today in bizarre censorship news: digital boob reduction

Finding Nemo is preceeded by an old Pixar short, KnickKnack. But in this version, the girls (one of whom Pixar's site describes as "a disproportionate blonde from Miami") have all had severe breast reductions! Here are the "before" images. I haven't found "after" images: if any of you have access to an online version of Finding Nemo, please send me captures of these frames, for comparison.

Update: A friend at Pixar says:

The reason for the breast reduction was to get a G-rating from the MPAA. Apparently they threw a fit at the original version. There was some outrage from the team at the change, but the Studio decided they'd rather make the change than not show the short at all.

On an additional geeky note, the short obviously had to be re-rendered, and apparently trying to re-render code almost 20 years old was a technical challenge in and of itself and took a couple of months to sort out all the bugs.

Update 2: Here are the "after" pictures (thanks guyver3!)

Tags: , , , , ,

63 Responses:

  1. vincel says:

    Was the main feature any good? I thought that Monsters Inc. was pretty lame in comparison tp the previous Pixar output.

    • jwz says:

      I didn't think it was as good as Monsters Inc, but I liked Monsters Inc a lot. This one felt much more like a "Disney" movie than a "Pixar" movie (e.g., it began with the standard Disney Scene One: Kill The Mother.)

  2. pexor says:

    I remember seeing "KnickKnack" and others, such as their seminal "Luxo Jr.", on demo tape in the basement of our house back when my dad founded Cineon (and their workshop Cinesite) for Eastman Kodak and Pixar was just getting started. The first time I saw the snowman cluck his tongue, drop his face mask, and fire up his blow torch, I didn't think I'd ever see anything funnier in my life.

    Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

  3. lhooqtius says:

    if any of you have access to an online version of Finding Nemo, please send me captures of these frames, for comparison.
    Har. Good luck.

    • malokai says:

      I would personally be amused if I was denied entry to a theater because they found a camera on me, AFTER I bought the ticket.

    • jfedor says:

      Har. Good luck.

      Thank you.

      I doubt these files include Knickknack, though.

      • lhooqtius says:

        heh, are you sure any of those are actually the film? there have been large garbage files called 'finding nemo' floating around on the p2p networks for some time now... as well as copies of the finding nemo games and trailers.

        eventually the film will make it onto the net, of course, but what Disney is likely trying to do is to protect itself for the big moneymaking weekends (the first weekend, especially). whether or not the expense of the security really prevents loss during that time is probably not yet known, though i'm sure they're paying attention to results...

        • jfedor says:

          I am willing to bet that these files are in fact the real Finding Nemo:

          • lhooqtius says:

            i don't make bets.
            perhaps i'll verify it empircally tonight.

            i'm sure Disney will consider whatever actions they took to be a success, since the film made almost $71M opening weekend... however, i suspect that whether or not it was on eDonkey people were going to go anyway and that the security
            expenditure was basically of no serious value

            i doubt they'll tell the world, either way

    • supersat says:

      I wonder how they feel about cell phones with integrated cameras. I doubt it'd be TOO hard to write an app to stream video over bluetooth to someone's laptop in the parking lot, or writing them directly to sufficiently large memory cards.

      • violentbloom says:

        Yeah! you could put an eye out with one of those! Didn't you have a large chested grandma who nearly suffocated you with large breasts??

        And frankly I just saw the movie day before yesterday and big shiny titties came across just fine even with the new scaled down version... The whole thing is dumb. It's not like you'll be thinking wow big titties and get a hard on when you're surrounded by a theatre full of whining screaming smelly children..or if you do it's not from the shiny titties but that's another movie I guess.
        (nope that maternal instinct just isn't going to kick in)

  4. I'm a little bit confused as to why large breasts are considered non-G-rated, while smaller breasts are fine for G. Are they trying to say that large-breasted women shouldn't be around children?

  5. baconmonkey says:

    But, that rube-goldberg style honda at where all the car parts keep triggering things in a really long chain reaction, used no trick photography or CGI. one long single shot. or rather, the 606th long, contnuous shot.

