Does the dog die? | Hacker News Reader

Does the dog die?

thewildest.com

59 pointswalterbell65 comments

I have a close friend who lost their father to brain cancer ten years ago. To this day, whenever she watches a movie or tv show with an old man dying in a hospital bed, she starts crying uncontrollably. It's very sad, and I feel for her.

What has surprised me in trying to help my friend avoid these kinds of scenes is how many films and tv shows get flagged. Even popular sitcoms (situational comedies) often have a "someone's dad dies" episode. It's kind of weird to realize the frequency of these scenes once you're explicitly watching out for them.

"Does the Dog Die?" seems like a great tool for anyone who has a hard time watching specific types of scenes.

It's not too surprising. Stories and other forms of art have helped us deal with death for as long as we have had speech, I suppose.

My father did not die, but when I was a very young adolescent, he went in for heart surgery at a time when same was a bit more medically dangerous than nowadays. He did survive.

Some years later, when a father and child said goodbye in an "E.R." episode at college, I (to my own surprise) went into near-hysterics and had to call him. 20+ years later, when scrolling through TikTok, someone put a similar scene from "Supernatural" in a video and it shook me hard.

I can definitely sympathize with your friend; in each of those two cases, the reaction proceeded with nearly no cognitive thought or ability to affect it via a thinking process. Trauma is a bit of a puppeteer.

I remember watching a terminally ill patient in ER writing letters to his children to open when they reached milestones or after his death. Knowing my father had done the same for me and that connection was brutal, like it floored me.

I'd not skip that episode or something like it for having emotional punch though, even knowing I'm probably still just as likely to react strongly.

My mother died young of cancer. I do not find any movies centered around a character dying of cancer to be remotely entertaining. Yuk.

I had cancer and a stroke; whenever I see either in a movie I get a panic attack right there (I take maybe 1 Xanax a year and it is always during a movie or series when something like that happens) (especially strokes as that was like taking acid and having a bad trip).

Another thing that sticks out for me is alcohol. I'm not teetotal, I just drink extremely infrequently. Since starting to drink less, it's quite noticeable how much media relates to alcohol use (and abuse). Birthday cards are especially fond of alcohol references, but also media where what looks like alcohol-dependent behaviours are played for laughs.

I an fortunate not to be an alcoholic and don't have one in close family: it much be quite hard to deal with it if it were a trigger.

This happens to me too.

I use the site mentioned in the article almost every time I want to watch a movie. Its easy to dismiss it in terms of "pampering" or being too soft, but there are people who have lived and seen horrible things and do not want to be reminded of them.

It's also great as a nutrition label for media of sorts; "is this movie appropriate for a small get together?" is a question that's often hard to answer without a service like this.

I absolutely agree. Some of the categories may be out there, but there are some very real and very helpful warnings/descriptors on DTDD. One time I was going to watch Annihilation with my friends, but checking DTDD showed it was more body horror-y than any of us were ready for that night. We came back to it a while later knowing that and all thought it was a great movie. Sometimes, just going in with the knowledge so you can brace yourself is helpful.

> Of course, many will be eager to chide users more upset by a wounded kitten than a squad of Marines killed in an ambush, but Whipple says such criticism ignores that it’s not the violence itself, per se, but the vector of cruelty that’s displayed. “People are bothered by mistreatment of the innocent,” he says. “It’s the same reason we have child-related triggers on our site.”

The main reason for me is that it's easy (too easy) to be aware that the people on screen are actors. I like horror movies but mainly for things like special effects. The biggest attachment I've felt to a character is "that's a well written character." I like movies with good stories, but they're just stories. Even in the middle of watching them.

But with an animals that goes out the window. For example I haven't seen The Butterfly Effect since its release, and I'm aware it was an animatronic dog. But the dog scene was the first thing that popped into my head seeing the article title, and now has kind of dampened my night.

It doesn't have the same breadth of content advisories, but I prefer IMDB's parental guidance. I've tried DTDD before but found the website obnoxious to use; why do I have to whitelist stripe for the search function to work? Why is all the content crammed into a column that's only one fifth the width of my browser window?

IMDB is also good for content discovery, not just content advisories, so it's more of a one-stop-shop when trying to figure out what movie to watch. I like the idea of DDTD, but for me IMDB just does it better.

One of my favourite Futurama gags is the opening caption of S07E25 - "Stench and Stenchibility" which reads “Not the Episode with the Dead Dog” in reference to S04E07 - "Jurassic Bark". If you’ve not seen the latter I highly recommend it, the former quote does not prepare you for the emotional gut punch.

