Song of the South: Too Offensive to Release on DVD?

[Mouseketodd]

Disney should just grow some balls and release the film.

I fail to see what testicles have to do with it....

Well, much of this discussion has been testy....

These pages and pages of discussion are simply going in endless circles.

[Goliath]

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.

Ouch! That was HARD, man! Game, set, match!

rub his crotch in our faces

That's actual teabaggin'!

I didn't bring this thread back to life.

Neither did I.

I can also do without you and Goliath tag teaming each other. It only encourages that.

WHAT? Lazario and me FINALLY agree on something and you wanna spoil it?

Singing and dancing---yes, they did. And yes, there were some "decent" relationships between slaves and ex-/masters...as decent as decent can be when one party exists with no rights, as property, to be worked for a lifetime with no meaningful compensation to create wealth for another party, subject to brutal physical punishment or watching one's family dismembered for the sake of commerce. Yes, slaves developed their own microculture. They (or their forbears) also had their own culture before they were kidnapped and shipped thousands of miles under the most degrading and inhumane conditions.

If were just dealing with problematic stereotypes, that would be one thing. But the issue is that the film is in no way informed by the overwhelming majority of actual slaves' actual experiences. The situation presented in the film is absolutely idyllic; it could never have been a product of African-American imagination. Lynching is probably an inappropriate subject for a Disney film, but acts of terror and violence perpetrated against the recently-freed were the rule of the day, *not* an exception, and fear of reprisal is the only reason Johnny's grandmother could have had anything resembling a substantial workforce remaining on her plantation...which is why a musical number like "That's What Uncle Remus Said" can only be viewed as a feel-good whitewash (emphasis on the "white") by folks with a solid grounding in the actual historical context. Remus' departure is another telling moment: unless he were traveling by night, sleeping in trees, and had help along the way, odds are he'd never make it Atlanta alive. "It's a Disney movie, it's a fantasy" is no defense, it's everything that's wrong with the presentation---it's almost entirely divorced from the reality of its setting. It's a white fantasy with black folks predominantly serving as set dressing, one that in no way accounts for the brutality or the inhumanity of the actual circumstances at hand.

And to come back to the "problematic stereotypes" you touched upon. Uncle Remus is a subservient 'Uncle Tom' stereotype, one that was already out of style in Hollywood in 1946, when the film came out. This idea that "the film was a product of its time", like so many people on UD seem to hold onto, is just not true. We've had films with African American soldiers fighting alongside white soldiers in WWII; we had a film like Casablanca, where the white hero has a friendship with a black pianist. Now this might seem insignificant now, but such tiny roles changed the way black people were treated in Hollywood. Song of the South is a major throwback to the 1930's. Uncle Remus is an emasculated character. Ever noticed how he only speaks and laughs in a falsetto voice? That's not a coïncidence. White audiences were still very afraid of the idea of a strong, viral black man (they would come after our white women, of course... and who knows, come after us, too, and demand rights....) so they had the character of Remus be this non-threatening old subservient Uncle Tom.

But 99% of UD is white (like me) and not very interested in anything that's critical of their dream-corporation (unlike me), so they don't really care. As long as they can have their dvd's.

[Flanger-Hanger]

But 99% of UD is white (like me) and not very interested in anything that's critical of their dream-corporation (unlike me), so they don't really care. As long as they can have their dvd's.

I'll just state for myself again that I do not argue the reality of the negative feelings of this movie, but I have to believe that the company's efforts to cash in on the property in as many ways as possible (Splash Mountain, merch, music and video excepts, books, foreign releases etc.) is hugely hypocritical when they try to be all nice by saying they won't release it in NA, even when anyone can legally own the first cartoon segment in full on DVD.

[Lazario]

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 do we want a noble portrait or a realistic portrait of them? We talk about how unflattering they appear but are we to sugar-coat how they were as slaves/ex-slaves? We can't have both.

The movie did the wrong thing. That is point BLANK, point one, the only point here that I want you to remember I have said. What do I think the movie should have done? Not gone into production. It would have been better as a series of animated shorts featuring the Br'er characters, then people could take or leave them as they saw fit. So, by now I hope it's crystal clear that there are no two ways about it in my eyes.

