"The Grey"

[Lace Neil Singer]

Great Whites don't actually single humans out for snack time; it's just cuz humans dress up like seals (wetsuits) and turtles (surfboards) which means that the poor old shark just can't tell the difference til it takes a bite and realises that the nice juicy seal it wanted to eat is just a disgusting human dressed up in rubber. XD

[BlaqueKatt]

And who are you to say that sharks aren't cuddly?

they always look so happy.....

though I prefer the Humbolt squid....8 tentacles and two arms to hug with....and they've gotten a very undeserved reputation as well....

[Boozy]

I think what this comes down to is that the OP and others like wolves and think they're neat.

The argument is basically that killing and eating cows and chickens is no big deal, because those are uninteresting domesticated animals, but killing and eating wolves is bad because wolves are totally cool.

I love dogs, think wolves are awesome, would never in a million years eat dog or wolf meat -- and I'm not a vegetarian. I recognize this as a morally indefensible and hypocritical stance (if not an uncommon one), so I have the sense to lay low and say little about those who choose to eat animals I think are fluffy and cute.

[draggar]

I think what this comes down to is that the OP and others like wolves and think they're neat.

The argument is basically that killing and eating cows and chickens is no big deal, because those are uninteresting domesticated animals, but killing and eating wolves is bad because wolves are totally cool.

I love dogs, think wolves are awesome, would never in a million years eat dog or wolf meat -- and I'm not a vegetarian. I recognize this as a morally indefensible and hypocritical stance (if not an uncommon one), so I have the sense to lay low and say little about those who choose to eat animals I think are fluffy and cute.

You have it all wrong. I don't have an issue with people killing wolves and eating them (but personally I think it is disgusting) but the fact that it was one in the name of entertainment. Survival is one thing and I don't have an issue with slaughtering animals if it is done humanely.

Funny how now all these articles are reports are coming out that "Oh no! We had someone supply trained wolves for the movie! But the wolf was "frozen" in someone's freezer!". Now, before people say "well, people eat wolf all the time" let me ask you - would the cast have eaten wolf if it was bears attacking them? How about rabid and radioactive seals? They ate wolf for the movie - hence they did it for the movie (and I don't believe these "well, it was someone who shot the wolf in protection of their cattle and stored the meat in their freezer" claims either, that's quite coincidental).

They admitted they hired a trapper to trap four wolves for the movie. You don't "trap" domestic and trained animals - you trap wild animals. Also, if they did use trained animals how come there are no credits for an animal trainer, handler, or wrangler on the set?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1601913/fullcredits#cast

With all the controversy going on they knew that there would be outcry over this so why wasn't the Human Society present to verify that the animals were treated well? Why not cover your rear end and gain some more positive publicity?

http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/reviews/

How come there are no claims (authorized or not) of "no animals were harmed in this film"?

The people involved with this film seem to have no respect for wolves (or wildlife in general?) - their publicist actually asked if they could use OR-7 (a.k.a. Journey - the lone wolf who is the first in CA in over 40 years) for their premier. Seriously? You want to capture a wild animal and bring it to the premier?

The New York Post was also going to print an article about The Grey and comparing it to how wolves would really act yet it was pulled due to pressure. That's right - the press believes fantasy is more realistic than fact.

You think it is not political? Even with reviews like this:

He is a marksman for the oil company. His job is to shoot wolves. When I learned of Sarah Palin hunting wolves from a helicopter, my sensibilities were tested, but after this film, I was prepared to call in more helicopters.

http://www.rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs....WS%2F120129984

Now we have people like Roger Ebert calling for more wolf kills because of the film. Sure, it's not propaganda!

[AdminAssistant]

It's a popcorn movie. Liam Neeson and Anonymous guys crash land in Arctic, must survive cold, injury, and, oh yeah, wolves. Let's see who survives! I'm sure that Ebert was responding to the fear that the film instilled in him. If it had been bears or sharks or spiders or rampaging armadillos it would have been the same reaction.

BlaqueKatt has given you the name of the trainer, as reported in numerous articles. Just because it's not on IMDB doesn't really mean anything. IMDB isn't always accurate, especially when it comes to crew listings.

Fiance really wants to see this movie (he's a big Liam Neeson fan), so if we see it, I'll let you know what I think.

[Ginger Tea]

would the cast have eaten wolf if it was bears attacking them?

I don't know if you meant to say eat bear if it was a bear attacking them.
Eating a wolf for shits and giggles in the catering van during any movie isn't really the done thing.
I don't know the context of the meal, was it a scene or did they think "waste not want not"? hence my original analogy of the chicken meal, you wouldn't really let the chicken loose after the director said cut and serve up a supermarket one would you?
Well actually some might, depends on who has to prepare it first.

And also was it the frozen 'prop' wolf, it was already dead and would be a case of waste not want not for those wishing to experiment.
Hell they serve swan for the big wigs at the uni, I'd rather eat the Dean's baby than a swan, but thats just me.

