Disney's Rescuers Video RECALLED due to NUDE scene!!
Ron Bennett
video due to an objectable scene in 2 frames of the 110,000 frames of the film.
The scene depicts a topless woman in place of one of the windows of a building
in the background. The precise location of the frame is aprox 38 minutes into
the video as Orville (carrying the two mice) fly down the building...just as
Orville is coming out of the freefall, the image of the topless woman is
visable in two frames when viewed in slow motion/still. AND YES IT'S THERE!!
While Disney and others have acknowledged that the objectable scene is NOT
visable during normal viewing, Disney has chosen to recall 3.4 MILLION copies
of the tape.
Imagine over 3,000,000 video tapes being disposed because of one scene that's
not visable during normal viewing. Even in still frame the picture of the
topless woman is only about 2" x 1" on a 19" TV and difficult to make out much
detail.
And yet Disney is going to THROW AWAY over 3,000,000 working Rescuers videos!!
Makes no sense and will damage the environment!! All because of an image of a
topless woman that the average viewer can't even see!! What a waste!!
Ron
Jo Ann Malina
> According to several news articles today, Disney has recalled the Rescuers
> video due to an objectable scene in 2 frames of the 110,000 frames of the film.
>
> The scene depicts a topless woman in place of one of the windows of a building
> in the background.
> Makes no sense and will damage the environment!! All because of an image of a
> topless woman that the average viewer can't even see!! What a waste!!
Are you kidding? They probably had 3 million of them sitting in
warehouses somewhere. Somebody said "How can we move these turkeys?"
Marketing and PR departments went to work: Hey, presto, instant
collector's item.
--
Jo Ann Malina, make spamthis best to find my address
When you wish upon a star...nothing happens. Powerful negative magic, that.
Matthew Old
Disney movie. The Little Mermaid, it's the old video cover (one kingdom
spiral), The Lion King 'Sex' is spelled in the dust when Simba's father
dies, and I even heard something to the effect of 'Take off your clothes' is
whispered in a scene in Aladdin.
Maybe someone let a running gag go too far.
Writing from my fiance's computer,
Melissa Waldrup
dece...@socket.net
paulz28
high profile "suprises" in many of their smash box-office animation
features (lion king, alladin, little mermaid, etc.). Corp. bigwigs know
that their "squeaky clean' image is their bread and butter, so they take
swift and dramatic action. They don't like these grass roots people
cranking up picket lines and prtests, you know. Mickey will get a tax
write off, and the celluloid will be recycled. If you were lucky enough
to get your hands on one of these tawdry tapes, then you've got
something more valuable than a golden furby. It is widely rumoured that
the cartoonists have secret competitions amongst themselves as to who
can slip in something naughty past the final edit team. A proverbial
game of cat and mouse, and the mouse in this case is the corporate icon
and mascot. Cheers!
"Of course, your mileage may vary."
pz
Ron Bennett wrote:
>
> According to several news articles today, Disney has recalled the Rescuers
> video due to an objectable scene in 2 frames of the 110,000 frames of the film.
>
> The scene depicts a topless woman in place of one of the windows of a building
> in the background. The precise location of the frame is aprox 38 minutes into
> the video as Orville (carrying the two mice) fly down the building...just as
> Orville is coming out of the freefall, the image of the topless woman is
> visable in two frames when viewed in slow motion/still. AND YES IT'S THERE!!
>
> While Disney and others have acknowledged that the objectable scene is NOT
> visable during normal viewing, Disney has chosen to recall 3.4 MILLION copies
> of the tape.
>
> Imagine over 3,000,000 video tapes being disposed because of one scene that's
> not visable during normal viewing. Even in still frame the picture of the
> topless woman is only about 2" x 1" on a 19" TV and difficult to make out much
> detail.
>
> And yet Disney is going to THROW AWAY over 3,000,000 working Rescuers videos!!
> Makes no sense and will damage the environment!! All because of an image of a
> topless woman that the average viewer can't even see!! What a waste!!
