Toy Story 2 Home Video Release - Retro-Censoring Being Done

Not to kids, which this movie is targeted towards.

 

Hmmm.. I watched that scene I laughed a lot..
Good luck trying erase that now that it's been brought up
to everybody s attention.. real smart..
I can buy used copy of toy story original release on ebay
or thrift store

 

I like how this managed to turn into a Beatles thread.

 

And I remember similar outrage over a certain organization editing movies for people so they wouldn’t have their sensibilities offended or their children exposed to questionable content.

Oh, yeah, that outrage never happened from most people who claim that this change by Disney signals the end of all “freedom!”.

John K

 

I like how this managed to turn into a “This-Is Confirmation-That-Everything-Will-Be-Censored-Let’s-Speculate-With-Some-Outrageous-Examples” thread.

 

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by not to kids

 

Kids don't analyze movies like adults do. They don't suspect Bert and Ernie are gay or that Pixar/Disney is OK with sexual blackmail.

 

IIRC Capitol wanted wanted to airbrush the cigarette from the cover of the release of Nat King Cole's Just One Of Those Things that our host worked on, but they successfully argued against it.

There is a 1987 CD pressing out there with the cigarette airbrushed out so they've been thinking of stuff like this so they've been thinking of this for quite some time.

 

Yeah, I wonder how many people were willing to take a knee at the airing of the original version.

 

I think that particular scene would be over their head and it's the adults who would be offended, although some may think about if Bert and Ernie are gay which could then be a topic for discussion

 

Yes but really not that surprising considering what Harvey had been up to for so long, and all the others...I think it's a victim of timing more than a victim of anything else. There's plenty of other stuff they could be cutting out of movies everywhere but they haven't and won't.

 

It's not just that it's one scene. It's because it's the beginning of censorship that is only getting worse in more than just film.

 

It's proximity means it's 'raw' at the moment, I suspect if you're offended now, you probably thought it was a nod to the 'bad old days' then.

 

I recently listened to some tracks from "Songs For Swinging Sellers", a comedy album by Peter Sellers that dates back to 1960, and which helped to launch the career of Matt Monro.

Back then, Peter Sellers did a lot of impersonations of Indian people, including in the film "The Millionairess". He therefore played an Indian character on this album, who was trying to put on a production of My Fair Lady.

Back then the track might have been seen as passingly funny, but now it seems very unfunny and inappropriate.

At the time, I suspect that listening to this gently mocking humour was a way for British people to deal with the anxiety that many felt about the large number of immigrants coming into the UK.

In 2019, however, it all sounds very out of place because the descendants of those immigrants are just ordinary Brits.

The funniest thing for me about the album, however, was the cover. It depicted Peter Sellers as a cowboy who'd been hung from a tree. You only got to see his legs, but it was a very different kind of swinging! Very dark humour and a great play on words, plus it mocked the western movie genre.

The saddest thing is that in recent years its been the album cover that got censored. You no longer see Peter Sellers' legs, but you still get to hear him making fun of immigrants.

 

At face value, I agree. Unfortunately, because people always push the envelope, my issue is this is likely to only be the beginning.

 

The beginning of what - a private enterprise looking out for their brand?

 

You know, when it comes to a Frank Zappa-style approach to standing against censorship, I’m with you. That was his argument against censoring rock lyrics back in the ‘80s, when there was a whole big thing made of that.

Thing is - this isn’t the government doing it. And it’s not like someone made a huge deal of this and loudly complained to Disney. Disney took it upon themselves to “remix” their work because they’re attempting to adjust their brand to the standards of our time. (The ironic thing being that Frank Zappa couldn’t leave his own albums well enough alone when they were re-released.)

In this specific case, I can see where Disney is coming from and I personally have no problem with it. A lot of women have been hurt - physically and emotionally - by harassment and men in positions of power using sex as leverage. The whole thing blew wide open with #metoo and right now we’re seeing a period of reassessment and adjustment. I don’t think it’s a bad thing - awful things got normalized for far too long, and Disney recognizes that, in some small way, a line could be drawn from that little blooper scene to something much more prevalent and abhorrent.

 

This was unnecessary. AFAIK, there was no public outcry for this specific scene to be removed. And even if there had been, it would have been just as silly to remove it. This pattern is a flavor-of-the-day mechanism. These thin-skinned recreationally outraged people will move onto whatever else they can think of next to sink their teeth into.

Just a case of Disney/Pixar trying to make themselves look good by proactively removing something that could have been interpreted in that fashion. Just like limiting the amount of time the word "SEX" is shown in smoke in the Lion King or by removing that single frame of a naked Jessica Rabbit.

These are things that no kid will ever notice or care about but it makes the so-called adults feel better about themselves that these things have been removed from view.

 

Or maybe...just maybe...the powers-that-be at Disney feel some sense of social responsibility, regardless of whether someone pushes them in that direction or not? And so they’ve taken the initiative to exercise that responsibility as they see fit.

And that’s the “beauty” of capitalism. Don’t like it? Then don’t pay for anything with “Disney” on the label or in the fine print. Unless the government steps in says “you can’t show that kind of thing,” it isn’t truly censorship and no rights are being infringed. The old DVDs are still out there if you want to watch the 15-second bonus clip.

 

If you think a big corporation like Disney cares about that, I've got some swamp land for you to buy. They did it and announced it to make themselves look good in the public eye, plain & simple.

Never said rights were infringed. Don't put words in my mouth. And it's not that melodramatic. It's a shame this is being done without giving a choice to the consumer. That is what I am bemoaning more than anything. Removing choices is never a good thing, IMHO.

 

I said “maybe” they do. You’re right, they probably don’t care. My personal guess is some shareholders somewhere got nervous and brought it up in some closed-door meeting. Or something along those lines, of keeping shareholders happy.

I only bring up rights being infringed because you seem so adamant about this, but I simply don’t think of it as a big deal. Things go out of print or are taken out of circulation all the time, whether it has to do with licensing, copyright or a situation like this. We’re only hearing about this because it’s a direct response to the #metoo movement.

 

I am but I also know the definition of "rights" and this topic has nothing to do with that concept whatsoever, though I understand many overuse the term or believe rights to exist when they don't in many a situation.

It's an artificially created need. Did E.T. really need to have its guns replaced by walkie-talkies? No. Yet, the original (and less nonsensical version) is no longer published. This type of revisionism is something I'll never be OK with.

As a slightly amusing example, would you be OK if somebody at Apple Records decided that drums should no longer be on any Beatles album and the only versions available for purchase would be without any percussion? No, of course not. They'd be messing with the original, removing the original from circulation, and providing only an altered version as if the original had never existed.

In itself, the removal of this small scene is "no big deal" but, again, it's likely the start of something I'm not looking forward to ; the revision of many movies in which entire scenes are removed, altered, edited, or censored based on the overreaction or potential overreaction of a group of people who have little to do but to look for things to be outraged about. My 2 cents.

 

Self-censorship is just as bad if not worse. And its power is indeed derived from authority. It was explained by Foucault as a normalizing influence upon society--Foucault used the analogy of the panopticon as was found in some European prisons, a central watchtower that would not necessarily need to be occupied by guards; it's presence alone was enough to cause the prisoners to fall in line.

If anything, this was an attempt to ridicule such harassers, and may even provide a cathartic moment for the victims. By the way, immoral men who have wealth and power will always prey upon women. This was always the way of the world and will always be. At least we are a society of laws, but those seem to apply differently to wealthy people too. How anyone thinks excizing this moment from the credits will have any impact is the real mystery here.

 

If you remove all comedy that offends even a single person what do we have left?