I have a feeling that many people seeing this will assume that the aversion to specific content is akin to an ordinary distaste for blood and gore, jumpscares, or other "hit or miss" aspects of film. For most of my life I would've agreed, and to be honest I still agree now if I speak only for myself.

For some people, it's not a matter of taste and it's not a matter of getting over it. Call it weakness if you want, call it mental scarring; either way movies should be entertaining, not traumatic. I can't speak to dogs dying, but flippantly watching "Last Night in Soho" with somebody who really didn't need to see that convinced me to start checking the IMDB parental guide before settling on anything.

The structure of the referenced website (long list of yes/no categories with explanation) seems a bit of a bad fit compared to just enumerating potentially problematic features. I guess it enables categorical searching, but it seems pretty bleak to browse through a filter like this.

Jumpscares don't affect me anymore.

Cartoonish gore doesn't bother me, either. But realistic gore does, and I'll often block the image with my thumb.

I have been watching horror movies since I was 7, which was the early 80s. Dario Argento being a family friend and my grandmother loving horror did push that along. I thought I was ready for any blood and gore until 2 years ago my little dog (named after Bruce Campbell) was mauled to death in front of my eyes (fuck pitbulls) and recently this guy in Australia who was stabbed in the neck ([0] do not watch this thing, I included it for reference; it was so different than movies; he didn’t realise he was dead) on video and bled out in seconds. I was not ready for any of that.

[0] https://twitter.com/video_forensics/status/15467273017856081...

Reviewing the categories of a movie I know well, I’m seeing a lot of votes aren’t solidly one way or the other, but there’s an upvoted comment explaining how it’s actually “yes”. Makes me wonder if some people are just quickly and incorrectly voting on things by memory.

On the other hand it’s also very incomplete. There are so many movies/show times the number of categories. For example, there’s a scene in Mr. Robot that I just can’t follow the discussion because of chewing sounds when some guy’s eating ribs with his mouth open while they discuss some plan (misophonia category) but for Mr. Robot misophonia it has 1 yes, 1 no, and the one comment doesn’t mention that. And whoever voted no was probably just guessing.

Raiders of the Lost Ark: "Are there snakes?". Yes 28, No 0.

https://www.doesthedogdie.com/media/12738

In a similar line (https://www.doesthedogdie.com/media/15411), Doom 1993:

"Are there any bugs? Game bugs, yes. Actual bugs like insects, no."

This site is a life saver for my partner. She cannot handle any sort of animal cruelty on screen. Before I discovered DtDD, whenever we'd sit down to watch a film together and an animal appeared on screen she'd instantly exclaim "Nope, turn it off". Nowadays, as soon as an animal appears on screen, I'm instantly on DtDD before she can say anything! Most of the time it's fine but sometimes we have to turn it off.

I never saw train spotting because someone told me a baby dies of neglect in that movie. I have no personal relation to that specific kind of trauma but I actively avoid movies were babies are killed.

I cant stomach that particuar kind of cruelty. Totally get the need for a list like that.

> I never saw train spotting because someone told me a baby dies of neglect in that movie.

I can't watch it again for the same reason.

I like dogs more than I like most people, but I think that if you choose, as a policy, not to watch a movie because a fictional dog fictionally dies, you'll eventually miss out on a movie you'd really enjoy. Speaking for myself, the tradeoff isn't worth it.

The site isn't really about dogs, it tracks a few dozen different topics that people consider difficult.

It's not so much about any longstanding personal policy, but if your dog of 10+ years had just died recently, and you sat down to watch a movie to relax, you might not want the movie to feature a prominent animal death, for example.

The site exists for the subset of people who don't find the tradeoff worth it because seeing a dog die is traumatic, so your advice for most people is kind of beside the point. If anything, this lets them see more movies than they otherwise would because they don't have to guess or be on edge for when they have to leave.

> you'll eventually miss out on a movie you'd really enjoy.

You will either way. Attention and time are finite, media is effectively not. There's no inbox zero for movies.

> you'll eventually miss out on a movie you'd really enjoy

This DTDD website is for people who will definitely not enjoy the film because the dog dies. Many of these films are quite lazy anyway - the dog is just a plot device and they kill it as a cheap way to build up tension. Basically you won't miss much from skipping them.

There's a Simpsons episode where the dog has a twisted stomach, and the vet is able to save him in the end. My family's dog died of a twisted stomach years ago. They still can't watch that episode.

