Mild Disney+ Censorship 'Hides a Much Bigger Problem' (theverge.com) 194
There's a scene in the 1984 Tom Hanks movie Splash "showing a brief glimpse of a naked butt..." notes the Verge, "but people watching the movie on Disney Plus are greeted with an entirely different version of the scene."
And the Verge sees a larger issue: Disney used CGI hair to cover actress Daryl Hannah's body. A Disney representative confirmed to The Verge that a "few scenes" from Splash were "slighted edited to remove nudity," but they did not specify when the edits were made...
Splash has found itself in the middle of an ongoing debate over media being altered in digital spaces. It's a debate that's raged for decades; fans were upset when George Lucas edited A New Hope, making it so Greedo shot first instead of Han. People bemoaned Lucas and 20th Century Fox for not releasing the original version of the film anywhere, either. The only legal versions of A New Hope that exist for people to buy, download, or stream today feature Greedo shooting first. It wasn't just that Lucas and Fox replaced the original scene with a slightly altered one, but the original also wasn't available to purchase when reprints were made...
"As physical media gives way to streaming, large corporations have greater and greater control over what we can and cannot see," Slate's Isaac Butler wrote on the issue. "This gives them unprecedented power to disappear bothersome work.
"Whether we agree with a particular instance of memory-holing or not, this practice is deeply troubling, its history even more so."
And the Verge sees a larger issue: Disney used CGI hair to cover actress Daryl Hannah's body. A Disney representative confirmed to The Verge that a "few scenes" from Splash were "slighted edited to remove nudity," but they did not specify when the edits were made...
Splash has found itself in the middle of an ongoing debate over media being altered in digital spaces. It's a debate that's raged for decades; fans were upset when George Lucas edited A New Hope, making it so Greedo shot first instead of Han. People bemoaned Lucas and 20th Century Fox for not releasing the original version of the film anywhere, either. The only legal versions of A New Hope that exist for people to buy, download, or stream today feature Greedo shooting first. It wasn't just that Lucas and Fox replaced the original scene with a slightly altered one, but the original also wasn't available to purchase when reprints were made...
"As physical media gives way to streaming, large corporations have greater and greater control over what we can and cannot see," Slate's Isaac Butler wrote on the issue. "This gives them unprecedented power to disappear bothersome work.
"Whether we agree with a particular instance of memory-holing or not, this practice is deeply troubling, its history even more so."
Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I despise a retelling of history that attempts to rewrite the story, but there's so much of it in real life, a minor story change in an otherwise fictional presentation is not even barely enough to keep me awake nights.
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:5, Interesting)
At least the West has so much of historical documents, that at least some part of its History is indelible. In places like India, the documentation is so poor, History gets distorted and random unsubstantiated made-up stuff becomes the official version. The reality checks are rare there. For example there is a party in South India that claims its founder visited Britain and addressed dozens of labor rallies attended by more than 50,000 people each in 1930s. There is absolutely no record of this in Britain, and even Hitler did not raise rallies of 50K at his peak popularity. But that party won the elections, captured the text book committees and this "fact" is part of official history there. Generations are indoctrinated with this woven deep in their belief system, they get into cognitive dissonance when the learn the truth.
As we move to paperless world where saved documents can be edited later to fit whatever suits them, we might see in the West what has happening in places where record keeping had been spotty.
Re: (Score:3)
When we were little more than children, the delicious secret of history was that the winners got to write it, generally at the expense of the losers.
In this day and age, there are so many competing narratives that seining the truth from the noise is beyond the abilities of almost all of us.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Canada's Government-Owned CBC Deletes Trump Scene From Home Alone 2 Broadcast
https://www.zerohedge.com/poli... [zerohedge.com]
There was NOTHING political, just a Trump cameo prior to becoming a politician. I honestly don't know if it would be MORE or LESS expected for them to alter Trump today.
Re: (Score:3)
It's apparently a standard clause required of a film shooting contract that if there's anything filmed on a Trump property then Donald Trump has to get a cameo.
