Toy Story 2 has been edited for political correctness. Disney is now censoring history.

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Jag85
#51 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

Apples and oranges. Seinfeld is a comedian whose target audience are adults. Disney is a family-friendly company whose target audience are children. That deleted scene became a "deleted scene" because it's not appropriate for children.

Avatar image for pyro1245
#52 Posted by pyro1245 (5238 posts) -

Eh it's their movie, I guess they can do with it whatever they want.

Let's be real tho, you can't rely on people/companies not to change things. If you care enough about that scene, you will create a way to watch the movie with it still intact. Simple as that. It's the same reason I back up all my games. It's why I have a server full of data I care about.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#53 Posted by Ezekiel43 (1780 posts) -

@pyro1245 said:

Eh it's their movie, I guess they can do with it whatever they want.

Yeah, but Disney buys everything. It was only their movie beginning in 2006.

Avatar image for pyro1245
#54 Posted by pyro1245 (5238 posts) -
@ezekiel43 said:
@pyro1245 said:

Eh it's their movie, I guess they can do with it whatever they want.

Yeah, but Disney buys everything. It was only their movie beginning in 2006.

Oh yeah... I forgot it was a Pixar thing....

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#55 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (10943 posts) -

@minishcapper said:

@HoolaHoopMan: Ok, well if we go back to my original comparison, how is any different to show an old man with creepy unwanted sexual attraction to young women than it is to show a gay man (LeFou) with creepy unwanted sexual attraction to a straight man (Gaston)?

One is distinctly predatory in nature. That is obvious. Fawning over someone can be creepy, using a position of power to garner sex is Weinstein level wrong. They aren't the same.

You're creating a false equivalent and trying to pull homosexuality into the argument.

Avatar image for Jag85
#56 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

@ezekiel43 said:
@pyro1245 said:

Eh it's their movie, I guess they can do with it whatever they want.

Yeah, but Disney buys everything. It was only their movie beginning in 2006.

Toy Story 2 was co-produced by Disney.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#57 Edited by MirkoS77 (14458 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

Apples and oranges. Seinfeld is a comedian whose target audience are adults. Disney is a family-friendly company whose target audience are children. That deleted scene became a "deleted scene" because it's not appropriate for children.

Toy Story 2, at the time of its release (1997), was when Disney did not own them (they purchased the company in 2006). Many of Pixar's works (at least early works) are as much intended for adult audiences as they are for children, if not explicitly, then thematically and through subtext. Which sort of begs the question: why is Disney removing this scene now as opposed to when they originally bought Pixar?

But I find the larger question here to be far more relevant: should all art be open to retrospective alteration, simply because the passage of time, changing of circumstance, ownership, or current political climate deems its content suddenly unsuitable for certain demographics? I mean shit, if we're going to decide to alter works from the past simply because times have changed and some may be inclined to take offense, whether it be because a joke that worked then is now deemed to be in poor taste or something else, then that fundamentally compromises the integrity of every creative endevour and places them in danger of revisionism. In my view, art is a timestamp on history, and you don't **** with it. Not even slightly. You don't look at it through the eyes of the present time and of how it "should be" according to that period, you appreciate it in the time that it was made.....warts and all.

Otherwise we're going to have art in the future that is utterly unrecognizable from its inception and original impetus, and that has been desecrated.

Avatar image for Jag85
#58 Posted by Jag85 (13627 posts) -

@MirkoS77: Firstly, like I said above, Toy Story 2 was co-produced by Disney. In this case, the art has been altered by the very production company that co-produced it, and now entirely owns it.

Secondly, Disney has a history of altering and toning down art over the past century. Many of the fairy tales that Disney produced are not faithful to the original fairy tales. In fact, the original fairy tales were much darker, before Disney changed them and toned them down for children.

