Subliminal

[bloody_ribcut]

[ChronoGrl]

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.

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."

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.

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.

[neverending]

Well, not really, when you think about an animation FACTORY, such as Disney, where thousands of animators work on a project, it seems a bit far fetched. You've got character designers, character animators, facial animators, key animators, in-betweeners, backgrounders, colorists- each working on their own tight deadlines, and hoping like hell they're doing a good enough job the new intern from Loyola-Marymount won't take their job...

You got one guy drawing the mouths, one guy drawing the arms, one guy drawing the bottom half of one character, another guy drawing the top half, another crew doing the inking on a cell over the pencil drawings, another crew filling in the actions between the key animators frames- every artist concentrating on getting their particular step done on schedule- it seems pretty silly that any one artist is going to put the rest of the project in jeopardy by replacing a knee with a penis.

Couple that with some people's need to see everything that's longer than it is wide as a penis- especially if it's in a Disney cartoon that you've slowed down and stared at obsessively for hours- it just all seems like much ado about nothing to me.

[ferretchucker]

Originally Posted by ChronoGrl

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?

If by the leaves you mean the dust, as I stated, they were meant to be spelling SFX, as in Special Effects and it was just something the animators wanted, almost like a cartoonist writing their name in the bottom corner of a comic strip.

[urgeok2]

Originally Posted by ferretchucker

If by the leaves you mean the dust, as I stated, they were meant to be spelling SFX, as in Special Effects and it was just something the animators wanted, almost like a cartoonist writing their name in the bottom corner of a comic strip.

why would you mention special effects - in a cartoon ?

[ferretchucker]

Maybe the animator's last name was Slfergunschplagun and it wouldn't fit. I don't know why those chose that, but I don't see what the point in putting the word Sex in a cartoon is. What benefit could it possibly have?

[_____V_____]

Originally Posted by ferretchucker

Maybe the animator's last name was Slfergunschplagun and it wouldn't fit. I don't know why those chose that, but I don't see what the point in putting the word Sex in a cartoon is. What benefit could it possibly have?

Exactly.

Dont believe everything you see, my young English whipper-snapper. People use much more imagination than they have, to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Sadly, this happens a lot. "An idle mind is a Devil's workshop", or so they say.

[ferretchucker]

Originally Posted by _____V_____

Exactly.

Dont believe everything you see, my young English whipper-snapper. People use much more imagination than they have, to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Sadly, this happens a lot. "An idle mind is a Devil's workshop", or so they say.

And a happy mind is Santa's workshop.


And who was looking at the shapes the dust formed for a split second anyway? They must have been playing it frame by frame. Same with The Rescuers.