Chicken and Turkey is good eating, Swan's are NOT for eating in my bird cook book.

[Seifer]

Somehow I find it really hard to believe that Hollywood, in all it's lawsuit-fearing glory, would put paid actors in danger by:

1. Trapping WILD FUCKING WOLVES and then having the actors interact with them.
2. Feed paid actors meat from a wild wolf. Did it have rabies? Was it diseased? What if it had parasites or worms?

I'm going to take any information from a conservation site with a grain of salt. PETA has already proven that people will spout off as much bullshit as possible if it furthers their agenda.

[BlaqueKatt]

Funny how now all these articles are reports are coming out that "Oh no! We had someone supply trained wolves for the movie! But the wolf was "frozen" in someone's freezer!".

Funny how you link is dated Jan 22nd 2012, and the ones I provided are both dated Jan 17th 2012, and the training footage I found is from August 1st 2011, but they all came out "after" the allegations? How exactly does that timeline work? or is it some "mega conspiracy" between totally unrelated websites?

How come there are no claims (authorized or not) of "no animals were harmed in this film"?

those are only in the final credits of the film, as well as the humane society reps that are on set. IMDB doesn't list animal wranglers/trainers for many films that use animals(and many films don't have the entire crew listed), that is by no means "proof" they didn't have any, and yup I found the name of the trainer, his company, AND TRAINING FOOTAGE, of the animals used in the film, and nothing anywhere(except in your very biased link*) about them paying a trapper to trap wolves for them.

so this

They admitted they hired a trapper to trap four wolves for the movie. You don't "trap" domestic and trained animals - you trap wild animals.

is an outright fabrication unless you can find a credible source, as to who this mysterious "they" is, because again I can find ZERO corroboration for this. I did find that they contacted a trapper to supply four wolf carcasses, not any live animals, and none trapped specifically for the movie. Hint hunters and trappers routinely keep kills frozen for various reasons, I had my first deer in a freezer, intact save for organs, for a few months waiting to be processed. A friend had several animals frozen waiting for a taxidermist.

*a group that lists it's purpose as, "to return the wolf to it's historical range", um that would involve wiping out all of north American civilization....and they support "the humane society of the united states", which is run by PETA, and does not run a single shelter but collects money under the confusion it's name causes......

[Skunkle]

Draggar has his stats correct as far as the exaggeration of wolves' impact on livestock and cattle ranchers. It is, in my opinion, unquestionably an overstatement. Culling bothers me. But the "shooting wolves from helicopters" crap is akin to shooting fish in a barrel. Wolves don't attack humans unless they're desperate, either - they avoid us. But take an area with wolf packs in it, turn it all into houses and strip malls, and you're going to get a few wolves/coyotes/bobcats etc. sneaking in to nab a dog or cat.

If they ate a wolf that someone had trapped and had stuck in a freezer, fine. I wouldn't do it, but fine. They trapped some wild wolves and then killed a couple? Fuck. That. It does sound as though their claims that they had someone watching on-site is nothing but an attempt at damage control, i.e. covering their butts.

One more thing...
"Trained wolves"? Anyone mentions that phrase with seriousness - call bullshit. My father works for Wolf Haven, which is a refuge/home for wolves and wolf-fogs that can't be released into the wild for various reasons. Wolves cannot be trained. Period. There are ways, if someone is really firm and uses rewards of food, to get a wolf to perform some basics such as running from point A to point B. Anything else is as possible as the proverbial herding cats. There's a good reason why you see (marginally) trained bears or big cats in circuses, but never trained wolves - because it simply doesn't work.

[Canarr]

I'd rather barbarically skin and tourture a human than have to harm a dog unless it was a real life or death for me.

I find that deeply disturbing. You have a very, very twisted sense of priority.

[Ginger Tea]

Well as the quote was about my oppinions on dog soldiers and the dog shooting scene, next time im on an army exercise and killing a dog to keep it silent seems fair game, well killing a fellow squaddie on the opposite team to stop them doing the same sounds good to me.

Note, I'm not in the army and the guy in the movie was a dick, if I was the guy who flunked cos he didn't kill a dog, well it's cos the dog was no real threat as he was not in fear of his life.
Killing a dog to pass an exam, I hope it was just the writers who think that way and not the army and SAS type training missions.

In the movie all the dog was doing was barking at him, if it was mauling him and he had to shoot it in the head to stop it biting down, then I would be sad for the loss of the dog, but understanding of the situation.

"you failed the exam, this is what you should have done." blam shoots dog dead.
The exercise was over, the dick shot the dog for no good reason.
me not to self, lethal force on human as they might shout out "Sarge he's over here."

Note you didn't bring up the Dean's baby over Swan

[draggar]

I don't know if you meant to say eat bear if it was a bear attacking them.
Eating a wolf for shits and giggles in the catering van during any movie isn't really the done thing.
I don't know the context of the meal, was it a scene or did they think "waste not want not"? hence my original analogy of the chicken meal, you wouldn't really let the chicken loose after the director said cut and serve up a supermarket one would you?
Well actually some might, depends on who has to prepare it first.

