Did he really eat the live octopus? - Oldeuboi (2003) Discussion

[–] scarfacerules 11 years ago

Wikipedia says he did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldboy_(2003_film)

Other computer-generated imagery in the film includes the ant coming out of Oh Dae-su's arm (according to the making-of on the DVD the whole arm was CGI) and the ants crawling over Oh Dae-su afterwards. The octopus being eaten alive was not computer-generated; four were used during the making of this scene. Actor Choi Min-sik, a Buddhist, said a prayer for each one. It should also be noted that the eating of live octopuses (called sannakji (산낙지) in Korean) as a delicacy exists in East Asia, although it is usually cut, not eaten whole. When asked in DVD commentary if he felt sorry for the actor Choi Min-sik, director Park Chan-wook stated he felt more sorry for the octopus.

reply

[–] vgezer 11 years ago

Oh no! This shouldn't have happened. It is so disturbing. At least they could hide the scene!

Thank you for the answer, by the way :)

reply

[–] marshalls639 11 years ago

I respect the directors decision to keep it in and see it in full. It's scenes like this that will keep us movie goers talking and watching this movie for years to come.

reply

[–] ObscureAuteur 11 years ago

This is a great movie, but the octopus scene being real makes that part first cousin to a snuff film.

CB

Good Times, Noodle Salad

reply

[–] s1106634 11 years ago

Unfortunately directors forcing their actors to do fairly unethical things in the name of a great or at least noteworthy scene isn't uncommon. Roman Polanski made Mia Farrow eat raw liver (again multiple times) in Rosemarys Baby and I believe she was a vegan at the time

reply

[–] xepadrop 10 years ago

fairly unethical

To whom? By whose standards?

Eating a live octopus is a common dish so, while it's a very disturbing scene for us westeners, there absolutely nothing unethical here.

reply

[–] Tastentier 10 years ago

To put this into perspective, most prey animals are eaten alive. Very few predators bother to kill their prey before starting to devour it, and they only do so to prevent large and well-armed prey animals from fighting back. Otherwise there is absolutely no reason to not eat your prey as fresh as possible if you're going to eat it raw anyway.

So from a purely biological point of view, there is absolutely nothing wrong with eating another creature alive. This is exactly how nature (or god, if you prefer to believe in a cruel sky sadist) intended the process of being devoured to happen. It's all part of the beautiful circle of life that Carmen Twillie sings about in sappy Disney movies.

reply

[–] symon-sust 10 years ago

I prefer to be human not animal

reply

[–] Tastentier 10 years ago

Why not both? Human and animal aren't contradictory terms. In the biological taxonomy, we're humans, great apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates and animals, in this order.

If we weren't animals, we'd have to be either plants, fungi, algae, protozoa or bacteria, and I'm pretty sure that I'm none of these things :)

reply

[–] shwndhh 10 years ago

You rock Tastentier!

reply

[–] michaelgarde 10 years ago

what?? we are something different... and we are beyond all those....
you sir are just an animal

reply

[–] Tastentier 10 years ago

Yes, I am :) At the biological kingdom level, we're all animals. At the family level, we're all apes. Only at the genus and species level, we get to be something different and special, but that doesn't mean that we aren't animals as well.

reply

[–] chilone (17913) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vampypiano 10 years ago

Well, predators usually do kill their prey. And we are humans.

reply

[–] Tastentier 10 years ago

Like I already pointed out, most predators kill their prey by starting to eat it while it's still alive. Unless the prey animal is rather scrappy, there is no point in killing it before you start chewing.

And yes, we are humans. Humans are a genus in the animal kingdom.

reply

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 9 years ago

Don't bother mate. The vast majority of people in these boards are too stupid to see what you intend to say. 'We are not animals!'

Prejudices and Confirmation biases have slammed the doors shut in their brains and they cannot be open, I've felt this many times when I've tried to have discussions on filmmakers and films on these boards. There's a thread on 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' board that sums up the quality of discussions on these boards.

reply

[–] chilone 9 years ago

or god, if you prefer to believe in a cruel sky sadist

The angry, trolling atheist rears it's ugly head...

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] TejasNair 11 years ago

Well, that is so interesting. Thank you for the info!

