Quote:
Originally Posted by bwind22
Doesn't look like his knee in that pic, but like I said I had never heard about that one before.
Jessica Rabbit is definitely spreading eagle though and The Lion King looks a hell of a lot more like it says SEX than SFX.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
Well, to quote the Rock Man from "The Point":
"Ya see what you wanna see, and ya hear what ya wanna hear."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretchucker
Yeh, most of those aren't really "naughties".
- It was definitely his knee.
- It did say SFX
- It isn't a penis, just the animators were rushing as they had little time left.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloody_ribcut
one knee?
ok, they admit it spelling sfx? why would it spell sfx?
sex sells...
|
Meanwhile. Back at the Priest's engorged member (that's what she said)...
I read the Snopes article and I definitely agree with NE that you definitely DO see what you want to see... But there's a point where I sit back and I think about the work that goes into animation (especially old timey animation) and how incredibly meticulous and purposeful each panel is. If you truly think about it, when the artist was designing the Priest, he could have positioned him in any way, shape, or form that he wanted to. The fact of the matter is, when the priest turns in the movie, it appears as though a certain
part of him grows. The animator could have chosen
not to display one knee or
not to have the Priest standing in profile... But this was a purposeful choice.
The same puzzling argument is made for the leaves on the wind in the Lion King. The animator could have rearranged those leaves in any completely random way, shape or form that they could... Why would they purposely arrange them (not only arrange them, but animate them to move into a specific position) if not with an ulterior motive?
It's this train of thought that makes me lean more towards the animator's mischief rather than misguided fanboys and cult rumormill enthusiasts.