Has Political Correctness in movies and TV gone too far?

[Anthony P]

the answer is YES way too PC

[Anthony P]

The problem with Song of the South isn't racist *content*, it's the presence of 1940's racial *stereotypes* that have long since gone out of vogue. That's the reason Disney can't release it. Walt thought he was making a film of racial brotherhood (and he was), but he was making the film in 1946, and the presentation of African Americans in the film is simply offensive and out of step with 21st century America.

but all movies are made at a particular time with particular "stereotypes" if movies are socially irrelevant then they won't sell. Should we get rid of every movie that is older then 5 years old? It is unfair to have the stereotypes of big hair of the 80's, promiscuity of the 60's, beehives of the 50's. Unfortunately that was how the world was back then, it is a sign of the times and it is this insane amount of PCness that makes the movie un-releasable today.

[Anthony P]

this isn't an example of PC-ness going to far, it's an example of Tim Burton finding a very weird reason to feel bad about something he did years ago that would never ever be taken to mean what he seems to think it could be taken to mean.

1) let's be honest, POA series is all about racial inequalities, struggle and stereotypes, like every good sci-fi series it talks allegorically by placing it in the future the issues of today. And in POA some of the times it was even a bit too overt

2) I can't understand how you can say that someone feeling bad enough to apologize for something that he thinks might be perceived as none-PC (but that in your opinion won't be objectionable by anyone) isn't an example of over the top PC. His guilt is real and it is because of PCness (slighting others) and you imply that because it is way over the top that it is not an example of over the top PC-ness.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but all movies are made at a particular time with particular "stereotypes" if movies are socially irrelevant then they won't sell. Should we get rid of every movie that is older then 5 years old? It is unfair to have the stereotypes of big hair of the 80's, promiscuity of the 60's, beehives of the 50's. Unfortunately that was how the world was back then, it is a sign of the times and it is this insane amount of PCness that makes the movie un-releasable today.

"...insane amount of PCness..."

I don't see it. The movie can be released. Call Disney, a company that is in business to make a profit, and tell them you want to buy it.

They don't need to deal with people's disgust with it. You seem to want people to not object to something, which isn't banned, just unprofitable to the corporation.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the answer is YES way too PC

Come on, man. Out there now is:

Sex Drive, Cream filled whatever
Zack and Mimi Make A Porno

etc etc

Looks like you call PC whenever ethnic stereotypes, which people are offended by, are mentioned. So, you're OK with ethnic insults? It's not your ox being gored, eh?

[DigitalfreakNYC]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Come on, man. Out there now is:

Sex Drive, Cream filled whatever
Zack and Mimi Make A Porno

etc etc

Looks like you call PC whenever ethnic stereotypes, which people are offended by, are mentioned. So, you're OK with ethnic insults? It's not your ox being gored, eh?

*applause*

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but all movies are made at a particular time with particular "stereotypes" if movies are socially irrelevant then they won't sell. Should we get rid of every movie that is older then 5 years old? It is unfair to have the stereotypes of big hair of the 80's, promiscuity of the 60's, beehives of the 50's. Unfortunately that was how the world was back then, it is a sign of the times and it is this insane amount of PCness that makes the movie un-releasable today.

I don't think you understand, no one has "Forced" Disney not to release "Song of the South", the company has made that decision. If there was this "insane amount of PCness" you so describe, WB wouldn't release "Gone With The Wind", you wouldn't be able to get Amos and Andy TV episodes on DVD, and you couldn't buy Al Jolson's "The Jazz Singer" so I don't see this as much PCness in the movie industry as people in this thread are trying to point out.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Blu As Hell

I don't think you understand, no one has "Forced" Disney not to release "Song of the South", the company has made that decision. If there was this "insane amount of PCness" you so describe, WB wouldn't release "Gone With The Wind", you wouldn't be able to get Amos and Andy TV episodes on DVD, and you couldn't buy Al Jolson's "The Jazz Singer" so I don't see this as much PCness in the movie industry as people in this thread are trying to point out.

Well it is true that it is Disney's choice not to release the movie, it's also a little naive to think they are not doing so out of public backlash. Song Of The South as been sold by too many critics as a "racist" movie to the general public. People who have never seen it, know nothing about it, don't even know the story of the movie, will come right out in your face and tell you it's a racist offensive movie because that is what they have heard. Yes Disney as made the choice not to release this film but let's not make the mistake to think it as nothing to do about the public perception of the film.

[Anthony P]

I don't see it.

obviously look at the rest of the posts you are as hard core PC as anyone can get. You are comfortable saying that Disney should be burning in hell and the movie should be destroyed because you think it is racist.

Call Disney, a company that is in business to make a profit, and tell them you want to buy it.

If Disney did not feal pressure from fans they would not bother telling people that they are not releasing it due to PC nut jobs who have no idea what it is about and concluded it is racist garbadge.

They don't need to deal with people's disgust with it. You seem to want people to not object to something, which isn't banned, just unprofitable to the corporation.