Unorthodox Cinema Critic Since 2009.

reply

[–] hpark2_1999 11 years ago

Hmm. Live small octopus is rather favorite dish for many people in Korea.

As a matter of fact, few people die yearly due to the live octopus getting their suckers lodged at the back of their throat cutting off their air supply.
( I guess in a small way, it could be considered their little victories/revenges )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP7MNoMvagg

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Few people die yearly due to the live octopus getting their suckers lodged at the back of their throat, cutting off their air supply".

Hm - barbarians AND morons.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

Yeah because we treat the animals we eat so much better, right?

reply

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Who is "we"? But yes, eating them bitches alive pretty much qualifies as animal torture - as does, of course, beating living dogs with sticks in order to soften their meat, which Koreans also traditionally engage in.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

Well, I'm assuming you live in America, correct me if I'm wrong. Factory farming is pretty cruel if you bother to look it up. Maybe it's more mechanical and less personal, but the results are the same and animals are still suffering. If I had to choose between getting eaten alive in a matter of minutes or being stuck in a metal crate, being unable to move and losing my sanity in the process I'd choose the former.

Doesn't mean I approve of either practice but for one country to flaunt their superiority over another when their treatment of animals they eat is inhumane is pretty silly.

As for eating dogs, less than half of Korea has done it and the treatment of dogs is controversial even there, so it's hardly a national past time for them.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

Let me ask you this, if you had the choice of being killed by being eaten alive say by a shark, bear, etc. or having a bolt pistol put to your head which would you chose? I would choose the bolt pistol as that's a quick and painless death and for you comparing a slow painful death of an animal over the way animals or put to death in America, is just plain stupid. One is humane, the other is not. Under your thinking, we would just throw people who are on death row to the sharks and let them be eaten alive rather than being put to sleep by lethal injection or some of the other more humane ways of dying. I think you're being obtuse and just want to argue.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

Would you also prefer to be kept in a factory farm before the bolt goes through your head?

reply

[–] cazmaj 11 years ago

I would prefer to be eaten alive than kept in a horrendous cage up until my death that came in the form of a bolt.

It is the moron who thinks that animals are treated humanely in the US. You can compare the US to other countries with their horrendous animal treatment finding them on par all day long.

Personally I am a vegetarian but respect their right to eat that way and condemn the condescension that comes from the ignorant on the subject of it being more cruel than their own nations battery farming and transportation disgracefulness.

I wish all these things were different nonetheless.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

The subject was about means of death, not captivity.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

What difference does it make if the captive animal is suffering more beforehand?

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

Because the subject was about ways of dying and not about captivity. Were the subject about suffering BEFORE death, then we could talk about that. You're attempting to engage in a strawman argument.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

No, what you are doing is ignoring pertinent information to better suit your views. If we're going to compare the cruelty in how different countries treat the animals that they kill for food, the treatment of animals in factory farms in the US is very relevant to the discussion. You can't just ignore that and go "Well, a bolt through the head is more humane" when everything leading up to it is not.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

No you totally ignored my post and that was which way would you prefer to die. My statement had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with what you are talking about.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

Except you responded to my initial post about factory farming. If anyone is "ignoring" anything at this point, it's you.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

I didn't respond to your post. I posed a question to you which you have chosen not to answer.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

Well again, what's the point of said question? Because I'm a bit confused at what point you are trying to prove, and why what goes on in factory farming isn't relevant to the discussion but the method of killing the animal is as if the two are disparate concepts with no relation to one another. Arguing that one method is more humane than the other while you are neglecting to mention half of it defeats the point of trying to argue such a position.

But to answer your question -- even though it's misleading, given that you are omitting relevant information -- if I had to choose between getting my head bitten off or a pole through my head? It probably wouldn't make much of a difference. If they were eating me from my legs up that'd be an issue, but if the head is the first to go? Either way I'd be dead quick.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

The point of 'said question' was an inquiry about the choice of death because everyone started talking about 'humane' ways of killing animals and that sort of thing. Thus the reason I posed as a human being, which way would you prefer to die, eaten by a shark (such as a human eating a live animal) or a quick way of death as in a bolt gun and then you wouldn't answer that question. It's really an easy question. If you're given a choice of the ways of dying, which would you prefer...instead you and some other dude started jacking off on how animals are treated BEFORE they die. I wasn't asking about that. I'm not leaving out any information lol...Do you want me to set up a subject plot for you or what? Even Stephen King has opinions on human being's biggest fear as being eaten....Of course, there may be a few people who would disagree and say no, they think falling from a tall building and getting smasked would be their biggest fear of dying. All I did was pose a question and you didn't want to answer it. Whatever dude. I never said there wasn't any cruelty to animals BEFORE they die.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

So were you just making a hypothetical scenario for giggles or did you have an actual point?