There's nothing in the contract that the cameo featuring Donald Trump must appear in the final cut.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly, I remember that scene even better than I recall Hans shooting 1st and Daryl's naked bum... deleting Trump is indicative of the bipartisan hatred that is unfortunately present in all matters of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it that so many people think Captain Solo's first name is "Hans"?
IDK, but exactly that many are dead certain his last name is olo.
Re: (Score:2)
Auto Correct?
Re: (Score:3)
Or CBC's desire to avoid paying royalties to someone they didn't need to...
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:5, Informative)
deleting Trump is indicative of the bipartisan hatred that is unfortunately present in all matters of the day.
This has nothing to do with politics or hatred. You could say that it had more to do with the paranoia of Trump supporters. The removal of Trump occurred before he became a political figure.
From the article CBC Responds to Home Alone 2 Trump Editing Controversy [mediaite.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
deleting Trump is indicative of the bipartisan hatred that is unfortunately present in all matters of the day.
This scene (along with other scenes) were deleted by CBC in 2014 to make room for commercials. So what are you on about with hatred and bipartisanship? Looks like seeking reasons to be outraged are also present in all matters of the day. Even if they don't fit.
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. We are so polarized, that we've allowed an existential threat to become politicized.
The real threat isn't whether or not we stem the US death count at 60k, 220k, or 2.4 million, or the World's death toll at 2 million or 12... it's whether or not we allow the virus to continue to spread, and plausibly mutate via cosmic happenstance, into just a bit more virulent nightmare. For instance, a covid-19 with 3.45 R0 and a 6% motality rate {rather than 2.3 R0 with 1.6% mortality} would be a game changer... if not a game ender.
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:4, Insightful)
I.e. while mutations sound scary, they usually don't result in an even worse virus. Killing one's host is usually sub-optimal, from an evolutionary perspective.
Sure, it could happen, but it's way more probably that eventual mutations that survive will be less malignant.
wishful thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
long term sure, that's how things are supposed to work. There is no feedback to the virus that applies natural selection in the way you suggest. At this point whatever strain spreads the fastest will win, even if the host dies a few weeks after infection or suffers life long disability.
I don't believe evolutionary pressures apply over a period as short as 1-2 years. Expect this to be a wild party where even the most self-destructive strain has a chance at being popular. Once a majority(>50%) of people ha
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe evolutionary pressures apply over a period as short as 1-2 years.
It all depends on the number of generations that occur in that time frame. For humans there is zero evolution of the species over a 1-2 year span but if a species can have 1000 generations over that time frame then the likelihood of the species evolving is much greater.
Re: (Score:3)
We are so polarized, that we've allowed an existential threat to become politicized.
Exaggerations don't help. COVID-19 is dangerous, yes, but in no possible world is it an existential threat. Climate change is closer to an existential threat, but it isn't either. Both are threats to large numbers of individual, and both have the potential to be economic catastrophes, but neither is an existential threat.
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:5, Informative)
The scene was deleted to make the movie fit into a tv timeslot. Removing it had zero effect on the plot.
Re: (Score:2)
The scene was deleted to make the movie fit into a tv timeslot. Removing it had zero effect on the plot.
One can make the same argument abbut any editing that was actually political.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I despise a retelling of history
Her bum was part of the art. She had a nice bum and it was probably a lot of work to get her movement coordinated enough so that just the right amount of bum made it into the movie to evoke the appropriate amount of sexualization of the character.
Disney's modification of the artwork is simply an act of vandalism, or more accurately, blandalism, that seeks to erase beautiful and flawed aspects of the human psyche that don't exist in Disney's perspective of the world. They want to have as large a target market for their movies as possible which means if a kid picks it they don't want any discussions with the parent that they aren't old enough to watch that movie to interfere with the revenue stream.
I have an original VHS of Star Wars where Han shoot's first, it makes the original sense of the movie and the scenes that follow come across a lot differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Her bum was part of the art. She had a nice bum and it was probably a lot of work to get her movement coordinated enough so that just the right amount of bum made it into the movie to evoke the appropriate amount of sexualization of the character.
