Looks like Disney intends to get their remaining Animated features on Blu real soon... (1 Viewer)

[MatthewA]

No news on Song of the South, but maybe the new CEO will sing a different tune and free it from the glass vault when he or she considers the multiple European video releases, Splash Mountain, and the prevalence of "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" as one of Disney's major entries in the Great American Songbook it was even in that Tom Hanks thing. Until then, I can only leave this quote from Uncle Remus:

"You can't run from trouble; ain't no place that far." But Disney chose to run and hide. And people have gone to jail because of it. That's how much people want the film: they are willing to risk their own freedom for it.

 

[Ejanss]

"You can't run from your problems; ain't no place that far." But Disney chose to run and hide. And people have gone to jail because of it. That's how much people want the film: they are willing to risk their own freedom for it.

More accurately to the point, "You can't run away from trouble..."

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I still don't think we will ever see Song of the South released....

...no matter who leaves Disney.

They have a very strict "what would Walt do today" philosophy
in place over there. I give them credit, they try preserve the vision
that Walt had.

Now, of course, Walt was behind releasing that film in the first place.

However, I have a feeling with today's uncertain climate, perhaps
studio people feel that Walt would not approve of offending anyone
by releasing this film.

Listen....I am probably talking out of my arse here, but I do know that
the company is very much in tune with keeping certain standards alive.

And it's a shame that the vocal minority who would complain about
Song of the South being released always seem to win in the end.

 

[Jari K]

"Now, of course, Walt was behind releasing that film in the first place.""It's not what Walt DID, but what would Walt do TODAY", is that it? We'll never know what Walt would do today, so I would say that let's follow what he actually DID.

 

[MatthewA]

Using past instances of censorship to justify current censorship doesn't cut it. Anyone offended by it can simply...

NOT BUY THE DISC.

Disney has created even more of a demand for this movie by keeping it off the market (Google "the Streisand effect"). They're in a no-win situation, and I'm supposed to have sympathy for their point of view?

And it's a shame that the vocal minority who would complain about
Song of the South being released always seem to win in the end.

Then we'll just shout them down. And most of the critics' criticisms say plenty about them and not a thing about the film itself.

Meanwhile, So Dear to My Heart has a very good HD master that could be the basis of a Blu-ray. It's about Bobby Driscoll taking care of a black sheep. Guaranteed to offend nobody anywhere.

 

[Jason_V]

Using past instances of censorship to justify current censorship doesn't cut it. Anyone offended by it can simply...

NOT BUY THE DISC.

Philosophically, we agree. Realistically, we both know there will be a backlash against the release from certain commentarors, pundits and others which will cause a firestorm no one really wants, needs or will profit from. There's a history of boycotts, protests and demonstrations from one group or another over film. Why should Disney court the problem if they really don't have to? It's not like they're hurting for Song of the South revenue or anything like that. If anything, a release might hurt the studio's future films.

 

[MatthewA]

Philosophically, we agree. Realistically, we both know there will be a backlash against the release from certain commentarors, pundits and others which will cause a firestorm no one really wants, needs or will profit from. There's a history of boycotts, protests and demonstrations from one group or another over film. Why should Disney court the problem if they really don't have to? It's not like they're hurting for Song of the South revenue or anything like that. If anything, a release might hurt the studio's future films.

Post Edited by Administrator, Please Don't Repost. We should boycott future Disney films until they release it. I can live without ever seeing any of the handful of remakes in the pipeline.

The cognitive dissonance regarding this film is insulting. Why is this the only film singled out for ostracism by its own studio?

But don't take my word for it.

 

[Jason_V]

That mgiht have worked with Ender's Game last year. It's not going to work with Disney/Pixar/Marvel.

 

[Robert Crawford]

We have crossed the lines of what's acceptable to post here. Let's stop it now!

 

[ahollis]

"Why is this the only film singled out for ostracism by its own studio?"It's not. There are several films that remain locked in a studio vault for some reason or another. An example is THE DEVILS from Warners along with several of their cartoons. It can be frustrating to fans of those films but in the end it is the studios choice.

 

[MatthewA]

"Why is this the only film singled out for ostracism by its own studio?"It's not. There are several films that remain locked in a studio vault for some reason or another. An example is THE DEVILS from Warners along with several of their cartoons. It can be frustrating to fans of those films but in the end it is the studios choice.

They should not be allowed to have that choice. People went to jail because of it. They would not have if the studio had just released the movie.

 

[ahollis]

They should not be allowed to have that choice. People went to jail because of it. They would not have if the studio had just released the movie.

Who went to jail?But no matter how many people proclaim they want the film released, no matter how many people boycott A film's owner according to copyright law they can do what they want with it and I don't see that changing at anytime.

 

[SilverWook]

A more interesting question is, why was Disney not afraid to release it on video overseas in the late 90's, but reluctant to do so now? I've read it's even been shown on tv in the UK.

