|
  |
 Shoe Loss Mandela Effects |
FootsieFan357 
Junior Member
Registration Date: 03-01-2022
Posts: 14
Location: Private
 |
|
| Shoe Loss Mandela Effects |
     |
Hello! I'm new here, so please pardon me if I'm not doing this right.
Do you recall seeing a shoe loss scene in a movie, tv show, or video game, but when you go back to view that scene again, you realize it's not there? Yep, that's the mandella effect. You recall it happening, but it actually never happened.
Here, you can post memories of shoe loss scenes you think you saw, but really didn't. If someone describes a scene that you happen to know, then you can help them out by showing them where the scene came from.
For me, I remember seeing a scene in a Marvel cartoon many years ago when I was a child, and I've always told myself that it was the 90s Spider-Man cartoon. The scene was a flashback from Mary Jane, who we see on an island somewhere. She then sees a puddle on the island, and then jumps in it. After doing so, she pulls her feet right out of her boots, and decides to leave them behind, in the puddle. After some wandering around, Mary Jane decides to take a rest. While resting, someone (I don't remember who), picks up Mary Jane, and carries her with one arm. Mary Jane yells at this person to put her down, but she doesn't, end of flashback. Keep in mind that after Mary Jane ditches her boots, she's barefoot throughout the entire flashback.
I've been searching for years, and years for this scene, and I could never find it. It really drives me crazy, cause I remember seeing this scene, or something similar to this scene when I was younger. I'm pretty sure it was a Marvel cartoon, and I'm pretty sure Mary Jane was involved. If this scene never happened in 90s Spider-Man, did it happen in another Marvel cartoon, with a different character? I REALLY hope I find my answer someday, cause I don't want this mystery to be left unsolved.
__________________
A strange dude, with a strange obsession. 
|
|
03-02-2022 00:39 |
|
|
Nopperabo
Viking
Registration Date: 12-31-2011
Posts: 548
|
|
That doesn't so much like a Mandela effect as a "I know I saw it, but I don't know where" thing. A Mandela effect would be if you were SURE where you had seen it, but couldn't find it there.
I'm not sure I have had any true Mandela effects (barring possibly the Berenstain Bears one most people seem to have.)
Actually I don't have that many "I know I saw it, but I don't know where" ones anymore either, now that there is Youtube (which allows me to surf around the shows I watched as a kid and FIND where most things are.) There's a fragment of a song from a cartoon that is stuck in my head that I haven't been able to trace yet (it would be in some cartoon movie from the 1980's or earlier, so it probably wouldn't be anything you would know either).
I DO have a deja vu like moment involving shoe loss. When I found my copy of Goldilocks and the Three Bears illustrated by Obligado (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxUvNADzwyA) I immediately remembered having seen it before. Eventually, I remembered we had been read to from a copy in Kindergarten (and I remember asking where Goldilocks's other shoe had gone.)
And there are two "I know I saw it, but haven't been able to find it" ones as well, both also involving Goldilocks. Both date from the time when I was still a kid, and fully financially dependent on my parents (so I couldn't just go and buy things without them knowing.)
One was a fairly cheap version that was part of a combination coloring book and audio tape set that was being sold in CVS (I seem to recall the other side being Alladin). Despite years of prowling on eBay, I have yet to find a copy.
The second was when I was in Great Britain on vacation (I was a lot older then, but since Mom and Dad held all of the pounds sterling and were always with my sister and me, again, no ability to buy.) Featuring teddy bear Three Bears and a ragdoll Goldilocks. Again, no luck in tracking down.
|
|
|
03-02-2022 15:21 |
|
|
Mandrake
Administrator
Registration Date: 03-03-2010
Posts: 999
Location: NY
|
|
One of my earliest memories was seeing Disney's Alice in Wonderland cartoon on tv. I remember seeing Alice lose her shoes when she falls down the rabbit hole. Years later I watched again and she didn't lose shoes. I was very disappointed to say the least. I think it was a combination of two things that caused me to have this hallucination:
1. I really wanted to see it happen. I've had this fetish for as long as I can remember, even as a little kid, so I really wanted to Alice lose her shoes especially because she was wearing stockings.
