Toy Story 2 Censored Scene (1 Viewer)

[titch]

By removing the scene, they've brought way more attention to it than it ever would have had if they had left it on the 4K. Even more amusing is that every story I've seen on its removal, includes the clip on You Tube so if Disney's goal was to distance themselves from the scene, it's not working at all.

It will always be out there for the film buffs. The removal of this scene is not as intrusive, such as the way Fantasia was censored. The millions and millions of average movie-goers, who fill the pockets of Disney, don't concern themselves with such matters. And they are the concern of Disney. Disney doesn't care about historical preservation. I think this just shows that the main problem for future films, will be that they will be even more subject to "committee-editing", in order for everything to fit into the "Four-quadrant Movie". Nothing considered remotely offensive to anyone, anywhere can be a part of the content. I find the average Hollywood blockbuster these days to be extremely dull. Almost nothing from the major studios is made for grown-ups anymore.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

All of the people here who defended Disney's "right" to censor their classic animated films and alter the work of their animators should be very happy with their "good" work here. Next up, Si and Am from "Lady and The Tramp" and the Hooker in Toy Story 1.

Who "defended" the alteration of films?

 

[Mark Booth]

Boycotting the 4K release because of a fake blooper removed in the end credits is certainly anyone's right, but it is also a ridiculous thing to get upset over, IMHO. The excised scene makes light of a culture that existed in Hollywood that should have never existed in the first place. And the people who are most qualified to judge whether the scene is harmful or offensive are the women that have had to endure that kind of behavior.

Do you really want your children to see that type of behavior in a G rated film? I think children absorb and understand more than many give them credit for.

Mark

 

[Edwin-S]

Who "defended" the alteration of films?

There have been several regular posters here who have defended Disney's "right" as the copyright owner to alter or withhold their films as they see fit. You can find them doing that in any thread regarding SoTS and there was a thread about Disney altering or eliminating the work of one of their animators, where posters were doing the same thing. I just cannot recall the name of it right now.

 

[dpippel]

Boycotting the 4K release because of a fake blooper removed in the end credits is certainly anyone's right, but it is also a ridiculous thing to get upset over, IMHO. The excised scene makes light of a culture that existed in Hollywood that should have never existed in the first place. And the people who are most qualified to judge whether the scene is harmful or offensive are the women that have had to endure that kind of behavior.

Do you really want your children to see that type of behavior in a G rated film? I think children absorb and understand more than many give them credit for.

Children have been "exposed" to that scene for over 20 years. Personally, I'd rather have my children SEE that scene so I could discuss with them exactly what's wrong there and why it's completely unacceptable behavior, even in a cartoon.

The real point here is, where does it stop? When do we start going back and revising/re-editing all of the sexist and misogynistic films of the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, etc., etc.? It's a slippery slope IMO, and as a society we'll never learn from our mistakes if we keep sweeping every little reference to them under the rug.

 

[John Dirk]

This is utterly ridiculous and a reminder of the direction we are heading in as a society. Not to change the focus of this thread but as a black man, I see films from decades past [and also period depictions from present day] that contain material I think most people would agree is reprehensible, regardless of their particular race. While I personally don't always feel like viewing or hearing such material I never object to its presence in films as long as it is an accurate representation of the time it portrays. Anything else would be disingenuous.

I do realize this is not quite the same thing but it does speak to today's PC notion that no one should ever be offended by anything they see or hear anymore. Meanwhile we know Disney could actually care less about the issue at hand. They just have no convictions of their own other than profit and are therefore afraid of alienating anyone.

 

[John Dirk]

There have been several regular posters here who have defended Disney's "right" as the copyright owner to alter or withhold their films as they see fit. You can find them doing that in any thread regarding SoTS and there was a thread about Disney altering or eliminating the work of one of their animators, where posters were doing the same thing. I just cannot recall the name of it right now.

I'll defend their "right" to do so even today. I just think it's ridiculous and sad that they feel the need to do so. Are we that sensitive as a society or are they over reacting?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

There have been several regular posters here who have defended Disney's "right" as the copyright owner to alter or withhold their films as they see fit. You can find them doing that in any thread regarding SoTS and there was a thread about Disney altering or eliminating the work of one of their animators, where posters were doing the same thing. I just cannot recall the name of it right now.

There's 2 kinds of "defense", IMO:

1) "It's their film and they can do what they want. I disagree but it's their right."
2) "Who cares, ya big crybaby?"

I agree with the first but not the 2nd!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Boycotting the 4K release because of a fake blooper removed in the end credits is certainly anyone's right, but it is also a ridiculous thing to get upset over, IMHO. The excised scene makes light of a culture that existed in Hollywood that should have never existed in the first place. And the people who are most qualified to judge whether the scene is harmful or offensive are the women that have had to endure that kind of behavior.

