Does anyone actually believe of the subliminal messages that Disney is always accused of? Like in the Lion King, Little Mirmaid, Rescuers..I didn't even know about these messages until someone pointed it out to me yesterday. Do you believe it's just a fluke, or do the artists intentionally do this kind of thing? o___O;

<!--QuoteBegin-Kanoki+Apr 1 2005, 01:27 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kanoki @ Apr 1 2005, 01:27 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Does anyone actually believe of the subliminal messages that Disney is always accused of? Like in the Lion King, Little Mirmaid, Rescuers..I didn't even know about these messages until someone pointed it out to me yesterday. Do you believe it's just a fluke, or do the artists intentionally do this kind of thing? o___O;

[snapback]35314[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->You might want to fill people in on what your talking about <!--emo&-_---><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sleep.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sleep.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I don't watch tv so obviously I don't.

I'll just show the link I found for the Lion King<a href='http://www.dopejam.com/bop/ROV/lion.html' target='_blank'>Link.</a>And some so-called lawsuit thing.<a href='http://www.sfgate.com/offbeat/bzt2.html' target='_blank'>Weird stuff.</a>I don't really think it's on purpose though..o__O;..And if you go online, there's a lot more in other Disney movies.

One of my teachers mentioned that the art director for The Little Mermaid was on his way out of the company and decided to do that, perhaps as a way to give Disney the finger? Dunno. To be honest, I can't say I've ever noticed them, though I haven't really looked for it.

I think that it is a fluke and I have seen the other ones but if there was a connection between the them like the same artist or editor work on that scene then maybe its not.

<!--QuoteBegin-Todow+Apr 1 2005, 12:31 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Todow @ Apr 1 2005, 12:31 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that it is a fluke and I have seen the other ones but if there was a connection between the them like the same artist or editor work on that scene then maybe its not.

[snapback]35329[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->OK T I gotta show you some <!--emo&:P--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> I dont know how they could be a fluke, its so perfect...

Come on people use common sense. This stuff was filed by religious extremist out to make a buck. If you look hard enough you can make stuff out of anything. I highly dought any of this is intentional. I could go outside now and find the words sex in the clouds if i looked hard enough.These people need help.

<!--QuoteBegin-Miroku4444+Apr 1 2005, 03:05 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Miroku4444 @ Apr 1 2005, 03:05 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Come on people use common sense. This stuff was filed by religious  extrmist out to make a buck. If you look hard enough you can make stuff out of anything. I highly dought any of this is intentional. I could go outside now and find the words sex in the clouds if i looked hard enough.These people need help.

[snapback]35342[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->The one in the Lion King could be a fluke, but honestly, the 3 "unmentionables" in the little mermaid dont just <i>appear</i> in a guys pants without a person drawing them. For a 4 second clip, there are about 15-20 frames, and something like that dosent just "end up" on 15-20 frames.

You do realize how animation works you draw one image then and other etc. but you draw the secound one from the first therefor without noticeing it the mistake can be drawn several times before that area is moved. This could be a shadeing error or the artist could have a diffrent view of the picture than you. Kind of like diffrent people see diffrent things in abstract art.

<!--QuoteBegin-Todow+Apr 1 2005, 04:51 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Todow @ Apr 1 2005, 04:51 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do realize how animation works you draw one image then and other etc. but you draw the secound one from the first therefor without noticeing it the mistake can be drawn several times before that area is moved. This could be a shadeing error or the artist could have a diffrent view of the picture than you. Kind of like diffrent people see diffrent things in abstract art.

[snapback]35347[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->That sounds like a more plausable explanation to me. Good thinking.

<!--QuoteBegin-Todow+Apr 1 2005, 03:51 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Todow @ Apr 1 2005, 03:51 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You do realize how animation works you draw one image then and other etc. but you draw the secound one from the first therefor without noticeing it the mistake can be drawn several times before that area is moved. This could be a shadeing error or the artist could have a diffrent view of the picture than you. Kind of like diffrent people see diffrent things in abstract art.

[snapback]35347[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Little Mermaid was made years back, when computers werent used to scan ONE image, then animate solely off of that basis. It was still Picture 1, scan, picture 2, scan, pictue3 , etc. So it would be like a flipbook. Something you draw on one page dosent just appera on all the others.Also the things MOVED! <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo--> Thats animation, not a standstill which proves your theory wrong <!--emo&B)--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cool.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-lpdrummer+Apr 1 2005, 06:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lpdrummer @ Apr 1 2005, 06:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Little Mermaid was made years back, when computers werent used to scan ONE image, then animate solely off of that basis. It was still Picture 1, scan, picture 2, scan, pictue3 , etc. So it would be like a flipbook. Something you draw on one page dosent just appera on all the others.Also the things MOVED!  <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->  Thats animation, not a standstill which proves your theory wrong  <!--emo&B)--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cool.gif' /><!--endemo-->

[snapback]35350[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Exactlly a Flip book do there is very little movement from page to page beacuse the images are drawn with a light behind them therefor one mistake can be repeated over and over until that area is moved.You dont move every part of your body at the same time we are talking about a 4-5 sec. time it is possible for you to be still for more than 4 sec.

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exactlly a Flip book do there is very little movement from page to page beacuse the images are drawn with a light behind them therefor one mistake can be repeated over and over until that area is moved.You dont move every part of your body at the same time we are talking about a 4-5 sec. time it is possible for you to be still for more than 4 sec.

[snapback]35353[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->What? That made like 0% sense...

MY BEST EXPLANATION:Im saying the form animation that was used involved a light behind IMAGE #1 and the current image the illistrator is drawing (Image #2) on top of Image #1 like traceing but by not makeing the image exact to Image #1 giving Image #2 movement so if that area was exactly traced that area would be the same as Image #1 as it is in Image #2 thus carring the flaw. Resulting in the imgage remaining the same throught the entire scene. So if a shadeing error was made in Image #1 and the person in the image did not move that area Images #2-15 or whenever that movement happens will have the same flaw in it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Todow+Apr 1 2005, 05:14 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Todow @ Apr 1 2005, 05:14 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MY BEST EXPLANATION:Im saying the form animation that was used involved a light behind IMAGE #1 and the current image the illistrator is drawing (Image #2) on top of Image #1 like traceing but by not makeing the image exact to Image #1 giving  Image #2  movement so if that area was exactly traced that area would be the same as Image #1 as it is in Image #2 thus carring the flaw. Resulting in the imgage remaining the same throught the entire scene. So if a shadeing error was made in Image #1 and the person in the image did not move that area Images #2-15 or whenever that movement happens will have the same flaw in it.

[snapback]35359[/snapback]

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->OK OK I guess that could have been a possibility. But what you're saying is that the mistake drawn on one will show through to the others and look exactly like the first. Minor problem-the 3 things didnt stay in one place, they moved making it relevant that animation must have been used. It was a smooth transfer (Not choppy animation ex. arm starts down, next second up). It was animated smoothly which meant that it could not have been done by chance.Overall, I don't think Disney is trrying to tell us some hidden message, I think its just some guys having fun. Its a thing that people dont ordinarily notice, but when pointed out, they can say "I did that!".