I was watching I love the 80s in 3-D on VH1 and during one of the episodes it covers the Little Mermaid Disney release. I have never seen the movie. During the description of the movie, they showed scenes of the movie and then discuss the plot. At the end, two of the guests point out that during the wedding ceremony the Justice of the Peace has an errection. They do a close up pan of the guy's private area and it does indeed appear that the animators drew the Justice with a bulge in his pants.
If this has been previously discussed, forgive me. I just did a search before posting for the word and did not get any results. I was trying to find a non-offensive way of explaining what they were discussing but there really is no other way to explain this other than use the term "errection." I apologize if the offends anyone. I am just trying to find out why the heck Disney animators would do this? Do they often do little jokes like this in their feature films? It is pretty strange and I don't think VH1 would have made this up and plus they showed the offending footage. Has anyone else noticed this before? Maybe this is common knowledge.
Robin Hood wrote:Sometimes Disney is sick.
Might I remind anyone of the little incident in The Rescuers.
What? What incident? I got the movie and I never noticed anything!
As for the priest in Little Mermaid, I'm SURE it's his knee! HONESTLY!! I mean I paused the picture and clearly, obviously it was his knee. If you see his body in a slow motion-very slow motion-you'll see that it's his legs coming out of the cloth; he's a caricature! a small priest with tiny legs coming out of the cloth, that's all! The people who IMAGINE errections in old people are SICK, not Disney!!!
Claim: The minister officiating at Ursula's wedding ceremony in The Little Mermaid displays an erection.
Status: False.
Origin: In the film's first wedding scene (the one with Ursula in disguse) as the bride and groom are approaching the minister, the side-profile shots of the minister allegedly reveal him to be sporting an erection. The minister is dressed as a bishop (wearing a tunic and tights) in this scene, and the triangular bulge claimed to be an "erection" is actually his knee sticking out from under the tunic. The minister's bandy legs and the blending of the tunic and tights make it difficult to distinguish his knee in some frames, although it is clearly visible in others.
The first picture shows the scene were people assumed that the priest had an erection.
The second picture clearly shows that the minister did NOT have an erection but it was in fact his knee and the smiliar colors of his outfit that only made him appear to have one, which we now know he did not.
Robin Hood - Disney as a corporation had no knowledge of the scene in the Rescuers. It was imperseptibale to human eyes except at a subconcious level at 1/24 of a second.
It was a joke by artists who thought it was going to be caught by editors and was not. In fact, it was not until the laserdisc was issued that anyone discovered it, after several years.
People are sick. The whole Little Mermaid rumor really ticks me off. Especially even after it's proven we're not seeing an errection. God. People will go to great lengths just to put Disney down!
"See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." - The Joker
eric89 wrote:Claim: The minister is dressed as a bishop (wearing a tunic and tights) in this scene, and the triangular bulge claimed to be an "erection" is actually his knee sticking out from under the tunic. The minister's bandy legs and the blending of the tunic and tights make it difficult to distinguish his knee in some frames, although it is clearly visible in others.
Oh my gosh, I cannot believe this is actually an Urban Legend! Thanks! I would think with Disney so worried about being politically correct (to the point where they are have Leonard Maltin profusely apologizing for old cartoons in the Treasures series), that they might go back to this film and "rub out" the errection/knee so there is no controversy.
Mr. Toad wrote:Robin Hood - Disney as a corporation had no knowledge of the scene in the Rescuers. It was imperceptible to human eyes except at a subconscious level at 1/24 of a second.
It was a joke by artists who thought it was going to be caught by editors and was not. In fact, it was not until the laserdisc was issued that anyone discovered it, after several years.
Ah, so Disney does play jokes in their animation from time to time? What is the problem with the Rescuers? I've never seen that movie either.... (I got alot of catching up to do)
Just as an aside, can you imagine the uproar at Disney Animation about the erection controversy in Little Mermaid? I can just picture them over there panicking and proposing to redo the scenes....
I think I side with dvdjunkie--if people search out these small irregularities that only appear 1/24 th of a second then they have too much time on their hands. That thing with the Rescuers was done in post-production from what I heard, and that's only there for a frame or two...most probably wouldn't even know it was there.