>
> Ron
webMi...@hiddenmickeys.org
rb1...@ix.netcom.com (Ron Bennett) wrote:
> According to several news articles today, Disney has recalled the Rescuers
> video due to an objectable scene in 2 frames of the 110,000 frames of the
film.
>
> The scene depicts a topless woman in place of one of the windows of a
building
> in the background. The precise location of the frame is aprox 38 minutes into
> the video as Orville (carrying the two mice) fly down the building...just as
> Orville is coming out of the freefall, the image of the topless woman is
> visable in two frames when viewed in slow motion/still. AND YES IT'S THERE!!
>
> While Disney and others have acknowledged that the objectable scene is NOT
> visable during normal viewing, Disney has chosen to recall 3.4 MILLION copies
> of the tape.
>
> Imagine over 3,000,000 video tapes being disposed because of one scene that's
> not visable during normal viewing. Even in still frame the picture of the
> topless woman is only about 2" x 1" on a 19" TV and difficult to make out
much
> detail.
>
> And yet Disney is going to THROW AWAY over 3,000,000 working Rescuers videos!!
> Makes no sense and will damage the environment!! All because of an image of a
> topless woman that the average viewer can't even see!! What a waste!!
>
> Ron
It is possible they will recycle the tapes -- it'd be a lot easier if they
just tape over the old ones. Meli
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dsn...@phoenixat.com
at the Disney Studios. But sudeenly the head of the company died and he was
sad. Not only that but the quality of what the studios were turning out was
quite poor (Black Cauldron Herbie Goes Bananas, Herbie goes to Monte Carlos,
well you get the picture). So this animator decided to leave and start his own
animation studios and take with him about half of the animation staff....But
before he left, he decided to finish the animation film he was working on and
take one last stab at the Walt Disney Studios and decided to place a picture
(NOT a drawing or silhouette) of a Playboy Centerfold in one of the windows
that the Albatross flies by after he leaves the Pam Am Building. He placed
this picture (with full frontal nudity) in two frames of footage in such a way
that It would be extremely hard to take out without disrupting the film....For
years no one knew about this and the film was released and re-released in
theaters.
On the eve of it being released to video several years ago, someone heard a
rumor about this...and lo and behold found it...So Disney decided to place
black tape over the window in the two frames of film so that when the transfer
from film to video was done you didn't see the woman.....
Now years later...they must of forgotten about this and did a brand new
transfer unaware of the scene....
It was not only in the film but also in one of their commercials that ran on TV
for the film as they used this scene in the commercial unaware of the nudity
scene....
My Hats off to you, Mr. Bluth!
P. Videcoq
Matthew Old a écrit dans le message <3696b46d.0@news>...
>Hey, besides, I thought it was standard for one sexual reference in every
>Disney movie. The Little Mermaid, it's the old video cover (one kingdom
>spiral), The Lion King 'Sex' is spelled in the dust when Simba's father
>dies, and I even heard something to the effect of 'Take off your clothes'
is
>whispered in a scene in Aladdin.
Little mermaid: a fired artist drew an objectionable image on the video
jacket on purpose.
The rest of it is pure rumor. In The Lion King, it's "SFX" that is spelled
out for one image (meaning "special effects", a touch of the department
which made the effect) and Aladdin whispers "Good Tiger, take off and go".
Also, Donald Duck was said to utter "f... you" in the 1936 Clock Cleaners,
when in fact he says "Says you" to the talking clock spring which replies
"Says I".
The Ribena Berry {woo!}
> And yet Disney is going to THROW AWAY over 3,000,000 working Rescuers videos!!
> Makes no sense and will damage the environment!! All because of an image of a
> topless woman that the average viewer can't even see!! What a waste!!
Oh my god! How could they be so wasteful? What sort of kid, anyway, is
going to go through a film frame by frame?! And even if they did go 2
frames frame-by-frame, the chance of getting those exact 2 frames has to
be at least 1 in a million!
- Jane
(P.S. if anyone wants to reply to me, please use E-mail as I'm not a
regular subscriber to any of these newsgroups. Ta!)
