Who Framed Roger Rabbit racial slur?
Josh Forman
<Art3...@aol.com> wrote:
> A friend of mine swears that in the restaurant scene in "Roger Rabbit"
> where Daffy and Donald Duck are playing on stage, that Donald says:
> "Goddamn stupid nigger!" because Daffy is a black duck. I have the movie
> on tape and played it. Well, it does sound like that is what he says, but
> because of his duck voice, it is really slurred. Any comments?
I'm going to answer this without listening to it, because there's a good
explanation. Don probably was just sputtering something, and it sounded
like "that" phrase. So someone who's watching goes and tells his friends
and whenever they see the scene, they hear it too because they have
pre-conceived ideas of the sounds being made. I never thought Don said
that, and if I see it now it will sound like it to me.
Any Psych majors here?
--
Josh Forman MSTie #67867
ASL-English Interpreting Major '00
http://home.earthlink.net/~macinjosh/html
ToonBug
Someone mentioned that the script itself says something like "why ya
stubborn little.."
It's really easy for someone to be offended by what they don't understand
and even more so if they have a chip on their shoulder. Urban legend tends
to fester in a glorification of it own inadequacies. Namely, fear of the
unknown.
"Did he just call me a..."
"Why's everybody lookin' at me?"
--
ToonBug
http://home.earthlink.net/~animaniax
--
***************************************************
oo \
(__)\ ___
\ \ .' `.
\ \ / \ Robert J. Frates
\ '" \ "SoopaJeenyus"
\. ( )\
/ '-| )_ __; :.
\ ___
/ / | | \ \ \
'. ,_/ \.
_______c_;_c_; __c_c_;__'._'_'_'>._______(_______ )c___
***************************************************
RandWhit
I'll have to play back my video to be sure, but I'm inclined to believe
that it's just unintelligible gibberish. A racial slur of this nature is
the last thing I would expect in a movie from Spielberg's organization.
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" also has Disney involvement. Over the last few
years it's been impossible for Disney to release an animated film without
someone claiming it has hidden messages in the words or pictures. Examples
include the bit where Aladdin is supposed to say, "All good teenagers take
off their clothes," or "Sex" being spelled out in a cloudscape in "The
Lion King." Some people have more imagination than is really good for
them.
Randall Whitlock
Phoenix Arizona
rand...@aol.com
_
l \
l /
l_/
l \
l \ /\ /
l \/ \/
Bryan Irrera
maci...@earthlink.net (Josh Forman) wrote:
>I'm going to answer this without listening to it, because there's a good
>explanation. Don probably was just sputtering something, and it sounded
>like "that" phrase. So someone who's watching goes and tells his friends
>and whenever they see the scene, they hear it too because they have
>pre-conceived ideas of the sounds being made. I never thought Don said
>that, and if I see it now it will sound like it to me.
I'm sorry to say it, but I work at a video store and have been aware of
this for years. But, this IS most definitely there in the movie!
Bryan
Lang
RandWhit wrote:
> I'll have to play back my video to be sure, but I'm inclined to believe
> that it's just unintelligible gibberish. A racial slur of this nature is
> the last thing I would expect in a movie from Spielberg's organization.
If you have closed captioning on your TV you can see what the words really
are. If I was really motivated I'd go queue it up and fin out but I don't
have it on laser, only VHS, so I won't.
Lang
Thorn
Is this the part where the racial slur is????
Valiant walks down a short corridor towards a door behind which can be
heard the sound of a piano playing. As Valiant opens the door there is an
explosion of sound of piano playing. On a stage opposite Donald and Daffy
Duck are playing a duet. Watching this are numerous people seated round
small tables and being served by toon penguins. At the bar an octopus is
serving several customers at once.
Donald: Quaack, quaack. Cut it out!
Daffy: Does anybody understand what this duck is saying? I've worked with
a lot of wise quackers, but you are desphicable!
Donald: Darn son of a guaack, quaack!
