Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Walt Disney Inc crosses the line! Changing the original works while running out of ideas!

Hey there ho there Hi there, are you as happy as can be? I don't know, Harry here, and quite frankly... there's a couple of problems in the mouse house, and they know it. You see.... Within the entire Disney Empire, the entirety of the brains and animation filmmaking and story telling acumen resides at PIXAR... which only has a deal with DISNEY. Meanwhile, the folks at Disney animation are faced with studio executives that... well act like they are part of the creative process. This first piece is to be expected. It shows Disney as being reactionary as all get up. I imagine if CHICKEN RUN explodes at the box office... you will see Will Vinton being courted like you won't believe by the round eared folk in the suits. Their ambush plan for Fox's TITAN AE didn't work, because Fox had messed that one up long before release during musical script doctor chairs killed it's soul... again heavy executive tampering. Eisner's alleged hatred for THE EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE? Well, if true, I understand it. This project has had more permutations than anything this side of DINOSAUR, and the studio got caught in a situation where it's simply more profitable to go ahead than pull back... and the film has more quirks than Christopher Walken. See you after the piece....

Dear Mr. Knowles,

I just had dinner with a friend of mine last night. He works very near the top brass at Disney, ( I know people caim to know important people...blah, blah, blah...but this is true. He really does ! ) and told me some interesting news.

First...Michael Eisner hates the Emperor's New Groove. HATES IT. After reworking basically the whole film, they still can't get it to work. It may be delayed until February. Then he told me about a project I hadn't heard anywhere else, called: The Search for Mickey or Disney's Family Reunion (both are just working titles for the same project).

It seems that Disney may be running out of ideas for sure-selling-blockbusters. The early rave reviews of Rocky and Bullwinkle have made Disney go to the drawing board and come up with their own blend of animation/live action. All he told me is that you would see EVERYBODY from past Disney Animation films in the search for Mickey Mouse. Everyone from Simba to Winnie the Pooh, from Tod and Copper to Benard and Bianca

IT'S ONLY A GUESS, but this might be a kind of global search and rescue and will feature the characters in their natural surroundings (not like Tarzan has a corner office in the Studio and agrees to tag along) Anyway....sounds kinda cool. I don't know if this is true, I am taking it with a grain of salt until maybe one of your guys can confirm it from the inside as well.

Capt. Tarpals

Next up is an informative outraged report regarding DISNEY's erasure of history. Personally, I wish there was some way that the corpse of Walt Disney could issue a cease and desist. I mean, retro-revisionism is in full swing at the MOUSE-CUTT-TEERS' home. Imagine, Warner Brothers could digitally remove all that dangerous smoking from it's black and white classics. Cutting and digitally changing scenes in anticipation of parental letters is just a CRIME! I mean... in PINNOCHIO are we going to cut Pinnochio drinking beer and smoking cigars and fighting cause... well some kids might interpret that as being a good thing? Will we cut the Indian scene from PETER PAN to appease a group? Or the black birds from DUMBO? God forbid anyone mention the hardcore live action/animated Tijuana test reel for SALUDOS AMIGOS that has Donald riding the back of a donkey while a .... ahem performer performs underneath. Well, that just doesn't exist. But that's right, Disney is the HAPPIEST PLACE ON EARTH... no bad could come from there. And you know what... there hasn't been. INSTEAD OF CUTTING YOUR FILMS DISNEY... TRY THIS! In advance of say.... the tape with PECOS BILL, you could have a brief live action introduction that puts the film in historical context.... "In the 1800's nobody knew that Smoking was bad for you, but today Pecos Bill knows better. So instead of hacking at the moon, you can still hear him howl... that's because, he's smart. He stopped smoking!" Then show the film UNCHANGED! But it's WRONG to change this stuff. PLAINLY WRONG! I mean, if you are an animator at Disney, ask yourself this question. In 50 years will they treat your work any differently? I mean, they're changing the work of Ham Luske and Preston Blair and Frank and Ollie and on down the road. Do you think that DISNEY CORP. will stop one iota from changing your work? PERSONALLY, I'd like the see the ANIMATOR'S UNION come down on Disney for this. To protect the animator's work. This is an abomination to mankind and to cinema itself.

Hey Harry,

Those spineless revisionist cowards at Disney are at it again. Their latest act of sodomy, the home video release of MAKE MINE MUSIC. Two years ago, fearing negative responses from parents to the "Pecos Bill" segment of MELODY TIME, Disney went in and cut a scene of Bill rolling a smoke and digitally removed all other shots of the offending ciggie hanging from the legendary cowpoke's lips. They did the same thing just recently with the release of SALUDOS AMIGOS, trimming out a scene of Goofy rolling his own as a pardoy of a Texas cowboy. After all, they couldn't show Disney heroes SMOKING! Good God, what would the kiddies think?!? More importantly, how would the parents who buy all the Disney crap for the tots react? Gotta keep selling those Happy Meals, after all. Anything bad is shown in an old Disney movie, out it goes before the letters come in.

Now Disney has topped those atrocities by cutting the ENTIRE "Martins & Coys" segment from MAKE MINE MUSIC! The whole thing, the hillbilly feud, the romance of Grace Martin and Henry Coy, the wedding dance, all of it, whoosh, gone! Okay, so the segment features a lot of comic gunplay with characters getting popped off right and left, but it's a CARTOON, dammit! Those aren't real people getting killed and they all show up in Hillbilly heaven right away anyhow. More importantly, it's a Disney cartoon! Isn't this the company that wants every person who has grown up with their films to treasure every bit of the freakin' animated Disney legacy? That should include works of animation that reflect the attitudes of the world, the studio and ultimately of Walt Disney himself at the times the films were made. To chop the segment in response to (I'm guessing here) gun control hysteria is craven, stupid and ultimately laughable. It's a wonder Disney had the stones to let the hunters in "Peter & The Wolf" hang onto their rifles or to keep in the gunplay in the usually censored for TV barroom fight in "Johnny Fedora". Hell, quite honestly, I was surprised they still showed Willie getting harpooned at the end of the "Whale Who Wanted to Sing at the Met" segment. You'd figure both Greenpeace and PETA would be all over them for that.

I guess it's to their credit that the Mousekacowards left those segments alone, but that in no way lets them off the hook for cutting "Martins". It seems the Disney folks are working around the clock to take out anything that anyone in this time of psychotic political correctness could find objectionable. In doing so they are robbing their films of what little edge they used to have. We're not talking Looney Tunes here, folks. Warners had Disney beat hands-down in the comedy department, but every so often the Disney directors (usually that madman Kimball) would get in a laugh that appealed to the adults, too.

Now the current reich of Disnazi uber-execs is bound and determined to censor, cut, and worst of all, apologize for anything that remotely smacks of subversiveness, which is the heart and soul of all good cartoons. They are fast turning their entire classic animation library into what cynics have always accused it of being: safe, innocent, simple-minded kiddie crap.

You go, assholes.

Junior Mintz

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 22, 2000, 5:48 a.m. CST


    by Lawguy

    Boy, this really wrecks my ire. Does anyone know any formats where the Martin & Coys segment exists?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:06 a.m. CST

    I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but...

    by HootDad

    All you folks who complained about Disney removing PB's smoking from MT, consider this. To YOU it's Disney tampering with a classic film. But to a 6 year-old, it's another movie they haven't seen before - no different from Tarzan or TS2. Now, my daughter LOVES the character of Jessie from TS2. Has a picture of Jessie on her wall. Plays with a Jessie doll. Draws pictures of Jessie and Bullseye with "I LOVE JESSIE" written at the top. What if Jessie had been shown smoking in the movie? Then I'd have to explain to her why it's OK for Jessie to smoke, but not her. Why it is, that in Jessie's case, it's COOL. Pecos Bill in MT or Goofy or any other character is no different in a kid's eyes. Call me naive, but I honestly believe that the decision was as much a result of real civic responsibility as it was of being politically correct. Either way, as a lover of animation I hate to see classics tampered with. But as a father I understand, and even applaud the decision. And it's the father in me that always wins these arguments. Flame away.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:07 a.m. CST

    Please stay away from THE IRON GIANT

    by Todd

    I pray that The Disney people never get their hands on THE IRON GIANT. I would hate to see His film under go any digital alterations that would render it less thoughtful. It pains me to imagine what such a film would look like. They would have probably added digital fur to make THE GIANT more cuddly. Dean would have had his whiskers removed. Annie Huges would have been married to a living husband. No doubt the Disney sneaks would have made it seem as if Hogarth was singing some cheesy song while he was being carried around in the moon light by THE IRON GIANT. The hunting scene and discussion about souls would have been deleted and replace with a side story about singing fishes that meet a displaced raccoon. At the end of the movie, with the transformation of THE GIANT being to scary for 2 or 3 kids, a newly animated ending would have been added were THE GIANT simply wants to go to Disneyland. The word Sex would appear somewhere hidden in the film, perhaps in a cloud of dust. I would like to write more but my Girl friend is making me leave. I new I should have deflated her.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Iron Giant

    by gryphon

    Huh? Iron Giant was Warner Brothers, right?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:26 a.m. CST

    Damn it, Harry, please learn its vs. it's

    by Lord Bullingdon

    It's = "it is." ITS is possessive. You have an uncanny ability to choose the incorrect spelling each time. It's quite simple, really. I hate to sound like a schoolteacher or something, but we're talking third grade grammar class here. It also has to do with being taken seriously.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:28 a.m. CST

    I understand your concerns HootDad, but...

    by monodreme

    You can't censor the world for your children. I think it's better for them to see something real and then have a caring parent such as yourself talk to them about it, rather than them have to find out about it on their own when you're not around. Give the kids credit. Give them a chance to understand. You may be surprised at the wisdom of kids if you dare to believe in it?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Rage Against The Mouse-ine

    by XTheCrovvX

    Ok, thats it. Disney is now officially on my hit list. You just DONT mess with classics, whether they sucked or otherwise. Thats messing with another mans work who has probably long died, because its no longer PC for the company. I mean, what is it, guys? Are they trying to conservative-ize the whole country? Is everything supposed to be happy and gay(gay in that "skipping along in a field of daisies" way, i mean)? The world is NOT that way. Too many of us know this, a lot of our children know this, even if you dont think so. Parents, if you're lstening, then know this. If you see or hear something in a movie that you think yours kids will get disturbed by, you should have the intellect to sit down, and say "Thats not right", and not let TV do it for you, because that screws it up for the rest of us! Disney is pissing people off because they're suppressing what people have the right to see, because it doesnt fit their views of what is safe. These cartoons came out in the 1940's, ok? generations have seen them, and loved them(personally, though, Bugs Bunny could whip Mickey Mouse's arse any night of he week, but thats my opinion). To change it would be the same as ripping out pages of the bible because they contain "scenes of a graphic nature". Harry;s right, i hope the animators union raises all sorts of hell over this, because Disney is just plain going over the line. (Of course, i stll havent forgiven them for cancelling Clerks...what the hell am i supposed to watch after Survivor now, you bastards?!)

  • June 22, 2000, 6:35 a.m. CST


    by SDG

    Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Why can't Disney have two versions of the film in circulation, a Revised Edition and an Original Cut? I know, I know, industry doesn't like alternate versions, it's hard enough to get Blockbuster to stock both letterbox and pan & scan editions of movies. But this is Disney, they've got their own store. BTW as a Dad myself I agree with your Dad arguments. So there!

  • June 22, 2000, 6:42 a.m. CST

    No, Monodreme, HootDad is right.

    by SDG

    Do you have kids? Because the idea that "you can't censor the world for your kids" is about the most bizarre and inexplicable sentiment I've heard all month (and I read a LOT of crazy stuff). Of course parents can and should censor their children's experiences appropriately at each age. Every decision to allow a child to see or not to see movie X, to watch or not watch TV show Y, or even to watch TV show Y OR Z versus Y AND Z, is an act of "censoring" a child's experiences. Logically, your view entails the consequence that five-year-olds should be allowed to go to R-rated or even NC-17 movies. When I go to a restaurant and request nonsmoking so that my kids aren't exposed to secondhand smoke, that's an act of controlling or censoring my children's experience of the world; I want to try to prevent or at least limit their experience of and exposure to the world's carcinogens. There is very little difference in principle between not wanting their lungs exposed to real carcinogens and their eyes and minds exposed to carcinogens representatively or figuratively. Rethink your position.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Response to SDG

    by monodreme

    Of course I take your point about how as parents we filter the world for our children in order to protect them. What I meant when I said you can't censor the world is that you can't be with your kids a hundred per cent of the time when they're out and about in the world. I'd rather have the cartoons my son watches reflecting something real in the world so that I can then talk about it with him, than have him exposed to nothing but 'fluffiness' when he's watching TV and then go outside and be completely unprepared. Of course I'm probably overstating my case to make a point, but I do have a great aversion to censorship. I do want kids to be safe from harm, but at the same time I don't want them to be stifled.

  • In the second place, there is a difference between knowing in principle that something goes on in the world, even between seeing it from time to time, and having the perception of that thing as acceptable, commonplace, normal, practiced by figures one looks up to, and something that one might oneself do at some point in the future. A wise man once said "Give me a boy until he is seven, and I will give you the man." I know my children will experience all sorts of things as they grow up, but I believe that as a responsible parent it's my duty to help shape my childrens' early experiences in order to help shape the way they look at the world. When they are exposed to something I disapprove of, I don't try to gloss over it or pretend we didn't see it; I do explain to them that it's not right, and why. I answer every question they ask me honestly and squarely, and I take the initiative in telling them what they need to know at the appropriate time. But I also go out of my way to limit where I can their exposure to things that I don't think are helpful for them. My children know in principle that people do things that I teach them are wrong, from very wrong things such as killing or stealing to merely harmful things such as smoking; but to them all of these are arcane and inexplicable practices that have little to do with ordinary life as they experience it. They are not activities that anyone in my children's immediate circle of relatives and acquaintances do. They are not, as far as my kids are concerned, real practical possibilities; they are not activities my children regard as anything that they might ever themselves do at any point. And that is how I want it. I don't think taking a smoke out of Pecos Bill's mouth is tantamount to telling our children, "No one in the real world smokes, everyone makes only good decisions all the time, life is a bed of flowers, don't worry, be happy." I think it's a simple, prudential recognition that there is no reason for kids to be acclimated to the sight of a humorous and affectionately regarded cartoon character doing something that we don't want them to do.

  • and I don't smoke. i'm a pretty virulant anti smoker. cartoons do a lot of things, folks, that people can't or shouldn't do. it's an antiquated notion to have protaganists smoking in contemporary animation, no arguement. but this all seems really, really reactionary. no, I don't have children. so as hootdad says, flame away, kneejerk geek dads. this is still WRONG.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:01 a.m. CST

    This Whole "Search for Mickey" thing

    by RogerOThornhill

    I agree with Harry--tampering with the originals is the worst crime--but the "Search for Mickey" plot has an extra element of pathos that nobody seems to have spotted yet. They used this plot for a live action tour of one of the theme parks a couple of years back--I think it was a Disney World anniversary special. When they start raiding their own corporate shilling thinly disguised as an "entertainment special," that's pretty damned low.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:05 a.m. CST

    This is outrageous

    by Dave257

    I'm furious about this. When they'll stop?, until everything they do looks like a sterilized version of Barney? If they are so worry about the young minds, why do they keep killing the villains at the end of most of their movies? the message it would seem to be that everything that threatens us MUST die. And if they are so concerned about the parents, well, I want my son to become someone I admire. I want my son to know that war is a sin. I want my son to have a sense of history, that in the past they didn't know of the evils of tobacco. I want him to know good and evil, and to choose good after recognizing that evil destroys itself. I want him to appreciate every form of art. I want him to value the hard work of all the animators that made Pecos Bill, and to despise the bastards that slaughtered their work. I want him to be smarter than me. I want to learn from him. And I don't think that showing him a light version of life I will reach that goal. Dreamer forever!!!

  • June 22, 2000, 7:06 a.m. CST

    the next thing

    by Ragnarok

    Yep. I can see it now. Someone will make a Tom and Jerry cartoon where they're best of friends and no longer engage in random acts of ultra-violence . . . oh they already did that . . .

  • June 22, 2000, 7:06 a.m. CST


    by luthardt

    Raise your hand if you've seen "Song of the South" (aka Brer Rabbit Tales) in the past 20 years. You haven't - why? Because it's been smashed and destroyed by Disney almost immediately after Walt died. And a shame too because this film doesn't degrade african americans - it is a celebration of a culture that is now all but gone in the deep south. Walt Disney wanted this film to be a respectful homage, but in this day and age, 1 bitch with an attitude can walk into Texas A+M and get the portrait of the founder removed from display because there is an image of Robert E Lee in the background of the painting. It's whores like that who look for anything they can to make a public statement, and when Walt Disney died, they may have put his head in a jar, but they also put the Disney Corps testicles in a jar too.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Not all their fault

    by stardog

    A couple of things. I agree the films should not be edited but I also believe they should NOT be G any longer. This would save them a lot of headaches. But they would rather get the wider appeal and release G. Also, I think they fear not only parents complaining, but probably lawsuits as well. Anytime a toy is invented, some child finds a way to jam it in a orifice. Anytime a film, television, or song is created someone uses it as an excuse for doing something creatively ignorant to themselves or someone else. So, understand the reasons for them doing it. Don't have to like but ...

  • June 22, 2000, 7:07 a.m. CST

    My two cents . . .

    by ol' painless

    I know a more intelligent talkbacker will shoot holes in my logic, but here goes anyway: I did a lot of embarrassing things in my past, particularly at school. Much as I would like to go back to 1983 and block that slap upside the head in front of whole damn class from a girl whose diary I stole, I can't. Therefore, Disney should not be allowed to erase their 'embarrassments' either. Live with your past, and come to terms with it, you jellybabies. Also, I grew up on a steady and continous diet of old Warner Bros and Disney cartoons. I do not smoke. And I have never felt the urge to drop a boulder on any birds either. Well, except that bastard sparrow outside my window, who won't let me sleep in on weekends.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:09 a.m. CST

    uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the message in Pinnochi

    by luthardt

    What's wrong with giving our children that message? I don't get it. PEOPLE - the whole scene in pinnochio is this: If you blow your money on fair weather friends, if you abuse cigars and alcohol - YOU TURN INTO A JACKASS!!!! What's wrong with telling kids that abusing alcohol will turn them into jackasses? Shouldn't this be something we WANT them to learn?