--
You have been privileged enough to receive a pearl of wisdom from:
Jane McGuinness (A Certified Nun of Cool) aka *The Ribena Berry* (Woo!)
E-MAIL: ja...@hamster.almac.co.uk :LIAM-E
But if you're here, who's grooming the badgers ready for the badger parade?
James Hall
Purchased today, one and one half days after nationwide recall "The
Rescuers VHS #14792, still in original wrappings with a coupon redemption
booklet.
This porno-ladened animation feature comes with a photocopy of the bill
showing today's date. I also have the promo cardboard advertising cutout
with the pre-purchase flyer (none left) section attached showing the
pre-purchase redemption dates (which includes recall time period).
I am accepting offers, in US $, for this video, postage cost from Ottawa
will be added to purchaser's final cost (approx. $5.00 within North
America).
Please indicate if you wish to be advised if your bid is too low otherwise
I will contact the poster with the highest bid. The successful buyer
must post his/her cheque or money order the first working day following
contact and said payment must be in my hands 6 working days after being
posted.
You may pay by cheque (20 working day wait for US, 7 wd for Canada) or
by money order (US funds) in which case your purchase is mailed immediately
upon receipt of the m/o.
KEVIN M NISH
>>
>> The scene depicts a topless woman in place of one of the windows of a
>building
>> in the background
Will someone please explain to me why they recalled the Rescuers with 2
frames of a topless woman when there are MULTIPLE frames of topless women in
Fantasia. One in which one of them shoves her ample endowments right into
the camera and it is completely visible?
<shaking head>
Kim
Juan F. Lara
James Hall <jh...@achilles.net> wrote:
> This porno-ladened animation feature comes with a photocopy of the bill
> showing today's date.
For years James Hall has been harrassing people on the newsgroups for being
Disney fans. Therefore he has no right to profit off of Disney merchandise. If
you really REALLY must have a copy of the recalled video, you can find it
elsewhere on the Internet. But I don't think anyone should buy this tape or any
other Disney memorabilia from Hall.
- Juan F. Lara
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
Gunnut
She was a harpy. Since she's not human, it doesn't count.
Interestingly enough, Walt wanted to show the centaurettes (earlier in
the film) with nipples; he wasn't allowed. I suppose the reason might
be that the centaurettes were sexy, whereas the harpies...weren't.
Friend
>Will someone please explain to me why they recalled the Rescuers with 2
>frames of a topless woman when there are MULTIPLE frames of topless women in
>Fantasia. One in which one of them shoves her ample endowments right into
>the camera and it is completely visible?
The cynic in me suggests that since Disney's profits were lower than
expected in '98, that maybe this is Disney's way to get free publicity for
those tapes and thus garner more sales if they turn out not to be removed
from shelves so quickly.
Machelle Simon-Grech
that all those rumors are false.
paulz28 wrote:
>
> Not all that surprising, really. Consider that they have had several
> high profile "suprises" in many of their smash box-office animation
> features (lion king, alladin, little mermaid, etc.). Corp. bigwigs know
> that their "squeaky clean' image is their bread and butter, so they take
> swift and dramatic action. They don't like these grass roots people
> cranking up picket lines and prtests, you know. Mickey will get a tax
> write off, and the celluloid will be recycled. If you were lucky enough
> to get your hands on one of these tawdry tapes, then you've got
> something more valuable than a golden furby. It is widely rumoured that
> the cartoonists have secret competitions amongst themselves as to who
> can slip in something naughty past the final edit team. A proverbial
> game of cat and mouse, and the mouse in this case is the corporate icon
> and mascot. Cheers!
>
> "Of course, your mileage may vary."
> pz
>
> Ron Bennett wrote:
> >
> > According to several news articles today, Disney has recalled the Rescuers
> > video due to an objectable scene in 2 frames of the 110,000 frames of the film.
> >
> > The scene depicts a topless woman in place of one of the windows of a building
> > in the background. The precise location of the frame is aprox 38 minutes into
> > the video as Orville (carrying the two mice) fly down the building...just as
> > Orville is coming out of the freefall, the image of the topless woman is
> > visable in two frames when viewed in slow motion/still. AND YES IT'S THERE!!
