond 3rd bday in june 2010. First time ive ever even heard of milo and otis, So i watch it with him and then i see the credits, all Japanese names? That did catch me weird. So after the 100th time of watching Milo and Otis i saw some strange things that i just knew they were hurting these poor animals, i havnt even looked on the web to see if there was any allegations. But one i looked that other people saw what i saw, even though it was a few years ago. it made me feel like i need to throw this dvd away. It hurts my heart to think for their own entertainment they would put an animal in harms way. UGh i really cant explain how emotional i am over this, watching the clip up there made me cry. F*cking Iditos.
Sarah10.04.2010
I never actually watched this as a child so I never had the chance to appreciate it without realizing what was really going on.
I was absolutely disgusted beyond belief; first by what was happening to those poor animals but secondly by the fact that it's still being sold in Australia in this day and age.. or anywhere (except Asia of course – I doubt they'll ever progress past their terrible views on animal rights, heaven help the whales and the moon bears to only name a couple)
Despite what anyone thinks of this movie, whether they enjoyed it or whether it made them want to puke – I should hope that not one of them would take enjoyment out of throwing their own beloved pet off a cliff into the ocean or watching it get attacked by a bear or bitten by a snake while they simply sat back and taped it with dollar signs flashing in their greedy little eyes like the film makers of this grotesque movie.
The thought of standing back and being forced to watch my beautiful, innocent puppy get attacked by a bear breaks my heart. No animal should be forced into that situation just to entertain a few japs.
I hope those people and all film makers like them got what they had coming to them.
Thanks Dru, for putting all of my passion against this movie into the perfect words. x
Dru11.21.2010
@Sarah: OK, but I'd be careful about the racism! Remember that racism and speciesism are two of a kind…
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12.11.2010
Absolutely shocking.
There is NO EXCUSE for what the creators of the film did to the animals. Not even to make a convincing film.
grrrr.
Tigeroovy06.27.2011
Dru has it right, we don’t need meat for anything. I haven’t eaten it in over a decade and I feel fantastic.
Based06.27.2011
Haha, you’re certainly not winning an award for intellect any time soon.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.
36 comments
I always found the Otis giving birth scene traumatizing as a child. "Mommy, what is that slimy, bloody thing coming out of Otis?" "That's a baby." Blew my 4-year-old mind.
That's nothing compared to what's happening in my basement….
This is terrible. But I don't see how it would have been better if the film crew had eaten the animals after having tortured and killed them (as you suggest by mentioning Cannibal Holocaust). Is it better to kill animals because we like to eat them (when we could just as easily, and more healthfully, eat something else) than because we like to watch them for our entertainment (when we could just as easily watch something else)? There's not really an ethical distinction there.
Give this article a read: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20070822_Were_all_Michael_Vick.html
Holy crap…I just watched this on cable for the first time in about 17 years but this time my two year old was watching it with me. I was sitting there thinking "Wow, this is a lot more crazier than I once thought…" But now? Jesus, I kinda feel gross…when I was a ten year old I thought it was a movie about a cat and a dog but after the last viewing which was monday, and this article, I doubt I'll ever watch it or let her watch it again. Thanks Devin.
Scaring an animal is just as bad as harming one? Then I must be the cat Hitler, because I vacuum around my cat a few times a month. Also, my captcha for this one was "cat pay," which is an amusing coincidence.
just so you know, the link to The Cultural Gutter article is broken (just redirects to this article.)
poor animals. 🙁 thank you for writing this in a reasonable manner.
Dru:
If you watch Cannibal Holocaust, the only case of animal cruelty in the film is the Coatmundi (called a muskrat) which was rather slowly killed. The rest of the animals are instantly killed including the snake, spider, pig, both monkeys (only one ended up in the film), and the infamous turtle. The turtle is shown being eaten in the film and the pig and monkeys were literally just something the villagers were going to eat soon anyway. Only the "muskrat" suffered.
@Baytor: You're using a lot of words loosely here. It's pretty common even in the animal ethics discourse to not regard killing as a harm in and of itself, but sorry, I don't buy it. If you kill me painlessly, I agree that it's better than killing me slowly and painfully, but I'm still not all that happy about it. Killing is itself a harm, regardless of how protracted or minimized the suffering is. Killing is animal cruelty. (And so is scaring them for our amusement, for that matter. Hopefully Three Oranges doesn't vacuum purely to scare his/her cat.)
Dru: I don't think killing animals to eat and torturing animals for the sake of entertainment are the same thing. Most meat-eaters do not want their food tortured. Many people are still unaware that it happens. Lots of people have heard the words "factory farm" but have no idea what it entails.
I guess I'm as evil as a bloodthirsty dog murderer because I don't think it's wrong to kill animals–as long as it's done humanely and, preferably, non-wastefully.