The irony of the whole thing, is that Disney loves sexualizing their Disney-Princesses - cartoon characters made for impressionable little minds. Perfect super-model bodies with tight waists, bulging breasts, wide hips and long legs. Look at miniskirt wearing Pocahontas or the cheeky gypsy girl of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, and don't tell me they aren't hot as fuck and designed to invoke fantasies in any man.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, being 1984, it was just some cheap titillation to help sell the movie. Back then with the rise of home video rental it was pretty common for movies to throw in a random bit of nudity so they could grab a few sales from people wanting to see that actress in the buff. For actresses at that time it was practically guaranteed if the movie was PG rated or above.
Another possibility is that it was done deliberately to ensure the PG rating and avoid it being mistaken for a young kid's Disney movie abou
Re:Sure, I'd rather see her bum (Score:4, Interesting)
More likely, being 1984, it was just some cheap titillation to help sell the movie.
Her character is portraying femininity at the peak of its power, yet innocent of it. They would have auditioned dozens of women to get exactly the look they wanted for the movie. Each of the nudity scenes would have been the result of that and contrived to communicate that dichotomy, which was the point of the movie. Reviewed, edited and re-shot until they got it right.
Sure you can see her femininity as cheap titillation or you can view it through Hanks' character of oh wow, she doesn't know how beautiful she is.
Another possibility is that it was done deliberately to ensure the PG rating and avoid it being mistaken for a young kid's Disney movie about mermaid
I think this is the most likely reason. It also increasingly caters to an audience of children who can't take 'NO' for an answer and never learn to respect boundaries, thus making it difficult for them to form their own boundaries creating a very malleable consumer indeed.
Apparently bare arses are out but racist stereotypes are fine.
Apparently portraying extreme violence and torture is just fine and dandy which has no psychological impact at all on people. Human sexuality however is something to be ashamed of. No wonder so many people grow up with all sorts of self image problems.
Think about it from a different perspective, Disney is saying something beautiful, natural and innocent is something to be ashamed of and will corrupt whoever sees it. Pure psychological conditioning of children, frankly it's kind of sickening and as someone else pointed out, creepy, when you look at it as an adult as opposed to as a child or parent.
Infantalization is what Disney does to their audience, I find it offensive because it disgusts me.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree that we have some weird hang ups about sexuality, but this was the 80s and the "born sexy yesterday" trope was going strong. It's a classic fantasy, a beautiful but naive woman who has no other men to compare Hank's character to, who is pure and virginal and available.
https://youtu.be/0thpEyEwi80 [youtu.be]
Thanks for pointing it out, I had not paid any attention to it before however now that I have I see there are some serious issues in terms of human behavior.
The conclusion at the end of that vid has some serious problems. First it tries to say we need media to express women and men as equals rather than two completely different complementary entities that can augment each others strengths and weaknesses. The sexes are not equal, they are different for biological reasons related to having children and
Re: (Score:3)
It's on archive.org. I found it with Google in less than a minute.
https://archive.org/details/So... [archive.org]
It's even in glorious 1080p for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: It's pointing backwards and downwards into the land of inquisitions, beheadings and even more organized child rape. And you should know that too.
You're a grown-up man.
Citation?
But indy will still get fucked in the 5th movie! (Score:2)
But indy will still get fucked in the 5th movie!
Re: (Score:2)
What is censorship? (Score:3)
It's interesting that this article seems to suggest that any altering of content, even by the original creators of that content, is censorship. I would think that putting pressure on the original creators to not alter their own content as they wish is itself censorship.
Re:What is censorship? (Score:5, Informative)
Altering the content and releasing the alteration as a new version would not be censorship. Making it illegal to distribute the original version, however—that is censorship.
Copyright in general is censorship. Just look at the history: this is what it was invented for, to give the monarchy the power to decide who was allowed to publish and who was not. The modern version doesn't include that degree of overt government control, but you still get cases like this one where copyright is used not to incentivise the creation of new works but rather to suppress works which were previously published.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What is censorship? (Score:2)
Frankly, as an outsider, it is horrifying to see, how your leaders have managed to not only censor your society, but to make not only YOU do it yourselves, but WANT to do it too!
I heard somebody actually SAY "BLEEP" outloud, yesterday! In the middle of a sentence!
That is some North Korea level stuff! What the actual fuck!
