XPost: rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe, rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.disney.animation
XPost: rec.arts.animation
From: YourName@YourISP.com
On 2025-08-11 17:56:36 +0000, Paul S Person said:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:35:49 +1200, Your Name
> wrote:
>> On 2025-08-10 15:48:38 +0000, Paul S Person said:
>>> On 9 Aug 2025 17:34:59 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan )
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> are so smart they don't have to actually know anything>
>>>>
>>>> Of course it's not any better when they do look at the product.
>>>> For instance the snipping of a smoking scene and the black centauress
>>>> from the "restored versions" of "Pecos Bill" & "Fantasia" respectively.
>>>
>>> Censorship. A different problem, but certainly present.
>>>
>>> There appear to be two approaches:
>>> 1. Don't censor, but make it clear that the offensive material is from
>>> an offensive time. And, in some cases of cartoon collections (I have
>>> been told), force the viewer to explicitly select each cartoon -- to
>>> discourage the kiddies, who shouldn't be viewing them anyway.
>>>
>>> 2, Do censor, and pretend nothing happened.
>>>
>>> I believe it was Disney who, in one of its cartoon collections aimed
>>> at a specific decade or so (I am told, I never bought a copy) used a
>>> later version of "The Three Little Pigs" because the Wolf in the one
>>> from that time frame was a Jewish stereotype. Maltin (IIRC, it was
>>> Maltin) had a feature discussing the cartoons, and /he/ showed clips
>>> of the original Wolf, stereotypes and all.
>>>
>>> I have somewhere a clip (not playable using the obvious resources of
>>> Win 11, although something may exist that can play it) of the white
>>> lady unicorn attended by two small black unicorn maids. This was
>>> apparently cut from the re-release which, when I saw it in the
>>> theater, showed me that I had no actual interest in watching that sort
>>> of thing. There truly is no accounting for taste.
>>>
>>> Pecos Bill got off lightly. On a different film's DVD, the entire
>>> Hatfield/McCoy sequence was cut. Or so I read at the time. Whether the
>>> recent re-releases actually /are/ the originals or not is unknown to
>>> me. Disney, of course, cannot be trusted in this matter.
>>>
>>> There are, incidently, entire DVDs of cartoons that are no longer
>>> acceptable in polite society. At least, that is what they claim; I've
>>> never bought one because the quality of 3rd party cartoon disks is
>>> generally deplorable.
>>
>> The same happens with books. Authors like Roald Dahl and Enid
>> Blyton>have had their stories re-edited to remove the "incorrect" bits.
>> :-\
>>
>> Often such stupidity is due to adults looking at kids' videos and
>> books>and seeing something that the kids would never even think.
>
> Which is actually what makes some animated movies so popular: lots of
> stuff the adults catch that sail right over the heads of the kids.
>
> These are mostly cultural references. Thus, the film /Rango/ has a
> character who is straight out of the Man With No Name films, and a
> villain straight out of /Chinatown/. Adults may catch this, if they
> have seen the other films, but small kids probably won't.
> Many many other examples exist. A fairly recent one is the Tad Jones
> films (three so far), the first one of which licensed stuff from Lucas
> because they are very much Indana Jones movies. When I decide a film
> is "aimed at a younger audience", I generally mean that it has no such
> references to keep any adults watching entertained.
I meant the stuff the few loud-mouthed braindead adults insist gets
removed because it offends them, but which kids don't even notice. For
example, in Roald Dalh's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", Augustus
Gloop is described as being fat, but that is not "Politically Correct"
so has been changed in new reprints.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