And also was it the frozen 'prop' wolf, it was already dead and would be a case of waste not want not for those wishing to experiment.
Hell they serve swan for the big wigs at the uni, I'd rather eat the Dean's baby than a swan, but thats just me.

Chicken and Turkey is good eating, Swan's are NOT for eating in my bird cook book.

Look atmost articles on them eating the wolf - they ate it to "get into character" (or similar).

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Meth...303/story.html

The trapper supplied four wolf carcasses for the film - I don't know much about trapping but I am pretty sure they don't let the carcass hang around. He also stated he's never eaten wolf so my question is why would he have wolf meat in his freezer? He didn't mention any use for it. I don't know about anyone else but I don't keep things in my fridge or freezer unless it is food for humans or our pets. The trapper didn't mention either. He just happened to have 4 carcasses?

Funny how you link is dated Jan 22nd 2012, and the ones I provided are both dated Jan 17th 2012, and the training footage I found is from August 1st 2011, but they all came out "after" the allegations? How exactly does that timeline work? or is it some "mega conspiracy" between totally unrelated websites?

The YouTube video has no mention of the movie, just "a movie". It could be one still in production. It could be an old video that was just posted recently. The one I linked is from a response they received from the production staff (as well as a pre-release copy of the movie).

As for the allegations - they've been going on for a while now, I remember first hearing about it back in November.

those are only in the final credits of the film, as well as the humane society reps that are on set. IMDB doesn't list animal wranglers/trainers for many films that use animals(and many films don't have the entire crew listed), that is by no means "proof" they didn't have any, and yup I found the name of the trainer, his company, AND TRAINING FOOTAGE, of the animals used in the film, and nothing anywhere(except in your very biased link*) about them paying a trapper to trap wolves for them.

See the link above - or is "The Providence" also very biased? As for the Humane Society - I am waiting to hear back form them but there is no mention of the film on their site. I love it when something supports one side it's "factual" and if it supports an opposing side it's "fabricated" and "biased".

is an outright fabrication unless you can find a credible source, as to who this mysterious "they" is, because again I can find ZERO corroboration for this. I did find that they contacted a trapper to supply four wolf carcasses, not any live animals, and none trapped specifically for the movie. Hint hunters and trappers routinely keep kills frozen for various reasons, I had my first deer in a freezer, intact save for organs, for a few months waiting to be processed. A friend had several animals frozen waiting for a taxidermist.

Are these people professional hunters (meaning that is their job?) or just recreational (as in "I'll go out and hunt this weekend")? The person they hired is a professional trapper, which insinuates he does this as his job. Why would he keep these animals around if he has a steady supply of them though his job?

*a group that lists it's purpose as, "to return the wolf to it's historical range", um that would involve wiping out all of north American civilization....and they support "the humane society of the united states", which is run by PETA, and does not run a single shelter but collects money under the confusion it's name causes......

I love it when people take everything that is said as "wiping out all of (insert geographic area) civilization". Statements like that usually are said in defense of the wolf killing that's going on. As for "supporting" the HSUS - how is having a link on their resources and links page support? Despite who they're run by, there is a lot of information on the site about humane treatment of animals as well as news.

Somehow I find it really hard to believe that Hollywood, in all it's lawsuit-fearing glory, would put paid actors in danger by:

1. Trapping WILD FUCKING WOLVES and then having the actors interact with them.
2. Feed paid actors meat from a wild wolf. Did it have rabies? Was it diseased? What if it had parasites or worms?

Yes, things like this have never been addressed before.

http://www.goodnewsforpets.com/Articles.asp?ID=824

Nope, never.

As for if it was diseased - how much "diseased" meat is sitting on the grocery store shelf? How much "diseased" meat to hunters eat from their kills? How much "diseased" meat is fed to animals?

[Canarr]

Note you didn't bring up the Dean's baby over Swan

Hadn't read that far when I posted, actually. Still, after "barbarically skinning and torturing a human" to avoid harming a dog, I guess wanting to eat a baby instead of a swan just didn't surprise me anymore.

Haven't seen the movie you referenced, but to my knowledge, armed forces generelly don't expect you to kill animals as part of a training exercise - if only for the reason that guard dogs cost money.

But, even if they did: that quote still makes you look pretty sick, in my eyes.

[BlaqueKatt]

One more thing...
"Trained wolves"? Anyone mentions that phrase with seriousness - call bullshit.

oh look trained wolves that have been in various movies, but they don't exist...

[draggar]

oh look trained wolves that have been in various movies, but they don't exist...

Yep. True Blood, Twilight, Once Upon a Time (the episode "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter"), and the Day After Tomorrow all used trained wolves. Even Two Socks in the movie "dances With Wolves" was a real wolf.

Real wolves are used quite often in TV and movies.