Daffy: This is the last time I work with someone with a sphpheech
impediment!
Donald: Oh yeah!
Donald grabs Daffy, throws him into the piano and slams it shut on him,
leaving only his beak sticking out.
Daffy: This means war.
As Valiant stands watching all of this a bald man squirts ink on Valiant's
shirt with a pen.
Marvin: Ha, ha, ha!
Valiant: You think that's funny?
Marvin: It's a panic!
Valiant: [Grabbing him] You wont think it's funny when I stick that pen up
your nose!
Marvin: Now calm down son, will ya. Look, the stains gone. It's
dissappearing ink. No hard feelings I hope? Look, I'm...
Valiant: I know who you are. Marvin Acme. The guy that owns Toontown. The
Gag King.
Marvin: If it's Acme, it's gasser! Put it there pal. <Zzzzt> The hand
buzzer! Still our biggest seller! Ha, ha, ha.
Totally unamused sits down and a penguin comes up to take his order.
Valiant slams the menu back on the tray without looking at it.
Valiant: Scotch on the rocks. ...And I mean ice!
Donald is playing both piano's at once.
Domald: This is hot stuff.
Daffy takes over and behind him appears a devilish Donald who nearly blows
Daffy's head of with a cannon.
Daffy: Hoo hoo hoo!
Two hooks appear from either side of the stage and pull the ducks off the
stage to the applause of the audience.
TJ Hvasta
RandWhit wrote:
> "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" also has Disney involvement. Over the last few
> years it's been impossible for Disney to release an animated film without
> someone claiming it has hidden messages in the words or pictures. Examples
> include the bit where Aladdin is supposed to say, "All good teenagers take
> off their clothes," or "Sex" being spelled out in a cloudscape in "The
> Lion King." Some people have more imagination than is really good for
> them.
Ah, it's been documented that the poster for 'Mermaid' has a phalic symbol
as one of Triton castle towers, and that the cartoonist that did the
'artwork' was let go for drawing similar objects, however it(the tower)
was drawn in such a way as not to be obvious, and wasnt discovered till
long after the movie's release. So having hidden, slurred, subliminal
text, lyrics, dialogue or artwork is not only possible, but likely...
Wouldn't you, as a cartoonist, try to get away with it?
teege
Dont tell me you've lost your sense of humor already... R.R.
Thorn
snopes wrote:
> Okay, I'll bite: where has this been "documented"?
I don't know about "documented" but it is definiately there. It is VERY
detailed (veins and all), All you need to do is take a look at a VHS cover
from the original release. It was changed for the laserdisc release (They
chopped off the tip and put a huge sparkle over the vein).
snopes
Thorn <Sha...@Moon.net> wrote:
> I don't know about "documented"
Obviously. Hint: "I heard a rumor" is not generally considered
"documentation."
> but it is definiately there. It is VERY detailed (veins and all), All
> you need to do is take a look at a VHS cover from the original release.
Okay, listen up: "There is something that looks like a penis on the
cover" is not the same thing as "Somebody deliberately drew a penis
on the cover." The fact that Disney removed the offending spire from
the laserdisc cover does not establish that the phallic object was
deliberately drawn as such -- all it says is that people thought
it looked like a penis.
- snopes
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Urban Legends Reference Pages --> http://www.snopes.com |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Panagiotis P Papazoglou
snopes (sno...@snopes.com) wrote:
: Okay, listen up: "There is something that looks like a penis on the
: cover" is not the same thing as "Somebody deliberately drew a penis
: on the cover." The fact that Disney removed the offending spire from
: the laserdisc cover does not establish that the phallic object was
: deliberately drawn as such -- all it says is that people thought
: it looked like a penis.
I am pretty sure the guy was fired and heard that Disney publicly stated
that the rumor was true and that the artist was let go in order to make
him look bad and the studio look good. i could be wrong. Anyone else?