2. The picture quality on our old tv probably wasn't that good. It's possible the picture was too dark and her black shoes blended in with the background so it looked as though she wasn't wearing any during some of the frames. It doesn't explain how she got them back later, but I was very young and didn't think about such things.
|
|
|
03-02-2022 16:59 |
|
|
Nopperabo
Viking
Registration Date: 12-31-2011
Posts: 548
|
|
I REALLY shouldn't mention it (for reasons I will mention below), but many years ago, when Disney was auctioning off some of it's archive materials. I actually managed to snag an animation cell of Alice throwing one of her shoes at the Cheshire Cat (they said it was for development of a book when I bought it but what book, and why they would put a book illustration on an animation cell, is beyond me.)
The reason I have never mentioned this before is that
1. When I bought the cell, Disney made it clear that they still retained all rights to the image (which means, I suppose, that they digitized it somewhere) And according to my dad the lawyer, that means that I actually CAN'T scan or photograph the cell without committing copyright infringement and leaving myself open to being sued.
2. I am TERRIFIED of what will happen if I leave it out in the light too long and it starts to fade. (I don't even LOOK at it much anymore, it's kept in a pocket in one of by albums, image turned toward the page.)
I CAN however, reveal an interesting tidbit from the image that no one would know from the movie; Alice's shoes are actually center strap (as would be appropriate for the period) as opposed to side strap (as was common when the movie was made). That is, they have TWO short straps that button in the middle, as opposed to one long strap that buttons on one side.
|
|
|
03-03-2022 00:05 |
|
|
Mandrake
Administrator
Registration Date: 03-03-2010
Posts: 999
Location: NY
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Nopperabo
I REALLY shouldn't mention it (for reasons I will mention below), but many years ago, when Disney was auctioning off some of it's archive materials. I actually managed to snag an animation cell of Alice throwing one of her shoes at the Cheshire Cat (they said it was for development of a book when I bought it but what book, and why they would put a book illustration on an animation cell, is beyond me.)
The reason I have never mentioned this before is that
1. When I bought the cell, Disney made it clear that they still retained all rights to the image (which means, I suppose, that they digitized it somewhere) And according to my dad the lawyer, that means that I actually CAN'T scan or photograph the cell without committing copyright infringement and leaving myself open to being sued.
2. I am TERRIFIED of what will happen if I leave it out in the light too long and it starts to fade. (I don't even LOOK at it much anymore, it's kept in a pocket in one of by albums, image turned toward the page.)
I CAN however, reveal an interesting tidbit from the image that no one would know from the movie; Alice's shoes are actually center strap (as would be appropriate for the period) as opposed to side strap (as was common when the movie was made). That is, they have TWO short straps that button in the middle, as opposed to one long strap that buttons on one side. |
That's very interesting. Is it a cell from the original film that was cut? Or was it made for the book?
|
|
|
03-03-2022 06:05 |
|
|
Nopperabo
Viking
Registration Date: 12-31-2011
Posts: 548
|
|
As I thought I said before, I'm not sure WHAT it was made for. THEY said "book", but they didn't say WHICH book. Over the years Disney has published SO MANY books, that it could be from literally ANYWHERE.
I don't think it's from the movie, since it isn't staged like the part of the movie where Alice meets the Cheshire Cat. That's in a forest, the cell shows them in a field with the Cheshire Cat (or rather his smile and disappearing pink smoke puff) over a piece of fence. Also the style isn't quite right (a movie cell would have more shading).
At the moment, my two best guesses are that.
1. It IS for a book, but not the Alice in Wonderland story book. Rather it's from one of those innumerable other story books that Disney put out with other short stories. Alliteratively, it could be from one of the Disney illustrated dictionaries/encyclopedias. I once got one of those in Korean, and found a shoe loss picture in it for the entry "lost" (it's of Grandma Duck).
Or it could be from nothing at all that was published. After all they said it was made for the development of a book, they never said it was ever actually used.
2. The cell is from one of the various TV commercials Disney made when the movie came out, both to advertise the movie and to sell sponsored products (I think Jello or some sort of pudding). Some of those commercials featured characters that did not appear in the actual movie, like the Gryphon and the Mock Turtle (just like one of the smaller published story books has a picture of the Jabberwocky, and another has Humpty Dumpty, who don't appear in the movie either.)
Some of those commercials also feature art done by animators OTHER than those who worked on the movie, and it sometimes shows. Somewhere on Yahoo! Japan (basically, think Japanese eBay) I saw a cell from one of the commercials done (I think) by the person who did the animation for Sleeping Beauty, of Alice on a bridge over a stream. A LOT of details are different in that, Alice has a black bow (I think) instead of her black hairband, she's taller and looks older, the dress is a darker shade of blue and (probably the most interesting fact to people on this site) her shoes are ankle strap, rather than instep strap. If I recall the price they were asking was about $500 (which an Alice expert I know of said was ludicrous)*
Oh and I remembered one other thing. If I recall, Alice's stockings are a lot tighter than they appear. In my cell, I think you can see Alice's toe lines on her stocking foot (maybe I'll check tonight, when the sun is down and there is less risk of light damage.)
