Now Introducing HBO Max Classic

[Snow Queen]

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

Didn't you hear? You're supposed to send your copy back to them to be burned.

 

[MadVillainy]

Moreover, for better or worse, the private company that owns Gone with the Wind has every right to make that title available or not available on their streaming platform as they see fit. I’m still twiddling my thumbs waiting for If Looks Could Kill, but I’m guessing my thumbs will be twiddling for awhile. If they want to spend $30 million (or more) crafting a finished version of Zack Snyder’s Justice League, that’s their choice. And yes, there is a cultural issue with the availability (and conversation) around a given movie or TV show being almost entirely tied to whether it’s available for free on a given streaming service, but that’s to HBO Max’s gain so I don’t expect any changes on that front.

Here’s the best part. Here’s why HBO Max removing Gone with the Wind is not censorship. Even if you ignore everything else stated above, you can still buy or rent Gone with the Wind on every single major VOD platform around. Be it Amazon AMZN, Google Play, FandangoNow, iTunes or any others I don’t feel like listing, you can rent the 233-minute epic for as little as $4 or you can digitally own it for as little as $10. If you’re still into physical media (bless you), it’s currently the top-ranked DVD over at Amazon. You can even get the original novel on your Kindle for $0.65.

Just because it’s currently unavailable on HBO Max, a single (less-than-a-month-old) streaming service does not mean the film is no longer affordably available for viewing. Oh, and if you’re upset about the new Looney Tunes shorts (which are pretty damn good) no longer featuring gun-toting antagonists, you should know that HBO Max has plenty of older tunes with plenty of gun play for your viewing pleasure. I wish that the “ultimate edition” of Batman v Superman were on the service instead (or along with) the theatrical cut, but that’s not censorship either.

HBO Max Removing ‘Gone With The Wind’ Is Not Censorship

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

What time they announce it? Because I knew before 10am east coast time.

Also I am pretty sure it is going to be more then a "Disclaimer". We might get an intro or something akin to a roundtable discussion.

Disney+ really doesn't help your argument here. Because they actually "censor" their own movies.

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

So are you going to make an actual argument or not?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Look at this censorship!

 

[MadVillainy]

What time they announce it? Because I knew before 10am east coast time.

So are you going to make an actual argument or not?

Yeah so, according to the timestamp on this tweet it was announced around 12Am EST
What time is that PST?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah so, according to the timestamp on this tweet it was announced around 12Am EST

That would have been 9pm yesterday night. I didn't even know any of this happened until the morning.

 

[MadVillainy]

That would have been 9pm yesterday night. I didn't even know any of this happened until the morning.

Me neither.

And you know what? It's because no gives a damn about GWTW anymore. Imagine if they did this with like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, or you know a movie people actually still cared about.

I just don't get why people are determined to get in their feelings about this

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Me neither.

And you know what? It's because no gives a damn about GWTW anymore. Imagine if they did this with like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, or you know a movie people actually still cared about.

I just don't get why people are determined to get in their feelings about this

I disagree. I personally have an attachment to it, do to my youth and I am sure it is a movie a lot of people are still attached to for various reasons. Which is fine. It's the ridiculous cries of censorship and people trying to die on some hill because a company pulled their own movie from their service (short or long term, it doesn't matter) that is the issue here imo.

One of my favorite channels on YT is Contrapoints. She has recently taken down the majority of her videos from her channel. Basically everything she put up pre-transition. Beyond their entertainment value, I learned a lot from those videos. But she took them down and that was her choice. From people like Vile and jmc, that is apparently censorship. According to jmc, Natalie Wynn should be robbed of her copyright and the videos put back up because... well I am still not sure yet why. It's such a ridiculous position. It's painful.

 

[MadVillainy]

I disagree. I personally have an attachment to it, do to my youth and I am sure it is a movie a lot of people are still attached to for various reasons. Which is fine. It's the ridiculous cries of censorship and people trying to die on some hill because a company pulled their own movie from their service (short or long term, it doesn't matter) that is the issue here imo.

One of my favorite channels on YT is Contrapoints. She has recently taken down the majority of her videos from her channel. Basically everything she put up pre-transition. Beyond their entertainment value, I learned a lot from those videos. But she took them down and that was her choice. From people like Vile and jmc, that is apparently censorship. According to jmc, Natalie Wynn should be robbed of her copyright and the videos put back up because... well I am still not sure yet why. It's such a ridiculous position. It's painful.

i should rephrase, not many people care about it and if they did it without making an announcement no one would've noticed. Because it's not like people were running to watch the movie on HBO Max before this. At least from what I've seen. Because compared to like Godfather or CItizen Kane, I don't feel like people run toward GWTW anymore
Again at least from what I've seen

 

[DarthSkywalker]

i should rephrase, not many people care about it and if they did it without making an announcement no one would've noticed. Because it's not like people were running to watch the movie on HBO Max before this. At least from what I've seen. Because compared to like Godfather or CItizen Kane, I don't feel like people run toward GWTW anymore

*Looks around the country at the moment*

Actually, I can think of a few people who might be rushing to watch Gone with the Wind right now.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm vehemently against Disney+ censoring their films and I've said as much as well. it's ridiculous to pay for a premium subscription service and get censored/edited versions of films. If it's that problematic, make the original, uncut versions available to viewers or subscribers and have a family friendlier version.

Then don't pay for it.

 

[Snow Queen]

It seems what's upsetting you is use of the word censorship. Gone With the Wind is a film. It's a work of art. Just because WB owns copyright on the film doesn't mean it's not censorship, and doesn't mean it's OK. I'm not going to argue against the problems the film presents or its racially problematic depictions. I agree those are valid complaints. But removing it or suppressing it is still censorship by its very definition.