Peter
Thorn
snopes wrote
> Okay, listen up: "There is something that looks like a penis on the
> cover" is not the same thing as "Somebody deliberately drew a penis
> on the cover." The fact that Disney removed the offending spire from
> the laserdisc cover does not establish that the phallic object was
> deliberately drawn as such -- all it says is that people thought
> it looked like a penis.
Ok.. listen, the "leaves spelling sex", the "clergyman with an erection",
etc are all total BULL, but this thing on the cover is REAL. It is not
possible to 'accidentally' draw this detailed of a picture of a penis.
Some people might say that what's between the legs of the statue of David
sure "looks" like a penis. And what was on the original cover/poster for
The Little Mermaid is that detailed. All you have to do is look at it.
It's not one of those "well.. if you turn your head and squint a little.."
it's there as plain as day.
snopes
TJ Hvasta <skyg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Ah, it's been documented that the poster for 'Mermaid' has a phalic symbol
> as one of Triton castle towers, and that the cartoonist that did the
> 'artwork' was let go for drawing similar objects
Okay, I'll bite: where has this been "documented"?
> Wouldn't you, as a cartoonist, try to get away with it?
Uh, I kinda think that deliberately sabotaging the work of the largest
and most powerful animation outfit in the world would not exactly be
the best way of ensuring future employment in the industry.
- snopes
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NOTICE: The reader of this article grants the poster the right to |
| film/videotape/photograph reader on the Internet for any purpose |
| without payment or consideration therefor. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
snopes
Thorn <Sha...@Moon.net> wrote:
> Ok.. listen, the "leaves spelling sex", the "clergyman with an erection",
> etc are all total BULL, but this thing on the cover is REAL. It is not
> possible to 'accidentally' draw this detailed of a picture of a penis.
It's not "detailed" -- it's a few lines and curves that differ only
minimally from half a dozen other figures in the same drawing. It
could quite easily have been inadvertent. As well, I have yet to see
a penis that came complete with windows.
> Some people might say that what's between the legs of the statue of David
> sure "looks" like a penis.
And they'd be right, because there's no question of Michelangelo's
intent. You, on the other hand, don't even know who drew the Little
Mermaid artwork, much less what his intentions were. Would you likewise
argue that every written phrase with dual meaning was created by design
rather than accident?
> The Little Mermaid is that detailed. All you have to do is look at it.
> It's not one of those "well.. if you turn your head and squint a little.."
> it's there as plain as day.
In other words, "I think it looks like a penis, therefore it must have
been drawn that way on purpose."
- snopes
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| CONTRAINDICATIONS: If you are allergic to any word in this article, |
| do not read. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
RandWhit
Lang <la...@mtnhome.com> writes:
> If you have closed captioning on your TV you can see what the words
> really are. If I was really motivated I'd go queue it up and fin out
> but I don't have it on laser, only VHS, so I won't.
I accepted the challenge and played back "Roger Rabbit" with closed
captioning switched on. The caption says the line is, "Doggone stubborn
nitwit."
Closed captions don't always say the exact same thing as the dialog. The
captioner often substitutes shorter, quicker-to-read phrases. Nonetheless,
the line did not sound anything like the Furman-Word to me. It sounded
more like, "Doggone stubborn little. . . . . (trails off)."
For background, my cassette is the VHS version of the original theater
cut, not the version with restored footage that has run on television
during the last couple of years.
RandWhit
snopes <sno...@snopes.com> writes:
> It's not "detailed" -- it's a few lines and curves that differ only
> minimally from half a dozen other figures in the same drawing. It
> could quite easily have been inadvertent. As well, I have yet to see
> a penis that came complete with windows.
Not unless you count John Bobbitt.
But seriously, is this image posted somewhere so that the rest of us can
decide for ourselves?
When the rumor first hit Phoenix local radio, I visited several video
stores to verify or deny the resemblance. All of the stores had pulled the
video from their shelves. The recall and cover redesign must have cost the
mouse a pretty penny.
snopes
RandWhit <rand...@aol.com> wrote:
> But seriously, is this image posted somewhere so that the rest of us can
> decide for ourselves?
