TheBoost

Back to the question at hand.

The dude who did the fan-edit of "Huck Finn" is a scholar. He's not a knee-jerk hippy who wants to remove all racism from the past. He's not trying to put boxers on Michaelangelo's David or re-edit "Birth of a Nation" to be less offensive.

His main goal seems to be getting Huck Finn back into classrooms that have in the past rejected it do to one word. The N-word.

In the US at least, public school classrooms are far from ideal. They answer to elected officials. are constantly villified in the press, and any angry parent is capable of disrupting everything.

A few thoughts

• The author is in no way trying to improve the test, or match Twain's original vision.
• There is no way the original text can be replaced or surplanted.
• The bowlderdized book contains a lengthy introduction explaining the alterations made, so there's no inherent deceptiveness that often comes with censorship.
• Even without the n-word Huck Finn is a scathing condemnation of racism. It's not like "Slave Jim" suddenly has a good deal.

Is the venhement reaction against the removal of one word that much better than the reaction of people who wont read such an important novel because of one word? If we boil the complicated issue of racism down to a word, aren't we missing the forest for the trees? Would Strom Thurmond have been less racist if he didn't say the n-word? Would Martin Luther King Jr. have been a terrible man if he did? Is the word magic in-and-of itself?

I'm against this edition of "Huck Finn." I wish America could look at its own checkered past honestly, without freaking out, but that's not the case.

But in all honesty, is it better to get a classroom of teenagers to confront these issues in a book that is 'censored,' or to deny them the work totally?

Warbler said:

it may be, I am also forced to agree with them that it is a double standard. 

Think for a moment about this "double-standard."

Do we mean that black people can use any slur they want? Can President Obama drop the N-Word? Has Branford Marsalis called you a cracker? Does former Governor General of Canada Adrienne Clarkson have a pass to call other people of Chinese descent various slurs? Do these things happen?

Or are there a few low-class pop musicians using slurs and selling primarily to white people, and some political activists chosing to embrace epithets for their own goals?

What actually is it that upsets you?

Deleted for redundancy.

Honest question-

If the alternative was for a high school class to NOT teach "Huck Finn" at all because of the n-word, or to teach "Huck Finn" in this altered state, which is prefferable?

Kenobius Prime said:

Wait, yes I can.  We live in a time where EVERYONE can call each other names except whites, who have to apologize for everything and maintain political correctness.

Editing Huckleberry Finn is an absolute travesty, just as much as changing the OT.

I agree that an altered "Huck Finn" is a tragedy. IMHO much worse than the SEs.

But my first though isn't "Oh, us poor poor white people!"

I figured it's being published so white folks can read it and not be made uncomforable.

EDIT: Read up on it. Yeah, the according to the expunger and the publisher of the work, it IS all about white people's comfort levels.

haljordan28 said:

Mielr said:

I don't know how HK can say that was "not Mark", especially since Mark says he now remembers shooting the scene.....

 

if how you say he is saying NOW he did it  then I  suggest lucas is spending some money and saying  "hey old buddy  do me a favor  and say you did this" Surly  everyone by now  knows lucas is not to be trusted and WILL DO OR SAY ANYTHING TO   make more money from star wars

Am I clear hear, are you saying Lucas is paying Mark Hamill off to say that he shot those scenes in order to trick us into buying "Star Wars" on BluRay?

So the fake Luke actor, every technician involved in the fake shoot, everying at LFL who was aware of the secret shoot schedule and funding, costume fabricators, prop makers, Lucas and Mark Hamil are all in on this huge conspiracy that will result in very little money, because everyone is going to buy "Star Wars" on BluRay anyways.

OR Mark Hamil had forgotten the half-hour it took him to shoot this close up twenty years ago, and now recalls it when shown it.

Also, you've seem to have conflated the fact GL is a well documented fibber witht he fact you hate GL because he makes a lot of money. While he does lie a great deal, these seem to be based on personal mythmaking and monumental insecurity.

What lies does Lucas tell with the purpose of somehow making more money off his already extremely profitable films?

Sluggo said:

The thread's broke?  Not that I can see from here...

 On page 2, I cant see past Anch's post.

who broke the thread?

TV's Frink said:

I would pay every cent I have to see that bomb go BOOM!

VADER: Obi-Wan, we meet again at last.

OBI: What's up slavey?

VADER: What's that in your hand!?!

OBI: Just a little remote control I bought at Mos Espa.

:::click:::

VADER: Nooooooooooooooooooo-BOOM!

Diego said:

The whole "Anakin was a slave when he was a kid" is irrelevant later on, and it's really kinda stupid. Anakin doesn't seem to have it so bad while being a slave, in fact he looks very middle-class. Sure he has to work for Watto, and yes, children shouldn't work, but what else is there to do on Tatooine. Did they have an excellent school that Anakin wasn't attending?? I don't think so. Watto even let him go early that one time we did see him working, and he yelled Yipee!! (like Watto's a cool boss). His house doesn't look that different from Luke's. The whole slave was pointless.