If anyone ever did that here in Germany, people would stare at him like he's days away from strapping a suicide belt to himself and raping children in his cult! It's creepy!
Please stop, Ame
Re: (Score:2)
Saying bleep out loud instead of swearing can be an inside joke depending on the circumstances. There was an episode of X-Files with an extremely foulmouthed agent, but since this was ... I think Scully retelling the case to someone, every time the guy swore he said bleep. The first time the scene cut to Scully saying, "Well, he didn't actually say bleep, but -" "Yeah, I'm familiar with his vocabulary. Go on."
For several months after that episode aired friends and I would jokingly use bleep as a swear word.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the opposite, allowing "do-overs" is a backdoor to censorship. Like, say, if you're a country that can't just outlaw a certain movie (because of pesky annoyances like a first amendment), you could "motivate" an author to "want" to redact parts of what he already released.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting that this article seems to suggest that any altering of content, even by the original creators of that content, is censorship. I would think that putting pressure on the original creators to not alter their own content as they wish is itself censorship.
I agree with you. It's their product, they can do with it as they see fit. Including not selling at all or selling altered content. Of course 'we' are free to have an opinion on that, but that's about it.
Want to have a cartoon movie with nudes? Hire a few artists and go make your own. It's very popular to do so in Japan, and nothing stops anyone from doing so elsewhere, give or take a few extremist totalitarian regimes.
I don't get all the judgement. Make the observation, sure. Speak your opinion, sure. Judg
This isn't new for Disney (Score:5, Informative)
They removed a black centauress in Fantasia, removed any references of smoking in older Disney cartoons (save Pinnochio where it was integral to the scene and showed in a negative light anyway), changed the opening lyrics of Aladdin and never mind locking up Song of the South into the same vault as probably now holds the original Star Wars cut.
They've also recently changed a scene in Lilo and Stitch where Lilo hid in a dryer to evade her sister. That scene was deemed dangerous and they've gone back and changed it to her hiding under a kitchen table behind a pizza box.
Quick search on YouTube shows they're also removing the symbol on Grunkle Stans' fez on Gravity Falls because it looked too close to the symbol of Islam in season 1 (in season 2 it was drawn different to look more like a pac-man fish)
Disney has always censored/updated their content for the moraes of the day. I don't agree with it but it's not new but as we move more and more to digital content that we "lease" - it becomes more important if content gets changed out from under us.
Re:This isn't new for Disney (Score:4, Interesting)
Walt Disney smoked like a chimney and was frequently photographed with a cigarette in his hand. However that cigarette is edited out of every picture of him displayed in the properties.
Re:This isn't new for Disney (Score:5, Informative)
" a black centauress in Fantasia "
It wasn't just black, it was a very offensive negro parody. https://i.imgur.com/bACZcZC.jp... [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is pretending these prejudices didn't exist healthy?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to start bleeping "black" as a skin color descriptive term after a few years?
Probably. If you go to the Old Testament part of StackExchange you'll find that standard practise is to replace "God" with "G-d" despite the fact that "God" is not his name, it's a word used to avoid using his proper name(s). I assume that eventually they'll just use '---' or maybe just '?'.
Direct 1-to-1 euphemisms generally erode like this because people forget what they're hiding and the meaning transfers from the original to the euphemism. At some point BCE and CE will get replaced by something else for
Re: (Score:3)
Aladdin's lyrics were first changed for the VHS release way back when. As you say, they have been doing it forever.
https://genius.com/a/the-new-a... [genius.com]
I hope they fix the sexist war movies (Score:3)
All the solders are men, the nurses are women.
A bit of CGI could deal with that nicely.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Let's rewrite history and make it herstory.
Please don't forget (Score:2)
Daryl shot first!
Re: (Score:2)
I like all the new CGI fish and fantastic creatures and additional merman and mermaids they added. It makes it feel so much more real!
Re: (Score:2)
It was pretty cool how both Nemo and Ponyo were actually in Splash long before they had their own features..
As bad as this is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I do think Disney should own its heritage. Release it with a relevant commentary that it was a child of its time and that Disney is absolutely in favor of equality of all races and genders, and that the movie is a historic piece of art, not a statement of how it should be. But release it.
