Have a clutch at these
Dammit, stupid bitmap.
Note - I SEE what you are talking about Tomsta. I'll keep trying to edit an image to highlight the area that you are talking about, but I have to say that this is something that COULD be more of your mind seeing what you want to see than an actual plan for them to incorporate the word "sex" into the artwork. That being said, since it's a digitally built world, I do have a problem with this "random" event being something that was "built" by designers without the knowledge of how the letters can vaguely be seen. I wouldn't fault Pixar for doing this on "purpose" but someone had to build the layout and it's hard for me to grasp the concept of the world, built by a computer design engineer, generating random pixels that could result in the letters that are somewhat visible.
When I think of blatant examples, I would think more of this...
Bored Disney animators having a laugh or brain washing corporation of beelzebub? You decide. :rolleyes:
Exactly my point. However, with Disney having such history in this field of providing "provocative" material if you search for it, you would think they would do a better job of highering people who wouldn't splice, build, or add things to a film in a way that would make Tyler Durden proud. Do I blame Disney for mass-brainwashing of children as a higher plan to desensitize the youth of America? No, but I do blame Disney for allowing their workers such extreme access to content without it being reviewed as to putting voices telling little girls to "take of their clothes." Disney is held in such regard that cases like this won't hurt the company as a whole, but it will give the theorists ammo to use in the weekly blogs on the net.
I think the only valid argument that they bring up is that a company directed at children should steer (as best as they can) from these kinds of situations. It's one thing when your local news program is showing scenes of shoot outs, the local hooker busts, or the new sex medicine on the market; however it is entirely different when companies like Disney or Nickelodeon do something similar. If you base your core audience as being majorly of ages 11 and under, there is a fine line that I would ask that company to walk in order for me to allow my children to watch their programming. Then again, not all parents choose to look into the programs they sit their children on the couch to watch, so the majority of parents are clueless and channels such as these could very well put anything they want on the show with the parentâ€™s moral detectors (assuming they have one) having never been set off.
I compare it to the Discovery channel, honestly. Shows like AFRICA I will let my kids watch, but I manage to keep a finger on the pause button for my DVR. It's not the graphic images of nature taking place that I am conscious about, rather the mating scenes that I don't want my 4 and 3 year old daughters watching just yet. My 9 year old boy has a better idea, is a bit more mature, and can understand the concept of what sex is so he has a little more freedom in his shows that he can watch, but I still invest time to make sure that what he is watching is actually entertaining and not just rotting brain cells the way Sponge Bob does.
Examples of "finding what you're adimately searching for":
Read the tie in to the Illuminati (Shaz)
There are numerous illusions to Disney and Illuminati
The "Secret Owl Society" in Snow White...
But I choose to follow the Great Mouse Detective and say...