CEO: Paramount+ won’t censor classic programs ‘with different sensibilities’

Bravo.

I wonder why had felt compelled to use the flowery phrase "different sensibilities" when everyone knows that means racism. You're allowing it on TV but you can't bring yourself to actually say the word? Seems kind of cowardly imo. If you're okay with racism in old movies then just fucking say so.

Because it isn't just about racism, it's also about things like cultural stereotypes and smoking.

I mean "Babes on Broadway" barely makes any sense at all without the minstrel show finale!

R3 - and things like misogyny, homophobia and ableism.

But I agree with their doing this because I don't like censorship either.

You can't possibly learn from history if you censor it

I had a great education growing up, except for the way they sugar-coated American History. I was practically an adult when I finally learned that the slaves weren't "poorly treated farm labor" 🙄

Good decision, I believe. The past cannot be done over. You have to accept it and learn from it and appreciate it, but don't try to fix that which you cannot fix.

Woke censorship is identical to Christian censorship. Reject it all!!

Parents can use the scenes that are offensive as a teachable moment to show kids that this is not ok and explain.

All you need is a sign up at the beginning that says, "This movie/TV show was made in the 1950s/60s/70s/80s and reflects some of the views of that era. These may offend some viewers."

If it's got potentially seriously offensive material in it (GWTW, for example, or 30s movies with anti-semitic or other racist material really prominent) you give that extra warning and add an extra par about what you consider the value of showing it.

Anyone who can't live with that is just not an adult.

Who controls the past controls the future.

[quote]All you need is a sign up at the beginning that says, "This movie/TV show was made in the 1950s/60s/70s/80s and reflects some of the views of that era. These may offend some viewers."

If viewers can't figure that out themselves, how do they function in life?

Fashions & cars were different then, too. Things change and most people understand that.

Classics are classics. You don't tamper with them.

OP'S opening comments made me think it was Yosemite Sam writing them statements

Good. One of my favorite Popeye cartoons is the one where Olive daydreams of what it would be like to ascend to the presidency. The top of her agenda is issuing nylons for every woman in the USA.

[quote] Anyone who can't live with that is just not an adult.

I think you just hit the nail on the head R10.

Shows like ‘All in the Family’ deserve to not really be aired anymore. Angry ex-right boomers use Archie bunker’s mentality and sayings as pure gospel for being ‘old school. ‘ My dad worships the thinking of Archie Bunker. I cannot stand him.

The show needs to have a warning before it airs that it is entirely outdated and is not suitable for younger generations. I believe in freedom of expression, but several of the Norman Lear shows were extremely gauche.

R18, I think you think that your heart is in the right place and I respect that. But, just in my opinion, you are wrong. You are the very definition of wrong.

I agree with the decision.

Mickey Rooney's yellowface performance drags Breakfast at Tiffany's down, but it should not be censored.

[quote]‘ My dad worships the thinking of Archie Bunker. I cannot stand him.

The show made it clear that Archie was a bigoted idiot. If people don’t get that message what can you do?

[quote]believe in freedom of expression,

Evidently not.

Non-issue. Children don't watch the old stuff. If you're old enough to want to watch "classic programs" you recognize that attitudes have changed and some portrayals are cringeworthy now. It adds a layer of interest to some old program, contrasting how you perceived it when it originally aired and how it looks to you now.

They COULD make an exception for "Breakfast at Tiffany's", though.

Good. People need a kick in the ass. Time to grow and stop acting like a bunch of pussies begging to be coddled.

No, r24.

[quote] All you need is a sign up at the beginning that says, "This movie/TV show was made in the 1950s/60s/70s/80s and reflects some of the views of that era. These may offend some viewers."

If you’re too retarded to not know that already you should be under a conservatorship.

So does this mean we’ll be getting back the uncensored episodes of Golden Girls, 30 Rock, and The Office?

What Golden Girls episode did they remove? Not the one with the black housekeeper doing voodoo.?