    • jwz says:

      I posted that link two months ago -- but the next morning, <lj user="jfedor"> found an article claiming there was a single digital edit, dropping an exponent from the compexity of the problem. And if they glossed over a "tiny detail" like that, who knows what else they faked...

      • sheilagh says:

        My Dad has lead me to reduce my conviction that there was any cg to combine the two -- the Honda exhaust pipe that is claimed to be used to stitch them together? It's L shaped. Those things don't roll. So just where was the flaw that needed editing, as claimed by the article?

  6. cyeh says:

    "had severe breast reductions" was putting it mildly. They had no breasts at all, thereby perpetuating the skinny-is-good-paradigm.

    I anticipate a wave of breast elimination surgery.

  7. schuywriter says:

    I find the before graphics to be pretty sexist. It's the old stereotypical mutant breasted video game type character. Excuse me for asking but why do her breasts have to be either stupidly large or extremely small? Why not "average"? And why is her waist so freaking teensy? She looks like a freak monster.

    Why aren't the male characters in the short sporting HUGE packages that stick out from their pants about a foot from their bodies? How about that? THAT I'd like to see someone have the balls to try and create. Surely some men are well hung and some men aren't. Why not, if we're going to continue showing huge breasts on women, show mutantly large male groins? And then they can prance across the screen in a teensy strip of thong maybe 4 pixels wide trying to "cover" said groinal area.

    • lilmissnever says:

      It's a cartoon. The girl was supposed to be sexy. The designers chose to make this point by giving her enormous breasts. A freakishly large package isn't exactly the male equivalent. Think about the language of cartoons for a moment. The counterpart of the completely unrealistic topheavy bimbo isn't Ron Jeremy, it's Superman, a giant V-shaped superhero so ridiculously overmuscled that he can't holds his arms at his sides.

      But yeah, if you need to give a cartoon a boobectomy to pull off a G-Rating, I'd like to see censors start making Disney's Hercules look like Bill Gates.

      • schuywriter says:

        Muscles denote strength while breasts denote sexuality. While sexuality is not a bad thing, the use of women as sexual objects is. It objectifies women. It doesn't matter if it's a cartoon or not. It's not like men feel the need to look like Superman; Superman has Lois Lane but have you seen the women Ron Jeremy has? The message to men is: Look like Ron Jeremy (an overweight, hairy unattractive guy).

        I don't go for it. You want boobage and cartoon sexiness, there's anime, there's cartoon sex. No need to have it forced on general audiences who may not agree with the representation. Especially when marketed to children.

        Average sized breasts are ok, but not according to these cartoon makers. Why not compromise and make it an average looking woman? I mean it's bad enough she's in a teensy swimsuit.

        Or leave the big boobage in and give me big cockage. I will not complain when I see the large packages and codpieces. I'm asking for fairness.

        • jwz says:

          Oh my god, it's a cartoon! It's a joke! Get over yourself! These are not role models, they are gags.

          "Snowman wants to get laid, watch him hammer on the glass with his dick, I mean his carrot, I mean his jackhammer."

          It's funny.

          Go watch Tex Avery's "Red Hot Riding Hood" or "Swing Shift Cinderella" and get an education in comedy ferchrissakes.

          • schuywriter says:

            My aren't we a bit testy today.

            I would like my humor with a big package, that's all. Are you saying that I am not allowed to want that? (Did you ever see Top Secret? Now THAT ballet scene was hysterical!)

            Sexually objectified women: Taint funny, Dooley.

            What do you mean get over myself? What does that even *mean*? LOL! Am I now not allowed an opinion? My you are a very judgemental person, insisting that I agree with you and find things funny that YOU find funny.

            Personal attacks are not appreciated when arguing a point. I questioned, I posed a point. I did not attack you personally in any way, try to degrade you or try to invalidate your opinion. But I am sorry that you feel that threatened.

            • en_ki says:

              My aren't we a bit testy today.

