Little Mermaid, The (Disney) Easter Egg - Nasty Cover

For the best explanation on this one, check out http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.htm

I have seen this particular egg. It just shows how disgruntled the Disney animators are. BTW, in my opinion, there is no mistaking that the tower/turret thing is in the shape of a p*nis. This is not on the newer cover, however.

Just like the "SEX" eggs in the Lion King, the excited priest, and the other stuff in Aladdin... if you're looking for a p*nis with you look at the cover, a p*nis you will see. I didn't even think about it until someone pointed it out to me. People have tried to blame Disney for putting subliminal messages in their movies for a long, long time. The only one that makes any sense to me is the Rescuers Down Under egg with the naked woman, but that was just a painting.

Oh, come on! If you've seen this picture, you know that it is obviously the shape of a p*nis. There's no question at all. Same goes for most of the other Disney eggs I've seen...they're really there if you know where to look. A couple of you keep referring us to snopes.com. The site has good pictures and descriptions for these eggs, but I wonder why they are defending Disney so much. Are they funded by them? Have they been threatened? Or are the people who wrote the descriptions really that naive?

Ask any body in the world, ask a girl on a corner in las Vegas. They will all tell you that it is in the shape of a p*nis. Now I have to admit about the excited priest, though, I did see a picture on that stupid snope thing that made me think twice. I used to think it was a guy with really short legs, but I saw the other pic and it shows he has two long and skinny legs. But with the Sex in the Lion King, it's there. Thats stupid about the SFX thing, that's bullcrap.

All right. Enough is enough. I'm sick of all these conservative Disney supporters pushing the bull that Disney releases. Fact: Disney has been putting these sort of things in their films since their animation department opened. It's only now with the invention of the pause button and slow-motion on VCR's that they're actually getting heat about it. The animators aren't sick, just bored with animating dribble, so they put in these little jokes to amuse themselves and co-workers. And please, it's not as if a 3 year old waching is gonna get their mind warped by it, so they stick hem in for their humor and maybe a couple of teen-agers and adults who really want to look.

p*nis.. sure enough.. it has veins and everything

People wake up! How are you sending us to snopes? Snopes is from Disney! It's obvious that they are going to defend themselves, where are they gonna work if they admit that they use kid's movies for subliminal messages. Come on! In my coutry, a 5 year-old boy that was seeing The Lion King, saw the scene and asked his mother what means sex. The mother didn't notice, but he rewinded it and showed it to her. Don't underestimate kids here because they notice things.

Yup, Thats a definite dick

Gimme a break WSP. In your country they don't speak English, yet a 5 year-old boy was asking what it meant? OOPS, your faulty logic is showing! And where's your proof snopes is connected with Disney? They don't always defend it--look at the Rescuers Down Under entry. And finally--subliminal messages don't work! This was disproven back in the 70's! Do you REALLY think that Disney is adding SEX in its movies to create a generation of obsessed children? Sheesh!

While I agree that this one is genuine (it's the only tower on the cover that has veins), it is obviously the work of one disgruntled employee. When I look at the supposed "SEX" messages in the movies, I just see "SFX" - a company that obviously slipped in a little free advertisement for themselves.

Actually, Bob, subliminal messages were never "disproven"..... But neither were they proven. The effectiveness of subliminal messages is still being debated. As for all the supposed sexual references in Disney films, I figure that some are really what they appear to be, and others aren't. I've known animators, and they do get bored and stick little jokes in to amuse themselves and friends/coworkers. Other things are just too questionable to be believed reasonably. And as an aside, it's best not to take things on snopes as gospel. I've also known many of the people who compiled the info for that site for years, and many of them refuse to accept any evidence which does not support their pre-established opinions. It's best to study things yourself and form your own opinion than to just take what they say as the truth unconditionally.

The entire Disney deal is this: The animators DO get tired of the same old "dribble" and they DO insert SOME of the things you see on these movies. The dick thing on the old cover of little mermaid was infact a disgruntled employee. I was also told by an animator of disney that the animators got sooo bored they even drew their own wolf scene to the Beauty and the Beast, where the wolfs kill the Beast and tear his limbs apart and blood and guts are everywhere. =) but she also claimed to have nopt drawn this. Please let me clarify that she doesn't work for them anymore and had no reason to lie to me. The SEX that's "written" in the movies are infact SFX which is a special effects company, and they were doing this just like the disney animators do. There are many other things too but you really have to look for them. Thank you for the time... _prodigy_

This argument has become to long and involved for this forum. But, you can talk about it real-time on the discussion board! There is already a thread started called "Dirty Disney" in the "Moral and Ethical Issues" topic. Please put any further comments on this topic there. No more comments will be allowed to be posted here. Thanks.

