Alexander Cruz32 said:But they killed them specifically for the movie—those actors weren't exactly starving enough to need a turtle snack, and I bet it wasn't even their first choice on the menu while filming.
I don't think you quite get the "art" angle here—there's a massive difference between killing an animal and literally starving it to death, or, you know, breaking Beagles' bones like those creeps used to do at vet schools.
Most people know animal cruelty is a serious crime here in the States, so honestly, I don't see how anyone could find that okay.
Anyway, we drifted a little too far off-topic—let's get back to the main point.
They aren't, but maybe you should ask yourself what the actual message of this film is. If all you see is violence, then I guess there's nothing I can do to help you. 🤷
I don't think you really get the whole art thing here—it isn't the same thing as killing an animal versus starving it to death, or like those cases where they used to break bones of Beagles at vet schools.
Well, it isn't the same, but if it's serving the film and the message it's trying to send, I don't really have an issue with it. One chicken or a turtle being used for art doesn't bother me much. 😉
You probably know that animal cruelty is a felony in the US, so I honestly don't see how anyone could find that normal.
Anyway, we've gone a bit too far off-topic here—let's get back to the main point.
That's why special effects exist in movies. 🙂