  • June 22, 2000, 7:15 a.m. CST

    Rocky and Bullwinkle has rave reviews?

    by Malificent

    I can't be the only person who thinks the commercials make this look like a piece of crap. Besides the pop culture references which are out of date before the film even reaches the theater, all it took was that shot of Whoopi, *the judge*, screaing at the top of her lungs about how it was Rocky and Bullwinkle. I think maybe I'll just go see Titan A.E. again.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:20 a.m. CST


    by SDG

    Of course you are right, we cannot (and probably shouldn't try to) completely control our children's experiences. But as you acknowledge, because we can't do something 100% doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do it at all, or that what we do in that direction isn't valuable and important. I don't think that "harmless fluff" and uncensored or uncontrolled experience are the only two alternatives (not that I'm suggesting you do). I think there are serious issues in movies like BAMBI (death of a parent) that we can talk about, or in PINOCCHIO, which does present drinking and smoking and other problematic behavior, but in a morally responsible light, without introducing at too early an age the idea of smoking as a colorful or picturesque hobby.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:25 a.m. CST


    by gryphon

    Come to think of it, I haven't seen ANYTHING on Song of the South lately....... hmmmm..... ANyway, this reminds me of something I read a year or two ago about some liberal mommies fussing about Cruella DeVil's smoking in 101 Dalmations. Speaking of that, in that live action version did she have that cigarette? And if so was there actually smoke coming out of it? :)

  • June 22, 2000, 7:35 a.m. CST

    I demand an apology from the parental action groups

    by Cruel Shoes

    I remember when Bugs Bunny was severely edited, I remember when the Three Stooges were really hard to find and I remember several moves to ban The Little Rascals. All while growing up int eighties. Isn't it time that all the parental action groups we had to listen to while growing up apologized for all of this? Now check my statistics, but didn't Columbine and it's numerous sequels come AFTER the airwaves and multiplexes had been made safe for Darin Klebold?

  • June 22, 2000, 7:47 a.m. CST

    It's tricky, though, SDG...

    by Dave_F

    ...because even altering small things like rolling a cigarette can lead to changing the original vision quite a bit. Consider Warner Brothers cartoons from the 30's through the 50's. Lots of smoking gags, lots of drinking gags, even jokes about suicide. Unfortunately, many of these elements ARE regularly censored on most channels, so much so that it's hard to imagine anyone defending the bastardized cartoons that result. Punch lines disappear, scenes skip around incoherently, and worst of all, the original creative intent is subverted. Removing the cigarette from "Pecos Bill" seems a small thing, but the justification behind it is the same that's led to the ruin of many classic cartoons. you favor that as well? Do we release both edited and unedited versions of hundreds of Warner Brothers shorts? It seems to me that it gets out of control very quickly. Personally, the best compromise I can envision would be having a Warner or Disney exec appearing at the beginning or end of the tape to talk about any controversial elements to the kiddies. But outright censorship of an artist's work? I can't abide that.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:50 a.m. CST

    'sounds kinda cool' signed 'Capt. Tarpals'

    by LSHB

    in regards to a massive pile of disney characters thrown into the same film so all those warehouses of backlogged merchandise stretching back to Cinderella hoola-hoops can finally be liquidized. Classic.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Disney's biggest alteration

    by ed321

    Originally in the first Fantasia there was a scene during the centaur piece, where there was a white, blonde female centaur having her hoof polished by a stereotyped african-american centaur (very much a darkie/pickaninny caricature). They have now cropped the scene so that you do not see the african-american centaur and they have covered up further proof of their racist past. Don't think it's just Disney. Ask Warner Brothers what happened to their Snow White parody called "Pitch Black and the Seven Darkies" or all of their Bugs Bunny vs. the Japs cartoons from WWII. Down the memory hole, I guess.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Happy to oblige, ol' painless.

    by SDG

    Here's the flaw in your logic: Accepting responsibility for your mistakes means trying to set things right if you can. If you steal money, "living with your mistakes" doesn't mean keeping the money, it means making restitution, giving it back. If you make a film with what you later judge are socially irresponsible elements, you don't keep it out there on the theory that humiliation is good for the soul. You retract the film, or, if you can, you fix it. But since there are legitimate artistic reasons for wanting to leave these films as they are, perhaps you do what I suggested above and keep both versions of the film available. How's that?

  • June 22, 2000, 8:06 a.m. CST

    I agree, Cormorant

    by SDG

    It IS tricky. It takes an artist to revise an artist's work. And sometimes the result is a travesty, as with the work of the "underwear painter" who artfully covered up nudes on the Sistine Chapel. (Of course, the problem isn't that severe with film, where you're always working with a copy.) If the work can't be edited with minimally invasive techniques, perhaps it should simply be left alone. But if the problematic content is serious enough, then it shouldn't be given the same general distribution and popularization as other material. I would like to see SONG OF THE SOUTH for myself, but from the sequences I have seen, I for one am glad that kids in America today aren't growing up imbibing this stuff along with BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and THE LION KING. It is just not appropriate to present little little kids with racist stereotyping and then try to put it in some kind of historical-critical context for them. Their critical faculties aren't developed enough for that (and I say that as one who believes that kids are capable of far more at far younger ages than our culture gives them credit for). It's the same as with editing swear words from movies for network broadcasting: some movies contain so much profanity that the result is unwatchable. Well, then the networks shouldn't broadcast those movies. I don't see a third way.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:13 a.m. CST

    More for SDG

    by monodreme

    If a film maker wants to make changes to his or her own work because of a change of view then I can swallow that, but when somebody 'inherits' or buys a piece of artistic work and then wants to chop bits off it for the sake of making money I start to shake my head in sorrow. Let's just change the certificate? Then we can all watch the unbutchered version when we're old enough. What do you say?

  • June 22, 2000, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Removing all risk from Children's Lives

    by T-Bird2

    I stand before you now, demanding that our children have all objectionable, risky things removed from their lives. In fact all things that are in the least objectionable to any child should be removed from society at large. Only in this way can we safely raise our children to be perfect. (of course let us not forget that the Amish raise their children without any of these horrible influences, and some of the wonderful babes will someday grow up to leave the farm and smoke and drink and even commit crimes... Now why is that, they were not filled with the horrible images of Pecos Bill smoking, or other horrible images from Disney's vaults. Perhaps we overstate the effect of this. Secondly I hope that all of you parents who work so hard to shelter your children will also be removing the from public schools, stop showing them the bible, which contains some rather horrible images itself, and keep them from interact with any who might in someway be contaminated. Leave Disney alone. If you don't want to have your children see "objectionable" material, I have a simple answer. Don't buy it! AARRGGHH!!!! A pox on all idiots in the world!

  • June 22, 2000, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Oops! Looks like you just did.

    by monodreme

  • June 22, 2000, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Your fallacy, TBird2...

    by SDG in thinking that, because media influences are not absolute determinates of behavior, therefore they have no influence whatsoever. In other words, because lots of kids watch Pecos Bill smoking without growing up to be smokers, while others grow up to be smokers without watching Pecos Bill, therefore Pecos Bill smoking has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the likelihood that any child anywhere will ever take up smoking. This same logic could be used to "prove" that parents smoking has no impact on whether the kids will smoke: since some children of smokers never take up smoking, while other children of non-smokers do take up smoking, therefore whether or not a parent smokes has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the kids will smoke! You'd have to be smoking something other than cigarettes to buy that argument; and I don't buy yours. The fact is, media imagery CAN be ONE factor that may HELP to influence SOME children in SOME circumstances to behave in one fashion or another. Now I don't think that any cartoon or movie can corrupt my children beyond my ability to parent them properly; competent parenting can override any possible media influence. But, in the first place, I happen to believe that most of the parenting in the world isn't actually especially competent; and since I want to live in a reasonably healthy society I like to see bad influences that might affect the kids being raised by my neighbors eliminated. And of course part of adequate parenting myself means not exposing my kids to things I think are harmful. I as a matter of fact DON'T buy videos or other products I think are harmful. I have no objection to those things being available for viewing by properly informed individuals; but I don't necessarily want them being sold as acceptable children's fare. Again, I give you the example of SONG OF THE SOUTH. Little little kids are not capable of viewing the racist stereotypes in that film within a proper historical-critical context. I know my friends who are black parents are happy that THEIR friends who are white parents aren't raising their kids on movies like this. I think that's a good thing.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:34 a.m. CST

    The next big edit will be...

    by Jobriga2

    ...the death of Bambi's mother. Instead of being shot she'll die by some more kiddie-friendly means, like getting speared by the mast of a ship (Ursula, Little Mermaid) thrown off a cliff (Mufasa, Lion King) or hung at the end of a rope (bad guy, Tarzan). The standard Disnefied death.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:35 a.m. CST

    on the other hand, manowar...

    by SDG

    I agree with you about the travesty of the revised version of Han in the Creature Cantina. It IS a travesty that Greedo is now seen to be shooting first. This is a pointless, politically correct revisionism which I do not appreciate, even though of course I support Lucas' right to tamper with his own film any way he wants to. Editing or limiting distribution of problematic cartoons for children, however, is on a different scale entirely, and I can't believe that you really find the latter MORE outrageous on aesthetic grounds than the former.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Two things...

    by SCOTT1458

    XcrowX get your politics right...and MTV is NOT a news source. Second..think about if folks, if the cigs stay in, Disney is lining itself up to be sued by the government and all the other "anti-smoking nut" out there. It's just plain business, they don't want to set up "constructive liability". But I think it's a shame...give thanks to all your liberal Political Correctness Nazi's out there...

  • June 22, 2000, 8:38 a.m. CST

    What you're missing, Jobriga2...

    by SDG that Bambi's mother dying from a hunter's bullet is as politically correct a death as you could possibly ask for. An accidental or natural death is merely tragic; this death, and especially the manmade-forest-fire scene at the climax of the film, teaches environmental responsibility. There's no social incentive to remove or edit Bambi's mother's death, as there is Pecos Bill's smoke.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:47 a.m. CST

    another two cents, SDG . . .

    by ol' painless

    Fair enough, you make good points. Exercising my right of reply, I don

  • June 22, 2000, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Why they are doing it ...

    by tdibble1

    Ten years from now, when the PC tide has shifted a bit more back towards rationality, Disney will reissue each of these "masterpieces" once per year, each year adding one small piece back in that they had cut out during this period of insanity.

  • June 22, 2000, 9 a.m. CST

    I didn't mean to imply, ol' painless...

    by SDG

    ...that the Mouse House was acting with nothing but upright social concern and true compunction over their errors of the past. They're just covering their butts. And sure, they'd like to have rewritten history without having been caught at it. I'm not vindicating their motives, I'm defending in principle the general course of action they took. What I'm saying is, because something along these lines is the correct course of action they should actually take if they did want to take responsibility for what they did, because in other words this is in principle a good thing to do, we shouldn't complain in principle that they are doing it now even if it is not with pure motives or for the wrong reasons. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't give them a hard time for (a) making the mistakes in the first place, (b) trying to clean up their mess sneakily without really accepting responsibility, or (c) making a new mess of the finished product by artless and heavy-handed editing. But in principle I support the decision to make and release sanitized versions of past masterpieces, with due consideration for artistic concerns.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:05 a.m. CST

    the catholic tie in-

    by gorillaclub

    Why do we live in a world where people get "offended"? That is a word that should be stricken from the dictionary. Kill my girlfriend, I'll go totally psycho and probably kill you too, but if you make a joke about it, I might not laugh, but i won't be "offended". I've come to this conclusion. EVERYONE'S A PUSSY. That's right. EVERYONE. (except us, hopefully) I read two stories today that made my stomach turn, and it's only 9:50am. First, Al Roker (fat black weatherman) was talking about a hormone supplement his wife took so they could have a baby. the hormone (i'm not making this up) comes from the urine of menopausal italian nuns. I guess other ethnic nuns could also donate (i think it has to do with the virginity thing), but this group of italian nuns have made their -ahem- services available. So anyway, roker says in an interview "this stuff was real expensive, heck it would be cheaper to adopt a nun and have her pee in a cup!" That's funny, right? Well, not if you're a catholic. Now the Catholic anti-defamation league (i didn't know they existed) is up in arms. the church is offering all sorts of official denunciations, attacking roker as if he said "I anally probed the pope and he liked it". Fuck catholics in their tight lily white asses. I was born a catholic but i'll be goddamned if I ever kneel before those fucking idolator's altar again. Fuckers. and now this Disney shit. I hope old Walt is choking on St Peter's johnson up there in heaven. (did that "offend" you? good!) Those corporate pigfuckers. Lets take out everything fun from cartoons and just have happy critters on TV, like on teletubbies and barney. I doubt today we'd ever get a character as cool as Oscar the Grouch. Someone would want to correct his "grouchiness". GRRR!! This way, we'll raise our children to be thin-skinned fucking zombies. Can't ride a bike without a helmet (even in comics and cartoons! look at "for better or worse" this week. even the bully/bad kid wears a fucking helmet), can't smoke, drink, shoot, fuck, make jokes, laugh, cry, feel, live. All you can do is watch Tele-fucking-vision and DIE. I firmly believe that TV shrinks your genitalia. It makes you forget you even have a sex drive. (unless you watch USA up all night and wank it to "schoolgirl terror 6") Did you ever notice that after you watch the tube for a while, you get bummed out, and all you want to do is eat and shop and maybe go to sleep? Its opium man. fucking opium. Anyway, I'm lost in a rant. I'll see you all in hell. -t. clancy, out-

  • June 22, 2000, 9:09 a.m. CST

    While I don't like it, Disney has the right...

    by Nimrod

    I agree that a work of art should not be changed. However, the owner of said work has the right to do what they want, unfortunately. If I go buy an original of the Mona Lisa, and want to paint a smiley face on it, I can, and then sell it to some consumer. The sad thing is, Disney can do the same. The fact is that an artist working for Disney is not an independent. He/She has no ownership of the finished product. I'm sure if said artist wanted a stipulation in their contract asking for this kind of thing to not happen, Disney would laugh, and find another artist. This is just one of those Life Sucks situations. Sorry guys.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:10 a.m. CST

    A brief lesson in logic

    by pedant

    "I watched cartoon characters smoking when I was a kid, and I didn't grow up to be a smoker. Therefore, exposure to this material will not cause kids to smoke." Several variations of this argument have appeared in talkback. However, you cannot extrapolate from your own individual experience to the experience of another person, let alone the population as a whole. Unless you are able to show that there is no statistical correlation between viewing this material and smoking, in a representative cross-section of the population, such an argument is unsupportable. Likewise, one cannot say that this material DOES cause smoking without first having the numbers to back it up -- and even then, all you have is a correlation, which does not necessarily indicate causation. Anyone who finds the original argument convincing needs to pick up a book on logic TODAY. It is through the use of such fallacies that we are manipulated by politicians and the media. Learning to recognize them is one of the best things you can do for yourself.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:12 a.m. CST

    You're all forgetting one important thing...

    by ViCTiMofREALITY

    The big topic of the article was Disney cutting out a whole segment from Make Mine Music. The smoking thing, fine, whatever... but this is a whole segment of artistry just being lost in the void of censorship. I never noticed the cigar in Melody Time & it didn't really bother me too much once I found out, but never being able to see a segment because Disney deems it their responsibility to raise everyone elses kids, just doesn't seem right. As far as Disney geting a G rating on these videos, I know a couple of them were released unrated (and they still get released in Blockbuster--hypocritical much?).

  • June 22, 2000, 9:13 a.m. CST

    A Catholic replies to Gorillaclub

    by SDG

    God bless you, friend. Peace.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Thanks Pedant

    by SDG

    For reiterating my point.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:16 a.m. CST

    We must Protect the Children! The Children! Oh-oh-ohhhhhh!!!

    by Steve_The_Hutt

    Ya. Let us *PROTECT* the *CHILDREN* from *ANYTHING* that might HURT, HARM, WARP, TEMPT, or ANNOY THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let us take them away from such evil influences as the Bible (oh, ya, it's all in there - murder, rape, betrayal, war, etc.), movies, rotten neighbor kids, adults, schools ... for that matter let's remove the evil influence of parents too! Let us put our children in little whitewashed rooms and raise them on a steady diet of raw vegetables and 1950's TV shows. And when we let them out ... well, here's the interesting part, when children are so raised they often go hog-wild and become more evil than any reprobate's child. The point is you can never protect children from all evils, and you shouldn't, it's the vaccination principle ... expose them to some evil now so they won't go hog-wild later when they encounter it for the first time.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:17 a.m. CST

    word to SDG

    by ziranova

    Forbidden fruit always tastes sweeter.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:23 a.m. CST


    by SDG

    Maybe. What follows? That parents shouldn't set rules for their kids? That they shouldn't try to influence and moderate their experiences and actions? If that's the logical alternative to the view I've been maintaining then the defense rests and I am content to let the jury decide. P.S. At the moment it isn't like I tell my kids "This tape is evil, you better not watch it." It simply isn't in my home. When they are older and going to theaters, yes, there will be movies I will not allow them to see. Perhaps this will make them want to see them more. I can't help that. Either by that time I will have taught them to respect my authority and obey my rules or not. By that point the battle will to a significant degree be won or lost already.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:23 a.m. CST

    This is the sort of thing that redeems Harry

    by Lester

    Just when you had almost completely given up on the guy. Nice stuff Harry.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Steve the Hutt

    by SDG

    Your post contributes nothing of substance that advances the discussion to date. Perhaps you will say something worth responding to in a future post.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:26 a.m. CST


    by pedant

    I wasn't reiterating your point, I was showing both sides of it. To advocate or bless censorship of "harmful" material when there is no evidence that it is actually harmful is just as bad -- nay, worse.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:27 a.m. CST

    The Murder of the Past

    by Steve_The_Hutt

    There has been a growing trend ... a sad trend ... the rewriting of our cinematic historybooks. The sweet memory of such classics as That Darn Cat, The Parent Trap, The Absentminded Professor, and also some non-Disney's like Psycho and Star Wars have been besmirched with the new crap versions. I'm not surprised that they are trying to mess around with the old classic cartoons as well. It's somewhere between being PC and being downright lazy ... it's easier for them to crap on someone else's creativity than come up with their own original idea. What a shame.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Now you're talking, Hutt.

    by SDG

    I however have nothing of substance to add to what you wrote, so I'll shut up now.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:32 a.m. CST

    What about the Winnie the Pooh lawsuit?

    by Someguywithaname

    Disney has been in a court battle with the estate of A. A. Milne--it was revealed the other day that good ol' copyright mad Disney destroyed documents important to the case. Tsk tsk. First they take control of the Hunchback of Notre Dame title--now this. As for the censorship thing--well look what they did to Fantasia with the black zebra centaurs. Cutting stuff out to reflect the times doesnt bother me so much as them destroying all record that it existed. The originals should be kept available somewhere. PS You wont see groups like Peta or Greenpeace trying to get stuff cut out of Disney films anytime soon. Usually the censorship people are those who have nothing better to do(like changing the Cancer man nickname on the X files to the Smoking man, or fussing about the portrayal of arabs in the Mummy)--groups like Peta are way too busy dealing with real life. As for Greenpeace--well, they supported Makah whaling in American waters--so how likely are they going to care about a cartoon whale?

