Now Introducing HBO Max Classic

[DarkKnight88]

 

[Zorro]

It's a movie that will be back but with an added advisory or message before the film. They should have just added the advisory than remove the film itself but eh it'll be back soon so whatever

 

[jmc]

I am not pro making these films disappear, but this make little sense. You can't tell people what to do with the art they own.

Except the people who made these movies are long gone, and the companies who now own this stuff have had decades to earn revenue from it. At a certain point they have to give back to art what they took out in. The copyright for GWWT is going to expire in the next decade anyway which means it will fall into public domain eventually, so it's not that big of a deal. The thing is art is important for society, and stuff that may been controversial by today's standards shouldn't be hidden away simply because a company is too cowardly to own their past. It's too easy now for companies to remove, censor or digitally alter the material and that is frankly a very dangerous path to go down which shouldn't be tolerated. We're seeing it with the Simpsons, WB, with Disney, this is a very bad series of precedents that needs to be stopped. Copyright laws need a complete overhaul from top to bottom anyway, the period of time granted for a works protection is too long. Some type of clause needs to be in place where by the possibility of forfeiture exists to ensure work isn't subjected to this type of cowardly corporate behaviour. Even today we've had our local Netflix cave into the twitter mob removing 'insensitive' programming. Whether these companies like it our not their own art needs to be protected. If they are that embarrassed by it then hand it over to the public, rid yourself of it. Hell most of these companies began life using public domain stories (cough Disney), so it's about time they started paying their debts to art history.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Except the people who made these movies are long gone, and the companies who now own this stuff have had decades to earn revenue from it. At a certain point they have to give back to art what they took out in. The copyright for GWWT is going to expire in the next decade anyway which means it will fall into public domain eventually, so it's not that big of a deal. The thing is art is important for society, and stuff that may been controversial by today's standards shouldn't be hidden away simply because a company is too cowardly to own their past. It's too easy now for companies to remove, censor or digitally alter the material and that is frankly a very dangerous path to go down which shouldn't be tolerated. We're seeing it with the Simpsons, WB, with Disney, this is a very bad series of precedents that needs to be stopped. Copyright laws need a complete overhaul from top to bottom anyway, the period of time granted for a works protection is too long. Some type of clause needs to be in place where by the possibility of forfeiture exists to ensure work isn't subjected to this type of cowardly corporate behaviour. Even today we've had our local Netflix cave into the twitter mob removing 'insensitive' programming. Whether these companies like it our not their own art needs to be protected. If they are that embarrassed by it then hand it over to the public, rid yourself of it. Hell most of these companies began life using public domain stories (cough Disney), so it's about time they started paying their debts to art history.

So they own the art They either are the company responsible for making the art, or they bought the company responsible for the art. So they own it.

 

[jmc]

So they own the art They either are the company responsible for making the art, or they bought the company responsible for the art. So they own it.

Question, do you think copyright should be indefinite?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Question, do you think copyright should be indefinite?

Sure, why not? This isn't the 19th century. We can track these things very easy. There is no reason that whoever owns the Disney company shouldn't own Mickey Mouse.

 

[jmc]

Sure, why not? This isn't the 19th century. We can track these things very easy. There is no reason that whoever owns the Disney company shouldn't own Mickey Mouse.

The same Disney company who's entire existence is predicated by the numerous public domain works they adapted into film? You think artists families and companies, decades or even hundreds of years after the fact and having had no direct hand in the creation of a work, should continue to profit off said work?

 

[Schlosser85]

The same Disney company who's entire existence is predicated by the numerous public domain works they adapted into film? You think artists families and companies, decades or even hundreds of years after the fact and having had no direct hand in the creation of a work, should continue to profit off said work?

If I was a member of the family profiting, I’d certainly think so.

 

[MadVillainy]

This is censorship plain and simple. How hard is it to add a disclaimer to a streaming service? Very glad I'm not paying for HBO Max if they are going to do things like this.

These are good reasons why it's still beneficial to own physical media when streaming services pull nonsense like this.

I still wonder why Splash Mountain exists when Song of the South is this taboo film Disney will never talk about or never re-release these days. Splash Mountain uses characters from that film, the songs, and even quotes from the film are part of the ride.

It's clear you don't understand what censorship means if you think this is censorship

 

[Snow Queen]

This is censorship plain and simple. How hard is it to add a disclaimer to a streaming service? Very glad I'm not paying for HBO Max if they are going to do things like this.

They already said they're putting it back in a few days with a disclaimer, and you're able to access it in a variety of other ways. Why couldn't they just stick a disclaimer in front without pulling it down? Well, I don't know, but it sure worked out for them given they managed to capitalize on it to get it to shoot up in sales on Amazon.

I still wonder why Splash Mountain exists when Song of the South is this taboo film Disney will never talk about or never re-release these days. Splash Mountain uses characters from that film, the songs, and even quotes from the film are part of the ride.

Song of the South wasn't considered taboo by the company when Splash Mountain was developed, the film being re-released the year prior to groundbreaking. As it is, it's a popular ride that cuts out at least most of what's considered controversial from the film and most people probably have no idea it's based on it. It's not cheap to tear down a ride of that nature, or even give it a thorough retheme, and as long as it's popular they probably see no reason to.

 

[MadVillainy]

It just never ceases to amaze me how determined people are to get upset, be negative, or be annoyed about things

 

[Zorro]

HBO handled this well. Could have been better if they simply added the disclaimer but at least they're adding back the film in a couple of days or something as is with just an added disclaimer before the film than removing the film permanently

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Everyone is up in arms about Scarlet O Hara and I’m still pissed that the DCEU movies will be gone soon.

