ShellyMcG said:

dustoff said:

So I'm guessing that every adaptation of "Sleeping Beauty" that does not include the prince raping and impregnating an unconcious woman amounts to censorship for you.

Or every adaptation of "The Jazz Singer" that doesn't include blackface.

Or Kubrick's "Lolita" not depicting the drugging and rape of a 12-year old girl.

I don't think "censorship" means what you think it means.

I've seen Sleeping Beauty a few times. I don't remember any rape scenes though

Then you've probably seen the Disney version, which itself is an adaptation of the original story! ("Le Roman de Perceforest," for what it's worth, written around 1340.)

So many of the original "fairy tales" we see today as kid's stuff are horrifying in the original versions. In the earliest (European) version of Cinderella, she straight-up breaks her stepmother's neck, killing her. The original Peter Pan simply murdered the Lost Boys when they got old. Etc.

One could argue that modern retellings of these stories would be better with these elements, and they might be right. But the fact that no one's done so isn't evidence of censorship.

Look at what's happening in Florida's education system if you wnat to know what true censorship looks like.

dustoff said:

peedub said:

dustoff said:

So I'm guessing that every adaptation of "Sleeping Beauty" that does not include the prince raping and impregnating an unconcious woman amounts to censorship for you.

Or every adaptation of "The Jazz Singer" that doesn't include blackface.

Or Kubrick's "Lolita" not depicting the drugging and rape of a 12-year old girl.

I don't think "censorship" means what you think it means.

Those are all the very definition of censorship...

Only in the sense that I "censor" myself by not cursing in front of my grandmother. But who cares? I'd call it meeting the audience, and reserve big words like "censorship" to mean something other than changing tastes and values (eg, supression by the state, like what happened to the novel "Lolita", or what would have happened to the "Purple Rain" album itself if Tipper Gore had had her way). If one's enjoyment of "The Jazz Singer" -- or understanding of its story -- relies on its protagonist being in blackface, I guess I'd ask why that particular element was so important to him or her. If one's enjoyment of "Purple Rain" absolutely depends on seeing a woman get thrown into a dumpster, and one is outraged enough to complain about "censorship" if they don't see it, I'd wonder what was wrong with that person.

(On second thought, I probably wouldn't want to know.)

dustoff said:

peedub said:

dustoff said:

Only in the sense that I "censor" myself by not cursing in front of my grandmother. But who cares? I'd call it meeting the audience, and reserve big words like "censorship" to mean something other than changing tastes and values (eg, supression by the state, like what happened to the novel "Lolita", or what would have happened to the "Purple Rain" album itself if Tipper Gore had had her way). If one's enjoyment of "The Jazz Singer" -- or understanding of its story -- relies on its protagonist being in blackface, I guess I'd ask why that particular element was so important to him or her. If one's enjoyment of "Purple Rain" absolutely depends on seeing a woman get thrown into a dumpster, and one is outraged enough to complain about "censorship" if they don't see it, I'd wonder what was wrong with that person.

(On second thought, I probably wouldn't want to know.)

The word means what the word means. And 'Lolita' was never suppressed in the US.

Did I say US?

dustoff said:

lustmealways said:

Release Lust U Always and Extraloveable

dustoff said:

djThunderfunk said:

If it's being left out BECAUSE it will upset people's sensibilities, then it is censorship.

So I'm guessing that every adaptation of "Sleeping Beauty" that does not include the prince raping and impregnating an unconcious woman amounts to censorship for you.

Or every adaptation of "The Jazz Singer" that doesn't include blackface.

Or Kubrick's "Lolita" not depicting the drugging and rape of a 12-year old girl.

I don't think "censorship" means what you think it means.

I'm sure you can justify many more alterations of art in the name of not offending the sensibilities of one group or another. That's nothing new, it's how these things always work.

Like the PMRC, Frederic Wertham, or any other ideological group or individual has done many times in the past, it's nothing new and will probably never end.

dustoff said:

ShellyMcG said:

dustoff said: I've seen Sleeping Beauty a few times. I don't remember any rape scenes though

Then you've probably seen the Disney version, which itself is an adaptation of the original story! ("Le Roman de Perceforest," for what it's worth, written around 1340.)

So many of the original "fairy tales" we see today as kid's stuff are horrifying in the original versions. In the earliest (European) version of Cinderella, she straight-up breaks her stepmother's neck, killing her. The original Peter Pan simply murdered the Lost Boys when they got old. Etc.

One could argue that modern retellings of these stories would be better with these elements, and they might be right. But the fact that no one's done so isn't evidence of censorship.

Look at what's happening in Florida's education system if you wnat to know what true censorship looks like.

Censors would love to Disneyfy everything, but who wants to live in that world?

As for Florida, all I'll say is you should read the legislation in full yourself and not rely on the "news" media or those those that oppose the legislation to tell you what it actually says. Florida's legislation only involves what material will be made available at schools and at libraries to CHILDREN. It does not affect what can be made available to adults to purchase or to check out for free at libraries.

Restrictions as to what material is available to children is NOT censorship. So it seems you see censorship where there is none and excuse and defend actual censorship. Congratulations.

[Edited 6/22/24 11:03am]

peedub said:

dustoff said:

Did I say US?