  • June 22, 2000, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Parental responsibility

    by Frisco

    On 22-Jun-00 HootDad wrote, "What if Jessie had been shown smoking in [Toy Story 2]? Then I'd have to explain to her why it's OK for Jessie to smoke, but not her. Why it is, that in Jessie's case, it's COOL." ***** God forbid a father should have to TALK to his frickin' daughter about something so important as smoking cigarettes!

  • June 22, 2000, 9:44 a.m. CST

    I didn't mean to imply, Pedant...

    by SDG

    ...that you added nothing to what I wrote. However, your "lesson in logic" covered the same essential rhetorical ground as my "Your fallacy, TBird2" post above. Now, in my post I made bold to assert that "media imagery CAN be ONE factor that may HELP to influence SOME children in SOME circumstances to behave in one fashion or another." Your post challenges me to prove my assertion. I'm not enough the activist that I have decisive documentation ready at hand. However, the documentation is out there (and how many reasonable people would really be unwilling to grant what I wrote anyway)? I remember seeing a segment on some Dateline-type show that aired footage of a bunch of kids watching a Power Rangers video in a daycare setting. Before watching the video, the kids were engaged in all sorts of play; after watching it, they got up and began to engage in mock martial-arts battles. "'Oh dear!'" the sarcastic skeptic sneers at this point, "'Surely this means they will all grow up to be violent hooligans!'" No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. But is there a person in the world who can plausibly deny that, for example, a steady diet of martial-arts oriented entertainment, in the absence of adequate parental and other social controls, cannot possibly have any effect whatsoever on any child whatsoever?

  • June 22, 2000, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Frisco, leave HootDad alone.

    by SDG

    Do you really believe that your "God forbid" remark accurately characterizes HootDad's position? Or have you long since ceased to care about accurately understanding the view you're sneering at? Rest assured, the Dad who wrote that post talks to his children about important issues when and where circumstances warrant it. However, if Jessie the Cowgirl smoked, that would add unnecessary complications to his job, as it would to mine. Parenthood is intrinsically complicated and hard enough without making it harder and more complicated than it needs to be. Kids have a hard enough time understanding essential real-world issues without having to try to figure out why smoking is okay for Jessie the Cowgirl but not for her. And, while we're on the subject, just what IS the explanation for that? The fact is, smoking ISN'T good for anybody. I know that if my daughter's hero smoked, it would disturb her considerably. She would sadly say things like, "I like Jessie the Cowgirl, but I wish she didn't smoke." Would that be the worst tragedy in the world? Of course not, but why hamper her enjoyment of her Toy Story heroine? There are few enough role models for little girls as it is. I'm only now just beginning to realize how few good kids' books there are with female protagonists. But that's another subject....

  • June 22, 2000, 10:23 a.m. CST

    Plausible denial

    by pedant

    I don't have to affirm or deny anything. It is a simple question of the burden of proof. It is up to those who suggest that there is a causal relationship to prove that it exists. Furthermore, we are not talking about martial arts violence; we are talking about smoking.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:24 a.m. CST

    I don't want to get into a big thing here,

    by KingMenthol

    but I was raised with whatever I could get my hands on. I was watching rated-R movies at 6. I was digging out porno at 8. I'm a hard-working and rational man. I'm reading here that because SOME media can influence SOME kids and SOME parents in making SOME of the right choices. How does this equate that ALL of us must abide by these moralistic revisions made by right-wingers and people looking to save themselves from litigation? I'm very afraid for my kids I'm someday going to raise. This sort of behavior is the way of Big Brother. I can't imagine growing up without the good and bad to decide for myself what kind of person I'd be. I can't imagine my parents not being there to explain why certain things are bad, and why certain things are good. With the way certain people want to raise their kids, it's no wonder they'll end up big, ass-kissing pussies with no balls to stand up for anything. They'll have nothing to believe in.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:25 a.m. CST

    I'll add to the buzz, Anonymous

    by ziranova

    I can't WAIT to see it and I'm going this Sunday. It looks truly awesome. Hey, I just figured out what the Harry head animation is.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Disney did the right thing.

    by matt_mclean

    Sometimes the opinions digust me in no uncertain terms. Disney made a very wise business move by editing its movies. In fact, they clearly state in their catalog that the movies have been edited from the original. So you already know about the edited movies before you buy them. The plain and simple fact is this: Parents are much bigger demigraphic and buying power then collectors ever will be. And that is exactely whom they are going after with the edited movies. Disney may still release a collectors set of the originals on DVD, if they see that it is feasible and people will buy it. That means that all of you angery people need to ban together and say that not only do they want to see the original unedited movie, but they will pay good ole US greenbacks to see it. But enough on that, I believe that Disney did do the right thing. I am a father of two kids, and I for one don't like movies or cartoons that seem to glorify volinence or drug use, and that includes smoking. My kids are not going to know the difference when they see the edited movies, but it sure saves sometime when I don't have to try and explain to them what smoking is. And if you don't think they don't have an influence on young minds. Then you are blind. Remeber Joe the Camal for camal cigeretts. Did you know that was one of the most successful advertising campaigns ever. And they should a mark increase in younger age smokers. So you can't tell me that cartoon caracters don't indirectly influence kids. It's a fact. And I hope that Disney does release an unedited version of the movies, and I am letting Disney know that I will pay money for it too. I suggest you all do the same thing.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:38 a.m. CST


    by Varkias

    Yes, parents SHOULD take responcibility for what their children watch. And that's the problem... that they're not. Disney and other revisionists are taking the responcibilty away from the parents. _I_ want to choose what my children watch; I don't want the company making that choice for me. In this case, my choice is that my kids won't be watching some edited work, that there should be respect for the artists' original work.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Without getting into a big thing, KingMenthol...

    by SDG

    ...I reiterate that the anti-smoking scruple is a typically left-wing attitude, not a right-wing one. And I, for one, have already said that this sort of revisionism should not be imposed upon everyone indiscriminately. I think the original versions of these cartoons should be available. SONG OF THE SOUTH should be available. But Disney should not market content with significant problematic elements as mainstream kiddie fare. That's all I'm saying.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:39 a.m. CST


    by The Pardoner

    Morons... all of them... if you give kids cut-down, PC, mindless crap, they react like stupidly, vapidly. If you give them stimulating, beautiful, interesting art, they react intelligently, perceptively, and enthusiastically. --- One of the worst things you can do is underexpose a child to vice. My parents decided that after my sister and I were born, they'd raise my little brother to be the healthiest phyusical specimen on the planet. He never saw the fatty side of a burger, was only given chocolate at Christmas, and so on. They got him into sports of every kind, kept him hyperactive all the time. Now, he's 13, overweight and lethargic. Moral of the story: KIDS ARE NOT RECEPTACLES FOR CORRECT LIVING! They have to be exposed to violence, to vice, to viciousness and vigour, or they'll be obsessed by it later in life. If Life is not quartered for them, they'll understand it - smoking makes you cough, shooting people it bloody and wrong, eating too much makes you fat, playing sports is fun. They'll still choose to do what they want, but they'll be acting from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. --- If Disney starts censoring its films, I'll buy DVD copies of all the old favourites and Fantasia 2000, and forget about the rest.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Apples, oranges, and more bad logic

    by pedant

    Again, correlation does not imply causation. The fact that underage smoking increased during the Joe Camel ad campaign does not prove that one caused the other. There are too many other variables clouding the issue. Even if we had conclusive proof of causation, there is a vast difference between a cartoon character appearing in a cigarette ad and a cigarette appearing in a cartoon. To say that one is equivalent to the other involves a huge leap in logic.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Your logic is impeccable Pedant...

    by SDG

    In formal debate, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts. If I wish to defend the thesis that some children may be influenced by certain kinds of media content, the burden of proof is on me to prove it. But I'm not trying to do any such thing. I believe that my view is correct; I am asserting it; and my argument about responsible media activity assumes that it is true; but I have not undertaken here and now to try to prove it. Consequently you may take exception to my argument by pointing out "Your argument about responsible media activity assumes that some children may be influenced etc, which you have not proven." I reply: "Why, yes. I do assume that; I take it for granted. My argument is directed toward those who likewise accept my assumption. If you are not one of those, then you are exempt from my argument." Whether or not the assumption is correct, and thus whether or not my argument holds, is a presuppositional issue which I am neither prepared nor inclined here and now to argue. As I said, if opposition to my argument is based upon calling into question my assumption about media influence, then the defense rests and the jury can decide. I am confident enough of the truth of my presupposition, and of the general recognition of its truth, not to feel the need to have to establish it.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:58 a.m. CST


    by SDG

    We agree that parents have the right, and the responsibility, to oversee their young children's formation. Parents have the ability to exercise this right and to fulfil this responsibility no matter what Disney or any other company does. If Disney permanently withdraws all of its films from distribution, I as a parent can continue to exercise discretion over what my child sees. Granted, I have fewer choices than I had before, but the Disney company is under no obligation to provide me with increased choices. Likewise, if the Disney company releases only original and unedited versions of problematic films like SONG OF THE SOUTH, I still have my rights and responsibilities. If I think the cartoon is offensive, I have the right not to show it to my children; while another parent with different scruples may choose to show it to his children. On the other hand, if Disney releases only sanitized versions, parents continue to have the same rights and responsibilities, though with a different set of choices. They can choose either to show or not to show the edited films to their children. If the Disney company releases BOTH the original AND the sanitized version, that of course gives parents the greatest number of choices. I am in general in favor of having more rather than fewer choices, so I would like to see Disney have both versions in circulation. However, films that are inappropriate for small children should be marketed and distributed differently from films that are appropriate for all audiences. It would be socially irresponsible to market a film like COOL WORLD as a cute children's flick. That Disney is not trying to push SONG OF THE SOUTH on my kids along with THE LION KING is a good thing. Even if they did, I would of course retain my parental control; but in a more socially hostile environment. I prefer a less hostile social environment in which corporations are not trying to induce my children to want things that are generally agreed are bad for them. I can't imagine this is a very controversial line of thought.

  • June 22, 2000, 10:59 a.m. CST

    diseny is evil

    by obi_wan96

    I loved Disney as a child. I looked forword to every summer when I could go see a new cartoon. But as I grew older I lost intrest in their movies. I recently saw Dinosaur with my 4 year old cousin. All I saw was a rehashed Lion King with dinosaurs. Now Disney is destroying my memories because they think my kids will start smoking because Goofy did. Do they know what else Goofy does. Like jumping out planes and driving cars like a maniac. So now any 16 year old in drivers ed will have to be told Goofy is bad. And about "Martins and the Coys" hicks shooting at each other. I live by hicks and they DO shoot at each other.:)

  • June 22, 2000, 11:02 a.m. CST

    ahem? Liberal bugaboo?

    by Darth Brian

    Excuse me I don't think anti-smoking has anything to do with liberal vs. conservative. I may be a liberal, but I don't think people don't have a right to smoke if they choose to. What I have a problem with is the tobacco manufacturers lying their fucking asses off to the public in order to make a fucking profit. I'm all for leaving animation as is, smoking, racial references, whatever, because it's part of fucking history. I think Harry mentioned on Ebert and the Movies about Song of the South not being shown ever again, something about those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. That's reference material to show how we've progressed (for good or ill) as a species. Not that we've progressed as much as we could have (thanks Inquisition. thanks Crusades. thanks Nazi scum. thanks tobacco lobby.) Anyway, back to the original statement quickly. I know lots of people, liberal and conservative, that smoke and are for certain laws against public smoking like restaurants (not necessarily bars) because they understand it's not about NOT smoking, it's about not killing non-smokers with their second hand smoke. Well, gotta run. l8r.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Will some of you people please...

    by SCOTT1458

    get your politics right? It's apparent that you just spew out whatever rethoric you've heard. The right is totally against PC, the left is the side that embraces it..and all of these changes Disney and others make is because of LEFT-WING politics. Damn..don't you guys ever watch CNN?

  • June 22, 2000, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Apples and oranges eh Pedant? How'd'y'like them apples?

    by SDG

    You argue with the tenacity of a tobacco-corporation lawyer, but as far as the Joe Camel ads go, the case for causation was good enough for the tobacco company that spent millions of dollars on the ad campaign. I cheerfully grant, on the other hand, that smoking in a cartoon isn't the same thing as cartoon characters in a smoking campaign. I don't have an in-principle objection to all characters in all cartoons smoking. For example, I find it hard to understand how anyone could object to Cruella de Vil smoking when the whole premise of the cartoon involves her engaged in the much more objectionable occupation of dognapping. But on the whole, all things being equal, I think that a cartoon which doesn't present admirable and liked characters smoking is probably preferrable to one that does.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Uhh...those cartoons didn't mess me up

    by Saiyan

    Hmmm....I search my childhood memories and all I can see are Disney cartoons, and many of these memories contain different characters smoking. I remember goofy smoking but even at 6 I thought "Well of course goofy would smoke, he's an idiot"...I remember Pinnoccio smoking and drinking beer and thought..."hmm Pinnoccio is doing very bad things, I wonder what's going to happen to him...OH MY GOSH HE'S TURNING INTO A DONKEY!"...I remember seeing that one where the cowboys are killing indians and indians are killing cowboys and I didn't think killing was okay but I realized that what I was looking at was a cartoon. Kids aren't all that stupid, my parnets had already told me about smoking and drinking and I knew it was bad...these cartoons didn't change my mind, neither did live action movies, my parents trained me well I suppose, I only began smoking when I realized how much my parents smoked! At that time I was 16 or 17...raised on Disney...raised on movies in this censorship crap is only to make politicians and ignorant fucks all around the country happy. Personally, I've lost all faith in this country. I talked to this guy at my work that just got to this country 3 weeks ago from Europe, Ireland I think, and the guy was blown away by the PC that goes on here. He's already fucking noticed the insanity of the US of A.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:34 a.m. CST

    ThePardoner, well said,

    by KingMenthol

    Kids are not receptacles for correct living, though I might've said it differently. Now I'm a smoker. You can probably all tell that. It's something I feel guilty and awful about every morning when I light up and hack up a nice, thick wad of lung butter. But it's a CHOICE I made by myself. A bad one, mind you, but at least I had the opportunity to decide. I chose to smoke because that's what people were doing. I didn't pick it up because Yosemite Sam had a pipe, and definitely not because my dad smoked. Even though I'm paying for it, I'm glad I was able to decide to smoke, to drink, to light up a joint, to use LSD and X, to go to college, to play music, to argue about movies, etc. You take all that away from me, and I know I'd be a different person. A closed-up know-it-all with no understanding. I wouldn't know why Leonardo shooting up a classroom in a movie is not responsible for the actions of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. I wouldn't know why placing the burden of RESPONSIBILITY on media is irresponsible and creates a suppressive, over-the-shoulder culture that does not allow the free-thinking person to thrive. You start with editing out pieces of old movies, and it goes straight to suing Oliver Stone. And America, land of (what used to be) the free, home of the brave (as long as I don't step on your toes), suffers for lack of creative people taking risks to make you think further about what we're doing and where we're headed as a society.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Don't forget what they did to 3 Little Pigs!

    by Irie

    ...but you can still find it on LD and tape if you're lucky--it escaped their purvue!! It's a scene that features the Big Bad Wolf knocking on the door of one of the pigs DRESSED AS AN OLD MONEY HUNGRY JEW--no I'm not joking or intending to be offensive. It's true. It was re-animated in the '50's and inserted for reissure. Only recently was this footage restored, and it wasn't intended to go out on video. I happen to be Jewish, and while I find the mindset offensive, I would rather let it stand as a reminder of how far people have come rather than obliterate history. Removing Pecos Bill's cigarette? IN THE NEXT SEQUENCE, Donald Duck and Jose Carioca are smoking cigars and swimming around in a martini--WHILE DOING ACID ("Blame it on the Samba")!! If you've seen it, you know what I mean...

