Disney rights history’s greatest wrong, returns mermaid’s butt to Splash
After digitally altering a fairly chaste nude butt for the Disney+ release of Splash, the Mouse House corrected its horrible, unforgivable mistake
Aux News Butt
When Disney+ first launched 36 months ago, one thing stood out to millions of viewers: Was Daryl Hannah’s butt always so blurry?
As we celebrated another 11/12 in solemn commemoration of the day Disney+ launched, we were reminded of Splash, the little movie Disney censored because it didn’t want kids to find out that butts exist. When the streaming service hit the internet on that fateful day, many viewers did what any normal Disney+ subscriber would do and fired up Splash. What they found, they would not soon forget. Daryl Hannah’s long blonde hair flowed past her lower back, creating a merkin of sandy seaweed where the mermaid’s butt should be.
But, at least, dear reader, our waking nightmare is at an end. Per CBR, Disney relented and upgraded the butt-less version on Disney+ in 4k, giving Hannah’s character a bit of a haircut and restoring her butt to its proper place.
Now, if you’re desperate to see the full, uncut version of Splash that was too wild for Disney+, you’ll have to dive into the streamer’s parental controls. CBR notes that the company updated its parental controls to make room for all those Netflix Marvel shows, which show an edgier, more disregarded side of the MCU.
Disney has begun reeling back some of its strong stances on censorship. This probably has to do with the fact that their biggest cash cows are Star Wars and Marvel, which, despite mostly bloodless violence, feature a whole bunch of people getting killed. For example, in the film Avengers: Infinity War, a character named Thanos kills roughly 4 billion people. When you think about it, though, most of Thanos’ victims had butts, so technically, he was just doing Disney’s dirty work.
129 Comments
Oh, a snark detector. That’s a really useful invention.
Is there a horse shoe effect for the snark scale? Where the extremely sappy and extremely snarky become indistinguishable?
For example, in the film Avengers: Infinity War, a character named Thanos kills roughly 4 billion people.That’s a very narrow-minded Earth-centric view of The Snap. It’s safe to say that, considering the entire universe, Thanos killed hundreds of billions of sapient beings, perhaps even trillions.But at least he didn’t show his butt while doing so.
???
Had to be vigilant against the threat Ant-Man presented
you meant “sentient” not “sapient” just fyi
It’s not often that pedantry is this on point. This context nearly makes sapient an antonym for sentient (since they are trying to illustrate that there are a lot more “people” in the world that homo sapiens).
https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/avengers-endgame-thanos-killed-half-of-plant-life/He’s not just talking about earth though.
Oh damn.
In the context of science fiction, sapience usually refers to all self-aware intelligent species / beings, including advanced AI constructs and advanced biological species.
I understand it is technically appropriate, even more appropriate, but sapient also just means human so the juxtaposition was fun. Sapient can just mean human… which makes the science fiction definition seem very “earth-centric”.
I understand it is technically appropriate, even more appropriate, but sapient also just means human so the juxtaposition was fun. Sapient can just mean human… which makes the science fiction definition seem very “earth-centric”.It’s a fair cop.So is there an accepted term in science fiction circles for the combination of “sentience + self-awareness” that I was going for?
Well… setting aside the apparent fact that Thanos really did target half of all sentient creatures in the universe (including plants)… I think “intelligent” fits the best. There are many more intelligent beings in the world than just humans.
It lacks the latin twang that makes sapient sound… fancy? It’s pretty subjective, I guess.
“Intelligence” doesn’t encompass everything that sapience does. There are plenty of intelligent animals that we don’t ascribe sapience to (notwithstanding potentially sapient animals that we haven’t yet recognized). Sapience is more associated with wisdom than intelligence – intelligence applied across time in order to predict and plan for the future. It entails a certain amount of abstract cognition which most animals seem incapable of.
There are a lot of intelligent humans I would never call wise.Snarky comebacks aside… I think, in this context, we’d simply be referring to a level of intelligence. A worm may have some level of intelligence, but no one would call them “intelligent”. At a certain level of intelligence an entity begins to demonstrate behaviors that some would call “wise” and others might just call “intelligent”. The broader issue (I think) is that we don’t actually have great language in this area because we don’t really have a good understanding of any of the underlying principles (we haven’t even brought in self-awareness, etc)… I listen to a lot of philosophy podcasts and they always seem to struggle over the semantics in this area.