> >
> > While Disney and others have acknowledged that the objectable scene is NOT
> > visable during normal viewing, Disney has chosen to recall 3.4 MILLION copies
> > of the tape.
> >
> > Imagine over 3,000,000 video tapes being disposed because of one scene that's
> > not visable during normal viewing. Even in still frame the picture of the
> > topless woman is only about 2" x 1" on a 19" TV and difficult to make out much
> > detail.
> >
> > And yet Disney is going to THROW AWAY over 3,000,000 working Rescuers videos!!
> > Makes no sense and will damage the environment!! All because of an image of a
> > topless woman that the average viewer can't even see!! What a waste!!
> >
> > Ron
--
Machelle Simon-Grech |The opinions above are mine|
Ford Motor Company |and only mine. They have |
Visteon - Glass Division |nothing to do with that of |
mgr...@ford.com |my employeer's! |
Go Wings! 97 & 98 Stanley Cup Winners!
Cail & Erin
included in that, then they are most definitely wrong... I bought a copy,
and when I heard about the recall, my natural instinct to find a bit of
'taboo' in a Disney flick took over and I did indeed find the scene... I
also heard that The Little Mermaid incident was also proven, though you are
right about the rest... urban myths and nothing more...
Machelle Simon-Grech wrote in message <3699F217...@ford.com>...
James Hall
> expected in '98, that maybe this is Disney's way to get free publicity for
> those tapes and thus garner more sales if they turn out not to be removed
> from shelves so quickly.
When reality gets to close
we can always count on Disney to brighten our day and help make our
troubles disappear for a few hours or at least get the kids off our
backs so that we may enjoy a beer and some sports on TV (if just to
check up on our daily betting).
The portion of this post that is marked by the boundaries ====== is
a repost of 2 earlier posts made by a sane, rationally thinking individual
=============================================================================
OK, friends...
The story about tits in Rescuers put my research reflexes in high
gear.... ;-)
Here's what I found:
There are NO boobs in the British PAL release of a few years ago.
HOWEVER, there IS a clear difference between the scene in question and
the surrounding scenes: The "offending" scene has been RETOUCHED in the
video release!
How do I know this? Well, looking at the stuff frame-by frame, I noticed
that the special scene has a video artifact, coming from a "2:3
pulldown" video transfer. This shows up as double images in a pan or
fast moving scene. The surrounding scenes are straight 1:1 frame
transfers, no artifacts.
This means Disney KNEW about the boobs and corrected the scene when this
video was released!
So, my research took me further back in time... I can definitely say,
that the boobs ARE in the ORIGINAL FILM RELEASE of 1977!
It appears that someone in the studio, AFTER the original pan background
was approved, attached two pictures (photos or magazine cutouts) to the
background before or during shooting. Cameraman, shooting in the wee
hours of night, perhaps?
A practical joke, which backfired on Disney 21 years later.
The current "boobs" release was made from an original print or video
transfer, without the replacement of the boobs scene with the retouched
version.
So, the Rescures movie has "come to age", now...
BTW, there are other examples of "retouching" in Disney films: 3 little
pigs: wolf as Jewish peddler, Fantasia: Pastoral re-worked to remove
racially sensitive scenes (but there are still some tits in it!), and
probably several more that I don't recall right now.
Sigh....
I checked the website, ( http://www.sightings.com/ufo2/porndisney.htm )
looked at the frames...
Sigh....
What's happening to America? Is there no sense of humor anymore?
A "nekkid lady" in a window, for two frames, IMPOSSIBLE to see if you're
not looking for it - and Disney recalls millions of tapes???
SNIPPED STUFF
What's happened to America? Disney is afraid of some fringe groups,
obviously. Where's THEIR sense of humor?
I feel sad inside.
============================================================================
Welcome to the club. Disney exists for one reason - to make as much money
as possible to ensure the growth of their power base. It is all about
manufacturing consent - the consent that Disney should rule the universe.
