Talk:Song of the South/Archive 1

High
It maybe an important disney film but it's not top. Andman8 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for the 2006 DVD
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)
 * Dammit. :(  -Kasreyn 23:53, 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)


 * Some information I found on a discussion board:  There are two "critical points" about "Song of the South": (1) Many people say that "Song of the South" was set in the time before the civil war which would make Uncle Remus an obedient slave. But there are as many hints that it is set AFTER the civil war like the clothing and that Uncle Remus would be free to go in the end if he wished. So, this point is based on a misunderstanding. (2)The second critical point is the story of the Tar Baby, one of the fables Uncle Remus tells the children. Some black people regarded the Tar Baby story as an offence to their race. What they didn't take into account is that not Walt invented this story but that it is part of the original "Uncle Remus-His Songs and Sayings" written by Joel Chandler Harris. The funny (or sad) thing about this whole controversy is that while some people try to tear the movie into pieces, the book can still be bought everywhere in the United States. Most of all, the Tar Baby story emphasises on the imagination of the trickster, B'rer Rabbit, and nothing else.
 * A few years ago, Disney executives approached some celebrities if they would be ok with making a documentary for "Song of the South's" possible DVD release. A lot of them agreed (like Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington), but one person (Maya Angelou) disagreed and this was enough for the executives to abandon the plan for a "Song of the South" DVD.

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)
 * Your strawman argument is a waste of time. No one here is pretending that the movie isn't offensive to some.  Painting anyone who would like this movie as a hateful racist only displays your own ignorance and intolerance for all to see.  How about you take your attitude and go be insulting somewhere else?  Kasreyn 16:56, 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)


 * Reminder: Talk pages are for collaborating on article improvement. Opinions can be expressed on User pages, blogs, letters to editors, pamphlets, flyers, zines, and soapbox rants. Personal attacks are unwelcome anywhere on Wikipedia. --Dystopos 00:41, 5 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)
 * Mrblond, You could do with a reading of Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. If you have a real point to make, try making it without attacking the character of those who disagree with you.  You don't know anything about Ace Class or I, or what we are like as people.  All you know is some of the things we have said.  That's very scant evidence to be judgmental upon.


 * As for your "points": How would a DVD release of Song of the South hurt someone who does not buy it?  If a person feels that it would be offensive, they can choose not to buy it or view it.  It's the same answer I give anyone in favor of censorship:  change the channel, how hard is that?  There's nothing wrong with Disney withholding the film - self-censorship is their right - but the reasons behind it bug me.


 * By the way, I fail to see how I'm "insensitive, oblivious, or selfish" (which is your nice way of calling me racist anyway). I've already made it quite clear that I'm aware that many people are offended by the movie.  But so what?  I believe offendedness is in the mind of the beholder.  You can always choose to ignore it.  What I have a problem with is people who believe that their offendedness is very important, and that others should not be allowed to have the things they are offended by.  It's the same narrow-minded viewpoint that led people to put Twain's anti-racism novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn on banned book lists.  Censorship is always the last resort of a simple mind; in Twain's own words, it is telling a man he can't have steak because a baby can't chew it.  And that goes for any kind of censorship, in my opinion, no matter how offensive the content might be to no matter how large a majority.


 * As to Uncle Remus, prepare for a huge shock: your viewpoint is not the only possible one. My father is a big fan of the movie (not to mention a huge Disney fan in general), and was very disappointed that he wouldn't be able to complete his Disney DVD collection with Song of the South.  He told me what it was like growing up in an all-white town in the 50's.  Uncle Remus was the first black person he ever saw, and he loved him.  He was a friendly, smiling character with a song on his lips and joy in his heart.  True, he was also in a subservient role which some find distasteful.  But my father wasn't old enough to notice that at the time.  All he saw was a black person who was happy and kind and his friend.  That was my father's first impression of black people, thanks to Disney.  And he went on to make it very clear to me, as he was raising me, of how completely unacceptable racism was among civilized people.  Anyway, I'm sure your eyes have glazed over by now, but my point is:  there are always at least two sides to any story, and there were and are many people who do not see Song of the South in the same negative light you do.  Please do not attempt to silence such people with name-calling any more.


 * Sincerely, Kasreyn 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahem... Talk pages are for collaborating on article improvement. Opinions can be expressed on User pages, blogs, letters to editors, pamphlets, flyers, zines, and soapbox rants. Personal attacks are unwelcome anywhere on Wikipedia. --Dystopos 13:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I've been telling Mrblond all along: personal attacks are unwelcome.  Thanks for your support, Dystopos.  Hopefully now Mrblond will help us improve the article without further attacks.  Kasreyn 21:43, 8 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


 * New comments at the bottom, and sign them. As a registered user, you should know better. Now, as for your assertion, I think you're misusing the term "orphan works". (a lot of misuse with "orphan" terms, I'm finding.) The term applies to a a work of unknown copyright holder or original. This case is clear. The copyright holder is known and the work is not. (due in large part to lack a of publicity for many years and other forms of suppression.) They don't want to release it and no one can force them, as that would be un[pick your suffix: -fair, constitutional, et cetera]. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * He dremt this DVD would be released? And with sub-titles? &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Live action info error
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)

Splash Mountain
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. &mdash;Frecklefoot 20:26, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Your question presumes that the film was already out of circulation when the ride opened, but that's not the case. The ride is quite old and has probably been in operation since Disneyland's opening day in the 1950s.  "Song of the South" was very well known at the time and for decades thereafter.