I personally have seen this cover (I own it, DUH!) and you can right away tell that it is a p*nis. You can't fight over that. If they did this on this film, why can't they do it on another? The Rescuers also has a naughty scene. What can refrain them from doing it again? You don't really know. You believe what your eyes see, and I see much of the word "SEX" in movies. I own them. You can decide for yourself what comes out.

OK if this is true, then it has to be a reason; and until that reason came up, I won't think Disney is using it's films to send subliminal thoughts; that's a lame excuse.

The topic was eliminated for some reason.

If you watch Disney's Jungle 2 Jungle on VHS, at the front, there is a preview of the re-release of the Little Mermaid. The tower still looks like a p*nis even though it's an entirely different angle and picture of the castle! And what's more, as part of the transition effect, a large glimmer points straight to the head!

I've always found those "disgruntled-employee-on-his-way-out" explanations a little thin. Let's all just face the fact that Disney works very hard to destroy our children's minds. Like every other major children's entertainment corporation.

I have three things to say: One- Subliminal messages really don't work. I've learned this. Two- Disney's trying to destroy our children's minds??? What kind of stupid crap is that??? They make money by giving kids entertaining movies to watch. Destroying children's minds, indeed. What kind of person really believes that??? I won't even go into how I feel about people like that. Three- Disgruntled or bored employees make sense as explanations for the Little Mermaid thing because, yes, I do believe it's a p*nis!

My wife has met the animator who drew the Little Mermaid cover (he did some work for her ex-husband) and yes he did it on purpose because he was pissed at Disney.

SEX in the dust is definitely SFX. It's a valid explanation. Abu screaming "Oh sh*t" is unlikely, considering the explained sound effect sources, although it is odd that this combination surfaced at such a dangerous time for Abu. But, I don't care what anyone says, you HAVE TO know when you are drawing a giant golden p*nis for a children's film.

The illustrator was a free-lance artist!!! He didn't work for Disney. Therefore he couldn't be very angry at them!! If it was so obvious, why would he put it in there? He knew that Disney could easily blame him and get him in loads of trouble.

I saw the poster on a web site other then this one that mentioned this particular egg, and in my opinion, yeah that looks like a p*nis to me. Why its there though, can be argued to death.

I don't care what anyone says......the p*nis is really there, and Webmaster, that address that you put @ the end of all the SEX/SFX disney egg discussions doesn't work.

Do you honestly think Disney would spend their valuable cash on such a crappy web design? Please.

a.)to WSP - there is no proof that Snopes is affiliated with Disney, in fact it seems that they are not(try to investigate before you comment) b.) the cover of The Little Mermaid DOES NOT contain a p*nis(at least not an intended one). The "p*nis" exists because the artist who drew it, drew it in a rush at the last minute and accidentally made it similar to a p*nis c.)the only adult image that was ever inserted in a Disney movie was the naked lady in The Rescuers, which is why Disney no longer sells this movie

I don't think that any of these things about sex and stuff are supposed to influence kids; I just think that the artists wanted to do something funny, and they did.

Ok the whole "sex" messages are looking like sex to me and the tower looks like what you all are saying. and how do we realy know if snoops.com(or what ever it is)is not in with disney! dont bag on wsp too. also how could the people do this to walt? he is a nice guy and in return they make his family name as good as a turd....its a sad thing what people can do to some one :(

it honestly is very true. i have had the movie since the day when it came out. i have watched it a million times and i never noticed it, but when i looked it is clearly there and in vivid detail. just someone trying to be funny, and it is. but it's not on the newer covers of the movie.

I never saw the tower and even when I saw a close-up of which one it was on the Snopes website I still couldn't find it. I didn't even know it was there until I read on the internet that it was there. I have the original version which I borrowed off my friend and never gave back (well she hasn't asked for it) and I still can't find it.