The fundamental issue is that, as far as we are concerned, we are the only beings that have achieved “sapience” in the universe, on the only planet that has ever had life. The philosophical implications for other beings having achieved sapience are massive, because the way they think could be infinitely different to ours, as we are to them (something truly alien, beyond surface-level and vapid things such as looks, cognition being fundamentally different is something impossible to comprehend, when it doesn’t exist). Most science fiction, for example, doesn’t really include anything mind-bendingly impossible to think about, like entirely new emotions (it’s like trying to imagine a new colour, but indescribably more difficult, because emotions are one of the most complex topics on the planet, whereas colour is simple diffraction of light), for this exact reason. At best, we can abstractly think about how a being could function, but we’ll always end up having it ultimately based upon our own sapience, because it’s all we know.Also, to use the term intelligence to describe this stuff is silly. Dogs are intelligent. Dolphins are so intelligent, they are capable of self-recognition. To use terminology applicable to dogs and dolphins for beings capable of whatever one considers making us different from them, as being able to be ascribed as simply “more intelligent”, is reductionist to a very complex issue, that we really have no answers to. Sapient works, irregardless of its’ origin in humanity, and it works because language is about effectively communicating ideas, and being human is very different from being an intelligent animal, which is what we are ultimately talking about here. Alien, yes, but human, too.
*errr, universe (not world). LOL
“Sapience” is the only common one I’m aware of. Becky Chambers, the most inclusive science fiction author I’ve ever read, uses it quite a bit.Orson Scott Card developed a “hierarchy of otherness” which is extremely human-centric and hasn’t really aged well (much like the author himself), but he chose the Swedish word “ramen” for sentient non-human species that we recognize as “human” and can communicate with. It translates to “the frame” or “framework.”
Maybe meant sapient…. if they think all beings in the universe are somehow related to humans… maybe? Haven’t we shot unfertilized eggs and transient sperm into space to see what would happen?
the MCU has plenty of sentient species that are non-humanoid.sa·pi·ent/ˈsāpēənt/Learn to pronounceadjective
1.FORMALwise, or attempting to appear wise.“members of the female quarter were more sapient but no less savage than the others”
2.relating to the human species ( Homo sapiens ).“our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago”noun
a human of the species Homo sapiens.
I have…
“transient sperm”
Thanks. I’m now picturing a walking jizz with a duffel bag over its shoulder, whistling ‘King of The Road’
Rick and Morty got really close to that but fertilization happened just before liftoff.
Well, if you want to talk about sentient beings, then Thanos wiped out untold septillions, but I assumed we were restricting the conversation to sapient species.
“Sapient” is actually correct here, as Thanos seemingly intended to wipe out half of all intelligent beings. Not all sentient beings are sapient: sentience implies the ability to feel, while sapience implies self-aware intelligence and wisdom.
https://grammarist.com/usage/sentience-vs-sapience/
except Thanos didn’t do that. He wiped out half 0f all life.(source below) Sapience is not intelligence, it’s defined as 1.FORMALwise, or attempting to appear wise.“members of the female quarter were more sapient but no less savage than the others”
2.relating to the human species ( Homo sapiens ).“our sapient ancestors of 40,000 years ago”nouna human of the species Homo sapiens.That’s very specific to human and anthropomorphic, rather than having to do with intelligence. https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/avengers-endgame-thanos-killed-half-of-plant-life/
Wow, with regard to Thanos: that’s super stupid. Not that Marvel plots have ever made much sense, but that takes the cake.
With regard to “sapience” – copy and pasting one dictionary’s definition is the absolute worst way to have this discussion, and is honestly just silly. You didn’t even post which dictionary it was, but you’re going to get different definitions from any proscriptive source like that. Since we have no evidence of non-human sapience, why would a dictionary contain that possibility? But the usage of “sapience” in science fiction, ontology, and the philosophy of the mind is far more extensive than what you’ll find in any dictionary entry.Language is more expansive than any single source, as you’ve illustrated here.
Sorry, I should have specified: Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. We are not supposing the definition based on our understanding of reality, but with the reality presented within the marvel universe (at least, that’s how I saw it). I’m applying the Oxford Language definition to the context of the movie, and that’s how I arrived at my conclusion.Tbh, we’re debating the realities of a Marvel movie lol but I do appreciate the discussion. If only Ant-man had just jumped up his ass and saved us the interaction hahaha
You also need to consider the trillions of gut fauna that were snapped out of existence and everyone who died of pooping shortly thereafter.
But at least he didn’t show his butt while doing so.Yeah but only cause he knew Ant-Man was out there.
That’s crazy Disney did this when you consider Disney fans are baby brained dumbasses. Won’t seeing a woman’s butt make the average Disney fan masturbate until they kill themself? I think Disney needs to take the butt out of this movie right now or at the very least put up a big warning so the caretakers of Disney fans can make sure the Disney fan is wearing his or her safety helmet when the butt appears so no one gets hurt.
