Bottoms are now far too rude for Nanny Disney

The Guardian today:

"Viewers have noticed some unsubtle changes to the mermaid romcom Splash as it appears on Disney+. There is a shot of Daryl Hannah diving into the sea, having just kissed a dumbstruck Tom Hanks. In the 1984 original, Hannah's blond hair just about covers her naked bottom; in the new version, that hair has been digitally extended to cover her entire buttock area – and badly at that. It looks as if she is wearing a hairy skirt. A forgotten 80s comedy may not be the hill most cinephiles would choose to die on, but we should still be concerned. What else is being altered without our knowledge?"

Get a dvd with the original movie on it is my advice. Could be that Disney is reacting to all the furor caused by fashion statements of some of their former child stars!

Darryl Hannah's buttocks should be viewed as a national treasure, with view preserved accordingly.

It is quite something when even The Guardian sees this censorship in a negative light, they are normally on board with the Nanny State's edicts.

Anyone would think that the viewers might find a bare bottom sexy or attractive, and we all know that is impossible

I guess Disney+ is broadly aiming for the US market. By the time the average child finishes elementary school, it has seen 8,000 murders on TV. By age eighteen, the average American has seen 200,000 acts of violence on TV, including 40,000 murders. But... OMG a glimpse of a semi-naked bottom! Cut! Cut! To me, the priorities seem somewhat odd, but it's a cultural difference I assume.

I once watched Crocodile Dundee when I was in Morocco by the way and to my surprise realized that the entire scene when Paul Hogan is peeping at Linda Kozlowski's butt at the beach (she had an awesome rump for being an actress), up to when the crocodile tries to eat her, had been cut.

It makes me wonder what will happen to all old movies when Disney gradually get their paws on them. Splash was a bad omen of what's to come.


I second that, with emphasis.

Speaking as an American, it is a cultural difference, and it is incredibly screwed up.

For whatever reason (our Calvinistic and Puritan heritage probably, fanned by the Great Awakening in the 18th century) a large chunk of America is horrified at the thought of naked women.

Naked women are bad. They're sinful. They'll make you lose sight of God, and Goodliness and Amurka.

Meanwhile, violence is *awesome*. I mean, guns are awesome, and they're only good for violence, so violence has to be awesome too right? You can't be a rugged indivualistic gun-totin' God-fearin' Amurka-lovin' small town Amurkan without a good dose of violence.

Unless that violence is mild, consensual and done as a form of sexual stimulation for both parties. Then it's dirty, and sinful and wrong!

They'd have to have cut the entire scene where she walks out of the sea and through the streets stark naked past many very interested onlookers with a fortunately uninterrupted view of her beautiful bare bottom.

What about all those naughty real-life kiddies who show each other their private parts while playing "doctor"? I remember that I certainly knew just what a girl´s naked bottom looked like when I was just a small boy!

@galt54 Children, looking at each other's private parts? Oh, well I never! Stop corrupting our good, special, innocent Amurkan youth with your perverted European nonsense!

(Note: The author does not endorse anything he just said.)