Blu-ray revisionism now getting ridiculous — Page 2

Monolithium said:

I don't think "Fruit Monster" would go over well with parents.  Of course that all depends on how he eats the banana.

I sure wish I could unread this.

Murry Sparkles said:

when all is said and done it's down to the parent's to look after and educate their children on matters such as safety and eating habbits etc.

I agree. Well said. It's a great argument no one in their right mind would disagree with.

It's also not the point.

Why does being a parent mean that someone has no right to speak out or have concern with the media being produced to educate their children and marketed at their children?

"Seasame Street" is a great example because they are constantly changing in an effort to better serve and educate their customers. The entire format of the show is radically different than when we were kids, because of research, parent feedback, and focus groups. In fact, Cookie Monster DOES now teach kids about nutrition.

Is this so bad?

What is so wrong with a cartoon company wanting to a) satisfy it's consumers and b) show a little social responsiblity? Why does this instantly translate into jackbooted stormtroopers trying to destroy all of art history?Why must it be a ridiculous slippery slope?

The fact we grew up OK watching Jerry kill Tom is irrelevant, because that's not the show the makers of "Pepper Pig" are trying to make.

there is a difference between changing things around when you make new episodes, and going back and editing the old ones.    for example: I have no problem with the characters in new episodes of "Pepper Pig" wearing seat belts and helmets.   In fact, I think its a good idea.  The problem is with going back and editing the old episodes and pretending that they always wore seat belts and helmets. 

and when did I say that parents have no right to speak out?  

TheBoost said:

The fact we grew up OK watching Jerry kill Tom is irrelevant, because that's not the show the makers of "Pepper Pig" are trying to make.

would it be ok with you if they edit the old cartoons so that Jerry wasn't killing Tom?

and its not irrelevant.   if watching Jerry kill Tom didn't harm us,  I doubt that watching characters not wearing seat belts and helmets will harm today's kids.

TheBoost said:

What is so wrong with a cartoon company wanting to a) satisfy it's consumers and b) show a little social responsiblity?

nothing, its when it turns to revisionist history to do so is the problem

 

Why does this instantly translate into jackbooted stormtroopers trying to destroy all of art history?Why must it be a ridiculous slippery slope?

because it is a slippery slope.   how far do we take this stuff how many other shows must we edit and change old episodes.   When do we draw the line?

Warbler said:

because it is a slippery slope.   how far do we take this stuff how many other shows must we edit and change old episodes.   When do we draw the line?

If anything is done to old cartoon shows, that's on the owners of those shows. Where is the black-robed and hooded evil cabal that has the power to do this?

I guess I'm missing a step here.

1. "Peper Pig" is produced
2. Parents express reasonable concern over seat-belt issue.
3. Producers of "Peper Pig" concede. Add seatbelts and alter previous shows that are still broadcast in re-runs to address concern.
4. ? ? ?
5. All art ever produced is destroyed.

Out of curiosity, what's you opinion of Disney removing the black centaur from "Fantasia?" Was that unacceptable revisionist history?

TheBoost said:  Why does being a parent mean that someone has no right to speak out or have concern with the media being produced to educate their children and marketed at their children?

Who said that?  After accusing Warbler of setting up a straw man, you proceed to set up one of your own.

Why must it be a ridiculous slippery slope?

It's not that it must be: it's just that some of us are concerned that it might be.  All too often it seems that restrictions on what people can do that seem inconsequential -- and even reasonable -- at the time begin to mount up, and they are harder to reverse than they are to put in place, which is why people are wary of them.  Like Warbler, I have no objection to seatbelts being put in future shows, but reanimating old material to put in seatbelts seems as ridiculous to me as the slippery slope apparently appears to you.

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

because it is a slippery slope.   how far do we take this stuff how many other shows must we edit and change old episodes.   When do we draw the line?

 

If anything is done to old cartoon shows, that's on the owners of those shows. Where is the black-robed and hooded evil cabal that has the power to do this?

I never said there was a black-robed and hooded evil cabal.

TheBoost said:

 

I guess I'm missing a step here.