Thirdly, Disney's primary target audience has always been children, first and foremost. Yes, many children who grew up with them are now adults. And Walt Disney himself is not exactly a role model for children. But that should never be an excuse for Disney to compromise its original vision as a children's entertainment company. The joke in question, an old sleaze bag trying to sexually abuse underage girls, is entirely inappropriate for children. That's why it was a deleted scene in the first place. And now it's been permanently deleted from future releases.

And finally, the original art has not been lost, but is still there right on the internet, where all art is preserved. So the complaint about preserving art is baseless. The original art will always exist on the internet.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
#59 Posted by Ezekiel43 (1780 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

The joke in question, an old sleaze bag trying to sexually abuse underage girls, is entirely inappropriate for children.

Really exaggerating. Holy shit.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#60 Edited by MirkoS77 (14458 posts) -

Firstly, like I said above, Toy Story 2 was co-produced by Disney. In this case, the art has been altered by the very production company that co-produced it, and now entirely owns it.

So what? Ownership of an IP doesn't allow people to do with as they will once its entered the culture of which has birthed it.

Think of it as a recipe. A cook owns his recipe. He creates it and sells it. People buy it and consume it. They grow from it, they gain a new appreciation for it, perhaps it motivates them in certain directions. How is art different? The creator owns that art such as the cook owns his recipe. But once it's put out there, the culture consumes it to the same result as above. They grow, they appreciate, they learn, they get motivated. It touches every aspect of who they are. The creator then has no right, none whatsoever, to change their work, effectively reaching into these people and say, to everything their art has propagated in them, that's MINE, I'm going to change it to how I want it to be and you're going to have to accept it.

Not only should that not be allowed, you cannot do that, and certainly not based solely on the aspect and technicality of "ownership". Yes, the creator owns the property, but the people own the art once it's out there. Culture owns art, it's beholden to it, not the individual, because that individual is indebted to the culture which has allowed them to produce it.

And just a note: I have no problem with an artist or company changing their art.....as long as they make the original readily available alongside it. It's when they attempt to replace it is when I have issues.

Secondly, Disney has a history of altering and toning down art over the past century. Many of the fairy tales that Disney produced are not faithful to the original fairy tales. In fact, the original fairy tales were much darker, before Disney changed them and toned them down for children.

Yet as you argue below, you claim that Disney's primary target audience has always been children, first and foremost. So I take it you concede that they also created works for those who were not children? Many of Disney's earliest works were just as much for adults as they were for children. Sure, they appealed to the wonder of a child, but they also explored some fairly darker themes in doing so.

Thirdly, Disney's primary target audience has always been children, first and foremost. Yes, many children who grew up with them are now adults. And Walt Disney himself is not exactly a role model for children. But that should never be an excuse for Disney to compromise its original vision as a children's entertainment company. The joke in question, an old sleaze bag trying to sexually abuse underage girls, is entirely inappropriate for children. That's why it was a deleted scene in the first place. And now it's been permanently deleted from future releases.

If Disney has always been a company tailored for children, then of what need is there for them to retroactively alter their works to be able to align to that philosophy? Why haven't they been making all of their art, from the get go, for children?

I think the answer to that is fairly obvious: they always have been, only perhaps that the values have changed over time that make us look back and compare them to ours today in coming to the determination they are now not suitable. And if that's the case, they should solve that problem by ratings, not by altering their works. Their past works are their heritage. It boggles my mind that anyone could ever even humor accepting such a move.

And finally, the original art has not been lost, but is still there right on the internet, where all art is preserved. So the complaint about preserving art is baseless. The original art will always exist on the internet.

No, it's a last desperate resort, and one that constantly has to fight and find means to subvert the copyright initiative to remove them. The Internet isn't some refuge for lost or altered art that's being protected, it is a medium that is under constant threat to eradicate what these "artists" or companies wish to wipe clean from their heritage. Further, one that often requires people to have some tech know how to get the original copies (which the majority of people will not bother with), while those who do take these measures place themselves in potential legal peril.

So no, you using the Internet to excuse the desecration of our art is what is completely baseless.