In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« DVD Guy
Does "Complete" Have To Include THAT?
In the TV-on-DVD industry, we often hear the word "complete" a lot: titles of DVD releases of shows, of course, are often named The Complete [fill in the blank] Season or The Complete Series. There are also the people who describe themselves as "completists": they want it all. Often meaning more than just "every episode of a show," because they also want every special episode, clip show retrospective, or post-series telefilm, etc. On DVD in the original network versions, with all the original music intact.
Obviously this word "complete" can be a tall order, and covers a LOT of ground. I'm afraid I could write up a lot of blogs talking about every aspect of the word as it relates to TV-DVDs. But I'm going to ask my readers today to put everything else aside, so we can examine one very specific area that troubles a lot of people: so-called "banned" material.
When a show is produced these days, it obviously conforms to modern sensibilities and standards, for the most part. Oh, some shows may stretch the envelope and raise some eyebrows (Weeds, Californication and Tell Me You Love Me come up a lot), but generally speaking they're getting the ratings right now, so they are "acceptable", and will be on DVD as aired. Maybe even with extended material "too hot for cable", or whatever.
The further back in time you go, though, the trickier it gets. Especially when you get back to the early days of television, when the sensibilities were different, and the political correctness of the modern day wasn't in place. On the film front, fans of Disney films have fought for years to convince the studio to release Song of the South, but the studio is concerned about protests from the black community if they put it out on DVD. Many fans though, of every race, feel that the movie is a product of its time, and just needs to be represented that way...but still released so they can own it (just like Warner recently released the original Al Jolson version of The Jazz Singer). On another Disney-related front, the studio has taken it on the chin for how they have handled older films that show some of their characters smoking cigarettes. Yes, these are a product of their time, too, but today's parents still worry about their kids seeing this bad role model in a Walt Disney production. Or any other production.
It's easy for any of the studios to get confused, and not know where to draw the line between each side. It's not possible to release multiple versions of the same production in most cases, to try to appeal to both crowds, so they have to pick one or the other for the vast majority of DVD releases. They can try catering to the "PC" audience by leaving out material that shows smoking/drinking/drugs or racial stereotypes. Or they can try catering to the completist crowd - which is probably larger than you might think - and include all material in order to present a true representation of the feature as it was originally produced and shown. The attitude of the consumers who want this material is that you shouldn't try to change history. Rather, show it as it really was, and educate today's viewers about how attitudes and accepted norms have changed.
The latest salvo in this war was fired by Warner Brothers. They're a great studio, and well-liked by the majority of TV-DVD consumers, but they ticked off Tom & Jerry fans with their recent statement that two shorts would not be included on the just-released Tom and Jerry - Spotlight Collection: Volume 3 set. The shorts, "Mouse Cleaning" and "Casanova Cat," were left out (per the statement) due to racial stereotypes. This despite the fact (as the statement acknowledges) that the DVDs were "intended for mature audiences and collectors" and that there is "historical context and artistic value" involved.
What really blows the minds of fans about this, is that the first two volumes in this Tom & Jerry DVD collection each had some "cut shorts" that left out scenes which would fall into this category, and that Warner responded to fan complaints about it by replacing the appropriate discs for free. Fans hope to convince Warner to do something similar for the third volume set.
But where does this leave other Warner-controlled cartoons from that era, or earlier? Warner has this week released the lastest of five "Golden Collection" volumes of The Looney Tunes, and is committed to at least five more annual releases (and could continue beyond that if sales keep up). Bugs Bunny's creators also famously have several "banned" episodes for various racial stereotypes. The most-discussed of the "censored 11" cartoon shorts is probably the 1943 Merrie Melodies effort Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs, directed by Bob Clampett. This installment is considered a "masterpiece" work by many animation historians, and the music track (jazz and swing) is considered among the finest. Yet it has never seen an official home video release on any format, and fans are desperate to see it included among the "Golden Collection" DVD releases at some point...even if it's hidden as an "Easter Egg", or surrounded by text or video statements discussing the historical context of the attitudes during the era in which it was produced. The same for the other ten censored cartoons in this library.
Popeye has six banned shorts as well: three black-and-white cartoons from the World War II era with racial stereotypes that may prove offensive to Japanese, and three color cartoons from the decade that followed the war with racial stereotypes about blacks. Warner went to great lengths to negotiate the rights to release the Popeye cartoons...will they all be included? Should they be?
