Caution? Disney Movies

[Reneeg]

I am not trying to be a burden to parents... or even dismissing Disney... in a sense.

If you knew what exactly are in the Disney movies would you let your children watch them?

I am sure you've heard of the rumors in some of Disney's movies, Aladdin whispering "Take your clothes off." The pastuor displaying an erection in the Little Mermaid, the large male genetalia on the cover of the Little Mermaid, Alice in Wonderland promoting drugs. I'm sure you've seen or heard of these things, and more.

I am just wondering if you knew that your child will eventually find out and is somehow altered because their favorite "hero" are doing these things and they figure it's fine to grow into those habbits as well.

I am not blaming Disney for this, I am trying to go after the editors and ask them why they would put the content they have in there now.

Please give me insight of what you think of this topic.

Thank you.

 

[mytwotinks]

I thought that most of those things ended up not being true. The Alice in Wonderland drug conection is kind of a stretch for me. I don't personally think that my girls take it for anything more than the fairy tale that it is.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I've never encountered anything objectionable in a Disney movie in a theatre or on DVD. I seriously doubt that my children would be irreparably harmed even if one of these rumors were true and they encountered it. For me it's been no harm, no foul. Not something I've lost a wink of sleep over.

 

[MommyPoppins]

I am not trying to be a burden to parents... or even dismissing Disney... in a sense.

If you knew what exactly are in the Disney movies would you let your children watch them?

I am sure you've heard of the rumors in some of Disney's movies, Aladdin whispering "Take your clothes off." The pastuor displaying an erection in the Little Mermaid, the large male genetalia on the cover of the Little Mermaid, Alice in Wonderland promoting drugs. I'm sure you've seen or heard of these things, and more.

I am just wondering if you knew that your child will eventually find out and is somehow altered because their favorite "hero" are doing these things and they figure it's fine to grow into those habbits as well.

I am not blaming Disney for this, I am trying to go after the editors and ask them why they would put the content they have in there now.

Please give me insight of what you think of this topic.

Thank you.

I've never witnessed any of these things. I don't understand. The only hidden thing I ever saw in a Disney movie was a hidden mickey in Fantasia 2000.

 

[clarabelle]

This stuff does not bother me. If I have to HUNT for it -then it is not really an issue.
I am worried about obvious things like violence and more subtle things like roles of women and girl characters being portrayed as overtly sexual.

Not because I think my girls are going to be scarred for life -but because I want them to know that being a successful and happy person does not mean you have to have really big hooters that look good in sea shells and find the right man.
The hidden stuff seems a bit silly to me. Remember the stuff about the beatles music? It all seems pretty tame now.

 

[hiwaygal]

Some of the things you mention, have indeed been disproved.

The "erection" in the wedding scene of Little Mermaid is actually our own dirty minds playing a trick on us. After reading an explanation about it (I'll see if I can find it again and post it here) and watching the movie again, I realized it was just as described, but we were seeing what we had "heard" to be true.

The Alice in Wonderland drug references aren't Disney's at all. They are, in fact, based on Lewis Carroll (aka Charles Dodgson) the original author and the rumor of whether or not he was addicted to opium.

 

[TurboKitty]

There's a site called www (dot) snopes (dot) com (backslash)disney (backslash)films (backslash) films (dot) asp

that looks into most of the "rumors" mentioned.

Except for one...The Alice In Wonderland, which is based upon a series of books that introduce children to ideas pf philosophy rather than encourage drug usage.

But, if my children ever ask me about these things, I'll be glad to show them everything I've found and encourage heathy conversations.

 

[vettechick99]

I was younger when I heard about all these "movie mistakes". In fact, I had to struggle and hunt them down...so it's not in plain sight. Anyway, they didn't change my opinion on anything.

And the original Alice in Wonderland is full of hidden meanings. Just google it. No way any 5, 10, hell even 25-year old, will catch on just by watching the movie.

 

[In a hurry]

It just shows you can't believe eerything you hear! I love snopes.com!

 

[foolishmortal]

I am not trying to be a burden to parents... or even dismissing Disney... in a sense.

If you knew what exactly are in the Disney movies would you let your children watch them?

I am sure you've heard of the rumors in some of Disney's movies, Aladdin whispering "Take your clothes off." The pastuor displaying an erection in the Little Mermaid, the large male genetalia on the cover of the Little Mermaid, Alice in Wonderland promoting drugs. I'm sure you've seen or heard of these things, and more.

