Talk:The Adventures of Milo and Otis/Archive 1

Untitled
Dudley Moore isn't American. -Jadenguy

Animal cruelty
"The film is controversial in some circles for what is perceived to be animal cruelty in certain scenes." Can somebody elaborate on this? -Michael
 * I came to this page to read about the obvious animal cruelty in the film. It should be mentioned in the article. 207.172.187.187 (talk) 09:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Animal Cruelty...
It's incorrect as the article says presently that there were no computer effects in the 1980s to simulate dangerous situations. Perhaps the person who wrote that has heard of this film...its an independent one that is a bit obscure, called Star Wars, released in the 1970s, as in the previous decade, which made extensive use of computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.152.213 (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The effects in the original trilogy were done with models. They used computers I think for some editing and timing stuff, but the things you see on the screen are not computer effects. Besides, they can't make realistic looking cats and dogs even now, in the '80s it would have been totally impossible. 62.78.251.108 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Milo appears to have been thrown off of a cliff at one point. This may qualify as animal cruelty. It appears to be a real cat as it rights itself in an authentic way and then shakes off when it reaches the water with no cuts. It is highly unlikely that a cameraman just happened to be at the bottom of the cliff when the cat decided to jump/fall off.

The Director Masanori Hata, is said to be a zoologist and run an animal farm. though this doesnt disprove any evidance, it is more Unlikely a Zoologist would perform any type of Animal Cruelty.


 * If you look towards the end of the credits is says the "No animals were harmed in the making of this film...". And under special thanks it lists several animal organizations, so I can only assume that no animals were hurt during the making of the film. --HurricaneJeanne 05:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it actually says that the movie was filmed with the "utmost care" for the animals' safety... I don't think it actually claims animals were not hurt. Anyway, the animal cruelty seems to be a notable concern regarding this film, so we really should address it in the article. I'm not sure how to find any reputable sources on the matter, though. ~ Booya Bazooka 07:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article says "At one point a cat has obviously been thrown off a cliff into the ocean." Although this part is suspicious, I thought articles weren't supposed to be opinionated? Maybe it decided to jump to get away from the seagulls... The point is, we don't know that it was thrown. Unless you have proof? silverdaemonskye 04:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

An independent publication out of Vancouver called Cinema Sewer did an article on this film in the spring of 2007. You can clearly see one of the dogs being attacked by a bear and other things -- it's not just the "throwing off a cliff" deal. One thing Cinema Sewer points out is that the film does not include the boilerplate text "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." I watched the film based upon the article and I never even needed to get to the so-called cliff-throwing incident to see there are clearly sequences where the animal's well-being is in question. 68.146.8.46 15:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that allegations of animal abuse has no mention in this article whatsoever as of June 29 is annoying. Make this article acceptable, not a fluff piece. SashaNein 00:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The animals are clearly changed in the same scenes in this film. A few of the animals drowned in the torrent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.55.36 (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the movie was shot documentary-style, and then put together as an entertainment movie, instead of a documentary. Of course, 37 cats had to be used in the 4 years span of the filming, as the movie depicts a kitten, and so the lead actor had to be changed as a necessity. I do not see a problem with that. I also guess that the filming crew could have used editing techniques to make the actors seem in greater danger than they actually were - in a movie, we can only see what the camera shows, not what is around it. It's the basis of all filming, think of stunt-men... It's been over 20 years since the movie was filmed. If there is still no support to the allegations of animal cruelty, then the section should be removed from the page, as this is an encyclopaedia and should report proven fact, not rumours. 173.206.231.69 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

New "Treatment of animals" section
_ _ I haven't looked to see what what summaries accompanied the apparent complete removals of all previous coverage, as advocated above, in the accompanying article. But the last was the clueless
 * There are numerous scenes in the film that depict animals placed in positions of danger, most notably the instance in which Milo falls from a high cliff into the sea. Or when the bear falls from where Milo tries to make him fall, to the ground. These sequences do not appear to have been artificially created. Apparently this film was not monitored by the American Humane Association since their trademarked disclaimer that "no animals were harmed" in the making of the film is conspicuously absent in the end credits. Discussion on the IMDB page for this movie indicates a clear perception that animals were harmed.

_ _ Specifically, _ _ None of that rules out new coverage, but the history suggests close examination, which i am undertaking. --Jerzy•t 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "These sequences do not appear to have been" is explicitly an opinion.
 * 2) It didn't consider that overwhelming likelihood that the American HA doesn't (in  2008 let alone over 20 years ago), monitor movie making in Japan.
 * 3) IMDb discussions are blogs, and thus not valid WP sources.

As to the most recent incarnation, and its incompetently coded refs to two sources not presently available on the Web: --Jerzy•t 19:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Rumors persist" does not belong in a WP article. Rumors persist by their nature, in the absence of such credible threats of litigation over their repetition as were necessary to extinguish the Ivory Soap/satanist myth.
 * 2) The unconfident intro
 * The Economist referenced vaguely that there was some concern
 * and the double citation (It seems odd if the editor has seen the undated Star-Tribune article, and that it give the date for the Economist article. What was the basis for the editor's citation of that wording?) give little confidence, and The Cultural Gutter, unpretentious and unmentioned in WP is the only G-Hit, outside the accompanying article, on
 * "Chatran's life is full of trials and tribulations"
 * No reliable source.
 * 1) "An overview by the American Humane Association, now dead linked" should not be used as a source in any case; its disappearance from Wayback compounds this; IMO the dead lk creates a presumption of the AHA disavowing its earlier statements, in the absence of some kind of current evidence to the contrary.
 * Oh, there's nothing left worth keeping.
 * You're right on most of your points, I clumsily cited the Economist article, I didn't cite the rumor mills on the IMDB though as other folks did, Wikipedia requires hard sources of course.

