This might be addressing a bigger issue, but IF this were to be released, what kind of release do you think it would get? I would just think that with it easily being the most famous permanently vaulted film, and with so much chatter always surrounding it, it could definitely warrant a big-time 2 disc release (providing they can scrounge up enough stuff for special features) with a huge marketing campaign.
OR they could take a safer route, and quietly release a barebones edition and sort of test the waters and hold off for a huge release until HD-DVD.
Then again, they might need a 2nd disc just for the inevitable explanations and analysis by the NAACP, film critics, Eisner, leading members of Congress, surviving civil rights leaders, historians, the Pope, and coy apologies from a whole host of others.
Which do y'all think they'll go with it?
(P.S. I really hope it would include a Splash Mountain feature!)
I know, it's EXTREMELY speculative at this point, but a little fantasizing never hurt anyone.
Hypothetically speaking, could someone get in trouble if he/she did purchase a dvd from this source?
WDW Trips: 1992,1997,2005,2006, 2007, 2008, 2009-10 (Disney's Port Orleans-Riverside), 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018 and 2022.
Disneyland Trips: 2008 (Disneyland Hotel) and 2016
Disney Cruises: 2007, 2010 (Wonder) and 2012 (Dream).
My Disney Movies http://connect.collectorz.com/users/peluche/movies/view
Hypothetically speaking - yes, depending on the laws of your jurisdiction.
I have first hand knowledge of this.
In the late 1990s I had a large collection of wrestling videos illegally bought from two sources. The World Wrestling Federation decided to crack down on this and had the police launch an investigation.
They shut down the operation. They were also in possession of the client list, which included many purchases by me. Not only was I not charged, they never even dropped by for my illegal booty.
So hypothetically yes, but there is just no way the police have enough resources to go after 5,000 purchasers. Just hard to conceive they would.Lots of work, no reward.
Class316 wrote:Who gives a monkey's crap what the NAACP says.
A large segment of the U.S. population does. Disney Co. has gotten enough black eyes recently that the last thing they would want is the threat of a boycott (as has been called for in the past on networks that don't show what the NAACP determines to be a fair ratio of minority programming).
Now personally I don't think the boycotts of this type are anywhere near as effective as the corporations think or as the NAACP claims.
I'm also not saying that I personally care what they say, but it's nice to know that another hurdle might be removed for the release of SOTS. Plus, if the release can be done in such a way that explains the historical concept and saves the film from being censored and edited, then why not do it?
Well, I think that such an explanation should only be given if they think it's necessary. If the NAACP or any one else doesn't ask for it, then I don't think one should be arbitrarily included. It might only serve to make more people talk about it. However, the decades it has spend in the vault are very much part of the film's history at this point, so to not discuss it i a special feauture simply wouldn't be right. I just don't think it should be done apologetically unless someone is really pressuring them for one.
I don't think any "apologetic" statement/discussion should be mentioned at all. It should just be explained that these stories come from a time when society as we know it now was MUCH different.
When I was little, I had a record of several of the Uncle Remus stories from "Song of the South." All I can remember from reading and hearing those stories were the lessons they taught, not that it sounded derogatory towards anyone, except all the characters sounded really southern and uneducated. You didn't have to be black to sound like that. Plenty of white southerners back then sounded like that.
As far as the NAACP goes, I think there are probably plenty of other films that would be worthy of their boycotting efforts that they haven't touched, so really, why should they make a big deal about "Song of the South??"
If a large segment of the population sees something as offensive we have to take a good hard look at it and place ourselves in their shoes and try to see why.
I have watched Song of the South trying to watch it in that vein and I just can not see where the offense is.
Is it campy and dated portrayal of African Americans? Yes, but Mary Poppins is a campy nad dated portrayal of Englsih people. There are lots of movies that are especially from that period that are. We know we are in post Civil War because the book states we are. Were the plantation workers as happy as they are portrayed - very likely not, but either were English chimneysweeps.
In fact I have never seen a single person pont to a black person that objects to the movie.
If the NCAAP objected to the release of Birth of a Nation - I can see that. It is an ugly hateful movie. I would support there position.
If they objected to Song of the South, I would disagree and not support it, but I would still care and respect their position.
Yeah, I've known of several African-American friends of mine whose parents really liked Song of the South when they were young. I, personally, do not think that all of the ideas and statements of the NAACP are representative of the "large segment" of African-Americans. I'm a registered Republican voter, but that doesn't mean that I agree with everything Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly say. I really don't think that all black people could agree with absolutely every stance the NAACP takes. And if they did object to the release of the movie, I would not respect their decision. I would accept it, but definitely not agree with or respect it. Too many of their decisions further alienate the African-Americans from the rest of society.
CAT - but the NCAAP objection does not exist, it was just an urban legend. The urban legend became so large that they began to receive a large number of letters pleading with them to drop their objection.
This forced the NCAAP to issue a press release that they had no position on Song of the South and does not request Disney not to release it.
The NAACP at one point objected to Song of the South, at that point Disney was releasing it on a regular basis.