And while you're at it, release all the war time propaganda cartoons. The Fuhrer's Face is a masterpiece (and very much loved over here in Europe, even though the only way to get it is via YouTube and the likes). Add a rele
Re: (Score:3)
The Looney Tunes collections outright say that its racist stereotypes were a product of their time, they were wrong then, and are wrong now, but still a part of history and erasing them would be the same as denying the prejudices existed in the first place.
A few recent games set during WW2 have also erased all references to Nazis, which to me is dangerously close to holocaust denial.
No, scratch that, denying the nazis existed is holocaust denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it's actually easier to shoot Nazis in those shooters than simply mowing down scores of German Wehrmacht soldiers, at least for me...
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes think I'm the only person who just sees enemies in shooters as targets. I'd be just as willing to kill nazis as I would unarmed medics or child soldiers. Hell, give me a good shooter where you're the nazi and I'll still play it.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw "Song of the South" in my film history course in 1994. "Great" is not a word I'd use to describe it. MANY Disney films of that era were pure drek.
Now it WAS historically significant in the multiplanar process used to integrate animated and live footage.
But it was a shitty movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Song of the South is still easily available, e.g. on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/So... [archive.org]
I don't see what the point of releasing it on bluray would be. It would cost money to fix it up to bluray quality and market would be quite limited. A lot of retailers wouldn't want to carry it and Disney probably doesn't want to make money out of an overtly racist movie. It's better that it's available for free online.
Re: As bad as this is... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, probably (Score:3)
The only one who thinks it's necessary to show genitalia in an otherwise more or less family-friendly movie, in order to make it actually family-friendly? Yeah, you might be the only one.
I enjoy my porn as much as anyone. I don't see any need to add a splash of it into a movie I'd watch with my daughter.
Not that butt cheeks are genitalia, but you asked about genitalia specifically.
Fun fact - shots like butt shot in question are artificially added for the purpose of getting a higher rating (R, PG-13) becaus
Re: (Score:2)
Splash was able to show a bare ass because it was released before the PG-13 rating was created.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is, apparently a glimpse of labia in another scene made it through the censoring.
Re: (Score:2)
The only one who thinks it's necessary to show genitalia in an otherwise more or less family-friendly movie, in order to make it actually family-friendly? Yeah, you might be the only one.
I enjoy my porn as much as anyone. I don't see any need to add a splash of it into a movie I'd watch with my daughter.
You are confused as to what makes something "porn". A naked man or woman is not it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are confused as to what makes something "porn". A naked man or woman is not it.
It's the Angle of the Dangle! (Mull of Kintyre Test)
Re: (Score:3)
Kids are either too young to care about nudity or they've already seen it.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one who finds the idea of editing out sexuality to be creepy as fuck?
FTFY.
Yes, because it suggests that sexuality is something to be ashamed of.
In other news IBM's nanotech dev center (Score:2)
just came out with the, currently, smallest violin in the world.
I dare anyone to seriously claim that this is something worth thinking about. Production quality aside, Disney is , how does the saying go? Morally corrupt and artistically bankrupt? The technologically part i'll let them keep, production quality was, generally, at least decent. Not that it matters, in the end. It's like accepting trash as decent food because its packaging is well made.
it's the disclosure that's the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
For the Star Wars purists (Score:3)
Or Harmy's Despecialized Editions. IIRC for Star Wars he started with the Team Negative One version and just cleaned it up. For Episodes V and VI IIRC he did more extensive restoration work.
(Note that I am deliberately calling the first movie "Star Wars" and not episode IV.)
But I guess for Splash everyone is just S.O.L.
Vote with your wallet (Score:4, Insightful)
At least they had the decency (Score:2)
to make it such bad cgi that you cannot possibly mistake it for anything else. It would have less noticeable if they'd just covered her butt up with a black square.
Re: (Score:2)
to make it such bad cgi that you cannot possibly mistake it for anything else. It would have less noticeable if they'd just covered her butt up with a black square.
The Japanese Disney version probably pixillated Darryl's butt.
