There are two versions of the Rudolph TV special, right? The original in which the would-be elf dentist yanks all the monster's teeth (really nasty), and the politically correct version where the dentist merely fixes a toothache (nice).

I ask because I participated in a forum a few years ago in which some really annoying and arrogant members insisted the toothache version couldn't possibly exist, merely because they hadn't seen it, even though several other members said they had. (I have seen both versions.) I was wondering if consensus has been reached yet among the amateur TV historians who inhabit these discussion groups and the two-version story is now settled fact.

As a matter of history, the toothache version was introduced after a few years of the yank version, presumably because yanking all his teeth violated the monster's right to be who he is. I don't know how many years the toothache version held sway, but then, for some reason unknown to me, the network went back to the yank version, which explains how the naysayers could have missed the toothache version.

  • 3
    There might be a real question in here, but as worded it sounds like a rant, not a question. Voted to close as Unclear.
    – GendoIkari
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 14:39
  • 3
    I do suggest you edit your question to specify that this is indeed the TV show you are referring to and I suggest you remove the reason why you are asking as it comes across as a bit of a rant, and doesn't really add much to the question.
    – iandotkelly
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 14:45
  • 1
    "As a matter of history" - Really? - citation required.
    – Paulie_D
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 14:48
  • 2
    @FernDalquist "In the view of this forum's members" is the issue. This is a Q&A site, not a forum, which means that the "views" of the members is irrelevant to a good answer. Simply reframing the question as "does this other version exist?" would be much better. The title as currently edited makes a good question.
    – GendoIkari
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 15:03
  • 3
    I have to confess, judging from your comments, you don't seem to be asking a genuine good-faith question. You seem to have already made up your mind that there are two versions, and the only answer you will accept is the one that says that, regardless of whether it actually offers proof beyond "yes, I remember it too".
    – F1Krazy
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 18:09

1 Answer 1


Although there are multiple edits/cuts of the 1964 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Christmas special, most likely this particular difference in memory is a result of the Mandela Effect.

There is not a huge difference between the scenes as described... Hermey does work on the Abominable Snowman's teeth; and the Abominable Snowman does show up at the end, no longer being a threat. There is not, however, any evidence of a version where the Snowman is described as having had a toothache.

Wikipedia lists details about the various versions that were released; the biggest differences have to do with the addition of a scene showing that Santa visited the island misfit toys.

There is a lot of discussion about this particular example of the Mandela Effect on Reddit. So it is not uncommon for people to remember it this way.

  • I do not accept your "answer". Trotting out the Mandela Effect is illegitimate. If 10,000 people came forward to say they saw the Toothache version, you can just wave your hand and say "Mandela Effect". That's not proof of anything. Many people have seen the Toothache version; I know this from the other forum I mentioned originally. And I would remind you that Wikipedia is not gospel, but the work of sincere but imperfect people. Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 15:39
  • For those keeping score, I now have the real answer to my original question. There has not been any progress getting consensus on this two-version question. The Mandela Effect dodge is still being used. Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 15:53
  • Wikipedia tends to be a great source for many answers and sometimes they have their own works cited, which can also be decent official sources. It's true that wikipedia is not always accurate, due to human error, but I think most people do try hard to make it reliable. Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 15:54
  • 1
    I have not claimed to provide proof that the other version doesn't exist... you can't ever prove something like that. I have simply claimed that there is no evidence (that I can find) to support the idea that it does exist.
    – GendoIkari
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 16:05
  • 1
    If you have some sort of proof that this other version exists, feel free to present it at various places around the internet; several other forums would benefit greatly from such a thing.
    – GendoIkari
    Commented Oct 24, 2018 at 19:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .