estefan wrote:Lazario wrote:People.People.PEOPLE! As far as Disney are concerned, it's dead. Just forget about it. They will never release it. Criterion would never pick it up (not because it's a matter of taste, but because South's only historically relevant quality is its' controversy and that's not enough to warrant them releasing it).
Actually, I think if Criterion did pick it up, it would be a matter similar to what happened with Dogma. Originally, Miramax was going to release it and they found themselves met with all sorts of controversy, so they sold the film
Miramax and/or Disney never pawned off a film to Criterion because Disney didn't want to be associated with it. Criterion are a very high-minded company and have their own set of standards. They consider Kevin Smith to be an important filmmaker (as do godknowshowmanypeople after Clerks was considered one of the most groundbreaking indie films of all-time) and they wanted his film Chasing Amy for the collection. After Dimension/Miramax's Scream (too much of a Hollywood hit to be considered an indie film series which it was at first), I gather more filmmakers would've rather Lionsgate handled their films anyway. But neither Criterion nor Lionsgate ever took a movie into their collections for pity's sake.
With that in mind, I truly don't think Criterion would be interested in Song of the South. I can pretty much assure you a great portion of the people who take them seriously would consider adding Song of the South to their library a case of them lowering their standards. Let's not forget that a very large percentage of black people consider the film to be offensive. There actually is still a very real controversy over this film (just because UD as a whole is okay with the movie doesn't mean a thing offline) and now, the only reason for Criterion to want the film is that it upsets black people. Remarkably shallow.
estefan wrote:I think we can agree that a lot of the controversy stems from the fact that it's a massive corporation like Disney known for family-friendly fare that owns Song of the South. If it was a smaller independent company, nobody would care.
LOL. Well... maybe, if you could scrape off the words "Walt Disney Presents" from the start of the movie, any mention of the company name that may be at the end. Then, remove the animation so people didn't say, "hey... that looks JUST like a Disney movie," the famous Disney cast members (Luana Patten and Bobby Driscoll), and dub over the world-famous Disney songs and music.
Don't kid yourself, the controversy isn't just that Disney own the rights. It's that Disney ever created it, put up the money for it to be made, made it, and slapped their brand name on it in the first place.
The_Iceflash wrote:insulting stereotypes: you mean show them like they actually were back in the time they were depicting? My studying of history of that era has shown that most ex-slaves were illiterate, had their own slang that they used to communicate to one another in a way so that their slave master wouldn't understand what they were saying if they were talking about them. (i.e double meanings for words.) It would have been insulting to not depict them like they were at the time the film takes place.
whitewashing of history and overall ignorance: It's a Disney film first of all, the hardships of the era need not be mentioned. It bore no relevance to the film.
historical inaccuracies? My recent studying of that history has shown that inaccuracies are few.
I'm a huge defender of Pocahontas, so I agree with you that certain historical details aren't important to add to the story. Disney have the right to decide that they want to focus on the internal and personal relationships rather than what really happened on certain days and dates, etc. But the problem with the film anyway is characterization. The behaviors of the characters are not flattering (especially the way they speak and the delirious or loopy expressions on some of their faces). And it just so happens that there were a great deal of black people in America during the film's theatrical engagements and a great deal of them did not like the film or agree with you or most UD'ers here when they say that the film paints a noble portrait of black Americans (at any time in history).
So... the film was kinda just made for white people, wasn't it? Well, people today apparently aren't too keen on movies that are only for one kind of person. Disney should have taken the feelings of black viewers into account but they most certainly did not. Black people for decades since the film was released have sent us the message that they don't appreciate the film. So, if 1940's black audiences weren't happy with the film and there are famous black celebrities today who agree that the film is insulting...
Are you seeing a pattern here? So, most of the arguments for releasing the film on this thread are coming from people who outright refuse to think about what black people would want or even how they've EVER viewed the film. Some people seem to say the controversy is over and it's not a big deal. I consider it a big deal that people are putting their own single wants or the desire of this small community on the internet ahead of groups of other people. And not for a good reason, such as with copyright issues for music on TV shows coming out on DVD, etc. Because in cases like those, the record companies are taking advantage of the people who made the music AS WELL as the fans of the shows.
Goliath is right about one thing, you seem to have come into this thread without knowing how it's been going up to this point. What opinions we've already established so far. As well as not appreciating the absurd exhaustion we all feel from writing and reading this debate TO DEATH! You bring up old wounds when really, you could have read instead and probably gotten farther than you are right now. And without reducing Goliath to doling out the same kind of psychobabble he often accuses me of applying to him and his arguments.
milojthatch wrote:Lazario wrote:I could strangle BwayJ. He just fed the merlinjones. Now he's going to be double-posting for weeks on all the new developments and conspiracy theories we don't care about for this cursed film.
