She did the same for a set of Looney Tunes cartoons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_3
Shouldn't have done that
- Thread starter Laura Cynthia Chambers
- Start date
She did the same for a set of Looney Tunes cartoons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looney_Tunes_Golden_Collection:_Volume_3
Yeah, essentially what they did for Tom & Jerry. Like I said, they can actually be teachable moments. I don't mind disclaimers and warnings. Individually people have the right to watch them if they wish, or not watch them if that is their wish.
I just don't like other people making that choice for me. And again, not saying anyone here is advocating for that. Just a general point.
I think what a lot of creators are doing instead is to reinvent the characters and stories in a more feminist light, to make the heroines less passive. Not to erase the original stories, no, but to evolve them with new versions. All stories get retold and reinvented from generation to generation. There's no conflict between preserving the old versions and creating new ones.
Yeah, and that's fine. I don't see anything wrong with that. New shows often give a new spin to older shows, and on many things in fact. A lot of that is natural.
Well except production design
. I hate when they do that with production design (I couldn't resist throwing that out there LOL).
I will note that Disney has all-but-completely suppressed Song of the South (even though the original theming of the "Splash Mountain" attraction is based on it!) because it's so laden with racist stereotypes. (And I've been informed that the Disneyland and WDW-MK versions of "Splash Mountain" are to be re-themed, based on The Princess and the Frog.)
(Personally, I don't ride it myself unless it's a rainy day, and I'm already wearing a raincoat and a sou'wester.)
Personally, I consider it healthier, both as individuals and as a society, to face our racist/sexist past. Which is why, if somebody is to address me by my ethnicity (not something I encourage), I prefer "honkie" to "white guy," "goy" to "gentile," and "gringo" to "anglo": I don't ever want to be allowed to forget what people who look like me (including some of my ancestors and relatives) have done to people who look different.
(Personally, I don't ride it myself unless it's a rainy day, and I'm already wearing a raincoat and a sou'wester.)
Personally, I consider it healthier, both as individuals and as a society, to face our racist/sexist past. Which is why, if somebody is to address me by my ethnicity (not something I encourage), I prefer "honkie" to "white guy," "goy" to "gentile," and "gringo" to "anglo": I don't ever want to be allowed to forget what people who look like me (including some of my ancestors and relatives) have done to people who look different.
Heck, Song of the South was denounced as racist when it first came out, because of the way it embraced racial stereotypes and appeared to romanticize slavery (since it was ambiguous about whether it was set before or after the Civil War, though it was meant to be after). I'm honestly surprised they ever based a ride on it in the first place, given that it's never been without controversy.
I have to assume it’s because even with the controversy, Song of the South was a serious money maker in re-releases to theaters.
When it comes to “they shouldn’t have done that” for Trek stuff, for me, they shouldn’t have set Discovery in the past, precisely because of the Spock/ Saavik union. In my opinion, Michael would have worked better as the adopted daughter of Spock, and the Spock role in the second season could very well have been filled by Spock and Saavik’s son. Perhaps Michael would have looked at him like a favorite uncle instead of a brother, but it would have been a better use of continuity, as opposed to shoehorning in relationships.
I have my issues with DSC being a prequel -- it's much more liberating setting it in the future -- but the ways they were able to deepen Sarek and Spock's backstory by making Michael Spock's sister were the best things about seasons 1-2 in my opinion. I mean, it was utterly brilliant to establish that Sarek's disowning Spock over his rejection of the Vulcan Science Academy was motivated by guilt that he screwed over Michael to get Spock accepted in the VSA over her.
Also, if DSC hadn't been a prequel, we wouldn't have gotten Anson Mount's Pike or Strange New Worlds.
And, for me as a gay fan, it mattered hearing various characters who explicitly identify under various labels of queer interacting with pre-established characters, managing to, even only via retcon, make the explicit statement that queer people have always been a part of the tapestry. Is it only being acknowledged in our present? Sure, but this is still depicting the characters in the past, saying that these individuals are part of the story of these characters who've been known for decades, saying that "we have always been in this story."
It was one of those messages that mattered for the audience (or at least this member of it), and some form of TOS-prequel was the only way to accomplish that. In universe, it's the kind of thing that doesn't need to be said, but for the audience watching, it's still something that does.
Huh, I’m hoping between Strange New Worlds, Discovery, Lower Decks and Picard they establish someone else as Spock’s wife
One he completely forgets about while his on his death bed,Or give Sarek a third son?
While we can all make fun of just how bad a father Sarek is, maybe not quite as bad as Worf, I don’t see him as that bad. Unification strongly suggests that Spock is his last living child with Michael lost, Sybok dead Spock is seemingly the only one left and I feel that family’s lost too much as it is
They had a miniseries recently called "Coda" where they erased most of the worst mistakes
It’s not like we’re with Sarek the whole time he’s dying - if someone wanted to tell the story of a child of Sarek, the result of his union with Perrin, perhaps, there’s enough wiggle room to say it’s possible. And we do also canonically have him not mentioning Sybok OR Michael while on his deathbed that we know of, so...
It’s not IMpossible, is what I’m saying.
You're misremembering some title here, Christopher. Vulcan's Glory is D.C. Fontana's novel about a Vulcan jewel that takes place on Pike's Enterprise, and Saavik doesn't appear in the novel at all, let alone get married to anyone.
The marriage occurs in VULCAN'S HEART by Susan Shwartz and Joseph Sherman.
I remember writing the jacket copy for the original hardcover edition, back in the day.
That’s Josepha Sherman and Susan Schwartz
Yes and no. It is Josepha Sherman, but Susan Shwartz is the correct spelling.
Yep. I slipped up on Josepha's name, but can testify that Shwartz has no "c" in it. Back when Susan was also writing for Tor, I often had to correct the spelling of her name on tip sheets, catalog copy, etc. Folks were always trying to stick that "c" in there!
I can sympathize. People regularly misspell my family name as "Lambert" (it's "Lampert" with a P), and also regularly misspell my father's given name of "Harlyn" (with a Y) as "Harlan" (as in Ellison) or even "Harland" (as in Sanders). And always dropping one of my two middle initials (they're both "H").
"Shwartz" is certainly uncommon, but hardly unheard-of. People are learning to be sensitive about other people's preferred pronouns; why can't they be sensitive about how people spell their names?
--
James Harlyn Hayden Lampert
"Shwartz" is certainly uncommon, but hardly unheard-of. People are learning to be sensitive about other people's preferred pronouns; why can't they be sensitive about how people spell their names?
--
James Harlyn Hayden Lampert
Similar threads
