Yup, this should be the standard when re-releasing older films with problematic elements.It's kind of an important part to the ending, so I didn't know how they would have pulled it off taking it out.
Just do what WB did with the warning and disclaimer about the history of the period.
This is really all Disney needs to do.It's kind of an important part to the ending, so I didn't know how they would have pulled it off taking it out.
Just do what WB did with the warning and disclaimer about the history of the period.
You would have to acknowledge that being the case and they won't.
It's kind of an important part to the ending, so I didn't know how they would have pulled it off taking it out.
Just do what WB did with the warning and disclaimer about the history of the period.
Ok, but that's more of a problem with mommy than the service. If mommy is allowing media to babysit her children, there is a lot more to worry about than the crows.
It's kind of an important part to the ending, so I didn't know how they would have pulled it off taking it out.
Just do what WB did with the warning and disclaimer about the history of the period.
Ideally <<<<parent>>>> will have a conversation with little Jimmy about this, but everyone (everyone) knows that's not going to happen.
If that's true then how do we go about preserving problematic works of art like this? I don't think the film itself can enter public domain.
Just going off the quoted poster's description there
That would also be Disney's doing
Just not like every family is gonna have a mother? Just said parent then.
This seems rather trivial but I changed it.
erm.
It's not just their colouration- it's the dialogue, the mannerisms, the names, everything.
I would argue that for educational purposes it does. Especially if the goal is to use works like this to educate future generations on the folly/cruelty of the racism it depicts. Images and sound have meaning and they make a hell of a larger emotional impact when they can be viewed by the public instead of described in words by some secondhand source. Locking something copyrighted in a vault effectively eliminates our opportunity to use it in the future as a tool for teaching.
this is so disingenuous. eyeroll.gif
Nah, people need to stop acting like this WB thing is worth imitating, rather than something that needs to be heavily improved on. It doesn't go nearly far enough in explaining what the material is or why its harmful and actually cops out of the larger discussion.It's kind of an important part to the ending, so I didn't know how they would have pulled it off taking it out.
Just do what WB did with the warning and disclaimer about the history of the period.
What would you propose they do to the film itself to NOT cop out of the larger discussion before the film actually plays?
It's good, but I think a more engaging intro is better:It's kind of an important part to the ending, so I didn't know how they would have pulled it off taking it out.
Just do what WB did with the warning and disclaimer about the history of the period.
I think the simple answer here is there's no problem sticking those items and monuments in a museum and charging entry for it.
I'd love to hear your position on the existence of Holocaust museums and other public displays of historically troubling materials. Should those not exist either because present day Neo-Nazis aren't magically cured of their racism by taking a tour of a Holocaust museum? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Could you elaborate as to how you think they should improve their disclaimer? How can they succinctly touch upon the "larger discussion".
