![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
It maybe an important disney film but it's not top. Andman8 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is just my personal opinion, so I kept it off the actual article, but does anyone else feel it's a shame that the movie has been suppressed? Yes, it does have strongly racist tendencies which many find offensive, there's no denying that, but the Uncle Remus stories are a piece of genuine American folklore. It seems wasteful to throw them on the trash heap of history just because they were presented in a framework that was influenced by the prejudices of the time. Here's hoping Disney follows through on the project.
- Kasreyn
I included Roger Ebert's opinion (based on his "Answer Man" column from Feb. 13, 2000), which I feel is a valid one. His concern is that the method of the presentation of the racist tendencies you mention and their intended audience combine to make the film more dangerous than, say, Birth of a Nation, which is intended for adults. Note that in a later column (Sep. 5, 2004), Ebert points out that he is not opposed to screening the film for adult audiences. --unsigned comment by User:TeamLessisMore
The article specifically states that the movie has never been released on home video, and yet I'm pretty sure that when I was young, in the early days of VCRs, we rented Song of the South on video. I should add that I am in the United States, not the UK, where it has been released.( Bigjeremy2k 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
The lastest news is that it has been cancelled indefinitely. It might get release, but not in our lifetimes.
--
4.250.63.72
22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I bet all the little black children would just love it! Who cares about their feelings, right? Well, maybe they could put a warning sticker on cover for black kids. We need Uncle Remus to remind us of the good ol' days. Yassuh! MrBlondNYC 09:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dude, seriously, I get an "I'm joking" vibe off this, but still...not cool. The Anti-Gnome 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dude, seriously, you get an "I'm White" vibe off this, but...you would be 100% wrong. MrBlondNYC 11:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Aw, gee that's too bad. Maybe they can try to re-release Little Black Sambo or Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs. After all, they are cartoons created by classic animators that many grew up watching so therefore they just have to be shown again today regardless of what Black people would think. Right? MrBlondNYC 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive him, Kay. Anti/Reverse Racists are the worst. So intolerant. Anyone see that Daily Show special? Ace Class Shadow 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Dystopos. So I'll just say this. Ace Class, you're damn right I'm intolerant. So intolerant of racism that I attack it anywhere I see it like a guard dog. If that makes me a jerk, than I'll be the biggest jerk you ever heard of. Kasreyn, I'm not saying you're racist. I am saying that you are either insensitive, oblivious or selfish. If you know for a fact, that a DVD release of this film would hurt millions of people, especially children, why do you want it released? What about the "some" people the movie would truly hurt? Uncle Remus, like the other characters I mentioned are deeply hurtful and offensive to Black people and anyone else who actually cares about their feelings. So why do you want something to be released that would hurt them so? I don't know if you're a racist, but maybe you just never gave their feelings a thought before. Just something to think about. MrBlondNYC 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't think it was worth noting on the page, but this very morning (27/8/06) the film is showing on national TV over here in Britland... BBC 2! I'm taping it, so have no comment on the content as yet... but I was surprised to see it in the schedules! [Dee]
I don't think they will ever come out with a DVD ... although there has been a "fan" creeated dvd that I have seen circulating on the internet ...a simple torrent search finds at least one copy perhaps future orphaned works legislation will apply towards its distribution...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdale ( talk • contribs) at 19:03, October 11, 2006
Here's my wish: the Disney company should released Song of the South on DVD no later than 2006, whether it's improper or not! In fact, they would use subtitles on the DVD that is proper english, AND subtitles that is IMproper english! Just remember, how Martin King said about those dreams of his! --- ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.74 ( talk)
I edited the sentance that previously read "It was one of Disney's earliest attempts to combine live action footage with animation" since Disney had worked with the combination back to the "Alice" series in the 1920s. -- Infrogmation 15:38 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's kind of strange that Disney would build that huge attraction "Splash Mountain," but give no context for visitors to enjoy it. That is, it refers to stories from the movie, but the movie itself is not available (and probably never will be). I'm not saying the article is inaccurate, it's just strange that the ride would seemingly promote a property which Disney has no intention of supporting or releasing. I think the only way people can see this movie now is via bootleg tapes or DVDs or from short clips that are show in the Disney stores from time to time. — Frecklefoot 20:26, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Actually, Splash Mountain opened in 1989 in CA and 1991 or 92 in FL. So there is some context lacking. -- Velvet elvis81 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Partly why I changed the reference to the ride to specify the animated characters from the movie. I don't know why they've never figured out another way to frame the Brer Rabbit stuff, they've done it with enough other cartoons. Maybe even without the Remus parts the accents are just too much. Jgm 20:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why does the British hyperlink go to the entry on England?