              You must not read <lj user="jwz"> often. The testyometer currently reads 0 ± 0.1 buckets of cocks.

              • schuywriter says:

                No worries. It's not been the best day for me. Haven't slept. *points to latest journal entry*

                I realized that since this is <LJ user="jwz">'s journal, he/she is entitled to respond as they see fit. I'll quietly bow out of the argument now and take some Tylenol.

                • en_ki says:

                  Jamie Zawinski is a world-class asshole, but we like him anyway because he wrote large parts of the web browser we are using, our favorite screensaver, and a maze of twisty little web pages, all different. And I hear he has a club or something.

                  • schuywriter says:

                    ROFL:) Somehow I knew my "opponent" had a big thick club ;)

                  • schuywriter says:

                    Also should have know it was a man I was talking with -- objectification of women is usually not taken seriously by most men. They do see it as all in good humor, affecting nothing. And they tend to tell women there's something wrong with them for thinking otherwise. Interesting.

                  • en_ki says:

                    Must... not... strangle...

                    Unrealistic cartoon representations are not the sole province of womynkynd. Quite the opposite: in cartoons, everyone's attributes are exaggerated to match a stereotype—and the stereotype of "women who are nothing but walking advertisements for their genitals" has a lot more representation in day-to-day reality than "men who are nothing but walking piles of muscle tissue". Iconography is a product of reality much more than vice versa, pomo wanking aside.

                  • schuywriter says:

                    But you're equating physical strength to sexuality. Exaggerated muscles are not the same as exaggerated breasts. Men are not made to feel they need to attain that ideal while women do feel that way (breast implants). Also, breast size is not something a woman can naturally control such as a man can work out, lift weights and "bulk up". Maybe he can not get Superman's muscles but no one expects him to. It's not even considered favorable or attractive by many people. Whereas the consensus agrees that large breasts are better or make a woman somehow more attractive. (I watched Shallow Hal this evening -- doh!)

                    What is a "womyn"?

                    I say bring on the boobage as long as I get to see exaggerated sexual organs of men, which will serve to titillate me as sexually as large breasts on a woman titillate a man. That's all.

                    I have been around men when naked men are on screen -- they cringe, shout, cry, cover their faces and act very embarrased at seeing another man's body. Maybe that is the crux of the problem.

                    The flat chested cartoon girl looked very weird, btw.

                    Now why on earth would you want to strangle a stranger simply because they see the world differently than you do? In the immortal words of John Cusack, "You must chill."

                    It's not a discussion of exaggeration as it is exaggeration of sexual parts for sexual titillation. I see nothing wrong with request that men bring the codpiece back. Unless they've got something to hide (a woman can not hide her breasts after all)...there should be no probmelo with men agreeing:)

                    Reality is simply what we decide it is, anyway. :)

                  • baconmonkey says:

                    muscles ARE a sexual attractant.

                    muscles = strength
                    strength = power/dominace
                    power/dominance = Alpha status
                    Alpha Male gets the large-breasted women.

                    additionally, given the prevalence of sterroid abuse amongst male highschool atheletes, yes, men DO strive for that goal. Also, given that labor unions and OSHA have rules on how much a person can lift by themself, far above average physical strength has no benefits on any practical measure, other than trying to be more sexually attractive. Wander down the magazine aisle at a grocery store some time. Muslce mags have beefy hyper-muscular men, with beautiful women fawning over them.
                    Tell me a job (other than pro wrestling), or even just a practical application where having muscles like the guy pictures here would be an asset.

                  • schuywriter says:

                    I don't even like or care about muscles; but if you're trying to say that men are as put upon as women or objectified as much, that is not scientifically or statistically viable.

                    To me there is no comparison between muscles and breasts. There are idealized images of men and women but there are more of women. Women's bodies are used more often as ornaments (especially for men) than men's are for women (I have not yet seen a man in a G string draped across a washing machine to lure a woman into buying it). Women are usually also portrayed in submissive positions -- on knees, draped over something, lying down, etc.