Try http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.htm
Be sure to view the images under the "Additional Information" section
to see the image in context as well.
> When the rumor first hit Phoenix local radio, I visited several video
> stores to verify or deny the resemblance. All of the stores had pulled the
> video from their shelves. The recall and cover redesign must have cost the
> mouse a pretty penny.
Disney didn't recall the video -- a few outlets merely decided to
remove them from the shelves on their own. Nor was the cover
redesigned -- a simple alteration was made for the laserdisc cover.
- snopes
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| snopes reserves the right to make improvements in the article |
| packaged with this .sig at any time and without notice. |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
KEVIN_NISH
I hate to tell you this, but according to an interview I saw with Eric
Larson (One of the 9 old men) and John Tesh on ET back when the Jessica
Rabbit thing first started this has been going on for DECADES! It is just
that no one really expected people to have VCR's to stop and look. His
response to Tesh when asked if it really happened was sure and he was glad
the new breed of animators was finally showing some b****. I was watching
Make Mine Music last night and found a fairly suggestive drawing in it. I
have also seen some absolutely horrid things on Bugs Bunny and Marvin the
Martian. (Look at the background the next time you seen Bugs Bunny and
the Three Bears-you will see a calender with a naked woman and a fishing
pole-fishing-close to the two man saw in Best of Roger Rabbit.) The stuff
is there-especially in Roger Rabbit. It has always been there. Are you
damaged because of it? I think not. Kim
snopes
KEVIN_NISH <KEVIN...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I hate to tell you this, but according to an interview I saw with Eric
> Larson (One of the 9 old men) and John Tesh on ET back when the Jessica
> Rabbit thing first started this has been going on for DECADES! It is just
> that no one really expected people to have VCR's to stop and look.
But that's the point: it's one thing to slip a single-frame gag into a
film when you know that very few people will be able to privately view
and still-frame it, and quite another to do so when just about anybody
can view it. And, in the case of The Little Mermaid cover, we're
talking about a static image that couldn't help but escape detection
by the public eventually. Would you risk your job for a cheap gag,
especially if you knew the chances of being caught at it were high?
- snopes
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| WARNING: This article is not a spermicide or contraceptive. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
LawrenceT5
With all the ULs coming out about Disney and their products, I wonder how
many of them have been planted delibertly as an attempt to harrass or harm
Disney. After all, religious conservative groups have shown that they are
perfectly willing to promote falsehood if it suits their goals. Just look
at Jerry Falwell.
Leo Robles
O.K. here goes. This story is true. There is a penis drawn on the cover
of the little mermaid video container. At first I thought it was probably
just someone's over imaginative mind, but after seeing it myself, I can
say it does exist. If your ever get a chance to find an original copy,
look closely at the castle in the background. Hidden among the castle
towers is the penis. NO JOKE!
Leo
KEVIN_NISH
snopes wrote:
> Would you risk your job for a cheap gag, especially if you knew the
> chances of being caught at it were high?
According to a friend who knew the guy-it was his LAST assignment. No job
to risk.
Kim
snopes
KEVIN_NISH <KEVIN...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> According to a friend who knew the guy-it was his LAST assignment. No job
> to risk.
Yes, it probably was, one way or the other.
So what you're suggesting is that a person who knew he was going to be
out of work soon decided it would be a fine idea to sabotage the work of
an important client? Is that the kind of thing one puts on a resumé?
"1989: Drew hidden penis in promotional artwork for children's film."
- snopes
Kym Kolb
Leo Robles <rob...@harlingen.lib.tx.us> wrote:
> O.K. here goes. This story is true. There is a penis drawn on the
> cover of the little mermaid video container.
I don't think anyone will argue with you about the notion that there is
something that looks like it could be a penis drawn on the cover of the
Little Mermaid.
But this is why I responded to your post:
> At first I thought it was probably just someone's over imaginative
> mind, but after seeing it myself, I can say it does exist.