Link should probably be changed to the actual site instead of blogspam:

https://www.doesthedogdie.com/

No lie, last night my wife and I started Prey (Predator prequel). About 5 minutes in we both started questioning what was going to happen to the dog (which happens to look resemble our fur baby) and turned it off. My wife said we should find out what happens to the dog before starting it again. I had no idea this was a thing!

The Star Wars entry made me laugh:

> Does the dog die?

> A populated planet is destroyed. I guess there were maybe some dogs there.

This means I can spare my future kids all those old yeller knockoff twist endings. Many of my school friends got hit by Marley and Me back in the day and I am not letting them get away with that cheap tactic again.

As someone who is affected by scenes of compound fractures, I greatly appreciate that a site like doesthedogdie exists and that so many people are willing to add detailed information to it.

A very useful website.

It took me some time to understand what "the R word" is.

I wonder if there are other countries that hide words the way Americans do.

I think we pamper people too much, and it makes them easier and easier to upset. Our cultural overcaution about what may upset someone is lowering our average threshold of offense. It's sad when a fictional person or a fictional dog dies, yes — that's the whole point! — but life has a lot more to throw at us than fictional death.

I share that intuition sometimes, but I’m also old enough to remember less pampering times and even the elders around me back then sure seemed to be very easily upset by things too.

So it’s hard to know what to make of the intuition.

Watch a movie from those “less pampering times”.

Combat movies were blood free and married couples slept in separate twin beds. A racy movie may feature a long kiss with the girl in a one piece bathing suit or dance costume.

Hayes Code was way more restrictive than most kind of "censorships" that people complain nowdays. Not to mention that standards for what obscenity is, were way lower than today and public reactions were as or even more histerical then today.

I have used Does the Dog Die in the past, great site. I've seen enough horrific things for a lifetime, real and simulated. Why should I see more, if I've had enough? There's more than enough content for me without spending time watching gratuitous simulated murder or torture of animals. Tends to be a red flag for overall quality of the piece anyways.

Agreed. Usually it's a cheap method of generating hatred towards a character (see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KickTheDog).

I question the premise that we are overcautious. Media has only increased in intensity and violence and the breadth of suffering it depicts. That's not a bad thing in itself, but people are perfectly right to want to know when media exceeds their personal limits, be they merely preferences or something more serious like trauma. People are not pampered, they are wary, and for good reason.

Eh - you know, a lot of people live very different lives.

If you're affected enough by these things to create a website to make sure it doesn't happen to you - and people are happy to use it voluntarily, I think it's a valid problem being solved right there. I don't see pampering really.

Aye. "To each their own", "judge not lest ye", etc.

Movies are about escape for many people.

I think people should be able to make art including movies to express what they want to express in the way they want to express it. But I should have the ability to learn about and avoid things that I don’t want to see. We don’t know what’s in peoples heads, and it’s important to give people control.

This happened in a professional context - a well produced video about domestic violence that included a well produced example of controlling behavior and a form of abuse. It was very unpleasant for many people, including victims of violence, and in response the company gave folks an opportunity to review a transcript and opt out of watching.

> Our cultural overcaution about what may upset someone is lowering our average threshold of offense.

how do you know? what if there's just been a cultural shift where people just feel like being more vocal about the offense they've always had to certain things?

Truly tough people are those who can make hard decisions, not those who seek pointless cruelty.

You’re welcome to make your own movie recommendation site that makes no mention of whether or not the dog dies.

Bingo. It's not petitioning that movies change and avoid all sorts of emotional triggers. It's just documenting them. I don't see the problem here.

I'd tend to agree.

Most movies these days are self-indulgent, following a simple pattern that has made money for the industry before. Imo, these tend to be uninspired and not worth watching.

The fact that a pet does or does not perish within a film should not be a prerequisite for enjoyment

I feel like most movies were the same in the past, we just don't remember them. Sturgeon's Law.

This is probably the worst take I’ve seen. Some people don’t want to watch pets die in a film they watch for their personal recreation. That should be a prerequisite for them if they choose and have facilities to make it so. It should not be the case that people could know that they’ll be upset by watching pets die, and want to know, and that knowledge is denied to them on principle.

I’d even go so far as to say that’s so absurd anyone defending it is doing so to provoke.

I wasn't arguing with the utility of the site. I was agreeing with the commenter's sentiment that films these days often coddle their viewers in a way I find uninspiring.

Not being provocative at all.

I think we have an opportunity to agree then. Maybe if people are able to opt out of media they’d find seriously upsetting, we can enjoy whatever people feel more free to make without so much caution.