I am sure it would be very profitable, the issue is that they don't want the contrevercy, and from your posts here I am guessing if they did anounce it that you would be the first there with a picket sign calling them racist and calling for a boycot of all things Disney.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am sure it would be very profitable, the issue is that they don't want the contrevercy, and from your posts here I am guessing if they did anounce it that you would be the first there with a picket sign calling them racist and calling for a boycot of all things Disney.

Right on! The perception of this movie by the general public is just not understood, Disney know exatly what kind of trouble they would find it they were to release this movie.

[Anthony P]

Looks like you call PC whenever ethnic stereotypes, which people are offended by, are mentioned. So, you're OK with ethnic insults? It's not your ox being gored, eh?

no I am not OK with ethnic insults, especialy gratutous ones. I am also not OK with being PC. It might be a fine line but there is a big difference between the two

[Anthony P]

I don't think you understand, no one has "Forced" Disney not to release "Song of the South", the company has made that decision. If there was this "insane amount of PCness" you so describe, WB wouldn't release "Gone With The Wind", you wouldn't be able to get Amos and Andy TV episodes on DVD, and you couldn't buy Al Jolson's "The Jazz Singer" so I don't see this as much PCness in the movie industry as people in this thread are trying to point out.

PC is all about what is acceptable and what is not. You are allowed to have a stereotypical dumb blond because as the definition states (quoted from the first post

avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against

so it is not if there is something not "OK" but if we (sociaty) decided that the people mocked are

disadvantaged or discriminated against

. So yes Arabs/Muslims middle easterners always being terrorists or dumb blonds are bad stereotypes but socially they are allowed to be portrayed that way because in our society they are not seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against.

As for Song of the south. Yes, legally no one is stopping them. But have you even seen the movie and read the posts here? Erike talked about "shows slavery in a positive way to children" and Blu-Dog talked about how the movie should be released " straight into a vat of "Dip" (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit for details)" and "I am a firm believer that everyone has the right to go to hell in their own fashion. Until they do, they absolutely have the right to convince people that hell is where they belong"

the problem is Disney knows there are enough people that will buy it, but they also know that there are enough nutjobs out there that are PC nazis that will try to rally the troops and make it hard for them. Disney isn't scared that there won't be enough people interested in it, but that there will be nut jobs picketing the amusement parks and other products and movies because they totally misunderstood this movie or never even saw it but they heard it was racist and promotes slavery (which is funny since the movie does the absolute opposite as Ernest stated earlier)

PS the only thing Ernest mist that it is even more important is that Uncle Remus’s tales are old African- American tales that where orally transmitted in the older days.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

2) I can't understand how you can say that someone feeling bad enough to apologize for something that he thinks might be perceived as none-PC (but that in your opinion won't be objectionable by anyone) isn't an example of over the top PC. His guilt is real and it is because of PCness (slighting others) and you imply that because it is way over the top that it is not an example of over the top PC-ness.

all we can judge from his actions are how he felt about it. one person overreacting to their own work is hardly PC run amok. If a large amount of people had suddenly started complaining about it I'd call it ridiculous.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

obviously look at the rest of the posts you are as hard core PC as anyone can get. You are comfortable saying that Disney should be burning in hell and the movie should be destroyed because you think it is racist.

Well, don't get me wrong; I said, quite clearly, that I think people have the right to go to hell in their own fashion. I have no intention of sending them there, or standing around with a pitchfork waiting for them to show up, for that matter.

The question was, if asked if Disney should release it, I mentioned a vat of Dip. From another Disney film I like very much, I might add. I'd be very unhappy if the corporation was running around on hot coals, trying to get way from big red guys with pitchforks.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

If Disney did not feal pressure from fans they would not bother telling people that they are not releasing it due to PC nut jobs who have no idea what it is about and concluded it is racist garbadge.

I've seen it.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am sure it would be very profitable, the issue is that they don't want the contrevercy, and from your posts here I am guessing if they did anounce it that you would be the first there with a picket sign calling them racist and calling for a boycot of all things Disney.

BZZZZZT

Bad guess.

I'm guessing you watch lots of television. If so, you've seen folks marching around with signs. The cameras usually capture the image of twenty or thirty folks with nothing better to do standing around doing some kind of high school football type chant.

I don't carry picket signs; never did. I also wouldn't boycott Disney; I like Pixar films. I'll say it again; they can do whatever they like with their film, and I can say whatever I like about their decision.

Are you uncomfortable with free speech, or what?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

no I am not OK with ethnic insults, especialy gratutous ones. I am also not OK with being PC. It might be a fine line but there is a big difference between the two

I'm at a loss here; I may be wrong, but it seems that if someone objects to something they feel is insulting, you call it political correctness.

Maybe this whole thread is based on something I simply don't get. What the heck is "political correctness"?

I have actual reasons, which I can explain, for being disgusted with some of the portrayals of people based on insulting stereotypes. I can give you reasons why. Ironically, one of the people who generalizes and stereotypes the most is Al Sharpton; I can't stand the guy, and though we share some ethnic roots, he doesn't speak for me.

I speak for myself.