1. "Peper Pig" is produced
2. Parents express reasonable concern over seat-belt issue.
3. Producers of "Peper Pig" concede. Add seatbelts and alter previous shows that are still broadcast in re-runs to address concern.
4. ? ? ?
5. All art ever produced is destroyed.

 

I also never said that it would destroy all art. 

TheBoost said:

 

Out of curiosity, what's you opinion of Disney removing the black centaur from "Fantasia?" Was that unacceptable revisionist history?

 

it is if you don't make the original available.    The scene should never have been made that way, but it was.  Alot was done back then that shouldn't have been done.   It is wrong to cover up what was done.   Let Fantasia be what it is: a product of its time.  You can learn alot about what it was like back then by watching the movies made back then.  But you can't learn as much if they go back and edit the films to make them more acceptable for  today's audiences.  

Chewtobacca said:

 Like Warbler, I have no objection to seatbelts being put in future shows, but reanimating old material to put in seatbelts seems as ridiculous to me as the slippery slope apparently appears to you.

But since those old shows are still on the air, any concerns about seatbelts continue to apply.

Chewtobacca said:

Why must it be a ridiculous slippery slope?

It's not that it must be: it's just that some of us are concerned that it might be.  All too often it seems that restrictions on what people can do that seem inconsequential -- and even reasonable -- at the time begin to mount up, and they are harder to reverse than they are to put in place, which is why people are wary of them. 

But no one has any restriction placed on them. None.

My opinion of this would be different if there had been. But there is no restriction. No government action. No political campaign. No new rules. Just a private entertainment company voluntarily responding to a concern from their primary audience that allows them to better serve their customers.

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

 

If anything is done to old cartoon shows, that's on the owners of those shows. Where is the black-robed and hooded evil cabal that has the power to do this?

I never said there was a black-robed and hooded evil cabal.

TheBoost said:

 

1. All art ever produced is destroyed.

 

I also never said that it would destroy all art. 

Forgive my hyperbole. However, a group of parents that communicated directly with an animation company does not somehow translate into a group with the power to re-edit "Tom and Jerry." I fail to see how one leads to the other.

TheBoost said:

Chewtobacca said:

 Like Warbler, I have no objection to seatbelts being put in future shows, but reanimating old material to put in seatbelts seems as ridiculous to me as the slippery slope apparently appears to you.

But since those old shows are still on the air, any concerns about seatbelts continue to apply.

we are not talking about how to air them,  we are talking about how to release them on blu-ray.    I say release both and let the parents decide which version to show kids.   Also parents have one other option if they like what characters on a tv show are doing: don't let the kids watch that show. 

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

TheBoost said:

 

If anything is done to old cartoon shows, that's on the owners of those shows. Where is the black-robed and hooded evil cabal that has the power to do this?

I never said there was a black-robed and hooded evil cabal.

TheBoost said:

 

1. All art ever produced is destroyed.

 

I also never said that it would destroy all art. 

Forgive my hyperbole. However, a group of parents that communicated directly with an animation company does not somehow translate into a group with the power to re-edit "Tom and Jerry." I fail to see how one leads to the other.

I never said it would lead/translate to a group with the power to re-edit "Tom and Jerry",  I asked if it would be ok with you if they edited it(btw, you never answered).    It seems to me that it would be inconsistent to be ok with one and not the other.  That was my point of asking that question. 

TheBoost said:But since those old shows are still on the air, any concerns about seatbelts continue to apply.

Well, as far as I'm concerned they would just have to continue to apply...

TheBoost said:But no one has any restriction placed on them. None.

My opinion of this would be different if there had been. But there is no restriction. No government action. No political campaign. No new rules. Just a private entertainment company voluntarily responding to a concern from their primary audience that allows them to better serve their customers.

I understand, and that is of course a fair point.  I do think that when one company has been convinced to do this sort of thing it makes it easier for people to convince another, and eventually people take it as so obvious that such things ought to be done that they are inclined to legislate, or not oppose legislation when it is, almost inevitably in my view, proposed.