A region free Blu Ray quietly released in Europe, isn't going to cause a kerfuffle in the U.S. The usual suspects here won't be able to make a soundbyte sized rallying cry about people importing a disc they bought on the internet. If they don't see it on the shelf at Walmart, they probably won't even know it's happening.

 

[MatthewA]

We have crossed the lines of what's acceptable to post here. Let's stop it now!

Suit yourself.

While we're on the subject of live-action/animation hybrids and the baggage they carry, there's the matter of that witch movie (no, not Bell Book and Candle, the one with the Nazis). They have Bedknobs and Broomsticks for streaming in HD, but...

VUDU and iTunes have the 139-minute restored version, but Amazon Instant Video and PS3 Network have the 117-minute theatrical cut. I bit the bullet and bought it from VUDU, and the transfer appears to be the same as what's on DVD. It may need work to be ready for Blu-ray. And while I'm not naïve enough to think they'll go all-out with the extras, it would be nice if we could at least keep what we already have in the jump to Blu-ray.

 

[TravisR]

A region free Blu Ray quietly released in Europe, isn't going to cause a kerfuffle in the U.S. The usual suspects here won't be able to make a soundbyte sized rallying cry about people importing a disc they bought on the internet. If they don't see it on the shelf at Walmart, they probably won't even know it's happening.

Disney could release Song Of The South in one store in Antarctica and the connectivity of social media guarantees that people across the globe would still go berserk.

 

[classicmovieguy]

I'd adore having "Bedknobs & Broomsticks" on Blu-ray. On Blu it would be very easy to incorporate a seamless branching function to toggle between the extended version and the shortened 117 minute release.

And as far as bonuses, whilst we still have Ms Lansbury there needs to be a full audio commentary and new interview, maybe even a reunion with the three children.

 

[classicmovieguy]

 

[Robert Crawford]

Suit yourself.

No, respect our posting guidelines as it applies to everyone. No political or religious discussion is allowed here.

 

[Ejanss]

...What'd I miss?

The whole trepidation over SotS dates back to 1994, when they HAD to put reissues back in theaters, to promote the VHS release. (And, through a little books-loophole at the time, to count the VHS sales with the theatrical grosses.
Obviously, Disney board-member Sidney Poitier and Clinton-buddy Maya Angelou felt there was a little more difference between a wide public theatrical release, and just watching it in the privacy of home. Even though they did have big large vanity sticks up their hinders about it.
Things were different before DVD.

Theatrical re-releases (aside from the 3D's) have been off the table for almost twenty years now, you'd think they'd have updated their notes since then.

 

[MatthewA]

Sidney Poitier almost turned down Porgy and Bess and only did it because turning down Otto Preminger would have been career suicide. Of course, he did have to fight for non-domestic roles in his early career.

There was trepidation since day one, and it started during the screenwriting process. A white Southerner named Dalton Reymond, who had never written a screenplay but served as a consultant on several antebellum-themed films before, including Jezebel, the movie that earned Bette Davis an Oscar, did an early draft; Walt found it insufficiently sympathetic to the black characters, and so did Clarence Muse, the African-American consultant he hired, so he hired Maurice Rapf to rewrite the racially insensitive parts of Reymond's draft (Muse had already quit and started denouncing the as-yet-unmade film by that time). But it was that early draft that started a lot of the earliest concerns from the NAACP and others. Rapf left the picture, and Morton Grant wrote the final draft.

The circumstances surrounding the film provide plenty of material for a Disney Family Foundation documentary, and it's a perfect way to address some of the misconceptions about the film, especially Walt's intentions in making it. Something like that might make a video release go down somewhat easier. But for Disney to reverse 20+ years of their "glass coffin" policy requires an amount of backbone I don't think they possess. When Roy E. Disney was alive, he said point blank he wanted it out, but Michael Eisner didn't. Roy didn't want Iger to succeed him, either.

This wouldn't have been the first time they thought of locking it away. They planned to retire the film for good in 1970, but they changed their minds and re-issued it in 1972, the film last having been re-issued in 1958. I wonder what changed their minds.

Disney could release Song Of The South in one store in Antarctica and the connectivity of social media guarantees that people across the globe would still go berserk.

For everything Disney does (and they've done some pretty despicable things over the years), someone on Twitter has gone berserk about it. The inability to use more than 140 characters does not help. They don't release it because they expect bad publicity, yet they still get bad publicity for not releasing it. And the "glass coffin" policy isn't even consistently applied, and it seems limited to the US: it aired on BBC2 in this century in what is supposedly a very good transfer. I don't remember there being complaints or protests, just befuddlement as to why we Americans can't get this film without breaking the law.

Theatrical re-releases (aside from the 3D's) have been off the table for almost twenty years now, you'd think they'd have updated their notes since then.

Tumblr also happened since then.