Why could it be "just someone's over imaginative mind", but not *your*
over imaginative mind?
>look closely at the castle in the background. Hidden among the castle
>towers is the penis. NO JOKE!
I've seen it, but I thought the debate wasn't whether the castle spire
looks like a penis, but rather if it was a deliberate act on the part of
the artist.
Kym "deferring back to snopes on this one" Kolb
Mary Mellinger
Now what I heard about the penis on the cover of little mermaid was that
Disney was rushing the guy to hurry up and finish the cover and they told
him that this was his last project and so in his revenge, he painted the
famos phalic symbol as revenge.
Mary Mellinger
I also heard that the word F..K is spelled out in the waves.
TJKugel
Leo Robles <rob...@harlingen.lib.tx.us> writes:
> O.K. here goes. This story is true. There is a penis drawn on the
> cover of the little mermaid video container. At first I thought it was
> probably
How do you know its true?
f...@ix.netcom.com
now that is how to insure you future employability.
TA
FAW
Stephen R. Kupec Jr.
>How do you know its true?
It is there. The artist who drew the Box cover, was upset when the first
of his covers was rejected, and they refused to pay him for the cover he
created, and so as revenge he drew another cover and after it was approved
he placed the penis in the upper left corner of the box on top of the
tower.
Bill Stebbins
Leo Robles <rob...@harlingen.lib.tx.us> wrote:
>O.K. here goes. This story is true. There is a penis drawn on the cover
>of the little mermaid video container. At first I thought it was probably
>just someone's over imaginative mind, but after seeing it myself, I can
>say it does exist. If your ever get a chance to find an original copy,
>look closely at the castle in the background. Hidden among the castle
>towers is the penis. NO JOKE!
Having an original copy, I can only say that one sees what one wants to.
There is certainly a resemblance, but neither I nor anyone I know saw
anything until the suggestion that it was a penis was made. To me, it is
indeed another example of an over imaginative mind, or that of someone
with too much time on their hands, a dirty mind, and a penchant for
creating controversy. If you look hard enough for something, you can find
it.
Bill Stebbins
Live well, Laugh often, Love much...
Skip Huffman
On 12 Feb 1998 16:22:57 -0800, Mary Mellinger wrote:
:>I also heard that the word F..K is spelled out in the waves.
Lets see. I have that video right here in my hands. Looking at the
cover, I see a castle with eight towers. Seven are very similar, sides
are coved like a greek pillar, row of windows at the top, various shapes
of roof, above that and what look like stalagmites stuck on top of the
roofs. The one in the middle is of a different form, no coves, no
stalagmites, no windows, kind of a thick viney thing on the front, slight
swelling below the roof, rounded cone roof. Um, guys, that's a penis. I
could unzip and compare, but my memory from showering this morning is
pretty clear, and that is a penis.
If you hold the sideways, look over the male's left arm, squint really
hard, and ignore some other wave forms, you might be able to get the
letters "F" "U" and "C", and a little farther on a "K". But I don't
believe that is intentional, just the way the forms ended up.
So, the score is: Phallus, yes; Obscenity, no.
Skip
snopes
Skip Huffman <Lora...@NoSpam.America.Net> wrote:
> Lets see. I have that video right here in my hands. Looking at the
> cover, I see a castle with eight towers. Seven are very similar, sides
> are coved like a greek pillar, row of windows at the top, various shapes
> of roof, above that and what look like stalagmites stuck on top of the
> roofs. The one in the middle is of a different form, no coves, no
> stalagmites, no windows, kind of a thick viney thing on the front, slight
> swelling below the roof, rounded cone roof. Um, guys, that's a penis. I
> could unzip and compare, but my memory from showering this morning is
> pretty clear, and that is a penis.
There's a formation on Mars that resembles a face. Is that resemblance
alone sufficient for a supposition of intent, as in the above?
