|
Post by tarkintino on Dec 17, 2023 18:04:04 GMT -5
I guess the Spirit stories should be burned as well. What’s next , stories that say we never had slavery in America ? We learn from past events no matter how ugly they might be. There's an undeniably distinct difference between a commercial entity with a right to promote or remove its content at will for any reason and the act of revisionist history. Similarly, ceasing promotion and/or access to material having nothing to do with some accurate historical perspective, but the active promotion of astoundingly false racial propaganda (e.g., characters in comics such as Our Gang, The Spirit, etc.), is not removing or altering real world historical events.
Additionally, where racist material was concerned, black people (and others with a conscience) always found comic book stereotypes deplorable, but their complaints fell on often willfully deaf ears (the equivalent of a "fuck off"), as some comic book creators were never going to see black people as anything other than subservient, garish picaninnies and Sambos. That kind of material was--obviously--never a reflection of or account of real history, so to reiterate, its removal is not some suppression of history.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 17, 2023 18:18:29 GMT -5
I guess the Spirit stories should be burned as well. What’s next , stories that say we never had slavery in America ? We learn from past events no matter how ugly they might be. There's an undeniably distinct difference between a commercial entity with a right to promote or remove its content at will for any reason and the act of revisionist history. Similarly, ceasing promotion and/or access to material having nothing to do with some accurate historical perspective, but the active promotion of astoundingly false racial propaganda (e.g., characters in comics such as Our Gang, The Spirit, etc.), is not removing or altering real world historical events.
Additionally, where racist material was concerned, black people (and others with a conscience) always found comic book stereotypes deplorable, but their complaints fell on often willfully deaf ears (the equivalent of a "fuck off"), as some comic book creators were never going to see black people as anything other than subservient, garish picaninnies and Sambos. That kind of material was--obviously--never a reflection of or account of real history, so to reiterate, its removal is not some suppression of history.
I won't argue that, but where does it end? We should have access to ALL materials , even if it's only to see how far we've come. I remember reading comics with less than flattering depictions of gay people or fat people. Should those books be pulled was well? It's enough that those types of stories aren't being produced today. I don't believe in suppression of speech.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 17, 2023 20:58:22 GMT -5
There's an undeniably distinct difference between a commercial entity with a right to promote or remove its content at will for any reason and the act of revisionist history. Similarly, ceasing promotion and/or access to material having nothing to do with some accurate historical perspective, but the active promotion of astoundingly false racial propaganda (e.g., characters in comics such as Our Gang, The Spirit, etc.), is not removing or altering real world historical events.
Additionally, where racist material was concerned, black people (and others with a conscience) always found comic book stereotypes deplorable, but their complaints fell on often willfully deaf ears (the equivalent of a "fuck off"), as some comic book creators were never going to see black people as anything other than subservient, garish picaninnies and Sambos. That kind of material was--obviously--never a reflection of or account of real history, so to reiterate, its removal is not some suppression of history.
I won't argue that, but where does it end? We should have access to ALL materials , even if it's only to see how far we've come. I remember reading comics with less than flattering depictions of gay people or fat people. Should those books be pulled was well? It's enough that those types of stories aren't being produced today. I don't believe in suppression of speech. Why does Disney's decision to not reprint automatically mean that the material is unavailable? You can still find previous printings, if you are dying to see and read it. Preserving for historical study doesn't require commercial release. Where does it stop? How about when people stop resorting to negative stereotypes to tell a story and instead write/draw/portray those characters as real people? I am all for freedom of expression, but, that doesn't require me to listen to or view that expression. You want to create racist imagery, that is your right. It is my right to express my objections to you and to any commercial entity that then wants to make money selling that expression. They have the right to sell it; but, then have to take responsibility for that decision when they face a backlash from the community at large. In this case, Disney decided that racist stereotypes did not need to be perpetuated, regardless of what contracted employee produced it. Nobody dictated that decision to Disney; they came to that decision on their own, weighing the pros and cons of reprinting. They must feel the negative outweighed the positive. I wasn't happy with Random House deciding to permanently remove some Dr Seuss titles from publication; but, I understand their reasoning and if I desperately want to see those works, they still exist in past printings. My rights haven't been infringed by anything. The publisher doesn't owe me a reprint, just because I demanded it. Your last point doesn't hold water, because it is Disney's expression and they have decided not to continue expressing it. barks worked for Disney, they own the copyright, they are free to do what they want with the work. No one has suppressed Disney except their own executives, which means they suppressed themselves. It is not a government action.
|
|
|
Post by Rags on Dec 17, 2023 21:46:58 GMT -5
Where does it stop? How about when people stop resorting to negative stereotypes to tell a story and instead write/draw/portray those characters as real people?
Thing is, the character is presented as a zombie. As far as I know, a zombie is a lumbering corpse that's reanimated by shamans and voodoo, and voodoo originated in Benin in Africa. Must this type of horror / fantasy be avoided in comics now?
I found it on-line, it's Uncle Scrooge 295, I guess informed opinions can be made from there......