^ No, Rose, the one where Blanche goes down on the entire Miami Dolphins football team

[quote]My dad worships the thinking of Archie Bunker. I cannot stand him.

[quote]The show made it clear that Archie was a bigoted idiot. If people don’t get that message what can you do?

No, that show did not make clear that Archie was a bigoted idiot. The show made clear that Archie along with Edith, Meathead, and Gloria were products of the times and upbringing.

The generational conflict was a mirror to the broader social shifts and conflicts arising from the 1960s and the Vietnam war. While the comedy focused on the conflicts, Archie was still able to transcend his background - the death of Beverly LaSalle and the kiss from Sammy Davis Jr. being notable examples.

Somebody should tell him about the two episodes of iCarly that have been censored, one dealing with trans and one with foreigners.

Now will Disney finally bring back Song of the South?

Song of the South may be a heavier lift.

[quote]No, that show did not make clear that Archie was a bigoted idiot. The show made clear that Archie along with Edith, Meathead, and Gloria were products of the times and upbringing.

Not exactly. Archie was clearly supposed to be the loser in every argument and the butt of every joke. But in fact, people like that guy's father do have a point. A lot of people wound up liking Archie a hell of a lot more than they liked Meathead and Gloria, who did seem like whiny bitches living off the old man.

I don't like censoring everything that offends you. Why not watch the movie with the racist stereotypes and then have the conversation afterwards about how it was racist and decent people don't act that way anymore?

While I agree with you overall, r36, not sure everyone wants to have a consciousness raising after every movie. Also, I suspect that the typical Fox News viewer is actually down with the racism and the bigotry in most old movies. So if you want to have the discussion, great, but don't expect everybody is going to have the exact same discussion.

Still, censorship of old movies would be an incredibly stupid answer to that particular problem.

[quote]Why not watch the movie with the racist stereotypes and then have the conversation afterwards about how it was racist and decent people don't act that way anymore?

Why not shove your Pollyanna shit up your ass and mind your business?

The Golden Girls is Hulu. This is Paramount Plus.

Bravo...brava...good!

[quote]No, that show did not make clear that Archie was a bigoted idiot.

Yes, it did, meathead. Repeatedly.

Guess what? When progressives wring their hands over Archie Bunker and Donald Trump, it’s Pavlov’s bell for Deplorables. They love celebrating trash, and it is all the more satisfying when it is trash that bothers liberals.

R20 Breakfast at Tiffany's should be censored, not for Mickey Rooney, but because of that twee twig who was totally miscast and has never been able to act in her life.

I love how the article holds up Disney+ as a fellow streaming service that does not censor, completely disregarding the fact that Disney has prevented Song of the South from being re-released in the US since 1986.

Are you honestly dying to see Song of the South r44? I suspect you can find it. It's probably played before every Trump Rally these days.

I agree with the idea, but the phrasing "different sensibilities" is like Trump saying "good people on both sides." We're talking about movies making fun of people, or denigrating them, for their skin color, gayness, or whatever it may be—not just "different," but wrong.

R43, it should be shown if only to glimpse this lusciousness:

OP probably wants to ban gay-themed books from libraries

It's conservatives who want to ban books

All In The family did exactly what it was supposed to. It painted Archie as a bigot, who in the end changed his ways of thinking. It was supposed to provoke discussion, which it did. We would be living in Christian Sharia Law by now if All In The Family never happened. Only a brain dead Christian conservative who was aware of the joke of Archie would want it censored or erased.

Yes, today's conservatives are too stupid to realize they are the joke, and hold up Archie as some kind of hero of truth, but that's because they are stupid.

You must be retarded R48. I hate SJWs just as much as republicans. Both are annoying and the SJWs are making the general public less tolerant of anyone outside their comfort zone. I am all for a national smack down of both republicans and whiny SJWs, who in reality are future right wing book burners.

Republicans are worse than SJWs. Always. The actual damage they do is worse. Always. The harm they intend to do, the harm they live for doing, the harm they lay awake at night dreaming of doing is always worse. Always.

