Yeah, that aspect of the movie (well, at least the book) is sad, but it’s really about the reincarnations, not the deaths. And it’s not like the deaths are from torture, lol. When people are reincarnated, we know that it’s because they die! I really do get it—I am a crazy dog lady, so this kind of thing makes me…

Yeah, the complaints seem a bit hypersensitive to me. Would people also be up in arms over a movie exploring one person’s past lives, since by virtue of the subject being reincarnation, the past incarnations would have also died? Even if they lived to a ripe old age?

Oh cool, my dog is gonna live forever too!

Well. . . considering people think electoshocking dogs into doing *this* is amusing. . .

It’s silly because a dog would never be reincarnated, they’re perfect beings already.

Lol, it’s actually not, at least, the book version isn’t like that at all.

I feel stupid now. I always thought the rules surrounding film animals, specifically companion animals, were very tight, and that these people loved them and took care of them.

Maybe he meant that the video above was a sort of “teaser” for the movie? Maybe? That seems generous.

I was thinking that too. It makes no sense in this context and I can’t figure out what he meant by it.

It’s based on a very touching book where a dog keeps getting reincarnated to fulfill his purpose. Sad, but also touching and inspiring. The focus is on the reincarnation and how he helps the humans who lives with, not on the deaths, most of which are after a natural lifespan.

If Mel Gibson (yes, him) could use 100% robotics and computer imagery for the battle horses in Braveheart, they can certainly work around this.

Google can’t find any definition of “amuse-bouche” that isn’t an appetizer and I can’t figure out what it means here from the context, can somebody help me out here?

It looks like a reincarnation type thing, like the dog’s dog-soul lives in different bodies and dies.