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Dec 18, 2023 0:44:25 GMT -5
I won't argue that, but where does it end? We should have access to ALL materials , even if it's only to see how far we've come. I remember reading comics with less than flattering depictions of gay people or fat people. Should those books be pulled was well? It's enough that those types of stories aren't being produced today. I don't believe in suppression of speech. I wasn't happy with Random House deciding to permanently remove some Dr Seuss titles from publication; but, I understand their reasoning and if I desperately want to see those works, they still exist in past printings. My rights haven't been infringed by anything. The publisher doesn't owe me a reprint, just because I demanded it. I absolutely support Random House on this. You or I can look at these books in the cultural and historical context and see the depictions for what they are. But these books are for little kids, and they should not be shown racist or ugly stereotypical portrayals at that age, that is the way you teach hatred, Same with the Barks stories, Disney is not concerned with aging completist collectors. They are concerned with children reading the reprints. Bombie the Zombie is full has all the racists stereotypes, I give Barks a pass, as he was using the shorthand of the day,and probably didthi k about it.But that dog don't hunt anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Dec 18, 2023 10:41:58 GMT -5
If it’s being pulled from kids , I’m okay with that. I just don’t think any literature should just vanish because the people of today are offended.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 18, 2023 11:42:13 GMT -5
If it’s being pulled from kids , I’m okay with that. I just don’t think any literature should just vanish because the people of today are offended. When the studio decided that the Batgirl movie would never be released or shown in away, and literally deleted, that was far worse that any of the changes we’re talking about here. And honestly, this kind of thing has been going on for 100 years at least. They changed the name of Agatha Christie’s famous novel to 10 Little Indians from something much more objectionable. And then they changed it again. Not to mention the changes that were made to the source material for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory when it was released to coincide with the Gene Wilder film in the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 18, 2023 11:47:51 GMT -5
So far, the only thing that has been mentioned that’s literally vanished is the Batgirl movie.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,761
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 18, 2023 11:54:31 GMT -5
So far, the only thing that has been mentioned that’s literally vanished is the Batgirl movie. This is a big part of why I continue to purchase DVDs and Blu Rays instead of relying on streaming. Not that it would help in the case of the Batgirl movie. My favorite episode ever of Community ("Advanced Dungeons & Dragons") was removed from all streaming platforms last year because it makes a joke about how insensitive blackface is. Apparently, the joke in and of itself was considered insensitive. I have no problem with the platforms and/or production companies deciding that they no longer want to be responsible for sharing this kind of humor to a wide audience so long as true fans are still able to see it somewhere. But yeah, casual blackface gags, I can see their point. The world is changing, and I won't pretend it's all for the worse. I grew up thinking Revenge of the Nerds was the greatest movie ever. Holy heck! From the perspective of an adult in 2023, that thing needs to be burned. That I was watching it on broadcast TV as a seven year old...!
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Dec 18, 2023 12:09:34 GMT -5
So far, the only thing that has been mentioned that’s literally vanished is the Batgirl movie. I have mixed feeling about this one. Is a creator required to release something they created to the public if they are not satisfied with it? It belongs t them until such a point as it is released to the public and the decision to release it or not belongs to them, and they are allowed to change their mind. Once something is released, I would agree it can't be taken back (but there's no requirement to keep in in print or available for the creator, they've done their work creating it). Just because people want to see a creator's new work doesn't put the creator under the obligation of releasing it once its done (unless it was a public funded project and the Batgirl movie was not that). I think it was a bad decision by WB, but feel it was their decision to make in that case because the thing did not exist as something already released into the wild so to speak. I now I've written any number of manuscripts and created pieces of art that I have destroyed/deleted before putting them out there for public consumption. No one is entitled to see my work unless it is something I am contracted to do, and then it is the contractor's decision whether that work is released into the public. Not releasing it isn't censorship (in fact by the Constitutional definition, only the government is not allowed to censor things, private companies and individuals can do what they will, the amendment doesn't apply to them). -M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 18, 2023 13:41:56 GMT -5
So far, the only thing that has been mentioned that’s literally vanished is the Batgirl movie. I have mixed feeling about this one. Is a creator required to release something they created to the public if they are not satisfied with it? It belongs t them until such a point as it is released to the public and the decision to release it or not belongs to them, and they are allowed to change their mind. Once something is released, I would agree it can't be taken back (but there's no requirement to keep in in print or available for the creator, they've done their work creating it). Just because people want to see a creator's new work doesn't put the creator under the obligation of releasing it once its done (unless it was a public funded project and the Batgirl movie was not that). I think it was a bad decision by WB, but feel it was their decision to make in that case because the thing did not exist as something already released into the wild so to speak. I now I've written any number of manuscripts and created pieces of art that I have destroyed/deleted before putting them out there for public consumption. No one is entitled to see my work unless it is something I am contracted to do, and then it is the contractor's decision whether that work is released into the public. Not releasing it isn't censorship (in fact by the Constitutional definition, only the government is not allowed to censor things, private companies and individuals can do what they will, the amendment doesn't apply to them). -M I don’t think the creators had anything to do with vanishing Batgirl. Unless you’re using “creators” in a very expansive way that means the people that run the studio. It was a studio decision, thus it was a business decision. You know, just like every other decision that we’re talking about right now.