                    Women's breasts are used in advertising in lewd ways whereas muscles aren't. Example:local radio duo has billboard with their heads popping out of a black bra -- caption reads "A great pair." (real billboard)

                    Sooo are you saying you agree with me that men's genitalia should also be exaggerated because heck, it doesn't mean anything, it's all just for a good laugh (You really need to see the ballet scene in TopSecret ;) -- I mean if we're all very accepting, we must accept male bodies used as sexual objects, used half naked men in advertising *directed at women's products* (Yes, I'd like to buy that douche because the cute half naked guy is cuddling it, lol) etc etc.

                    To say that men have it just as hard as women is an argument that many studies can report as untrue.

                    That's just reality ;)

                  • baconmonkey says:

                    I'm not saying anything about whose gender has it worse off - you may keep your martydom.
                    I'm arguing that your claim that excessive muscles are not sexual, is specious at best.

                  • schuywriter says:

                    So you think the objectification of women's bodies is merely self imposed victimization?

                    Do you feel the need to have huge muscles or a 'six pack' to be counted worthy to live? Some women become anorexic because of the messages that they are just not good enough. I really don't thinkmedia exaggerations of men affect them like the use of women as ornaments affects women.

                  • baconmonkey says:

                    please, let me clarify and simplify this for you, as you keep changing the framing and context of everything to claim how it opresses women. You're also doing it in such a way that tries to simplify the extremely complex issue of gender dynamics down to an argument that all women are repressed because of sexuality.

                    the ONLY thing I'm saying, and I'm saying nothing more is:

                    big boobies = sexual
                    big muscles = sexual

                  • static says:

                    Some women do become anorexic/bulimic because of sexual/gender stereotypes, as well as spending pounds of money getting ounces of matter moved around on their bodies...and some men become juice/steroid ingesting, weight crunching, mounds of muscle because of similar sexual/gender stereotypes.

                    There's a lot to be said for the wrong that has been done due to the exploitation of human sexuality by the media and media-enriched society. There's also a lot to be said for the strength of humankind to overcome the bombardment of "GET A BIGGER PENIS/BOSOM NOW", and simply be themselves and have a good time doing it.

                    This, however, does not mean that in a cartoon, things can't be cartoonish. Art is art, censorship is censorship, and funny is funny.

                  • schuywriter says:

                    I have only known one man in my entire life who ever worried about not looking muscular. I have met more women than I can count who worry about whether they are too fat or if their hips are too big or if their breasts are too small, etc. It's my personal experience. Which is why in my personal perspective I find the cartoonish woman to be far more damaging than the cartoonish man. And neither one is funny to me. This does not make me humorless in general. I guess I'm just not easily amused when it comes to this subject.

                    Breasts are breasts, muscles are muscles, and damage is damage.

                  • static says:

                    First, most men won't admit we'd rather look more like a particular thing. We're men. We're trained not to talk about that sort of thing.

                    Second, freedom of expression. If you stopped all hurtful speech and images, you'd need to nip it in the bud and stop talking entirely. Everyone's personal experience involves some pain. It doesn't mean we ban pain.

                  • zapevaj says:

                    OH MY GOD. You are SO reactionary. And freaking HUMORLESS to boot.

                    Could you stop, please? Over-sensitive feminists like you are giving the rest of us a bad name. If you really give a shit about women's issues, there's a monkey in the presidential office right now trying to erode our rights. I suggest you direct your righteous fervor somewhere useful, mmkay, like write to your House Rep or something. As it is, you're just jacking off.

                    And to actually address your points-

                    1) IT'S A FUCKING JOKE FILM. The woman was described as a "disproportionate blonde from Miami" to make fun of media depictions of women with huge gonzagas. This is called "post-modern commentary on media". Once you're done with the Introduction to Women's Studies class you're obviously taking, you might want to take something in Popular Culture and Communication or, even better, Post-Modern Art and Writing. Until then, please remember that just because we get the joke and you don't doesn't mean that we're all assholes.

