Roger Rabbit: VISTA review up! (1 Viewer)

[Mark-W]

Rain-

The point is that both films have been altered to
differing degrees from their original intended presentations.

One has a completely different ending, footage deleted,
and new material shot without the director involved.
...even if Robert Wise still doesn't think
what he participated in was that bad.

The other film, regardless of existing elements or not,
has less than 1 second's worth of footage altered.

I admire you for being willing to bypass this film on
DVD, but for many of us, it does work on a case-by-case
basis, and less than 24 frames is not something many of
us are going to boycott a DVD over.

Mark

 

[Carlo_M]

Yeah I admit, no matter how minor, what they have done to WFRR is indeed censorship. But as Mark stated, it is a case-by-case basis for me. Unfortunately the changes in WFRR are, for me, so minor as to not really warrant a boycott. But I fully understand those who choose to take a firm stand and not buy the product.

I won't argue that a few frames don't make a difference (how many frames d'ya think that laser beam Han Solo "shot first" took, 3, maybe 4 frames?). But whereas that change altered the the whole scheme of the Han Solo character arc (for me at least) these changes in WFRR do not. Again, this is my feeling. Others will feel differently and its their right to do so.

 

[Rain]

As long as you all realize that buy buying the disc you are essentially saying "This sort of censorship is perfectly acceptable to me," then go right ahead.

Enjoy.

 

[Beast]

It's not censorship, if it was never intended to be there in the first place. It's no different then the animators sneaking stuff into past disney films that were never noticed at the time. The naked woman in the window of the building in "The Rescuers", etc. Some dirty minded animator decides to draw his finger up, as if he fingered her. Now show me in the script, that he was ever supposed to finger her as he passes under her.

 

[Rain]

...if it was never intended to be there in the first place.

As I suggested earlier, the finger was very obviously intended to be there.

You can try to rationalize it all you like, it is and always will be censorship.

 

[Beast]

Show me the script that specifically states, "Baby Herman passes under the woman's dress, and fingers her." Can't? Because it wasn't meant to happen. Some crude animator got his jollies in by doing it. Note the fact that Baby Herman isn't even tall enough to finger her. Look how far up her crotch is, from the end of his hand. :p)

 

[Mark-W]

Mike-

Whether we are right or wrong, it seems obvious to most
that the Baby Herman finger was not something "snuck"
in like the Betty Boop or exposed Jessica frames.

The very nature of the Baby Herman shot makes it pretty
clear that the finger could've (and probably was) intended
to be there.

While many of us (including myself) will be buying the DVD,
I hope we also understand why others are finding this modification objectionable enough
to warrant a non-purchase.

mw

 

[Beast]

Yes, it could've meant to have been there. But it just as easily could've been slipped in by the animator assigned to the Baby Herman charecter. There is no positive proof supporting either side, until the director himself states what was intended. But the fact it happens so quick, and there is no possible way he can reach her sex with his finger extended, suggests to me, and the people I've pointed this out to, that it was more likely not intended to be there.

 

[Rain]

But it just as easily could've been slipped in by the animator assigned to the Baby Herman charecter.

Please.

Do you really think that the whole film wouldn't have been gone over with a fine tooth comb before release?

I seriously doubt that any of these things went unnoticed, but this one in particular would have been impossible to just "slip in" unnoticed.

 

[Beast]

Oh please, it's not like there hasn't been other instances where movie mistakes or intentional things getting slipped into movies, get past the studios. There are websites dedicated to such things.

Sometimes they are caught, and somtimes they get past without detection. Unless someone has a dirty mind, and noticed the extended figure, they wouldn't have even thought twice about it.

 

[Mark-W]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously though...lots of things do slip by, even
in animated films. One only needs to look at the naked
woman in The Rescuers for evidence of this.

That shot is reminiscent of the Betty Boop and exposed
Jessica shots, which leads most rational people to believe
they were pranks by a few animators and certainly nothing
approved by the people actually paying for the production
of the film.