  • June 22, 2000, 11:48 a.m. CST

    DarthBrian, yes, liberal bugaboo.

    by SDG

    While you may think people have a right to smoke if they want, the fact is that the current campaign to make smoking as socially unacceptable and legally suppressed as possible is a movement driven by the Left. The Right is typically opposed to it for several reasons, including a basic disposition (that veers in its most extreme version into Libertarianism) against government interference in anyone's rights to do just about anything, and also the fact that tobacco farming is a Southern industry and Republicanism tends to be stronger in the South. Smoking is un-PC, and political correctness is an expression of liberal politics. Nuff said.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:52 a.m. CST

    This Sucks

    by Gosgol

    I'd love to Disney try to release an edited version of Song of the South. It'd be about 3 minutes long. Opening credits---Ending credits.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:54 a.m. CST

    DVD anyone?

    by mthiel

    I will agree that Disney fucking up their own movies is WRONG and I wish they would leave enough alone. Although a compromise has been suggested with both the edited and unedited versions of films available (although it would be a marketing nightmare), I have another idea for pleasing both (over-reacting) parents and film enthusiasts: put both versions on a single DVD disc. Use seamless branching to let the parent CHOOSE what version their kids should watch. This will leave the unedited versions INTACT! Of course there should be a disclaimer be shown before the edited version: ("This is not the original version!!!"). I'd love to see Lucas release the Star Wars movies on DVD this way. Of course, I have a problem with parents having a problem with shows that are already rated G and PG and are meant for kids anyway...

  • June 22, 2000, 11:55 a.m. CST

    Another Sad Story...

    by Irie

    My 6 year old son was watching a Road Runner cartoon last year--unedited and without my knowledge. Unbeknownst to me, he set out fo find a road runner in the neighborhood. I know where he got the bird food and alum, but cannot for the life of me figure out how he lifted that 2 ton anvil directly over his head. It took a full day to scrape his body off the road and reinflate him. Thankfully, this experience has taught him that cartoons are dangerous.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Another Sad Story...

    by Irie

    My 6 year old son was watching a Road Runner cartoon last year--unedited and without my knowledge. Unbeknownst to me, he set out fo find a road runner in the neighborhood. I know where he got the bird food and alum, but cannot for the life of me figure out how he lifted that 2 ton anvil directly over his head. It took a full day to scrape his body off the road and reinflate him. Thankfully, this experience has taught him that cartoons are dangerous.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Not to argue with you KingMenthol...

    by SDG were there and I wasn't. But granting that you made your own free choice to smoke, can you really say that the fact that your father smoked didn't influence you whatsoever one way or the other? How do you account for the fact that children of smoking parents have a much greater likelihood of choosing to smoke themselves? (Yes, Pedant, I am aware of the principle that in general correlation doesn't establish causation, but for God's sake, it's hard to imagine a persuasive and accurate explanation of this particular phenomenon that doesn't involve some sort of causation.)

  • June 22, 2000, 11:57 a.m. CST



    Like the Thin Man series and The Maltese Falcon and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. The fools who approve of this revisionism probably want to assassinate the Budweiser frogs and bury them in the same shallow grave as Joe Camel. All because they don't want to have to TALK to their kids about the issue. These are probably the same liberal types who supported Clinton after he got his own cigar "smoked" by Monica. How did you explain that one to your kids? Some of your neighbors smoke. So what. It is your JOB to raise your child. Do it as you wish. Tell them all about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and any other myths you want. Keep them away from reality at all costs if you wish. It is simple, don't let them watch stuff you don't want them to watch. But some of us like Resevoir Dogs and The Usual Suspects, both of which have characters that smoke. As for the MYTH of second-hand smoke, please check out if you want to see some actual scientific evidence refuting this lie. Just click on the Columns and Articles Archive, then scroll down to the Smoking and Passive Smoking link.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Hey! Where are my flames?!

    by HootDad

    I've been im meetings all morning, so I just now got to look at the Talkback on all this. I am thoroughly disappointed. I was expecting to get flamed, and what do I read? Intelligent discourse! I - I - I am appalled! I WANT MY MONEY BACK! But seriously... SDG... what you said.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Disney's also fucked up REAL history you know.

    by Lord Shell

    Just take a look at their shit history in such crapfests as "Pocahontas". Screwing their own history up is just the tip of the iceberg.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:12 p.m. CST


    by pedant

    The remark about the Joe Camel ads was in response to someone else, who asserted that it was a "fact" that the ad campaign caused an increase in smoking. I am not defending the tobacco industry; I am merely trying to temper such overstated claims. As for your argument, there is nothing inherently wrong with a premise stated conditionally. But when you recommend a particular course of action on the basis of it, you are crossing a line I do not care to see crossed. I could say, "If it's true that all people named Steven are dangerous criminals, they should be locked up," but it would be imprudent to go around an actually lock people up. Likewise, we can discuss what kinds of things might be done IF it is ever established that cartoon smoking causes real smoking, but it would be imprudent to implement them until we have an idea of whether it is actually the case. An exception to this policy might be reasonable in the case of an unusually dire consequence (i.e., better safe than sorry), but I don't think this qualifies. Even if there is a correlation in this case, it is likely quite small. Personally, I feel that the moral rights of the artists (sadly, not recognized under U.S. copyright law) are in this case more important. If the connection were clearly established, I might feel differently.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:15 p.m. CST


    by Zombiezilla

    I have to say that this and the Indy talk backs are two of the best reading T.B.s I have yet to read here. The topics are well thought out and the childish attacks are almost non-existent. Hey SDG, wooo doggy, you can carry a discussion like few I have met. My hat is off to you sir. I am a parent of a 2

  • June 22, 2000, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Bad Guys vs. Good Guys

    by matt_mclean

    I agree that not all cartoon charcters smoking is bad. In fact, bad guys smoking is great and adds another level to the overall feel for the charcter. There is a certain PC problem though. In 101 Dalmations, both Cruella De Villa smoke, and the man (whose name escapes me) smokes a pipe. Does Disney edit this movie also, a top seller? It poses an interesting arguement. How can Disney edit one cartoon, but still let the other include it? Disney is standing on very thin ice here. You either make it universal, or don't start it all. Or is pipe smoking okay, but cigerettes aren't? In my book, all tobacco is bad, although, I don't know if pipe tobacco has artifically inhanced nicoteen in it.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Yo HARRY (regarding Titan AE)

    by Cronksty

    Were you insinuating that you do not like this film? I saw Titan AE on Friday and was shocked to find that I do, really like that movie. I admit, some of it was lame, but for the most part, it was a great sci-fi adventure flick (with the excpetion of the soundtrack, this was begging for someone like Goldsmith, it just didn't know it). Look at those red clouds looming over their space ship, that's amazing stuff, for any film, especially an animated one. The beginning was pretty cool too. When can we see your review of this movie?

  • June 22, 2000, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Gorilla is the Man

    by Skllbns

    Gorilla posted the only sensible comments here. We are a nation of PUSSIES! The most objectionable thing right now in our society is CHILDREN! They're mindless, moronic little consumers of plush toys and plastic crap. Every time I see a soccer mom speeding down the 10 Freeway to get her little automatons to practice I want to puke. When I was a kid, I played with the kids on my street! We played in culverts and dangerous abandoned buildings!! I have four nieces and nephews and it's so depressing to see them turn from wonderful little two year olds into greedy, media-savvy jackals by the time they're five. As for Disney editing their films, I'm surprised at the revulsion expressed here. After all, there are rarely objections on AICN when Hollywood routinely changes historical fact; why does it bother you that they're changing fairy tales and fiction? I mean, both things are Orwellian indications of very bad things to come ...

  • June 22, 2000, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Titan AE

    by iamdeadfish

    I thought Titan AE was pretty cool, but could have been a lot better. (Cheap plug time!)You can read my full review on my website: (Ick, it's shameless I know!)

  • June 22, 2000, 12:37 p.m. CST

    oh yeah, and ...

    by Skllbns

    Anyone who thinks that media doesn't influence behavior in a very real and active way is insane. The studies that show no relation between behavior and media are all sponsored by media companies. And even if repeated viewings of NATURAL BORN KILLERS doesn't inspire all kids to go out and kill, the relentless exposure to mindless, violent, sex-filled media LOWERS our standards, our taste, our sense of propriety, and generally degrades on our national self-esteem. I think Howard Stern is funny, but I also think he's inspired millions of dumb (and less funny or intelligent) teens to go around talking about farts and tits, and even though that might not directly influence them to become rapists, it influences them to act and sound like a bunch of assholes. Does that mean I believe in censorship? No. All it means is that I believe that media influences behavior, and that six hours a day of television has turned us into a nation of foul-mouthed, crude, boorish dumbfucks. I mean look at me! Look at my language! It's disgraceful. On the other hand, if Disney thinks that removing smoking references from their catalogue of films is going to keep one single child from experimenting with cigarettes, they are underestimating the power of advertising to compensate for their altruistic (albeit moronic) gesture.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:38 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    If they remove the Blackbirds from Dumbo, I will burn the Mouse House to the ground. What an embarassment to our society. I hope this isn't true. Maybe they're just making TWO versions so then the original versions will increase in popularity and they can "re-release" them? Disney is on its way to losing the magic, without a doubt.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by Sakla

    People, the day Disney went in and changed Pirates Of The Carribean so that the Pirates are chasing food instead of women, I gave up caring. For God's sake, they are Pirates! They took out the gunplay even! I'm still waiting for fat people...uh...gravitationally complain that one pirate is running away from a fat woman because he has a plate of food.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:46 p.m. CST

    Apples and oranges, Pedant.

    by SDG

    If most people agree with me, as I think they do, that media input can influence some people under some circumstances, then it is legitimate for me to address them concerning what I think are reasonable conclusions based upon our shared premise. If there is substantial dissent from this premise, then I agree that somebody somewhere needs to answer this dissent and document the premise. Especially someone who is in a position to be influencing real decisions about what should or shouldn't happen needs to know what the evidence is pro and con. Even I myself, given a persistent enough demand for such evidence and reason to believe that it isn't readily available, would probably eventually consider it my duty to go and try to dig it up. However, at this point I don't see the need to do this. I'm just one TalkBacker talking to other TalkBackers; nobody is making any huge decisions based on what I say. And I don't see any serious concern about the accuracy of my basic premise. So at the moment I have better things to do with my time.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:48 p.m. CST

    You can protect your children in your home, but not in society a

    by superninja

    You can't be with your kid 24 hours a day, unless you home-school them. You know where most kids learn their horrible behavior? Hanging out with other kids at school who's parents just DON'T CARE. These are the kids that are handing out cigarettes and telling them about the cool R movie that mom let them see the other night. The first and best defense is to make sure your kid is not running with the wrong crowd at school, and to make sure you know ALL OF THEIR FRIEND'S PARENTS -- every last one of them. I thought my parents were uptight when I was a kid, but now I'm so grateful that they bothered at all, since that seems to be rather rare in today's society. Now, I watched every one of these Disney films, and never was I inspired to smoke a cigarrette by Goofy, Pinochio or Cruella DeVille. When I was a kid, these weren't the kinds of things you really latched onto because of the context: Goofy wasn't a smoker, he was IMITATING one; Pinochio in smoking was being BAD; Cruella was a villainess and it made her more SINISTER. I still hold that while parents SHOULD monitor the content of what their children watch, small things like this do not affect them. Goofy smoking and Natural Born Killers are opposite ends of the spectrum. As someone mentioned, we have allowed our children to be raised by t.v. Well, guess what? t.v. doesn't care if you steal, cheat and lie; it doesn't hug you when you've had a bad day, or inquire into your life at all. And the media has made it WORSE by allowing society to blame television, music and film when they should be blaming the idiot parents. It's so backwards....

  • June 22, 2000, 12:52 p.m. CST


    by darthbrad

    The Disney Channel showed the movie in its entirety a year or so back in the middle of the night when nobody watches the Disney Channel, but I did tape it in its complete version. I think Im going to record it onto the MMM tape I just bought to have the complete movie but still in that collector's clamshell cover box thing. And just for my 2 cents worth, could it be that we all grew up with smoking drinking and excess violence in cartoon and yet turned out to be rational, intelligent (with several obvious exceptions) human adults could be due to the fact that we WERE exposed to such things in growing up. Now with all that being purged and censored from kids of today they have a natural need to be exposed to such offensive matterial but now must go about it in the wrong way and suffer consequences we were not exposed to? Just a theory. I love Disney for the quality of their animation, but DAMN THE BASTARDS TO HELL! Get a damn set of balls you pansy assed little shits.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Argumentum ad populum (SDG)

    by pedant

    The fact that most people agree with your premise does not make it any more true. This is another logical fallacy. Likewise, you do not seem to distinguish between media influence in general and media influence in THIS PARTICULAR CASE. Surely we can agree that its influence is likely to differ depending on the subject.

  • June 22, 2000, 12:58 p.m. CST

    HootDad SDS monodreme et a;l

    by ClOWNE

    OHHH GOOOOOOD LORD ! You veer so far away from the point when you bable about images and their influence. Basta! The point is that Disney is changing theirand our artistic heritage for the sake of a transient trend in political correctness. THAT"S THE POINT! THAT"S WRONG AND IT SHOULD BE FLAMED TO HELL! As for kiddies seeing bad things -- well, parents, goddamn it, keep your kids away from what you don't want them to see. Don't expect or condone corporations, who don't give a shit about you or your kids, to do your work for you or else we end up with crap Disney is pulling now. AND THE REAL POINT IS -- HEY RAT FUCKS AT DISNEY, TRY GETTING SOME REAL TALLENT TO COME TO YOUR STUDIO AND PRODUCE N E W PRODUCTS THAT PARENTS WILL HAPPILY SHOW THEIR KIDS, RATHER THAN DICK WITH HISTORY TO KEEP THE SALES ALIVE. I believe this act by Disney is more harmful to my kids in the long run than their seeing pinocchio smoke.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Media influence is the PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY.

    by superninja

    Parents have to make their children care. They have to make them respect themselves enough so that when they think about doing something bad, their morals kick in and they don't do it, whether the parents are present or not. And to be really educated, I think kids DO need to know what is out there, good and bad. Our country is so focused on greed. I know it always has, but it's reached a new pinnacle with labelling and corporate influence. Look at Pokemon -- it's ridiculous that kids would whine and moan at their parents to drop $50 bucks on CARDS!!!! And the parents comply! We've allowed our children to become terrorists! My parents would've laughed at me and told me to wait until Christmas....geezus.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:07 p.m. CST

    Re: Skllbns

    by pedant

    It's undeniable that the media influences behavior. The question is whether THIS particular material in the media influences THIS particular behavior. Not all media are the same, not all audiences are the same, and not all behaviors are the same.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:09 p.m. CST

    I also view animation as art, and this is censorship.

    by superninja

    Disney is censoring the works of animators who are dead/retired without their permission. That's like removing the privates from Donatello's David because you don't want you kids to see "nudity" on museum field trips! And I know Disney owns it, blah blah blah...which shows just how little respect they have for their artists.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Pinnochio turning me into a donkey messed me up more than the dr

    by user id indeed!

    I hid in my bedroom with a bowie knife made of soap for days,thinking some screaming donkeys would rush into my house and kick me in the face and bite my head off.Disney doesn't care about kids.They don't care about "protecting" people or their values,they're just too afraid of all the groups out there that would picket them.They are scared to death of any bad publicity at all,because they have slapped together a gigantic,faceless monopoly out of being wearing a mask of being a safe and caring corporation.They're afraid if enough people start paying attention to any minor flaws like these,they will stumble upon gigantic flaws-hell,EVILS-like...hmm..oh,say,that they could care less about kids even though millions of kids in America alone are literally surrounded by their infinite merchandising.THEY DON'T CARE.Half the people over there are only there because they failed as writers or producers in other fields,and they think they can just coast on by in Disney because they THINK-THINK,mind you- that making a kid's movie is that much easier.Just throw in some funny noises and crotch jokes,and pretend to have a heart by watching other pieces that display emotion twetny times better,and you instantly reach a generation,because Disney has built itself a huge,yet VERY VERY FRAGILE foundation on parents trusting their children to them.That's the state of mind 99.9 % of Disney has.That's why their movies keep looking better and better,but the story and context never changes.Meanwhile,The Iron Giant and Chicken Run are getting rave reviews.Disney REFUSES to change their state of mind,so they keep making fluffier and louder and brighter and prettier stuff to try and distract people from the rising and improving competition.What's REALLY scary is that all this is so widely known,but so ignored.Disney is forever criticized by people like us,but nothing ever changes!!!Parents KNOW that Disney is just another faceless corporation,yet they make a tradition of taking their tykes to the newest Disney flick every summer.As long as that keeps up,Disney will still be like that.But there will be more and more Iron Giants and Chicken Runs,until suddenly they are more trustworthy than Uncle Disney.THEN Disney will start to change.Thanks for reading my serious (GASP!!) post.This has been a That's Just The Waaay It Iiiiiis Moment w/User ID Indeed!Anyone who disagrees is in denial.Anyone who adds to my comments'll be jolly and funny again when the threads aren't SO DAMNED DEPRESSING.

  • Don't patronize them! Use your heads! You think Eiser gives two shits and a fuck about art and creativity? ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY AND HOW DISNEY CAN TAKE IT FROM YOU, JOE PUBLIC! Nice "Jaws" tribute, Harry!