@Unknown: Killing animals to eat and torturing them for the sake of entertainment are the same thing in most circumstances. There's no biological need for humans to eat animal flesh. If we choose to eat it, then, it's for reasons of preference. We prefer to eat this way, and damn the consequences for those we harm in the process. It's as unnecessary as dog-fighting or the film described in this article.
Good for you, Devin. The harm inflicted on these animals in this movie is just terrible. This is something that a lot of people are unaware… or just haven't thought of. Thanks for exposing this film for what it is.
this is fucking hilarious, goddamn agoraphobic socially retarded cat people
Way to blow the lid off of this 20 year old movie in timely fashion, Devin!
Never heard of this film. Will definitely avoid it.
Between this and The Cove, I'm pretty sure we didn't drop enough A-bombs.
If you are against all forms of selective breeding I can't honestly give any credence to any statement made in this article. Selective breeding is what even the most basic forms of animal husbandry is based around.
I'm highly disturbed, but I still highly enjoy this movie. Does this make me a bad person? I'm sorry if it does.
So, um, any scoops on anything else happening in THIS century?
..and I paid to watch Chatran in the movies
I heard that the original Otis was decapitated by John Landis.
Dru, we do actually need to eat meat. Meat contains special vitamins and minerals that prevent us from turning into giant pussies/bores like you.
Fantastic scoop, Devin. Maybe next time you can talk about how you can see the strings on the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz. You are truly an investigative reporter of the highest order!
@ #15: Dude you are so right.
@21: So, I guess we've arrived at the point in the discussion where the defenders of animal use have run out of "reasonable" arguments to support their actions and have to resort to personal attacks? OK then.
Nevermind that the film is completely dull and uninteresting.
@Dru: actually meat is very important for humans to eat and was essential in human evolution. There's a reason we have sharp teeth.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
@26: I don't doubt that meat-eating was essential to human evolution. But that's no reason to continue eating it. Human slavery was essential to the development of the U.S. economy, but that's not a compelling argument for continuing the practice, is it? The article that you cite doesn't make any claim that meat or other animal products continues to be essential for human health, and I'd not read compelling evidence of such an assertion anywhere else either. As for the teeth issue, carnivores tend to have gaps in between their teeth, which facilitates the eating of flesh better than the gapless rows that we humans have. If we look at the dinosaurs, our teeth more closely resemble that of the brontosaurus (a herbivore) than a tyrannosaurus (a carnivore). If we look at other animals, we're closer to cows (herbivores) than cats (carnivores).
Disregarding the pros and cons for an all vegetable diet based upon human physiology (which seem at best, ambiguous), it is painfully obvious that a vegetarian diet is the privilege of rich citizens of a 1st world country. Don't get me wrong, various cultivated vegetables (namely rice, multiple bean species, and corn) are often associated with commoners and peasants. However, the necessary supplementary vegetables that would provide a balanced diet cannot be provided to everyone, everywhere, in large enough proportions to ensure abundant supply and quality. Currently, the majority of crop production requires the sophisticated, and some would say destructive, use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides as well as genetically modified plant species, a problem that must be addressed and solved before a transition to an all vegetable diet would become feasible. Additionally, the over-consumption of certain cultivated species has been associated with hormonal imbalances and other health issues. Now, to be honest, current practices in the production of livestock are similarly disappointing, with poor living conditions and improper processing resulting in the spread of disease and toxins (a problem not only limited to meat by the way). This seems less a result of poor availability of meat and more the result of attempts to drive the cost down. The argument that animals should not be eaten because of the pain and torture they suffer while being killed is a fallacy at best. Vegans assure themselves that since no identifiable pain receptors, or even basic nervous systems, have been found in plants they can't feel pain and thus suffer less than actual beings with brains, spinal cords, and pain receptors. In this way, the life of a cute doe-eyed cow is valued far above that of the smelly, dust-covered asparagus. Such close-minded dismissal of any organism regardless of genetic similarity is deplorable. Which brings me to fruitarians who use a deficient knowledge of the history of plant cultivation to justify their consumption. To them, the fact that the food they eat comes from hybridized, twisted abominations that only resemble their wild ancestors in the loosest of definitions never enters into the equation. In sum, nobody can claim innocence based on their food choice for we all kill and maim to eat. It is up to the individual to determine what level of massacre they can live with on their conscience and allow other individuals the right to choose differently. I'm going to stick with my corn-fed beef, foie gras, farm-raised shrimp, apples, carrots, etc. and sleep soundly at night knowing that I am the dominant predator, having subjugated all other organisms to my purposes, designs, and whims.
