hcswingfield
Active Member
Any Southerner knows the difference between "nude", "naked", and "nekkid." :lol:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Young Topless Girl in Impressions de France Film?
- Thread starter Timekeeper
- Start date
I just finally found her (I was looking for something far more explicit)
-is that it??
Be aware CV films arn`t just `shot` - each separate set up takes weeks of planning and hours of rigging - and are shot on tape first to get the shot right. Each and every person in a frame such as this is placed by casting and deemed correct.
Maybe it`s a boy. Hair was long in 1980 and 1981
-is that it??
Be aware CV films arn`t just `shot` - each separate set up takes weeks of planning and hours of rigging - and are shot on tape first to get the shot right. Each and every person in a frame such as this is placed by casting and deemed correct.
Maybe it`s a boy. Hair was long in 1980 and 1981
I personally think the useful portion of this discussion is over....
nude...no clothing, posed for "art"
naked...no clothing. Could be planned, or not, ie, running out of the house during a fire, earthquake, etc.
nekkid...you don't have any clothes on, and you're up to something either illegal or immoral, or just something you wouldn't want your gramma seeing. :lol:
So, depending upon the circumstances, the examples could be interchangeble.
Hey Martin!I just finally found her (I was looking for something far more explicit)
-is that it??
Be aware CV films arn`t just `shot` - each separate set up takes weeks of planning and hours of rigging - and are shot on tape first to get the shot right. Each and every person in a frame such as this is placed by casting and deemed correct.
Maybe it`s a boy. Hair was long in 1980 and 1981
(not posted here for ages)
There is a guy in the film that I always notice, although your France tribute film does not show it, as it is in the extreme right of the screen. For information, it is at 18:10 - 18:30 in your video.
If the camera had been focused on the right screen, you would see the guy run across the road quickly to get into position, then as the camera moves, he walks out across the archway in completely the opposite direction, like he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I noticed it several years back and always look out for it LOL,
Hi PBarton
Sounds funny. I`ll have to watch for it in July. The 3rd ADs must have had a nightmare with 360 degree background artist shots. We get that a lot at work and we only use 2 cameras :lol: You won`t believe how complicated it is to ensure one person walks out of one shot and through the back of another at the right time. Times that by 9 and it`s a nightmare
Sounds funny. I`ll have to watch for it in July. The 3rd ADs must have had a nightmare with 360 degree background artist shots. We get that a lot at work and we only use 2 cameras :lol: You won`t believe how complicated it is to ensure one person walks out of one shot and through the back of another at the right time. Times that by 9 and it`s a nightmare
hcswingfield
Active Member
nude...no clothing, posed for "art"
naked...no clothing. Could be planned, or not, ie, running out of the house during a fire, earthquake, etc.
nekkid...you don't have any clothes on, and you're up to something either illegal or immoral, or just something you wouldn't want your gramma seeing. :lol:
So, depending upon the circumstances, the examples could be interchangeble.
:lol: Are you a Lewis Grizzard fan, too?
Did we change topics somewhere? Impressions is (obviously) not shot in 360 degrees.
If the circlevision theaters display 360 degrees by using 9 cameras/projectors, then each one of the 9 screens displays an effective 40 degree field of view, and since the Impressions film is displayed on 5 screens, then we are seeing an effective 200 degree field of view.
Tk
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I keep seeing naked and topless treated like they're the same thing. If we're talking about a pre-pubescent girl, the difference seems like a big one. A little girl running around topless is no different from a topless boy in my mind. (Meaning a completely naked little girl has about a .05% chance of being an "issue" to me while a little girl who just doesn't have a shirt on has a 0% chance.) :lol:
I also heard that Impressions was originally going to be interesting.:ROFLOL: Just kidding. I love the film.
Since you seem to have a bit of knowledge on the topic, any clues as to why Disney has not moved to using digital projectors in there many theater-style attractions? The prices have been dropping tremendously, and it seems like they would be easier to maintain than film projectors. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind the sound of the projectors whizzing in the background...
I have seen Visions of France at least 20 times and guess I have never notice a nude child? At the same time, who would notice or care if there was a nude little kid at the beach? Maybe the only people that would care are those that have never been to a beach before anywhere in the world? Heck, I have seen little kids naked at the beach here in Chicago before. I guess I just don't see how this is a big deal. :veryconfu
ClemsonTigger
Naturally Grumpy
Second that motion!
I've not seen the film, I haven't spent a lot of time in Epcot, but from what I gather, not a lot to get all bothered about. I guess if the intention is to showcase the REAL French culture then it would be incorrect to censor the movie, if that's what they found while making it. Particularly if it isn't even very noticable in the first place.
I'm suprised that any shot like this would have got past Disney and into the film, irrespective of the context. Fair play if they knew of the shot and thought 'we'll let it slide this time', because knowing America there would always be someone to take offense.
I'm suprised that any shot like this would have got past Disney and into the film, irrespective of the context. Fair play if they knew of the shot and thought 'we'll let it slide this time', because knowing America there would always be someone to take offense.
wvdisneyfamily
Well-Known Member
The videos are meant to honestly reflect the country. Nudity is more readily accepted in France.
Jesùs_Carioca
New Member
*sigh* truth
.In relation to the film though, that really is pretty interesting to point out. From a personal level, it really is of no concern to me. If the girl was relatively young enough, it is reasonable. But still, it is odd that Disney would let it slide. For the same place that doesn't let the kilimanjaro safari call "poachers" "illegal killers" because some game hunters expressed their concernation over it, it is wild that they were down for allowing such a scene in the france film.
Remind me to go and watch it now to see if i can make a better judgement (i've never noticed it)
yankspy
Well-Known Member
The film is over twenty five years old and people have become a lot more offended about things in general since then. Remember, this film was done when pirates still chased women and skippers still shot hippos.:lol:*sigh* truth
In relation to the film though, that really is pretty interesting to point out. From a personal level, it really is of no concern to me. If the girl was relatively young enough, it is reasonable. But still, it is odd that Disney would let it slide. For the same place that doesn't let the kilimanjaro safari call "poachers" "illegal killers" because some game hunters expressed their concernation over it, it is wild that they were down for allowing such a scene in the france film.
Remind me to go and watch it now to see if i can make a better judgement (i've never noticed it)