If there’s a fish tank in a movie or novel you just KNOW what’s going to happen...
If there’s a fish tank in a movie or novel you just KNOW what’s going to happen...
The bad guys blast it to pieces, of course.
So why was I suckered into thinking it wasn’t going to happen in the novel I just finished reading? Because I really truly thought the author was heading toward some (probably sappy) morally uplifting life lesson for one of the secondary characters.
But no. The bad guys blasted the fish tank to pieces! And killed all the fish! And they were clownfish! They murdered Nemo!!!
So here’s my plea to screenwriters and other writers who might feel tempted to blow up fish tanks to make a dramatic point: Resist the temptation. It’s been done. And done. And done.
The bad guys blast it to pieces, of course.
So why was I suckered into thinking it wasn’t going to happen in the novel I just finished reading? Because I really truly thought the author was heading toward some (probably sappy) morally uplifting life lesson for one of the secondary characters.
But no. The bad guys blasted the fish tank to pieces! And killed all the fish! And they were clownfish! They murdered Nemo!!!
So here’s my plea to screenwriters and other writers who might feel tempted to blow up fish tanks to make a dramatic point: Resist the temptation. It’s been done. And done. And done.
Isn't that the truth! And yes, cats = women; and scaring cats = terrorizing women. You're right, it's *never* a puppy.
I can watch a movie or read a book with a huge (human) body count and it all stays safely in the world of make believe for me, but I draw the line at hurting animals. I somehow can't maintain my fictional distance when they hurt animals in movies or books.
To me, it's a matter of dependence. I wonder what the results would be if anyone did a study comparing how people feeling about violence against small pet animals to violence against babies and toddlers? I'd guess there would be a much more equalized outraged reaction. But when it comes to our pets, who also function as surrogate children (and I'm much happier with my cats than I would be with babies!) if we compare violence against them to violence against adult human beings, yes, quite often there's far more sympathy for the animals. The pets are in our care; they're (mostly) smaller than us; have fewer defenses; are our responsibility; whereas, as you say, humans can fend for themselves.
I think the equation changes slightly when it comes to wild animals. I suspect there's far more sympathy to smaller animals, and less so for larger animals and animals that some people consider prey (ex. deer), just as there is less sympathy for the abuse and deaths of domesticated chickens, cows, pigs, etc.
Hmm, all kinds of permutations. If a grizzly bear was about to eat a baby and someone shot the grizzly, I'd bet some, maybe most animal lovers wouldn't have all that much sympathy for the grizzly. (Of course then there'd be the question of the responsibility of whichever adult allowed a child to be endangered by a grizzly.)
And of course with our weaponry we can kill even the most dangerous carnivore unless we're being really stupid. So my sympathy remains with those animals.
I'm wondering if the people who have more sympathy for animals than for humans are simply showing more empathy for the powerless. Let the psychology prof think about that one for awhile. It's not as simple as he thinks. :-)
And yeah, you're right, if there's a fish tank, you know it's going to be blown up or crashed into (or in the case of Homicide, someone will try to have the evidence eaten lol)
You bastards.
The scene took place in the book "Star Trek Academy: Collision Course" by William Shatner et al......