Disney+

[Paulio]

If they're that concerned about it, just put up a warning or disclaimer beforehand like WB does with their old cartoons.

The difference that the Walt Disney Corporation as a whole is family-friendly, Warner Bros does not. And Disney does take its image seriously, and never puts up any warnings like this, and alters/removes scenes even for the dumbest reason in fear of offending 0.5% of oversensitive people.

 

[GAcoaster]

Disney has released some of the WWII cartoons they did with disclaimers before them, so they have done it before. It seems like they're choosing not to at this time because no matter how many disclaimer you put o things, parents will sit their kids in front of anything with the Disney name on it and not give any guidance to their children about what they are seeing.

 

[Nick]

The difference that the Walt Disney Corporation as a whole is family-friendly, Warner Bros does not. And Disney does take its image seriously, and never puts up any warnings like this, and alters/removes scenes even for the dumbest reason in fear of offending 0.5% of oversensitive people.

The WDC as a whole isn’t 100% family friendly as Hulu releases quite a bit of TV-MA fare and Fox has quite a back-catalog of adult leaning fare, but Hulu/Fox/Disney aren’t really seen as one and the same quite yet so it’s easier to get away with it. Most of the stuff the company puts out though is family friendly, I agree.

 

[Paulio]

Disney has released some of the WWII cartoons they did with disclaimers before them, so they have done it before. It seems like they're choosing not to at this time because no matter how many disclaimer you put o things, parents will sit their kids in front of anything with the Disney name on it and not give any guidance to their children about what they are seeing.

Exactly my point. Iger made the company back into the wholly family-friendly sphere again by selling off Miramax and Dimension Films and reducing Touchstone Pictures into a dormant state (they got TCF though, but that's beside the point). With the direction that they're going at this point, it's very unlikely any controversial cartoon produced by Walt Disney Studios during the Golden Age of Hollywood would be put on home release with a disclaimer, simply because of the Disney name. Warner Bros. can release its controversial cartoons without having being accused of ruining the family-friendly image at all levels.

 

[RevFreako]

Are we forgetting that we're a year and change removed from Lassetergate? Disney's erring on the side of caution, and rightly so. The scene you want to see is on every prior release of the film, and if you need to see it that badly, it's available. I have a bootleg DVD Of Song of the South, and am unbothered by the fact that Disney choose not to release it, which they are well within their rights to do so. Wanna talk about sensitivity, the finger points directly at the "SELL THE RACIST CONTENT" folks.

 

[belloq87]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the situation. "The scene you want to see" makes it pretty clear you don't believe there's any legitimate philosophical principle underlying concerns over self-censorship of this sort. I don't "want" or need to see that scene, but that's not the point; once you open the door with little things like this, it becomes easier to justify more drastic alterations in the future.

There was an outcry in the 1980s and 1990s when Ted Turner started colorizing old movies. He owned them, he technically had the right to do it, and he wasn't even changing the actual content of the films, editorially. And yet, he received significant pushback because he was altering pieces of work of which he was not the creator.

 

[RevFreako]

I don't think that's a fair characterization of the situation. "The scene you want to see" makes it pretty clear you don't believe there's any legitimate philosophical principle underlying concerns over self-censorship of this sort. I don't "want" or need to see that scene, but that's not the point; once you open the door with little things like this, it becomes easier to justify more drastic alterations in the future.

There was an outcry in the 1980s and 1990s when Ted Turner started colorizing old movies. He owned them, he technically had the right to do it, and he wasn't even changing the actual content of the films, editorially. And yet, he received significant pushback because he was altering pieces of work of which he was not the creator.

You're absolutely right. I reject that philosophical principle on its face. I don't even view it as censorship. If you really want to see Amos and Andy, you can seek it out and watch it, but if you piss and moan because CBS won't sell you official DVDs of the show, or put it on a streaming service, then it's tough titty said the kitty.

We can whine about modifying art all we like, and yes, movies are art, but they're also - and in this discussion primarily - product and property, and unfortunately, whether anyone likes it or not, the latter talks and the former walks.

 

[belloq87]

There's also a distinction to be made between not allowing something back into circulation (a la SONG OF THE SOUTH) and actually changing the content of the work.

I would prefer Disney keep SONG OF THE SOUTH in the Vault instead of attempting to edit out or rejigger the elements that are no longer acceptable, for example.

It's going in with the scissors that I have a serious problem with.