Do you really want your children to see that type of behavior in a G rated film? I think children absorb and understand more than many give them credit for.

The children who've seen that scene for 20 years are more socially conscious and "woke" than any prior generation. Shocking to realize, but a joke about Stinky Pete hitting on women didn't corrupt their little minds!

Even if the scene was as awful as you apparently believe, it exists and is part of the movie.

That shouldn't change. You're veering dangerously into "slippery slope" territory with your defense of its deletion...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There have been several regular posters here who have defended Disney's "right" as the copyright owner to alter or withhold their films as they see fit.

As the copyright holders, Disney absolutely has that right. It doesn't make them good stewards of film history, however; when the art conflicts with the brand, Disney has prioritized the brand since at least the Michael Eisner era -- if not earlier.

It's one of the issues I had with them acquiring 20th Century Fox. Sony and Warner Bros. have much better track records when it comes to preserving their film history.

 

[Malcolm R]

I'll defend their "right" to do so even today. I just think it's ridiculous and sad that they feel the need to do so. Are we that sensitive as a society or are they over reacting?

Disney is over-reacting and has a history of doing so. They leap first without thinking of the reactions which are often bigger and generate far more negative press based on their actions than if they just left things alone. See this scenario, as well as the firing of James Gunn from GOTG3.

The mass audience does not care about the inclusion or exclusion of this scene, and most will not even notice whether it's there or not. It's not that Disney doesn't want to offend anyone, it's that they're perfectly happy to offend those who find revisionist changes such as these offensive, many of which are long-time supporters of Disney product. Those are the people that don't matter to Disney.

I don't ever recall any negative reactions to this scene, it's just the typical Disney knee-jerk reaction by which they've now triggered more negative press and unhappy reactions and protests from TS2 fans. If that scene were still in the film, there would have been zero reaction from anyone, most likely. Especially since, as noted, that scene will still live on forever in other formats and on the internet anyway, so what have they accomplished?

 

[John Dirk]

It's not that Disney doesn't want to offend anyone, it's that they're perfectly happy to offend those who find revisionist changes such as these offensive, many of which are long-time supporters of Disney product. Those are the people that don't matter to Disney.

I think we're basically saying the same thing. You just said it better. While I doubt they're "perfectly happy" to offend any group, they will always choose what they believe to be the perceived minority [and PC ideology is king these days] so as not to go against their real goal, maximizing profit.

 

[RobertR]

The excised scene makes light of a culture that existed in Hollywood that should have never existed in the first place.

Yes it does. So what? If it bothers you, don't watch it. The attitude you express is the problem, not the existence of the scene.

 

[David Norman]

Probably should have either gone back to the original theatrical credits which I don't think they had any outtakes or just revised/updated the entire set of outtakes so it didn't call attention to the single

 

[John Dirk]

And the people who are most qualified to judge whether the scene is harmful or offensive are the women that have had to endure that kind of behavior.

@Mark Booth - Respectfully, that's not the issue. The issue is whether any group who finds something offensive should have the power to prevent it from being distributed to or viewed by others who do not. Reminds me of George Carlin's rant on the FCC.

 

[Ed Lachmann]

So many offended special interest groups, so little time in my life to care about their sensibilities.

 

[Edwin-S]

I'll say one thing. I couldn't care less about Disney having the "right" to censor content because they hold the copyright. I'm never going to agree to or defend the "right" of any Studio, Disney or otherwise, to remove, alter or suppress content that they arbitrarily decide is offensive after years and years of existence. The only thing they have a "right" to is to put a warning in front of the film stating that it contains content that some may find offensive or disturbing. That is it.

 

[RobertR]

Dialogue from Scrooge, with Albert Finney:

Scrooge: If you prefer that I confiscate your store, as is my legal right, I will do so.

Two old ladies: We'll pay, sir.

Those who focus on Disney's "legal right" miss the entire point.

 

[John Dirk]

I'll say one thing. I couldn't care less about Disney having the "right" to censor content because they hold the copyright. I'm never going to agree to or defend the "right" of any Studio, Disney or otherwise, to remove, alter or suppress content that they arbitrarily decide is offensive after years and years of existence. The only thing they have a "right" to is to put a warning in front of the film stating that it contains content that some may find offensive or disturbing. That is it.

I hear you @Edwin-S but we're talking about legality not morality. Disney can certainly do whatever they wish with the content they own and they've been doing it for decades. They don't need our approval, as demonstrated in numerous examples. If you disagree [as I do] then that's your (our) right. If you try to prevent it however, you'll be unsuccessful. That's why companies like Disney [an emerging monolith] buys up other companies. "if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em.

 

[John Dirk]

Dialogue from Scrooge, with Albert Finney:

Scrooge: If you prefer that I confiscate your store, as is my legal right, I will do so.

Two old ladies: We'll pay, sir.

Those who focus on Disney's "legal right" miss the entire point.

Clarify.