  • June 22, 2000, 1:13 p.m. CST

    Eisner is an asshole.....

    by Walther P99

    He singlehandedly made the decision not to hire Rush Limbaugh for Monday Night Football, which I think was the only way to save the failing program which is getting its ass kicked by Monday Night WWF Wrestling. Its no wonder that he's willing to chop up and destroy old classics in the name of liberal political correctness. The guy only cares about money and his personal own political agenda. Disney is going to keep doing boneheaded shit like this as long as Eisner is calling the shots.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Well Put SKLLBNS...

    by SCOTT1458

    I totally agree. I love those of you who are on the "parents should teach thier kids" bandwagon. Yeah no fucking shit. You try it when shit is on the tv 24 hours a day, and when your kids go to school and see all these images and influences and wonder what the hell they are. And if there is anybody out there that doesn't think the Media influnces people, you better give your HS dipolma back. Pick up ANY Sociology's there in black and white.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:15 p.m. CST

    come on, pedant.

    by SDG

    If you read my email again you will find that I neither asserted nor implied that widespread belief proves the premise is true. Please, give me some credit. I am not the guy who needs that book in logic you'd like to sell someone (in fact I agree that it is sorely needed in some quarters). My point is rather that it is unreasonable to insist that anyone caught drawing conclusions from a commonly held premise must then and there be prepared to defend the premise, and that anyone who lacks interest or time to do so should not be considered qualified to discuss the issue. Everyone knows that tobacco causes disease. The fact that everyone knows it is not what makes it true, but neither does the fact that few of us would be perpared or inclined to set out to prove that truth invalidate their knowledge or whatever conclusions they may draw from it. You know, there are some epistomologists who reject the whole concept of logic altogether. If we were arguing with them (and we'd be doing so jointly I assure you), we would both of us have to assume an entirely different conceptual stance from the one we are actually taking toward one another right now as people who both allow our thinking to be governed by logic. But if an alogical epistomologist were to show up on this TalkBack and say to us, "First you need to establish the validity of logic before you can go on to argue like that," I don't know about you, but I would say to him: "In the first place, I note in passing (and not that I expect you to find this persuasive, since I know you reserve the right to be irrational), but your own remark betrays thought patterns still somewhat governed by logic; and in the second place, perhaps if, once we are done talking to one another, we decide to try to convince YOU of what we are talking about, we will have to say something about the validity of logic; but for now we are talking to each other, and there is no question amongst ourselves on this point. So kindly allow us to continue our discussion." Unfortunately, having basically wrapped up my thoughts for HootDad and others concerned, I don't in fact want to go on to discuss the premise with you or anyone else who doubts it, not because I don't think it can be defended but because this is taking up too much of my time.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:23 p.m. CST

    My name is zombiestomper, and I'm an alcoholic...

    by zombiestomper

    and a smoker because of disney movies. I also practice beastiality because Who Framed Roger Rabbit's hidden messages that 'Humans marrying animals is OK by uncle walt!' I am a practicing satanist and necropheliac because of Maleficent and the subtle undertones in Sleeping Booty. C'mon. Grow up. How about Haansel (haansel?) and Gretal where the witch isn't trying to eat them or where they don't push here in the oven at the end? Or Little Red Riding Hood where the wolf just want's to Remember His Spirit instead of get lunch? Pretty shitty, huh? These fairy tales/stories are cherished precisely because they don't try to sugar-coat reality. As outlandish as some of them are, there are bits that ring true with everybody in every demographic. The left is always screaming about diversity while behind the scenes they are trying to homogenize culture. To think that they pull cigarettes out of cartoons to be socially conscious is ridiculous. The only thing they are conscious of is the parents' pocketbooks. All they are doing is pandering to the greatest number of people to get more sales. This only proves that they don't think of what they do as art, but a commodity. If they thought of it as art, then what they are doing would be the equivalent of putting pants on Michelangelo's David, giving oedipus a healthy relationship with his mother. Jeezuz. People need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves and thier childern.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:25 p.m. CST

    I'm not going to go into a discussion about logic,

    by KingMenthol

    It's not my forte, all I understand is that there are folks around here who do not understand that there is a danger to society at large when people decide that they're going to start revising history or the works of artists for WHATEVER reason. Yes, children must be protected from violence and "naughty" influences. But this is the sole responsibility of the parent to instill personal strength in their children to make informed decisions and to accept the consequences when they screw up. If a person or group somehow makes artists the scapegoats for the ills of society, who will be the forward thinkers when all the forward thinkers are too afraid they'll be sued for forward thinking? Did anyone who protested the Crucifix in urine understand at all what the photo meant? It meant that the world of the faithful today are PISSING on Christ! We must be steadfast in protecting the rights of the artist. In doing so we protect the freedoms of the consumers to merely hold opinions about entertainment, art, media, and so forth. When revisionists enter the process to protect children and cover their ass, it begins a snowball process that makes it acceptable to ban Catcher in the Rye or To Kill a Mockinbird. Sometimes when we try to save our children's eyes from certain things, we blind them from others that are of paramount importance. We must be cautious and we must not allow the integrity of artists' works to be abridged. We will ALL suffer in the end.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:27 p.m. CST


    by seefilms

    ok, hopefully I got your attention..... I don't care for censorship. But as for legality, Disney is totally within their right to change whatever they want. If they own the statue of David, they can do whatever they want to it. Right or wrong. As for cutting bits out of movies, well, I don't particularly like it, but I understand it. But if Disney or any studio is going to do that, they need to be forthright about it. They shouldn't be saying that this is the 'orginal' film or something like that. They need to let people know before hand what their position is and why they chose to cut it. Then, at least, they aren't hiding anything.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:31 p.m. CST

    It's funny.

    by EdNygma

    i just sit there and watch, i see movies like Fantasia 2000, and im stunned...absolutely stunned ('cause i saw it before it was moved out of the giant imax into the crappy regular theatres)by the animation, but i see the last segment, and the moment it started, i said "Mononoke!" And it just ripped and ripped off of it more, the whole forest creature would have been enough. I love animation, but either get new stuff or stop, cause re-doing something only makes it worse. diff genre example: Return of the Jedi : Special Edition

  • June 22, 2000, 1:34 p.m. CST

    What does the head mean?

    by Monster Rain

    Call me an idiot, but I can't figure it out. Someone please help!

  • June 22, 2000, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Btw, I do have a kid -- my little sister who I helped raise.

    by superninja

    And, oh, I guess once being a kid doesn't amount to $hit in the way of experience, huh? Again, parents -- know you children's friends, know those friends parents, and don't let your kid sit in front of the t.v. 24/7. If you can't do all of the above, you should reconsider being a parent. Now, flame away. This country needs more birth control.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:37 p.m. CST

    pedant - THE question?

    by Skllbns

    No, I decided arbitrarily that THE question is a general discussion on whether or not media (not THE media) influences behavior. And now I'm deciding that THE question is this: is it true that the casual use of the term "pathetic fallacy" in conversation is pathetic, or is it a fallacy, and if so, is it correct to term that fallacy the pathetic pathetic fallacy fallacy?

  • June 22, 2000, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Parents blame the media because they are lazy.

    by superninja

    It's easier to get mad at someone else because you're doing a shoddy job of looking after your child. Pass the buck! It's The American Way! Our whole country is going down the tube because we've made it too easy to blame neighbors when we should be looking in our own backyards.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:43 p.m. CST

    This world has gone completely mental

    by thingy

    The more movie companies try to censor their material and 'PC' everything up so nobody gets offended, the more society seems to fall into decay anyway. It's crazy when you think about it, I mean, there is more violent hate crime now than ever before, and fewer things are being done about it because anyone who takes action or makes any kind of stand gets sued. We're rapidly changing from the Home of the Brave to the Land of the Fearful. Parents aren't actually parenting anymore, they are using Disney films as babysitters - of COURSE they want them pre-censored, because they don't have the time or inclination to sit down and explain things to their kids anymore. Disney's just pleasing that ever-growing market in order to make a buck.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:46 p.m. CST


    by SCOTT1458

    There are others out there more guilty than Stalin...check out a history book of today. It's called Revionsist History,,,and TalkBackers are pissed that it's found it's way into flicks...that's all.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:49 p.m. CST

    I guess Disney won't be releasing Flintstone's List anytime soon

    by The_Tooth

    That Disney is re-editing their films dismays me; All the older stuff, WB and Disney, the WWII propaganda films, everything, they're all snapshots of film history. But why is this being done? When the Pecos Bill bit was drawn and filmed, how many adults smoked? 90% of the population? More than do today, anyway. So, as an adult, Pecos Bill smoked; that's what adults do. Disney doesn't have to apologize to me or the rest of society for this. And that's what this smacks of - apology. I can't help but wonder if the PMRC or a similar bunch of "professional party throwing Washington wives" (thanks, Jello) insisted on this because it had never occured to them to raise their children themselves rather than letting the TV do it. I can't imagine a lobby group powerful enough to make Disney cave in, though. Judging from Disney's m.o. in the past, though, this is just being done so they have "regular" and "special" editions to hawk on Happy Meal boxes, and to make themselves look like they give a damn about their customers. But I'm not fooled.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:57 p.m. CST

    genetic genetic fallacy fallacy

    by Skllbns

    I absolutely disagree with the genetic genetic fallacy fallacy (you know, the fallacy that certain DNA combinants determine a person's use of the term "genetic fallacy" in casual conversation). I call it the genetic genetic fallacy fallacy fallacy.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:58 p.m. CST


    by KingMenthol

    Say what? My head just exploded.

  • June 22, 2000, 1:59 p.m. CST

    AAAaaaauggh! It's A MADHOUSE!!

    by Reverendz

    Fuck the kids. Fuck being a parent. I saw all sorts of horrible things as a kid (both real and on TV) and never, not once, went out and did them. I'll tell you what disturbed me as a kid: The G.I. Joe cartoon. Why? Because every time a plane got shot down, every time a tank got blown up, every time a building exploded, you were shown the driver/pilot/whathaveyou making an escape from the burning vehicle/edifice. THAT really fucked with me. Having come from a country torn by civil war and violence, where my house was blown up, the apartment where we lived shot up, relatives killed by aerial bombs, it was much MORE disturbing to see this unlethal, sanitized version of war. I did not consciously realize this as a kid, but every time I watched that GI Joe cartoon, i winced when a character, good or bad, escaped certain, fiery death. You want to teach your kids a lesson? Then DON'T teach them that only bad guys smoke. Don't teach them that only bad guys get killed. PREPARE THEM FOR THE WORLD. I've met so many young kids from Generation Wrecked that believe that the world revolves around them. And for so many of these miniconsumer/soccer mom kids, it does. That is, until they reach their teens and 20's, and discover that LO and BEHOLD, no one gives a shit about them. Stop worshipping at the Cult of Childhood. One of your duties as a parent is to EXPLAIN contradiction. To explain why Cowgirl Jesse (or their favorite Aunt Margaret) smokes. And no, it's NOT easy. But WHAT ever gave you the impression that it would be? Kids see the world in black and white, and they need to have the basis, from the time they are a child to understand that the world is just not so. SO QUIT TRYING TO SANITIZE CHILDREN'S ENTERTAINMENT.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Cool and not cool

    by The Raven

    The whole Search for Mickey thing sounds pretty cool. It will be good to see Mickey on the big screen after so many years. It sound pretty similar to what they did for Mickey's 65th birthday. The Disney changing their classics is just a shame and an indication to how fucked up society is today. Always looking for someone to blame. And Disney isn't the only on resonponsilbe for changing classics to cater to a politically correct society. Warner Bros. has been trimming scenes from it's cartoons on the Cartoon Network. And they've edited the hell out of Dragonball Z. Just unfair and not cool.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Don't you have jobs!?!?!

    by zombiestomper

    Or are they just as boring as mine?

  • June 22, 2000, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Credit where credit is due? (SDG)

    by pedant

    You did, in fact, assert that only when there is substantial dissent is it necessary to question a commonly-held belief. Although in retrospect I may have misunderstood what you meant by this (though I'm still not sure). I simply find it absurd to discuss the issue without due consideration for the premise, particularly since this is not simply a question of truth or falsity, but one of degree. How strong the correlation is would certainly affect your ideas and opinions. Surely there comes a point, however low, at which the moral rights of the artists would counterbalance the potential damage.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:28 p.m. CST

    corporal clegg...

    by ziranova

    It's from Jaws. The part where Hooper dives down to inspect an abandoned fishing boat and gets real close and sees a sharks tooth wedged into a gaping hole in the hull. Then, just as he's prying out the tooth with his diver's knife, that dead body with the missing eyeball pops out at him.

  • June 22, 2000, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Iron Giant Cuts

    by Mako

    Before anyone claims "what if sections were cut from the Iron Giant?" routine, remember that every movie goes thru a process of cutting scenes. Scenes and sequences were cut from the "IRON GIANT", some which would have made the film even better. If Disney wants a G rated movie, you cut. If Warner Bros. wants an R rated movie instead of an NC-17, you cut. Nature of the biz people. It's called "mass appeal", not "how do I make a movie that only YOU will like 101".

  • June 22, 2000, 2:41 p.m. CST

    I watched all these offending cartoons and now I...

    by Demon's Dream

    don't drink, don't smoke, don't shoot hillbillies. I knew they were cartoons. Anyone who thinks that they can do something because it was done in a cartoon has much deeper rooted problems than can be blamed on watching animation. Get with it people!!!

  • June 22, 2000, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Hey King Menthol!

    by sourmilk

    It not us conservatives who want to edit movies. It's the spineless, rat bastard liberals who want to turn Americans into a bunch of bland Europeans! I don't care what Disney puts in their movies, or any company. I'm Catholic and I thought "Dogma" was K. Smith's best movie. The only problem I have with content is when real history is screwed, like that piece of crap "U-571." Let Disney do what it wants. THE MARKET WILL DECIDE. Besides, Bugs Bunny kicks ass anyways.

  • June 22, 2000, 3:02 p.m. CST

    I believe the Harry head is Jaws, to whoever asked...

    by mephisto666

    As for Disney, this is wrong. If they want to make new features PC, it's their choice. But to mess with other peoples work is crossing the line. I mean, what the hell would they do about Tom and Jerry? Burn all the copies? Disney has always been the ultimate example of fascist leadership, but bloody hell...I feel I have to quote Buffy here and say 'Oh no, it's Nazi Germany and there are Playboys in my locker!'

  • June 22, 2000, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Dont Donald Duck & Pooh encourage pants-less exposing of genatal

    by Luke_Cage

    As a kid, I was watching the cartoon "Heavy Metal" on HBO with my parents when they asked if I had any questions about what I just saw. I said, "Mommy...why does that animation suck? It might as well be any Filmation cartoon of the 70's". I grew up watching Kung Fu movies, Horror movies, titty-flicks, Robotech, and pro wrestling....and I turned out ok ..then again Im here participating in "Talk Back" so I must of been seriously damaged somewhere.

  • June 22, 2000, 3:08 p.m. CST

    Tough sitaution, great Talk Back.

    by All Thumbs

    It's hard to argue against the good intentions of Disney and the parents such as SDG who defend the decision to edit these fine works. But a part of me remembers watching them as a kid, remembers seeing Pecos Bill smoking and thinking, "This is what cowboys did back then." I guess you could say that even at a young age I had a sense of history. I also knew that if I put a cigarrette to my lips, I would get in deep shit. Why? Because my parents, one a former smoker and one who is still smoking after 20 years, pounded it into our heads that smoking was a terrible, nasty habit. We weren't allowed to have candy cigarrettes or cigars; we weren't even allowed to roll up a piece of paper and pretend it was one. If we were caught, it was snatched out of our mouths and we got a lecture and some form of punishment. Mixed message coming from a mother who smoked at least half a pack a day, but my sister and I still got it. We started and are still nagging her to quit her nasty, unhealthy and quite possibly dangerous habit. I guess you can lump me into both the "I saw it and I don't do it" crowd and the "parents need to take responsibility for their children" crowd because that's the way I feel. Being a parent isn't easy, I know. These kids are bombarded today with message after message about this vice or another, but is censoring classic animation the best way to protect our children? I think I would rather live in a world where my kid sees Pecos Bill and I have to tell them why smoking is bad and that Bill didn't know it back than rather than have them live in a world where I have to explain why they took "Of Mice and Men" out of the library or why in my copy there is a scene where Bambi's mom is killed by a hunter and in the new copy there isn't. (And if you think that it couldn't go so far as to change that scene, you're missing why so many of us are afraid of what's happening. Hunting is not exactly PC and there are many negative connotations with it.) Also, while I understand the motive behind it, I think using Jessie as an example of having a conflicting message of smoking is a mute point. They're being very careful with children's entertainment least in regards to smoking. (We won't go into violence and extremem commercialism.) That's all I'm going to say about that. As for other arguments on here...again, it's hard to argue with a parent wanting to protect their child, but it amazes me how you can be upset over Han not shooting first and understand why it was done and think it's wrong and then not think this is wrong. I was going to buy the video with Pecos Bill because I loved that cartoon (and Johnny Fedora...I still can sing the entire song) and when I saw it on sale there was this surge of glee, but hearing that it's not the same...well, forget it. I'll stick to my memories and sing to myself.

  • June 22, 2000, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Anyone remember "Song of the South"?

    by filmnerd

    You go, JR! This mentality has existed for a long time at Dizzy. The most obvious example is the existence of SOTS on pirate tapes only. Fearing the racist overtones of the film to be offensive, we won't be seeing the Briar Patch anytime soon! But Mako has a good point. Dizzyland is only doing this because of lazy, uneducated parents and paranoid watchdog groups (full of lazy, uneducated people--most of the time)grasping at the straws of some warped sense of "social responsibility" instead of taking charge of their children's upbringing themselves and explaining things like context. Instead of bettering our youth through knowledge and accountability, our society would rather find a messenger to hang instead. Crap! I won't be buying any of that tampered shit! Nerd, out!

  • June 22, 2000, 3:54 p.m. CST


    by KingMenthol

    apologies for using lib/con at all. Bad labels, they are.

  • June 22, 2000, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Wrong filmnerd...

    by SCOTT1458

    it's cause Disney knows the liablity out there in conjution with tobacco..and they have deep, deep pockets. If they get sued (by the government, individuals, it doesn't matter) they know all it takes is ONE jury to side with the plantiff. The floodgates will open. And there isn't way to keep politics and lib/con's our culture, is all related.

  • Remember "The Lion King"? That was "Kimba the White Lion" and Dinsey didn't pay a fucking dime for it! Ya gotta love that, Eisner!

  • June 22, 2000, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Nimrod about ownership of art

    by MrMastodonFarm

    The owner of a work of art does not have the right to do what he wants with it, its an artists right. If I made a painting and sold it to you and then you burned it, it would be within my rights to sue the pants off of you. However, this doesn't apply to cartoons apparently. Hmm... I wonder if the old artists are still around, maybe they could try and invoke this right. They probably signed it away when they signed their contracts for the Devil, I mean Disney.

  • June 22, 2000, 4:34 p.m. CST


    by MrMastodonFarm

    when did they change Pirates of the Carribean? It was still the same the last time I went to Disneyland... that was a couple of years ago though.

