They had an aughfull lot of racist and non PC content back in the day. Wheres the disclaimers on that stuff, or is it just going to stay locked away in the disney vault forever and just pretend like it never happened?
only to the usa population. most of that stuff gets released to the rest of the world with no problems.
you can even see Song of the South outside of the USA just never mention you saw it or you will be attacked.
you can even see Song of the South outside of the USA just never mention you saw it or you will be attacked.
I don't see why I would be attacked outside of the US for watching a US film, unless that "outside of the US" is somewhere in North Korea. But thanks for the watching tip anyway -- now I'm interested what the fuss is about.
You can see it in the US, it's on Archive.Org for free. Also if you search Amazon for it you will find the paperback version and some figurines from the movie on sale.
I've noticed there are lots of rumours about stuff being banned that is actually readily available. In the UK we had a show called Love Thy Neighbour, the basic plot of which is that a racist white guy lives next to a black couple and says all sorts of extremely racist stuff. There are persistent rumours that it has been banned, along with car
I would say deliberately blocking a product for sale and viewing while maintaining copyright/trademark rights so that no one else is allowed to display the product is close enough to a ban that we are merely debating semantics.
You mean like the new Mulan where they thanked the Chinese government responsible for the current genocide? Or the ESPN (also Disney) folks who got blackballed for speaking out over the children being forced to participate and abused in Disney-owned basketball training camps.
Warning: The content in this episode of the Muppet Show was considered acceptable at time of production, but may be considered as offensive in today's society. Be advised that if you plan to watch this with your children, you should be prepared to talk to them about how things have changed in a remarkably short time period, and make sure they understand the context of this content. If your children are young enough that this would be a difficult topic to discuss, you may wish to skip this episode, and revisit it at a later time when they can understand that this is no longer acceptable content.... then I'd be all for it. But I'm sick and tired of people pretending that what is considered racism and intolerance today, wasn't widely considered, including by minorities, as acceptable (if a bit on the edge of then.
Consider the following comedians: Nipsy Russell, Red Foxx, Sammy Davis Jr., Richard Pryor and *early* Eddie Murphy (when he did stand-up). Watch some of their material. Watch their appearances on the old "Man of the Hour" series or "Friar's Club Roasts". Watch Blazing Saddles, for god's sake.
Times have changed. We can't change the past, only learn from it. Disney seems intent on changing the past, rather than using it as an educational opportunity. I've read Huckleberry Finn, the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, AND seen Song of the South-- and appreciated all in their appropriate context. It's insulting to today's youth to think they're too stupid to understand "Things were different then".
Be advised that if you plan to watch this with your children, you should be prepared to talk to them about how things have changed in a remarkably short time period, and make sure they understand the context of this content. If your children are young enough that this would be a difficult topic to discuss, you may wish to skip this episode, and revisit it at a later time when they can understand that this is no longer acceptable content.
Children that young shouldn't be watching the Muppet Show in the first place. I didn't see much of it, but as I recall, its humor tended to lean quite adult, to the point that young children won't even know what's funny. I'm mostly suggesting very young children shouldn't be watching the Muppet Show because it would be wasted on them. Let them watch it as teens. It'll be hilarious then.
I watched it as a child. Really good shows like Sesame Street, the Muppets, and in the "which one doesn't belong" category, Doctor Who, worked for children because they're fun. They're goofy. Then years later, you watch it again, and realize there was a whole 'nother level of context that had (mostly) flown right past you.
Social commentary and kid's entertainment are not necessarily exclusive-- but writers have gotten lazier over the years, and feel compelled to either produce shows that are effectively
Social commentary and kid's entertainment are not necessarily exclusive-- but writers have gotten lazier over the years, and feel compelled to either produce shows that are effectively half-hour long fart jokes,
Don't be daft. All old fogies say that because they look back on the last, say, 50 years and cherry pick the best stuff that's stood the test of time, and compare it to the current average. There's some cracking kids TV right now, but it's hidden in a mountain of crap and hasn't had decades for that
That was the point of it. It was a broadcast TV show meant to entertain and keep the interest of both adults and children. At a time when there were like 3-4 channels and TV's were fairly rare. The muppets and antics were for the kids. The guests and most of the humor were for the adults.