Now that we have this crap out of the way, along with Juan's lovely saving
you all from yourselves post let's get down to business -
Hello, hello,
Purchased last Sat., one and one half days after nationwide recall "The
Rescuers" VHS #14792, still in original wrappings with a coupon redemption
booklet.
This porno-ladened animation feature comes with a photocopy of the bill
showing Sat's date. I also have the promo cardboard advertising cutout
with the pre-purchase flyer (none left) section attached showing the
pre-purchase redemption dates (which includes recall time period).
I am accepting offers, in US $, for this video, postage cost from Ottawa
will be added to purchaser's final cost (approx. $5.00 within North
America).
Please indicate if you wish to be advised if your bid is too low otherwise
I will contact ONLY the poster with the highest bid. The successful buyer
must post his/her cheque or money order the first working day following
contact and said payment must be in my hands 6 working days after being
posted.
You may pay by cheque (20 working day wait for US, 7 wd for Canada) or
by money order (US funds) in which case your purchase is mailed immediately
upon receipt of the m/o.
I am amazed and delighted that Disney has such control over most and uses
any trick in the book (and some not even in books) to make money, more
money, even making money when they should be losing money.
Sales are slow, well let's find a reason to pump up the sales. Say how
about the 2 cels out of approx. 110,000 cels that may be considered
questionable by about 4% of the world's population. That is 2/110,000 or
0.0000181% of the frames, don't blink. And if you see them and you are
under the age of 5 it means that you will become a serial rapist. Or is
that under the age of 50 ?
So who is zoomin' who ?
"The Rescuers" video is now a collectors item for many reasons the first
and foremost reason being that it proves just how stupid people are when
it comes to manufacturing consent and Disney.
What say you ? Do you now have to have it ? If so then make an offer
that you are sure will secure one this tape for you. Be the first on your
block to HAVE it so that you may show the shrink-wrapped item whenever
someone drops by. Just think of the hours of fun you will have talking
about how stupid Disney was regarding this tape. And you will never even
watch it. Say what is a tape for anyway ?
And you will be able to connect the 36,984th release of "The Rescuers"
with the trial of the century, (the one that is displacing the last trial
of the century Mr. Oh Joy Simply Thrilled to be here only in America),
of one phatological liar and sexual deviant known around town as scumbag
willy. Just imagine a dirty Disney film and a vile dirty little man all
connected by toys, movies and beanie babies.
Have you lost your way folks or is this just a minor detour to a better
universe for all ?
Help me on this one - buy my copy of "The Rescuers" and save me.
James Hall
Handball
James Hall wrote in message ...
:> The cynic in me suggests that since Disney's profits were lower than
:> expected in '98, that maybe this is Disney's way to get free publicity
for
:> those tapes and thus garner more sales if they turn out not to be removed
:> from shelves so quickly.
:
:When reality gets to close
:
:we can always count on Disney to brighten our day and help make our
:troubles disappear for a few hours or at least get the kids off our
:backs so that we may enjoy a beer and some sports on TV (if just to
:check up on our daily betting).
:
:The portion of this post that is marked by the boundaries ====== is
:a repost of 2 earlier posts made by a sane, rationally thinking individual
:===========================================================================
==
:OK, friends...
:===========================================================================
=
:
:
:Welcome to the club. Disney exists for one reason - to make as much money
:
:
:
James Hall
> The recalled version is massively available at Virgin Sunset Hollywood
What does massively mean when used in the above sentence ? This
individual watched one Disney film to many and missed far too many
lessons in reading and writing.
Furthermore, not everyone lives near Virgin Sunset Hollywood, especially
those Disney fantantics in Alaska, Edmonton or New Zealand.
Chaim Forgacs
> Writing from my fiance's computer,
> Melissa Waldrup
> dece...@socket.net
I read this message sitting on my grandmothers rocking chair.
CF
anotherfellow
the time the film came out.
He was in Disney post production at the time.
Sorry, I won't tell though. I don't know if he's still there or not. I
haven't had
contact with him for years. He's not on the credits either. Back then film
credits
were very limited. Not like now. It was a simple "indetectable" joke.