DVDizzy Forum

Loomis - if intellectual property was being protected by the courts no file sharing would have been allowed. It is hard for me to believe they would allow mass "sharing" in one format but not another. Personally, I was against the ruling, but I think they have opened up everything.

awallaceunc wrote:This might be addressing a bigger issue, but IF this were to be released, what kind of release do you think it would get?

My guess is that if it were to be released it would be in the form of a Walt Disney Treasures release. I don't know about special features, but it would more than likely include some sort of introduction or featurette aimed at putting the film into "correct historical perspective."

catNC wrote:it is a shame that Disney is too afraid (it's the best explanation I can think of) to release it.

It's exactly the explanation. Disney is supposed to be the forerunner in family entertainment, so how can it possibly allow the wide release of something "offensive"? By pretending the film doesn't exist, Disney has really made themselves look worse in my eyes.

A Treasure set would be cool. I was being bored and made this:<BR> <img src=http://img3.photobucket.com/albums/v13/ ... ou/TRS.jpg> <BR>Yea I know its crappy(i made it smaller because it looked a lot faker big) just thought itd be a cool concept though. I can see it now, the main goodie of it would of course be Song of the South but then the rest of the special features would probably include some radio spots, and a featurette based on Splash Mountain and some small stuff on The Country Bear Jamboree and any other "critter"-related videos. And of course thered be that historical perspective intro.

Udvarnoky wrote:

awallaceunc wrote:This might be addressing a bigger issue, but IF this were to be released, what kind of release do you think it would get?

My guess is that if it were to be released it would be in the form of a Walt Disney Treasures release. I don't know about special features, but it would more than likely include some sort of introduction or featurette aimed at putting the film into "correct historical perspective."

There's nothing about having an introduction or featurette to put the film into "correct historical perspective". I really don't see what the problem is.

As a side-note, there's lots of films which could benefit from such supplements, but don't get one. It's not just about being "PC"; it's about describing the society of the time and what the audience wanted and or expected.

For example, there's been three films made of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the first half of the century - coincidently each was made about 10 years apart (1921, 1932 and 1941 I think) and each was dramatically different from the other. It would be facinating to hear more on how changing attitudes, expectations and desires influenced each film.

Including stuff like that in documentaries and bonus features and even commentary on the disc is great. The problem is if they decide tack on some sort of PSA or warning at the beginning of the film itself when you hit play, that might as well say "We're sorry for what you are about to see *wince*. Please don't get mad!"

I don't think SOTS will be released on a Treasures set. If they're going to risk releasing it, they are going to make a stronger profit off of it than that.

-Aaron

2099net wrote:There's nothing about having an introduction or featurette to put the film into "correct historical perspective". I really don't see what the problem is.

There is no problem if it's done correctly, and I've been pleased with past efforts. But I fear that Disney may do something incredibly stupid with Song of the South in particular. Perhaps such a fear is completely irrational.

JimmyJackJunior wrote:Loomis - if intellectual property was being protected by the courts no file sharing would have been allowed. It is hard for me to believe they would allow mass "sharing" in one format but not another. Personally, I was against the ruling, but I think they have opened up everything.

Yeah, I'd have to read up more on the case, as I have only a passing familiarity with it.

I'd also have to read the judgment to see if it does open up the "floodgates", but was the the decision allowing mass sharing as a concept (i.e. because most file share software allows you to share all types of files, not just illegal mp3s), or was it specifically saying illegal or no, share away?

If the latter, then yeah - it would open up the floodgates in Canada.

Still, it is hard to escape the fact that in the end, Song of the the South IS someone's property (that they are simply not using), that someone else is trying to make a profit from.