People.People.PEOPLE! As far as Disney are concerned, it's dead. Just forget about it. They will never release it. Criterion would never pick it up (not because it's a matter of taste, but because South's only historically relevant quality is its' controversy and that's not enough to warrant them releasing it).
Let it go...already.
Not necessarily. While I do think it may be a long time, Iger has never said never to it, just not at this time. Maybe the group to convince isn't Disney in this case, but the NAACP. You convince those guys to back it and I bet Disney will have to release it. When you keep in mind that James Baskett was the first African-American to receive an Oscar, even if it was a non-competitive one, I can't see most Black groups turning their backs on such prestigious African-American history as that forever. Give it time.
Besides, Disney is only creating possibly the biggest black market DVD title ever by not releasing it. One good legitimate release and the money will start coming back to them. But, keep in mind the film is already considered public domain in Japan and sooner or later, I'd expect that to happen in the US as well, unless Disney really want to put out the time and money to hold a copy right for a film they don't even want to release. In that case, time to re-write copyright laws. Start writing your senator!
That reply is either completely comical or completely insane. I am
not copping out, given the rocky history between the two of us recently and just how much I deeply disrespect you for the things you've said in the past on UD, by saying I honestly believe it to be the former and not the latter. Were it the latter, I would say the following to you: why the hell would I support the film? Everyone on the entire board knows I'm the #1 opponent against the film being released by Disney in any way, shape, or form. But, since the entire board is wiser than the person you want me to think you are and in all likelihood are not, I'll say this instead:
Iger would say no and never to the film if he had a single braincell in his head. We know Disney would survive the blows from the angry reactions to the film coming out because they - as a corporation - are elitist scum and so are a frightening percentage of Americans (especially in their daydreams where they think voting Republican means the political right'll be giving away free money from a fleet of helicopters and limousines, or that the government will magically become less corrupt and controlling of Americans' rights and civil liberties rather than more). But they don't seem to like this kind of bad press. Don't ask me why (maybe they're still
that worried about the competition from Dreamworks)- they still employ several children on their shows who are annoying stereotypes and if consumers were intelligent enough to care about the highly vacuous nature of over 90% of Disney's last 15 years of content in film and television, the hot air keeping everything they do afloat would suck itself into a black hole and the entire studio would fall flatter than the bigtop after Dumbo's pyramid of pachyderms went down. But again, they just don't like to burn bridges.
I think the NAACP have the right idea (should Mr. Yagoobian be wrong). And for once, I toss Disney a little credit for giving a damn. (But again, you probably know that already- I've said it before. Numerous times.)
Ioz wrote:all of a sudden some people are hypersensitive in the 00s.
Yeeeeaaaaah, right. People became hypersensitive this last decade. That's why we allowed a mass-murdering, egomaniacal madman to stay in office, his equally-heartless administration to run this country into the ground and to the utter brink of destruction, and spit and rub his crotch in our faces every single day of our lives with his (and his entire family's) lax and lazy lifestyle for 8 straight years of him playing golf, his daughters partying like the Hilton sisters, and his wife posing for "sweet and concerned" ads for anything she thought'd make her look good.
I'm sorry but the new millennium has been more
insensitive (characterized by American society's widespread, aggressive apathy, materialism, and selfishness) than ever before, if anything. The hypersensitivity you think you see is nothing more than a front. The people who've screwed everything up for the rest of us have convinced us there is this great battle for the minds (instead of the wallets) of children (and their parents' wallets). As a result, programmed parents scream outrage because they don't have the free time to control everything about children while kids are turning into unfeeling, ticking timebombs. Probably because the parents would rather go online, drink, or talk outrage with each other than listen to what younger people think and feel about their own problems. After all, the problem here is that children are babied too much on the outside and treated like little robots on the inside. Instead of like real people with real developing brains.
Mr. Yagoobian wrote:TheSequelOfDisney wrote:Disney should just grow some balls and release the film.
I fail to see what testicles have to do with it.
Oh, that's what people who want to look tough or anti-P.C. always say. It's an old, highly unoriginal, bit of smacktalk a person uses when they're tired of hearing about something. Not a call to action, as SoD probably wanted it to sound. And coming from a member of UD whom I've noticed is a fan of musicals (and I assume, musical theater), I consider that remark highly hypocritical and laughable.
