Disney arbitrarily censoring stuff on Disney+

mjmjr25

Critical Damage!,
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Posts
2,622
The changes don't really affect the story and are so minor I don't think anyone should even care. It's not like it's the "Han shot first" controversy (disclaimer: I haven't watched any Star Wars all the way through).

It was hard to see a few of them. (I still can't find the second one - like a hidden object game).
 

2D_Master

Is he greater than XD Master?
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Posts
4,910
Disney has always been the McDonalds of entertainment, absolute garbage that keeps poisoning peoples minds little by little.
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
10,362
If streaming services did a lot to kill piracy this seems like a great way to revive and legitimize it. Especially considering some of the movies that they could easily choose to keep "vaulted" forever.
 

Takumaji

Kraut Mod
Staff member
Joined
Jul 24, 2001
Posts
17,969
Considering Disney+is just a streaming service, it is basically TV. Movies are censored for TV all the time. Don't really see an issue, but also don't pay Disney for the privilege of watching any of this anyway. If they censor a DVD/Blu-Ray release then I'd understand the complaints.

Sure, but the attention to detail in case of the edits posted here is just creepy in my eyes. What the hell is the prob with Goofy's nose touching a "female" chest in a scene that probably is just a fraction of a second long? Where is the possible harm in that?

It's just glaring nonsense, like every other form of censorship.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
10,748
Considering Disney+is just a streaming service, it is basically TV. Movies are censored for TV all the time. Don't really see an issue, but also don't pay Disney for the privilege of watching any of this anyway. If they censor a DVD/Blu-Ray release then I'd understand the complaints.

Why would they edit out a small amount of butt cheek but not full on titties in the same movie though?

And isn't the point of having both Disney+ and Hulu that they can put edgier stuff on Hulu?
 

SML

NEANDERTHAL FUCKER,
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Posts
10,362
It was hard to see a few of them. (I still can't find the second one - like a hidden object game).

Look, Max Goof likes to grab titties and sniff cleavage and if you don't think that's important maybe you never understood him.
 

Lagduf

If I change my Custom, Rank. I lose The 15YR Tag.,
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Posts
41,539
Yeah well they the bible banging shitdicks hijacked 95% of gun enthusiasts. And then the secular Republicans gun fetishists will all act super fucking confused when the pences, santorums, etc in government finally drop the fucking Christian theocracy hammer.

Don’t worry the libtardarian gun owners will shoot back at the statist theocrats. If I supply the guns will you supply the whiskey?

Times like these make a man wish Cheney was still VP :emb: At least John ducking Ashcroft isn’t AG.

Disney sucks and I think at this point the MCU as a franchise is mostly dead. I’m skeptical we’ll see anything as good as Logan again, or anything at least as dark and gritty as the Netflix MCU (which varied in quality, but the stuff that was good was GOOD.)
 
Last edited:

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
33,111
If the coronavirus kills comic book movies, then it was all worth it.
 

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
Well it's certainly killing comic books which is a good start.

I would not miss most of the cape books at all if they had to go away for a while and retool. The industry is embarrassing right now.

I've been getting into European comics again, lately. And I'm still selectively into manga. some American indies are pretty decent but most of the big two's output is just abysmal.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
24,475
The person noticing / caring about these changes posted here is worse than the changes themselves.

If you don't see the problem with altering the work of artists years after the fact to fit some sterilized ideal of a hyper-sensitive world populated entirely by gentle, genderless jellyfish, then there's no hope for you.

I don't give a particular shit about any Disney movie, but this needs to be stood against wherever it appears. We can't wait until it extends to things like classic literature and whatnot, because then it will be too late to change course.
 

famicommander

Tak enabled this rank change
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Posts
10,748
When DC tried to take their flagship titles to twice monthly I bailed on the big two.

I still buy Buffy comics but that's it. They moved from Dark Horse to Boom and rebooted when Disney bought Fox.
 

Karou

Gandalf Of Gibberish,
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Posts
5,483
I wouldn't be surprised if they become a political party in 50 years.

that's a long shot, right there guy.

ABC News is the Democratic news division of the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), owned by the Disney Media Networks division of The Walt Disney Company.

the 50 years part I mean. I get my coronovirus updates from them when I listen to the oldies station at work..the frequency and length dropped off signifigantly this week.
 

basic

Back to Basics
20 Year Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Posts
2,199
lol...i don't know if this has existed before, but it looks like disney added or updated the terms of use for espn today. i don't know if this was the case before, but it looks like the terms of use even applies to unregistered users who just browse their site and also added a stipulation that i waive my rights to persue any class action lawsuits. i'll have to read deeper to see what other dumb shennanigans disney added.

fuck disney. i have never paid attention to this before. is this common practice?

edit: hmmm i guess it is...just never had a site alert me like that. looked at a few others and didn't see anything like the class action lawsuit bit.
 
