"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" Blu-ray Announced (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by David Weicker /t/322532/who-framed-roger-rabbit-blu-ray-announced#post_3955954
I'm wondering if the title of this thread should be changed. From what I'm reading, all that has been seen is some Coming Attractions. To my knowledge, this title hasn't been 'announced' yet. It could be months (or even years) until this is truly 'announced'.
While I expect this to be released at some point, I'm not getting excited until there is a formal announcement.
David

Has there been an actual release date? No, but it's listed as "Coming Soon on Blu-ray", which seems like enough for it to be considered "formally announced" IMO...

 

[Frank Ha]

Colin, thanks for the info. It's "formally announced" enough for me. I'm really looking forward to this release. Roger Rabbit is one of my favorite movies. Whenever it comes out I'll be in line to get it.

 

[John Sparks]

Even if it's the edited/censored version???

 

[Mark Oates]

Even if it's the edited/censored version???

I'd say yes. The changes are on a minuscule scale - three or four frames for each "problem". In theatres, the shots would be practically subliminal and therefore not a problem. Home video formats have to take into account the fact consumers can watch them frame-by-frame, and of course Disney guards its family-friendly image like a tig(g)er guarding its young. The edits are annoying, but personally I'm not that bothered by them.

 

Not to mention that they would be even more noticeable in HD. Really, the edits don't make any difference to me. You can't really tell them when watching the film at the normal speed.

 

Also, in the original theatrical version, Michael Eisner's home phone number was visible, written on a wall in Toon Town. That was take out for vhs.

 

[John Sparks]

I'd say yes. The changes are on a minuscule scale - three or four frames for each "problem". In theatres, the shots would be practically subliminal and therefore not a problem. Home video formats have to take into account the fact consumers can watch them frame-by-frame, and of course Disney guards its family-friendly image like a tig(g)er guarding its young. The edits are annoying, but personally I'm not that bothered by them.

I don't understand that logic. They are giving us a censored/edited version, not the one we saw at the theater...how is that acceptable???

 

[John Sparks]

Not to mention that they would be even more noticeable in HD. Really, the edits don't make any difference to me. You can't really tell them when watching the film at the normal speed.

But you can...when the baby leaves the set, and he goes under the lady, he puts his finger up her skirt and then smells it..."THAT IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL MOVIE!!!" Anything else is censored, no matter what you think!!!

 

[JoHud]

The Baby Herman cut is really the only one that we really should expect to be put back into the movie. It's the only significant cut (in terms of length) in comparison.

 

[TravisR]

I don't understand that logic. They are giving us a censored/edited version, not the one we saw at the theater...how is that acceptable???

I can't speak for anyone but I would think the logic is that since Disney is probably never going to release the original version, they can either make a futile stand and not buy the disc or they can buy it and enjoy the movie despite the edits.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell /t/322532/who-framed-roger-rabbit-blu-ray-announced#post_3953480
The scenes involving brief nudity would not have been the intention of the film makers. This seems like a prank by the animators. This "censorship" is restoring their original intent, IMHO.

This is basically how I feel. The directors have stated that they viewed the issue with Jessica Rabbit being pantiless was an error they did not check, and was not part of their vision. In the end, leaving it in, as you say, is something I would view as more censorship, it's allowing either an inadvertant error or an intentional prank to survive in a film that is not the directors desire. This is, in the end 2 frames (two frames!) less then 1 second of content they did not want and has been restored to their original vision.
I saw Roger Rabbit in a theater - several times, and I do not remember at any point Betty Boop topless. If that happened, I'd be completely shocked.

As to the Baby Herman bit, I would concur that it should be reinstated, but again, I tend to understand the cut and am not completely frustrated by it.. though I do view it as something that should be included, the fact that it isn't will not stop me from buying

 

[JoHud]

I saw Roger Rabbit in a theater - several times, and I do not remember at any point Betty Boop topless.   If that happened, I'd be completely shocked.

From what I gather, it was an animation goof in which Betty Boop's dress hung too low. The revised Betty Boop is more of a fix than censorship.

 

[Frank Ha]

Even if it's the edited/censored version???

Yes, I will. I bought the DVD and so I'll buy the Blu-ray as well.