If other folks agree with me in significant numbers, it doesn't mean it's anything about being "correct" about it; it's a concensus, which each individual reaches on his own. Unless, perhaps, they're parrots reciting what some self-proclaimed (or media-anointed) "community leader" yammers about.

It comes from all over the map. Maybe you could define it.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so it is not if there is something not "OK" but if we (sociaty) decided that the people mocked are. So yes Arabs/Muslims middle easterners always being terrorists or dumb blonds are bad stereotypes but socially they are allowed to be portrayed that way because in our society they are not seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against.

OK, I can understand this point.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As for Song of the south. Yes, legally no one is stopping them. But have you even seen the movie and read the posts here?

I've seen the movie. It was a long time ago, and even at the time (I was a kid) I had problems with it.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

Erike talked about "shows slavery in a positive way to children" and Blu-Dog talked about how the movie should be released " straight into a vat of "Dip" (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit for details)" and "I am a firm believer that everyone has the right to go to hell in their own fashion. Until they do, they absolutely have the right to convince people that hell is where they belong"

If Disney released it, for sale, I'd be astonished. I'm not qualified to send people to the hot place, but if they wind up there, it will be based on their own actions, not mine.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

the problem is Disney knows there are enough people that will buy it, but they also know that there are enough nutjobs out there that are PC nazis...

Wait a minute. Anyone who objects to a racist portrayal wants to murder 30 million people? Are you sure about this?

Originally Posted by Anthony P

...that will try to rally the troops and make it hard for them. Disney isn't scared that there won't be enough people interested in it, but that there will be nut jobs picketing the amusement parks and other products and movies because they totally misunderstood this movie or never even saw it but they heard it was racist and promotes slavery (which is funny since the movie does the absolute opposite as Ernest stated earlier)

No problem, just give them a call, or send them a letter, telling them that you don't care how anyone else feels about it; release the film. It's an American corporation, they understand the First Amendment.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

PS the only thing Ernest mist that it is even more important is that Uncle Remus’s tales are old African- American tales that where orally transmitted in the older days.

I remember hearing old men - my paternal grandfather, and his buddies - sitting around on his front porch, telling tales. None of them looked, sounded like, or acted like the stereotypes in Song of the South.

But you might not understand that, you weren't there, and I don't hold that against you. Simply put, your opinion is your own, and I encourage you to voice it. Others will do the same, and I see no problem with that, either.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Variable

all we can judge from his actions are how he felt about it. one person overreacting to their own work is hardly PC run amok. If a large amount of people had suddenly started complaining about it I'd call it ridiculous.

So would I. His comment was bizarre, to say the least.

Maybe fifty years from now, when people's idea of the release date is fuzzy, they may thing Planet of the Apes was released after the election. But why worry about it now?

It's just odd.

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I remember hearing old men - my paternal grandfather, and his buddies - sitting around on his front porch, telling tales. None of them looked, sounded like, or acted like the stereotypes in Song of the South.

But you might not understand that, you weren't there, and I don't hold that against you. Simply put, your opinion is your own, and I encourage you to voice it. Others will do the same, and I see no problem with that, either.

that was then and not now blu-dog. were you born during the time song of the south was set in? i doubt it as you'd be dead. the movie was set shortly after the civil war. so that was probably a 100 years before you were born. i believe times then had changed. the movie wasn't set in the time period it was originally set in. there's nothing racist about song of the south.

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

As for Song of the south. Yes, legally no one is stopping them. But have you even seen the movie and read the posts here? Erike talked about "shows slavery in a positive way to children" and Blu-Dog talked about how the movie should be released " straight into a vat of "Dip" (see Who Framed Roger Rabbit for details)" and "I am a firm believer that everyone has the right to go to hell in their own fashion. Until they do, they absolutely have the right to convince people that hell is where they belong"

Yes I've seen Song of the South several times as a matter of fact. Erike is totally wrong that the movie has anything to do with slavery (I'm assuming he's never seen the movie) and I understand Blu-Dog's distaste for the movie, because of the imagery used to portray African American people, it's a movie that was made in the 40's so Black people aren't shown in the most positive light because it's a simplistic, stereotypical, White America view of African-Americans. Was it racist? In a way yes it is, was it made with good intentions? Yes it was, but in 21st century America stereotypes of the 40's don't fly and Disney has chosen not to release the movie, like WB has decided to release movies like "The Jazz Singer".

[Blu As Hell]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Well it is true that it is Disney's choice not to release the movie, it's also a little naive to think they are not doing so out of public backlash. Song Of The South as been sold by too many critics as a "racist" movie to the general public. People who have never seen it, know nothing about it, don't even know the story of the movie, will come right out in your face and tell you it's a racist offensive movie because that is what they have heard. Yes Disney as made the choice not to release this film but let's not make the mistake to think it as nothing to do about the public perception of the film.

I agree with you on this to a certain point, "Song of the South"'s stereotypical portrial of African-Americans is "racist". Being it was made at a time where those stereotypes were believed to be true representations of an entire race of people doesn't excuse the ignorance of those who made the film.