Again, unlike the previously mentioned frames, the
Baby Herman one is not in some cryptic, easily
overlooked spot in a scene,
like a hardly noticeable window in a building:
it is a key scene with the character doing a
specific action that tells the viewers a lot
about what kind of fella Baby Herman is.

It bears no resemblance in execution to those
prank shots and therefore cannot readily be considered
one by any person with reasonable deducing skills.

 

[Beast]

It bears no resemblance in execution to those
prank shots and therefore cannot readily be considered
one by any person with reasonable deducing skills.

It can, when he can't even reach her sex even with an extended finger. Maybe if it was a giant foam finger, then possibly. The top of his hand only comes up to her knee when he's passing under her. So it can be considered as somthing slipped into a few frames, by people with reasonable deducing skills.

 

[oscar_merkx]

great thread to read and a fab review fron IGN, I will be bying the DVD

 

[Edwin-S]

Yes, it could've meant to have been there. But it just as easily could've been slipped in by the animator assigned to the Baby Herman charecter.
------------------------------------------------------------

The entire composition of the shot....the look on his face, the upraised arm, and the devilish ears he has suddenly sprouted....clearly indicates that he has, or has attempted, to perform a lewd act. The shot looks weird with his fist clenched. If the finger wasn't intended to be raised the animators would, most likely, have drawn his entire hand in an open position to indicate that he was pushing her skirt up and away as he passed under her legs. Nobody pushes drapery away with a closed fist; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the raised finger was an intentional gag, not a dirty-minded animator's prank drawing.

Like someone else noted earlier, he now looks like he was attempting to give her the whole fist, rather than being a dirty old man trying to cop a cheap feel.

 

[Chris S]

Jeremy Conrad,

Thanks for the headsup on the typo. It makes a lot more sense that way . However like Rain and some others here this is still a NO SALE for me.

Chris S.

 

[Carlo_M]

I will not divulge my very close friend's name or ID, but he was an animator for a major Hollywood animation studio (not Disney, so you can fill in the blank) and trust me, he did sneak multiple things past the directors and even her supervisors on several of the films he worked on (including a reference to his/her significant other at the time). The films cannot be gone over with a fine tooth comb by everyone, least of all Zemeckis. They are more concerned with the overall picture and can't afford to micromanage and examine each frame.

That said, I do believe that Baby Herman's finger was intended, if not by Zemeckis, by someone pretty high up (writer, head animator, etc). The Betty Boop & Jessica frames I could totally believe were snuck in there. I know this because of what I've seen goes on in the creation of several mainstream animation feature films - firsthand.

And yes, Rain, I do realize I'm sending a mixed message. But I have to admit I've long since given up on Disney and their arcane policies. I still think we can make a difference...to just about any other studio except Disney. They truly answer to themselves only, it seems.

 

[Shane Dodson]

It's not about principles. It's about how far you take your principles.

A person who is against film censorship can still purchase ROGER RABBIT in good faith. He/she believes in the principle, but also has discernment about it.

Believe it or not, there IS such a thing as "too far." Don't fault others for not drawing the line as far as you do.

And don't be surprised when others find your line a bit out of reach.

-S.D.

 

[Shane Dodson]

I'm sorry you feel Disney has shown "contempt" toward you. I hold no such negative feelings. The distributors of this film have offered a product that I have the freedom to either purchase or leave on the shelf.

That's it.

I will purchase it.

You will leave it on the shelf.

Ain't capitalism grand?

-S.D.

 

[Shane Dodson]

Actually, I'm saying "This sort of movie appeals to me."

And thanks for the go-ahead.



-S.D.

 

[Mark-W]

Carlo-

Exactly my point: the nature of the Baby Herman scene
feels exactly like it was always meant to be there, if
not with a single finger, then all of them extended.
Honestly, the gesture doesn't work well with a fist
for all the reasons you mentioned.

It is the 1 or 2 frame "flashes," that are characteristic
of the things animators sneek in.

Shane-

I really liked what you said in your first of three
posts: you made the same argument I did, but framed
it better.

to steal from Ron-P,

"Peace out"



Mark