No, I did. The suppression of 'Lolita' by international state agencies is hardly relevant, anyway. The facts are the adaptors in this case are censoring the original content to comport with modern, evolved sensibilities. Whether the potential audience agrees or disagrees with the necessity or propriety or motivation behind the censorship does not affect whether it is or is not censorship. It is censorship.

djThunderfunk said:

dustoff said:

Then you've probably seen the Disney version, which itself is an adaptation of the original story! ("Le Roman de Perceforest," for what it's worth, written around 1340.)

So many of the original "fairy tales" we see today as kid's stuff are horrifying in the original versions. In the earliest (European) version of Cinderella, she straight-up breaks her stepmother's neck, killing her. The original Peter Pan simply murdered the Lost Boys when they got old. Etc.

One could argue that modern retellings of these stories would be better with these elements, and they might be right. But the fact that no one's done so isn't evidence of censorship.

Look at what's happening in Florida's education system if you wnat to know what true censorship looks like.

Censors would love to Disneyfy everything, but who wants to live in that world?

As for Florida, all I'll say is you should read the legislation in full yourself and not rely on the "news" media or those those that oppose the legislation to tell you what it actually says. Florida's legislation only involves what material will be made available at schools and at libraries to CHILDREN. It does not affect what can be made available to adults to purchase or to check out for free at libraries.

Restrictions as to what material is available to children is NOT censorship. So it seems you see censorship where there is none and excuse and defend actual censorship. Congratulations.

[Edited 6/22/24 11:03am]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xZB80sZaI

ludwig said:

djThunderfunk said:

Censors would love to Disneyfy everything, but who wants to live in that world?

As for Florida, all I'll say is you should read the legislation in full yourself and not rely on the "news" media or those those that oppose the legislation to tell you what it actually says. Florida's legislation only involves what material will be made available at schools and at libraries to CHILDREN. It does not affect what can be made available to adults to purchase or to check out for free at libraries.

Restrictions as to what material is available to children is NOT censorship. So it seems you see censorship where there is none and excuse and defend actual censorship. Congratulations.

[Edited 6/22/24 11:03am]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42xZB80sZaI

Because I find John Oliver insufferable I listened on double speed, so I admit I might have missed something, but, what I caught was a bunch of people calling for removing books from libraries altogether, not just keeping them from children, which, sure, that could absolutley be considered censorship, at least from publicly funded libraries at a local level. And although that is constitutional, yes, if and where they succeed it is a form of censorship.

For the record, I'm against censoring material from adults that are free to chose to not check out a book if they don't approve of it.

That doesn't change my statement about Florida legislation which only restricts material from children without parental consent.

For the record, I'm for censoring adult material from children without their parents' consent.

I saw the panel discussion at Celebration. They previewed a few musical numbers. "Apollonia and Prince (role not cast yet)" sitting at a keyboard doing Take Me With U. "Apollonia" doing The Glamorous Life. "The Time" doing a song or two. If I'm not mistaken, "Jerome" was being portrayed by a woman. Train wreck in my opinion. The director was kind of strange. Jumping out of her seat several times and running around like, " I can't believe I got this job!" I'm not a fan of musicals, so not really for me. Sounds like they have access to Prince's whole catalogue for the music, not just the songs from Purple Rain. The audience seemed to be into it, at least for the musical numbers.

motherfunka said:

I saw the panel discussion at Celebration. They previewed a few musical numbers. "Apollonia and Prince (role not cast yet)" sitting at a keyboard doing Take Me With U. "Apollonia" doing The Glamorous Life. "The Time" doing a song or two. If I'm not mistaken, "Jerome" was being portrayed by a woman. Train wreck in my opinion. The director was kind of strange. Jumping out of her seat several times and running around like, " I can't believe I got this job!" I'm not a fan of musicals, so not really for me. Sounds like they have access to Prince's whole catalogue for the music, not just the songs from Purple Rain. The audience seemed to be into it, at least for the musical numbers.

this thing is going to bomb, mark my words. if it ever gets to theaters at all.

I was at the preview and it peaked my interest.

They've got top notch talent making it, and their job is not to make a faithful stage play of the Purple Rain movie, it is to create an accessible Broadway Prince musical, with Purple Rain being used as the central theme.

They explained that other songs were required, as you can't make a modern musical with only 9-12 songs. They previewed Apollonia 6 performing 'The Glamorous Life', for the purpose of using a hit to flesh out Apollonia's motives in the story.

This isn't being made for a dwindling number of hardcore fans, it being made to help Prince reach a wider audience.

From what I heard/saw, they've found the right balance.

SquirrelMeat said:

I was at the preview and it peaked my interest.



From what I heard/saw, they've found the right balance.

Sorry!

i read 'batdance'!

SquirrelMeat said:

nayroo2002 said:

SquirrelMeat said:

I was at the preview and it peaked my interest.



From what I heard/saw, they've found the right balance.

Sorry!

i read 'batdance'!

If they manage to shoehorn Batdance in the musical, that would be something!

Ooo it just occurred to me that they could use Papa in the show. That could be very dramatic.

PJMcGee said:

Ooo it just occurred to me that they could use Papa in the show. That could be very dramatic.

I thought the same thing the other day.