Now, Peppa the Pig is a fairly innocuous example of this sort of thing really, so it's hard to make a case on the back of it without sounding absurd;  but there are examples of a focus group -- or whatever form of lobby -- convincing a company to make this sort of change.  Thereafter, people who did not object -- or did not feel their disapproval was sufficient grounds to change something for everyone else -- no longer had the opportunity to watch something in its original form; which is a form of restriction, albeit an indirect one, because they no longer have the choice.

bkev said: Well, yes, but Mammy's on the DVDs.

Really?  With the original voice?  I might buy them at some point.  So far I only have a few odd episodes on DVD.

bkev said:

Yeah, they even have a disclaimer with Whoopi Goldberg basically saying "don't sue us".

Lol!  I'll have to get them then.  Whoopi Goldberg's great.

EDIT: hmmmm  If they don't all have the original voice maybe I'll wait and see whether or not they revise the Blu-ray.  :-D

Warbler said:

  Also parents have one other option if they like what characters on a tv show are doing: don't let the kids watch that show.

WHY is that the only option? Why as consumers and citizens CAN'T parents take their concern to the manufacturer?

I asked if it would be ok with you if they edited it  It seems to me that it would be inconsistent to be ok with one and not the other.  That was my point of asking that question.

I don't see them as the same situation at all.

1. You have a show still being produced at aimed at preschoolers that from day one tries to teach little kids good lessons, altering itself to do that better. The show has a goal it is trying to accomplish.
2. You have an old show that has no intention of teaching anyone jack being altered by some hypothetical weirdo to fundamentally change the entire premise of the show.

And when "Tom and Jerry" was 'censored' to cut out the Mammy it was because the owners wanted to keep airing it, making money, and not piss people off. Should some kind of 'restriction' be placed on them, not allowing them to do so? Should they sacrifice profit to avoid revisionism?

Leonardo said:  one could make a custom dvd with the original audio track for Mammy replaced from vhs, where available. :)

That's true, but it's a great deal of effort, and I'm not sure it's worth the time.  I'lll just find a few episodes with the original voice and make do with them.

Leonardo said:

TheBoost said:

 Should some kind of 'restriction' be placed on them, not allowing them to do so? Should they sacrifice profit to avoid revisionism?

In the name of Art and Historical accuracy, I'd say yes.

If they wanna make money, spend money on a new show (I know, the easiest and cheapest way is the reruns)

So the government should tell people what they can and can't do with their intellectual property in the name of Art? Isn't that the slippery slope?

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

  Also parents have one other option if they like what characters on a tv show are doing: don't let the kids watch that show.

WHY is that the only option? Why as consumers and citizens CAN'T parents take their concern to the manufacturer?

I didn't say it was the only option, I was merely pointing out that it was another option.   I also didn't say parents couldn't take their concerns to manufactures.     I just don't manufacturers should cover up the original.  It should be available to those who want to view it.

TheBoost said:

I asked if it would be ok with you if they edited it  It seems to me that it would be inconsistent to be ok with one and not the other.  That was my point of asking that question.

I don't see them as the same situation at all.

1. You have a show still being produced at aimed at preschoolers that from day one tries to teach little kids good lessons, altering itself to do that better. The show has a goal it is trying to accomplish.

1. You have an old show that has no intention of teaching anyone jack being altered by some hypothetical weirdo to fundamentally change the entire premise of the show.

but in both cases you are going back and changing what previous was. 

TheBoost said:

And when "Tom and Jerry" was 'censored' to cut out the Mammy it was because the owners wanted to keep airing it, making money, and not piss people off. Should some kind of 'restriction' be placed on them, not allowing them to do so? Should they sacrifice profit to avoid revisionism?

Some kind of restriction?  do you mean getting the government involved have them keep the owners from changing the original?   No I would not want the government involved.  Owners should be free to do want they want with what they own, but like the parents, I am free to complain and not buy their product. 

I can under why they made the changes to Tom and Jerry.  What I can not understand nor accept is not having the originals on DVD/blu with the changed versions.   Let people decide for themselves which version to watch and preserve the originals.