Do you really think black people want to see a movie where they are happy to be slaves? Why are you so hesitant to see things from anyone else's point of view? Like I said- this movie seems like it was just made for white people. Which is ridiculous. You can't just make a movie about anything and not consider the feelings of people who watch them. I see this in all genres of film and when I do, I don't take kindly to it. There's realism and then there's Disney. You think they care about history enough to make black people stupid and happy to be, but you also say you don't exactly care about Disney's treatment of it. That they're free to take liberties where they deem fit. Sounds to me like maybe it's you who wants something two ways. I'm fine with it no way at all. As it stands, most consumers who have access to stores and credit cards have access to a computer, high-speed internet, and YouTube. 2 seconds to type and search and then they have the entire film at their fingertips.

I'm well aware of the established opinions. Doesn't mean I have to agree nor does it mean I can't discuss them. I didn't bring this thread back to life. If he doesn't want to get into the discussion he doesn't have to. No one is forced to come into this thread and debate this. His opinions and beliefs aren't the only ones and he (or anyone for that matter) shouldn't treat them like they are and reduce people for having different ones. I can also do without you and Goliath tag teaming each other. It only encourages that.

I won't lie to you, Ice, we were having an issue in another thread (dealing with politics) and you got the better of me. I underestimated you and I think I admitted it. I looked down on you for being something you weren't. Since then, I've remembered to give you more credit. But that above paragraph is so far off the mark, it would be insulting to take you to task for it. You didn't get what I was saying- you're still in Shock Mode from Goliath (and what he said was very shocking, he seems to be having some sort of meltdown / or just going through the motions so much he's cannibalized his original arguments to the bone and all that's left are slivers to jab into people). I'll just correct a few points. I am NOT saying if you would read the former pages that you would agree with someone else. I'm saying you would understand how this discussion has been going. You do not. You do not appreciate how much anger this discussion has brought up (me and Goliath got into it HUGE somewhere around the early 20's, Margos got angry, more members than I can count have abandoned discussion of this altogether). And how much this has been talked to death. You just come in here and start trying to convince us that everyone who says the film is offensive is wrong because You Are Mr. History Man and Your Studying Has Proved this, that, and the other thing. That is insulting to my intelligence, and to the few who have agreed with me. Before you start going defensive, telling me that I am forcing you to agree with anyone... why don't you think about that for a second? I don't think you're showing any respect for the viewpoints that have been discussed before- even though you claim the contrary. If you say you know the established opinions, act like it.

[Goliath]

you're still in Shock Mode from Goliath (and what he said was very shocking, he seems to be having some sort of meltdown / or just going through the motions so much he's cannibalized his original arguments to the bone and all that's left are slivers to jab into people).

What the f--- are you talking about?

Trying to start yet another flame war? When we actually agree? You still have to find something to fight over?

[Mr. Yagoobian]

SotS is not monolithic; it's not all one thing. It's an unfortunately racist presentation. It also tries hard to present an anti-racist stance, in a family-entertainment-palatable, circa-1940s-US kind of way. Which is why I wish the film could be released...it's a subject for some serious explication of 4 centuries worth of American history.

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.

I understood the sense of the original comment; what I didn't understand is why it should be desirable for the studio to do something offensive and alienating to a substantial portion of their customers.

What I don't understand about the follow-up is why one would feel it to necessary or admirable to impugn another's masculinity based on differences of opinion or taste in theatre.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

What I don't understand about the follow-up is why one would feel it to necessary or admirable to impugn another's masculinity based on differences of opinion or taste in theatre.

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering, too. Since that rather nasty and personal comment was directed towards me, I would like to have an answer.

[Lazario]

What I don't understand about the follow-up is why one would feel it to necessary or admirable to impugn another's masculinity based on differences of opinion or taste in theatre.

Actually, masculinity had almost nothing to do with it. I was mostly talking about open-mindedness. "Grow a pair" is something someone says when they want a cheap slam, to end discussion. In my personal experience, there's a great deal of snobbery within the musical / musical-fan community. Call it bad experiences growing up and I'm not being fair to people now - probably true. But it leaves a bad aftertaste in the air of a discussion- someone who professes love for sensitive entertainment being the mouthpiece for an insensitive argument. There is no Disney without the fans- wow, the big D actually decided to think about a few for once.