Last edited:

mjmjr25

Critical Damage!,
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Posts
2,622
If you don't see the problem with altering the work of artists years after the fact to fit some sterilized ideal of a hyper-sensitive world populated entirely by gentle, genderless jellyfish, then there's no hope for you.

I don't give a particular shit about any Disney movie, but this needs to be stood against wherever it appears. We can't wait until it extends to things like classic literature and whatnot, because then it will be too late to change course.

Who own's the content?

Can you paint your house?
 

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
Who own's the content?

Can you paint your house?

The cynical reality of this response is exactly how Disney wants us to feel.

Legal sanction doesn't justify artistic transgression against existing works

EDIT: Not trying to start a beef. Just observing that this casual dismissal of artistic integrity is cultural suicide.
 
Last edited:

mjmjr25

Critical Damage!,
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Posts
2,622
The cynical reality of this response is exactly how Disney wants us to feel.

Legal sanction doesn't justify artistic transgression against existing works

EDIT: Not trying to start a beef. Just observing that this casual dismissal of artistic integrity is cultural suicide.

No beef at all. I suspect we have very different views on this - that's all good. I believe if I own something; it's mine. My daughter sells art on Etsy. She only sells prints - the originals are hers and will only ever be hers. If someone wants to make a meme out of her print - that's their decision. If she changes her mind and sells her originals - they are now property of that person. Disney owns this content.

Furthermore - I don't partake in the notion that the original is lost either. I recently saw the new Ben Hur. It was atrocious - the original is a masterpiece. The original isn't diminished.
 

SouthtownKid

There are four lights
Joined
Oct 12, 2003
Posts
24,475
Furthermore - I don't partake in the notion that the original is lost either. I recently saw the new Ben Hur. It was atrocious - the original is a masterpiece. The original isn't diminished.
That's a horrible analogy. We aren't talking about remakes here. We're talking about the original work being altered. Is the original still a masterpiece if it gets censored or altered so that modern attitudes towards gender roles are now reflected in Charlton Heston's dialogue? And that becomes the new official version for all future generations of viewers, who will never see the actual original? Charles Dickens is in the public domain. Meaning, now nobody "owns" it. The only thing keeping someone from republishing Oliver Twist with altered text to reflect someone else's agenda rather than present the message Dickens intended is that we as a culture wouldn't allow it. So far.
 

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
So essentially, cultural history doesn't matter at all. All that matters is the law of the present.

There is a bigger thing at stake here than 'who owns it'. It may not matter to you but it most definitely 'matters'.

It's cool. Take whatever position you want to. But it's damaging to history, culture, art and society. Faced with the galling prospect of knowing your work would be somehow 'made better' by someone that legally owns it truly is capitalistic cynicism at it's dystopian finest.
 

NeoSneth

King of Spammers
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Posts
10,243
suddenly, all those weird preservation groups don't seem so crazy...
 

Taiso

Remembers The North,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Posts
13,156
I'm fine with revisions as long as the originals remain officially available to the public for viewing and/or purchase.

Would it really have been so hard to just include both versions of the classic trilogy films on the BD collection and promote the revised version ad a 'director's reimagining'?

You may love or hate what Ridley Scott did to Blade Runner over the years. He's always included all versions on the home releases.
 

lithy

hønefuld
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
15,644
How do you mesh those ideas with things like Director's Cuts, say for Blade Runner which is generally considered better or Donnie Darko which is generally considered worse? What should the projector speed for Metropolis be? What accompanied music should be played for 1920s silent The Hunchback of Notre Dame?

The Mona Lisa was reworked, but Splash can't survive a change to a butt?

Like I said, my criticism would be different if this was the only version available, movies are censored all the time for length and content for network or cable television. Streaming is just a new format for television and Disney wants a trustworthy 'let your kids watch anything on here' feel for D+. So no butts. Apparently there's tits though? I have never seen Splash though and really have no intention to, so no sweat for me either way.

Edit: Taiso snuck one in under the wire while I was typing and includes some of my basic thoughts...dammit.
 
Last edited:

Burning Fight!!

NIS America fan & Rent Free tenant
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Posts
2,419
All of that shit is a red herring hiding the real issue: copyright term

Bring back 40 year copyrights and all of that is solved and more.
 
Top