Splash Mountain Being Changed?

[CandyMandy]

Yes, but Song of the South was only banned because of slaves coming through the fields looking happy.

The amount of misinformation and ignorance surrounding this film is staggering.

First, it has not been "banned". While Disney has declined to release it on home video in the U.S., it did so for years in Asia and Europe. So DVD copies of the film (including high quality dubs from the Japanese laser disc release) are readily available on the secondary market to anyone who wants to see the movie.

Secondly, the film is set in the 1870s during reconstruction, not prior to or during the civil war. So the African Americans you see in the film are not slaves.

 

[Figment632]

The fact that SOtS is not on DVD pisses me off! It's is the least racist Disney film there is. The fact that they won't sell thus but they will sell Dumbo is crazy.

PC makes me sick it will be the undoing if this country this and lawyers!!!!! You have to worry about every little thing that comes out if your mouth because it might offend someone. We can't keep score in Little league, we have to assimilate to people that move here instead if them assimilating to us like it should be!!!

It's a joke that we are one of the only countries that don't have a national language. You have to respect people's beliefs except if the are a Christian or Jew!

We are becoming soft as a people I hate thus topic I wish everyone wasn't so sensitive!!!! I'm glad I'll be dead in 50 years I am scared to see what this country will look like then!!

 

[nytimez]

I'd bet everything in my pocket right now that most of the people here who don't have a problem with the depictions of blacks in "Song of the South" are white.

There's a difference between being PC and being embarrassingly out of touch, hopelessly dated and shamefully stereotyped. And personally, I can completely understand why Disney wants to keep this one locked in the vault. Yes, suh.

 

[Figment632]

I'd bet everything in my pocket right now that most of the people here who don't have a problem with the depictions of blacks in "Song of the South" are white.

There's a difference between being PC and being embarrassingly out of touch, hopelessly dated and shamefully stereotyped. And personally, I can completely understand why Disney wants to keep this one locked in the vault. Yes, suh.

Why release Dumbo then?

 

[nytimez]

Why release Dumbo then?

I don't think anyone would argue that they're even remotely similar.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

Why release Dumbo then?

Kids don't see it in Dumbo.................

 

[Figment632]

Also nobody alive today was affected by slavery which was a terrible thing don't get me wrong but nobody today is affected by it.

Even though I'm not practicing I'm a Catholic. People today getting that upset about something that happened 100 years before they were born is like me being offended by the film Gladiator. The Romans used to force Catholics to compete but you don't see me getting bent out of shape.

You never forget history but you can't be upset by something that has nothing to do with you.

 

[nytimez]

Also nobody alive today was affected by slavery which was a terrible thing don't get me wrong but nobody today is affected by it.

Even though I'm not practicing I'm a Catholic. People today getting that upset about something that happened 100 years before they were born is like me being offended by the film Gladiator. The Romans used to force Catholics to compete but you don't see me getting bent out of shape.

You never forget history but you can't be upset by something that has nothing to do with you.

Again, the problem with "Song of the South" is not the depiction of slavery since, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there's not a single slave in the film.

Slavery was a historical reality that has been depicted on film time and again and no one would argue that there mere presence of slavery in a film or as a plot device is a problem.

Secondly, to compare "Gladiator" to "Song of the South" is pure nonsense. There's no other way to put it.

 

[CandyMandy]

I'd bet everything in my pocket right now that most of the people here who don't have a problem with the depictions of blacks in "Song of the South" are white.

And I'll make an even larger bet that those who are most adamantly focused on censoring and burying this film...have never even seen it.

For if they had, they'd know that the most unattractive, unsympathetic characters in the entire movie happen to be white. Johnny's over-protective, smothering mother Sally and the nasty poor white sharecropper children are literal villians when contrasted to the wisdom and grace of Uncle Remus (especially as he becomes the surrogate to Johnny's absentee father).

But of course, that is all lost on those stuck in obsession over any representation of African American life in the rural, post antebellum south. No, we need to hide that...unless it is shown in sanitized, steam cleaned mode in a PC-approved museum setting.

What is even more galling is the fact other vintage films loaded with "archiac black stereotypes" like Gone with The Wind and Showboat get a completely free pass from the PC censorship crowd. The only reason they obssessively target Song of The South is because they fear Disney's appeal to children.

But frankly, this debate is already becoming moot. In a day and age of instant online access to everything, the Song of the South horse left the barn long, long ago. As stated previously, the so-called "ban" is a myth and the fact Disney is sitting on the film isn't keeping an increasing number of people from seeing it.

 

[nytimez]

And I'll make an even larger bet that those who are most adamantly focused on censoring and burying this film...have never even seen it.

Not sure what makes that bet "larger" but OK, I'll play along. That might be true -- but ignorance by one party neither excuses nor justifies ignorance by the other.

Secondly, it's bizarre to think that someone would have to justify an emotional reaction to anything. If something bothers someone, it bothers them -- and "Song of the South" is bothersome to many in its depiction of African Americans. "Gone With the Wind" is bothersome in that regard as well.