  • June 22, 2000, 4:41 p.m. CST

    MastodonFarm, WTF

    by Walther P99

    What friggin' legal system do you live under? Of course the owner can do whatever he wants with it. If you paint a portrait and sell it to me, its mine. It is legally my property. By what legal precedent do you think you could sue me? If I wanted to sell the painting to someone else, you couldn't stop me. What if I wanted to stick it in a closet for 10 years, are you gonna sue me for not displaying it like you want me to? Where is your logic? I can do anything I want with it, burn it if I so desire. I don't want to come down on Disney's side here, but they are legally completely in their rights to do whatever the hell they want to with those films. Remember when Ted Turner colorized all of those classic films; everyone was up in arms and throwing fits, but to no avail. Because Turner owned those films. He could do with them as he pleased.

  • June 22, 2000, 5:15 p.m. CST


    by knox21

    So Disney doesn't want it's company name associated with smoking and gun-play, big deal. You all act like this is the end of the world, a sign of the apocalypse, say goodbye to the free world. Jack-booted stormtroopers are going to be kicking in our doors any second to rummage through our video collections and slice out anything they deem objectionable or obscene. PLEASE! If more people would just THINK a little before posting their first hot-headded knee-jerk reactions to every story, I wouldn't have to wade through mounds of nonsense to get to some real points on this matter. First off censoring cartoons is nothing new. Have you ever seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon called "ALL THIS AND RABBIT STEW" on TV? No, and you never will because it has Bugs going up, against a black Elmer Fudd and it's racist piece of crap that the WB SHOULD be embarrassed by and that I wouldn't want my kid seeing. I know this because I've seen it for myself. What about "BUGS BUNNY NIPS THE NIPS" or the dozens of scenes snipped out of Tom & Jerry, Woody Woodpecker and a hundred other cartoons from that same era. Disney is a company that is hugely successful, it has a STRONG brand name that parents all over the world can trust and protecting that brand name against ANYTHING that MAY be regarded as POSSIBLY offensive is only GOOD business sense. Remember, this is the same company that's been under attack for the last few years from the "religious right" over concocted subliminal scenes in their features. It's a preemptive strike, they're just trying to cover their asses a head of time to aviod more attacks. And don't kid yourselves, YOU KNOW that SOMEONE, SOPMEWHERE would have raised a stink and one of the networks would've picked up the story and ran with it. Then Disney would have to issue a response and probably have to go on one "news" program or another and defend a cartoon made 60 years ago. Not to mention that some lawyer somewhere would probably figure out a way to convcince a judge that releasing this cartoon was an act of neglagence and that Disney should pay damages. Then the simple act of releasing a video of classic cartoons gets turned into a HUGE public relations nightmare, damaging the companies name and reputaion as well as costing Disney a bundle to, either recall the issued tapes or DVDS or to produce a new "cleaned up" version or both. So in the end you wind up with a tarnished image, sky rocketing costs, and the damn cartoon is censored ANYWAY! It's so easy (and naive) for most of you to sit there and say "I can't believe those Disney F-ER'S", but Disney's just responding to the way our over-reactive society has become. They're just protecting themselves. Disney's not an EVIL corporation, they're a SMART corporation. That's why they've been around so long and prospered so much.

  • June 22, 2000, 5:30 p.m. CST

    This proves what we have known all along......

    by Einhander

    ... that America can't do dick for animation anymore. If something happens in live action, like a smoking cigarette or a person getting shot, the movie gets a PG rating and no one says anything about it. If it's animated, well, shit, there goes the neighborhood. My son knocked up a 14 year old girl because Simba's cloud of dust spelled Sex. Woo-ha. The last few movies... Tarzan, Mulan, Herc-SUCK-ules... all mired in the same damn story every single time. Even Dinosaur, with it's spectacular visuals, was trimmed and trimmed. I had hope that Dreamworks/Dreamworks/Warner would try and reinstill some faith in our animators, but alas... Road to El Dorado... King and I... Anastasia... kaboom. What he have left are imports and Pixar. Chicken Run, Mononoke, Evangelion, Toy Story 1-<infinity> is all that is left. That and the golden oldies... god bless you, G.I. Joe the movie. Face it, American cell animation is dead. Except for Iron Giant, which was a wonderful burp in the universe and will probably not happen again.

  • June 22, 2000, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Face It Disney-The State of G-Movies

    by TheMatarife

    Basically the thing is that disney's quality has been declining for a long time- they just haven't noticed it. Any g movie will probably make money. Disney hasn't noticed it because with their massive marketing muscle and toy cross promotionals they could realease a horrible stinking goat-pleasuring-son-of-a-one-eyed-whore film and still make money. This has already happened several times before, as far as I can tell, but I havent seen any recent disney animated films exept for tarzan. That sucked. Even the bugs life has some stupid parts- and thats from pixar- the only life in disney. "who wants a poo poo platter?" I can tell you- kids. They love those stupid lines in a movie like "put your head between your legs and kiss your bum good bye" from Chicken Run. Thats why parents dont go to see g-rated films. So disney- just increase the quality and get some good writers. Anything you do will turn to gold cause parents love taking kids to movies.

  • June 22, 2000, 5:55 p.m. CST

    On 'Song of the South'

    by Taxjockey

    Not entirely true about the film being destroyed. I have a complete and unedited version on laserdisc that can't be more than ten years old. This of course was imported from Japan, and I paid a hefty premium to get it but screw 'em, I don't care, I still let my kids watch it. Soon my eldest will be old enough to discuss slavery and segregation, and all that and a film like this helps to spell out the old perceptions. It is a magical film for children, and it is a shame that it has been supressed. What burns me up about the whole thing is the whole Splash Mountain thing. If this film has to be supressed, then why feature these characters in a major attraction. This is pretty messed up reasoning, and points out the fact that Disney has no real conscience about this at all, it's just a money making operation. I have a Disney book puslihed in 1965, that includes the Uncle Remus stories, here is a sample. " Da Tar-baby - One day, Brer Fox and Brer Bear wuz sittin' round in de woods talkin' bout de way Brer Rabbit wuz cuttin' up capers an actin' so fresh. I don't guess we will be seeing this volume in print again any time soon. My point is that if we consider this film racest, thaen these characters are just as racist, and have equal "need" of supression

  • June 22, 2000, 6:01 p.m. CST

    It isn't art

    by usagibrian

    It's property made for hire. You may not like it, but Disney owns it and can do whatever the hell it wants with it. Don't buy it. Encourage your friends and relatives not to buy it. Ask for the originals and perhaps, when Disney sees the market, they'll respond to the potential money (goodness knows they won't respond to anything else). Now to the general tone stuff, blaming each other for the current sad state of affairs is so terribly useful (it's the librals'/conservatives' PC agenda); EVERYONE has an agenda. It's all sides' fault we're in the state we're in. And in parting (just to finish ticking off anyone I haven't) FANTASIA 2000 was crashingly mediocre ("Rapsody" was very good, "Circus" was fun and "Apprentice" was only diminished by the format change but still genius; the rest... feh, didn't suck. Didn't soar either).

  • June 22, 2000, 6:11 p.m. CST

    It's the principle, stupid

    by CapedCrusader23

    I thought I'd add my own two cents in here...Let's set some basic ground rules. One--Disney is most likely doing this only so that various activist groups cannot criticize them in the future, NOT for "social responsibility." They're practicing good business... Two--Children deserve credit, and they can diferentiate fantasy from reality. Nowadays, we tell children up and down that smoking is bad, and it is callous to assume that a message that has been drilled into them so often will be suddenly wiped away the minute they see Pecos Bill on the screen lighting up. Finally, I think many of you are missing the point: it is wrong to mess with someone else's ideas. I don't care if you're being "socially responsible," or if you're teaching children a lesson--a person's creative work is their own property, and should not be tampered with by anyone but themselves. A faceless, corporate entity tampering with something someone made years ago is just as bad as some high-minded jack-ass re-writing Stephen King because it might be objectionable. As a society, we are enforcing conformity more and more every day--those with different or creative ideas are ostracized and criticized for thinking differently. As for this whole "social responsibility" thing, I find it alarming that we must base every action, every thought we have, on it's merits for or against society. It's downright scary--we should not be a nation of altruists. We were guaranteed a freedom to express ourselves when we formed this country, and God dammit, we deserve that freedom. It's a basic human principle that should not be taken away.

  • June 22, 2000, 6:23 p.m. CST

    Where's Harry's review of Pixar's Studios?

    by Room_A113

    Since "Within the entire Disney Empire, the entirety of the brains and animation filmmaking and story telling acumen resides at PIXAR.", I would love to see Harry's story about visiting Pixar Animation Studios. Harry, I seem to recall that you promised us, some time ago, a review of what you saw at Pixar's studios. I believe that it was around the time "A Bug's Life" was released. Did you ever write it up?

  • June 22, 2000, 6:24 p.m. CST

    Thanks Harry, thanks a freakin' bunch!!!!!!!

    by Animatorguy

    I sent in the scoop about the animated feature starring all of Disneys characters ages ago, maybe even months ago, and nothing got reported. I'm an animator who has seen stuff on this project first hand (it looks great) but my scoop (that I originally got in June 1998), but left it until a little while ago, never got any notice. Thanks Harry!!!!!!!!

  • June 22, 2000, 6:27 p.m. CST

    I agree with Bouffant_S...

    by Phantom Cruiser

    that the cartoons shouldn't be cut, watered down or sanitized just because they're for kids. Oddly enough, I learn about bad guys and death from Hanna-Barbera. Yes, that's right, Hanna-Barbera. From shows such as the Herculoids (the original, not the 1981 crap revival), Space Ghost (again, the ORIGINAL), Birdman, the Galaxy Trio, Mightor, etc... For some it may have been cool to see all of these bad guys crashing into walls, their ships exploding, crushed by boulders, etc., but for me it was kind of a wake up call. It made me realize that even in animation, things (people, aliens, or what have you) die. And it hasn't affected me any worse for wear, except to appreciate more the original versions of cartons, as they were originally made. For instance, there was a time when (before the Cartoon Network) cartoons such as Space Ghost were cut, eliminating any use of the word "die", as in "You will die!!", but would leave in the tamer version ("You will be destroyed!!"). I have a greater appreciation for these cartoons now, because death, smoking, drinking, things like this shouldn't be swept under the rug so that kids won't know about them. They should be left in, to encourage discussion, and perhaps learn the wrong, and the right thing to do.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:08 p.m. CST

    More questions...

    by Drexl Aubuchon

    Yes, I too am offended (lot of that going around lately) by this latest outpouring of political correctness. Why can't they just release two versions: the kids' edition without the potentially damaging content, and the overpriced collector$' edition for those who respect the preservation of history and the work of artists? But to do that, they would have to publicly ADMIT the films were messed with, and that is something they have shown no interest in doing. It only leaves me with more and more questions. Were these previously G-rated films resubmitted (after butchering) to the MPAA? Have the dates been changed to 1999 or 2000 or whenever (instead of "copyright 19XX") on the packaging to reflect the new date? And, as a specific example, what about "The Three Caballeros"? Not only does the film contain numerous sexual overtones, but there is also a character named Jose who not only smokes frequently, but also holds a cigar at all times? Oh, wait; he's not a beloved "role model" like Goofy, and since he's Hispanic, he doesn't have an Al Sharpton or a Jesse Jackson to scream RACISM! for him on a regular basis (and prevent SOTS from seeing the light of day).

  • June 22, 2000, 7:13 p.m. CST

    Just to clarify....

    by Shaft9876

    Sorry if it shatters anybody's whole concept of reality, but just to reiterate what some have already pointed out, the pressure for these changes comes absoultely, uniquivocally, 100% from liberals. It in no way has anything to do with conservatives. Who are the people out marching around with their little picket signs and screaming at everybody? Liberals. Who wants to outlaw smoking? Liberals. Who wants to revoke the 2nd Amendment? Liberals. It's right there for you, kids. Time to wake up, grow up, and stop gleefully chowing down on the shit your yuppie baby-boomer parents have fed you- the left end of the political spectrum has a very, very dark side, and this is it. It's called COMMUNISM for those of you who are too young to comprehend it. The fact that anybody on here would actually ascribe this particular brand of censorship to conservatives, or throw around the word "Nazi", when they should be saying "liberal" and "Communist", is proof positive of just how successfully you've been brainwashed. Enjoy your big ole' creamy government-approved-Clinton-propaganda-Hollywood-left-wing-shit-pie.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:20 p.m. CST

    second-hand smokescreen

    by BobRobertsson

    Harry's right, you all are varying degrees of less right: Diz crossed the line, big-time, in altering the art created by (mostly) long-gone animators. The question isn't the legal right (obviously, they have that, and ferocious lawyers, too). To badly paraphrase Jurrasic Park: "just because you are able to do something, doesn't mean you should" The question also isn't really about influence on the youth. There are a million and one potential negative influences on tiny minds out there - no one can or should air-brush out unseemly reality for kids. Parents must take responsibility to talk to kids about difficult issues, not eliminate the issues. Speaking as a child of parents and a parent myself, this path is a path of disaster, and the Maus-house should be made to pay for this and countless other corporate irresponsiblities committed upon their customers, by means of a massive and persistent consumer education and avoidance campaign. There.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:25 p.m. CST


    by Walther P99

    Right on! Eisner is one of Clinton's biggest contributors and supporters. He's a piece of crap leftist creep.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:25 p.m. CST

    what next? bambi's mom still alive?

    by THE HOOK

    how dare they change our, yes our films. ok so maybe they want to change the films for todays oversensitive money givers so they can continue to profit from their former glories but we should be given a choice to see the films how they were originally intended to be seen.

  • June 22, 2000, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Touchy issue...

    by Nekki Basara

    This is such a great Talkback, I had to add my thoughts to it, though many others have said the same, sensible things that I am about to. Teaching your kids that certain habits are bad (i.e .smoking) is good, but censorship is still wrong. When these very same children grow up, they will be adults who are capable of making their own decisions, and the things they learned as children will be a big influence on them (I still look both ways before crossing the street, even if it's one way!). You can show your children how smoking effects them, and they may still become a smoker someday. That's a sad thought, but unfortunately, it is a possibility. But what happens when the child who saw the edited Make Mine Music grows up and finds out that it was in fact edited, and wants to see the original, the one his/her parents grew up with? If it's gone, it's gone. The arguement that "if they've never seen it, they won't know it's been edited" just does not hold up. I'm 22 years old, and I've never seen Song of the South, and that irritates me because I've heard so many wonderful things about it. I'm a young man who understands what racism is and the context the film took place in, so why shouldn't I be allowed access to this Disney classic? It should be available for everyone to see, and if I had a child, I could decide if I felt it was apporpiate for them to see. Even if I felt that, at a particular age, they were too young to see it, someday they will be old enough to understand the setting it took place in, and they in turn should be allowed to see it, too. I can certainly understand why Disney is doing this. I work in a video store, and today I sold someone a copy of The Jolson Story, and right on the cover is a man in blackface. I thought to myself, There's something you don't see very often. But that's something that Jolson did, and for better or worse, it's in the movie. Columbia could remove that image from the packaging, and even from the film itself. They have the rights to it, right? Well, that doesn't mean it's right. I don't think performing in blackface is entertaining, and by today's standards (and even by yesterday's standards)it is racist, but I applaud Columbia for not altering their film. I don't agree with the content, but it would be wrong to alter the film. And that's the exact situation that Disney is in right now, but they chose a different path, and I think it was irresponsible of them. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that this is wrong. So, I'll be signing off now. Perhaps I'll go and watch some Looney Tunes on Cartoon Network, where they still show Daffy getting his beak blasted off. Not because I believe violence to animals is right, but because it's a funny cartoon. Or maybe I'll try and find a copy of Song of the South on laser disc, because I really would love to see it. Can I borrow anyone's copy...?

  • June 22, 2000, 7:52 p.m. CST

    Political Scientology 10101

    by and&and!

    Sadly, the left end of the political spectrum isn't the only side with "a very, very dark side" - the right end includes the Reagan/Thatcher legacy of privatization at the expense of the poor, union busting, secret unconstitutional wars funded by drug money and arms for hostage exchanges, the savings and loan deregulation meltdown, and much more before we even arrive at the far-right of nasis and Buchannan. As wisely noted, this issue of corporate censorship isn't properly a lib/consv problem, more of an open-minded/closed-brained dichotomy, and MickieInc is coming down solidly on the closed-brain side. Also, as to the Bambi's dead mother scene: since it doesn't glorify hunting, but is quite the opposite, showing the true effects of human insensitivity to the reality of family connections felt by our mammalian cousins, it seems it is in no danger of being whitewashed out (except maybe by the Chuck Heston followers who don't like to think about actual painful deaths caused by guns). Wow, what a great impassioned talkback this has become! Thanks for all the thoughts, all - over&out

  • June 22, 2000, 7:54 p.m. CST


    by dougie

    For the same reasons all the early "race" content cartoons have vanished, so has Disney's Song of the South-one with some of my favorite animation. Maybe it's progress. Maybe it's a denial of history.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:23 p.m. CST


    by Shaft9876

    Don't get me wrong- I have problems with conservatives as well (although having lived throug Reagan and Clinton, I'll take the ol' Gipper any day of the week), but I'm a firm believer in the pendulum concept of politics, and it's clear that things have swung so far to the left over the last 8 years that we have now come to the inevitable left-wing censorship and looming oppression. There used to be good decent American Liberals (there are still a few, like Joe Lieberman), but the vast majority at this point are made up of a bunch of spoiled-brat, self-centered cowards from the 60s who were too afraid to go to Viet Nam, so they hid away on college campuses doing mountains of drugs and fucking anything with a pulse and justified their cowardice to themselves by becoming Marxists and actively HATING the country and everything it stands for. I have no problem personally with Song of the South being out of circulation. That's something where most people would agree regardless of politics. In this situation, you have suppression of artistic expression based on a completely one-sided partisan political agenda, which amounts, IMO to propaganda and brainwashing. As for Iran-Contra, the only reason it happened is that Reagan was out of the loop- we now know what was suspected, which is that he had Alzheimer's disease- and his subordinates got a little too creative behind the old guy's back. The fact that this has been portrayed by liberals as some sort of Machiavellian, Nixonian, Clintonian plot on Ronnie's part is pure demonization and revisionist history. They couldn't stand the guy because he nearly put them out of business, and the whole country loved him for it. Anyway, the whole point is that if we're complaining about censorship here, we need to call it like it is, which means in this case, that it's left-wing censorship. Reactionary liberalism, liberal puritanism, call it what you may, this is it.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:40 p.m. CST

    This all just sucks ass!!!

    by the_roc

    You know I have always thought that the mouse co. cartoons sucked!!! There is no comparing Disney to WB. WB Looney Toons was the best and is still the best. You dont see Tom And Jerry edited do it was the damn cartoon would be like 2 seconds long. I have never wanted to watch any of Disneys cartoons. Some of the movies were/are good. But Snow white is a piece of crap! Cenderella CRAP! Sleepong Beauty CRAP! ALL CRAP!! One day Disney will realize the errors of there ways. And then it will be to late. No one will care any more. Walt is now Rolling over in his grave, or his Cryo-chamber, what ever. Any way "F" them.......oh shit now the damn mouse patrol will be at my house to re-program me. Oh shit theres a knock at the door!!! Well the next message I'll post I'll be all about Disney............And Harry you better watch what you say too.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:44 p.m. CST

    If the Disney Co. was making Bambi today..

    by Jonny Quest

    There is no way Bambi's mother would die. Disney has not had the courage to do anything remotely resembling a downbeat or bittersweet ending in decades. Think about this for a minute. This is one of the most powerful & memorable movie endings in history, and I have no doubt it would be changed if they thought they could get away with it. How many parent & child heart to heart talks has that single ending inspired? Do you think that any Disney film of the last decade has had anything close to that effect? Making a film for kids does not mean assuming that they're stupid or can't handle emotional stuff. In fact, I think it's more cruel to fill kids full of false expectations that the real world will never be able to match. The last Disney film with any emotional complexity that I can remember is The Fox and The Hound, and that came out when I was a kid. Films are products of their times, and I think that we can learn much more by viewing them in the context of those times, and recognizing that we have changed.