What is wrong with a little nudity ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect a chorus of 'think of the children' ... but most young kids grow up having baths with brothers, sisters, friends & maybe adults (parents maybe). They will also have an occasional glimpse of an adult bum - it is normal, it is part of friends & family life. It does not do them any harm. What does harm is the hiding away which makes them think that there is something wrong with bodies.
Yes: you want to protect little kids from seeing adult sex (they will not understand what is going on), but a little nudity and sex are two very different things.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you know? Boobies are not for little kids!
Re: (Score:2)
I once saw someone unironically say that children can be adversely affected by seeing bare breasts. People that stupid shouldn't reproduce.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't quote me on this, but I think I read somewhere that there's a link between not breastfeeding and obesity in children.
I am tempted to believe it, I mean, it would explain a thing or two about the US.
Re: (Score:2)
I would sooner blame people's obsession with clearing their plates, pressuring or even threatening your kid into finishing what's on his plate just makes him ignore his body's signals to stop eating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What is wrong with a little nudity ? (Score:2)
Yeah, this is just weird. It says a lot about the adults - maybe they're pervs and that's why they think this is a problem?
Meanwhile violence and guns continue to be treated more permissively and to be normalised.
Manufactured outrage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Manufactured outrage (Score:5, Informative)
And how about being concerned with how the Pentagon subsidises war movies to the tune of $billions in order to get its self-promotional messages across to viewers, e.g. the military isn't rotten & corrupt with no oversight or accountability?
Former defense contractor here. Because, for the most part, it's nott rotten and corrupt. The officers I dealt with were some of the most honorable and ethical people I have ever met. Your bias is showing. If you believe the military is rotten and corrupt with no oversight or accountability, perhaps you should offer proof?
In fact, the armed forces have been trying to convict war criminals, but the civilian authorities insist upon pardoning them and restoring their rank....
Re: (Score:3)
Concern is not a finite resource.
Just put it on Hulu! (Score:2)
And they had an easy alternative. If they think a movie or TV show in their vast catalog isn't family friendly, just put it on Hulu instead. Which they also own.
Instead, they covered up with an incredibly bad CGI hack job, and look like idiots.
Great job, Disney.
Fuckin dark ages / IS, that's what it is. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, seeing nudity, hearing swearing, or seeing sex, does not harm anyone any more than seeing peope eat of laugh. Or more than literally bloody murder.
It's based on nutjobs believing bible tales more than factual reality that's right in front of their eyes. Show of hands: Who here saw nudity, sex, or heard swearing as a child? Now who of you got harmed? ... [insert criket sounds]
The only ones that got harmed, where those abused as children, often exactly by those people who advocate that censorship. And now
Not just the butt scene (Score:2)
They also cut 2 scenes in the aquarium
I still wish I had my home recorded video tapes of (Score:2)
Tom and Jerry, some of the Warner Brothers cartoons, and others, which yes, had some racial stereotyping in them, but without them we can't see where we've come from.
Closes an important window on culture (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the reasons I enjoy watching old movies is that they often provide a glimpse at an earlier culture: not the culture the movie is about, but all the subtle things going on that were assumed as normal.
The casual "Han shot first" scene does say something about the late 70s, even if it was not important to the plot. The casual sexism and racism in some older movies also provides a glimpse at a time not very long ago, when these were considered normal.
Original star trek: there is a scene where discovering the gender of a being composed of pure energy is the shocking reveal. The idea that in the 60s, gender was considered such a fundamental attribute, that it was assumed that even a being with no physical form must have one. (and that being "female" the being's interaction with a male must have been romantic. Then there are of course the endless deceptions of "noble savages" in westerns - in what was at the time seen as *not* being biased.
There are more subtle issues, from war movies where there is no question of the basis of the war, to romances, where the key characteristic of the male lead was wealth, and of the female lead beauty. Dirty Harry, which if I remember correctly, was a very early mainstream movie to show a fully naked woman - but that was considered OK because she was dead.
I don't mind releasing modernized versions, but they should be marked as such, and I very much would like to see the originals in many cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty Baby, 1978, had full nudity of then 12 year old Brooke Shields. Not innocent kid nudity either.