Another smoking-hot issue is, well, smoking. In 1971 all advertising of cigarettes on television ceased in the US, per the Congress-passed Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act. Until that time, tobacco companies often sponsored popular shows, even weaving their products right into the show itself. CBS/Paramount's DVD releases of I Love Lucy included - as extras - the original opening sequence to the show: stick figure-caricatures of Lucy and Ricky climbing to the top of an enormous pack of Phillip Morris cigarettes, with ropes in hand. Each would toss the rope over their side of the pack. Lucy ably slid down her rope, but then Ricky dove off, prompting Lucy to catch him. After a bow, the figures each tugged their ropes, Venetian-blind-style, changing the face of the cigarette pack to first the starring credits, and then to the title screen. For the sixth season set of the DVDs, the viewer had the option to watch opening credits like these as part of the episode, instead of the famous "heart" opening credits that were introduced later on for syndicated reruns. Fans were enormously pleased that this piece of history was included on what they felt should be a "definitive record" of the program.
MPI's releases of The Beverly Hillbillies also included the Original Cast Sponsor Commercials woven back into the show, following the opening credits, with the stars driving by the names of the sponsors...whoever they were. Even cigarette sponsors. On the other hand, sponsor commercials for The Flintstones of Fred and Barney enjoying a break with some Winston cigarettes can be found on YouTube, but not on the DVDs. Many fans disagree, but other actually agree with the omission, saying they don't want their kids to see cartoon characters puffing it up. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the cigarette commercials from The Flintstones DID make it onto laserdisc, a bit over a decade ago. Go figure.
This wouldn't be a blog without the blogger expressing his own opinion, right? So here goes: I say "Show It As It Was". I don't think we should try to change history. Even as a father, and someone whose family background puts him squarely in the "minority" category by most standards, I don't think we should try to cover up how films previously portrayed Blacks, Asians, Jews, Hispanics, rich people, poor people, men vs. women, or whatever. I've never been there, but I understand there's a saying above the entrance to the library at the University of Colorado: "Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child". Right on the mark, if you ask me.
Now it's YOUR turn! What do you think about this? Should DVDs be "complete" enough to show everything, even the so-called "banned" material like racial stereotypes of the era, and smoking-related scenes woven into the show? Or should tender eyes and ears of the young ones be spared all of this? I've posted a poll to the top right of this blog, where I invite you to vote your conscience: "Show It As It Was!" or "No Smoking" or "Race Over" or "We Don't Need Any Of That Stuff!" are your four choices. I could have broken it down further, but let's keep it simple. Please pick the choice that most closely resembles your opinion on the matter, and then share your thoughts with us by leaving a comment below.
|
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 5:33 PM
|
I think that dvds should be complete, exactly like they were originally aired. For 1, these cartoons were ADULT cartoons, they weren't meant for children. People should know that. So, if people buy these dvds for their kids, they should take the responsibility of TEACHING their kids about history and why things are said and explain to them how things have changed. I mean, isn't that part of being a parent? I'm not one, but you know, it just seems like common sense to me.
2, I'm one of those people who want everything. I want every scene, every song, every tv movie, everything. But sometimes, if I buy a show I haven't seen much, like say, the first season of Family Ties. It was on sale for 11 or 12 bucks on amazon and I was reading the reviews on it before I bought it and they were all complaining that there were scenes missing. I bought them anyway because I've only seen a handful of these episodes so, I probably wouldn't even know if I hadn't read it. I read that they took the scenes out because they had music in them they couldn't get the rights to, so instead of putting new music in, they just took the whole scene out, which is a terrible thing to do to fans, I think.
But on a show say like, Freaks and Geeks, that I loved when it was on tv and love even more now, if some of that was missing, I would know. And the music on that show was as much a character as any of the actors. It completely changed scenes and added emotion to the characters. I would hate if some of that wasn't there.
I just realized I'm going somewhere else here. I'll say one more thing that really bugs me and then stop. Maybe you can talk about these things in another post.
Another thing I hate that the studios do is double sided discs. They say they do it to save money, but I absolutely hate it. I've NOT bought show because of this. I'd much rather pay more for single sided discs with artwork/pictures than double sided discs that are then 2x more likely to get scratched and ruined.
