It really wasn't. Right after, he tried talking to the mannequin(which was stupid), then he went crazy and tried to kill the zombie things. It was like the directors did not want you to have to be upset too long, because it got right back to action. The movie got really stupid after the dog died too. The dog in the book died, but it wasn't his to begin with. That dog was used well to show his boredom. You've heard of cheap laughs, this was a cheap cry by a crappy screenwriter.
We will have to agree to disagree then. Neville's psyche was hanging by a mere thread, and that thread that was keeping him together happened to be Sam. In essence, he lost one of the very few things he was living for. Without Sam, he just doesn't care anymore and goes off on his suicide mission at the docks. Without Sam's death, he just goes about his daily routine for the next 10 years.
Yeah, either you totally misunderstood what was happening, or you're letting your anger over the movie death of a dog cloud your mind. I love dogs too, man; but I'm gonna have to disagree with you completely here. In fact, the mannequin scene pretty much proves that they didn't want you to go 'right back into the action'.
let me get this straight...you would rather see Will Smith get eaten by some zombie dog than Will strangling him?
I think that society as a while would benefit from one less actor, don't you think? the zombie dog, I can deal with.
Forget the lives of people lost Lets get incensed about dogs though Smells like a PETA article to me.
Again, may I ask what society do you live in. I have no problem with the movie and have no attitude here. I'm just curious when people make these statements. I've been part of many different societies and American dog loving society really isn't that out of wack compared to the societies I've lived in. Dogs serve different purposes in different societies, and in the US, most of them are domesticated companions. If you compare that to other societies where dogs serve the same purpose, then the US is just right in the middle of things. Now is the argument then that dogs shouldn't be valued as companions, but rather as just workers or something? Because in that sense, other societies that have dogs like that value them very much also, but just in a different way. I'm just wondering what other society where dogs are mainly pets value dogs much less than America. Kwame and everyone else who quotes him...I have no problem with that opinion, but am wondering what is it based on...do you have experience in other societies where dogs as companions and pets are valued less and why is that better?
^The first thing that came to mind are those fringe animal activists who use threats and violence against animal cruelty. But lately there are boutique shops targeted for the middle class to spend lavishly on their pets. Gucci dog bags (not a middle class price, but that doesn't stop people...), gourmet pet food, pet spas, etc... Other countries probably have their own outlets, but I think most people will find our fixation unique.
Those are good points. I'm not a big fan of them either (because I think it's a waste of money...many cheaper options for dog clothes online and my chi needs it because he's out of his element up here in the cold). But...I know there are dog boutiques in France, The UK, Italy...pretty much all over Europe, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were in Japan too. So, a bigger question is, is it American society that has gone too far or the entire 1st World that "values dogs too much"? (in the companion sense)
