wow i never noticed that but sounds funny it must have been a mistake, hahahha
2007-03-12 03:17:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by am 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Artistic license. I mean the cows and other animals are standing on two legs and talking, so why would udders on a "male cow" disturb you so?
I thought the movie was a little boring, but I think it was made for children young enough not to wonder about such things as sexual ambiguity/deviation.
2007-03-12 03:36:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by ron w 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
They can't exactly draw any male body parts without earning a lawsuit. At the same time it is an error on their part because any kids who see it will be wondering why male and female cattle are not identical in appearance in real life.
2007-03-12 03:33:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Cinnamon 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
My hubby and i discussed this our kids love it, we where thinking they did it for the kids, but then why not just leave the males without anything if it was a concern, its weird
2007-03-12 03:34:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Shaz 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
the cartoonists did that because childern associate better with a cow that has udders and it was funnier to look at
i watched a thing on discovery
2007-03-12 03:33:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think its just a mistake of the animators ...
I also noticed that
2007-03-12 03:31:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by ♥Milkshake♥ 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
ya, i noticed that too. i dont think it was planned, i think the animators just messed up.
2007-03-12 11:08:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Heather 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Weird. I don't think I would really want to know...
2007-03-12 03:36:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by voodooprankster 4
·
1⤊
0⤋