The Hangover Part II

[yoco]

Release Date: May 26, 2011
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Todd Phillips
Screenwriter: Scot Armstrong, Todd Phillips, Craig Mazin
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Jeffrey Tambor, Mike Tyson, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Liam Neeson, Bryan Callen
Genre: Comedy
MPAA Rating: Not Available

In the follow-up to the record-breaking hit comedy "The Hangover," Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to exotic Thailand for Stu's wedding. After the unforgettable bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu is taking no chances and has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. However, things don't always go as planned. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in Bangkok can't even be imagined.

[SealLion]

Going to Thailand, are we??
I suppose that the producer purposefully left out the fact of the high rate of sex tourism there.

What's with the monkey by-the-way??
Aren't there enough endangered species of animals throughout the world that the producer has to have a small monkey walking with them in the trailer??

You know, such an image might help produce the 'cute' factor but the reality is that there are countless animals that are taken from the wild and tamed for entertainment. I realize that this is what circus's are for; however, not many people are aware of the physical abuse that animals suffer behind the circus-curtains.
Countless hours are spent trying to train the animal, yet countless times is the animal frequently beaten into submission and such physical abuse has always been the method for training a circus animal.

Is this ethical??
Don't try to convince me it is.

Apparently, there is documented use of electric shocking prods, whips as well, sharp hooks, and other similar instruments that are used to train animals into submission and perform as per human entertainment desires.

Here's an example of animal abuse which, which if we were to use the monkey in the trailer footage as an example, may provide an example of the type of abuse it might have suffered:

.....during an undercover investigation of Carson & Barnes Circus, video footage was captured showing animal care director Tim Frisco training endangered Asian elephants with electrical shock prods and instructing other trainers to "beat the elephants with a bullhook as hard as they could and to sink the sharp metal bullhook into the animals' flesh and twist it until they screamed in pain."

Here's the link for that from Wikipedia:

Circus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't personally like Wikipedia, but most people seem to think it's acceptable for some reason even though there's no peer-review of any articles there. Nevertheless, there is some interesting reading there though. Enjoy

Personally, I disagree with such things and I think most people with an ethical background might argue the same.

So the question might be, did the monkey in the movie also suffer from a form or abuse to behave 'cute'. I.e. run about all over someone's back, head, play tricks, walk, play with the person, look at a person in a 'cute' way, etc...etc...
I think one might get the idea.

Abusing an animal is not much different than abusing a person. Yes, there's many different types of abuse that people suffer such as economical, sexual, and psychological abuse and what-not. But my main theme is on physical abuse. Physical abuse of animals.

Animals in circus's are known to suffer forms of depression. This is a common occurrence. I'll elaborate on that further on below.

How would you feel if you were locked up behind a 10 X10 cage 8 days a week, 12 1/2 months of the year?? Conditions at some circus's are woefully inadequate for healthy living of the animal. Some of the conditions I'll bet are indignified, though I do believe that there are improvements on caging conditions. I do realize that there are many zoos, for example, that do make improvements to the caging system so that the habitat is of a more nature design and akin to the animals habitat. Good for them, I would say. However, what about other zoos around the world??

It's not just some zoos that I'd question, but it's circus's that use animals is the main theme of my discussion.


The reason why animals are known to suffer depression when caged are many and varied.

Having an animal run about the street like in the trailer is another thing. I realize might be a common thing in near-east or southern-Asian countries; however, think of the implications on this behavior. The animal could suddenly attack another person for some unknown reason. Elephants in the custody of their handlers all day are known to suddenly have violent outbursts against their handlers. This been documented and I"m no expert so I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that it might be because of the abuse that the elephant suffers when being beaten / whipped / slapped on the trunk, rump, nose/face, by it's trainer/owner.
Not a very nice thing, is it??
How would any other person react when having similar behavior intended towards them??

by the way, about animals running about the streets and then possibly injuring other people is also documented. Apparently, a very famous incident is described below:

.....an elephant named Janet (1965 – February 1, 1992) went berserk while giving a ride to a mother and five children. The elephant then stampeded through the circus grounds outside before being shot to death by police....

So now take the monkey in question inside the movie trailer. How would people react if all of a sudden that same monkey bit or attacked a small child ( God forbid that should happen) in the country that it is in. Would the animal suffer to be euthanized
all because it was 'cute' to have an animal run about the streets all dressed up in people's clothing??

I wonder if the producer of this film thought about the idea that when someone sees such an animal running about all dressed up in human clothing to produce the 'cute' factor actually might have inappropriate behavioral responses. I don't know what effects could result, but I'm gonna guess that there might be some negative effects to seeing such things.