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

No dummy. I just did it to get under your skin. Glad I succeeded.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

You actually just confused me more than anything else, but good for you anyways.

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Lol, you got owned, dumbass.

reply

[–] tigerbos 8 years ago

Congratulations for answering a post that was written three years ago yet I am the dumbass? Right....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-09OhQPiIg#t=85

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Yup. You got that right.

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

No you totally ignored my post and that was which way would you prefer to die. My statement had absolutely NOTHING TO DO with what you are talking about.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] Kunovega 11 years ago

Actually you did manage to ignore the larger issue which is animal cruelty, which is not just about how an animal dies

The question comes down to this:

"what if"? you never kill the animal? would it than be ok to torture it endlessly?

The original response to the complaint viewed:

"a life of captivity/torture + fast death" as worse than "a life of freedom + horrible death"

Ignoring the life (or lack of its quality) in the equation ignores a large portion of the point of this debate by focusing only on the manner in which the creature died

You sir, missed the point; whether you have the ability to admit it or not

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

I didn't miss any point because I posed a question and that question was how you would prefer to die. That's pretty cut and dry and then I gave two possible scenerios - a quick painless death or a long slow one. This does indeed make sense as we have capital punishment in this country and there are those who would prefer that murderers just die a quick death and people who wish to see murderers die a slow painful death. The subject was death - not quality of life before death. Stick to the topic.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] raellkeem 11 years ago

mhm yeah in that case just shooting the animal would be more humane
but i do hope you were just screwing around cause the ignorance is too much
a lot of people, namely americans, tend to think their way is the normal way and anything other is weird and barbaric
that in itself is ignorant
AND the original topic of discussion was how this practice isnt actually inhumane because even in america, we treat the animals like crap and they live their lives like crap and eventually die a crappy death
if anyone was changing the topic, it was actually you
the live squid eating is common in korea and the squid does die almost immediately cause you gotta chew before you swallow, nah what im sayin?
btw, most koreans dont eat dogs. its a sort of rare thing now. even if they did, i wouldnt see it as a big deal. sure, we know em as pets but, in the end, they are animals just like cows, pigs, lamb, etc.
if you wanna argue that people shouldn't be eating dogs, then you can also argue that we shouldnt be eating any animals at all.
and yes koreans started the whole beating dogs before eating em and that sh*t is wrong but hey we cant act like america is utopia either right? i mean, that whole thing we got going with the factories could be classified as animal abuse in itself
i just think a lot of us need to get off our high horses and put a bit more effort into being less ignorant. i think we'd be more popular with other people that way.
i dont actually know if youre american but i am and sometimes i get to thinking maybe our country isnt the greatest country in the world anymore because we just kept thinking we will always be the best without doing sh*t to preserve that status
FOOD FOR THOUGHT

im just gonna go ahead and apologize for this post i couldnt help it. and i went off into a rant

reply

[–] tigerbos 11 years ago

No problem. Thanks for your thoughts.
I understand fully the gung ho blindness Americans have in reference to our country. It makes us look hypocritical actually.

I'll tell you in another life when we are both cats.

reply

[–] OccamsBarber 11 years ago

The octopus eating looked pretty damn quick. Took the head off with the first bite. And the crap we do to animals in the US in the years before we kill them is anything but humane.
But having grown up on a farm, meat's meat. I'm not a fluffy bunny hugger.

reply

[–] s1106634 11 years ago

Are you hear to say something worth anybody's time or are you hear because you're a racist?

reply

[–] chilone 11 years ago

Are you hear to say something worth anybody's time or are you hear because you're a racist?

Are you "here" because you might get some spelling tips or are you content to be an illiterate retard?