They are at large the same R51. I think most SJWs are like the Amish on their Rumspringa. Rebelling against what they were brought up in and most will eventually return to their roots, burning books and hating anyone different than them. Again, they are the same. They cause division, where it should not exist.

SJWs rant on twitter and cause a lot of grief on campuses. Republicans dream of treason and killing all their enemies. And they are all gun nuts, so those threats of violence are not just theoretical. They revel in bloodshed. They love it. They pray for it.

And I'm not talking about TRUE Social Justice. I am talking about the Tumblr turned Twitter SJW retards who seem to get the most attention.

And people sway more and more to the right because of them. They are even more dangerous in a sense.

You guys are so brave. You're standing up to the WOKE MOB and you don't care who knows it!!

R12, TCM shows a lot of these films and has discussion about the content and the historical context. It really adds value to the broadcast.

Sometimes I wonder if it's also insulting to the affected groups when others decide no one can see certain depictions. What I mean by that is, I've seen plenty of homophobic depictions from the past, and mostly they make me laugh now. It'd be different I guess if my country still had oppressive laws against homosexuals, but as we don't, I guess I have the freedom to laugh at it now, and I'm not sure I'd want some committee deciding to censor on my behalf. If that makes sense?

I saw the DUMBEST movie last night, but it was so enjoyable in it's ridiculousness. I mean, it was one of those bikersploitation films from the 60s/70s, and in one part of it the bikers are waiting for their beer to arrive and grizzling about the guy bringing their beer being late. The guy turns up, and it is the swishiest, campiest portrayal of a gay man, as he arrives: "Yoo hoo! The beer is coming, and so am I!" and then prances out of the car: "Hi gang!" he greets them, in a sing-song voice. "Oh hi, simply hi!"

I laughed so much, I want to greet everyone with: "Oh hi, simply hi!" from now on.

(Because he's late with the beer, he gets slapped in the face, but he seems to enjoy it too: "Oh! Oh, that SMARTS!")

What in "Gone With the Wind" is so offensive, it doesn't defend slavery?

[quote]No, that show did not make clear that Archie was a bigoted idiot. The show made clear that Archie along with Edith, Meathead, and Gloria were products of the times and upbringing.

No. Norman Lear specifically intended Archie Bunker to be over the top - an extreme example of a bigot. Things like the Sammy Davis Jr kiss would never have worked so well otherwise.

[Quote] I guess if my country still had oppressive laws against homosexuals, but as we don't

What country is this. R58, where the laws are so liberal you can laugh at gay bashing?

I think the CEO is also referring to things like I Love Lucy and the very large library of older films on Paramount +. (They really have an impressive catalog on their service but have done a horrible job selling that angle but they have films from the silent era on. Its great to dig throughand find some rare little gems.) Anyway, they have every episode of I Love Lucy (unlike most services that are missing ten or more episodes per season) and these include episodes the overly sensitive types whine about. I listen to this one podcast that recaps ILL episodes and which I need to unsubscribe from because the two girls piss me the fuck off with their endless virtue signaling. They'll be recapping an episode and then stop to say, "Oh--and then Ricky comes on and. . .it's just so awkward how. . .this would not play today and it just isn't funny and probably wasn't funny then. . .but Lucy makes fun of his accent." Okay, dears. We get it. (Though I don't get why you'd recap every episode of an entire TV series if all you're going to do is virtue signal every episode.) You're better than the rest of us who just laughed without feeling the burden that must have imposed about Cubans for each generation since that episode aired. It's people like that who apparently need those little pre-show label warnings. The rest of us already know it was a TV show from 1952 and the values of 2022 might be a tad different.

Gone with the Wind, the novel and the film are notoriously racist. The only reason I can watch the film is for Vivian Leigh who was perfect casting. I read the novel a few times and will not revisit. I do not believe that the film or the book should be censored.

