The prestige is not the same. I never said or insinuated that an Honorary Oscar wasn’t an actual Oscar.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
The prestige is not the same. I never said or insinuated that an Honorary Oscar wasn’t an actual Oscar.
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST
Well-Known Member
The ride is soo far removed from the source material you can't point to one scene on the ride and tell me its movie counterpart.
Sharon&Susan
Well-Known Member
Walt really wanted to partially transition over to making live action movies, after making expensive animated films that bombed. The Brer stories must've seemed natural to Walt with Uncle Remus telling the stories being in the original book.
Also double points for cashing on the Gone with the Wind audience by setting it in the American South.
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST
Well-Known Member
You insinuated it is less worthy than a traditional acting category Oscar and to that I say you are incorrect.
SplashGhost
Well-Known Member
I feel like if Song of the South had been readily available in the US with official home video releases since the 90s, there would be very little controversy about it. Most people are intelligent enough to realize that a movie made in 1946 is going to be a product of its time, and they will realize that a movie from that time isn't going to be flawless when it comes to how it portrays race relations. There were movies made around the same time and many years later that were far worse when it came to issues of race. I personally find the Indians in Peter Pan and the Siamese Cats in Lady and the Tramp far worse than anything in Song of the South. Other studios were putting out far more racist stuff than Disney did in this time frame. This isn't to excuse Disney, but just to put this all in the context of its time.
Disney has let this mythology get built up around Song of the South by refusing to re-release it. Some people claim that some stuff is in the movie that isn't, and people that haven't seen the movie will believe whatever these people say. It has become like something akin to a forbidden and extreme horror film that kids really want to see, but can't. The kids build up a mythology around the movie creating all kinds of crazy stories about it that don't actually represent the content of the movie itself. The same thing happened with SOTS, so people that haven't actually seen the movie have this perception that it is something far, far worse than it actually is.
That said, regardless of if one has issues with the movie or not, I think if it had been officially released on home video in the US, people would at least come to appreciate it for its strengths like James Baskett's performance and the animated segments. It is ultimately a very important part of Disney and film history for multiple reasons.
Disney has let this mythology get built up around Song of the South by refusing to re-release it. Some people claim that some stuff is in the movie that isn't, and people that haven't seen the movie will believe whatever these people say. It has become like something akin to a forbidden and extreme horror film that kids really want to see, but can't. The kids build up a mythology around the movie creating all kinds of crazy stories about it that don't actually represent the content of the movie itself. The same thing happened with SOTS, so people that haven't actually seen the movie have this perception that it is something far, far worse than it actually is.
That said, regardless of if one has issues with the movie or not, I think if it had been officially released on home video in the US, people would at least come to appreciate it for its strengths like James Baskett's performance and the animated segments. It is ultimately a very important part of Disney and film history for multiple reasons.
Wow.
My opinion is not incorrect. I've already addressed you and your misunderstanding of what an opinion is versus a fact.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
RIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT.
How about the tar baby scene? It's there in the ride, it's just been changed to a beehive.
See also:
And:
Couldn't find a still from the film of this, but the point still stands; this is literally what the main drop is-Br'er Rabbit tricking the others into throwing him back home:
So your claim is demonstrably false.
Last edited:
This was so obvious and ridiculous that I didn’t even bother explaining.
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST
Well-Known Member
I respect you BUT it is clear we are not gonna agree. So let's agree to disagree. I don't want any heated conversations or bad blood for I enjoy talking to you. I do enjoy our interactions. On this issue we just disagree. And there is nothing wrong with 2 people with different opinions not agreeing.
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST
Well-Known Member
as i stated before its more of a re-telling not a exact scene by scene re-creation.
but i will address your pics.
1 there is no tar scene on the ride.
2. Bre'r Rabbit lives in the mountain and the Disneyland version is he is leaving his burrow in the mountain not in the country side.
3. They simply re-created a moment not a scene. a iconic image.
4. the final one proves my point. we go over a water fall into the briar patch, in the movie its just a briar patch in the country side.
splash mountain is very removed from the movie. the scenes are not exactly like the movie. they weren't recreating scenes of the move within the ride. they retold scenes in a new way to fit around the mountain. That was the goal.
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST
Well-Known Member
socalifornian
Well-Known Member
You were right tho, SotS made more than PatF in their respective times compared to today. ~$859 million vs. ~$325 million
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Wow I don’t think I realized it did this well. Obviously IP to IP in general PatF is more popular or than SOTS today although it’s not saying much. When it comes to parks IP however Splash > the unknown of PatF.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
In terms of film profitability, SOTS also had the advantage of being re-released in theaters four times. It too wasn't super popular or profitable in its original run, and much of its grosses came from the re-releases.
Whereas PATF also underperformed initially, but is hampered by the fact that the theatrical re-release model is unlikely to return at all, much less prove to be lucrative.
If theaters and physical media continue to decline, and the Disney Vault concept has truly been retired, PATF will never be able to catch up to SOTS in terms of the movie's gross profits.
Whereas PATF also underperformed initially, but is hampered by the fact that the theatrical re-release model is unlikely to return at all, much less prove to be lucrative.
If theaters and physical media continue to decline, and the Disney Vault concept has truly been retired, PATF will never be able to catch up to SOTS in terms of the movie's gross profits.
1HAPPYGHOSTHOST
Well-Known Member
You win. that gif was pretty great. had me laughing.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Flava Flaaaavvvv!!
Tiffany Pollard is a reality television queen! "Beyonce, Beyonce, BEYONCE???????"
socalifornian
Well-Known Member
Did you see that Empire Strikes Back topped the box office last weekend? Under normal circumstances there’s just no way, still funny
‘Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back’ Leads Weekend Box Office 23 Years After Reissue
"Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back" is back at the top of the box office this weekend for the first time in 23 years.
variety.com
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I think "banned" is a bit too strong of a word, as it suggest an official government action, either at the local or federal level. "Banned in Boston" was a phrase we used decades ago to describe racy material, as Boston politicans in the mid 20th century were notoriously prudish, and a lot of films and books that were available in Los Angeles or Chicago were not available in uptight Boston.
I think the more appropriate wording would be "unavailable" or "removed", as in removed from distribution.
Just like Herbie Goes Bananas or The Ugly Dachshund are also not available on Blu-Ray or Disney+, either. They are not banned, the company that owns them just chooses to not make them available for purchase today.
Now in the case of The Ugly Dachshund, it's because there's not a big enough audience and it makes no sense financially, regardless of how great Suzanne Pleshette looked in 1965. But in the case of Song Of The South, it's just too politically sensitive to release and not worth the headaches, even though a bunch of folks would probably snap up the Blu-Ray and subscribe to Disney+ just to see what all the fuss is about.
Banned? Not quite. Too risky financially and politically to put it out for public sale? Most definitely.
EDIT: Oh for goshsakes!! I typed that and thought I should Google.... Yup, The Ugly Dachshund is available on Disney+. Can someone please find an obscure old Disney movie they've forgotten about??? The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes? Son Of Flubber? Or has Disney released everything they own on Disney+ except Song Of The South and my whole thesis is bunk?
Last edited: