This is why I prefer physical media.

[cboath]

Anyone who can't figure out that a movie made in the 30s is a depiction of the attitudes of the 30s on their own without having to have it explained is too stupid to live anyhow.

If it was Disney they could move it to Hulu and be done with it. HBOMax....not sure where the outrage really comes from. I don't see people complaining about the language and sec of GOT, for example. If you're worried the impressionable could see one, why not the other?

 

[Cephus]

If it was Disney they could move it to Hulu and be done with it. HBOMax....not sure where the outrage really comes from. I don't see people complaining about the language and sec of GOT, for example. If you're worried the impressionable could see one, why not the other?

The "impressionable" they're worried about aren't young children, they're immature adults with a strong social media following who will get offended and start calling Disney names for daring to put out anything they don't like.

 

[anamorphicWayne]

I'm sorry to necro-post, but Doomcock has made another video in regards to the HBO Max streaming service removing Gone With The Wind from their selection. I personally haven't seen GWTW, but I am aware that the film's content and story (and I get why someone would remove it). But this video is a followup to the above mentioned video that inspired this post, and serves as a bit of a reminder of why I am glad to own movies in a physical format (I don't own GWTW, but I have considered it because I have heard both the good and the bad about it). Whether you agree or not to how Doomcock presents himself with a funny mask and costume, or may even disagree with his view about GWTW, but you can agree that he is right about the issue of physical media and how things can just evaporate at the push of a button if/when physical media stops.

Hmmm, I wonder how Hattie McDaniel's family feels about this, being the first African American to be nominated and wining an Oscar?

 

[JoeG]

WB said right from the beginning they were only removing it from their streaming service temporarily and people are acting like they're burning every copy of the movie. Why the big uproar? I bet most of you don't even have HBOMax considering how this is a thread about preferring physical media. Hey, its the internet, though right? What would it be without faux outrage over the tiniest little thing.

 

[Ron]

Why remove it at all?

 

[JoeG]

Because they wanted to add a statement/discussion about the film since its problematic. Same thing they did when they released the Looney Tunes cartoons that had racist depictions of people from other cultures. And thats all I'm going to say as now I feel like I'm being baited into a conversation that is clearly not allowed/wanted here.

 

[Ron]

I'm surely not trying to bait you and believe me I do NOT want to have a political discussion either. That's not why I come here and I agree with keeping it out. All I wanted to say and leave it at is it's just funny to me that now it's considered problematic but in a month it'll be okay to show again?

I will agree there's definitely a lot of faux outrage going on in the world right now.

 

[Krel]

I'm not saying that this is the case. But sometimes there's nothing more permanent than a "temporary" removal.

David.

 

[Psab keel]

That's why I say if you really love a movie, buy a physical copy. It's the only way to own a movie. Digital media is great, but you don't actually own it. You're just paying for the right to legally store it on your devices. You're basically renting it indefinitely otherwise and whoever holds the rights to that content can revoke said content for any reason.

 

[Cephus]

Because they wanted to add a statement/discussion about the film since its problematic. Same thing they did when they released the Looney Tunes cartoons that had racist depictions of people from other cultures. And thats all I'm going to say as now I feel like I'm being baited into a conversation that is clearly not allowed/wanted here.

Absolutely none of which is necessary. People need to grow the hell up and stop demanding that people protect them from themselves.

 

[Spyhunter2k]

All I wanted to say and leave it at is it's just funny to me that now it's considered problematic but in a month it'll be okay to show again?

First, they need time to come up with the exact messaging to be presented along with the film, which messaging will acknowledge that the film contains racist stereotypes prevalent at the time of its creation, and second, they agree that even with that messaging in place it may be a good idea to temporarily remove it out of respect for the current racial tensions.

All in all, this course of action was deemed preferable to leaving it up but censoring out the offending content as if it didn't exist, and leaving that censoring in place forever.

 

[DaddyfromNaboo]

Absolutely none of which is necessary. People need to grow the hell up and stop demanding that people protect them from themselves.

My earliest memory of thinking that exact thought was after eeading the story about the woman sueing I think Panasonic because her dog died when she tried to dry it in the microwave oven.

Back on topic, I juat yesterday tried to stop TROS for prop research, but frame by frame is NOT possible on streaming services, or am I missing something?

 

[Cephus]

My earliest memory of thinking that exact thought was after eeading the story about the woman sueing I think Panasonic because her dog died when she tried to dry it in the microwave oven.

Back on topic, I juat yesterday tried to stop TROS for prop research, but frame by frame is NOT possible on streaming services, or am I missing something?

And people who do that need to be dragged out of the courtroom kicking and screaming and thrown into a microwave on their own. Panasonic can supply the hardware. It's evolution in action.

 

[cboath]

Just think....all the warning labels, signs, and tags you've ever seen is because someone was dumb enough to do it once.

I have to watch a video at work every year to tell me watching porn at the office - even on my lunchbreak is wrong. Why? Some dumb@$^& was dumb enough to have done it before....

 

[Ron]

First, they need time to come up with the exact messaging to be presented along with the film, which messaging will acknowledge that the film contains racist stereotypes prevalent at the time of its creation, and second, they agree that even with that messaging in place it may be a good idea to temporarily remove it out of respect for the current racial tensions.

All in all, this course of action was deemed preferable to leaving it up but censoring out the offending content as if it didn't exist, and leaving that censoring in place forever.

Doesn't everyone already realize this about older movies? For years audiences have been watching GWTW without the need for any disclaimers. We're all aware of the stereotypes. This feels like the cultural equivalent of a warning label on a toaster.

Just think....all the warning labels, signs, and tags you've ever seen is because someone was dumb enough to do it once.

I have to watch a video at work every year to tell me watching porn at the office - even on my lunchbreak is wrong. Why? Some dumb@$^& was dumb enough to have done it before....

You posted just as I was typing about warning labels

 

[CT1138]

Warning labels are only around because stupid people exist in a litigious society. They're the corporate equivalent to weird, silly laws. They only exist because somewhere, at some time, some idiot decided to do something stupid prompting a warning label.

 

[Cephus]

Doesn't everyone already realize this about older movies? For years audiences have been watching GWTW without the need for any disclaimers. We're all aware of the stereotypes. This feels like the cultural equivalent of a warning label on a toaster.

No, people today are far stupider and far more self-centered than anyone in the past. It's all about them and their feelings.

Screw those people.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Doesn't everyone already realize this about older movies? For years audiences have been watching GWTW without the need for any disclaimers. We're all aware of the stereotypes. This feels like the cultural equivalent of a warning label on a toaster.

You posted just as I was typing about warning labels

I don't think everyone does. There are a LOT of people out there who've never seen GWTW, especially younger folks with very different outlooks on things, that might be pretty shocked by parts of that film.

 

[Prop Collector]

Because they wanted to add a statement/discussion about the film since its problematic. Same thing they did when they released the Looney Tunes cartoons that had racist depictions of people from other cultures. And thats all I'm going to say as now I feel like I'm being baited into a conversation that is clearly not allowed/wanted here.

Of course. Because people are too dumb to understand context on their own.

 

[Spyhunter2k]

Doesn't everyone already realize this about older movies? For years audiences have been watching GWTW without the need for any disclaimers. We're all aware of the stereotypes. This feels like the cultural equivalent of a warning label on a toaster.

As to the example of your toaster...Imagine if your toaster was made in the 30s, only a few years into toaster production, and that it came with factually incorrect instructions for its use automatically delivered by audio message every time you use it, instructions that would be harmful if followed. The manufacturer realizes that some folks have begun buying these vintage toasters and refurbishing them. They're pleased that they're still popular, but are understandably concerned about the originally-programmed message. When receiving the toaster for service, they agree not to disable the automatic message, but feel it would be irresponsible not to at least take some action to counteract it (like affixing a small label on the toaster) so that young users don't hear the message and take it seriously.

Once you improve the illustration to better match what's happening, I think the actions taken seem more reasonable. Every time this movie is shown, inaccurate and harmful racist stereotypes are communicated to viewers either too young, or too insulated from sufficient societal contact with minorities, to realize how morally wrong these portrayals were and are. Movie studios, in good conscience, can't just keep delivering these portrayals within vintage films and just ASSUME no harm results. A brief message presenting the context of the film and mentioning the unfortunate racist attitudes in effect when it was made doesn't make society dumber. It actually helps to inform the next generation.