Yes, the priest's sex life is long gone....he was pulling everyone's leg with that stunt.
<b>You were born original and unique; don't die a copy.</b>
Pluto Region1 wrote:I was watching I love the 80s in 3-D on VH1 and during one of the episodes it covers the Little Mermaid Disney release. I have never seen the movie. During the description of the movie, they showed scenes of the movie and then discuss the plot. At the end, two of the guests point out that during the wedding ceremony the Justice of the Peace has an errection. They do a close up pan of the guy's private area and it does indeed appear that the animators drew the Justice with a bulge in his pants.
If this has been previously discussed, forgive me. I just did a search before posting for the word and did not get any results. I was trying to find a non-offensive way of explaining what they were discussing but there really is no other way to explain this other than use the term "errection." I apologize if the offends anyone. I am just trying to find out why the heck Disney animators would do this? Do they often do little jokes like this in their feature films? It is pretty strange and I don't think VH1 would have made this up and plus they showed the offending footage. Has anyone else noticed this before? Maybe this is common knowledge.
I've never seen that one. I will catch up "I Love the 80's 3-D" again on VH1. Let me know if it comes on.
Anyway yeah it's not true. But even if it was true, kids are NEVER going to notice stuff like that, which is people's main concern so I think people actually watching the movie trying to catch this stuff need to grow up!
chaychay102royal wrote:Pluto,
I believe the scene in The Rescuers was that, as Bernard and Bianca were flying to Penny, a naked woman was briefly visible.
Yes that was it. One cell. 1/24th of a second. A naked woman was visible as they flew by an apartment in New York.
nobody ever really pays attention to the actual scene. The comical aspect of it was that the priest was wearing shorts and his legs and his hairy knee came out under his robes. I can understand why people mistake it for something else but what P***s looks the way that thing looks, anyway??? seriously. Why do people assume disney is secretly putting sexual messages in their movies? what the hell would they gain from that? somebody please explain the logic in that to me
PatrickvD wrote: Why do people assume disney is secretly putting sexual messages in their movies?
Well, if they'd like to receive a sexual message from The Little Mermaid, I wonder why they didn't notice that Ariel is completely naked in the scene that Ursula gives her legs and she tries to swim up to the surface-which is very logical IMO. Imagine Ariel wearing an underwear coming out of the blue.
Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:Well, if they'd like to receive a sexual message from The Little Mermaid, I wonder why they didn't notice that Ariel is completely naked in the scene that Ursula gives her legs and she tries to swim up to the surface-which is very logical IMO. Imagine Ariel wearing an underwear coming out of the blue.
Also, the scene where she comes out of the water and thrusts against the rock with the huge splash behind her, that was also quite sexual. I found this to be one of Disney's darkest and most sexual films, however the priest's "erection" never stuck out to me.
PatrickvD wrote:nobody ever really pays attention to the actual scene. The comical aspect of it was that the priest was wearing shorts and his legs and his hairy knee came out under his robes. I can understand why people mistake it for something else but what P***s looks the way that thing looks, anyway??? seriously. Why do people assume disney is secretly putting sexual messages in their movies? what the hell would they gain from that? somebody please explain the logic in that to me
Pluto Region1 wrote:I would think with Disney so worried about being politically correct (to the point where they are have Leonard Maltin profusely apologizing for old cartoons in the Treasures series), that they might go back to this film and "rub out" the errection/knee so there is no controversy.
I'm almost willing to bet that they will do just that when the PE release comes out...they reanimated the dust in The Lion King that supposedly said "SEX" (it didn't; it was SFX...a nod to the special effects department), and they significantly lowered the volume of Aladdin's voice during the supposed "Good teenagers, take off your clothes" bit, which was another urban legend. So it doesn't seem to matter if the rumor is true or not; they'll change the movie to get rid of the talk...which really only makes them look guilty...
By the way, whoever said they thought that the Rescuers bit with the naked woman was from post production...I heard that, too. I think it was added when the movie was transferred the movie to video...and I don't think that Disney actually did the transfer themselves.
That thing with the Rescuers was done in post-production from what I heard, and that's only there for a frame or two...most probably wouldn't even know it was there.