 * I remember seeing the movie when it was re-released in 1972. This is also about the time Disney World opened in Florida, and I'm sure Splash Mountain was one of its original attractions.  Everyone who went on the ride in the early years of the park had had opportunities to see the film -- which was re-released in the U.S. again in 1981 and yet again 1986.  Riders' unfamiliarity with the film is thus a fairly recent development.

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)


 * I second Velvet elvis81's comments. The rides absolutely were not any of Disney's original attractions, they are fairly new.  That being the case, my original question is valid. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

strange
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)

British wikilink error
Why does the British hyperlink go to the entry on England?


 * Why not? ;-) Sorry, some of us Americans are pretty daft when it comes to European topics.  I changed the link to Great Britain.  Is that better?   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Removed sentence on British TV showings altogether; unsubstantiated? I'm British, 35, and have never seen it on British TV.


 * I have a vague memory of it. Although perhaps that is just the 'Sip a De Do Dah' song on a clip show. It certainly hasn't been on British TV in the last 15 years. Djarra 10:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zippity Doodah has been shown MANY times on Screen Test. David Farmbrough 18/11/'06

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)
 * It was on British TV on Sunday (27th Aug) -- Alex  talk here 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

References in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
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)

Why No Director Credit?
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)

Live action or animated feature?
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.
 * From what I've learned, it was one of the earliest and best examples of mixing live-action footage with animation, giving it a certain historical value. Kasreyn 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia
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)

Poster
It says "release in 1986". Shouldn't that be 1946?
 * Right you are. I have changed the article to indicate this.  Thanks, Kasreyn 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked the Song of the South fansite, and the poster is actually for the 1986 re-release, not the original theatrical release. (Ibaranoff24 18:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

A few comments
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))

Pop culture references
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
 * You're right. I removed the references. (Ibaranoff24 02:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Controversy
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)


 * There was a whole paragraph that described this. I don't know how/why it was deleted (maybe it was considered POV), but I dug through the archives and re-added it for clarification.  You may want to check fast before someone deletes it again! &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The controversy actually dates back to the film's opening in 1946, when the NAACP publicly criticized it for "the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship." The organization also acknowledged the film's "remarkable artistic merit" and evidently never asked to have it altered or withdrawn, but Disney was sensitive to this issue and announced in 1970 -- long before there was such a thing as home video -- that it was permanently taking the film out of circulation.  The company obviously relented, as the film was re-released three more times -- most recently for its 40th anniversay in 1986.  Its 50th and 60th anniversaries have gone uncelebrated, at least here in the U.S.  The NAACP does not presently object to the movie, though that may be due in part to the fact that it has not been available domestically for 20 years.

Petition
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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * That's nice, but Wikipedia is not the place for this. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a petition going around in 2003. In fact I wrote Disney myself asking for a copy (money no object) and didn't get a response back. I am surprised many of you didn't see it. I watched it on the last day of school when I was in the sixth grade (1985) on VCR. I wasn't happy then when I watched it and I am not happy now that I can't get it. So many will be up in arms if Disney ever re-leased this video. It's plentiful overseas though.
 * Obadiaha 17:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You were upset when you saw it, but now you're upset that you can't get it? Note that any new copies of it now, on DVD or videotape, are bootleg copies. Disney may have released it back in the early days of video, but hasn't made an official release for a long time. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DVD
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)


 * It is "unreleased" from Disney. Like I said, any copy you get in the US is bootleg. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 00:40, 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)

Alleged Bootleg
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!
 * First of all the Pal-VHS and Laserdiscs of this film being sold in the US are completely legal. They were pressed by Disney in the 90's.  I bought mine at Disneyland Paris!  Secondly, this film is  being sold as DVD's by an outfit out of Oregon which calls itself the "official" site.  Their DVD has the Disney hologram with art work and DVD extras.  They quite openly advertise their Oregon address.  To date Disney has taken NO action to shut them down.  Disney is a multibilion dollar company.  I personally find it unlikely this company would be so brazen as to try to bootleg Disney from a fixed U.S. address!  If anyone has a link which shows Disney or the government calling these DVD's bootleg please post such a link.  Until then we must assume they are a legitimate pressing, perhaps by a quiet deal Diney has cut with this distributor.  Again, if someone has a link showing their bootleg status-fine.  But simply yelling "their bootleg cause I say so" isn't going to cut it. Here is the site:   If it is bogus Disney can serve them with court papers and post such a press release. Tommypowell 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The DVDs are bootlegs. The reason Disney doesn't sue these guys is because if they did, then that would mean that they acknowledge the film, and if they acknowledge the film, then they have to release it, which they don't want to do, because they're still afraid that it might bring down the company, that it's possibly racist, that someone will be offended, despite the fact that they've never given anyone a chance to actually take a look at the film and judge it! (70.147.104.106 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Unofficial-official. that's cute.