This sounds like there are rational and obligatory prerequisites that should make movie enyoable for every viewer, and if viewer still doesn't like the movie, then he is wrong. And not like enyoment from art is depending on personal taste, situation and state of mind.

Also, there is cinema outside blockbusters, but popcorn doesn't go well with whatever independent cinema is going to haunt the viewer.

Who is "we" who is doing the pampering? This is a site for people to make their own decisions about the movies they watch. Are you complaining that people pamper themselves too much?

How soft is your pillow? What's your threadcount? Do you pamper yourself too much? Probably.

My dad died of cancer, too young. Grief is a long process, and cancer or parental death is still hard to watch. Sometimes, that's good outlet for me to process my grief, and I seek those shows and movies out deliberately. But usually, when I watch TV, I want to unwind, and not get surprised with some heavy emotional shit.

Frankly, you kinda sound offended that people have preferences for when and how they engage with their trauma. Grow up. If you don't want to know, don't look.

This seems like the appropriate balance, though.

These movies are not banned. All this content is permitted in movies.

But someone (voluntarily) created a resource people can consult (voluntarily) to find out information about the films from other people who have submitted the information (voluntarily.)

No one has to be involved with this who does not want to be. No decision is being made on behalf of anyone else.

That's pretty much peak "live and let live" in my book.

I find patterns of closely distributed holes in a surface, and things which appear similarly, disturbing for reasons I don’t fully understand. It’s a phobia with a name and many people experience it without realizing it. I don’t expect anyone to cater to it, in the same way I don’t expect people to cater to my even more common phobia of vomiting and subjects around emesis. But what I do expect of my fellow humans is to let me mitigate my discomfort in peace. Insofar as I can privately reference a database of things which upset me, and privately abstain, what difference is it to you besides bombastically expecting me to feel terrible for no one’s benefit? Who cares if I don’t watch Finding Nemo because I determined I might find it upsetting in a way I won’t enjoy?

I think we pamper “toughen up” bullshit like this way too much, and if you’re so sensitive that you can’t let people not do something you enjoy without calling their personal preferences which don’t affect you into question, maybe just go watch the dog die and stop worrying so much about whether everyone else enjoys it the way you do.

Reading your comment I tried to search for this. Is it trypophobia? Never heard of it before.

When you do an image search for trypophobia trigger images, you can understand it. While I won't be bothered by holes in some object that is expected to have them, the images of such holes being mapped onto faces and hands and such makes it obvious how these surface disturbances can be framed as grotesque.

Yes you found it, and that’s some impressive curiosity. I’m glad it wasn’t as upsetting a discovery for you as it can be for some. For me it’s mostly only upsetting when it’s real on animal/human flesh, or real on fleshy surfaces in a way my brain can conjure images on animal/human flesh.

It’s not pampering—-those movies continue to exist and continue to do well. Directors aren’t cutting content to make their movie look better on a niche website.

For me, I lost my dog recently. Life did throw a lot more at me than fictional death, and for a little while I’d like to not relive that in movies or games.

Tools like this just equip folks to make these decisions for themselves. They aren’t bellwethers for society.

If they were pressuring/coercing creators into creating only works that avoids a specific depiction, I think it'd be a problem. But this seems only to be a service for the receiving end of media, so I don't see the problem there.

It's no different from using a user CSS or a Greasemonkey script on the client-side to filter what we want to see on the web; it works only for that specific user and doesn't directly affect the server/creator side.

It would make sense, if before movies/books/music where bought in grey envelopes without any kind of information of what you are going to watch. But there are genres, descriptions and a lot of information about what you are going to watch. Is information about dead dog more "lowering the treshold of offence" than information that the movie is stoner comedy, not holocaust documentary? Also, yes, live throws at us more, that's why we create art, partially to escape.

Do you have any evidence for the idea that

a) we are pampering people too much

b) that it makes them easier to upset

c) that people being easier to upset would be a bad thing?

Just seems a weird thing to get hung up on, but if there's some solid reasoning behind it then it would be interesting.

Pampering? My wife and I rescue dogs which means we end up with many who have health problems, and don't tend to live as long. A 2 year old dog we had literally died in my arms of a massive heart attack. I've seen and dealt with animal death probably more than most. I don't need to see the same thing on screen, particularly if it's just a cheap plot device. Movies/books that revolve around the animal like an Old Yeller or Racing in the Rain are fine, but I do like knowing going in.

I'll also mention that I train BJJ and fight with people for hours every week, so I'm not some super sensitive person.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com