Movies Disney Plus issues trigger warning for 'outdated cultural depictions' in classic movies

[Mercury33]

6 hours ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Really -- you think 14-year olds are the target audience of these movies?

 

I talk to my three year old -- I have a pretty good idea of what she is capable of understanding. 

1) What age of children are you talking to that can understand the nuances of these sorts of racist depictions?  (I assume you have young children, (or have older children), or frequently deal with young children and are not talking out of your ass.)

2)  I think a 10-12-year old is capable of having a discussion with on these topics, but, based on my kids, are no longer interested in these movies.

 

Based on my experience, most people, unfortunately, do not.

I think they’re PRIMARILY geared towards 3-12 but they’re audience reaches every age. With the possible exception being 13-17 when kids are in their “too cool” phase. But that’s not really important. 
 

I’m honestly a little confused by your other points. The point is that small children wouldn’t realize what they are seeing is inherently wrong. Which is why it’s the parents job to explain it to them or correct the behavior if they emulate it. Sure by the time they reach 10/12 you can begin to have real conversations with them but at that point parents should already have been making an effort/setting the right example. 

Never really attacked or disrespected you so not sure why you’re jumping to assume I’d be talking out of my ass if I didn’t have a kid or deal with young kids (I have both) plus I have my own personnel experiences as how my parents were able to manage to not raise a racist. And it didn’t involve them pretending racist things didn’t exist. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Is Foghorn Leghorn racist?

 

 

[TheGreatGamble]

On 11/15/2019 at 11:14 AM, AbsolutSurgen said:

IMHO, something like this, where white singers use fake over-the-top Asian accents is not something that should be offered up in a family-oriented streaming service.  To me, this is the equivalency of blackface.

Or this, where a monkey (who, IMHO is clearly meant to be Louis Armstrong, a black man) sings "I wanna be like you" to a kid.

Given the racist monkey chants that are common today at sporting events, and the pretty clear inference that black people are like monkeys, make this unacceptable.

 

I had not seen these movies in 30 years, which makes me somewhat embarrassed about my earlier dismissal.  However, after watching them, I don't think they belong on a streaming service targeted at children.

 

The idea that art should be banned or hidden because of its content is both ridiculous and dangerous. It's straight out of the playbook of every dictator in history to ban stuff they don't disagree with. 
 

Why not do the far more important thing, educate your children. 

 

You also have some falicies in your argument, such as King Louis being Louis Armstrong. 

 

Teach your kids. Even censor what they see, that's your right, but don't try to sensor it for everyone else, thats ridiculous and a bit disgusting. 

[LazyPiranha]

Oh for fuck's sake, are we now actually claiming that a company voluntarily combing its own back catalog and removing things for being problematic in the current time is somehow anywhere near analogous to dictators burning books?  Really?  Has the discourse become this stupid?  

 

I genuinely don't understand the people who take that sort of die hard position.  My kid loves Looney Tunes, but you can bet your ass I selectively choose which ones he watches because I don't think 5 is an age where he can understand any of the discussion I would need to have about Speedy Gonzales.  Am I saying these cartoons should be stricken from the earth?  No, but at the same time maybe they don't all need to be included in a modern day streaming service.  

[TheGreatGamble]

2 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

Oh for fuck's sake, are we now actually claiming that a company voluntarily combing its own back catalog and removing things for being problematic in the current time is somehow anywhere near analogous to dictators burning books?  Really?  Has the discourse become this stupid?  

 

I genuinely don't understand the people who take that sort of die hard position.  My kid loves Looney Tunes, but you can bet your ass I selectively choose which ones he watches because I don't think 5 is an age where he can understand any of the discussion I would need to have about Speedy Gonzales.  Am I saying these cartoons should be stricken from the earth?  No, but at the same time maybe they don't all need to be included in a modern day streaming service.  

Censoring art has never led to anything good, ever. You should absolutely be allowed to decide what your kids see, you should not be able to decide what anyone else see's. 

 

Im also not comparing a company combing its back catalogue to dictators burning books. Im comparing those trying to force Disney to comb their backlog to the Dictators who burned books. No group should be able to decide what art is acceptable. 

 

Claiming this stuff shouldn't be there is no different than religious groups claiming D&D should not be sold, or Lucifer should not be on television. 

 

If Disney was currently making racist content and people were upset, fine. But to want old content censored is ridiculous. 