*Before you ask, I paid $75 for my cell (with so many items up, people were busy bidding on other, more desirable cells and I was able to sneak in). But bear in mind, we are talking $75 twenty years ago!
|
|
|
03-03-2022 14:15 |
|
|
FootsieFan357
Junior Member
Registration Date: 03-01-2022
Posts: 14
Location: Private
Thread Starter 
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Nopperabo
As I thought I said before, I'm not sure WHAT it was made for. THEY said "book", but they didn't say WHICH book. Over the years Disney has published SO MANY books, that it could be from literally ANYWHERE.
I don't think it's from the movie, since it isn't staged like the part of the movie where Alice meets the Cheshire Cat. That's in a forest, the cell shows them in a field with the Cheshire Cat (or rather his smile and disappearing pink smoke puff) over a piece of fence. Also the style isn't quite right (a movie cell would have more shading).
At the moment, my two best guesses are that.
1. It IS for a book, but not the Alice in Wonderland story book. Rather it's from one of those innumerable other story books that Disney put out with other short stories. Alliteratively, it could be from one of the Disney illustrated dictionaries/encyclopedias. I once got one of those in Korean, and found a shoe loss picture in it for the entry "lost" (it's of Grandma Duck).
Or it could be from nothing at all that was published. After all they said it was made for the development of a book, they never said it was ever actually used.
2. The cell is from one of the various TV commercials Disney made when the movie came out, both to advertise the movie and to sell sponsored products (I think Jello or some sort of pudding). Some of those commercials featured characters that did not appear in the actual movie, like the Gryphon and the Mock Turtle (just like one of the smaller published story books has a picture of the Jabberwocky, and another has Humpty Dumpty, who don't appear in the movie either.)
Some of those commercials also feature art done by animators OTHER than those who worked on the movie, and it sometimes shows. Somewhere on Yahoo! Japan (basically, think Japanese eBay) I saw a cell from one of the commercials done (I think) by the person who did the animation for Sleeping Beauty, of Alice on a bridge over a stream. A LOT of details are different in that, Alice has a black bow (I think) instead of her black hairband, she's taller and looks older, the dress is a darker shade of blue and (probably the most interesting fact to people on this site) her shoes are ankle strap, rather than instep strap. If I recall the price they were asking was about $500 (which an Alice expert I know of said was ludicrous)*
Oh and I remembered one other thing. If I recall, Alice's stockings are a lot tighter than they appear. In my cell, I think you can see Alice's toe lines on her stocking foot (maybe I'll check tonight, when the sun is down and there is less risk of light damage.)
*Before you ask, I paid $75 for my cell (with so many items up, people were busy bidding on other, more desirable cells and I was able to sneak in). But bear in mind, we are talking $75 twenty years ago! |
If you're worried about the cel fading, you don't have to look at it. I believe you, and I think it's amazing how you were able to get your hands on the cel in the first place.
__________________
A strange dude, with a strange obsession.
|
|
|
03-03-2022 17:42 |
|
|
Nopperabo
Viking
Registration Date: 12-31-2011
Posts: 548
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by FootsieFan357
If you're worried about the cel fading, you don't have to look at it. I believe you, and I think it's amazing how you were able to get your hands on the cel in the first place. |
Oh, if you are old enough and look diligently enough, you can find all kinds of really odd and rare stuff. My Oz album contains the original painting for a proposed Wizard of Oz edition by Little Elf Books, illustrated by H. Flamm, which I picked up for a song on ebay (actually I picked up the whole book rough out, but after I put the Dorothy melting the witch picture (i.e. the shoe loss picture) in my album (it had already fallen off the mockup backing) I wasn't all that careful with the rest of the book, and they all crumbled.) One of my Japanese Oz manga books (no shoe loss picture) is not only a first edition, but a SIGNED FULL COLOR first edition (the re-print, which is much commoner is only in color for the fist twenty or so pages).