It has nothing to do with being PC or showing only neat and clean depictions -- if it did, "Song of the South" would be shown because everyone is happy, right? So that argument doesn't really wash.

What is really comes down to, however, is none of the above.

Disney knows that "Song of the South" could be released on DVD tomorrow and not make a whole lot of money. It simply won't. It will have its hardcore fans and collectors and curiosity seekers but overall it won't do big "Disney" numbers.

And in exchange for that small sum of money, the company will have to fight a barrage of bad press and anger a growing segment of the market they're hoping to woo.

That's the REAL reason why you won't see it released on DVD.

 

[CandyMandy]

Disney knows that "Song of the South" could be released on DVD tomorrow and not make a whole lot of money. It simply won't. It will have its hardcore fans and collectors and curiosity seekers but overall it won't do big "Disney" numbers.

The last time Song of the South was actually released by Disney for public consumption was theatrically, in 1986, on its 40th anniversary.

And in exchange for that small sum of money

At that time, it became the highest grossing re-release ever from Walt Disney Studios.

the company will have to fight a barrage of bad press and anger a growing segment of the market they're hoping to woo.

That 1986 release did not create a catharsis for Disney. There was no boycott, no flaming editorials or rioting in the streets.

Nor did Disney stock drop.

 

[nytimez]

The last time Song of the South was actually released by Disney for public consumption was theatrically, in 1986, on its 40th anniversary.



At that time, it became the highest grossing re-release ever from Walt Disney Studios.



That 1986 release did not create a catharsis for Disney. There was no boycott, no flaming editorials or rioting in the streets.

Nor did Disney stock drop.

I didn't mention Disney's stock, or a boycott, or riots. Hyperbole won't give you a stronger argument.

2011 is not 1986 is not 1946. To say the film would have the same reaction today as it did 25 years ago or 65 years ago is a mistake.

 

[CandyMandy]

I didn't mention Disney's stock, or a boycott, or riots.

No, just "barrage of bad press" and "anger of a growing market segment they're trying to woo," whomever that is. Disney is pretty much after everyone and anyone -- as long as they have available cash flow to spend on their products or services.

And the presumption that Disney will be hurt by niche segments who are supposedly offended some particular thing the company has done? Yep, lots of precedent there ...like the Evangilicals who called for boycotts of Disney parks based on the perceived acommodation of GLTBs. That didn't even cause a blip at the turnstiles.

2011 is not 1986

It certainly isn't. Unemployment was lower, the housing market was booming and our core Asian competitor was Japan, not China. That stated, I reference history relative to what has happened with marketing of SOTS...and you speculate about branding nightmares.

 

[nytimez]

No, just "barrage of bad press" and "anger of a growing market segment they're trying to woo," whomever that is. Disney is pretty much after everyone and anyone -- as long as they have available cash flow to spend on their products or services.

And the presumption that Disney will be hurt by niche segments who are supposedly offended some particular thing the company has done? Yep, lots of precedent there ...like the Evangilicals who called for boycotts of Disney parks based on the perceived acommodation of GLTBs. That didn't even cause a blip at the turnstiles.



It certainly isn't. Unemployment was lower, the housing market was booming and our core Asian competitor was Japan, not China. That stated, I reference history relative to what has happened with marketing of SOTS...and you speculate about branding nightmares.

I don't think either comparison is particularly relevant. I think if the company thought there was money to be gained here without the risk of alienating black Americans, you would have seen a DVD remastered special edition "Song of the South" combo pack already.

Order today and get a free tar baby!

But they haven't, and it's not because the company is PC. It's because the risk-reward of re-releasing it today doesn't justify it.

And yes, there would be a barrage of bad press -- I can guarantee it -- along with plenty of editorials supporting it as well, I'm sure. From the company's point of view, that debate isn't one they want to have when they can just re-release "Snow White" one more time.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

This has turned into politics. I'm out.

 

[CandyMandy]

I think if the company thought there was money to be gained here without the risk of alienating black Americans, you would have seen a DVD remastered special edition "Song of the South" combo pack already.

And yes, there would be a barrage of bad press -- I can guarantee it -- along with plenty of editorials supporting it as well, I'm sure.

Hmmm...the tolerance of the African American universe re: vintage Disney use of archiac, demeaning stereotypes must be pretty darn high. That, or their radar is completely turned off. For look at what is already out there that hasn't resulted in this threatened mass alientation and press disaster:

The cigar-smoking, jive talking blackbirds from Dumbo, with the lead bird named "Jim Crow". WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

Another jive-talking character, King Louie from the Jungle Book. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

Sunflower the Centaur from Fantasia, where African centaurs are hoof-polishing handmaidens for prettier Aryan centaurs. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

But let's not stop at animated films, the well is deeper than that. A cute little Mickey Mouse book from the late 40s features Mickey gettings a crate full of West African bananas, and finding an African inside instead! The savage soon is confused by Mickey's human lifestyle and commits acts of random violence. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

But we already know the retort: the lack of outrage about any of the above proves nothing etc., etc.. The whole equation is about only one live action film from 1946.