[LazyPiranha]

Those are all hollow arguments.  Everyone except the most insane is completely and totally fine with censorship of content done by the company hosting the content depending on the circumstance.  If you could open up Spotify, hit shuffle, and get a bunch of violent white power hardcore music, that would be a problem would it not?  Is arguing that Spotify shouldn't put white power music in its library the same thing as arguing that D&D is leading kids into devil worship in your eyes and shouldn't be sold the same in your eyes?  Content providers are constantly removing or barring objectionable things from their service all the time.

 

At this point in time, there is functionally no difference between making new racist ass content and making your old racist ass content easily available for money.  By selling access to it, and not in some weird sort of archivist way but as a product you should buy right now to toss in front of your kids for a moment of respite, they are erasing that distinction.  

[Greatoneshere]

23 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

At this point in time, there is functionally no difference between making new racist ass content and making your old racist ass content easily available for money.  By selling access to it, and not in some weird sort of archivist way but as a product you should buy right now to toss in front of your kids for a moment of respite, they are erasing that distinction.  

 

I think that's why Disney put a warning in front of such content? So adults can watch it and have their kids avoid it?

[LazyPiranha]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I think that's why Disney put a warning in front of such content? So adults can watch it and have their kids avoid it?

 

Yes, but people are also bitching about the presence of a warning.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, LazyPiranha said:

Yes, but people are also bitching about the presence of a warning.

 

Yeah, that's silly. Warning seems not only a good idea, but necessary. 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 hours ago, LazyPiranha said:

Oh for fuck's sake, are we now actually claiming that a company voluntarily combing its own back catalog and removing things for being problematic in the current time is somehow anywhere near analogous to dictators burning books?  Really?  Has the discourse become this stupid?  

 

I genuinely don't understand the people who take that sort of die hard position.  My kid loves Looney Tunes, but you can bet your ass I selectively choose which ones he watches because I don't think 5 is an age where he can understand any of the discussion I would need to have about Speedy Gonzales.  Am I saying these cartoons should be stricken from the earth?  No, but at the same time maybe they don't all need to be included in a modern day streaming service.  

 

Yes... yes it has. Nuance has died a slow and painful death with the advent of the internet and hyperbole reigns. It's why I believe that in spite of living in an age where we have more access to information as a population than ever before, we are also collectively the stupidest we've ever been. At least Americans are. I grew up watching a lot of these cartoons and LOVED Bugs Bunny. Some of the stuff that slipped through the censors back in the day was racist as fuck and I'm glad that I grew up in a family where we had a strong sense of identity because I've seen the effect images like these have on young black kids without that. They grow up ashamed and embarrassed by their own skin so a little warning at the beginning of a problematic cartoon is not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. Especially when a LOT of the older cartoons were NOT intended for kids in the first place. I have to really question the intent of anyone who has an issues with this... seriously. Just my two sense.

[skillzdadirecta]

9 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Is Foghorn Leghorn racist?

 

 

 

Don't see how he is because he's not intended to be a characture of black people but a parody of SOUTHERN people. Some folks from the South DID find the character to be stereotypical so . 

[number305]

26 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Yeah, that's silly. Warning seems not only a good idea, but necessary. 

I agree with this. I would much prefer they put out the whole catalog and put warnings where applicable. It is advantageous to be able to learn where we came from. 

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, number305 said:

I agree with this. I would much prefer they put out the whole catalog and put warnings where applicable. It is advantageous to be able to learn where we came from. 

 

That's what history books are for. Not being able to see old racist cartoons is not preventing us from "learning where we came from."

[number305]

30 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

That's what history books are for. Not being able to see old racist cartoons is not preventing us from "learning where we came from."

I think being able to see the entertainment of past era's can absolutely add some details to how people thought and acted during those times. I'm not sure a textbook would be a good replica of that. I would take it a little farther than warning text in some cases. I think short documentaries attached to the content explaining it would be beneficial in certain cases. Some times things have changed enough that modern people might not understand some of what was hurtful or being mocked. 

 

Disney + is probably not the best place for all of this... But there maybe should be a .edu streaming site that could contain the removed content. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, number305 said:

I think being able to see the entertainment of past era's can absolutely add some details to how people thought and acted during those times. I'm not sure a textbook would be a good replica of that. I would take it a little farther than warning text in some cases. I think short documentaries attached to the content explaining it would be beneficial in certain cases. Some times things have changed enough that modern people might not understand some of what was hurtful or being mocked. 