And I SAW, but never got to bid on, the auction of the ORIGINAL copy of the famous Peanuts comic page where Snoopy steals Lucy's shoe. (I think it's in a museum now) But then I never really wanted that one, since it's just the black and white, and as far as I am concerned one black and white is as good as another, be it original or not (Now if I ever found an original newspaper printing in COLOR of the panel, that would be another matter*
Let's see what else might be rare. There are a few official Associated Press photos in my collection of celebrities, including one of Shirley Temple ( I actually saw a second Shirley Temple one, but wasn't able to get that one.)
There are also some old candid photos of non famous people, which I assume are all unique (in that I can't see a reason why someone would take more than one of any of them). Ditto a couple of negatives which I sort of got by mistake (in both cases, the auction seller put up the POSITIVE image from the negative rather than the negative as it was, and I wasn't paying enough attention to notice.
*When the Complete Peanuts began to come out (in which all the Sunday panels WERE colored, as they appeared in the actual papers, I had always planned to pick up the volume with the panel when it came out. But I never got around to it(and I'm not sure I remember the exact date anyway.)
|
|
|
03-03-2022 22:12 |
|
|
Nopperabo
Viking
Registration Date: 12-31-2011
Posts: 548
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Nopperabo
There's a fragment of a song from a cartoon that is stuck in my head that I haven't been able to trace yet (it would be in some cartoon movie from the 1980's or earlier, so it probably wouldn't be anything you would know either).
|
I found it! I finally tried putting the lyrics I remembered in google, and it popped right up. (it's from a movie called Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night.)
|
|
|
03-04-2022 02:38 |
|
|
Mandrake
Administrator
Registration Date: 03-03-2010
Posts: 999
Location: NY
|
|
| quote: |
Oh and I remembered one other thing. If I recall, Alice's stockings are a lot tighter than they appear. In my cell, I think you can see Alice's toe lines on her stocking foot (maybe I'll check tonight, when the sun is down and there is less risk of light damage.)
|
Well, when I was a kid I always imagined her stockings to be tight and thin. Wish I could find the book it was published in.
|
|
|
03-04-2022 05:40 |
|
|
Nopperabo
Viking
Registration Date: 12-31-2011
Posts: 548
|
|
Well, if you want to go historically, then there are limits on how tight and thin one can go. We are talking circa 1850's-1860's after all, so pre-nylon. And Alice is a child (even if a well off one) so no silk (and certainly not for day to day clothes!) So we are probably talking cotton.
It's a bit like how, however Disney tried, Alice's shoes in the cartoon movie aren't really period accurate either. The way they are drawn, Alice is wearing typical patent leather Mary Janes, which would have been contemporary in 1951). But they wouldn't have been in the 1850's. For one thing, they technically couldn't be Mary Janes back then, for the simple reason that that name didn't exist yet (that style of shoe may be ancient, but the actual name didn't exist until it was trademarked by the Buster Brown Shoe Company in 1904). And while patent leather DID exist (it has since 1793) it wasn't widely used for ornamental use yet (being more commonly used for wet weather gear). At that time, Alice's shoes would more likely be something like kidskin or Morocco leather (still shiny, but not nearly as shiny as patent.)
Secondly, if you look at the original illustrations by Tenniel (which actually are NOT the originals, as Carrol illustrated the original written manuscript himself, but they are the ones most people know.) one thing you quickly notice is how tight Alice's shoes are and how thin their outline actually is compared to her foot, and how thin the strap is. This would also fit with shoes of this time, which were made of much softer leathers and were expected to more or less fit around the foot like a glove (This is also one of the reasons behind the myth that people in the past had much smaller feet than people now; we're actually using a different standard as to sizing.)
For a long time, I also thought that they had also gotten wrong the fact that Alice's shoes had heels, even low ones. Most children's' shoes of that period had completely flat soles. However I looked up a few of the original illustrations (specifically the one from Alice Through The Looking Glass where she is actually GOING through the mirror., where you can see the bottom of her shoe) and in Tenniel's case, she does have low heels.
Finally, despite the fact that BOTH Tenniel AND Carrol himself drew Alice in them, (Carrol's Alice illustrations show Alice with what are basically flats, no strap.) There might be some question as to whether a girl like Alice would be WEARING that type of shoes for an outing outside. Shoes like that were more for indoor or maybe city wear, farther away from mud and dirt. Outside on a summer's day, Alice would probably have worn boots. which would have been more secure and more importantly, much more able to keep her white stockings from getting mud and dirt stains on them (remember, this is also pre-washing machines, and getting white cotton stockings white again after they got dirty was HARD WORK, even if you DID have servants to do it.)
|
|
|
03-04-2022 08:51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