Anyways, that's my thoughts and opinion on the matter. Thanks for the trailer, yoco

[slikrapid]

@SealLion:

What's with the monkey by-the-way??

the monkey leads, the less intelligent ones follow?
a tiger appeared in the first part, now its monkey-business time

Apparently, there is documented use of electric shocking prods, whips as well, sharp hooks, and other similar instruments that are used to train animals into submission and perform as per human entertainment desires.

indeed, due to the circus position (not enough time to train the animals, income issues, expected results, extreme acts) the personnel is likely to be tempted to use more extreme methods for training, ie. abuse the animals (more) as well as their own bodies

as for the training of animals itself, it is a common practice, be it for assistance/work, entertainment or domestication as pets or food/products - it may not be too 'humane', but its a reality and perhaps could be performed in a more sensitive way regarding the animals

I don't personally like Wikipedia, but most people seem to think it's acceptable for some reason even though there's no peer-review of any articles there.

its good enough for a general overview and regarding non-controversial topics, it is also mainstream and not too in-depth - so if any subject falls outside of these categories its advisable to look elsewhere

peer-review is not a guarantee for accuracy or validity (thus, among other reasons, neither is science), actually some say it has become a guarantee for supporting established mainstream-science theories (whose supporters head the review boards, an example for conflict of interests) and rejecting/hindering/downplaying unwanted ones (or ad hominem, as in persona non grata) throughout many/all scientific fields

Abusing an animal is not much different than abusing a person.

maybe its a side-effect that comes with their position in nature (in addition to the human 'culture of abuse'), since they are on a lower level of existence it is natural that they will occupy a subordinate position regarding beings of a higher level (humans), which means that if anyone is 'in control' it would likely be the one on the higher level - this doesn't mean that humans should feel guilty for using the animals or plants or any other matter, for that matter, but they might show more respect towards them (as fi. native american people did) and try not to be too abusive as a conscious effort (though not in a self-flattering egoistic way, but because of appreciating other forms of existence, regardless of their level) - ofc this doesn't mean one should go into extreme 'tree-hugging' mode either

I do realize that there are many zoos, for example, that do make improvements to the caging system so that the habitat is of a more nature design and akin to the animals habitat.

thats just to appease animal rights activists and the collective 'guilty conscience' - the animals are not stupid, they realize their confinement (depression) and no piece of homeland dirt or rock (or design) will change that, its just cosmetics

The animal could suddenly attack another person for some unknown reason. Elephants in the custody of their handlers all day are known to suddenly have violent outbursts against their handlers.

its an 'occupational hazard' (or risk when dealing with animals), since it rarely occurs (or rarely has significant consequences) it can be neglected - generally animals attack when sensing a danger, protecting their offspring, when sufficiently irritated and so on, it is usually caused by some external disturbance/factor

How would people react if all of a sudden that same monkey bit or attacked a small child

well, the same can and has happened multiple times even with the so-called domesticated animals, fi. dogs, would you argue that because of these incidents these animals should be restrained or kept 'out of the streets' in general or maybe even to advocate prohibition of holding animals of any kind in confinement/possession?

generally, incidents will keep on happening and quite frankly it would be strange if they didn't, but as long as their number is relatively small it may be regarded as tolerable, ie. nothing to worry about

[shawshankraj]

[yoco]

I love the first part. Gonna watch this one to of course, although I doubt it can be better!

[hellman]

loved the 1st but m gettin a funny feeling its gonna b a flop :-\

[yoco]

So I finally watched this movie. It has a few good laughs, but overall it can't even compare to first one. Kinda disappointed.

6/10

[ParamouR]

So I finally watched this movie. It has a few good laughs, but overall it can't even compare to first one. Kinda disappointed.

6/10

pretty usual the 1st sequel always remains the best and the post sequels depreciates as it follows

ps: I found in it enough to rate it 7 out of 10.

[slikrapid]

Hangover (2009) 5/10

not bad, intriguing first part of the movie, but when they started to reveal the events that happened during the impossible mass-hangover-amnesia it just became over the top nonsense, ruining the good beginning (btw. mike tyson, you're acting suxx and the tiger scenes are just ridiculous )

Hangover II (2011) 3/10

unimaginative exploitation of the first movie formula - this time it didn't even start in an interesting way, it just kept reveling at a level below decent filmmaking standards, it gets 2 points for rare successful jokes & production quality +1 for the benefit of the doubt (in case i missed some good stuff while fast forwarding )