And as for Disney, Sequel-of... I think the problem is that they do have balls. Too big for their own britches, in fact. They're quick to screw fans of any movie and show in favor of corporate interests. Time and time again. I guess maybe your response was an attempt at finding an alternative to whining? "Why can't Disney be nice to us when we've been so loyal," etc.? Well, I felt like that comment was hardly a slam to Disney the stonefaced machine. But as for me being nasty to you? To quote The Parent Trap: "don't dramatize it."

you're still in Shock Mode from Goliath (and what he said was very shocking, he seems to be having some sort of meltdown / or just going through the motions so much he's cannibalized his original arguments to the bone and all that's left are slivers to jab into people).

What the f--- are you talking about?

Trying to start yet another flame war? When we actually agree? You still have to find something to fight over?

I'd be willing to calm the waters for once and explain things... But your constantly-present bad attitude, set to: Assume the Worst (you should have been flattered that I gave you credit for being shocking in the first place) changes my mind. How ironic you should say something like that last sentence and just look at your surprisingly hostile replies to Iceflash. That is not the reason I spent hours replying to everyone in the past 4-whatever months on this topic. I've been serious about my view and passionate about offering an intelligent alternative opinion to the aggressive majority of internally-thinking people basically telling us we have to let the film be released for a multitude of offensively shallow reasons. This is the kind of thing I've struck out against my whole life- people who, when the ball drops, ask us to think about what they want instead of what might be better for the majority (face it, everyone: people typically don't rent offensive movies to learn something from them, they do it to indulge in them and not to aknowledge what might be wrong).

But your replies... are the kind of thing I'm finding it hard to ignore even when they're not directed at me.

Perhaps this is what sparked me:

I can also do without you and Goliath tag teaming each other. It only encourages that.

WHAT? Lazario and me FINALLY agree on something and you wanna spoil it?

How pretentious can you possibly be?! To preach similar political values as someone who hates conformity and elitism... and you treat me like I'm an outcast and you're one of the cool kids in school; like I'm only worth looking at or paying attention to when I'm, basically, acting like your parrot (I.E.: Iceflash's tag-team comment).

Gee... glad to know I occasionally register on your radar. But I never considered myself your follower.

I just thought I would tell Iceflash that. I should have known you wouldn't be able to resist replying to me now- when I was finally ready to begin ignoring you too.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

And as for Disney, Sequel-of... I think the problem is that they do have balls. Too big for their own britches, in fact. They're quick to screw fans of any movie and show in favor of corporate interests. Time and time again. I guess maybe your response was an attempt at finding an alternative to whining? "Why can't Disney be nice to us when we've been so loyal," etc.? Well, I felt like that comment was hardly a slam to Disney the stonefaced machine. But as for me being nasty to you? To quote The Parent Trap: "don't dramatize it."

Actually, what I meant was that they should actually do something for once that doesn't exactly mean making the most money off of a product. Why do you think Mary Poppins didn't surface on Blu-ray last year when it easily could have? They wanted one more chance for a DVD set in order to make a profit. They'll then have another release on Blu-ray to make even more money (and probably another DVD release, just because they'll know they'll make even more money). And, no, I don't whine. Disney should not constantly think about the dollar signs and do something right for a change. Heck, they're even skimping on the new Bambi release, but they know it'll sell to the average parent who needs a babysitter. They seem to be completely ignoring the fans of the films. Example: getting rid of the Treasures line. That had the potential for at least a few more waves, but they decided to cut it. I don't think Disney has the courage to release something unless they know it'll make money. Otherwise they put an extremely tight release (Fantasia/2000) just to make sure that people get it before it's gone (wow, what a wonderful marketing tactic!). Disney used to be one of the best compaines that produced wonderful DVD sets. Nowadays, if it doesn't have a cute puppy, a shiny fairy or one of the princesses, it gets ignored. At least Walt Disney didn't constantly think about money: he thought of quality. And if it made money, good for them. Today, that's gone completely out the window. I just don't see why they can't release, well, everything. Yes it would take time and money, but isn't Disney the most successful money-makers in the world (and only because they release what makes money)?

And, yes, I believe you were rather nasty. You kind of seem to be nasty to everyone you come in contact with on here. We're not the ones getting warned for all of the trouble caused, in multiple threads, just the past few months. No, you aren't solely to blame, but a lot of your "arguments" do escalate into some rather nasty communications.

