Roger Rabbit Vista Series review up............. (1 Viewer)

[Rick Blaine]

Here is what I don't get.
They will pull 5 frames of a gag (still leaving the woman to raise her leg as shreek!!!) and leave in the Baby Hermann line later on "I've got a 50 year old lust, and a 3 year old dinky".
Comm'on - what determines lewd and censorable behavior!!!
Pleeeese!!!!
Rick

 

[James Reader]

I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. It would be stupid if the widescreen version was cut and the 4:3 version wasn't...

Julian, do you know for sure that the R2 release will be widescreen? Disney UK aren't going to pull another Atlantis/Sleeping Beauty are they and just include a 4:3 version on the single disc?
I must admit when I saw the R2 version was just 1 disc, I assumed it would be widescreen, but now I'm not so sure.

 

[David Lambert]

Does this mean that The Lion King is going to get digitally 'corrected' over the famous 'SEX' urban legend...?

It says "SFX", as in Special FX!

 

[Kenneth_C]

The problem is this: they're not giving us what we originally saw, which is insulting and unacceptable.

In reality, we never "originally saw" these scenes (at least, not the ones with Jessica Rabbit or Betty Boop.) You can't "see" a few frames that appear for only a fraction of a second.
Honestly, folks: How many of you walked out of the theater and said, "Wow, did you see those crotch shots of Jessica???"
Count me among those who are amazed at the amount of umbrage directed at Disney over this. It's not like Greedo shooting first, after all.

 

[JulianK]

Julian, do you know for sure that the R2 release will be widescreen?

No. All I know is that a newly remastered 4:3 version with the "finger" scene intact exists.

Are there any other reviews out there, or reviewers that have a copy of the disc who could check Widescreen Review's facts?

 

[Todd H]

In reality, we never "originally saw" these scenes (at least, not the ones with Jessica Rabbit or Betty Boop.) You can't "see" a few frames that appear for only a fraction of a second.

Well, if Kenneth says we didn't see these shots in the theater, then we must not have seen these shots in the theater. :rolleyes
Hate to break the news to you, but I saw this movie many times in the theater. I caught both the Baby Herman finger thing and the Jessica crotch shot, although I didn't see the Betty Boop shot. So please don't speak for me.
I just don't understand. There are so many GREAT movies for kids available, yet people are still determined to try and sanitize movies that weren't originally made for children. This movie was released rated PG. It contains foul language, drinking, violence, and sexual innuendo. "But it's Disney movie. They can do what they want with it," people say. OK. That's fine. So then stop bitching when studios release a movie in pan-n-scam only and don't make a widescreen version available. It's their movie after all. They can do with it what they want.

 

[Chris S]

With what result? Disney isn't going to take this as a sign that people are unhappy with this version of the film. They'll simply take it as a sign that we don't care about catalogue titles.

I just don't understand the logic in statements like these. The studio will see:

1. Petitions stating that people want the theatrical release
2. Will most likely get customer feedback about the same
3. Will possibly see lower sales numbers than expected[/list=1]
   and somehow they will conclude that people aren't interested in older titles? When people raised a fuss over Princess Mononoke's dub only track did the studio say 'Well I guess people don't care about Japanese animation'? No, they took a little more time and included a subtitled track. Granted this isn't quite as big as an audio track but it is still tampering with the original film.
   Chris S.

 

[Eric Huffstutler]

I agree. You shouldn't base your decision to buy a 2-hour movie over a couple second scene. It doesn't change the content of the movie, only "possibly" breaks the mood as to who this movie is geared to.

No, it is not the first adult-oriented animation but the gags and innuendos are way above the mentality of little Jane and Johnny. It was the first to start a trend.

 

[TonyD]

this is scheduled for hbo-hd on sat at noon. and is listed as true hd on hbo site.

but it was listed that way the other day and someone posted in another thread that it was only shown in 4x3 not wide or hi def

it is on right now but the sound appears to be pro logic mono.

and in case anyone is interested the finger scene was there fully intact and i was able to see it.

 

[TerryW]

Zemeckis doesn't sound too upset on the audio commentary track when they discuss the censored bits. It sounds like a clear case of animators sneaking in some nasty images into an animated film not thinking about future video, laserdisc or dvd releases with ultra-clear still frames.

This film is NOT geared toward children exclusively. And how can you think that Baby Herman is a "child?"

A. He talks like a dirty old man
B. He smokes cigars
C. He flirts with adult women
D. He implies having sex
E. He refers to his small penis
F. He is animated!