I am just wondering if you knew that your child will eventually find out and is somehow altered because their favorite "hero" are doing these things and they figure it's fine to grow into those habbits as well.

I am not blaming Disney for this, I am trying to go after the editors and ask them why they would put the content they have in there now.

Please give me insight of what you think of this topic.

Thank you.

www.snopes.com can be your friend.

Most things you see or read on the internet are false. You can go to this website and pretty much disprove most things floating around.

Now there are alot of real things as well, but this site tells you true or false. The things you mention ALL FALSE!

 

[stinkerbelle]

you forget the "s*x in the clouds" in lion king

I love brand new posters!

 

[BunsenH]

You mean Jessica Rabbit isn't nude for 2 frames in WFRR?

 

[In a hurry]

I think that one was true, wasn't it? It has been awhile since I last looked Disney up on Snopes!

 

[LBAK]

Am I the only one who's crazy? Wait you probably shouldn 't answer that. I like hunting down the movie to find the subliminal messages that you hear about. It always amazes me when I see things like that.

 

[Aneille]

I have the Little Mermaid VHS tape with the orginal cover and I think it does look like male genitalia but I am not sure if it was intentional or not and I really don't care.

I'm with LBAK I like trying to find the subliminal messages in the movies after I hear about them.

 

[Daxx]

Give me a break on Alice in Wonderland ... that's classic literature dating back to 1865!!!!!!!! Disney didn't invent this -- it's taken from Lewis Carroll's classic book.

Do you really think our kids are looking for these things? I mean, what kid sits there and looks for this stuff!? When was the last time you heard a kid say "Hey -- look -- that guy has an erection!" or "Aladdin said take your clothes off". There's a topless woman in a window in The Rescuers ... and, it can only be seen if you go frame by frame. What kid is going through the movie frame by frame?!!?

If I don't let my child watch Disney movies, what the heck is he going to watch!?!?!?

 

[Daxx]

I have the Little Mermaid VHS tape with the orginal cover and I think it does look like male genitalia but I am not sure if it was intentional or not and I really don't care.

I'm with LBAK I like trying to find the subliminal messages in the movies after I hear about them.

From snopes Mermaid Cover :

Claim: One of the castle spires on the cover of Disney's The Little Mermaid home video was deliberately drawn as a phallus by a disgruntled artist.

Status: False.

Origins: One of the castle spires in the background of the The Little Mermaid promotional artwork bears an unmistakable resemblance to [male parts], so much so that many people are unwilling to dismiss the drawing as mere accident or coincidence. Rumors started circulating shortly after the release of the videocassette edition of The Little Mermaid that the phallic object had been deliberately drawn as a last act of defiance by a disgruntled Disney artist who was miffed at being notified that he would be laid off at the conclusion of the project. The plain truth is that the resemblance between the castle spire and male genetalia was purely accidental, and it was drawn by an artist who was neither disgruntled nor about to be dismissed.

First of all, the artist who created the video cover art did not work for Disney itself, thus he was neither "disgruntled with Disney" nor "about to be fired." We questioned the artist, who also drew artwork for Little Mermaid theatrical advertising, pop-ups, greeting cards, Happy Meal boxes, and CDs. The theatrical posters were done before the original release of the film, but the video cover art was not created until a few months before the home video version hit the market. Rushed to complete the video artwork (featuring towers that were rather phallic to begin with), the artist hurried through the background detail (at "about four in the morning") and inadvertently drew one spire that bore a rather close resemblance to [male parts]. The artist himself didn't notice the resemblance until a member of his youth church group heard about the controversy on talk radio and called him at his studio with the news. The later laserdisc release of the film was issued with a cover containing an altered version of the infamous spire. Contrary to common belief, the phallic-like spire did not make its first appearance with the cover to the home video version. The same background drawing of the castle, with the same spires, appeared in promotional material and posters that accompanied the film's original theatrical release. The video cover does differ slightly from the original version, but the castle shown in the background is the same in both versions. (Later versions of the laserdisc cover were altered to remove the offending spire.)

The alleged "phallic symbol" in The Little Mermaid's artwork went undetected by the general public for about a year while the film was in the theatrical release. Shortly after Entertainment Weekly ran a story about the offending artwork in mid-1990, the rumor became widespread when Michelle Couch of Mesa, Arizona, complained to Disney and a Phoenix supermarket chain (Bashas') about the phallus on the cover of The Little Mermaid. Bashas' pulled the videos from their shelves (but returned them less than 24 hours later), and the story of the "[male parts]" cover was soon widely disseminated by the media.