I've seen it on TV before in Ireland. I can't remember if it was on an Irish or British channel though. -- Richy 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The trivia on "in-joke references" may be a little overstated, given that the Who Framed Roger Rabbit page only identifies one such cameo appearence.
There are quite a few, most of the characters are in the film if you pay attention, nearly all of the characters appear in different scenes that take place in Toon Land. -- 4.250.63.72 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no credit for Director anywhere on this page, although IMDB ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038969/) mentions Harve Foster and Wilfred Jackson as this film's directors, their names are nowhere to be found on this page. Is there a reason for the absence of this credit? -- Mac4drew 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Song of the South, together with movies like Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon are said to be live-action films that feature Disney animation. While movies like The Three Caballeros are said to be Disney animated movies containing live action. It all depends on how much of the film that is animated. The definition of an animated feature; "An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture of at least 70 minutes in running time and where a significant number of the major characters in the film are animated, and animation figures in no less than 75% of the picture's running time." So how much of this movie contains animated characters? If it should turn out that some of the live action flims containing animation are actually animated features, should thet be considered non-canon animated movies from Disney then? But of course, it all depends on how much of it that is live action and how much is animation.
Perhaps Italians can be forgiven for the unfortunate choice of names in the title "I Racconti Dello Zio Tom". Uncle Remus, in fact, shares his name with one of the founders of the city of Rome (Romulus and Remus). This isn't surprising given the 19th Century Southern predilection for all things classical. The Italians would understandably want to avoid this confusion in the movie title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.7.169 ( talk)
It says "release in 1986". Shouldn't that be 1946?
There's some good stuff in the article, but there's room for improvement in many spots. For instance, the plot section has to be expanded and corrected. Also, there should be sections on the production of the film, how people reacted to it when it was originally released, etc. Also, the 1986 reissue poster should be replaced with an original theatrical poster from 1946 (images from the original release can be found on the
Song of the South campaign page). With some effort, this could turn into a nice featured article in the future. (
Ibaranoff24
18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC))
I seperated the pop culture references from the Trivia section into their own seperate sub-section. ( Ibaranoff24 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
Surely references to Bre'ers Fox and Bear and Uncle Remus are just references to those characters, not to tihs film's interpretation of them, aren't they? David Farmbrough 18/11/'06
The article spends many words on the film being controversial, yet does not describe the controversy, except that it has something to do with black people. As the film was released in other countries than U.S., it is presumably controversial only in the U.S. Perhaps everyone living there will instantly understand everything about this, but it left me more confused than informed. 130.234.170.84 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose a petition to get this film released on DVD. If the highly controversial Looney Tunes WWII propaganda can be rerelased, why not Song of the South? Because of this controversy, I've never seen the movie. Plenty of people haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.1.34 ( talk) at 20:35, September 29, 2006
This film is available on DVD in the US. I don't know if it's grey market from Asia or what but they are only $15 from an outfit in Oregon so I doubt they are bootleg. It is also legally available on laserdisc and PAL VHS on Ebay every day of the week. To call this film "unreleased" to the US video market when anyone who wants it can readily get it is rather strange. Tommypowell 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, at a minimum, the laserdisc and Pal Vhs versions are completely legal. So anyone can buy the Pal version and have it converted (about $25) or played on an all region VCR (which a lot of people do have-they are only $100). It seems strange that this Oregon outfit is bootlegging. They take credit cards and put their address right on their web site. You would think Disney would have them shut down in a New York minute but I will defer to your knowledge on that. Regardless, the fact that this film is on Ebay every day of the week LEGALLY (if only on laserdisc and PAL) make language such as "the Disney corporation has avoided making it available on home video" and "the film's lack of availability on home video in the United States" misleading if not grossly innacurate and needs to be tightened. This is not a "lost" title like London After Midnight. A film which is legally available on a daily basis on Ebay with legal videos stamped "Disneyland Paris", on Laserdisc and (legally or not) on DVD from an Oregon seller for $15 to anyone with the sense to enter "SONG OF THE SOUTH DVD" on a search engine cannot be referred to on Wikipedia using such broad quotations. Tommypowell 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the website clearly states that they're selling bootlegs! The page is called the "Unofficial-Official Song of the South website"! Plus, one of the bonus features is a Warner Brothers cartoon!
