"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" announced (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

To digress a little, you guys do know all about the notorious bit in 'The Rescuers' where if you freeze frame a scene where Orville the albatross flies by a window you see a couple having sex on a bed? I kid you not.
Whether its still there on the dvd I don't know because I haven't got the dvd to it.

 

[george kaplan]

Brenton,
I have the uncensored ld. I've only freeze-framed this on rare occasions. Once, when I first heard about it, and various other times to show people who didn't believe it. I don't freeze frame it every time I watch it. That's not the point. The point is censorship and the principle of the thing. If you don't share the principle of non-censorship, fine, but I don't see any need for sarcasm.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Is this censorship? Before a new painting by Picaso is exhibited, one of his assistants modifies it in a minor way. No one notices.

After the painting is shown to the public, Picaso sees the modification and repaints the area to eliminate what the assistant did.

Has Picaso censored his own painting or restored it?

Yeah, I know that movie making is a collaborative art, but isn't it supposed to fit the vision of the producer/director? Do you think that Robert Z included Jessica's crotch in his vision of the movie?

The dirty old man in me wants it untouched, but I won't be unhappy if its not there. Changing the Baby Herman stuff is censorship, IMHO.

BTW, Jonathan, that's a great Jessica.

 

[TonyD]

To digress a little, you guys do know all about the notorious bit in 'The Rescuers' where if you freeze frame a scene where Orville the albatross flies by a window you see a couple having sex on a bed? I kid you not.

steve go to post 40 of this thread , one before yours and you will find i mentioned this and included a link to the 2 frames that include a nude lady in a window in the backround.

 

[Brenton]

If you don't share the principle of non-censorship, fine, but I don't see any need for sarcasm.

I was making a joke. I feel the same way you do about censorship.

 

[ChrisLee]

I want this thing uncut of course. That would just kill the value to the uncut LD(I know I'm evil ). But I know that would never happen. Now I'd accept this DVD if only the crotch shot is altered. Cuz isn't the only thing wrong with that shot is that she's underwear-less? So they paint underwear on her, so what? I've watched enough H to not care about things like that. I'd still buy it.
Now if we're talking about alterations to appease the politically paranoid studio execs then I won't be buying it.
If it so happens that the WS version is packed with all the extras thus enabling a lower bitrate then I'll still buy it. I watch DVDs on a 20" TV. I know DVDs aren't HD-DVDs so I don't expect a perfect picture. I'll just be happy that this release happened.

 

[Mark-W]

Well, I'm a sculptor,
and if someone (without my knowing it)
stuck a dildo on one of my pieces,
and it was there for the unveiling,
and I it took me some time to removed it,
than I guess it is not the original 'release'
condition by Rain's definition.

Nevermind that the artist didn't want it that way.

Mark

 

[Nigel McN]

If the Shorts are OAR and are Animorphic, along with the film, and it is uncut, I will pick it up. I already have the previous DVD so I won't be buying this one unless I offers the original film.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Not saying anything about "should" or "right" or "wrong"...

let's face it folks. The DVD will be censored and not have the "offending" shot presented in its original form.

Deal with it now and don't pretend to act shocked when the DVD is released and discovered to be the "altered" version.

-dave

 

[Carlo_M]

So does everyone here think that Robert Zemeckis wanted a panti-less shot of Jessica Rabbit?

Last I heard of it, it was some of the animator's attempts at "sneaking something in there under the radar" - which is NOT filmmaker's intent in my opinion (the principle filmmaker being Zemeckis the director).

If they were censoring something that clearly was meant to be there, like the Baby Herman's finger, then I wholeheartedly oppose it (and hope it's included in the SE DVD release).

But the Jessica crotch shot was clearly an animator's dirty little trick. I knew people who worked for Disney and Dreamworks and yes, those types of things sometimes sneak by. But that doesn't mean it's part of the original filmmaker's intent (clearly if it's snuck in there).

To argue this is like Picasso altering his work is totally INAPPROPRIATE. More like if Picasso altered his work because he found an understudy had defaced it without his knowing until it was already out there. As an artist myself (musician and author, not painter) I would totally support it. Like if I wrote a book and the printer made an error, or worse, an error on purpose, I would truly want that fixed.

If Zemeckis says the crotchshot was what he wanted, then I'll call it censorship. If it was an animator (or two) that got away with something they shouldn't have and were caught and the transgression corrected later, it ain't censorship in my book.

 

[Johnny Angell]

To argue this is like Picasso altering his work is totally INAPPROPRIATE. More like if Picasso altered his work because he found an understudy had defaced it without his knowing until it was already out there.

That is exactly what I was trying to illustrate. In my example I indicate the assistant altered the painting, and after Picasso discovered the alteration, he removed it by painting over it.

 

[george kaplan]

Brenton,

Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[PaulP]

Now for that Death Becomes Her: Special Edition!

 

[Joe Schwartz]

let's face it folks. The DVD will be censored and not have the "offending" shot presented in its original form.

After all, the original novel was named Who Censored Roger Rabbit. Maybe the film was meant to be censored.

 

[Patrick McCart]

The "one-frame-only" gags are indeed a tradition carried from the silent era.

In several Betty Boop cartoons, the animator would "forget" to draw part of Betty's dress for one drawing intentionally. This could be done thanks to the lack of Hays Code regulations.

It's unlikely the lack of paint was a mistake. These cels are semi-large and were laborously created.

One thing I'd like to mention that I didn't in my earlier post...

If the new DVD is indeed censored like the older DVD, there better be a pretty good support here for it to be released UNCUT. Disney STILL hasn't fixed the censorship to Fantasia, Make Mine Music, Melody Time, and Saludas Amigos. We just can't let another one slip by and say it's ok because it's a family movie.

 

[JJR512]

I think someone wanted to see a bigger picture of the cover... Look here: http://www.dvdplanet.com/product_lis...roductid=28537 Click on "Enlarged Front Graphic" near the cover shot.

 

[Steve Christou]

steve go to post 40 of this thread , one before yours and you will find i mentioned this

eeek Tony, right next to my post too, I must be freakin' blind, unless yours wasn't there when I was starting that post, its still embarrassing!

Guys, I'm not really looking forward to returning my Roger Rabbit DVD and complaining that Jessica Rabbit's crotch wasn't on view, not very gentlemanly methinks.:b

 

[Steve K.H.]

Hmmm... DTS and THX, some fightin' there I bet...

A definite buy... to not have this film would be a crime.

 

[Dan Brecher]

DTS and THX, some fightin' there I bet...

???

Dan

 

[TonyD]

steve i probably posted mine just as you were posting yours.