Re: (Score:2)
Even 10 years ago nudity was more common in mainstream movies for adults than it is now, while American culture seems to care less about nudity than ever.
Maybe it has to do with Hollywood aiming at a world audience when much of the rest of the world remains conservative.
It's been that way ... (Score:2)
In The Ten Commandments, Anne Baxter (Nefretiri) has a scene with a rather see-through dress. Now as far as I can recall, it was never a big deal. And the movie was pretty popular with various socially conservative groups. About ten years ago, when I watched it, they applied probably the worst blurring effect that I've ever seen to her top. So bad that it was obvious that they were trying to hide something (some things). And this isn't the only instance. There are a number of old m
Disney has to keep blowing China (Score:2)
I canceled my membership after seeing oddest censorships from CGI in old movies to lines of dialog changed, and proof it's for China is gay scenes or gay dialog removed. And star wars poster image the black guy photoshopped to hidden in the back. All to appease China.
I'm not supporting pinko plus streaming service. Course my cancelation means nothing but they keep it up maybe more will cancel. I'll stick to torrenting original unedited rips.
Re: (Score:2)
And star wars poster image the black guy photoshopped to hidden in the back.
Do you have a link to this?
Star Wars Too (Score:2)
The real problem isn't Disney (Score:2)
... the real problem is ALL media, in particular, historic events of any type, digitally altered.
Heck, events are digitally altered before they are even broadcast - and in a world where deep fakes are starting to become more sophisticated, there will be even less trust that something isn't 'fake news' - despite the fact it's at the lowest point ever.
Altering a fictional movie is small potatoes - it's culturally insensitive, but it hides a far deeper issue.
When we get to the point where entire historic event
Is that all? (Score:2)
I distinctly remember Darryl Hannah's boobs also being in the movie.
Star Wars Despecialized Edition (Score:2)
The only legal versions of A New Hope that exist for people to buy, download, or stream today feature Greedo shooting first.
That is not true. For people who own an original HD DVD of Star Wars, the Despecialized Editions [google.com] are perfect legal to download. They cannot be sold, and they cannot be bought anywhere for the same reason, but they are legal to download if you already own the source material.
Copyright law is complicated enough without spreading lies about consumers' rights.
1984 comes later than we thought.. (Score:3)
We as a society have chosen to alter history to suit today's sensibilities.
In some cases, I understand why Disney has done this. They won't release "Song of the South" ever again, for good reason, but that doesn't mean we have somehow erased slavery and racism from our past. All it means is we refuse to confront it and admit it was what it was and we've risen above it now.
We scrub more than bits of movies from our memories, we scrub our history. We do so in our books, our depictions of history in media, and when will it stop?
Media companies (Score:3)
Not Disney, but it's taken me until this year to get Aliens:Special Edition available on an online video store. Everything accessible to me only ever had the standard edition or didn't state (e.g it was part of a compilation, but when you check the runtime, it matches the standard edition). I've been looking for 10+ years.
Media companies seem determined to not let me buy their product, when I know *exactly* what it is that I want to watch.
I kinda understood when DVDs of some TV shows dubbed over a popular song with something less heard of, but it does ruin some old TV series as the difference is jarring and sometimes the edit is poor. But at no point did anybody think "Well, I wonder if people would pay the extra to get the version with the rights to all the original music".
You would have thought they would have learned from the MP3 thing, the YouTube thing, all these places that give them BILLIONS now and are basically their core customers.
I just wanna watch the fucking movie. Give it to me or don't. If you half-arse give it to me, I take it to mean that you don't want me to have it, so I just go elsewhere and buy something else entirely.
Re: Making okay films slightly more okay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern?
On what planet are ancient mental illness based moral views "modern"?
Or do you consider the IS to be your role model? Because that is the direction that particular arrow of "progress" is pointing at.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Modern is only progressive if our society isn't backsliding. What live in a world with an every increasing number of unwritten social rules on what you can and cannot say. Narrower and narrower allowed expression is like a straight jacket for individuals. History shows that's nothing new, but our broad acceptance of social restrictions for idiotic reasons like corporate marketability is new.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not political correctness, that's "What will we tell the Children?!"