Disney arbitrarily censoring stuff on Disney+

[100proof]

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.

This. It's not about Daryl Hannah's ass or the placement of a cartoon character's hand. It's about the larger issue of not standing for historical and cultural revisionism for corporate profit. Disney has proven uniquely untrustworthy when it comes this kind of thing so all of the "you can still buy the original" horseshit can get fucked. Art represents our shared human experience and Disney bribing our politicians so that they can own it in perpetuity doesn't change that.

 

[ForeverSublime]

The ending of Lilo and Stitch was edited to begin with. Where are people demanding the real version with the plane surf-crashing a building?

"[Art] is never finished, only abandoned. . .except when it's an edit after the fact that people don't agree with, then it was considered finished and now an abomination"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2uJvwiSZAQ

I guess art revision is like porn. You know it when you see it.

 

[Marek]

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.

The motherfucking kid wins another thread

 

[100proof]

The ending of Lilo and Stitch was edited to begin with. Where are people demanding the real version with the plane surf-crashing a building?

"[Art] is never finished, only abandoned. . .except when it's an edit after the fact that people don't agree with, then it was considered finished and now an abomination"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2uJvwiSZAQ

I guess art revision is like porn. You know it when you see it.

Pretty sure that's covered by "Disney has proven uniquely untrustworthy when it comes this kind of thing so all of the "you can still buy the original" horseshit can get fucked." While I don't personally give a shit about Lilo + Stitch, the fact that the ending has been altered to protect Disney's corporate image and they pretend the original doesn't exist is EXACTLY why people should be concerned. Disney isn't an artist so the Da Vinci quote is irrelevant.

 

[wyo]

This shit is right out of 1984. I wonder how many people work in Disney's Ministry of Truth.

 

[Yamazaki]

This is why I only watch Quran recitations on turkish satellite TV.

none of those censoring stuff!

 

[LoneSage]

The person noticing / caring about these changes posted here is worse than the changes themselves.

Yes! I thought the exact same thing. These are such weird things to censor. I remember when Splash and A Goofy Movie were popular family movies for quite many years, and now this?

It's just straight up weird.

What has America become?

I misread mjmjrjrmjrj's post the first time and thought he was referring to the Disney people who noticed those things and censored them, not the internet people who discovered the changes and posted them.

 

[ForeverSublime]

Pretty sure that's covered by "Disney has proven uniquely untrustworthy when it comes this kind of thing so all of the "you can still buy the original" horseshit can get fucked." While I don't personally give a shit about Lilo + Stitch, the fact that the ending has been altered to protect Disney's corporate image and they pretend the original doesn't exist is EXACTLY why people should be concerned. Disney isn't an artist so the Da Vinci quote is irrelevant.

Do we know it's a fact it was to protect corporate image? Maybe they just didn't want to be dicks? Maybe the author was personally affected? Maybe the scene was slipped in by the same rogue artist that drew a dick tower in the cover art of The Little Mermaid? That's a classic.

We can only complain about the edits we know of even though thousands happen before they ever reach our senses. If any of this were to protect their image I believe we have this thread to see their decisions have the opposite result, and so we should all be happy about that?

To the point someone made of the clothes dryer, Disney might not worry at all about getting sued. We're all millionaires from suing video game companies, right? Plus, that would be a products liability issue I think. . . and I just don't think Disney is in it to protect Maytag.

Disney isn't an artist, so we can stop complaining because there's no longer an argument. It's not art - except for, again, the penis castle. Can't stress that enough. The point, though, would be, generally speaking, would any of these edits would be okay if they were done by an artist, then? Are we complaining about Disney or are we complaining about censoring art?

Let's take a reality check to recognize how much shit is censored to begin with. People can cherry-pick low hanging fruit of cultures that endure severe censorship, but a lot of other cultures can look at American television and newspapers and point to how it's censored - I don't mean by who owns the publisher but simply what is culturally acceptable. We're probably more concerned with other people's artistic censorship than our own personal expression.

Anyway, censorship sucks, but sometimes we need to pause a beat to identify the difference between what is censorship and what is editing. Luckily, with any of these examples, people can take their money elsewhere no matter the reason.

 

[oliverclaude]

Honestly, any religious control anywhere is horrid...it's never good for anything except for that religion.

Real Madrid have removed the Christian cross from their club crest as part of a new clothing deal in six Middle Eastern countries. The European champions, whose main shirt sponsor is Dubai-based airline Emirates, made the deal with clothing manufacturer Marka.

^religious catfights included.

Anyway, censorship sucks, but sometimes we need to pause a beat to identify the difference between what is censorship and what is editing.

Aren't those rather semantics? We get mad over any alterations to an existing, i.e. officially published, work, whatever the intentions of those alterations may be: censorship, an author's edit, political correction etc. We either preserve times, where partly horrid things were wildly accepted or we pretend those things never happened. Though I agree, it's tricky with content for children. I remember watching Leonard Maltin trying to excuse racist jokes in Disney cartoons on a DVD edition. It left one with a creepy aftertaste.

 

[SpamYouToDeath]

I never noticed any of these gags to begin with, and now they're just drawing attention to it.

Like "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs". The more you pretend it doesn't exist, the more cynical asshats on the Internet are going to talk about it.

 

[ForeverSublime]

Aren't those rather semantics?

Not quite. Edits don't always suppress a message.

 

[SML]

The Splash scene has to be seen in motion.

https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2020/04/splash-hannah.gif

 

[Dr Shroom]

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.

Since you're in the comic book industry: have you heard about this? https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/ftic5m/censorship_marvel_censored_wolverines_cigar/ there's more than just that cover.

Who owns Marvel again?

 

[SML]

 

[lithy]

View attachment 56302

Got more attention than the original ever did. Outsider art indeed.

 

[SML]

Got more attention than the original ever did. Outsider art indeed.

It's just weird that this is officially Jesus now.

 

[lithy]

It's just weird that this is officially Jesus now.

I think he's browner than the original so I think more historically accurate.

 

[wyo]

I misread mjmjrjrmjrj's post the first time and thought he was referring to the Disney people who noticed those things and censored them, not the internet people who discovered the changes and posted them.

When you're laser focused and masturbating furiously, even the most minute details become apparent.

 

[Lastblade]

This stuff isn't art, just corporate products that Disney need to continue to sell to the public at that point in time. Of course they would change things to suit the times. If you want the original, you can still find it and plenty of VHS tapes no one wants.

Even real art can be censored. Heck, history is written by winners so anything can be changed by men. There is really no permanence in anything, but we humans love the idea as if it is some form of higher ideal. The world is in a state of constant flux, including the past.