Jessica Rabbit removed from Trunk- Roger Rabbits Cartoon Spin

[el_super]

It kinda is.

Not at all. A company choosing to present a different story is far different from being told they cannot.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Not at all. A company choosing to present a different story is far different from being told they cannot.

Yes, very much so. The fact that that they are changing the original story to make it more palatable qualifies it as censorship.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Not at all. A company choosing to present a different story is far different from being told they cannot.

So self censorship?

 

[Californian Elitist]

So self censorship?

Yep. Just like what they’ve done in the past (Song of the South, Fantasia, etc.).

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, very much so. The fact that that they are changing the original story to make it more palatable qualifies it as censorship.

If that is the case hasn't Disney being doing this since the very beginning with all their properties? I mean they've been changing the original stories from their original source material for almost 100 years. So in that respect this is nothing new for the company, and is not unique to only this current management, Walt himself "censored" a lot during his retelling of stories we consider Disney classics.

 

[Californian Elitist]

If that is the case hasn't Disney being doing this since the very beginning with all their properties? I mean they've been changing the original stories from their original source material for almost 100 years. So in that respect this is nothing new for the company, and is not unique to only this current management, Walt himself "censored" a lot during his retelling of stories we consider Disney classics.

If what is being changed is considered obscene, inappropriate, etc. then yes, I feel it can be considered censorship. Any and all change isn’t necessarily considered censorship. The point of censoring is to shield what is wrong, immoral, obscene, etc.

Removing the black centaurs from Fantasia because of their racist caricature physical features is censorship. Giving the little mermaid the name “Ariel” when she has no name in the original source isn’t censorship, for example.

 

[el_super]

Yes, very much so. The fact that that they are changing the original story to make it more palatable qualifies it as censorship.

If you want to view it as such, then you have to accept that Disney has always used censorship, and to great success. It means censorship is a smart business move and something overall desired by the audience. To a degree, using it here devalues the real strength of that word.

 

[mickEblu]

Would altering the original stories in such a way as to remove more uncomfortable content, such as in the original telling Cinderella where the stepsisters cut off their toe but is absent from the Disney classic, be considered censorship? I would argue yes, but I'd also argue it's inconsequential to the story at large.

I’m not sure it’s inconsequential as I’ve never read the original story and yes it is censorship but it’s much different. This is where good ole common sense and nuance which many people (not you) are incapable of, come into play.

It’s reasonable for Walt Disney to emit mutilation from a retelling of a story from 250 years prior. Yet people want to say that and censoring Jessica Rabbit’s voluptuous physique from their own film/ ride from 27 years ago is the same thing.

 

[Californian Elitist]

If you want to view it as such, then you have to accept that Disney has always used censorship, and to great success. It means censorship is a smart business move and something overall desired by the audience. To a degree, using it here devalues the real strength of that word.

I’ve said Disney has censored their content in the past many times. Your second sentence… No.

I don’t believe it devalues the strength. There have always been degrees of censorship. There’s the example of a school district banning Huck Finn in classrooms, and then there’s Disney refusing the public of any and all access to Song of the South. Both are examples of censorship, but one is more extreme than the other.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Would altering the original stories in such a way as to remove more uncomfortable content, such as in the original telling Cinderella where the stepsisters cut off their toe but is absent from the Disney classic, be considered censorship? I would argue yes, but I'd also argue it's inconsequential to the story at large.

To be fair the French version of Cinderella, that Disney based the movie on, didn't have that either unlike the newer in comparison Brothers Grimm version.

 

[Disney Irish]

If what is being changed is considered obscene, inappropriate, etc. then yes, I feel it can be considered censorship. Any and all change isn’t necessarily considered censorship. The point of censoring is to shield what is wrong, immoral, obscene, etc.

Removing the black centaurs from Fantasia because of their racist caricature physical features is censorship. Giving the little mermaid the name “Ariel” when she has no name in the original source isn’t censorship, for example.

I guess it comes down to point-of-view. To some making any change from the source material would be considered a form of censorship, and is wrong even if its for the betterment of society.

Overall personally I don't see this change as censorship. But that is just one persons opinion.

 

[Heppenheimer]

Would altering the original stories in such a way as to remove more uncomfortable content, such as in the original telling Cinderella where the stepsisters cut off their toe but is absent from the Disney classic, be considered censorship? I would argue yes, but I'd also argue it's inconsequential to the story at large.

I got one better for you... Hans Christian Anderson's Little Mermaid. Not only does the prince marry someone else, but this causes her to die and dissolve into sea foam (not to mention the plot element where her sisters try to convince her to kill the prince and his new bride).

Wouldn't it be something if the Little Mermaid ride used the imagery from the Disney movie but the Hans Christian Anderson plot? There'd be more little kids coming out of the attraction in tears than during Magic Journeys.

 

[Parteecia]

To some making any change from the source material would be considered a form of censorship, and is wrong even if its for the betterment of society.

I think censorship involves changing unwillingly to accede to someone/thing more powerful than you. I don't think it applies if you choose to do it. Disney is doing it of their own free will. They chose to listen to other voices but weren't forced into it.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Okay, I just got back from Disneyland. Having just been on RRCS three times in 4 days, I am pretty convinced just removing her from the trunk is sufficient. It's such a chaotic attraction, trying to do anything else to it will NOT work.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think censorship involves changing unwillingly to accede to someone/thing more powerful than you. I don't think it applies if you choose to do it. Disney is doing it of their own free will. They chose to listen to other voices but weren't forced into it.

This is where it comes down to point-of-view. Because everyone is different and will think certain changes are tantamount to censorship. But overall I agree with you that this particular change shouldn't really be considered censorship.

 

[Castle Cake Apologist]

I know at one point Disney really aligned themselves closely with christian churches, going so far as to consult them for some film content decisions. I feel in the early 2000s when Disney Animation /Live Action wasnt doing so hot, they probably needed groups like that, as they were the last remaining people seeing their films.

I'm sure this is no longer the case.

Huh?? Conservative Christian groups have been boycotting Disney in a very vcal way since at least the 90s.

 

[Professortango1]

Would altering the original stories in such a way as to remove more uncomfortable content, such as in the original telling Cinderella where the stepsisters cut off their toe but is absent from the Disney classic, be considered censorship? I would argue yes, but I'd also argue it's inconsequential to the story at large.

Nope, that's adaptation. When a story is being adapted for a different medium/audience, you make changes to suit these new aspects. Censorship is when an existing piece of artistic expression has elements removed in order to appease a controlling body.

 

[Parteecia]

It's all pragmatic business decisions, not art. They can structure their attractions however they want. For any choice they make there will be blowback but that's not censorship.

 

[MoonRakerSCM]

I said it before and I'll say it again, but if a blow up pool float threaded through a scrap piece of chain link fence is considered art in this day and age, there's no way in hell that the attractions at Disneyland should be considered any less.

 

[Parteecia]

I said it before and I'll say it again, but if a blow up pool float threaded through a scrap piece of chain link fence is considered art in this day and age, there's no way in hell that the attractions at Disneyland should be considered any less.

Does intent matter?