I always have felt that the executives at Disney (from the Michael Eisner era onward) at have been squeamish around Song of the South, while a lot of the creatives within the company have had a deep fondness for it. The creatives have been trying to sneak references to the film here and there in ways that wouldn't catch the attention of the CEO. So that is probably the explanation for the discrepancies.
Removal of all characters and intellectual property.
Ehhhh… Song of the South is a truly problematic IP (and not just to some easily dismissed portion of the population) and the issues surrounding book burning are far more socially, politically, and culturally troubling and significant…
I always got the vibe that Michael personally liked the film but was too scared to release it, while Bob Iger strongly disliked the movie AND was scared to release it.
I wasn’t saying its removal isn’t impactful—I will miss it terribly—but that the language people are using to describe that removal is unnecessarily charged.
Eisner didn't feel like releasing it with a disclaimer basically. I wonder if this was before or after WB started releasing their older stuff with content warnings and supplementary material.
I assume he means the ANIMATED characters. I doubt anybody cares much about any of the live action ones.
The terms are perfectly accurate to what is going on, whether you agree with the reasons behind it or not. Just because Disney isn't setting Brer plushies on fire in a public square to make their policies more explicit, it doesn't mean that "ban" and "purge" don't still describe precisely what they're doing with the IP across the parks and company as a whole.
I consider that a silver lining. I'm not even a big fan of the film outside of Uncle Remus and the animated segments. But it's at least a partial victory for preservation to get ahold of old theater reels and transferring them to digital form for uploading. It can probably even continue to be cleaned up and restored over time, by amateurs at least. Not as ideal as a true master source and big budget film restoration company, but far better than nothing, and FAR FAR better than an old VHS.
I think they just missed some set opportunities. The foliage and waterfall in the troll scene really add. Too bad they can’t plus frozen with more scenery.
Language doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The terms you’re using carry deeply charged associations that point to contexts really far removed from the world of theme parks. It’s a very unfortunate and loaded way in which to frame the discussion.
The words again are accurate descriptions to what Disney has done with the IP. What is unfortunate is the attempt to gaslight people into thinking otherwise, and attempt to police the use of said words. Or to claim that the only context they should be allowed to be used are for a very specific act such as book burning.
I’m not policing, but rather saying I don’t think such rhetoric is productive. I don’t doubt you’ll go on using these terms, as is your right, just as it’s mine to disagree with your framing.