However, the article should mention that there were concerns when the film was first released; what's interesting about the AHA's subsequent wishy-washy response was that the AHA's seal of approval was used as a defense at the time. I'm not sure why it was removed from their site though. A quick search of LexisNexis reveals that several Australian animal rights groups protested the movie when it was first released. The Sunday Mail (Brisbane) published this on April 15, 1990:

"An animal welfare group has called for a boycott on a popular children's film because of alleged horrific cruelty to animals used in the movie. Animal Liberation has asked the public to stay away from The Adventures of Milo and Otis to show their disgust at the reported killing of more than 20 kittens during production.

The group's president, Ms Jacqui Kent, said she was disturbed by reports from Europe which alleged other animals had been injured and, in one case, the producer had broken a cat's paw to make it appear unsteady on its feet. [...] Ms Kent said her organisation had a number of complaints from people who had seen the film and were concerned that it could not have been made without cruelty.

Animal Liberation is waiting on more detailed reports, but Ms Kent said she had been told Japanese and European animal welfare groups had protested about the film and in some parts of Europe it had lost money because of bad publicity.

Ms Kent said parents should be made aware that sensitive children could be upset by scenes in the film, and could even try to make their pets perform the feats they saw in the movie.

The film has the approval of the American Humane Society, but their officers were not present during filming. [...] A publicist for the distributors, Roadshow-Great Union, Ms Bronte Mullen, said the film had been approved by the American Humane Society so they had ""no qualms" about showing it.

She said the Japanese director, Hata, was a trained zoologist and animal lover who had his own zoo."

The Hobart Mercury reported additional concerns on September 18, 1990: "The children's film The Adventures of Milo and Otis about a kitten and a puppy which help each other survive in the wild has raised the ire of the Tasmanian and Victorian branches of the RSPCA.

The Victorian branch is concerned about movie-industry reports that several cats were killed during filming, with possibly up to 26 kittens dying.

It is believed a scene which showed a kitten in a box going over a waterfall resulted in the most fatalities.

The Japanese-made movie screened across Australia earlier this year had a return season in Tasmania during recent school holidays.

The president of the southern Tasmanian division of the RSPCA, Mr Peter Long, said yesterday he shared the disgust of the Victorian branch at the reported deaths.

"I will be writing to the RSPCA's national president, Mr Charles Wright, to register my concern and insist that further investigations are made," he said.

"Claims of cruelty during filming first came to the attention of the Victorian RSPCA about seven months ago but it did not want to act immediately because it could have given the movie further promotion.

"At this stage we haven't confirmed the cat deaths in Milo and Otis," he said."

Scouring the archives, the concerns appear to have never been settled. There never has been a journalist to seek out the director and ask him about specific details of the filming, which published reports indicate were of a seemingly personal nature. The Advertiser (Adelaide) notes this:

"The film's originator, Hata, or Mutsugoro (as he is known to his millions of fans), lives with almost 300 animals on a large property at Hokaido, Japan's northern-most island.

His film was shot in and around this property and more than 40 dogs and cats at various growth stages were used to portray Milo and Otis."

It's such an unusual movie (all animals, no humans), that I'm surprised nobody ever researched the filming at a greater length.--The lorax (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So let me see if I follow:
 * Australian animal rights activists' opinions are horseshit
 * Australian animal rights activists' opinions are inconsequential
 * It's not important if a famous children's movie did or did not kill animals during production
 * Your assessment of the importance of a topic is identical to its actual importance, regardless of your personal knowledge about the topic
 * Any random Australian will completely agree with your sweeping and juvenile generalisation about Australian politics
 * The Australian film classification board are fascists
 * The opinions of Australian hippies are not valid even if reliably cited in credible sources
 * Is that an accurate summary of your contribution to this discussion page about Milo and Otis? 121.45.196.125 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, calm down. Yes, what they said was inflammatory, but don't stoop to their level and get up in arms over it, especially when it appears it was a drive-by message. Don't worry about their opinion anyway. The sources are perfectly reliable and have been sourcing the section in the article for some time now and will continue to do so for a while to come. --132 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've issued you a warning for your continued personal attacks. Continuing to attack other editors will result in a block. --132 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad Picture
Very bad picture. It's a blow up of a picture that didn't have very good resolution to begin with. I'd suggest that someone replaces it. Kevin 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For completeness, discuss the animal cruelty allegations
I think someone needs to provide a discussion about the allegations and (if any) resolutions. This talk page seems to include some useful quotes--why not move these onto the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.196.175 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, these allegations are nothing more than rumours, which have no place in an encyclopaedia. If they can't be supported, the entry should be deleted. As a background, I found this video about the director: http://tokyo5.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/mutsugorou/ .His first job was as a documentarist. 173.206.231.69 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Animals starring in film
This description didn't really say so, but it sounds like there wasn't one cat and one dog that starred in this film. Did they you multiple animals for each part? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)