DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Censorship. A warning.

Nolte: Disney Book Burners Remove ‘Offensive’ Joke from ‘Toy Story 2’

The far-left Walt Disney Company is now butchering its own classics to satisfy America’s Woke Fascists.
Although the company has not officially announced the burning of Toy Story 2, CBS News reports that the company chose to memory-hole a joke in the movie, a movie that is widely regarded as a masterpiece:



Disney quietly deleted a scene from “Toy Story 2” that appeared to joke about casting couch sex — a widely discussed topic when the #MeToo movement hit Hollywood. The change was made, with no announcement, to a new version of the 1999 hit that came out earlier this year.

The deleted scene came during a gag reel in the end credits, which shows blooper-style scenes involving the film’s animated characters. It depicts the character Stinky Pete the Prospector, voiced by Kelsey Grammer, flirting with two Barbie dolls.

“You know, I’m sure I could get you a part in ‘Toy Story 3,'” Stinky Pete says, as he strokes one of the Barbies’ hands. He then realizes he’s on camera and excuses the Barbies. “All right girls, lovely talking with you,” he says. “Yes, any time you’d like some tips on acting, I’d be glad to chat with you. All right, off you go, then.”



A perfectly harmless joke. What’s more, it’s a joke that treats shameful behavior as though it’s shameful, and still the un-American Orwellians at Disney censored themselves, blacklisted their own work, vandalized a classic piece of American art.


Sadly, this is not the first and will certainly not be the last time Disney chooses to appease the mob over protecting artistic integrity.

Disney has already removed Song of the South from distribution and, to appease the Clintons, buried the factual miniseries Path to 9/11.

Every time I warn of the slippery slope, as I did when a New York movie critic called for banning Gone with the Wind, as I did when no less than the Washington Post called for Baby It’s Cold Outside to be banned, when Huckleberry Finn was banned, when To Kill a Mockingbird was banned, when Little House on the Prairie was banned, when Steve Martin’s comedy was banned, when I warned that one day Blazing Saddles will be outlawed, I am howled at as a crank and alarmist. But look at where we are now…

Disney is disappearing stupid, harmless jokes.

If a casting couch joke is not safe, what is?

The answer to that question is… Nothing.

Nothing is safe.

Nothing is safe and the saddest part of all is that this is self-censorship, corporate censorship, censorship at the hands of a handful of multi-national corporations that have seized the levers of artistic distribution and ownership, that have the legal authority to do whatever they want to countless classic film and television shows.


Speaking of television shows, The Simpsons bastardized itself earlier this year because a couple of grown men now claim they were molested by a Michael Jackson who cannot defend himself because he’s dead.



I fear that what we are seeing here is only the beginning of a purity crusade, a cleansing, a literal and figurative book burning that has already begun and has done so for exactly the reasons spelled out in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451: [emphasis added]

“Now let’s take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don’t step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean. Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. … It didn’t come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics, the good old confessions, or trade journals.”

…

“We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal. Each man the image of every other; then all are happy, for there are no mountains to make them cower, to judge themselves against. So! A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon. Breach man’s mind. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man? Me? I won’t stomach them for a minute.”

…

“Coloured people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. … Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change. Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy.



And like the books in Fahrenheit 451, the original, un-vandalized copies of Song of the South, The Simpsons, Toy Story 2, Huckleberry Finn, and Path to 9/11 can only be grabbed up before they are burned.

And then we will have to whisper about, share, and pass them on in the hopes they will be remembered as they were before the Woke Firemen brought their conflagration.

Censoring art is as un-American as it gets.

It starts with Confederate statues, leads to George Washington’s birthday, the Betsy Ross flag, and Toy Story 2, and ends … well, it never ends.

Don’t say you weren’t warned.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/...om-toy-story-2/

So the artist changed their own art to be mindful of the times... . Breitbart calling others fascist in an attempt to dilute the true meaning of the word.

I just recently found an online archive of Zap Comix, an underground publication from the late sixties featuring the work of Robert Crumb...….

And geez....the stuff in these comics....no way would this stuff be published anywhere today....

Whew.

I didn't watch the Toy Story movies.

Do you want to keep a joke like you described.

Just a note on the accuracy of the thread title - when an entity (individual or company) chooses to update or amend their own work (for whatever reason) ... that is, wasn't, couldn't be or ever will be censorship.

Hey - but it makes for a snappy title - very Trumpesque: load, brash but lacking any accuracy.

The same right wing propagandist complaining about this all but scrubbed looney toons from the face of the earth bro... There's a ton of things that used to be acceptable that aren't today. But only for us 'woke' people I guess. Like being aware of others feelings on certain matters is a bad thing... Murica.


Who the hell tells casting couch jokes to an audience of children anyway? wth?

Yes. An emphatic yes. Have you ever seen Blazing Saddles? That is probably the most politically incorrect comedy ever made. It equally jokes everyone and all representations. It's funny as hell. Every edited version I've seen ruins the movie.