If you want to discuss this further, you can email/PM me because I don't really think that this is fully on topic and I would like to keep the boards clear from any unnecessary arguments.

[Lazario]

And as for Disney, Sequel-of... I think the problem is that they do have balls. Too big for their own britches, in fact. They're quick to screw fans of any movie and show in favor of corporate interests. Time and time again. I guess maybe your response was an attempt at finding an alternative to whining? "Why can't Disney be nice to us when we've been so loyal," etc.? Well, I felt like that comment was hardly a slam to Disney the stonefaced machine. But as for me being nasty to you? To quote The Parent Trap: "don't dramatize it."

Actually, what I meant was that they should actually do something for once that doesn't exactly mean making the most money off of a product. Why do you think Mary Poppins didn't surface on Blu-ray last year when it easily could have? They wanted one more chance for a DVD set in order to make a profit. They'll then have another release on Blu-ray to make even more money (and probably another DVD release, just because they'll know they'll make even more money). And, no, I don't whine. Disney should not constantly think about the dollar signs and do something right for a change. Heck, they're even skimping on the new Bambi release, but they know it'll sell to the average parent who needs a babysitter. They seem to be completely ignoring the fans of the films. Example: getting rid of the Treasures line. That had the potential for at least a few more waves, but they decided to cut it. I don't think Disney has the courage to release something unless they know it'll make money. Otherwise they put an extremely tight release (Fantasia/2000) just to make sure that people get it before it's gone (wow, what a wonderful marketing tactic!). Disney used to be one of the best compaines that produced wonderful DVD sets. Nowadays, if it doesn't have a cute puppy, a shiny fairy or one of the princesses, it gets ignored. At least Walt Disney didn't constantly think about money: he thought of quality. And if it made money, good for them. Today, that's gone completely out the window. I just don't see why they can't release, well, everything. Yes it would take time and money, but isn't Disney the most successful money-makers in the world (and only because they release what makes money)?

And, yes, I believe you were rather nasty. You kind of seem to be nasty to everyone you come in contact with on here. We're not the ones getting warned for all of the trouble caused, in multiple threads, just the past few months. No, you aren't solely to blame, but a lot of your "arguments" do escalate into some rather nasty communications.

If you want to discuss this further, you can email/PM me because I don't really think that this is fully on topic and I would like to keep the boards clear from any unnecessary arguments.

Were it any other discussion, I'd be inclined to do that. But I have said previously that I think this discussion is over. So, anything I have to say, I'll say it right here. Especially since you've chosen to be as off-topic as you claim I have been.

I can appreciate the viewpoint of anyone who would be criticizing Disney for their uncaring DVD decisions. So, if you feel I was nasty to you- sorry. But don't go over-the-top.

[merlinjones]

Cool bit I hadn't seen. Salvador Dali in a letter to Walt Disney on the inspirational artistic achievements of "Song of the South":

>>...Dali congratulated his friend on the "extraordinary success" of Uncle Remus in 1946's Song of the South as confirming "the triumph of the combination formula – I have not ceased to imagine things for Destino – it must be the 'miraculous fusion' of living action and cartoon".<<

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 39729.html

[Lazario]

Cool bit I hadn't seen. Salvador Dali in a letter to Walt Disney on the inspirational artistic achievements of "Song of the South":

>>...Dali congratulated his friend on the "extraordinary success" of Uncle Remus in 1946's Song of the South as confirming "the triumph of the combination formula – I have not ceased to imagine things for Destino – it must be the 'miraculous fusion' of living action and cartoon".<<

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 39729.html

Okay, it's officially time to change the title of this thread to: Merlinjones Talks to Himself. Or, "A Conversation Between Merlinjones and Merlinjones."

[Maerj]

Based on most of this conversation, I can't say that I blame him!

My opinion on SOTS:

Release it as D23 Exclusive with extras and warnings and all that sort of thing. Those who want it can have it, if it offends, one need not buy it. They'd probably sell a lot more D23 memberships if they did it that way.

Anyway, that would be the best way for the company to appease the fans who have been clamoring for this while avoiding the confrontation from those who don't. As its their most requested title, I think they would move a good amount of copies, especially if it was limited edition.