 

[RevFreako]

There's also a distinction to be made between not allowing something back into circulation (a la SONG OF THE SOUTH) and actually changing the content of the work.

I would prefer Disney keep SONG OF THE SOUTH in the Vault instead of attempting to edit out or rejigger the elements that are no longer acceptable, for example.

It's going in with the scissors that I have a serious problem with.

It's their product - again, it's product first, then art - to take the scissors to at their discretion though. You don't like it, and I respect your right to hold that position, but let's not pretend they're breaking any kind of ethical rule here.

I'll give you an example. After a few school shootings, Stephen King took RAGE, which inspired several, out of circulation. He made the right choice. It would also have been the right choice had his publisher made that decision. It also would have been the right choice had his publisher made that decision over King's objection. I can go into any used-book store in America today, and get a copy of The Bachman Books with Rage in it, for only a few bucks premium. There is no artistic argument that says either King or his publisher are obligated to either sell you TBB as originally published or not at all. You can have a problem with the publisher all you want for taking out the scissors, but the kitty says the same.

 

[Nick]

Meanwhile, i'm still mad that it looks like i'm gonna have to wait until midnight before the app becomes available for download anywhere. All I want to do is be able to be signed in so i'm ready to go once the service is live.

 

[Scott W.]

I’m finding it hard to judge just how popular this is going to be outside of the theme park circle.

 

[RevFreako]

I’m finding it hard to judge just how popular this is going to be outside of the theme park circle.

I don't think the theme park circle enters into it at all. This is, bar none, the largest entertainment media conglomerate in the world, throwing its vault open for two Starbucks a month.

 

[Nick]

I’m finding it hard to judge just how popular this is going to be outside of the theme park circle.

Think of all the parents who are going to buy this simply as a babysitter for their kids. This service has very little to do with theme parks outside of a few docuseries.

 

[Scott W.]

I don’t mean that only the theme park crowd will be interested in it but that seems to be where the most hype is coming from, not that I’m looking very far for it.

I’m thinking more about this crashing on day one with a huge influx of people signing up.

 

[Parkscope Joe]

I’m finding it hard to judge just how popular this is going to be outside of the theme park circle.

Ive heard of lots of interest beyond our crowd, the question is if that’s enough to keep their lofty content goals and high cost of operation in balance.

 

[Nick]

I’m thinking more about this crashing on day one with a huge influx of people signing up.

The crazy thing is i've already paid for the 3-year deal, but I still need to create my account. I'm too impatient and things like this piss me off lol.

Ive heard of lots of interest beyond our crowd, the question is if that’s enough to keep their lofty content goals and high cost of operation in balance.

I personally think, especially if The Mandalorian and Marvel series' are hits, then they've got a solid base. But the question is where is the variance is content? I think NatGeo will be the sleeper hit of Disney+, tbh. I also semi-expect an Avatar series on here before too long.

 

[Scott W.]

The crazy thing is i've already paid for the 3-year deal, but I still need to create my account. I'm too impatient and things like this piss me off lol.


I personally think, especially if The Mandalorian and Marvel series' are hits, then they've got a solid base. But the question is where is the variance is content? I think NatGeo will be the sleeper hit of Disney+, tbh. I also semi-expect an Avatar series on here before too long.

That is crazy. Since you’ve already ‘signed up’ with the 3 year deal, how do you link that to your account? Seems strange and backwards.

I can see me signing up for a month when new stuff is released unless there is a steady flow of content to keep me engaged.

 

[RevFreako]

That is crazy. Since you’ve already ‘signed up’ with the 3 year deal, how do you link that to your account? Seems strange and backwards.

I can see me signing up for a month when new stuff is released unless there is a steady flow of content to keep me engaged.

The new shoes are being released one episode at a time to discourage one-and-dones.

 

[Nick]

That is crazy. Since you’ve already ‘signed up’ with the 3 year deal, how do you link that to your account? Seems strange and backwards.

I can see me signing up for a month when new stuff is released unless there is a steady flow of content to keep me engaged.

I have a confirmation code right now, but that's it. I'm already anticipating having to be on the phone with someone tomorrow.

The new shoes are being released one episode at a time to discourage one-and-dones.

You can still do a free trial and binge though once it's all released. That's what I plan to do with Apple TV+ once the first season of The Morning Show and See are fully released.

 

[Doug A.]

So is this being released at 12 pm est? Or would they wait to 3 am est so the west coast would be midnight?