  • June 22, 2000, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Hey GorillaClub

    by Captain Loft

    You're right, the world is full of pussies. Where you're wrong is thinking that the Catholic Anti-Defamation League speaks for the Catholic Church and all of it's members. Official denunciations??? I'm sure we would have heard something if Al Roker were really chastised by the Church. And no, not every Catholic in the world gives a shit about what nuns do with their urine. Yes, some people hate the very though of nuns having urine (being, gasp, human!) but those people are the minority. This has nothing to do with Disney, just your ignorant post. You're lucky there's so much hypocrisy in society. Fuck the Catholics? No one cares. You write FUCK THE JEWS and suddenly you're Hitler. Even though it was funny reading you have your little hissy fit directed at an entire religion and all it's members, you should really not make ignorant and pathetic statements like that in the future. I just felt I needed to point all this out since every now and then, talkbackers get really excited and decide to attack Catholicism because of a few of its misguided members.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:15 p.m. CST

    There's a war brewing.......

    by sourmilk

    We've got trouble coming down the pike. America is dividing into two camps. Liberals v. Conservatives? No. Black v. White? No. Catholic v. Protestant? No. The next American Civil War will be between those who CAN spell and use proper grammer online and those who CANNOT. Whick side will u bee on?

  • June 22, 2000, 9:16 p.m. CST


    by gryphon

    Whoa! Wait a sec Gorilla Club! I'm Catholic myself and I thought that little comment from Al Roker was pretty funny! "Fuck the Catholics?" Jeez, man, you only hear from the overzealous ones, don't you know that? I mean, it's not like the Catholics that found that funny or didn't care went on the news and nationally proclaimed their praise of Al Roker and his goofy ass! Think before you say something next time.

  • June 22, 2000, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Fahrenheit 451

    by anime_guy

    if read the book then u know that this is almost exactly how Beatty described the course of events that lead the book burnings. If u have not read the book read it. While I will admit that Disney movies are usually water downed and censored versions of great stories I don't think they should be damaged even more. Read the original little mermaid (she dies god forbid the heroine dies) ore Cinderella (there shall be no mutilation of feet on American film) honestly I thing mean of us would be amazed at what the originals where. This just another bricks in the wall. PS props to cartoon network for their attempts at keeping their newer anime shows nearer to the originals than other companies have before (just seeing sailor Neptune and sailor Uranus is a victory even if they are cousins)

  • June 22, 2000, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Me and My Childhood...

    by Bazman

    I was born in 1975. I'm so glad I grew up at a time when people could get hurt and die in Astroboy and there was a real sense of danger in Kid's adventures. There have been some great adventures of late (Aladdin, Lion King), but there is definitely a view to "talk down to kids" these days. I used to watch TV shows where adults were the heroes and they fought adult villains. Nowadays Kids are almost always the heroes and adults are the villains. It's really pathetic. As if the world is gonna be saved by a 10 year old kid! Tsk! (Unless of course he's a robot that can shoot lasers from his fingers and fly!)

  • June 22, 2000, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Republicrats suck-Vote Libertarian!

    by Lord Shell

    Disney's also great at putting their names above SOMEONE ELSE'S intellectual property. WALT DISNEY'S Tarzan? I seem to recall someone called Edgar Rice Burroughs who wrote something similar. WALT DISNEY'S Hunchback of Notre Dame? Hmmm . . . wait now, wasn't there a gentleman named Victor Hugo who penned something in that vein? Well, let's see . . . ah! WALT DISNEY'S Pinocchio? Well there seems to be a story like that by a Carlo Collodi-what do you know! The odd thing is, all these 'adaptions' tend to be homogenized CRAP versions of the original stories. Disney's a bunch of whores, and any "rewrites" they do can't possibly rape the original author's intent any more than the "Classic" versions. Oh, and some of the preceeding rant was paraphrased from Harlan Ellison (forgive me, Harlan.)***************************************************************** Now,if you bitchy folks want to get the government out of our private lives and off our backs, then don't vote Republicrat, vote Libertarian! The essential credo we espouse is: If you are 18 years or older, you should be free to do anything that doesn't harm someone else's person or property-PERIOD. You know, L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. Censorship and enforcing morals is NOT GOVERNMENT'S JOB.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:10 p.m. CST

    I guess FDR was a bad person then

    by Frisco

    Perhaps we should go back and digitally remove the cigarettes from any photograph or newsreel that shows Roosevelt smoking. After all, he was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century and was universally admired as a great man, and we sure wouldn't want to confuse our children by showing him performing such an evil, weak thing as enjoy smoking tobacco. ***** FDR himself was a subject of controversy a couple of years back due to a similar bout of political correctness. Groups representing disabled Americans wanted the sculpture of him at his monument to prominently display his handicap either by showing him in braces or in a wheelchair. This despite the fact that in life the man himself took great pains (literally) to downplay his condition whenever he made a public appearance. But that didn't matter to the PC camp--far better to show him "as he would want to be seen if he were alive today." Many people objected to showing him with his trademark cigarette holder for basically the same reason. The lowest common denominator in our society is children, and too many people want to reduce us ALL to that level. ***** One last thing: folks have known that smoking tobacco is unhealthy for ages. A quick trip to just now showed me that the earliest known written use of "coffin nail" as slang for "cigarette" occurred in 1888. To say that Pecos Bill didn't "know" that smoking is unhealthy is dishonest. He knew it, he just either preferred to smoke anyway or was too addicted to quit. I wonder which was true? Now THAT'S an interesting conversation to have with one's child.

  • June 22, 2000, 11:32 p.m. CST

    I wonder what Arthur Clarke would think.

    by The_Tooth

    It's been a few years, but I think it's 'Ghost From the Grand Banks'. Two of the characters make a living editing 20th century movies, editing out all references to and occurences of people smoking tobacco. They have a government contract, too. If I recall, they were working on "Casablanca". This is more or less about Disney messing with our childhoods, right? This doesn't sting nearly as much as what Warner Brothers did ten or fifteen years ago. The pausing on the last frame before the violent bits - anvils or umbrella beatings, it made no difference - while continuing with the soundtrack was too much. This was at the demands of Concerned Parents. Fifteen years later, it seems their plan worked, at least at Di$ney. Good for them. What's next? What if they weren't movies, but a popular series of children's books that were being reprinted? In fact, I think Laura Ingalls Wilder's books were edited for references to redskins and injuns and such. There are PC versions of Mark Twain novels too, aren't there? Sorry, a bit of rambling. These weren't voluntary, though. According to Juniour Mintz, Di$ney's actions are voluntary. Once again, they've reached a new high in low.

  • June 23, 2000, midnight CST

    Check Out WWW.DISNEYSUCKS.COM For True Horror Stories from Emplo

    by Bari Umenema

  • June 23, 2000, 12:12 a.m. CST

    The Rat's history of censorship

    by BurninBullwinkle

    Let's see... 1. The burying of Song of the South for being "racist" despite its loving look at black culture and dumbass white people. 2. The burying of the new John Henry cartoon. 3. The removal of the bottemless Jessica frames in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (OK, I understand that, but if anyone can make me a DVD of the offending laserdisc, let me know...) 4. The removal of "offensive" material relating to Baby Herman and Donald Duck in subsequent releases of the film. 5. The replacement of "where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face" to "where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense" in the video release of Aladdin. 6. The recut of Fantasia to get rid of "racist" material. 7. Changes and cuts made to "Melody Time" due to smoking. 8. The sale of Dogma due to fears of protest. (As a Catholic, I can say Bill Donahue is a publicity hound piece of shit.) I'm sure there are more that I just can't think of. A couple more points, Why is it Michael Eisner's personal opinion seems to be what every decision on whether something coming out of Disney is "good" is based on? He buried the Clerks cartoon because he "didn't get it." Also, I'm a conservative (well, conservative-leaning liberterian) and yes, this problem is due to socialist, er, I mean liberal, censorship seeking to take the very possibility of you making the decision to do something that could possibly damage yourself. Just look at the lawsuits against tobacco and gun manufacturers. Beer and junk food is next. (a high fat tax has allready been proposed. Isn't this discrimination against those of us with high metabolism that some people just can't put the DAMN TWINKIES DOWN?) I can see a future where gestapo MPAA agents make sure you don't have any material objectionable to tiny factions of the population... but that's on the other side of the fence. Hey, I probably won't be on this talkback for a long time, so if you wanna respond, send it to me. *****BTW, where's the film preservation societies and artist's guilds while this is happening?

  • June 23, 2000, 1:42 a.m. CST

    Is Harry "Singin' in the Rain" or is Michael Eisner Pissing on t

    by Bari Umenema

    Maybe it's Old Walt Himself, Rapidly Melting in his Cryogenic Chamber at DisneyWorld! Legend has it he's frozen there, must be spinning like a top over this Talkback!! Touche Boys Touche!!!

  • June 23, 2000, 2:12 a.m. CST

    It has been going on for a while now......

    by SeaBass2k

    Who remembers the cartoon where an elephant gets stuck sitting on an egg by a really lazy bird and he ends up hatching it? Come on, raise your hands, it was a good one. Anyway, I remember seeing it so many times when I was younger, but tell me if this sounds familiar. It is the scene where the elephant is sitting on the egg while riding on the deck of a boat. In the sea a fish sees all of this and looks into the camera and says, "Now I have seen everything." He then whips out a gun and shoots himself. I hope this sounds familiar to someone because about three years ago I saw this same cartoon and when it came to the scene, the fish says his line but then it cuts to the next scene. He doesn't shoot himself anymore. I remember it being funny because a fish whipping out a pistol and shooting himself was so ridiculous that it was very funny. Maybe I am just crazy and it never happened, who can tell these days.

  • June 23, 2000, 2:43 a.m. CST

    Re: SeaBass-Yeah, I remember . . .

    by Lord Shell

    . . . but don't expect to see ANY cartoons with scenes of suicide in them (and warner bros. had quite a few) in the future. All of the classic Warner toons with characters whipping out pistols and shooting themselves have been edited. Even the ones where the character gets back up and continues on their merry way. It's now OFFICIALLY a taboo subject for the censor gods. ("An elephant's faithful . . . one hundred percent!")

  • June 23, 2000, 3:20 a.m. CST

    LIKE THIS IS NEW????????

    by tensticks

    Doesn't anyone else know that this is hardly the first time Disney has altered their classics? FANTASIA was bastardised in all post-80's releases and SONG OF THE SOUTH remians to even be released due to "heavily politically incorrect" content. (it is on laser in Japan however.) I'm sure there is a network for those who want the UNbastardised forms to get them...but yes, DISNEY is THE MOST UNSCRUPULOUS COMPANY IN THE WORLD, a fact made all themore chilling by their family oriented veneer.

  • June 23, 2000, 3:44 a.m. CST

    Give Kids More Credit!

    by BluishSubstance

    Jesus, people. I think what offends me more than anything else about this little Disney Censorship fiasco is not the fact that Disney is being evil enough to censor old movies, but that everyone thinks kids are stupid enough that such censorship is needed. A lot of your posts imply that you think kids are stupid, too. Well, they're not. I was just a little bitty thing when the movie "Glory" came out, eight or nine years old, and my dad took me to see it. Dear Lord, I was traumatized. When those poor soldiers all keeled over like ninepins at the end of the film, I just broke down and cried and cried and cried. Dad was horrified. He'd had no idea I'd be that affected, or that everyone in the film would end up splattering all over the landscape (dumb of him, I suppose. What was he expecting?). For a long time after we left the theater, I thought about what I had seen. I thought about death, and slavery, and racism, which I'd never really figured existed, before. I thought about a lot of stuff, and most of it was confusing, and most of it was sad, but still. I thought about it. When Bambi's mom died in the Disney film, I was traumatized then, too, first time I saw it (in the theaters). Death, again. Guns. Life. Family. Growing up. Respect for life. I thought about Very Deep Things. Movies are a strange medium. At the same time both shallow and complex. My parents never censored anything I watched or read, and as a result I saw some very disturbing and politically incorrect stuff. It was my choice, even though I was just a little kid. I refused to watch "Little Monsters" with Fred Savage because the monsters in the movie looked scary. I watched "Mad Max and the Thunderdome" instead, and ended up just as freaked out. Where is this mini-diatribe headed? Basically, children are not stupid. I learned a lot of stuff from potentially destructive material when I was young. I didn't learn that smoking was cool, or guns were cool, or death and killing was cool. The thought never even occured to me that they were. I learned other things from films, like death and depth and responsibility and family and friendship, and how to know a stupid, badly plotted and shallow movie from an excellent one. And I was just a kid when I did it, too. Kids just aren't that dumb. They deserve more respect than that. Kids don't deserve to be talked down to, or sheltered. Sheltered kids generally end up being oblivious and not giving a damn about other people, or even realizing other people are hurting in the real world. Kids should be allowed to see uncensored material, and they deserve parents who will then talk to them about what they have seen on the screen. They can handle it. They can make up their own minds about things, about how to live their lives, about what is right or wrong. Don't make Disney do your job for you. Kids just aren't that dumb, they deserve better than being led with blinders. Give them the freedom to live a life of choices, and the wisdom to choose wisely. They can do it, I'm sure. *You* weren't that stupid when *you* were little. And if you were, then I don't feel any pity for you. Sheep deserve to be herded.

  • June 23, 2000, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Vote Independent!

    by monkeyboylives

    This entire debate is very telling and helpful for viewing American society. More and more young people are turning to libertarianism and this discussion illustrates why quite clearly. As many have said: this isn't a liberal or conservative issue (although the left, wielding far more power through the media do bear a lion's share of the responsibility). Show a guy smoking...liberals want to ban it. Show a guy fucking...conservatives want to ban it. Show a woman in an unflattering light...liberals want to ban it. Show a priest in an unflattering light...conservatives want to ban it. Show two guys kissing...conservatives want to ban it. DON'T show two guys kissing...liberals want to sue you. We can stop this. We can own this country again. We can return to a time when citizens took responsibility for their own choices and, furthermore, were actually GIVEN choices... Vote Independent!

  • June 23, 2000, 5:36 a.m. CST

    and the inmates are running the asylum

    by ol' painless

    You want to give your kids to have the best possible chances in life? Be there for them when they have the important questions ready to ask, make sure that they know you are available at ALL times to answer these questions, don't shield them from the hard facts of life, it's futile and ultimately self-defeating for both of you, stop being such a priss, stop using popular culture as a babysitter, arm your child with the abilty to analyse and challenge established status quo's. A lot of parents these days still want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to carry on the good times before the baby arrived on the scene, to retain all their freedoms. Wrong. When you bring a baby into the world, your life has changed forever. All of your energies have to be devoted to giving the best of yourself to them. If you find that too much hard work, then too bad. You have no choice in the matter. Or you can behave like the 16-year-od mothers who live in the housing estate near me: tottering about in expensive heels and clothes, pushing pram in one hand, talking on cell phone and holding cigarette in the other, living with their also-single mother, spending all their benefit on getting pissed on the weekend, and trying to pull every good-looking 17-year old boy they can. No wonder their toddlers in the pram looks bewildered. Sorry if I come off sounding like a grumpy old conservative saying this. Believe it or not, I am not one. But when you see what I see every damn day, you'd feel a little bitter too.

  • June 23, 2000, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Akito American

    by Gelnika

    What do you expect? This is Disney, a corporation that has perpetuated the light and soulless conception of animation in America for generations. Iron Giant was so beautiful, but no one saw it. Mononoke Hime was so beautiful, but no one saw it. (I know that Miramax is Disney) Too bad it wasn't good enough for a wide release. After all, nothing's as good as Pokemon. Thing is, anime is finally going mainstream due to the pocket monsters. Yet, it is but light and soulless. It's cut. Execs are scrambling to cash in on Pokemon's popularity. FOX has scored some good ones and done a tremendous job, tough. Still, anime won't be accepted. Mom and Pop American won't stand for half-naked school girls and giant robots. They'll let Little Johnny American have his Pikachu, but older brother Akito American must continue to watch Martian Successor Nadesico in secret, 'cause it's a godless Chinese cartoon. Sigh. At least, Cartoon Network's soul is in this. They're not in it for the money. They're in it for the animation. I'm praying for Disney's Atlantis, only because Claudia Christian voices a chara, but if you're looking for something more than a banal kiddy show, watch Wings of Honneamise or Vampire Hunter D.