NOTE - the screening caught the words that snopes used and replaced it w/ ***'s, so I replaced the ***'s w/ [male parts].

 

[Aneille]

From snopes Mermaid Cover :

Claim: One of the castle spires on the cover of Disney's The Little Mermaid home video was deliberately drawn as a phallus by a disgruntled artist.

Status: False.

Origins: One of the castle spires in the background of the The Little Mermaid promotional artwork bears an unmistakable resemblance to a *****, so much so that many people are unwilling to dismiss the drawing as mere accident or coincidence. Rumors started circulating shortly after the release of the videocassette edition of The Little Mermaid that the phallic object had been deliberately drawn as a last act of defiance by a disgruntled Disney artist who was miffed at being notified that he would be laid off at the conclusion of the project. The plain truth is that the resemblance between the castle spire and a ***** was purely accidental, and it was drawn by an artist who was neither disgruntled nor about to be dismissed.

First of all, the artist who created the video cover art did not work for Disney itself, thus he was neither "disgruntled with Disney" nor "about to be fired." We questioned the artist, who also drew artwork for Little Mermaid theatrical advertising, pop-ups, greeting cards, Happy Meal boxes, and CDs. The theatrical posters were done before the original release of the film, but the video cover art was not created until a few months before the home video version hit the market. Rushed to complete the video artwork (featuring towers that were rather phallic to begin with), the artist hurried through the background detail (at "about four in the morning") and inadvertently drew one spire that bore a rather close resemblance to a *****. The artist himself didn't notice the resemblance until a member of his youth church group heard about the controversy on talk radio and called him at his studio with the news. The later laserdisc release of the film was issued with a cover containing an altered version of the infamous spire. Contrary to common belief, the phallic-like spire did not make its first appearance with the cover to the home video version. The same background drawing of the castle, with the same spires, appeared in promotional material and posters that accompanied the film's original theatrical release. The video cover does differ slightly from the original version, but the castle shown in the background is the same in both versions. (Later versions of the laserdisc cover were altered to remove the offending spire.)

The alleged "phallic symbol" in The Little Mermaid's artwork went undetected by the general public for about a year while the film was in the theatrical release. Shortly after Entertainment Weekly ran a story about the offending artwork in mid-1990, the rumor became widespread when Michelle Couch of Mesa, Arizona, complained to Disney and a Phoenix supermarket chain (Bashas') about the phallus on the cover of The Little Mermaid. Bashas' pulled the videos from their shelves (but returned them less than 24 hours later), and the story of the "*****" cover was soon widely disseminated by the media.

Oh I know Snopes claims false, but it was changed because it did look more phallic than it should. Its only false because it can't be proved it was intentional (which I really could care less about)

It doesn't change the fact that it looks like male genitalia, it does. And enough so that it was changed.

They have the pics at Snopes if anyone wants to check it out for yourself.

And again I find it more interesting than anything else. To answer the OP's questions, these things don't bother me at all. I am reading the orginal Alice In Wonderland to my 4 year old daughter and its much more wacky than the Disney version.

 

[Daxx]

Oh I know Snopes claims false, but it was changed because it did look more phallic than it should. Its only false because it can't be proved it was intentional (which I really could care less about)

It doesn't change the fact that it looks like male genitalia, it does. And enough so that it was changed.

They have the pics at Snopes if anyone wants to check it out for yourself.

And again I find it more interesting than anything else. To answer the OP's questions, these things don't bother me at all. I am reading the orginal Alice In Wonderland to my 4 year old daughter and its much more wacky than the Disney version.

But, what kid is looking for that!?!? What little 6 yo girl is looking for that kind of thing!?!? She's too busy looking at Ariel.

 

[Aneille]

But, what kid is looking for that!?!? What little 6 yo girl is looking for that kind of thing!?!? She's too busy looking at Ariel.

Daxx relax!

I am not the OP, I never said any kid would look for it. Read my post again.

I actually stated twice now that I don't care about the phallic symbols or anything else in regards to children. I just said I find it interesting to sometimes search for them if I hear about them.

This is from my second post:

"And again I find it more interesting than anything else. To answer the OP's questions, these things don't bother me at all. I am reading the orginal Alice In Wonderland to my 4 year old daughter and its much more wacky than the Disney version."



Honestly I agree with you!