movies/tv Warning sensitivty disclaimers on Disney plus old cartoons

[SIgmaBETA 97]

I kinda dont mind it. Its better than it getting removed interms of creativity of old cartoons of old movies, usually lasts for 10 seconds. For example i was watching Duck Tales "Norwegian dub" where i live and got one of these in my language. But i think its a win win for both. We get to see them, and they get to express concerns over stereotypes in old movies. Sorta like modern day ESRB rating etc when video game violence was a problem in 1993 by the US senate.

[They call me Loyalty 1,948]

Interesting. I've never watched old cartoons, but I did hear about there being some racism and offensive depictions regarding skin color and cultural stereotypes in these programs.

[Splashee 28,560]

6 minutes ago, They call me Loyalty said:

but I did hear about there being some racism and

Yes, you can find them on YouTube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuehrer's_Face

Family Guy made a joke about it in this song:
 

Spoiler

 

 

Quote

For example i was watching Duck Tales "Norwegian dub"...

I saw that in Swedish Disney+ too.

The actual legal text, or disclaimer text that you are forced to see in front of most Disney+ videos are there to protect Disney from being sued in the future, or being accused of being evil toward people that they portrayed in a specific way in the past. They claim that they didn't know better back in the day, but they now know better, but they still must make money of their legacy characters. So all is good.

[SIgmaBETA 97]

1 hour ago, Splashee said:

Yes, you can find them on YouTube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Fuehrer's_Face

Family Guy made a joke about it in this song:
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I saw that in Swedish Disney+ too.

The actual legal text, or disclaimer text that you are forced to see in front of most Disney+ videos are there to protect Disney from being sued in the future, or being accused of being evil toward people that they portrayed in a specific way in the past. They claim that they didn't know better back in the day, but they now know better, but they still must make money of their legacy characters. So all is good.

Which is good, because it allows creativity to make stuff despite people being offended. So its like a "FYI this is a problem, but go ahead and watch and enjoy the creative animations"

Now i was probably 2 years old when 1993 violence in video game senate was a thing but here it is. I feel it was a good outcome though, since next year ESRB ratings came about

https://youtu.be/lhwM3ZMTCR0

Edited February 21, 2023 by SIgmaBETA

[EpicEnergy 23,147]

These old movies/cartoons are from a different era where people generally considered offensive material as acceptable. Times have changed though, and now some of what was considered acceptable is no longer tolerated, specifically offensive material. Such a change can be compared to slavery, which is also not tolerated in modern society but was widely accepted in the past.

I think that the sensitivity disclaimers on old movies from Disney are necessary. Also, it is good to allow those old movies to remain on Disney Plus because they remind us of the past just like statues, monuments, and history books. Such reminders help prevent us from repeating mistakes that were made in the past.

[RDDash 19,159]

I don't really agree with that statement though. Let me guess back then the Disney movies had been made with highlighting certain quirks about gay people due to the television standards and rules back then

Edited February 21, 2023 by RDDash

[Megas 27,555]

Don't have a problem with it. Things and concepts people thought acceptable change and those made in the past don't reflect the present, but they still shouldn't alter the original work. Having a warning label is perfectly fine and doesn't seem to bother anyone

[Dreambiscuit 9,575]

I think these ‘sensitivity disclaimers’ are absurd. They claim the material in the old cartoons was ‘wrong then and wrong now’ but still make them available as long as it continues to draw in viewers and their money. And in typical Disney fashion, their board room turns it into a win-win by making themselves appear ‘sensitive’ to the woke crowd while still profiting from the material. The old cartoons were made in an era when people weren’t brainwashed into thinking EVERYTHING is offensive, hence there was previously no need to force viewers to watch a mandatory disclaimer. If people need to have an obligatory apology for everything they see and hear, the disclaimer is there to balm their devastating emotional injuries. Yet viewers mature enough to watch these cartoons for what they are, harmless fun, aren’t given the option of bypassing the lame apologies. This shows that it isn’t about sensitivity as much as parading the fact of an apology in everyone’s faces in order to gain approval. No matter what subject matter is present, if something isn’t intended to be offensive, it’s incidental and shouldn’t be taken as offensive. Most people in earlier generations learned this by the time they were out of diapers.  

[TheRockASaurus Rex 50,591]

2 minutes ago, Dreambiscuit said:

I think these ‘sensitivity disclaimers’ are absurd. They claim the material in the old cartoons was ‘wrong then and wrong now’ but still make them available as long as it continues to draw in viewers and their money. And in typical Disney fashion, their board room turns it into a win-win by making themselves appear ‘sensitive’ to the woke crowd while still profiting from the material. The old cartoons were made in an era when people weren’t brainwashed into thinking EVERYTHING is offensive, hence there was previously no need to force viewers to watch a mandatory disclaimer. If people need to have an obligatory apology for everything they see and hear, the disclaimer is there to balm their devastating emotional injuries. Yet viewers mature enough to watch these cartoons for what they are, harmless fun, aren’t given the option of bypassing the lame apologies. This shows that it isn’t about sensitivity as much as parading the fact of an apology in everyone’s faces in order to gain approval. No matter what subject matter is present, if something isn’t intended to be offensive, it’s incidental and shouldn’t be taken as offensive. Most people in earlier generations learned this by the time they were out of diapers.  

I agree, Dreamy. 