Again, the phallic object is a few lines and curves, not much different
from the lines and curves that form several other towers in the same
drawing. (Not all of them have "stalagmites" and/or windows.) If the
line that separates the "head" from the "shaft" of this tower were
drawn a few degrees closer to horizontal, I doubt many people would see
the object as a penis.
In any case, the bickering over what it does or does not look like
and whether or not it was intentional can go on for ages. Surely
somebody out there _knows_ the answer. Isn't there anyone who
is acquainted with this artist and can speak to his intent?
- snopes
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| snopes is a mechanical device that exhibits elasticity according |
| to Hooke's Law. He is usually made of steel, brass or bronze. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Stephen R. Kupec Jr.
So are you saying that there never was a face on mars surface?? The
elements could have formed it that way. Just as the brush the artist used
could have formed it that way. BUT, take in to the account what I posted
before. (It was in the news) The artist got upset after Disney did not
pay him for the work he did on the first cover. It was his little
revenge.
snopes
Stephen R. Kupec Jr. <sku...@mindspring.com (die Spammers)> wrote:
> So are you saying that there never was a face on mars surface??
What I said was: <<There's a formation on Mars that resembles a face.>>
Are you questioning the ambiguity of my not stating outright that the
thing on Mars _is_ a face?
> The elements could have formed it that way. Just as the brush the
> artist used could have formed it that way
Exactly. And neither one required any intent to create a specific
resemblance.
> BUT, take in to the account what I posted before. (It was in the news)
> The artist got upset after Disney did not pay him for the work he did on
> the first cover. It was his little revenge.
You seem to be confusing "a rumor heard on the news" with "truth."
They are far from synonymous.
- snopes
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| TAMPER RESISTANT: Do not read this article if header is open or damaged. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Stephen R. Kupec Jr.
> What I said was: <<There's a formation on Mars that resembles a face.>>
> Are you questioning the ambiguity of my not stating outright that the
> thing on Mars _is_ a face?
Yes.
> Exactly. And neither one required any intent to create a specific
> resemblance.
So David and the Mona Lisa, where just accidents?? Artists have the
ability to draw what they see in there mind. Elements can not.
> You seem to be confusing "a rumor heard on the news" with "truth."
> They are far from synonymous.
Not a rumor in the NEWs, just that the news stated it. If it is not a
fact, and it is not supposed to be a Penis then why is that shape so unlike
all the other shapes in the picture. To much of a coincidence that it looks
that much like it.
snopes
Stephen R. Kupec Jr. <sku...@mindspring.com (die Spammers)> wrote:
>> What I said was: <<There's a formation on Mars that resembles a face.>>
>> Are you questioning the ambiguity of my not stating outright that the
>> thing on Mars _is_ a face?
> Yes.
Well, since there is no evidence that any sentient beings capable
of artistic intent have ever visited the surface of Mars, I cannot
claim that the object is a face, only that it resembles one.
> So David and the Mona Lisa, where just accidents?? Artists have the
> ability to draw what they see in there mind. Elements can not.
No, but just because man has the ability to draw what he sees in his
mind does not mean that everything he draws resembles one -- and
only one -- specific thing. Intelligence does not rule out the
possiblility of inadvertent resemblances.
If enough people say that the Mona Lisa is a picture of a watermelon,
does that mean Da Vinci's intent must have been to draw a watermelon?
> Not a rumor in the NEWs, just that the news stated it.
If the news states something and has no real information to back it up,
there is no difference between "news" and "rumor."
> If it is not a fact, and it is not supposed to be a Penis then why is
> that shape so unlike all the other shapes in the picture.
It isn't. It's slightly different from the other shapes, just as they
all are from each other.
> To much of a coincidence that it looks that much like it.
Ah, back to your original argument: X looks like Y, therefore X
was created with deliberate intent to resemble Y. It couldn't be a
coincidence that the formation on Mars looks so much like a face,
therefore somebody must have deliberately created the formation.
- snopes
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| snopes was created to enhance the comfort and ease of intimate activity. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