Oh well you suck. Calling an audience demographic of people stupid and inferior to yourself. I bet you’re really cool tho.
/insert “woosh” sound effect
I mean dripping with sarcasm, right? Hard not to read it that way.
hahaha, the original post is dripping with sarcasm. /s not even needed. I think you missed that.
I agreed with your comment. Then you commented 3 more times.
He’s right though. You probably just offended he talking about your dumb ass
Disney fans also include a lot of children so you’re also calling children idiots with your comment. Do you also beat up children too? You’re so cool for thinking all these things.
Most children are idiots.
Scientifically, I think that’s (sorta) true:
“Individuals with the lowest mental age level (less than three years) were identified as idiots; imbeciles had a mental age of three to seven years, and morons had a mental age of seven to ten years”
I agree that it’s moronic to claim all Disney fans are idiots, but to be fair, most kids are idiots. Some of them can’t even tie their own shoes, and their drawings suck. 😉
Ofc children are idiots. Damn dude with your spam replies, you riled af
Children are idiots, come on. That’s why they need parents and other adults to teach them shit.
To be fair, children ARE idiots. I know this because I was one. I think kids are cool and should be protected, but most of them ain’t geniuses.And I think it’s pretty obvious that OP was referring to adult Disney fans. They’re also idiots, but not the excusable kind, like children are.
I miss the block function so much. This place would be so much more tolerable without this asshole and that desperate weirdo Kinja Spider clogging up the comments.
I actually wish I was as cool as you 🙁
lol Look how mad a little teasing makes you. Disney is right to not let you see butts. Your baby brain couldn’t handle it.
“lol Look how mad a little teasing makes you. Disney is right to not let you see butts. Your baby brain couldn’t handle it.”And look how triggered a little butt made you. 🙂
I also wanted to tell you that you’re smarter than all other people. You already knew that though.
do you think replying 4 times in a row makes you look sane?
I love this whole thread. Most children are idiots, science. cosmicghostrider is amazing for spending the morning replying a lot of times. I’m having a good day. Also, nice butt. . . Google helped me out there. Final thought . . . Starbucks coffee isn’t that great.
Well, if the plan was to get that comment right to the top of the heap, mission accomplished!
Wouldn’t surprise me if that was the plan all along.
He actually replied six times in four minutes, which is pretty amazing.
holy shit spam, don’t go out of your way to prove someone’s point in the future eh?
You’re also the most attractive person on earth. You’re actually just the best and beyond anyone elses pea-brained bullshit. You stand atop the human race with your superior intellect, opinion and tastes.
Actually just straight up congratulations for existing dude. You won life.
Are you ok sir/ma’am? If you need any kind of assistance, just ask. You’re among friends.
lol
Serenity now!
Damn dude, I generally hesitate to use the term “triggered,” but if there was ever a definitive example, this may be it.
I’m not entirely sure what you’re going for
You’re an unfunny idiot.
I’m sure Disney got tired of seeing all those hairy palms from all the patrons going to their theme parks.
Man, this was just your standard run-of-the-mill snark, until cosmic here got ahold of it. Now it’s pure Kinja gold.
So, asking for a friend… does masturbating with a safety helmet on change things?
this was a good comment and you were right to make it
funny anecdote: at Imagineering, there’s a term they throw around to describe people who are hardcore, super-obsessed fans of everything Disney…”foamers”
You have.. an astonishing amount of feelings concerning this streaming service.
“baby brained dumbasses”Children? I think you meant to say children, right?
ASS TO ASS
CHEEK TO CHEEK
Disney executives: why couldn’t she have been the other kind of mermaid, with the fish part at the top and the lady part at the bottom??
Wait, they have those?
Splash would have been Fry’s favorite movie.
If you did that to a centaur would it be a minotaur?
If I were a centaur, I’d be a minitaur.
They are the fastest of the Taurians.
It would be a Bojack
“…the Magician!?”
One of my favorite jokes on the show.
What a fantastic show. I’ve got the box set…now I need to go rewatch it.
Came for this. Leaving before Outland Revenue finds me.
Ok, now give us back “unmolested Star Wars IV, V, & VI”…
no Greedo shoots first
MacLunkey!
LOL
That certainly is a whole torrent of movies you’ve listed there.
Nope JAbba, Greedo and At88 get real freaky in a threesome in the lost cut. Bib Fortuna watches (fucking freak)
I still find it strange that Disney is still censoring Bluey. They have cut whole episodes.