Ok everyone, yes it is a dick on the cover. and no they drew it for fun, not because he was a disgruntled worker. he didnt even work for disney so how could he be mad.you people need to stop making things up.

There is infact a p*nis on the front of the castle in the little Mermaid, everyone knows and will agree to that. The fact that the artist that drew it did it on purpose is also true he did it on purpose and he said and I can quote " Many artist have put hidden drawing in their art work it is nothing new and is beautiful and has been going on for centuries." The fact is that the man was on a deadline and no corrections could be made and the people who apporved the drawing did not realize it right away and it was approved.

The fact that the Priest is getting a "boner" while he is marrying Ursula and Eric only looks like it from the side. If you look at his as ursula turns around and the birds are comming from above you can see there is bumps next to eachother. So it is his knees if you want top see it the address to the picture is http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/minister.html and you will see the frontal position.

The fact that their is SEX written in the dust and dirt cloud does indeed look like sex. But that is also true about it looking like SFX because SFX is a special effects team in the Disney studios. But people only see what they see.

Who ever says subliminal messages do not work does not know what they are talking about they obvously did not hear about the pop corn and Drink coke thing.

This is MY opinion. First off, I don't believe that the golden "column" was drawn by a "disgruntled employee". Second, I don't believe that the artist drew it "by mistake" and that it 'just happens' to look like a dick. I think the artist lied to save his ass. I think he drew it as a joke, 'cuz, hey, it's pretty damn funny!

i own almost all of the movies including all of the movies that are supposed to contain sexual messages , except for the rescuers , wich is the only one that really does show a picture of a naked woman , and thats why disney does'nt sell it anymore , and that's proof that disney does have good intensions. I believe that if the ''discoveries'' in the other movies were clearly what people say they are , disney would stop selling them too. But that's the big point , they are not clear , some people believe they see the word ''sex'' and others don't. The thing is , that only teenagers and adults notice these things , not the children the movies are meant for , so thats why it is really stupid to say that disney is sending sexual messages to them , they dont even understand them! Imagine an animator working all day getting bored and feeling tired and a bit frustrated , i can believe this way he/she could loose concentration and truley accidentaly draw something thats looks like something , but not intensionally , i don't think those animators even think about sex at that time. imagine you have to just paint some clouds , well , you just make a few blobs , and to you its just a cloud , but maybe someone else sees a p*nis in it or some word! maybe it is true that being bored has a different effect , and they do think of sex and intensionally put these ''sex'' jokes in the movies for fun , i don't know , but the main question here is if it does harm the children , and i really think it does'nt and i think the animators know that too , i think they do realize in how much trouble they can get with this and are carefull. you think children who actualley do notice a p*nis tower , the word sex , a minister with an erection and those type of things will get sexualley active sooner? i don't think so. wether the messages are intentional or accidental and whatever reason there was for the appearances of them , it does not harm children. sorry for my poor spelling , but english is'nt my language , i live in The netherlands.

Um, guys, I think this is just everyone's imagination in overdrive. Look at the snopes website posted at the top. This is esactly like the SFX/SEX debate. People are just LOOKING for ways to make Disney look bad.

just so you people know the artist who drew the cover doesn't work for disney. but anyways it still is there and alson some of the eggs say sex and some say sfx

There is another egg in the Little Mermaid Two, return of the sea. When Melody is pushing the little wooden boat out to sea with sebastian, sebastian jumps on. but as he is scrambling on he says "bloody hell". this is not a slipup, you can distictly hear it.

OK, So if there was nothing to hide about this movie and there wasn't anything dirty on it they wouldn't have edited the dvd and the scene at the end of the movie with the priest. which they did. It wasn't just the cover that was messed up. I have both VHS and DVD and didn't believe my husband until we got both of them out and watched them. The end off the DVD was very poorly edited about the priest. As for the Rescuers there is no reason why they can't edit the photo on the wall in that scene. and as for the word SEX appearing in several of their movies, I believe that it is SFX for the company.

All of you claiming to know that the image resembling a p*nis was intentional are in fact wrong. And the one guy claiming to actually know the artist and that he was disgruntled with Disney is full of crap, the guy wasn't even directly employed by Disney in the first place. http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/mermaid.asp Read that, then you can make educated statements