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] s1106634 11 years ago

Wow, calling someone a retard because she misspelled a word months ago, someone didn't get enough cuddles from their mommy.

reply

[–] chilone 11 years ago

Spelling errors and ignorance are two entirely different animals.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] Observer_2020 11 years ago

The other people are right about animal cruelty in many countries, including in the U.S. Pigs, cows and chickens are raised in horrendous conditions. (This is partly why factory farms rely on widespread use of antibiotics to ward off all the diseases that would develop otherwise. But those antibiotics are helping to create superbugs that become resistant to known antibiotics.)

Some states are passing laws making it a felony to film factory farm conditions under cover. Gov't inspectors don't have nearly the personnel to cover all facilities properly, so workers get away with what they can. Too many times, when practices are revealed, we learn about terrible conditions for the animals, and serious health risks for the eventual consumers of those products.

Even with the notorious dolphin slaughters in Japan, there is little uproar over a similar slaughter of pilot whales in the Faroe Islands.

But I guess such practices are only a problem if they occur in what you seem to think are "barbarian" countries. Talk about hypocritical.

reply

[–] Kunovega 11 years ago

That reeks of just being said for the sake of free marketing through controversy

Labeling him a "strict" anything would imply he would NEVER indulge the director by eating an animal, let alone a live one.

The simple fact that he was willing to toss aside his claimed lifestyle for the sake of filming a silly movie somewhat precludes him from following those rules "strictly", no, he follows those rules and breaks them on a whim (for nothing more than entertainment ~ it's not like any real benefit to the world was happening here)

The rest is just marketing buzz "look what we got this strict vegetarian/buddhist to do", no, it's more like look what we got this casual vegetarian to do who is perfectly willing to eat meat if it makes an entertaining film but we'll also claim he's strict about his beliefs to make it all controversial and get free media attention

If you write this guy a script and make him eat a hamburger and he's willing to do it for money, he isn't a strict vegetarian, he's just a guy that normally eats vegetarian but is willing to do stuff for money that he wouldn't normally do

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

The rest is just marketing buzz "look what we got this strict vegetarian/buddhist to do", no, it's more like look what we got this casual vegetarian to do who is perfectly willing to eat meat if it makes an entertaining film but we'll also claim he's strict about his beliefs to make it all controversial and get free media attention

And how much media attention did Choi Min-sik being a Buddhist get the film? You have any reports of it causing much controversy here or in Korea (where eating octopi is common)? Any outrage?

reply

[–] Kunovega 11 years ago

what do you think we are doing now? talking about it

i'm not saying the whole octopus thing was make or break for the movies budget or income potential, but it got mentioned in nearly every article about the film and still gets talked about

that's successful marketing, keeping people talking about things

reply

[–] CyberGhostface-1 11 years ago

Well again I'm referring to the bit about the actor's Buddhism, which most people don't even know or care about and is generally just a bit of trivia for movie buffs.

reply

[–] adriand-wolfe 11 years ago

Wow a buddhist.... and he ate a LIVE octopus... now I've got to see the movie.

reply

[–] allpeaceyo 11 years ago

Only vegans are allowed to complain about animal cruelty and suffering, period.

reply

[–] chilone 11 years ago

Psssst...... Vegans complain about everything!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] sean-cowan1 11 years ago

I guess you've never been to a sushi bar, that octopus looked tasty to me.

You're a troll.

reply

[–] Zasz_Speaks 11 years ago

lol, I'm not going to lie, it did look tasty.

Save a tree...eat a beaver.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] uzielis 11 years ago

Yes, he did. And it was difficult for Choi Min Sik for he is Buddhist, and therefore before consuming the creature, he uttered a little prayer asking for forgiveness.

Gack.

reply

[–] chilone 11 years ago

People and animals of this world have been eating each other and/or killing/torturing each other in horrible ways since the beginning of time and aren't going to stop. Ever.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply

[–] Floepsel 10 years ago

Yea it's real like the others already said. I think it's cool it's in there. And everyone should just respect it because you know, they do it all the time over there in Korea and other Asian countries. They probably find it crazy people over here can't handle that stuff haha.

Favorite movies/year plus little review: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070235838/

reply