This is insane because you can barely see anything in the original since it also has a dumb butt merkin. Having never seen Splash, I was expecting full on ‘80s exploitation slow-mo butt to have inspired this pearl-clutching edit, not just… the parts you can see when a woman wears a bathing suit.
It was rated PG when it came out. They couldn’t go full on butt.
Later in the movie there is a much clearer butt-shot. I wonder if that’s now unedited.I also wonder if it makes a difference if you have set to TV-MA/R rated content, vs. the default TV-14/PG-13 setting (even though Splash is PG).
Yeah, the edited version is just slightly stupider than the original.
This horseshit is why I still buy everything on DVD. Someday Disney will own every movie out there and we’ll have to watch a 25-minute long version of Goodfellas because all the profanity’s been bleeped out.
This is America. We all know Jebus hates flashes of non-sexual nudity and loves him some quality kills.
LOL truer words never spoke. I was getting ready to show my 6yo the original Clash of the Titans from 1980 and went on Common Sense Media just to make sure there was nothing about it I’d forgotten that would make it inappropriate or something. There’s a bunch of lunatic Christians on there baying about half-naked Mom breastfeeding baby Perseus. Complaints about violence? Nowhere to be found.
But they put the butt back in, so… why are we complaining still?
“But they put the butt back in, so… why are we complaining still?”Because it’s Disney and it’s kewl to hate on Disney now.
Jeebus, Schmeebus! I DEMAND all my cinematic sex to be violent, and all my cinematic violence to be sexy!…and consensual of course. I’ll even tolerate a safe word or two.
The answer is YES. Daryl Hannah’s butt has always been that blurry. She has a blurry butt. I’m sure Neil Young loves it.
There are three far better nude scenes in the movie. A superior butt scene when she first appears in public where you can clear see her buttocks and two underwater breasts scene. I’m assuming those were censored as well, or even cut completely, but the focus seems to be on this one scene that was already rather censored in the original.
“Superior butt scene”!
Someone knows what’s truly important to the viewing public.
The name of my new band!
This piece is rammed with potential band names and avatars:
Disney’s Dirty Work
Daryl Hannah’s Blurry Butt
Superior Butt Scene
Seaweed Merkin
Mr. Skin is that you?
Did they leave in the part about John Candy’s 12 inch penis?
I remember laughing at this when it came out in the theaters. I was 12 and a woman’s bare butt didn’t shatter my psyche. Than again, I’m gay so I’ll let conservatives read into that as they want.People now are way too sensitive. I’m certainly not saying the 80s was a bastion of empathy but we 80s kids got to see some shit and I feel like we grew up fairly normal (comparatively).
Right? I remember seeing Godfather 2 when I was way too young, because it was the only movie in theaters on the navy base that we had just moved to. Mrs. a bear! has problems with violence, justifiably (which I’ll get to) and our oldest didn’t even see Star Wars until he was 9.As a kid of the 80s I had cap guns (with the red rings that made the smoke and sound), all kinds of play weapons, and on the playground at school it wouldn’t take much to bring those things out as imaginative play on the playground.Fast forward to 2019 when the aforementioned 9 year old was 6, and he and his friends were playing something with shooting, and he got sent to the prinicipal’s office and we were called.I’m not saying that I’m defending the purification of our kids, but fuck if we can’t not be careful because when kids don’t show the same pearl clutching attitude as the educators the parents and kids are made out to be callous monsters. Nevermind the fact that we don’t own any guns, our kids don’t have access to them, and most importantly, they know and understand the difference between play and reality and he would never actually want to hurt someone.
Definitely a crack in the lens for a sec on the original.
All that Disney money couldn’t get them to mocap some 3D CGI hair? Because holy crap that is a lazy edit.
None of the articles are answering the more important question – was the much more direct butt shot of her jumping the rail at the Statue of Liberty restored after being fully cut out?The world demands these important answers!
What butt? All I see it two long legs attached to blonde hair.
Now maybe someone will restore Mario Mario’s rear
All right, fetch me my fap towel. It’s on!
I just want the Disney team’s internal email chain on this matter, pls.
The USA is fucked up. Arnold can mow down a ton of guys and cartoons can have over the top violence but god for fucking bid we see a titty
Yeah, I don’t get this. With all the LGBTQIALMNOP+ bullshit, you’d think they would be OK with it…. Maybe if she had a cock, it’d be A-OK!!!!
You couldn’t see hardly any of her butt in the original version. Sheesh…..
in the film Avengers: Infinity War, a character named Thanos kills roughly 4 billion people.
You are off by many MANY orders of magnitude there without the qualifier “on Earth.”