 

[nytimez]

But we already know the retort: the lack of outrage about any of the above proves nothing etc., etc.. The whole equation is about only one live action film from 1946.

Knowing the retort -- and rolling your eyeballs around -- doesn't discredit it, it only shows that you can't issue a mature response without resorting to antics.

It would be nice to have an adult conversation about this -- because it's a conversation -- worth having, but I see it's not one to be had with you

FWIW, there are plenty of reasons why all of those examples you offer are fundamentally flawed. Also not sure why you seem to think I'm referring to "outrage." I never used the word -- but it's consistent with your prior post, where you tried to suggest that I said there would be boycotts, riots and dips in the stock price when I clearly said no such thing.

Again, it's more evidence you're not interested in a real conversation on this, so I'll let you continue with the antics from this point forward -- as SteelersMidget said so succinctly, I'm out.

 

[CandyMandy]

Knowing the retort -- and rolling your eyeballs around -- doesn't discredit it

It does, when the anticipated response was (as expected) to deny the fact that while other party in the discussion is providing evidence for their position, the rebuttal is simply continuous "trust me" generalizations ("I know...I can guarantee...I am sure"....etc.).

there are plenty of reasons why all of those examples you offer are fundamentally flawed

If so, was it too much effort to regail us with them? We'd loved to have heard why the others here who also cited the crow caricatures in Dumbo as screamingly inflammatory were all so, so wrong

you tried to suggest that I said there would be boycotts, riots and dips in the stock price when I clearly said no such thing

Here is precisely what was said (direct quote) "the company will have to fight a barrage of bad press and anger a growing segment of the market they're hoping to woo." To play a semantic game around that (implying a word like "anger" doesn't include the possibility of things like boycotts or civil actions and that the phrase "barrage of bad press" doesn't include the possibility of impacting stock prices) is simply specious.

you're not interested in a real conversation on this

The conversation was real, what was missing was your willingess to offer evidence, not just opinion.

 

[nytimez]

It does, when the anticipated response was (as expected) to deny the fact that while other party in the discussion is providing evidence for their position, the rebuttal is simply continuous "trust me" generalizations ("I know...I can guarantee...I am sure"....etc.).



If so, was it too much effort to regail us with them? We'd loved to have heard why the others here who also cited the crow caricatures in Dumbo as screamingly inflammatory were all so, so wrong



Here is precisely what was said (direct quote) "the company will have to fight a barrage of bad press and anger a growing segment of the market they're hoping to woo." To play a semantic game around that (implying a word like "anger" doesn't include the possibility of things like boycotts or civil actions and that the phrase "barrage of bad press" doesn't include the possibility of impacting stock prices) is simply specious.



The conversation was real, what was missing was your willingess to offer evidence, not just opinion.

Precisely the response I anticipated, but as I stated I'm not going to play along with your fabrications -- such as the bizarre insistence that I'm speaking of boycotts and stock price plunges (not to mention the riots and other things you added earlier).

I stand by everything I wrote, and nothing in any of your responses alters it.

I think you're too emotionally attached to "Song of the South" to look at the situation with any degree of objectivity.

 

[CandyMandy]

as SteelersMidget said so succinctly, I'm out.

My, that was a (short) big dramatic exit. I guess next time you make another pronouncement about the curtain coming down, we'll know that's just some blustering drama...before another inevitable "encore".

Precisely the response I anticipated.

Actually, you took the words out of my mouth. I knew when I saw a new encore posting it would be a replay of your prior M.O.. First, dismiss offhand whatever opposing opinion is presented (especially if it contains facts and details, since you don't like to go there) and secondly, replay the mantra of "my position is being altered."

as I stated I'm not going to play along

Yes, certainly. This time you're putting your foot down rolleyes: why are we skeptical?)

I stand by everything I wrote, and nothing in any of your responses alters it.

Then all you are standing by is your subjective, unsupported opinion.

You state every African American who is exposed to SOTS will have a problem with the way it depicts the blacks in the film. No evidence is provided, just your opinion.

You state there is little meaningful demand for a re-release of the film. Again, no evidence is provided, just your opinion. By the way, for a reality check on just how wrong you are on that particular one, go over to Amazon, put "Song Of The South" into the search field and when the page comes back (where the film gets an average 5 star rating), see how far you get through all 513 reviews.

You state Disney will enter a PR debacle if they do re-release the film. Again, no evidence is provided, just your opinion.

In contrast, I have provided factual proof that:

- Disney has never previously encountered the major PR issues you predict when it re-released the film.

- There has been no outrage from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the Afrcian American Community in general about all the other "racially insensitive" elements in other currently distributed Disney product.

Bottom line: I think you're too emotionally attached to your own subjective, non-fact based world view to have a clue about the real dynamics surrounding this film.