 

Disney + is probably not the best place for all of this... But there maybe should be a .edu streaming site that could contain the removed content. 

Boom there you go. I saw Birth of a Nation (the original) and Triumph of the Will in college where the proper context could be taught on why these films, while having reprehensible content, were technical accomplishments at the time. If people want to "learn we came from" via entertainment, they are PLENTY of film and tv history courses being taught across the country for them to do so. OR they could pick up a fucking book... imagine that! I can't count the amount of times I would see something on a TV show or a movie that would lead me to go look that subject up... I've actually learned a LOT from movies in this regard.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, LazyPiranha said:

 

Yes, but people are also bitching about the presence of a warning.

I haven't heard any bitching about it. 

[Mercury33]

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

That's what history books are for. Not being able to see old racist cartoons is not preventing us from "learning where we came from."

 

I have to disagree with you to an extent.  Relying on History books only gets you so far because they're so heavily edited by the politics of the publishing company.  Primary sources are the single most important source of learning and understanding history.  Of course as someone who these horrible stereotypes were not aimed at I can't begin to understand the effect of seeing something and feeling/knowing it was aimed at me.  I do think it's important that things like these cartoons not be erased but there certainly needs to be some kind of safe guard to access the content.  A warning is great(the WB one is way better than the Disney one) but maybe not enough, I'd be fine if somethings were locked behind parental locks or something.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Yeah, I'm not sure anyone here is upset over the warning.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Mercury33 said:

 

I have to disagree with you to an extent.  Relying on History books only gets you so far because they're so heavily edited by the politics of the publishing company.  Primary sources are the single most important source of learning and understanding history.  Of course as someone who these horrible stereotypes were not aimed at I can't begin to understand the effect of seeing something and feeling/knowing it was aimed at me.  I do think it's important that things like these cartoons not be erased but there certainly needs to be some kind of safe guard to access the content.  A warning is great(the WB one is way better than the Disney one) but maybe not enough, I'd be fine if somethings were locked behind parental locks or something.

 

I was being a bit facetious when I specified "history books"... my point is that if someone TRULY wants to learn the historical context of some racial, gender based or other stereotypes, there are FAR better sources than old racist cartoons which offer virtually NO context and were created to entertain a very narrow and specific set of the population. There are plenty of academic sources besides history books that one can use other than racist Disney cartoons and if one can't be bothered to look those sources up and do some actual research, than I find it to be a bit disingenuous to be overly concerned about censorship and "not learning where we came from". Take a trip to a film and television museum if you really give a shit. (Not you @Mercury33 but all of the folks concerned about "not learning about our history of racist cartoons or whatever the fuck)

[SimpleG]

14 minutes ago, Mercury33 said:

 

I have to disagree with you to an extent.  Relying on History books only gets you so far because they're so heavily edited by the politics of the publishing company.  Primary sources are the single most important source of learning and understanding history.  Of course as someone who these horrible stereotypes were not aimed at I can't begin to understand the effect of seeing something and feeling/knowing it was aimed at me.  I do think it's important that things like these cartoons not be erased but there certainly needs to be some kind of safe guard to access the content.  A warning is great(the WB one is way better than the Disney one) but maybe not enough, I'd be fine if somethings were locked behind parental locks or something.

No one is going to be gleaning some new and incite full info from watching some racist ass shit with a cat singing" Shanghai, Hong Kong, Egg foo young
Fortune Cookie always wong !!"

I am by no means arguing for to be erased but I will argue there is nothing of value by watching it.

[number305]

1 hour ago, SimpleG said:

No one is going to be gleaning some new and incite full info from watching some racist ass shit with a cat singing" Shanghai, Hong Kong, Egg foo young
Fortune Cookie always wong !!"

I am by no means arguing for to be erased but I will argue there is nothing of value by watching it.

You can argue that out of ignorance, but you would be wrong. 

 

People are influenced by media. This stuff should be studied and understood by smart people in the attempt to prevent similar mistakes in the future. Much of the disney and wb racist material is in line with nazi propaganda of the same time. 

 

The very fact that it came across as silly on the screen is a big part of the reason that no one stood up against it at the time. 