 Seriously!

If you read a quick synopsis of TPM, who would guess that "being born into slavery on a harsh desert world" would have no bearing on Darth Vader's development... other than not caring for sand.

And wait... does he still have that bomb in his head during the other movies?

I remember how totally random it was, but the old "Conan The Barbarian" tv series in the 90s had the CGI head of Richard Burton as the god Crom.

Really weird.

"ME AND ORSON WELLES"

Fun movie, great actor as Orson Welles.

But Zac Effron must go home at night, put his DVD of ROTS in, and think "Gee, I wish I had the charisma, screen presence, and subtle range of emotion that Hayden Christianson has." 

gobalicious said:

One of the great things about the OT was the elaborate back story we got through hints across the three films.

I've been going through possible rewrites of the prequel story in my head and the more I do it the more I realize how difficult it is to fit the back story we get in the OT into only three films. 

The events preceding the OT are much more complicated than the story of the OT itself. Consider the events we have to go through:

... ... ...

The complexity of the story and its forced insertion into only 3 films is one of the reasons I think the prequels failed.  Even had Lucas put more effort into making more consistent plot lines, better dialogue, and more sympathetic characters, this difficulty might have been too much to overcome.  In sum, the story is just too broad and expansive. 

I think you're including a lot of events that don't HAVE to be there.  Remember, the story worked just fine for 22 years without a prequal at all.

The Prequals don't HAVE to exist. Consequently, a question to be asked is what would be the BEST story to tell.

We don't NEED to see Anakin become a Jedi. He could be one at the start.

We don't NEED to see the Clone Wars. Perhaps the start of the story is the immediate aftermath of this galaxy wide conflice.

We don't NEED to see a love story. Anakin might start the story with a wife.

We don't NEED to see Palpy's rise to power. The rise of the empire could be experienced from other characters POVs.

I'm not trying to argue with your thoughts. Only to point out that there's no need to answer every possible question posed in the OT.

double post.

But I'll use this opportunity to say, I'd love to see Rick McCallum watch this. Would his bullshit-gland explode trying to respond?

Chewtobacca said:

TheBoost said:his talk about editing and how shitty dialogue scenes are were EXTREMELY on the money. Kudos.

Exactly!  This was definitely one of the strengths of the review.

I enjoyed RLM's latest offering immensely.

I think the TPM review was mostly a kind of angry fanboy rant, parroting what we all didn't like and in some cases bending over backward to invent things to be angry about ("How did the protocol droid know they were Jedi?")

But this ROTS review, especially part three, actually crosses the line where it's practically a textbook on filmmaking. I feel I'd be a better filmmaker after I watched this.

For discussions sake, I do disagree that the long opening shot is somehow not impressive just because CGI imagery is now ubiquitous in cinema. I think the opening shot, starting with the two fighters and the slow reveal of just how HUGE that battle is one of the better action sequences in the film and some of the best CGI in the PT.

RLM's reviews and humor are both hit and miss with me, but his talk about editing and how shitty dialogue scenes are were EXTREMELY on the money. Kudos.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Warbler said:

I the preschoolers who saw it the original way, without seat belts, would disagree with you once they grow and want their childhood show preserved exactly as they originally aired.

lets put it this way: what about the shows were aimed for you when you were a preschooler,  would you want them altered to please the parents of today's preschoolers?  

Are you aware that "Peppa Pig" is only a 4 year old show?

 parents should be the parents, not tv shows.

Cute lil strawman. So the only people who can care about whats on TV are people with no kids? If you have a kid the only option allowed to you is to hide your child from all media. Otherwise you're just a bad parent letting TV raise your kid.

And lets not forget, this started with parents concerned about the lessons being shown to preschoolers on a show thats fucking purpose is to show lessons to preschoolers. How incredibly out of line those asshole parents were!!

Chewtobacca said:

I think events in cartoons should be allowed to be depicted differently to events in real life -- that's part of the nature of cartoons.  If the people who make cartoons want to add seatbelts to future productions, then that's up to them, but if seatbelts are added in to existing cartoons, I don't where it would end.  I hate to think of what would be done to Tom and Jerry, Road Runner or other classic cartoons.

 

But Pepa Pig is a cartoon AIMED AT PRESCHOOLERS. It's not exactly "Finnegan's Wake." Seatbelts and shit is exactly what these type of cartoons are supposed to be concerned with. And the studio did the alterations all voluntarily, because their job is to please the parents of preschoolers. No jackbooted stormtroopers will harm your classic cartoons.