R59, it does to the extent that Mammy and the other house servants are depicted as happy and dedicated in their slave roles, which they retain voluntarily after they are freed. Scarlett feels entitled to slap Prissy into next week and is always threatening to "sell you south" -- meaning, into crueller forms of slavery. It treats all the Blacks except Mammy as children who need shepherding by the whites. The film downplays Ashley and the others running a Klan raid after Scarlett is assaulted (and makes one of the attackers white), but it is very clear in the book that that is what happened.

The whole concept that a beautiful world is "gone with the wind" after the war is a yearning for that economy and that way of life that couldn't exist without slavery.

When Margaret Mitchell was growing up (born 1900) she'd have been surrounded by elders who had lived through the War, who had stories of losing plantations the way the Wilkses lost Twelve Oaks, of Sherman's trail of destruction through Georgia, of the horrors of the carpetbaggers, of the collapse of a class system that was as dear to their hearts as England's to the English ("poor white trash" are seen as at the same level as the slaves, and more malevolent, in GWTW). They probably did talk, and think, about these events the way European Jews might have talked of their dispossession after WWII, although in reality there is no moral equivalence. That was the world that told its stories direct to Mitchell as an infant and schoolgirl, so it's not surprising a lot of the values in her book clash with those of a modern sensibility.

After surviving a fire, Scarlett tells Melanie you look like a nigger.

Chitterlings are described as a food dear to the negro heart. (Enslaved people ate what they were given, and they were not given ham. Ingenuity, HUNGER and cooking talent elevated revolting offal into a delicacy).

Slave cabins have a niggery odor, (the enslaved were forced to live in hovels).

Prissys mother is of Native American and African ancestry, her innate dignity is natural to her because she is not all nigger. Lots of idiocy in the novel, the film is less confrontational.

Paramount+ not only carries, but also owns South Park. That's their floor. South Park.

I'd say they have a lot of wiggle room with regards to politically incorrect content.

Don't posters like R61 get tired of deliberately misrepresenting and misunderstanding what others say, just so they can act aggrieved?

[bold]Oh FFS all you whiners.[/bold] OP says this:

[quote]It's about time people stop listening to these annoying Twitter SJWs with nothing better to do than cry about their feelings about history. It happened, let's not rewrite it.

Then posts an article saying this:

[quote]Other streaming services [bold]have also opted not to remove works with outdated content,[/bold] including Disney+, which instead added content advisories to classic films depicting racist stereotypes. Among the films featuring these disclaimers are “Dumbo,” “The Aristocats” and “Peter Pan.

So who EXACTLY are you referring to, OP, when you say "it's about time people stop listening to these annoying Twitter SJWs" because it seems NOBODY in the streaming space HAS BEEN listening to your so-called "Twitter SJWs."

All you bitches who think everything's being censored or "cancelled" are living in a weird made-up world - your whole purpose seems to be to want to get offended at imaginary things.

Here's a link to a literal MR. POTATO HEAD available on the Hasbro website. But how can that be?!?!? Mr. Potato head was cancelled by SJWs and the Tranzeez, right right?!?!

R68, instead of going on your insane rant, why don’t you just read the thread. Plenty of examples were given so don’t say nobody has been censoring.

Hopefully they restore the blackface Here's Lucy episode.

[quote]Plenty of examples were given so don’t say nobody has been censoring

Oh bullshit. An episode of Golden Girls was left off Hulu. OH DEAR!! The SJWs are coming for us all!!

Better look out, R69, it's like you can't even light a flaming cross on a black family's lawn anymore without getting cancelled!!

Get a grip. Why are you so hysterical?

Companies are worried that broadcasting content equates to an endorsement of content.

R67, not when they're acting like being gay in tomorrow's America us going to be all picture perfect because they don't pay any attention to the move against gay civil rights. Sorry if that is viewed as overreacting to your simpleton mental capacities.

Ok R74, that rant has nothing to do with what I was saying, nor does it reflect who I am. Take a breath, and have a hug from me.