@JoeViturbo: What a sprawling, confused mess of an argument you've presented. You basically have two points that are interrelated, and both are fundamentally wrong based on the same principle. The first point, that all-vegetable diets are the privilege of the first world, is quite wrongheaded because it assumes that animals don't have to eat anything themselves. Let's say that you can feed 1 person with 1 cow. What that 1 cow eats in order to bulk up to feed that 1 person could feed several people. It's a completely inefficient system of agriculture. Why are there shortages of usable farm land? Because we waste so much edible food to feed "food animals." It would be far more cost-effective as a system to feed people with these vegetables that would otherwise go to cows and other "food animals." Your second point is wrong for the same reason. The argument that vegans are ruthlessly killing vegetables in greater numbers than omnivores is ridiculous, because the animals that omnivores are eating have had to eat so much plant-life themselves to grow to the point that humans will eat them. Cows are part of the food chain too, you know. It's simple math: fewer plants are consumed overall on a vegan diet than on an omnivorous diet. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the lower you eat on the food chain, the more environmentally and economically efficient your diet is. (Why do you think carbon footprint calculators ask you about your eating habits?) If you were actually concerned about the "pain and torture" inflicted upon innocent asparagus, you'd be vegan yourself. Based on your own argument and in your own words, to do otherwise would be "deplorable." (And as a side note, the "hybridized, twisted abominations" in vegetable agriculture are terrible, I agree, but at least they aren't sentient. "Food animals" today have been bred and modified such that turkeys and chickens can't even stand under the weight of their breasts. They can't reproduce naturally, because the males of the species are physically unable to mount the females. You want to talk about abominations…)
Let me start off by saying you people who endorse this film are absolute idiots! Sure I admire I grew up watching this film i loved the song at the beginning but as soon as I grew older I started thinking wait a very realistic cat being thrown off a waterfall there was no way to fake even that one point. i couldnt even watch all the deleted footage it made me sick seeing the cat trying desperatly to climb up the cliff.
Second obviously fear should be considered a harm to ones self. theres even quotes about how fear can be worse then death itself. Anticipation to bad events is usually just as bad as the event. like going for a needle your usually more freaked ou t about it then the actual shoot.
Thirdly ive been a vegetarian for almost 4 years and I can speak confidently to say that m such healthier. Plus vitamins and minerals come in almost everything a glass of freaking milk has 7g protein, dandelions have almost every kind of vitamin plus meats are pumped with steroids and hormones that make people go into early puberty and meats also take longer to digest because were no equiped carnivores have special enzymes used to break it up. Plus your an idiot if you think are incisors are like carnivores there much too thick and arent pointed enough to make a real incision there worn like plant grinding teeth and maybe a few hard shelled fruit and bugs. plus have you seen a chimps canine there huge for grinding plants and territory protection . take a biology class for pete sake. Also the slow digestion of meat as well as sugars makes you tired. Tofus like a dollar for a weeks supply and alot of veggies are cheap. also new studies suggest early humans didnt eat animal because there was no fire at the time and are stomach couldnt handle the bacteria(they can tell from the teeth on fossils/ thep ortein and certain grooves) drumrollll please……………………..because were not freakin carnivores or true omnivores. Lets not forget were not equiped to kill with no nails or sharp teeth or fast speed. I find it hard that we could kill too many animals with spears considering you to be fairly close to the animal and herbivores tend to runaway when the sense danger
My mother just bought the dvd version on my sond 3rd bday in june 2010. First time ive ever even heard of milo and otis, So i watch it with him and then i see the credits, all Japanese names? That did catch me weird. So after the 100th time of watching Milo and Otis i saw some strange things that i just knew they were hurting these poor animals, i havnt even looked on the web to see if there was any allegations. But one i looked that other people saw what i saw, even though it was a few years ago. it made me feel like i need to throw this dvd away. It hurts my heart to think for their own entertainment they would put an animal in harms way. UGh i really cant explain how emotional i am over this, watching the clip up there made me cry. F*cking Iditos.
I never actually watched this as a child so I never had the chance to appreciate it without realizing what was really going on.
I was absolutely disgusted beyond belief; first by what was happening to those poor animals but secondly by the fact that it's still being sold in Australia in this day and age.. or anywhere (except Asia of course – I doubt they'll ever progress past their terrible views on animal rights, heaven help the whales and the moon bears to only name a couple)
Despite what anyone thinks of this movie, whether they enjoyed it or whether it made them want to puke – I should hope that not one of them would take enjoyment out of throwing their own beloved pet off a cliff into the ocean or watching it get attacked by a bear or bitten by a snake while they simply sat back and taped it with dollar signs flashing in their greedy little eyes like the film makers of this grotesque movie.
The thought of standing back and being forced to watch my beautiful, innocent puppy get attacked by a bear breaks my heart. No animal should be forced into that situation just to entertain a few japs.
I hope those people and all film makers like them got what they had coming to them.
Thanks Dru, for putting all of my passion against this movie into the perfect words. x
@Sarah: OK, but I'd be careful about the racism! Remember that racism and speciesism are two of a kind…
Absolutely shocking.
There is NO EXCUSE for what the creators of the film did to the animals. Not even to make a convincing film.
grrrr.
Dru has it right, we don’t need meat for anything. I haven’t eaten it in over a decade and I feel fantastic.
Haha, you’re certainly not winning an award for intellect any time soon.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.