I feel a little hoodwinked about that.

 

[flickchick85]

They'll all be back.

 

[MadVillainy]

I repeat:

It just never ceases to amaze me how determined people are to get upset, be negative, or be annoyed about things

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So what? And secondly, this seems very sketchy if you ask me. Sounds like they are only doing this in reaction to the backlash. Thirdly, if this was all a publicity stunt to drive up sales, that's even more ridiculous.

You have failed to point out how this is an issue here. Also those buying the movie on Amazon are idiots, racists, and apparently illiterate.

And yet the ride has stayed up these past 30 years. Still keeps in the song that's viewed as a depiction of the "idyllic happy slave" life and quotes from Uncle Remus in the film are in the ride.

Disney had no problem re-theming Twilight Tower of Terror in Guardians Mission Breakout.

That is because they are turning that part of California Adventure into Marvel land, and the dude who runs their theme park division is super cheap.

But I am sure if you went on Splash Mountain you can readily find the racism, just like Gone with the Wind!

 

[MadVillainy]

I know what it means perfectly well.



This is censorship by it's very definition.

Yeah it really isn't and it's very clear now you don't understand. Adding a disclaimer and not changing the content itself isn't censoring anything. Temporarily taking something down to add something to it isn't censoring it. Nothing is being prohibited. Nothing is being suppressed. Read what they're doing with it again.
You don't always have to be negative about things

 

[MadVillainy]

Pulling the movie without notice was censorship. So yes it was.

No it wasn't.
And you didn't even elaborate why it is. YOu just said your point over again.
Nothing is being suppressed nothing is being prohibited. By the definition you yourself even posted it's not censorship.
If I own a shop and see the sign can be fixed and I take it down temporarily to fix it, is that censorship?

 

[Snow Queen]

So what? And secondly, this seems very sketchy if you ask me. Sounds like they are only doing this in reaction to the backlash. Thirdly, if this was all a publicity stunt to drive up sales, that's even more ridiculous.

And yet the ride has stayed up these past 30 years. Still keeps in the song that's viewed as a depiction of the "idyllic happy slave" life and quotes from Uncle Remus in the film are in the ride.

Disney had no problem re-theming Twilight Tower of Terror in Guardians Mission Breakout.

Yes, they are doing it in reaction to backlash. That's usually how companies do things. They don't put disclaimers on their movies because the CEO woke up one day and thought "huh, racism is kinda bad, isn't it?" They do it the same reason they post black lives matter on Twitter in the last two weeks or change their avatars to pride flags for June, because they feel like they can make profit or give their company a positive image. WB doing this makes them look good with some people, requires minimal effort and allows them to continue profiting off the film both directly through HBO Max and indirectly by causing people to flock to buy it off Amazon. This isn't something they're doing out of the goodness of their hearts.

Mission Breakout is actually a good example of the above. They rethemed it for the same reasons outlined above: profits. Disney wanted Marvel in their parks to make money, Chapek's cheap, Twilight Zone's not a draw the way Guardians is and requires licensing from CBS. If their spreadsheets show that they can make more money off turning Splash Mountain into something else than keeping it, they'll do it. But retheming something like that, particularly with extensive rockwork and a large number of animatronics takes money, and while it pulls in some of the longest waits they have, they have no incentive to change it.

 

[MadVillainy]

When they pulled the movie there was no announcement that it was temporary and that it would be coming back with a disclaimer. That wasn't updated until later. Seriously, how hard is it to add a disclaimer file to a streaming service? Even Disney+ has disclaimers to the films and shorts that are considered culturally unacceptable now.



Seems like it's time to tear down Splash Mountain since it's based on a film that's widely considered racist and taboo.

How hard is it? Do you know the HBO Max system and what goes into it? If I had to guess it's a liiiiiitle more complicated than just taking something down and putting it up like on YouTube or Twitch

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Pulling the movie without notice was censorship. So yes it was.

They censored... THEMSELVES!!!!

 

[MadVillainy]

No that's not censorship because that's not what happened here.

Explain how it's censorship then. You really havent said. What is being prohibited or suppressed?

Can you not see that you aren't even backing your own argument? Because you know you don't have one. You just needed something to complain about

 

[MadVillainy]

I mean do you know their system? Either way, it sounds sketchy if you ask me.

I never claimed to know there system or ask "how hard is it to do"
Come on you're really trying to do the Uno reverse card with the arguments?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes, they are doing it in reaction to backlash. That's usually how companies do things. They don't put disclaimers on their movies because the CEO woke up one day and thought "huh, racism is kinda bad, isn't it?" They do it the same reason they post black lives matter on Twitter in the last two weeks or change their avatars to pride flags for June, because they feel like they can make profit or give their company a positive image. WB doing this makes them look good with some people, requires minimal effort and allows them to continue profiting off the film both directly through HBO Max and indirectly by causing people to flock to buy it off Amazon. This isn't something they're doing out of the goodness of their hearts.

Mission Breakout is actually a good example of the above. They rethemed it for the same reasons outlined above: profits. Disney wanted Marvel in their parks to make money, Chapek's cheap, Twilight Zone's not a draw the way Guardians is and requires licensing from CBS. If their spreadsheets show that they can make more money off turning Splash Mountain into something else than keeping it, they'll do it. But retheming something like that, particularly with extensive rockwork and a large number of animatronics takes money, and while it pulls in some of the longest waits they have, they have no incentive to change it.

What are you talking about? That is exactly how the Civil Rights Act was passed.

We know way too much about Disney Parks and how they work.... I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[MadVillainy]

All that really has to be done is explain what is being prohibited and suppressed. That's what censorship is. If you can't properly say, it's clearly not censorship