I can't speak for anyone but I would think the logic is that since Disney is probably never going to release the original version, they can either make a futile stand and not buy the disc or they can buy it and enjoy the movie despite the edits.

Yes, exactly. I will buy the movie and enjoy it despite the edits.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

The shorts will probably be subjected to much more extensive edits. When they were released on LD, the discs were recalled due to "issues with the glue holding the layers together". Apparently animators were encouraged to "have fun" and they put in a lot of things that were not appropriate for a "family" audience that were now visible when you would go frame by frame. A poster on the wall in the third short gets the most attention, but I at one point had a list of "issues" with all three cartoons.

From Laser Disc Database:

This disc was recalled by Disney when it came to their attention that the animators had included some "offensive" frames in the third cartoon, "Trail Mix-Up". During the scene in which Roger Rabbit chases Baby Herman through a sawmill, he runs past a poster hanging on the wall. When played at normal speed, this cannot even be seen. However, when played with frame advance, the poster can be seen fairly clearly. It shows a buxom woman in a bikini, straddling a large saw blade in a suggestive pose, with the words "Rigid Tools" at the top. The material in question consists of about a half dozen frames. The most noticeable example is frame 32478, when the poster can be seen clearly. Supposedly, the "official" reason given for the recall was "poor color transfer".

 

[dana martin]

well far be it from me to upset disney, but i know a lot of us here are saying the filmmakers original vision, and using the words prankster animators, for some of the differences that have been edited or ommited thru the years, here is my take each film or short had a director, and also animators, guess what the animators are part of the creative team, so it is part of their vision as well, dont dumb this down to the point of being Duck Tales ( no slight, i like Duck Tales)for what it is; Let it be the PG film that it was, i can do with out Jessica going all Sharon Stone, but all the rest needs to be back, it a film and cartoons for children and Adults

 

[Mark Oates]

Disney's too institutionally twee to release Roger Rabbit in its original untouched form as "Unrated" or in some way as not-suitable-for-minors just in case some mother rents it as a babysitter and then goes ballistic when she finds Junior slo-mo-ing it for his friends.

 

[JohnS]

Disney's too institutionally twee to release Roger Rabbit in its original untouched form as "Unrated" or in some way as not-suitable-for-minors just in case some mother rents it as a babysitter and then goes ballistic when she finds Junior slo-mo-ing it for his friends.

Disney needs to do this.
Release those movies that are more geared towards the adults.
Release Disney Enthusiast Collection (Unrated/Uncut, films that had inappropriate materials)
Who Frammed Roger Rabbit?
Song of the South
Fantasia

 

[Mark Oates]

Agreed, but sadly unlikely to ever happen. Disney management seems to be intent on making the company (or at least the animation division) one flavour - family-friendly vanilla - rather than having different strands which would be suitable for different audiences.

 

[SilverWook]

I have kid's cartoons I recorded off of FOX back in the 90's that have all sorts of "naughty" frames. The animators thumbed their noses at the censors quite often. I can only imagine what was slipped into in the shows I didn't record back then.
My LD copy of "The Best of Roger Rabbit" has no glue issues. What incredible luck! Seriously, who did Disney think was going to believe that hogwash? Even the most rotted discs in the history of the format never fell apart.

 

[Tom M]

This is basically how I feel.   The directors have stated that they viewed the issue with Jessica Rabbit being pantiless was an error they did not check, and was not part of their vision.   In the end, leaving it in, as you say, is something I would view as more censorship, it's allowing either an inadvertant error or an intentional prank to survive in a film that is not the directors desire.  This is, in the end 2 frames (two frames!) less then 1 second of content they did not want and has been restored to their original vision.

Entertainment Tonight did a segment on the Jessica Rabbit controversy back when the movie first came out on video.
ET had the actual animator who did that scene look over the offending frames with a magnifying glass. The animator said it was the unpainted outline of underwear. They then switched to an extreme closeup of the frames where, at that size, you could indeed see the outline of underwear.
Just an animation mistake misinterpeted by an immature teen (it was a 15 year old who first reported it).
The animator went on to suggest that Disney simply paint in the underwear to fix the issue. Instead, they removed the frames. Guess that was cheaper.