As kids, like many things, you get to re-watch it with a different perspective and enjoy it all again.
A LOT of Disney movies and media, even ones fromt he 90's are like that. For example Aladdin.
Just my $.02 having been a single dad back in the 90s....
For about the last thirty or so years, much of children's programming has contained content aimed at the parents watching with them. The parents don't need to explain anything to the kids because they're mostly only interested in the bright colors, funny costumes, and rhyming songs. This gets more parents to buy that content as well. I used to watch the Simpsons with my toddler daughter until she got a little older, when she started understanding a
Release within reason (e.g. where legal). Where content is anachronistic they can include warnings. For example, they could include some commentary to explain why Finn was sidelined in the sequel trilogy. They could also explain why they shrunk his image on the posters intended for China. People will understand that it was a very different world back in 2017.
OMG A 30 second disclaimer saying that a show content is considered culturally offensive, is such a BIG PROBLEM!!! There was a lot of racist content back in the day, being that the censors at the time were also racist, or at least uninformed on the level of harm of what the content shows to the people would let it go out.
Having such a warning isn't blocking content from being posted, but a message to state a few things. 1. Such Content is no longer considered apart of the companies culture or values it wants
It interferes with my right to watch racist and culturally inappropriate content unimpeded. It also interferes with the content producers 1st amendment rights, since this scary message might turn people away from watching the content.
1. Being the original content came with about 10 minutes of commercials. Video VHS and DVD/Bluerays also had a start screen with the FBI warnings, as well the production studio info being first. That warning message is less impeding on your ability to watch the content than before, even when it was deemed acceptable information.
2. It was the producers choice to put the warning in the first place. There isn't any law where Disney had to put the warning message, they choose to do this, probably figuring if
Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.
What about Disney's content (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you can even see Song of the South outside of the USA just never mention you saw it or you will be attacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Please kill yourself. You are of no use to society, you spam-posting brainless marching moron. ... Have a nice day. :)
Re: (Score:2)
you can even see Song of the South outside of the USA just never mention you saw it or you will be attacked.
I don't see why I would be attacked outside of the US for watching a US film, unless that "outside of the US" is somewhere in North Korea. But thanks for the watching tip anyway -- now I'm interested what the fuss is about.
Re: (Score:2)
He's basically saying don't tell folks in the US that you saw Song of the South outside the US or you'll be attacked.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is what passes for a civilized country these days?
Hell no.
It's what passes for the United States these days.
Re: (Score:2)
You can see it in the US, it's on Archive.Org for free. Also if you search Amazon for it you will find the paperback version and some figurines from the movie on sale.
I've noticed there are lots of rumours about stuff being banned that is actually readily available. In the UK we had a show called Love Thy Neighbour, the basic plot of which is that a racist white guy lives next to a black couple and says all sorts of extremely racist stuff. There are persistent rumours that it has been banned, along with car
Re: (Score:2)
When we say banned, we mean by the content creators. Unless you are saying that Disney uploaded it to Archive.org.
The fact that you cannot watch it on Disney+ or purchase it speaks to the ban.
Re: (Score:2)
So declining to offer something for sale or viewing is banning it now? Because there is a lot of stuff out of print...
Re: (Score:2)
I would say deliberately blocking a product for sale and viewing while maintaining copyright/trademark rights so that no one else is allowed to display the product is close enough to a ban that we are merely debating semantics.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they didn't DMCA archive.org to get it taken down.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep but they are keeping the trademark active and will probably have to at some point.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been there for years.
You are really reaching now.
Re: (Score:2)
you can even see Song of the South outside of the USA
People don't understand the (non translated) song abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
They have already started to do the same for their older more questionable content. Peter Pan and Dumbo are among the movies with similar disclosures.
Re: (Score:1)
Authoritarian Mouse cannot resolve the conflict of producing content in a different time.
The best option is to stop giving them money.
Re: (Score:2)
"aughfull "??? That's awfully awful. I'm in awe.
Re: (Score:2)
"aughfull "??? That's awfully awful. I'm in awe.
As you ought to be!
Re: What about Disney's content (Score:1)
You mean like the new Mulan where they thanked the Chinese government responsible for the current genocide? Or the ESPN (also Disney) folks who got blackballed for speaking out over the children being forced to participate and abused in Disney-owned basketball training camps.