                    2) Also, way to be sexist with that "men don't take women's issues seriously" comment. In general, men are just as intelligent as women and read critiques of popular media just as often. In addition, they also posess the emotion of empathy. Just because they're not women doesn't mean they lack the ability to understand the nature of oppression and determine what it is and isn't. I'm impressed; I've never seen an entire LJ comment written solely via knee-jerking at the keyboard. Um, go ahead, give us that "all heterosexual sex is rape" line next. Heh.

                    And in specific, I know jwz and you don't, so I can unequivocally tell you that you're wrong. In fact, if he showed any signs of being insensitive to sexism or objectifying women, his girlfriend would probably kick his ass.

                  • spampy says:

                    <lj user="jwz">: 1 (assists by <lj user="zapevaj"> and <lj user="ottomaton"> )
                    <lj user="schuywriter">: 0

                  • schuywriter says:

                    You're entitled to your opinion. Obviously you do not feel as tolerant of me as I am of you. You have made many wrong assumptions about me which I feel no urge to defend because it's not worth it. Think what you will, your mind is your own.

                  • zapevaj says:

                    "Obviously you do not feel as tolerant of me as I am of you."

                    Who's the intolerant one here? You're the one freaking out over an admittedly-unrealistic *TOY* woman with big titties.

                  • schuywriter says:

                    You're the one assuming I'm "freaking out". I'm merely questioning and pondering. I look at scientific data and empirical evidence that supports my claim that women are the more sexually objectified gender, therefore presenting females with mutant breasts (i.e. like a Barbie doll) is shown to be detrimental to how some women perceive themselves.

                    I didn't perform the studies, but it's all there in black and white. You're personally attacking me, my thought process and choices. You're making assumptions about my personal life and whether or not I am in school right now.

                    That's not arguing the point, that is arguing the person. You are trying to advance your opinion by attacking my character. Telling me I am "freaking out" as if "freaking out" devoids and debases my opinion and somehow strengthens yours. How so? It is your assumption that I am acting solely on emotion, when you can not know that for certain.

                    This argument cannot be continued because it has already gone from talking about an issue to personal attacks. Personal attacks do not prove or disprove points or make anyone's opinion more or less valuable than anyone else's. That's all.

                    I'm tolerant of your need to act this way and think whatever you want, knowing that because the argument in essence can not be argued (because a personal attack is based in emotion, not logic) because it has already deteriorated.

                    I see this as a stalemate.

                  • zapevaj says:

                    No no, you don't understand; we're not arguing scientific facts and statistics here. It's an established fact, probably in the minds of everyone who reads this journal, that women are routinely objectified by the media, that negative images (or images that normalize something that is not the norm) in media can and will damage women's self-esteem, and that women are as a whole a subordinate group, power-wise. Sho' nuff. As a matter of fact, <lj user="baconmonkey"> stated as much in his last reply to the thread immediately above this one. What more affirmation could you want?

                    Okay. Now here's where your perspective stops and mine (and baconmonkeys, and jwz's, and probably the rest of this journal's readership's) starts. Many of us, both men and women, have been familiar with this "media objectification of women" thing for so long that instead of getting offended over it, we laugh about it. It is such a patently ridiculous thing to us, that we can actually create things that APPEAR to be of the dominant paradigm (i.e. objectifying women), yet actually manage to make fun of it at the same time! This is called "irony", "post-modern commentary", or "parody", among other things. Therefore, when we look at the girl in "KnickKnack", we do not see "a big-breasted blonde in skimpy swimwear". We see "a caricature of advertising featuring an inhumanly-proportioned representation of your base desire for sex and our base method of using sex to sell stuff." It's like looking at the object, and then looking at the motivation behind the object, and looking at how people respond to that object, and the motivation behind their response. So in essence, we are laughing at the people who make advertising featuring scantily-clad blondes; we are laughing at people who buy stuff because scantily-clad blondes are advertising it; and we're laughing at the disproportionate blondes themselves.