After listening to the filmmakers discuss the missing frames, I'm not too upset about not having them on the dvd. I have the uncensored laserdisc and I'll be purchasing the new dvd for the better picture and sound as well as the extras, especially the shorts (which I've never seen).

 

[Paul McElligott]

Censorship is an act of the state to suppress objectionable material. This is not censorship.
One other thing to add: unless Zemeckis explicitly told the animators, "Have Baby Herman finger the lady, plus put a frame of Betty Boops breasts here and Jessica's crotch there," then the so-called "uncensored" version doesn't represent his original vision but rather it represents the juvenile humor of a few animators.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is not about Baby Herman's libido, Boop's boobs and a Rabbit's beaver. With or without those frames, the experience of watching this film is the same for almost everybody.
And even if the Baby Herman shot was noticeable without pausing, it still went by too fast for all but a few viewers with sharp eyes and dirty minds.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

If someone just notices something, then they have a dirty mind? It's not as if the person noticing it actually drew those frames.

 

[MikeAlletto]

To all the 100 or so people throughout the country that won't buy it because of removed frames it is really gonna be your loss. Stand up for what you "believe" is right all you want, but at the end of the day Disney makes a ton of money and those that buy it will be sitting on their couches enjoying a great film while the rest of you will be complaining about 5 seconds of footage (if that).

 

[Todd H]

To all the 100 or so people throughout the country that won't buy it because of removed frames it is really gonna be your loss. Stand up for what you "believe" is right all you want, but at the end of the day Disney makes a ton of money and those that buy it will be sitting on their couches enjoying a great film while the rest of you will be complaining about 5 seconds of footage (if that).

Sarcasm duly noted Mike. What can we say? Like those who protest against altering the aspect ratio of movies released on home video, we are a vocal minority that stands up for what it believes is right. We're not for sale. And we'll continue to fight the good fight against revisionism and butchery of classic movies. And with that I am done with this thread.

 

[Chris S]

cen·sor
1 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
2 : one who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness

No where does it say that censorship must be an act conducted by the state. The definition only states that censorship is an act conducted by "an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter". This official is never required to be a government agent, only a person acting in an effort to look for questionable material.

 

[Steve_Knutzen]

It's not like Greedo shooting first, after all

I'm sure there are some that would argue this point as Greedo shooting first and the Baby Herman edit have something in common: they were both done rather sloppily.

 

[Matt Hamand]

Chris S

I totally understand the point you are trying to get. I just don't agree with it. The technical and legal sense is the only one that matters here.

My point about Spielberg and Lucas was simply meant to illustrate that those two directors are the only ones with the necessary clout to get stuff done the way they want it done.

Film is not art. Film is a commercial product that has artistic elements. 50 years ago the point of film was to put asses in seats. Today the point of film is to put asses in seats and then sell some DVDs.

I would not be comfortable with the idea of someone changing the Mona Lisa just because some museum owns it either. But you have to remember that even the Mona Lisa was originally just a job for Leonardo. Someone paid him to paint that picture and then got to decide what to do with it. Maybe he was impressed with the work and gave it to a museum. Or maybe he just hung it in the bathroom until he got tired of looking at it. Either way it was his call.

Just like it's Disney's call to cut a few frames from WFRR.

(Sorry for the lateness of this response by the way. I didn't even fire up the computer until 6:30 tonight.)

Matt

 

[Chris S]

Film is not art. Film is a commercial product that has artistic elements.

Matt,
I think this is the heart of our disagreement. To me film is an artistic product that has necessary commercial elements. I say necessary only because without which an artist can not sell his work and thus would not be able to survive. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. And don't worry about not responding right away. I'm sure if you have thread notification turned on you had quite a few emails to go through .
Chris S.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Film is not art. Film is a commercial product that has artistic elements. 50 years ago the point of film was to put asses in seats. Today the point of film is to put asses in seats and then sell some DVDs.

Film can be and is most of the time, art. Film can be an artistic product with commercial elements or vice-versa. 50 years ago, the point of film was to make well-made movies, helmed by expert craftsmen and women. Today, the point of film 95% of the time is to sell theater seats and DVDs.
Reasons which prove that film is indeed art:

 

[Paul McElligott]

Length of movie: 103 minutes.

or 6180 seconds or 148320 frames of film.

5 frames out of that is approx .003% of the film.

Yep, I can see where losing that much of the film would ruin it for people.

Again, unless Zemeckis himself called for these three little things to be where they were in the film, removing them does not compromise the director's vision.