Re:What about Disney's content (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem.... if the disclaimer was:
Warning: The content in this episode of the Muppet Show was considered acceptable at time of production, but may be considered as offensive in today's society. Be advised that if you plan to watch this with your children, you should be prepared to talk to them about how things have changed in a remarkably short time period, and make sure they understand the context of this content. If your children are young enough that this would be a difficult topic to discuss, you may wish to skip this episode, and revisit it at a later time when they can understand that this is no longer acceptable content. ... then I'd be all for it. But I'm sick and tired of people pretending that what is considered racism and intolerance today, wasn't widely considered, including by minorities, as acceptable (if a bit on the edge of then.
Consider the following comedians: Nipsy Russell, Red Foxx, Sammy Davis Jr., Richard Pryor and *early* Eddie Murphy (when he did stand-up). Watch some of their material. Watch their appearances on the old "Man of the Hour" series or "Friar's Club Roasts". Watch Blazing Saddles, for god's sake.
Times have changed. We can't change the past, only learn from it. Disney seems intent on changing the past, rather than using it as an educational opportunity. I've read Huckleberry Finn, the Adventures of Tom Sawyer, AND seen Song of the South-- and appreciated all in their appropriate context. It's insulting to today's youth to think they're too stupid to understand "Things were different then".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Be advised that if you plan to watch this with your children, you should be prepared to talk to them about how things have changed in a remarkably short time period, and make sure they understand the context of this content. If your children are young enough that this would be a difficult topic to discuss, you may wish to skip this episode, and revisit it at a later time when they can understand that this is no longer acceptable content.
Children that young shouldn't be watching the Muppet Show in the first place. I didn't see much of it, but as I recall, its humor tended to lean quite adult, to the point that young children won't even know what's funny. I'm mostly suggesting very young children shouldn't be watching the Muppet Show because it would be wasted on them. Let them watch it as teens. It'll be hilarious then.
Re: (Score:3)
I watched it as a child. Really good shows like Sesame Street, the Muppets, and in the "which one doesn't belong" category, Doctor Who, worked for children because they're fun. They're goofy. Then years later, you watch it again, and realize there was a whole 'nother level of context that had (mostly) flown right past you.
Social commentary and kid's entertainment are not necessarily exclusive-- but writers have gotten lazier over the years, and feel compelled to either produce shows that are effectively
Re: (Score:2)
Social commentary and kid's entertainment are not necessarily exclusive-- but writers have gotten lazier over the years, and feel compelled to either produce shows that are effectively half-hour long fart jokes,
Don't be daft. All old fogies say that because they look back on the last, say, 50 years and cherry pick the best stuff that's stood the test of time, and compare it to the current average. There's some cracking kids TV right now, but it's hidden in a mountain of crap and hasn't had decades for that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just my $.02 having been a single dad back in the 90s....
For about the last thirty or so years, much of children's programming has contained content aimed at the parents watching with them. The parents don't need to explain anything to the kids because they're mostly only interested in the bright colors, funny costumes, and rhyming songs. This gets more parents to buy that content as well. I used to watch the Simpsons with my toddler daughter until she got a little older, when she started understanding a
Re: What about Disney's content (Score:2)
Release within reason (e.g. where legal). Where content is anachronistic they can include warnings. For example, they could include some commentary to explain why Finn was sidelined in the sequel trilogy. They could also explain why they shrunk his image on the posters intended for China. People will understand that it was a very different world back in 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG A 30 second disclaimer saying that a show content is considered culturally offensive, is such a BIG PROBLEM!!!
There was a lot of racist content back in the day, being that the censors at the time were also racist, or at least uninformed on the level of harm of what the content shows to the people would let it go out.
Having such a warning isn't blocking content from being posted, but a message to state a few things.
1. Such Content is no longer considered apart of the companies culture or values it wants
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Being the original content came with about 10 minutes of commercials. Video VHS and DVD/Bluerays also had a start screen with the FBI warnings, as well the production studio info being first. That warning message is less impeding on your ability to watch the content than before, even when it was deemed acceptable information.
2. It was the producers choice to put the warning in the first place. There isn't any law where Disney had to put the warning message, they choose to do this, probably figuring if