                    Okay. Now do you get the joke?

                    (You really should read sometime. It's feminism for real people.)

                  • baconmonkey says:

                    Until then, please remember that just because we get the joke and you don't doesn't mean that we're all assholes.

                    Um, dear, we ARE assholes, but that is totally unrelated to this discussion.

                  • jwz says:

                    Not to undermine your beat-down, mind you, but I find it worthy of note that my reaction to this is, "go watch this other cartoon from 1942 so that you can more properly understand comedy", and your reaction is "go take a class in P*stm*d*rn*sm".

                    I don't think one needs to invoke the P word to understand the classic plot, "horndog boy chases after sexpot girl; horndog boy is denied."

                  • zapevaj says:

                    The problem is that a lot of those movies were made in all earnest...earnest-ness? Dunno. Anyway, like, they actually did condone that sort of behavior and gender roles, in that "boys will be boys" and "girls are supposed to be coy, only loose women say yes right away" kind of way. They weren't portrayed as the stupid manipulative head-games they were, but rather something cute and whimsical.

                    And as annoying as post-modernism as a movement can be, I find that anyone lacking at least the awareness of the postmodern perspective is pretty much illiterate when it comes to popular culture. Or decontructivist, for that matter. Well, not illiterate, maybe just profoundly stupid. This is the class of people that tends to think that a "bisexual polyamorous pagan goth" is something new and original, because they completely lack enough cultural perspective to realize "Hey, I am so lame that even SNL has parodied me!"

                    And I'll flesh this thought out further later, but as much as you claim to hate anything "postmodern" or "ironic", a good deal of the stuff I see you write is very closely related to it. You deal heavily in the ironic and the self-referential (referencing back to the writing, not to you, I mean), for example.

                    I just nodded off in class, during a lecture, while sitting in the front row. I'm gonna fucking stop talking now.

                  • rzr_grl says:

                    In fact, if he showed any signs of being insensitive to sexism or objectifying women, his girlfriend would probably kick his ass.

                    You betcha! Thanks for noticing.

                    Oh and also, you're right: jwz is totally po mo! (Now he's gonna kick my ass, heh.)

                  • pathogen says:

                    I just wanna see him froth at the mouth, I guess. Lemme see if I can think of a name of another irritating art movement to call him by.

                  • zapevaj says:

                    *snnrk* Pardon me while I post with my boyfriend's account without realizing it.

                    Anyway, that was me.

  8. stephendann says:

    I'm amused that the emphasis was on re-doing the character's breasts, and frame 1 still has the woman in an ashtray swimming tub. Given the fuss over kids and smoking, I'd have been less surprised to hear that ashtray had to be replaced.

    So, for g-ratings, breasts are bad. Ashtrays are okay.

    (Which took longer - Bug hunting 20 year old code, or re-rendering said code?)

    • westyx says:

      bug hunting would be it. i don't know if they ran an emulator, or used the source in one of today's renderers (i'm guessing the later), but i'm sure that different "meanings" of code when-it-was-made/today when put through a today-renderer would have made for some nasty hunting-down

  9. netik says:

    If someone has access to a u-matic 3/4" deck, I have about four huge tapes of siggraph video from 10+ years ago that could use transferring. I think KnickKnack is on one of them.

  10. loosechanj says:

    "I'm not small breasted, I'm just rendered that way!"

  11. retrodiva1 says:

    Even Barbie comes with bigger boobs, what the hell?

    /me shaking my head.

    Tis a shame at least you still have the originals.

  12. cocamide_mea says:

    I wonder if the original reason for the women having exceptionally large breasts was less about the sex factor (yes, yes, I know - geeks who render love large, pr0n-style breasts, but...) and more about the fact that rendering spheres (at the time) was easier. And, afterall, they were playing with lighting techniques and realism; it's more interesting to do light-play on spheres than on flat surfaces.

    Just a thought.

  13. anonymous says:


    I would like to know if someone could tell me where i can find knick knack or just some part like sound or pictures...