Netflix Apologizes For Inappropriate “Puppies” Poster That Was Accused of Abusing Animals.

Netflix has backtracked and issued an apology Friday for its marketing of the upcoming release of the film “Puppies.”

“Puppies,” an award winning and universally acclaimed European film, highlights the horrific fates awaiting so many animals today at the hands of abusive people by subjecting stray puppies to a variety of tortures and levels of neglect. Though the film has generated a small outcry of bleeding hearts claiming that abusing real animals is no way to draw attention to the issue, the film has generated the rating 92% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, and was praised by critics for its unflinching look at the real effects of abuse.

Netflix began promoting the film earlier this month, releasing a poster which has since garnered heavy criticism for its imagery of small puppies in extreme distress. One Reddit user called it “sickening,” while another said, “Who da # thought this was ok?” Here’s the poster that caused the uproar:
(image of tortured puppies)

The film has already been released in Europe and has gained quite a following for its courage to show on film what others only talk about, and its handling of sensitive issues such as subjecting innocent living creatures to painful abuse for no reason. The Americanized poster differs greatly from the European, which shows a different scene from the film and depicts a more sanitized form of abuse.
(image of neglected puppies)

Netflix has since removed the poster from its site and apologized, reassuring us that the stills taken from the film “Puppies” were in no way representative of the actual film, which shows the neglect, abuse, and torture of puppies in a very artistic manner and is sympathetic to the animals’ cause.

The film is set to release on September 19.


Source:
deadline.com...

a reply to: zosimov
I see what you did there.

Writer-director Maïmouna Doucouré’s captivating but structurally shaky first feature is stronger on setup than development or payoff, becoming less controlled as its opposing forces of tradition and rebellion collide.’

These sick bastards sell it as opposing forces of tradition.

Wot about cuties?

oh wow that is wildly inappropriate .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Zosimov is trying to make a point here that went way over your head. I mean like, thin air way over your head.

A lot of people are more outraged about reading this about puppies than young girls being sexualized. I think that was his point, he might correct me.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: zosimov
I see what you did there.

Writer-director Maïmouna Doucouré’s captivating but structurally shaky first feature is stronger on setup than development or payoff, becoming less controlled as its opposing forces of tradition and rebellion collide.’

These sick bastards sell it as opposing forces of tradition.

It really boggles the mind.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

No you are right on point

Oh and anyone that hurt dogs.....

We are coming for you.

Sorry that I had to point it out that early and ruined the fake outrage.

You never cease to amaze me, Sir.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Zosimov is trying to make a point here that went way over your head. I mean like, thin air way over your head.

A lot of people are more outraged about reading this about puppies than young girls being sexualized. I think that was his point, he might correct me.

Mate I clicked the link , I meant the picture of the little girls was 'Inappropriate" .

I get the quip about puppies obviously I was not referring to that.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I love your post! Lots of people might comment anyway w/o reading comments. We'll see.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I should have put a warning on that link. I'm sorry.

It's pretty horrific, right? And all Netflix has to apologize about is the marketing. (facepalm)

a reply to: asabuvsobelow
In that case, I apologize!

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: asabuvsobelow
In that case, I apologize!

No need completely understandable.

a reply to: zosimov

So what I gather is that the Americanized poster is what's wrong and not the movie. Is that correct?

Should I watch the movie and not get the poster?

Or, should I get the poster through illicit means and skip watching the movie?

Oh, decisions, decisions!

---------------
I realize that I arrived late to viewing party. But couldn't help but contribute.
LOL.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: zosimov
Is that correct?

Looks like you got the gist! It's the poster, not the content, the way the content was created, or the ramifications of broadcasting said content to voyeurs (ahem viewers) everywhere. So watching the movie (on Netflix) is totally acceptable, according to Netflix.

a reply to: zosimov

I got to thinking about those notices on films: No animals were hurt during the filming of this movie.

I'm not sure, but it looks like that practice started in about 1987. latimes 1987Protecting Animals in Films : Humane Group Credited With Drastically Decreasing Cruelty. LATimes has a pay wall so if you haven't read an article from there recently, you should be able to read it.

But that applies to U.S. films, especially Hollywood films.

The '80s had some movies out, that yeah, don't want to mention the names. Controls were lax back then.

a reply to: pthena

Even though I "love" a good movie and have spent a lot of time engaged in various cinema, I'm beginning to think that the more egregious and wide-spread abuse in the film industry was of human beings. Both of the actors and the viewers (by numbing and shaping our psychology to be more receptive toward violations of our basic rights).

I'll fully admit I could be wrong there, but that's what I'm moving toward the more that comes out.

(I don't think for one second that abuse pervades all aspects of the film industry, but definitely enough to warrant some scrutiny.)

a reply to: zosimov

May I recommend Savannah Smiles (1982)

If you haven't seen it, and have some way to get ahold of it, watch it before reading about it.

I haven't seen it myself in thirty years. It took me quite a run through searches of associated key words just to come up with the title. My memory just isn't quite what it used to be.

I don't remember how many animals were mistreated in the making of the movie.

If you don't watch out, your thread may get bumped out of jokes.

Quick! Crack a joke!
LOL

a reply to: pthena

I didn't know where to post satire. LOL forum seemed as close as I could get!