[Goliath]

Perhaps this is what sparked me:

WHAT? Lazario and me FINALLY agree on something and you wanna spoil it?

How pretentious can you possibly be?! To preach similar political values as someone who hates conformity and elitism... and you treat me like I'm an outcast and you're one of the cool kids in school; like I'm only worth looking at or paying attention to when I'm, basically, acting like your parrot (I.E.: Iceflash's tag-team comment).

Er... exactly *where* did I "treat you like an outcast" and did I present myself as "one of the cool kids in school"? I'm not seeing it. Seriously, where did I do that? Anybody else want to point it out to me? To quote The Parent Trap: "don't dramatize it." I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment. You know, to relieve the tension? Poking fun at the fact that we almost never agree...? No? You didn't catch that?

Why do you want to make every discussion about me, personally? I'd like to know.

[merlinjones]

Maerg says of "Song of the South:

>>Release it as D23 Exclusive with extras and warnings and all that sort of thing. Those who want it can have it, if it offends, one need not buy it. They'd probably sell a lot more D23 memberships if they did it that way. Anyway, that would be the best way for the company to appease the fans who have been clamoring for this while avoiding the confrontation from those who don't. As its their most requested title, I think they would move a good amount of copies, especially if it was limited edition.<<

That's a reasonable option - - and make the DVD/Blu-Ray available to anyone who attends he D23 Expo as well - - and perhaps add the Disney Movie Club and Disney Movie Rewards Club too.

I still think a region free double format international addition that could be readily imported (see Dumbo) would also work.

I wouldn't make it a limited edition in any event - - why limit sales potential for such a major and popular title? There would be a lot of money for Disney in allowing resellers to stock and restock for awhile, given the open-ended demand from the general public for this title.

[Super Aurora]

Er... exactly *where* did I "treat you like an outcast" and did I present myself as "one of the cool kids in school"? I'm not seeing it. Seriously, where did I do that? Anybody else want to point it out to me? To quote The Parent Trap: "don't dramatize it." I was making a tongue-in-cheek comment. You know, to relieve the tension? Poking fun at the fact that we almost never agree...? No? You didn't catch that?

Why do you want to make every discussion about me, personally? I'd like to know.

This is coming from the same guy that thinks I have a fetish obsession on fat people for some apparent reason that I, myself, cannot even figure out.

[Lazario]

This is coming from the same guy that thinks I have a fetish obsession on fat people for some apparent reason that I, myself, cannot even figure out.

I just think it's amusing in an absurd way that you make repeated references to the humor of people being overweight. No one else notices it but I have.

We talked about this before, I see you remember that. But remember, you posted that pic about "How to Spot a Rich Guy" twice? That's where this came from. You forgot (or so you say ) that you posted it twice. Then, you made yet another reference to overweight people soon after.

Any inferences I made that it's a fetish of yours was purely a joke. It's a staple of your comedy routine; a theme that keeps coming back.

Why do you want to make every discussion about me, personally? I'd like to know.

In any discussion with you, things between us are always very one-sided. I'm completely free to agree with you, to check out your recommendations, and to think you have an excellent point. You very rarely give me the same courtesy. Ever. Rather, in fact, you only seem to even pay attention to me when I'm talking about something you're interested in. And even that subsects within a given subjective discussion (especially on music or movies) until you've found a place to cut me off before I've made a real point. You flat-out stop trying to listen. And yet, you kinda expect me to care about what you're saying.

Guess I still have unresolved issues with you. I don't like to walk away from a problem until there is an understanding, while you're perfectly happy to insinuate I'm not classy or that I don't know anything about music. With little follow-up input from you, what am I supposed to think? Too often, you come off like a snob who judges based on appearences. And that's not the kind of person I tend to ignore.

[merlinjones]

One poster remarked: >>And to come back to the "problematic stereotypes" you touched upon. Uncle Remus is a subservient 'Uncle Tom' stereotype, one that was already out of style in Hollywood in 1946, when the film came out.<<

Untrue. James Baskett's characterization and performance of Uncle Remus is quite naturalistic, layered, gentle and subtle for the era -- in direct contrast to the many truly racist "Stepanfetchit" and "Uncle Tom" caricatured "minstrel show" stereotypes still found at the time. In fact, one might say Baskett's portrayal of Uncle Remus is rather progressive for 1946, which undoubetdly accounts for the special Oscar awarded to him for the role (...and surely the Academy as judges in the matter would have been considered a progressive organization for the time).