Edited February 22, 2023 by TheRockARooster

[Tacodidra 61,040]

I think it's the best way for them to present these cartoons. That way, people know to avoid them if they don't want to see the offensive material, but they remain available for the people interested in them. It's nothing new, many of the Disney and Looney Tunes DVDs released in the 2000s had similar disclaimers about questionable content.

[Castle Bleck 19,319]

Like you and others have said - I'll take this over removal, any day.

[SIgmaBETA 97]

13 hours ago, Dreambiscuit said:

I think these ‘sensitivity disclaimers’ are absurd. They claim the material in the old cartoons was ‘wrong then and wrong now’ but still make them available as long as it continues to draw in viewers and their money. And in typical Disney fashion, their board room turns it into a win-win by making themselves appear ‘sensitive’ to the woke crowd while still profiting from the material. The old cartoons were made in an era when people weren’t brainwashed into thinking EVERYTHING is offensive, hence there was previously no need to force viewers to watch a mandatory disclaimer. If people need to have an obligatory apology for everything they see and hear, the disclaimer is there to balm their devastating emotional injuries. Yet viewers mature enough to watch these cartoons for what they are, harmless fun, aren’t given the option of bypassing the lame apologies. This shows that it isn’t about sensitivity as much as parading the fact of an apology in everyone’s faces in order to gain approval. No matter what subject matter is present, if something isn’t intended to be offensive, it’s incidental and shouldn’t be taken as offensive. Most people in earlier generations learned this by the time they were out of diapers.  

But lets be honest. There is gonna be people who is gonna draw and make insensitive stuff, nobody is gonna be happy ever. Just like people would draw violence on screen or make games about it, its part of human imagination of what their imagination makes in their head, ideas and such. Just like violence is a reflection of society so is insensitve stuff, aslong as its not literally praising Hitler and is about creative effort then thats all good for me. So i think having rating system that warns about that is the best thing that right and left people in politics can agree on in same way a screen just being there for 10 seconds about the problems some episodes or movie can contain, is probably the best trade that all people on political spectrum can agree to.

 

The only way it would be a problem is if some random dude was there for 3 min interrupting your movie or something saying why this is a problem, thats the only buzzkill if that was mandatory. But having a warning that is there for 10 seconds i am totally cool with. Thats a fair trade to enjoy good stories or animations

 

For example. I find this funny, but if this was made today "which parodies Silence of the Lambs character (Buffalo Bill), i would gladly trade sensitivity warning and also watch this movie aswell rather than not watching it at all

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by SIgmaBETA

[Jedishy 3,548]

2 hours ago, SIgmaBETA said:

But lets be honest. There is gonna be people who is gonna draw and make insensitive stuff, nobody is gonna be happy ever. Just like people would draw violence on screen or make games about it, its part of human imagination of what their imagination makes in their head, ideas and such. Just like violence is a reflection of society so is insensitve stuff, aslong as its not literally praising Hitler and is about creative effort then thats all good for me. So i think having rating system that warns about that is the best thing that right and left people in politics can agree on in same way a screen just being there for 10 seconds about the problems some episodes or movie can contain, is probably the best trade that all people on political spectrum can agree to.

 

The problem I have with these warnings is not that they exist. Might even be useful to some people that have trauma etc related to specific topics. The issue is they are ground ceded and precedent set that becomes difficult to undo or stand against. Its a greased slope that some are all too eager to shove us down. People never seem happy with the middle ground. They always seem to want more or to have their way entirely. Left, Right, sensitive, "based",  it makes no difference. People on every end of the spectrum seem to demand their way or nothing which is why any ground given concerns me. 

[Will Guide 21,359]

Short answer: Disney's been around for 100 Years. And over the decades, people sensitivities have changed. This disclaimer is to remind people that while some context might be offensive to modern viewers, it's important to see it as it was originally made. And if they are any concerned parents or guardians who think the context will "ruin" their children, instead of hiding it, they should sit down and talk with them about why and how the "offending" content wouldn't work today.

Leonard Martin a film critic himself would have said just as much.

[Sonic Shimmer 4,131]

I guess it’s a lot better than censorship or removal, but I feel like it should be obvious that something made decades ago won’t necessarily reflect modern attitudes. Do I really need to be told that?

[Brony Number 42 10,057]

I noticed it on the Chip n Dale blurays. Also, Disney said they are not going to reprint The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck for similar reasons. So I bought the book for $125, and it is now $225. Savvy move. 

1 hour ago, Sonic Shimmer said:

Do I really need to be told that?

You need to be told everthing. So say we all, so say we all. 

[Jeric 46,850]

My practical and pragmatic response to this feels like the old riddle about a tree falling in the woods and whether it makes a sound or not. I generally have trained myself to ignore disclaimers before media, from the FBI warning, to epilepsy in gaming, to … I assume many because I don’t notice them anymore. Basically I don’t care if they are there or not there. I have more important items to occupy my thoughts than barely readable text on a screen. I am usually doing something else with my eyes and brain until the show/film properly starts. 
 

 

[Jeric 46,850]

6 hours ago, Brony Number 42 said:

Also, Disney said they are not going to reprint The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck for similar reasons. So I bought the book for $125, and it is now $225. Savvy move

You are speaking my language.

Hardcover is less than $30 on Amazon and it’s still available for purchase on Comixology as Disney has not had it pulled. 

I actually have a graded copy of two of the issues from the 90’s.