And how did he scrub loony tunes?

propagandists* missed the 's'. Plural. Right wing christians went after looney toons 30 or so years ago for the violence in the cartoons.

And yet, you can still watch them. So, how did the author of the article I posted scrub looney tunes?

It's ok to produce the blatant, off color talk and nonchalant attitude toward sexual situations so often seen in the shows, "Two and a half Men" and "Two Broke Girls"

Yet!

Looney Tunes is unacceptable?

IF we had mor Looney Tunes maybe our Kids generation would be better off,

There were a lot of lessons to be learned from Looney Tunes cartoons, ( But you couldn't trust anyone to make one today, because today's idi-makers, wouldn't have the common sense of the Merry Melodies people)

a lot of lessons, not the least of which was

Everytime any character, (except Bugs of course, he was the king, so to speak)
Everytime any character seemed to have stumbeled upon something that gave them a temporary advantage in an ongoing contest, they got a smug look on their face
And BAM!!! went right into an impending wake up call of an event!


Looney Tunes: I still think Wyle E. Coyote shoulda given the rocket skates and the bat wings more time. "He had em! he had that road runner!"

Super Genious:

If it wasn't for Looney Tunes, I'd have never learned not to trust a mouse carrying a hatchet and wearing an executioners mask!

Plus! Daffy Duck was my first teacher to never assume that bugs bunnies riffle might not have one bullet left!

Are you sure it was the right wing. The last big censorship I remember is the PMRC, which was headed by Tipper Gore.

If you did some research, you'd find that cartoons have been banned for racial depictions, not violence.

Well, whddaya do you know?
-you're both right.

Back in 1969, the film company United Artists obtained the entire Warner Bros. movie and cartoons library from 1928 to 1949 for around $20 million. This library contained all the Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies cartoons made in this era.

When United Artists sat down to review what they bought, they were confronted with WB cartoons full of terrible racial stereotypes. The officials at the company directed that the more problematic cartoon shorts should be edited so that all of the stereotypical jokes and images would come out. Among those cartoons were 11 that were beyond “repair” and UA decided to take them out of the market entirely.

I think anytime people go back and "re-edit", "remaster" or "remake" any form of art they change it. I'm not sure if this is deemed censorship.

For example...remakes of films often eliminate scenes that may seem inane or problematic for the contemporary audience. Compare the two horror films, "Last House on the Left"...the 70s film is quite frankly outrageous in its violence and sexual depravity. The remake removed much of the latter, but as films are more gory today they included more splatter to satisfy the 21st century horror fan.

Remasters of famous albums go in and remaster for today's digital world. Jimmy Page as remaster all of Zeppelin's back catalog as the technology today allows him to pull things out of the music that technology in the 70s didn't allow him to do. OR, if albums were mastered while under the influence they have been remastered to correct the inferior audio mixing done at the time. There are countless albums like that.

I have read newer editions of books that have an author's preface stating that they went back in and changed a few things from the original text.

Artists work usually don't get that treatment as once they leave the studio they often never get the chance to have the artists rework areas that they may find bothersome. Most artists say that is one of the hardest things is looking at past works and not being able to change things. British painter, Frank Auerbach often works on his pieces for many years until he releases them to the world. Still, he says he cringes when he sees some of his past works that he once deemed ready to live a life beyond his studio.

So, I don't see this 'Toy Story' example as "censorship"...I see it as a studio and artists who are going back to their works and changing it for contemporary audience.

"Blazing Saddles" was mentioned, but in between the racial stereotype humor I actually think Brooks was making more fun of the dopey, stupid and small minded white folks. And, let's not forget "Airplane" too. With exception to "Don't call me, Shirley" Some of its most memorable lines were racial or cultural. However, one thing I would say about "Airplane" is literally nobody was safe from their humor. The Zucker Bros are Jewish and they take plenty of shots at Jews and even the white middle class kid who is flying for a heart transplant gets fair, equal and hilariously evil treatment from the directors. When one laughs at oneself that can be endearing and I think they were doing that fairly well. That said, my guess is some of its stereotypes probably wouldn't "fly" today (pun intended).

I read that article. I especially liked the part where the black musicians they used for characters in the snow white parody were all in in the cartoon. They wanted the publicity, and thought there weren't enough black characters in cartoons.

Just my opinion, but I dont really agree with remastering/deleting content from old tv/movies/cartoons/whatever.

If you want to do a whole new version of something that is fine.

But if you want to edit old stuff, I disagree with it. When I want to see something old, I want to see it in the old historical context in which it existed. I dislike that people try to erase history just because it doesn't fit their current view of the world. I don't feel you can really see how things change if you try to erase everything you disagree with.

You do realize that when the people who own the rights to content change it, that's not censorship, right? Censorship is when outside forces control the content of something people own the rights to.