Anyway, sorry about that. Back to the censoring. I'm with you. It's a part of our history. It shouldn't be hidden and locked away. It's sad to think of how people used to be treated (and many still are) but you can't change the past. What you can do is educate children about the past and teach them that stereotypes and hating people because of what they look like or where they're from or where they're ancestors are from is wrong and even though it happened in the past, we can stop it from happening again. The reason these problems still exist is because people who hate are teaching it to their children. They don't have to tell their children to hate but the kids just see it and its ingrained in them. It's sad, but true. Kids need to learn about the past so that when they are adults they will be able to stop it from happening again.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 6:01 PM
|
It's really so simple.
If it says "Complete" and it's not complete, it's false advertising and actionable.
If it says "Complete" and it IS complete, and somebody doesn't like some aspect of the content, don't watch it. Nobody's forcing you to buy it. Nobody's forcing you to make every choice on the menu.
What's next? The removal of sequences that contain sight gags that involve a heavy person, because the obese might be offended? No showing sight gags that involve male characters ogling or putting the moves on female characters, because that might offend feminists? No showing any criminal activity, because that might encourage children to commit crimes?
Why censor SOME of the Popeye cartoons? Popeye beats somebody senseless in just about every cartoon. Doesn't this send a horrific message?
Ridiculous.
--Josh
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 6:17 PM
|
Sadly way to may things are edited these days.
I want to see it as it was originally broadcast.
Any form less than that is censorship.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 6:23 PM
|
|
History is history. Anything less is revisionist. Complete is COMPLETE; don't say it if it's not. I remember being in college when "All In the Family" debuted and how "cutting edge" it was. Today, it probably couldn't be aired because it's non-PC. We've advanced?????????
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 6:53 PM
|
|
If it happened a certain way I want to see it that way. Todays sensibiliities sometimes go too far and even when they don't I have the capacity to understand the nuances of yesteryear to today. I think any intelligent person would and/or should. As an example I recently read all the Tarzan books and was a little take aback at the stereotyping of African blacks in the series. I knew that this was dated but represented the opinions of some in those days. Maybe even it rightfully so in some cases. I would think that the truth of today is to recognize badness comes in all races and religions and leave it go at that. That is true enlightenment to me rather than appeasement. So should ME the truth and I'll sort out the injustice for myself.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 7:05 PM
|
|
Yes, damn it, include every episode/cartoon as they were originally produced. The Flintstones was a prime time show, not intended for children and neither were the Looney Tunes. The latest Warner's set comes with warnings that it's "intended for the adult collector and may not be suitable for children." Also each disc has a warning about the content and how not to show some would be to pretend that those prejudices never existed. Does Warner believe what they say? Anyone not wanting to see politically incorrect cartoons can skip over them. They have a choice; if the toons aren't included then there is no choice and we become victims of censorship.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 7:16 PM
|
First, I am pretty sure the issue with Tom & Jerry is that they are afraid to release a produce which might upset large groups of people (i.e., African-American). If enough people were upset, it could tarnish the company name or result in low sales and an overall negative cash flow for the item and all the resources it took to release it. Better safe than sorry, in their book.
Personally, I don't really see why anybody in charge of assessing these things would think content like that which was omitted from Tom & Jerry is even going to be understood by kids, or even adults, in today's society. I see the following three situations:
1) A viewer who already has aligning prejudices against the people the content stereotypes will have those prejudices reinforced, which is bad, but the fact is that these people were mis-educated far prior to the viewing of the content.
2) A viewer who has a full understanding of the context of the work (the time period, the zeitgeist, stereotypes of that time period, etc) will obviously have a better idea of what the original intended meaning was. But by the time they have achieved this level of education, they are already enlightened enough for it to have little effect on their world view or actions.
3) A viewer who has no prejudices against the people being stereotyped, and who has no knowledge of the historical context, will simply view a character's behavior as unique to that character and would have no reason to conclude that the work is trying to convey a message about everybody physically resembling that character. Such a conclusion may in fact be quite ridiculous to such a person.
Situation 1 is a slight risk, but by the time a viewer is in that situation, the content alone isn't what's feeding their hatred. Situation 2 is what collectors will be in and they clearly want the original content. Situation 3 is what most young children would hopefully be in these days, and poses no risk.
Of course we don't live in a vacuum. As media, life experience, friends, and family all feed us data, we involuntarily weigh it out and make our opinions of the world in which we live. So it's not really as simple as just these 3 situations.