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Dec 18, 2023 13:57:38 GMT -5
I have mixed feeling about this one. Is a creator required to release something they created to the public if they are not satisfied with it? It belongs t them until such a point as it is released to the public and the decision to release it or not belongs to them, and they are allowed to change their mind. Once something is released, I would agree it can't be taken back (but there's no requirement to keep in in print or available for the creator, they've done their work creating it). Just because people want to see a creator's new work doesn't put the creator under the obligation of releasing it once its done (unless it was a public funded project and the Batgirl movie was not that). I think it was a bad decision by WB, but feel it was their decision to make in that case because the thing did not exist as something already released into the wild so to speak. I now I've written any number of manuscripts and created pieces of art that I have destroyed/deleted before putting them out there for public consumption. No one is entitled to see my work unless it is something I am contracted to do, and then it is the contractor's decision whether that work is released into the public. Not releasing it isn't censorship (in fact by the Constitutional definition, only the government is not allowed to censor things, private companies and individuals can do what they will, the amendment doesn't apply to them). -M I don’t think the creators had anything to do with vanishing Batgirl. Unless you’re using “creators” in a very expansive way that means the people that run the studio. It was a studio decision, thus it was a business decision. You know, just like every other decision that we’re talking about right now. Right, the creators were contracted by the studio, and since they were and delivered it, it is the studio's decision whether they want to release it to the public or not. That's their decision, not the public's, and not the creators since they were contracted to deliver it to the studio, which they did. The difference between the Batgirl movie and everything else we are talking about, and it's a major difference, is the other works were already released to the public and the decision the publishers/studios are making is whether they should keep it in print. The movie was never released to the public, so it is still within their rights to decide whether it is something they wanted to give out or not. They're not denying access to something that was once available, they're deciding something made upon their impetus was not something they wanted to release to the public. That is in no way censorship or analogous to trying to remove something already out in the public. -M
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 18, 2023 14:00:14 GMT -5
I don’t think the creators had anything to do with vanishing Batgirl. Unless you’re using “creators” in a very expansive way that means the people that run the studio. It was a studio decision, thus it was a business decision. You know, just like every other decision that we’re talking about right now. Right, the creators were contracted by the studio, and since they were and delivered it, it is the studio's decision whether they want to release it to the public or not. That's their decision, not the public's, and not the creators since they were contracted to deliver it to the studio, which they did. The difference between the Batgirl movie and everything else we are talking about, and it's a major difference, is the other works were already released to the public and the decision the publishers/studios are making is whether they should keep it in print. The movie was never released to the public, so it is still within their rights to decide whether it is something they wanted to give out or not. They're not denying access to something that was once available, they're deciding something made upon their impetus was not something they wanted to release to the public. That is in no way censorship or analogous to trying to remove something already out in the public. -M Right. So it’s even worse than making minor changes. They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all.
|
|
|
Post by MRPs_Missives on Dec 18, 2023 14:08:47 GMT -5
Right, the creators were contracted by the studio, and since they were and delivered it, it is the studio's decision whether they want to release it to the public or not. That's their decision, not the public's, and not the creators since they were contracted to deliver it to the studio, which they did. The difference between the Batgirl movie and everything else we are talking about, and it's a major difference, is the other works were already released to the public and the decision the publishers/studios are making is whether they should keep it in print. The movie was never released to the public, so it is still within their rights to decide whether it is something they wanted to give out or not. They're not denying access to something that was once available, they're deciding something made upon their impetus was not something they wanted to release to the public. That is in no way censorship or analogous to trying to remove something already out in the public. -M Right. So it’s even worse than making minor changes. They’re denying the public any chance to see the work at all. which is any creator or patron who sponsored the creation's right. The public has no right to see a creator or a company's work unless the creator/company chooses to put it out in the public or the public is the one paying for its creation. Neither is the case for the Batgirl movie. The public is not being denied anything they already had, they're just not getting something new, and they are not owed anything new. It's pure entitlement to think the studio owed the public that movie. There are hundreds of possible reasons why they might not have wanted the movie released, and all we have are rumors and innuendo as to those reasons, but the reasons are irrelevant. They don't have to release anything they don't want to and that's not infringing on anyone's rights or taking away something they are owed. I still think it was the wrong choice by WB, but it was their choice to make even if I don't like it. -M
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 18, 2023 14:11:21 GMT -5
If it’s being pulled from kids , I’m okay with that. I just don’t think any literature should just vanish because the people of today are offended. Literature goes out of print all the time. It's honestly the norm and always has been. The vast majority of everything ever written is long out of print. That's always been the case with all but a few comic book stories. Out of print =/= vanishing. Nobody is going in to your home and taking your old funnybooks or your other books. The copyright holders are simply not allowing them to be re-published. Which, again, is far and away the norm. Now, if you want to argue that copyright should be shortened back to a reasonable time, I'm there with you, Brother. But then people whine because people are misusing the characters and might offend the poor dead people who created them.
|
|