They took it down for a bit while they add on a disclaimer or something to that extent, it's really not that big of a deal. If you're desperate to watch the movie right this second or without anything mentioning the depiction issues, you can just buy or rent it through a dozen other different methods.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah so, according to the timestamp on this tweet it was announced around 12Am EST

What time is that PST?

As for the news about the temporary removal, I only heard and saw it got yanked yesterday. I didn't see news that it was temporary and would be put back on with a disclaimer until later today. Which OK I guess. The whole incident still sounds strange.

Like it sounds like HBO Max did this as an overreaction or an overreaction which they are now quietly walking back.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It seems what's upsetting you is use of the word censorship. Gone With the Wind is a film. It's a work of art. Just because WB owns copyright on the film doesn't mean it's not censorship, and doesn't mean it's OK. I'm not going to argue against the problems the film presents or its racially problematic depictions. I agree those are valid complaints. But removing it or suppressing it is still censorship by its very definition.

Tearing down Hitler's statues? Censorship. Throwing a well known slave trader's statue into the sea? Censorship. An artist destroying their own work? Censorship.

 

[jmc]

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

We cannot have an imbalanced situation where the works of today are given preferential financial treatment compared to the works of 500 years ago. The art world becomes a better place when ideas and concepts are returned back to the community. If I had some piece of art make me rich and famous I'd want it given back to the public domain upon my death, because whatever royalties I've made will be more than enough for my family to survive on. Anyone think the Tolkien's are going to be struggling anytime soon? Probably not is my guess. Places like Disney and WB have built their entire existence from the foundations of the works of Hans Christian Anderson, Shakespeare, the Brothers Grimm and numerous folktales and mythologies. Life time of the author plus 70 years is the current law, more then enough time for a family or corporation to make their money back. Every artist who takes out from the box of stories that came before has to eventually contribute back to that box.

 

[jmc]

Look at this censorship!

This was clearly Banksy's intent from the beginning of the piece. And it was frankly genius.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

We cannot have an imbalanced situation where the works of today are given preferential financial treatment compared to the works of 500 years ago. The art world becomes a better place when ideas and concepts are returned back to the community. If I had some piece of art make me rich and famous I'd want it given back to the public domain upon my death, because whatever royalties I've made will be more than enough for my family to survive on. Anyone think the Tolkien's are going to be struggling anytime soon? Probably not is my guess. Places like Disney and WB have built their entire existence from the foundations of the works of Hans Christian Anderson, Shakespeare, the Brothers Grimm and numerous folktales and mythologies. Life time of the author plus 70 years is the current law, more then enough time for a family or corporation to make their money back. Every artist who takes out from the box of stories that came before has to eventually contribute back to that box.

We don't even know who actually created the work 500 years ago. Hell we don' t even know who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

You want to be Batman at the end of TDKR's that is completely your option. Why do you need to put that on others?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This was clearly Banksy's intent from the beginning of the piece. And it was frankly genius.

But now people can't properly see it. Appreciate it as it was given to the world. I want to see it how it was before it was destroyed and taken from the world!

 

[TheVileOne]

If that was Banksy's intention with the artwork, then it's not censorship.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sorry but this is conflation and one thing has nothing to do with the other. They aren't the same thing.

They are 100% the same thing. You said films are a work of art, so are statues of awful people. So what is being conflated exactly?

 

[Snow Queen]

I'm not desperate at all. I'm bothered by the idea that you are paying money for a premium subscription service, and part of the appeal is the large film archive of classic, iconic films. But at a moment's notice, that archive you are paying for with all these iconic pictures could get pulled at a moment's notice because suddenly they are seen as too problematic.

They pull films for all kinds of reasons regularly. Hell, a few pages ago people were complaining about them removing DC movies they advertised being on their service. That's the environment you get into when you subscribe to a streaming service. Content may come and go, and may not be the cut you prefer. A movie being pulled for a little bit while they work on some kind of disclaimer doesn't mean suddenly movies will become inaccessible in perpetuity, or that you won't be able to find them any other way if you want to. It's not even a case where you won't be able to watch Gone With the Wind on HBO Max anymore.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If that was Banksy's intention with the artwork, then it's not censorship.

It was WB's intention to take the movie down. What is different here? Remember, Gone with the Wind is a classic studio film. It was completely crafted by the studio. They own every last bit of it. It's their work.

 

[jmc]

We don't even know who actually created the work 500 years ago. Hell we don' t even know who really wrote Shakespeare's plays.

You want to be Batman at the end of TDKR's that is completely your option. Why do you need to put that on others?

And? We know who made the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Chapel, Snow White, Frankenstein, the list goes on. You take ideas from these creators? Fine, but you give back eventually. That's the deal with copyright.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not desperate at all. I'm bothered by the idea that you are paying money for a premium subscription service, and part of the appeal is the large film archive of classic, iconic films. But at a moment's notice, that archive you are paying for with all these iconic pictures could get pulled at a moment's notice because suddenly they are seen as too problematic.

You do realize that a big chunk of the content on HBO Max isn't owned by Warner right? A lot of it will disappear unless they renew contracts. That don't even own the rights to stream a lot of their own films right now. It is why the DC movies are disappearing.

 

[jmc]

But now people can't properly see it. Appreciate it as it was given to the world. I want to see it how it was before it was destroyed and taken from the world!

That was literally his intent. It's not censorship if the author designed it that way. It's straight from the Rian Johnson playbook, a subversion of expectations, and frankly, it made the piece more valuable.