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
It maybe an important disney film but it's not top. Andman8 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This is just my personal opinion, so I kept it off the actual article, but does anyone else feel it's a shame that the movie has been suppressed? Yes, it does have strongly racist tendencies which many find offensive, there's no denying that, but the Uncle Remus stories are a piece of genuine American folklore. It seems wasteful to throw them on the trash heap of history just because they were presented in a framework that was influenced by the prejudices of the time. Here's hoping Disney follows through on the project.
- Kasreyn
I included Roger Ebert's opinion (based on his "Answer Man" column from Feb. 13, 2000), which I feel is a valid one. His concern is that the method of the presentation of the racist tendencies you mention and their intended audience combine to make the film more dangerous than, say, Birth of a Nation, which is intended for adults. Note that in a later column (Sep. 5, 2004), Ebert points out that he is not opposed to screening the film for adult audiences. --unsigned comment by User:TeamLessisMore
The article specifically states that the movie has never been released on home video, and yet I'm pretty sure that when I was young, in the early days of VCRs, we rented Song of the South on video. I should add that I am in the United States, not the UK, where it has been released.( Bigjeremy2k 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
The lastest news is that it has been cancelled indefinitely. It might get release, but not in our lifetimes.
--
4.250.63.72
22:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I bet all the little black children would just love it! Who cares about their feelings, right? Well, maybe they could put a warning sticker on cover for black kids. We need Uncle Remus to remind us of the good ol' days. Yassuh! MrBlondNYC 09:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dude, seriously, I get an "I'm joking" vibe off this, but still...not cool. The Anti-Gnome 09:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dude, seriously, you get an "I'm White" vibe off this, but...you would be 100% wrong. MrBlondNYC 11:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Aw, gee that's too bad. Maybe they can try to re-release Little Black Sambo or Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs. After all, they are cartoons created by classic animators that many grew up watching so therefore they just have to be shown again today regardless of what Black people would think. Right? MrBlondNYC 08:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive him, Kay. Anti/Reverse Racists are the worst. So intolerant. Anyone see that Daily Show special? Ace Class Shadow 23:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Dystopos. So I'll just say this. Ace Class, you're damn right I'm intolerant. So intolerant of racism that I attack it anywhere I see it like a guard dog. If that makes me a jerk, than I'll be the biggest jerk you ever heard of. Kasreyn, I'm not saying you're racist. I am saying that you are either insensitive, oblivious or selfish. If you know for a fact, that a DVD release of this film would hurt millions of people, especially children, why do you want it released? What about the "some" people the movie would truly hurt? Uncle Remus, like the other characters I mentioned are deeply hurtful and offensive to Black people and anyone else who actually cares about their feelings. So why do you want something to be released that would hurt them so? I don't know if you're a racist, but maybe you just never gave their feelings a thought before. Just something to think about. MrBlondNYC 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Didn't think it was worth noting on the page, but this very morning (27/8/06) the film is showing on national TV over here in Britland... BBC 2! I'm taping it, so have no comment on the content as yet... but I was surprised to see it in the schedules! [Dee]
I don't think they will ever come out with a DVD ... although there has been a "fan" creeated dvd that I have seen circulating on the internet ...a simple torrent search finds at least one copy perhaps future orphaned works legislation will apply towards its distribution...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdale ( talk • contribs) at 19:03, October 11, 2006
Here's my wish: the Disney company should released Song of the South on DVD no later than 2006, whether it's improper or not! In fact, they would use subtitles on the DVD that is proper english, AND subtitles that is IMproper english! Just remember, how Martin King said about those dreams of his! --- ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.74 ( talk)
I edited the sentance that previously read "It was one of Disney's earliest attempts to combine live action footage with animation" since Disney had worked with the combination back to the "Alice" series in the 1920s. -- Infrogmation 15:38 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)
It's kind of strange that Disney would build that huge attraction "Splash Mountain," but give no context for visitors to enjoy it. That is, it refers to stories from the movie, but the movie itself is not available (and probably never will be). I'm not saying the article is inaccurate, it's just strange that the ride would seemingly promote a property which Disney has no intention of supporting or releasing. I think the only way people can see this movie now is via bootleg tapes or DVDs or from short clips that are show in the Disney stores from time to time. — Frecklefoot 20:26, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Actually, Splash Mountain opened in 1989 in CA and 1991 or 92 in FL. So there is some context lacking. -- Velvet elvis81 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Partly why I changed the reference to the ride to specify the animated characters from the movie. I don't know why they've never figured out another way to frame the Brer Rabbit stuff, they've done it with enough other cartoons. Maybe even without the Remus parts the accents are just too much. Jgm 20:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why does the British hyperlink go to the entry on England?