But carry on.....

I believe any act like what UA did would constitute a form of censorship. Private companies can censor their own works if they feel there is a business case for it. Perhaps a different way to think about it is Disney feels there is enough business risk leaving it in that they'd rather take it out.

It seems they would rather make Erik and those who share his view upset. Their business case is basically stating that they believe people who post Brietbart articles are significantly outnumbered by those who would be actually upset by the casting couch joke.

CNN's alexa ranking is 101. Brietbarts? ~4.3 million. So from an analytical standpoint it makes millions of website rankings worth of sense.

Brietbart is 4.3 million?

What are you looking at exactly?

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/breitbart.com

Breitbart is 71 in the US and 330 in the world.

Note for people unfamiliar with Alexa, it ranks websites based on traffic, and the lower your score the better.

I wonder what 'ThinkProgress' ranking would be?

New York (CNN Business)ThinkProgress, a progressive news website founded more than a decade ago, is up for sale, its publisher, the Center for American Progress, announced on Monday.

LOL, you did what I did! I searched brietbart.com (as you just typed above) , so you'll see my 4.3 million figure. I see grade school reminders of "i before e except after C" did little for me...

lol yup Thats an easy one to mistype.

So, left wing groups pressure creators of content they don't like, and it's not censorship? You'd be screaming if right wing groups did the same. If warner bros. pulled all the cross dressing bugs bunny cartoons, we'd see boycotts galore.

You know the dire straits song money for nothing?

The lines that had the 'F-word? Not the four-letter F-Word we all love, but the six-letter F-word you might call a homosexual man....
A few years ago in Canada, in Newfoundland of all places, one (1) listener called in to the local radio station to complain, and suddenly, across Canada, that verse had to be edited to be allowed on the air.

That has since been rescinded, btw.

I hate censorship (even if I get offended by something) because it stifles debate, can limit truth and to me, those things are fundamental parts, of the concept of freedom.

Please leave Bugs Bunny, as well as The Three Stooges out of this discussion.

When i want to see something old I just look in the mirror.

So you don't think the right does the same thing?

Look at what Ted Cruz is saying about Nike.

Conservatives are smashing Keurigs to defend Sean Hannity — here are the other brands that have incurred the wrath of the right

https://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-boycott-brands-keurig-nfl-starbucks-2017-11

Quit acting like this is one sided. The right does just as much whining any time someone speaks out in the direction they don't like as well.

#conservativetears

I agree with this, especially with remastering of music. An album recorded in the 60s or 70s....just leave it be. Even if the mix is terrible, thin, all over the place etc....it's a snapshot of a time and a place and part of its charm. A lot of it just comes down to capitalism and $$$$. Same with a lot of film remakes. That said, some film remakes can be superior to the original (thinking Terrence Malick's "The Thin Red Line").

Art, however, I don't disagree with cleaning...for instance, I have seen the Sistine before and after and it is a huge difference. Centuries of candle smoke rendered it very dark. After it's clean the colors exploded off the ceiling in a way that was like seeing it for the first time. Did restoration artists touch things up as they cleaned? Quite possibly, but one will never know and it's fairly common to do so on many old paintings that maybe are starting to crumble or disintegrate.

I never said it didn't happen. I never said it was one sided either. I think censorship is wrong.

I don't buy Nike shoes, and not because of crapernick. They never fit my feet right. I don't go to movies. It costs too much, and I can get the same enertainment at home with much more value.

Cole Black and de sebben dwarfs had some of the greatest jazz musicians and singers of the time it was made, and none of them complained at the time. I think they'd all be upset to see their work censored.

Let's try this again. When you own something or the rights to something, it's called editing.

When you deny access to something you don't own or threaten violence to force someone to change their content, it's called censorship.

People expressing their outrage over somethings content is not censorship. Editing something you own the rights to is not censorship.

Words actually have meaning. Twisting or not understanding those meanings doesn't change anything.

I agree on the price, but let's be honest...some movies HAVE to be seen in a theatre and on the big screen to be experienced properly.

Self censorship is still censorship. The cartoons were not banned by the creators, Warner Brothers, they were banned by United Artists, as they were afraid of the reaction of a modern audience in 1968. Every company that has owned Warner Bros. cartoons since then have left them banned (not allowed in syndication). It's still censorship.

To me, the screens are too big, and I tend to focus on what I'm looking at directly. I find I miss a bunch of things in a theater.

Hmmm. Strange. Maybe sit further back? We always sit in the middle, but always on or near the aisle.

Unless I am at a concert, I never liked being front row. I always stand at or near the front at concerts as I like to hear the music directly from the back line of amps rather than the venue sound system and I love watching the band up close.

I also don't have to deal with jerks on cell phone or other disturbances.

I was a concert goer during the age of stampedes.

I agree.

I might love you.

I love all yall, even when we fight. This is the best sports internet community.