If it were me, this is what I would do. Make it clear that the content has been released this way to satisfy collectors, perhaps offer another packaging for other people or warn them of what they will be seeing, and get over it! I suspect that most of the income on these old cartoons is from collectors or enthusiasts. There are thousands of other more contemporary products that actual kids would rather have.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 7:21 PM
|
|
I am offended at the exclusion of this material. It is an evil thing trying to bury and hide our cultural history. These films and tv shows are important and we need these to be preserved and presented in proper context. Personally I find much more offensive things on TV now than this and in the case of Tom & Jerry short subjects, if these are so offensive, some things they already released would be moreso. There could be a middle ground here of releasing all of the banned material together but it does make a lie of complete and Warner should be facing lawsuits on that regard. A couple of whiners and over protective mothers (you know what I mean) that think what they know is best and that we should be protected from said material should not dictate what people can not view. This is happening with race right now and you mention those cigarette commercials. If this type of censorship continues, the next step will be the mass elimination of smoking in all film and television of old. They will either not release things, cut things to hell and back or digitally remove the image. Next will be violence and drinking, making us all mindless drones watching crap like the Early Show advertising Big Brother all the ding dong day while people being are forced to fakely nice to one another limited in thought, mind, spirit, action, expression, diversity, and belief, not eating meat. This is evil and must be stopped at all costs.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 7:49 PM
|
I'm sick and tired of all these revisionists who want to somehow erase the past and pretend some things didn't happen, or ever existed.
According to these sensitive wallflowers that are offended by everything and anything, Casablanca will have to be BANNED for both all the smoking in the film and also because Sam is called a "boy" by Ilsa. Imagine these revisionists mutilating this great film because someone is "offended" by some of the content in the film. The film is a Warner Brothers film.
This trend is scarier then you can imagine, if they can change recent history to fit their warped sense of reality, what makes you think they won't start fiddling with ancient history and re-write that to suit their sensibilities? Truth be damned, according to these revisionists. George Orwell's 1984 comes to mind when I think of these revisionists.
My opinion is simple, show every episode that was part of a T.V. series as it was meant to be seen, with original music and every episode that was part of the lineup, original opening credits and end credits. Anything less then that is edited garbage that I don't care to buy.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 8:01 PM
|
I can only echo my agreement with the other posters.
It's like trying to pretend the holocaust never happened. The Holocaust museums that exist around the world are painful reminders of the past but we need their existence to prevent it from happening again. Editing the past will not erase it. The dvds need to be released as original as possible and future generations educated to the sins of the past.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 8:47 PM
|
|
YES, complete means complete! Show it all! That's what we are paying for and that's why you have the option on your remote control to skip things if you want.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 9:08 PM
|
Complete means complete, politically correct or not, if the shows, any show is adulterated in any manner I will NOT purchase it. Those that wish to be offended are not required to purchase anything they don't wish to. Song of the South is one of Walt Disney's greatest masterpieces and is being held up by poltical correctness. Those that wish to be offended have evry right to be offended, but please STOP depriving those of us interested in the history of Cinema and Television Broadcasting from being able to purchase what WE wish just because it bruises your tender little egos.
Skip
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 9:20 PM
|
|
As many others have said, "Complete" is just that... Complete! Anything less is unnacceptable. There are already enough groups that regularly strive to re-write history. There have been far too many successful attempts in the past. Whether some group feels it has been "wronged" by these products is immaterial as they are part of our collective past and a record of the times in which we have lived. Most intellegent people understand this and accept historical records containing stereotypes, bad behaviour, etc. because that is the way we, as a culture, were. As far as allowing children to see such material, these same people explain to their children how, and why, these concepts are wrong while watching "objectionable" material.
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 9:22 PM
|
I think that if I'm going to spend the money on a TV DVD set then it should be exactly as broadcast. meaning original music, midbreak bumpers if the show had them, the "previously on" or "next on" tags and when at all possible the original sponsor tags. Another thing that really irks me is that these companies replace the original end credit logos. If it had Screen Gems at the end such as Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, then I expect to see that logo and not the Sony bars logo that is common on all of their releases I've purchased. Same for the Dallas sets Warner Brothers released. I want the Lorimar logos at the end where they should be and not replaced by the WB shield they currently use. If anything they should add the shield after the Lorimar logo.(why did Knots Landing get to keep the Lorimar logos intact and Dallas didn't?) Same for Dukes of Hazzard and Wonder Woman. Both of those sets should have the red background WB logo's and not the current variation of the WB shield.
If a set says complete, it needs to be just that. Nothing replaced or omitted.If that includes banned material, then so be it!! If the creators of TV shows or cartoons had wanted them censored or edited, they would have done so in the beginning.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Paul
|
|
Nov 1, 2007 9:28 PM
|
|
|