[SimpleG]

12 minutes ago, number305 said:

People are influenced by media

This already known

12 minutes ago, number305 said:

This stuff should be studied and understood by smart people in the attempt to prevent similar mistakes in the future

It already has been studied, 

12 minutes ago, number305 said:

Much of the disney and wb racist material is in line with nazi propaganda of the same time. 

Which again has already been studied , we know how it works, which is why I stated

2 hours ago, SimpleG said:

there is nothing of value by watching it

 

12 minutes ago, number305 said:

The very fact that it came across as silly on the screen is a big part of the reason that no one stood up against it at the time. 

That and the fact that when these films were released racism was totally acceptable  

 

 

>edited

 

 

[SimpleG]

 

@number305

My original comment is perhaps muddled or I did shit job of explaining it

2 hours ago, SimpleG said:

there is nothing of value by watching it.

Was geared towards actual viewers watching it for entertainment value

 

 

edited  

Still did a shit job of explaining it

 

Edited 2

You average viewer is isnt going to have some kind of revelation watching it

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, number305 said:

You can argue that out of ignorance, but you would be wrong. 

 

People are influenced by media. This stuff should be studied and understood by smart people in the attempt to prevent similar mistakes in the future. Much of the disney and wb racist material is in line with nazi propaganda of the same time. 

 

The very fact that it came across as silly on the screen is a big part of the reason that no one stood up against it at the time. 

This is what film and media studies classes, documentaries and books are for.

[number305]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This is what film and media studies classes, documentaries and books are for.

I agree with you. I already said there should be a separate place these are made available. Racist studies don't really belong alongside kids shows. Disney + isn't the place. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, number305 said:

I agree with you. I already said there should be a separate place these are made available. Racist studies don't really belong alongside kids shows. Disney + isn't the place. 

Unless they do an educational special geared towards young kids.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

I dunno. Obviously we bring something to a film when watching it. Some of use might watch some old cartoons and think “lol WTF were we thinking back then. Makes us look like backward hicks.” While others may watch them and think “yep, the toons got it right. Dumb PC bs keeping us from properly mocking the [insert racist epithets]”. 
 

Eliminating the cartoons and shows will not make racist people less racist. It won’t turn somebody racist to watch these unless there are many other social factors feeding them racist ideology. 
 

I’m for the warning. It hurts nothing and prepares the viewer. Some parents may want their kids to be older before being exposed to even casual racism. But I’m also for keeping the media around. We should cringe at how inappropriate it is. That’s not who we want to be any more, but it’s who we were. 
 

 

 

But if we are going to purge them, can we also toss out the stereotype that everyone in or from Texas wears a cowboy hat? Man, I hate that. It’s such a small percentage even own a cowboy hat. 

[Guest]

I think it’s important to make a distinction between films that are racist as a core message (like Birth of a Nation) and films that have racist or other bigoted elements within them.
 

For example, how many 80s and 90s comedies have prominent jokes about two straight male characters being in a “gay” scenario? Countless. Should we not have such films on streaming services today because they feature a mean spirited joke at the expense of gay men? I would argue the answer is no to these sorts of things.

 

I don’t think we need Triumph of the Will outside of the classroom.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Yeah, let's take down popular 90s sitcoms like Friends and Seinfeld because of their hurtful LGBT jokes and stereotypes that were perfectly acceptable back then.

 

I mean, I'd be okay with eliminating those shows from existence on the fact that they're just plain lame, but that's a different platform.

[Kal-El814]

3 hours ago, sblfilms said:

I think it’s important to make a distinction between films that are racist as a core message (like Birth of a Nation) and films that have racist or other bigoted elements within them.
 

For example, how many 80s and 90s comedies have prominent jokes about two straight male characters being in a “gay” scenario? Countless. Should we not have such films on streaming services today because they feature a mean spirited joke at the expense of gay men? I would argue the answer is no to these sorts of things.

 

I don’t think we need Triumph of the Will outside of the classroom.

There’s a whole slew of 80’s era comedies where sexual harassment, assault, and rape are not just part of the comedy, but straight up condoned. Sixteen Candles is adjacent to this at best, Revenge of the Nerds leans into it HARD. It’s weird.

[SaysWho?]

I could be wrong

 

But I feel Bojack Horseman's going to age very well. I've been watching it a lot, and it's pretty forward-looking to mental illness, how many people have it, and its description of it. And the bad shit.... is fucking bad.