  • June 23, 2000, 11:55 a.m. CST

    1940's Bugs Bunny Cartoons

    by ClamDigger

    The cutting of classics has been going on for ages. Try and find the old Bugs Bunny "history" cartoon where Manhatan Island was sold for a song. "Me rich chief. Me rich Super Chief." When was the last time you saw the traditional ending of a WB cartoon - with the gun to the head and a suicide? Luckily, WB released a number of the WWII era Bugs and Daffy cartoons on video. They did it the right way, uncut and with an introduction by noted film critic Leonard Maltin. Before each skit or group of skits, Maltin described cultural aspects of the cartoon to look for - food stamps, rationing, racial artwork, etc. I don't see why Disney couldn't use their cartoons to a similar effect. Before Pocohontas, Ken Burns could mention that she was actually only a young tean ager, went to England instead of staying behind, and died shortly thereafter. Aladin could be re edited with the song the way it was in the theaters/on the CD, but with an introduction about stereotyping. Harlan Ellison could even introduce the Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, or any number of the Disney films with his typical commentary that Disney did not create these characters, although they are now taking credit for them. The Mouse could learn a lot from Leonard Maltin's video and Harlan's commentary.

  • June 23, 2000, 1:14 p.m. CST


    by Lord Shell

    Before I go into my rant, a word to ClamDigger: the odds of Disney hiring Harlan Ellison to do ANYTHING are about the odds of Clinton becoming a monk. Haven't you heard the Disney/Ellison story? The funny part is, it's true. Hee hee. Check out Urban Legends Reference Page. Funny stuff.***************************************************************Anyway, I went to the Joe Kubert School of Comic Art and Animation, and my friends and I were constantly having the same kind of discussion that's going on here. We were mostly discussing Marvel and it's shitty marketing choices, but it's still basically about "Corporate Responsibility" vs. "Artistic Freedom". It boiled down to this: Yes, the corporate types do tend to completely fuck up creativity, since almost without fail, they have all the artistic sense of a cinder block. Some of Disney's and Marvel's marketing choices can show this CLEARLY. Now, on the other hand, Disney (and Marvel, DC, etc.) are all, in fact, BUSINESSES. This means that they have a responsibility to the stockholders to show a profit, or they're out on their asses. Here's where the Catch-22 problem comes into play: Neither side really understands the other. In other words the artist/writer can't understand why the 'corporate hack' wants to have five more titles with Wolverine in them and put gold foil covers on them just because he's the best-selling character. Meanwhile, the corporate can't understand why the 'long-haired scribbler' wants to kill off Wolverine (not that he's likely to stay dead) because it would give a dramatic impetus to the present storyline. They're both speaking, and neither side can understand a word the other says. All the corporate knows is it's his JOB to make profits. Wolverine profitable. So MORE Wolverine must be MORE profitable. He doesn't understand that it's not just a matter of more=better. If it's not well written/drawn, then eventually the sales will sag REGARDLESS of what character you're using. The artist can't understand that the character they're using is LICENSED, and he simply won't have the kind of freedom to use it that he may like. Artists and Corporates are oil and water. No mixing is really possible, unfortunately. So while I may be disgusted with Disney's retroactive censorship, they do, in fact OWN the product they're censoring. They can do whatever they want with their own property. If you don't like it, tough shit. That's the dichotomy of artistic businesses.

  • June 23, 2000, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Not to nitpick but . . .

    by Zymblx

    I believe that Pixar and Disney have more than just a deal, Disney owns a small stake 5 or 10 % with an option to buy up to 25% of the company. While this won't require an extension of the deal, it would be interesting for Disney to continue to profit even if Piar were to join up with FOX, Dreamworks, etc. Besides Buzz, Woody, Hopper, Flick, etc etc will be a joint property of Disney and Pixar and if Pixar should ever leave the alliance - Disney could refuse for them to be used ever again. Just a note on the violence - Warner Bros has been hacking Lonney Tunes for years. Its wrong no matter who does it, but this is not just a Disney problem. When was the last time you saw Coal Black and de Seben Dwarfs??

  • June 23, 2000, 3:44 p.m. CST

    It's all crap.

    by Sobewankinobi

    I just love it that they say Cartoons influence kids yet look at Japanese television, 50% is animated, boobs, death, tenticle monsters with women ridding them and do you see the kids going out and trying to Ryu Ken a toyota forerunner, no. Be a parent and explain to your kids. This society wants everyone to sanitize everything, V chip, what ever and it's crap.

  • June 23, 2000, 6:49 p.m. CST

    Walther, artists rights.

    by MrMastodonFarm

    Its the Visual Artists Rights Act from 1990. You can get more information from the National Endowment For the Arts here: I hope that answers your question. Thanks, I should have thought about posting the act before so it wasn't an unsubstantiated statement. I think because the cartoons are copyrighted by Disney and not by the artists who drew them, this doesn't apply to those. Which is kind of sad.

  • June 23, 2000, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Today's Disney is Much Worse

    by LStarr3

    Pro-family groups would laugh if you told them that Disney censors cigarettes in old films out of concern for their views. Thre real reason is because Disney has gone politically correct now, just like the rest of Hollywood. Disney held out for a long time. After the cultural revolution of the 60s, it came under attack for Walt's anti-communist congressional testimony and for the company's solid patriotism and family values. But Disney kept being Disney even as society around it grew coarser and uglier. This legacy continued into the 80's - until Michael Eisner. Eisner sold Disney's unique soul and made it just another Hollywood machine, pursuing profits as always but now with totally different values animating it (pun intended). That's why you will never again see a scene like in Snow White, where she falls on her knees and prays to God as a ray of light touches her. Instead you get the open paganism of the Lion King's "Circle of Life". Now children are taught that defying their fathers and running away from their families leads to personal fulfilment, just like in The Little Mermaid. A far cry from Pinnochio. And in a suffocatingly predictable and tiresome bow to PC, all the girls must now be "spunky" and have "attitude", and can fight. The company is riddled with unrepentant and openly practicing homosexuals, whose "unions" it recognizes as on a par with real marriages. I know everyone in today's Hollywood thinks that's fine, but we would have all been revolted a few years back. Today's unthinkable perversion (adult incest, polygamy?) becomes tomorrow's fashionable cause pushed by Hollywood and the next day's enforced reigning orthodoxy (for example I wonder if Harry will consider this "hate speech" and censor/kick me, and will he kick anti-polygamists 10 years from now). Disney is helping our cultural decay. Walt would have been appalled; the exact opposite of his vision. And the live-action fare? The movie "Kids" has as its new-age heroes a bunch of sewer mouthed, cruel, nihilistic, promiscuous children. It's bad that anyone is doing these things, but heartbreaking that it's Disney. Not everything Disney does is that horrible of course, but even its best stuff is tainted now; a wonderful name we could trust is gone forever. I can't even begin to scratch the surface, so read Disney: The Mouse Betrayed by Peter and Rochelle Schweitzer. It'll open your eyes.

  • June 24, 2000, 12:03 a.m. CST

    Today's Disney is Much Worse

    by LStarr3

    Pro-family groups would laugh if you told them that Disney censors cigarettes in old films out of concern for their views. Thre real reason is because Disney has gone politically correct now, just like the rest of Hollywood. Disney held out for a long time. After the cultural revolution of the 60s, it came under attack for Walt's anti-communist congressional testimony and for the company's solid patriotism and family values. But Disney kept being Disney even as society around it grew coarser and uglier. This legacy continued into the 80's - until Michael Eisner. Eisner sold Disney's unique soul and made it just another Hollywood machine, pursuing profits as always but now with totally different values animating it (pun intended). That's why you will never again see a scene like in Snow White, where she falls on her knees and prays to God as a ray of light touches her. Instead you get the open paganism of the Lion King's "Circle of Life". Now children are taught that defying their fathers and running away from their families leads to personal fulfilment, just like in The Little Mermaid. A far cry from Pinnochio. And in a suffocatingly predictable and tiresome bow to PC, all the girls must now be "spunky" and have "attitude", and can fight. The company is riddled with unrepentant and openly practicing homosexuals, whose "unions" it recognizes as on a par with real marriages. I know everyone in today's Hollywood thinks that's fine, but we would have all been revolted a few years back. Today's unthinkable perversion (adult incest, polygamy?) becomes tomorrow's fashionable cause pushed by Hollywood and the next day's enforced reigning orthodoxy (for example I wonder if Harry will consider this "hate speech" and censor/kick me, and will he kick anti-polygamists 10 years from now). Disney is helping our cultural decay. Walt would have been appalled; the exact opposite of his vision. And the live-action fare? The movie "Kids" has as its new-age heroes a bunch of sewer mouthed, cruel, nihilistic, promiscuous children. It's bad that anyone is doing these things, but heartbreaking that it's Disney. Not everything Disney does is that horrible of course, but even its best stuff is tainted now; a wonderful name we could trust is gone forever. I can't even begin to scratch the surface, so read Disney: The Mouse Betrayed by Peter and Rochelle Schweitzer. It'll open your eyes.

  • June 24, 2000, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Disney Needs to look no further than ANIME!

    by Haruka

    Hey the Japanese seem to come up with fresh story conceps all the time!! Maybe Disney needs to make more deals like the Miyazaki one (for Kiki, Mononoke) etc.. If people were more accepting of that type of animation maybe it could raise Disney to a new level (and of course make them more money) but there are many films that they could get if running out of ideas is plaguing them.

  • June 24, 2000, 2:17 a.m. CST


    by Artobot

    Seriously. If Walt was alive today he would have probably died again of shock after seing what a pussy whipped baby foo foo his mighty establishment has become! I am currently attending college for animation and I'll say one thing, Although I'd love a job at disney, it's probably not going to be at the top of my list. I don't know what all the damn "adults" f@#$*%g! problems are with cartoons. I watched any and every cartoon (smoking, violence, drinking, ect.) when I was a kid and I turned out great. I don't drink, do drugs or shoot people. I certainly wasn't as bad as kids now days are when I was there age. Influence shinfluence...cry me a river. The only thing cartoons influenced me to do when I was young was to buy toys. I don't think there is a cartoon out today that would make me even consider buying one of their shitty toys.

  • June 24, 2000, 2:22 a.m. CST

    Oh, what a tangled web . . .

    by Winston Smith

    Up until a few centuries ago children were exposed to all from bloody death to their parents engaged in sex to the truth of life that one must kill or be killed. I am thankful that we now live in some semblence of a peaceful world. (Well, here in North America and in Western Europe, at least) However, this "peace" is owed entirely to people who grew up watching the classic Disney, smoke, racism, and all. The only form rampant sociopathicity that has occurred exists in the delusional minds of American PC warriors. This censorship is embraced by parents the world over because, and this is a shocker, we are all LAZY PARENTS. In fact, we are lazy people. The only way you can get us to do anything is if there happens to be financial gain in the matter. Or loss. No one stands for truth or beauty in America, only the coin. This is the message our children are taught to embrace. And it's okay, because that's what we want. So, when your whore of a daughter is smashed up inside her silver BMW because no one could possibly harm such a beautiful little whore and the truths of life don't apply to her, be consoled in the fact that she never knew that there was a point in our history when people treated each other and themselves like crap. Remember, folks, from the start Disney has destroyed our folklore. In the original fairy tales people actually died, gruesomely. But people don't die or drink or smoke or hate anymore, do they? We need not tell our children of these things, for they'll never experience them. Take Tartuffe's advice. So when my child asks why these people are having sex or drinking or smoking, I'll say, that's what people do, and that's what you will do. But in the end, my child, know thyself. You are all that matters in the world.

  • June 24, 2000, 3:15 a.m. CST

    Re: LStarr

    by Lord Shell

    You know, I usually don't like to respond to people's views with argumentative name calling but I'll make an exception in your case. Why don't you take your right-wing narrow-minded 'morals' and jam them up your (clearly WAY too clenched) ass. One of the few things I think Disney has done RIGHT in the last few years was to tell you 'moral' bible thumpers to kiss their collective asses. Now, don't you have some books and rock albums you need to burn?

  • June 24, 2000, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Inside scoop

    by knowledge

    Taking out the cigarettes thing started when Roy and his wife decided to stop smoking. What was that famous quote of Walts, about Roy Jr.? "Song of the South" is sold on VHS in the Disney Stores around the world, although at this time they are sold out. I bought my VHS at the London store, a couple of years ago, and am waiting for them to put out the DVD there. At the end of the year we should be seeing major changes in the top brass at Disney- with names like Michael, and Peter.

  • June 24, 2000, 12:07 p.m. CST

    Disney Present's "1984" in glorious technicolor

    by Ulysses2099

    Two Things: (1)Disney has basically made the same movie over and over for the last few fifty years. So, I'm not sure why anyone picks now as a time to say that Disney is running out of ideas. They only had one or two to begin with as far as there feature films go. (2) It is trully sad and kinda scary that Disney is revising these old "unP.C." cartoons, kinda makes me think of a little book written by a certain Mr. G.Orwell

  • June 24, 2000, 7:29 p.m. CST

    jonny quest, your tb was an incorrect waste of time.

    by baff

    u say that if disney made bambi today the mother would never of died? baloney!! do u remember lion king? simba's father was killed just as bambis mother was and that was only 6 years ago!! his death was more cruel in fact. mufasa was killed by a member of the family that simba trusted, bambi's mother was killed by the big bad hunter that everyone knows is wrong. and bambis mother being killed was not the finale, jonny quest (if that IS your real name, which i sincerely think it ISN'T!!). bambi ended happily with a whole circle of life kinda thing (bambi had a baby...well fauline had the baby. whatever). sorry jonny, but i really hate these talkbacks who are trying to build a case on things that they assume is true or even pretend to be true. this kindof bringing in eveidence that youve tweaked with or do not even understand makes an argument more confusing than it needs to be. more destructive than constructive and happns WAY to much in talkback. i dont know what to believe and what not to. ANYWAY, noone is wrong in this argument. this little event just shows to anyone who doubted it, which market disney truly holds more significant. animation fans or children and families. it is obvious which audience they are going for. it is sad for us amimation fans to see them take the time to use so much beautiful animation on material unworthy and to see a studio that used to be about the artform (though still quite a bit about kids) turn all its focus on children after they saw the benefits of appealing to a kid audience. now when it comes to marketing this film back from the time of walt disney and animation classics from a classic era, there is a clash of the old disney and the new. the sad thing is that who gets to decide is the old disney. i could write all day about disney but i wont. a brilliant argument going on. i hope this is a worthy contribution... OH, and before i go, I WANT A PLACE TO TALK ABOUT FANTASIA 2000!!! PLEASE HARRY, SET UP A TALK BACK AREA FOR IT OR AT LEAST POST YOUR REVIEW THAT I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR FOR SO LONG. I ABSOLUTELY LOVED FANTASIA 2000, AND WANT TO TALK TO ABOUT TO OTHER PEOPLE THAT REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS SO GREAT!!!! POST YOUR REVIEW HARRY, PLEASE!!! baff

  • June 25, 2000, 1:02 a.m. CST

    Song of the South, a word to knowledge

    by TheTick

    Correct me (and I know you all will) if I'm worng...but Song of the South has never been released on video (with exception of songs from it on those freakin sing along videos). Originally I beleive it had to do with possible complications with the NAACP and the depiction of slaves. But now a days the NAACP doesn't doesn't mind but Disney still doesn't have plans on releaseing it.

  • June 25, 2000, 2:25 p.m. CST

    parenting and ART

    by SAVOIR_faire

    are two different subjects. If there is art you dont want your children to see, then dont buy it for them. Simple. However leave art be. It was created. It exists. Stop using art as a scapegoat for the real ills of society, and PREPARE YOUR CHILDREN FOR THE REAL WORLD!...You knew about the world before you decided to procreate, so don't complain now.

  • July 7, 2000, 2:42 a.m. CST

    Response to some idiot whose name I forgot

    by Spastic Retard

    > Of course. It is a well-known phenomenon that rebutting > confusion and error requires more verbiage than the error > being rebutted. Anyone ever tell you that you come off as pretentious? It may just be me. I'm simply curious. > If it's the length of my rebuttal that's preventing you > from admitting your error, There was no error to admit. > allow me to help you get a > handle on the central point. Are you offering to jerk me off? > > I do not think, have never thought, and certainly did not > > state or imply in last week's TalkBack that Disney should > > remove these films from circulation or distribute only > > cleaned-up versions of them. > > How's that for short and sweet? It's alright, I guess. My only reply is that, when a "cleaned-up" version emerges, the "dirty" version tends to (IE - ALWAYS) "disappear." The cartoon should be left as it was. We cannot "erase" past mistakes, we can only learn from them. > Your options at this point: You'd make a mighty fine dictator. > (1) Try to show how what I wrote above contradicts > what I wrote earlier on TalkBack. I have no idea what you wrote "earlier" on TalkBack. I only know the posting I responded to. I do not pay much attention to 70% of the drivel spewed out here. > (2) Try to show how what I wrote above doesn't > address the arguments you directed against my > position as you understand it. I feel that I accomplished that. > (3) Ignore this post. Is this a post? Now I have to go back and try and respond to this as a POST? I sent you an email, ya dumb bastard. > (4) Write some wisecracks. How about all 4? > If you won't or can't attempt (1) or (2), I hope you > at least go for (4). You could at least make an effort > to be entertaining. If you want entertaining, visit my site: "Where EVERYONE is normal, because NOBODY censors films!" > P.S. FWIW, I'm not usually such a wiseass; for some > reason you seem to bring it out in me. :-) ThanXXX. You make me proud. Like a parent, just with more brains. Love, me

  • July 28, 2000, 2:37 p.m. CST

    A Public Service Announcement...

    by PonsonbyBritt

    Unfortunately, the "Melody Time" video had already been shipped before the good folks at Disney realized that the following disclaimer regarding Pecos Bill had been accidentally omitted: "Remember to ALWAYS wear a safety helmet before butting heads with the buffalo!"...