The NAACP acknowledged "the remarkable artistic merit" of the film when it was first released, but decried "the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship". This according to www.snopes.com
And from Songofthesouth.net
Q. Has Song of the South really been banned?
A. No. This is one of the long-standing myths surrounding this movie. It has been said that the NAACP banned the movie, but that simply isn't true. The NAACP did show their disapproval of the portrayal of African-Americans in the film even when Song of the South was being produced, however there hasn't been any official "banning" going on anywhere. As far as we know, Disney has taken it upon themselves to withhold this movie from the public. Supposedly, the NAACP has no current position on the film.
Now that NAACP has dropped their objection they now wont release it. Must make sense to somebody.
No matter what any association of people say about the film, it is a shame that Disney is too afraid (it's the best explanation I can think of) to release it. Hopefully, like someone said in an earlier post, the sudden notice of the illegal bootlegs of SOTS, perhaps could mean that it might actually get released sometime in the future. I would think SOTS would be an absolute gold mine for Disney.
JimmyJackJunior wrote:If a large segment of the population sees something as offensive we have to take a good hard look at it and place ourselves in their shoes and try to see why.
I have watched Song of the South trying to watch it in that vein and I just can not see where the offense is.
I agree with you on both points, Jimmy.
Some people have said that by depicting blacks in a servile roll, the movie is demeaning to all African-Americans. I am 100% positive that was never the intent. I always found the story to be uplifting -- you have three kids from various backgrounds (two are white, one is black; two are poor, one is rich; two are boys, one is a girl; one is from the city, two from the country) teaming with a gentlemen separated in time by at least two generations. There are two hearts of the story -- one is the amazing animation of Brer Rabbit, and the second is the strong bonds formed by the four human protaganists.
JimmyJackJunior wrote:And just for the record. My bootleg copy will be destroyed the day Disney releases it. At that point I believe I would be morally in the wrong to own it.
What makes it more "leagal" to own it now even though Disney has not released it.
The movie is Disney property, and it is only up to them to release this or not.
If they don't want us to see it, then it is illeagal for us to go out and steal a copy.
Nobody on this website can say that they did not know that it was fake, so we knew that we were buying stolen copyes.
It would be interesting to see if the goverment in America only are after those making a profitt, or everybody that makes these copyes.
There has been people trading bootlegs on this forum, and when you do get a real DVD in turn for a copyed then you are making a profit of it.
Maybee I think this way since I do own it on original VHS tape and do not need a bootleg, but I would sure not like it if I did not have access to it.
Karlsen - I live in Canda. It is perfectly legal for me to own it. In fact as a few week ago as Iunderstand the Supreme Court of Canada decision I can now distribute it as well. So it is more legal for me to own it here.
As for the morals of it, I really have no problem with it either. If Disney feels the market does not exist and does not want to distribute it, and I still want to own it, I believe I should be able to.
I own over 2,000 DVDs/CDs and only about 20 would be considered bootlegs. I am not going around trying to screw the studios and artissts. In fact I do my best to suppport them, but if they dont want my support I still want to own them.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, just my position Karlsen.
I bet most of us here on the forum has that view of it.
In fact it is leagal to both own and make copyes here in Norway as long as you are not making any kind of profit from it.
But when it comes to the morals for us, that has the leagal right, then let me take an example.
You make a large painting and you show it at art galleries. You also make a few copies of it and sell them as posters abroad, many years ago. But then you decide that you don't like the painting anymore, and that you don't want your work to hang around in others homes. You can ofcause don't do anything about the posters that was made abroad many years ago. But what would you think if a lot of people were copying the posters and distributing them in Canada (your country). They don't make money from it, but you do hate the idea that it would be displayd.
Why should we not respect the ones that own some art and don't want it to be shown?
JimmyJackJunior wrote:Karlsen - I live in Canda. It is perfectly legal for me to own it. In fact as a few week ago as Iunderstand the Supreme Court of Canada decision I can now distribute it as well. So it is more legal for me to own it here.
I find it odd and hard to believe that even a Canadian court (who are progressive enough to allow mp3 file sharing) would allow that. As many have pointed out, whether released officially or not, Song of the South is still very much the intellectual property of Disney. Several international treaties protect that (including the Berne Convention and WIPO) - to which Canada is a contracting party. Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention guarantees the rights of the owner in foreign territories:
"(1) Authors shall enjoy, in respect of works for which they are protected under this Convention, in countries of the Union other than the country of origin, the rights which their respective laws do now or may hereafter grant to their nationals, as well as the rights specially granted by this Convention".
International borders do not make a bootleg any less a bootleg, and I believe the law would be against the distribution anywhere.
Still, Canadian law is quite progressive in that area - I just hope it hasn't progressed so far as to make bootlegging and piracy legal. Because no matter how you look at it, all of those Song of the South DVDs are illegal copies of Disney property. Simply because the VHS/laserdisc is OOP, and there is no official DVD is not a LEGAL justification for making a copy.
As I have said before and I'll say it again Disney is stuped not to release this film on VHS and DVD and Maby even BETA just kidding folks don't faint on us !
"I have this tremendous energy. I just loved and love life. I love it today. I never want to die."
~Jayne Meadows Allen~