On screen, Baskett's Uncle Remus is quite moving and sensitive, a wise and wonderful beacon of reassurance, optimism and inspiration who sets a positive course for the other troubled characters in the story (and Johnny in particular). Uncle Remus is, like Mary Poppins and Peter Pan, the embodiment of imagination and the spirit of youth who helps us face a troubled adult world through the power of fable, music and laughter.

One of Walt Disney's most memorable and sentimental screen creations, "Song of the South" seeks to establish a harmonic ideal beyond race, age or class limitations and other petty issues of the real world. Through his tales of Br'er Rabbit and their evergeen morals, Uncle Remus is presented as a healer - - a tribute to the great storytellers of past and future generations -- of all races and cultures.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

I don't think Disney has the <b>sense</b> to release something unless they know it'll make money.

Fixed. Because that's how *business* *works*.

I just don't see why they can't release, well, everything.

Because it's totally unrealistic?

Seriously. The sense of entitlement is overwhelming.

Skimping on <i>Bambi</i>? For one, it hasn't yet appeared. For another, I see meaty new supplements & new technology---that's not skimping---plus a new restoration which promises to put the previous release in the shade. So there's no second disc: so what? The feature runs barely over an hour.

<i>Poppins</i>? What's the problem? It's been released before, it'll be released again. It's a great film, one of Walt's best and most popular. The 45th Anniversary release lost a little form the 40th, & it gained a little. Yes, it was used to promote the stage musical. So? If you want to watch it again and again, you're given the opportunity to buy it. Or not. And you'll be given more than one opportunity. Does that injure you in some way? And unless you've got a secret in at Lowry, I've got no reason to believe the film was ready for a BD release last year---they have yet to put an old restoration out on BD yet, and this is *not* a title with which they'd set that precedent.

The Treasures? Complaining about the Treasures? I'm grateful every time I open one of them up. When I was a kid watching the Wonderful Wonderful World of Disney and reruns of the original Mickey Mouse Club, I never dreamed that as an adult I'd be able to *own* so much of the stuff that had become near and dear to me. They've assembled dozens and dozens and dozens of hours, hundreds of titles, a treasure trove of vintage viewing, the real deal, the stuff that Walt & the studio created that built the Disney legacy, and what's the response? Tepid sales. Limited runs that linger and linger and linger on shelves for years. There are fewer now still available than ever before, of course; this time last year there were another half dozen titles still new on Amazon, but it's still possible to score a brilliant collection like the Rarities *six years* after the fact. And Oswald. *Oswald*. There is no more fascinating story or more pivotal character in the Disney legacy except the Mouse himself, and in the three years since the Oswald collection has been out it's sold *maybe* 5% of what <i>The Princess & the Frog</i> moved in its first week. Heck, half the Legacy collection can still be had, four years later.

All together the home entertainment division has made available a staggering amount of content with amazing breadth spanning decades and decades, and what's the vocal public response? Outrage & complaining, belied by lukewarm reception at market. I *expect* to have to explain to my 4-year-old why she can't have everything she wants every moment she wants and at the moment she wants it; it's just plain wrong to hear that from anyone who might consider themselves an adult.

[merlinjones]

>>All together the home entertainment division has made available a staggering amount of content with amazing breadth spanning decades and decades, and what's the vocal public response? Outrage & complaining, belied by lukewarm reception at market.<<

Fact: All the titles in the last several waves of Walt Disney Treasures sold out entirely, and that's without any marketing toward or access to the general public whatsoever. And the unmet appetite for vintage Disney is certainly reflected in the resellers prices on titles like "Dr. Syn" and "Zorro."

In any event, this spin is hardly relevant to "Song of the South" (the subject of this thread) which is the most popular, highest grossing classic catalog film from any studio to never have been made available on home video.

It's still on highest grossing films lists and the demand from the public on sites like Amazon is clear from the number of posts demanding its release. This title is clearly more popular still than many of the later animated "classics" frequently released to the widest marketplace. Its suppression is simply a choice of the rights holders.