I've seen it on TV before in Ireland. I can't remember if it was on an Irish or British channel though. -- Richy 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The trivia on "in-joke references" may be a little overstated, given that the Who Framed Roger Rabbit page only identifies one such cameo appearence.
There are quite a few, most of the characters are in the film if you pay attention, nearly all of the characters appear in different scenes that take place in Toon Land. -- 4.250.63.72 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no credit for Director anywhere on this page, although IMDB ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038969/) mentions Harve Foster and Wilfred Jackson as this film's directors, their names are nowhere to be found on this page. Is there a reason for the absence of this credit? -- Mac4drew 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Song of the South, together with movies like Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon are said to be live-action films that feature Disney animation. While movies like The Three Caballeros are said to be Disney animated movies containing live action. It all depends on how much of the film that is animated. The definition of an animated feature; "An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture of at least 70 minutes in running time and where a significant number of the major characters in the film are animated, and animation figures in no less than 75% of the picture's running time." So how much of this movie contains animated characters? If it should turn out that some of the live action flims containing animation are actually animated features, should thet be considered non-canon animated movies from Disney then? But of course, it all depends on how much of it that is live action and how much is animation.
Perhaps Italians can be forgiven for the unfortunate choice of names in the title "I Racconti Dello Zio Tom". Uncle Remus, in fact, shares his name with one of the founders of the city of Rome (Romulus and Remus). This isn't surprising given the 19th Century Southern predilection for all things classical. The Italians would understandably want to avoid this confusion in the movie title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.7.169 ( talk)
It says "release in 1986". Shouldn't that be 1946?
There's some good stuff in the article, but there's room for improvement in many spots. For instance, the plot section has to be expanded and corrected. Also, there should be sections on the production of the film, how people reacted to it when it was originally released, etc. Also, the 1986 reissue poster should be replaced with an original theatrical poster from 1946 (images from the original release can be found on the
Song of the South campaign page). With some effort, this could turn into a nice featured article in the future. (
Ibaranoff24
18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC))
I seperated the pop culture references from the Trivia section into their own seperate sub-section. ( Ibaranoff24 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
Surely references to Bre'ers Fox and Bear and Uncle Remus are just references to those characters, not to tihs film's interpretation of them, aren't they? David Farmbrough 18/11/'06
The article spends many words on the film being controversial, yet does not describe the controversy, except that it has something to do with black people. As the film was released in other countries than U.S., it is presumably controversial only in the U.S. Perhaps everyone living there will instantly understand everything about this, but it left me more confused than informed. 130.234.170.84 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose a petition to get this film released on DVD. If the highly controversial Looney Tunes WWII propaganda can be rerelased, why not Song of the South? Because of this controversy, I've never seen the movie. Plenty of people haven't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.1.34 ( talk) at 20:35, September 29, 2006
This film is available on DVD in the US. I don't know if it's grey market from Asia or what but they are only $15 from an outfit in Oregon so I doubt they are bootleg. It is also legally available on laserdisc and PAL VHS on Ebay every day of the week. To call this film "unreleased" to the US video market when anyone who wants it can readily get it is rather strange. Tommypowell 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, at a minimum, the laserdisc and Pal Vhs versions are completely legal. So anyone can buy the Pal version and have it converted (about $25) or played on an all region VCR (which a lot of people do have-they are only $100). It seems strange that this Oregon outfit is bootlegging. They take credit cards and put their address right on their web site. You would think Disney would have them shut down in a New York minute but I will defer to your knowledge on that. Regardless, the fact that this film is on Ebay every day of the week LEGALLY (if only on laserdisc and PAL) make language such as "the Disney corporation has avoided making it available on home video" and "the film's lack of availability on home video in the United States" misleading if not grossly innacurate and needs to be tightened. This is not a "lost" title like London After Midnight. A film which is legally available on a daily basis on Ebay with legal videos stamped "Disneyland Paris", on Laserdisc and (legally or not) on DVD from an Oregon seller for $15 to anyone with the sense to enter "SONG OF THE SOUTH DVD" on a search engine cannot be referred to on Wikipedia using such broad quotations. Tommypowell 02:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Plus, the website clearly states that they're selling bootlegs! The page is called the "Unofficial-Official Song of the South website"! Plus, one of the bonus features is a Warner Brothers cartoon!