Talk:Song of the South/Archive 1

message: It maybe an important disney film but it's not top. Andman8 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High

message: Partly why I changed the reference to the ride to specify the animated characters from the movie.  I don't know why they've never figured out another way to frame the Brer Rabbit stuff, they've done it with enough other cartoons.  Maybe even without the Remus parts the accents are just too much.  
Jgm 20:49, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  strange 

message: Why does the British hyperlink go to the entry on England?
:Why not? ;-)  Sorry, some of us Americans are pretty daft when it comes to European topics.  I changed the link to Great Britain.  Is that better? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:36, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Removed sentence on British TV showings altogether; unsubstantiated? I'm British, 35, and have never seen it on British TV.
:::I have a vague memory of it. Although perhaps that is just the 'Sip a De Do Dah' song on a clip show. It certainly hasn't been on British TV in the last 15 years. Djarra 10:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zippity Doodah has been shown MANY times on Screen Test. David Farmbrough 18/11/'06
I've seen it on TV before in Ireland. I can't remember if it was on an Irish or British channel though.
--Richy 19:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It was on British TV on Sunday (27th Aug) --Alex talk here 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: British wikilink error

message: The trivia on "in-joke references" may be a little overstated, given that the Who Framed Roger Rabbit page only identifies one such cameo appearence.
There are quite a few, most of the characters are in the film if you pay attention, nearly all of the characters appear in different scenes that take place in Toon Land. --4.250.63.72 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? 

message: I noticed that there is no credit for Director anywhere on this page, although IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038969/) mentions Harve Foster and Wilfred Jackson as this film's directors, their names are nowhere to be found on this page.  Is there a reason for the absence of this credit? -- Mac4drew 01:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why No Director Credit? 

message: Song of the South, together with movies like Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon are said to be live-action films that feature Disney animation. While movies like The Three Caballeros are said to be Disney animated movies containing live action. It all depends on how much of the film that is animated. The definition of an animated feature; "An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture of at least 70 minutes in running time and where a significant number of the major characters in the film are animated, and animation figures in no less than 75% of the picture's running time." So how much of this movie contains animated characters? If it should turn out that some of the live action flims containing animation are actually animated features, should thet be considered non-canon animated movies from Disney then? But of course, it all depends on how much of it that is live action and how much is animation.
:From what I've learned, it was one of the earliest and best examples of mixing live-action footage with animation, giving it a certain historical value.  Kasreyn 16:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Live action or animated feature?

message: It says "release in 1986".  Shouldn't that be 1946?
:Right you are.  I have changed the article to indicate this.  Thanks, Kasreyn 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poster

message: There's some good stuff in the article, but there's room for improvement in many spots. For instance, the plot section has to be expanded and corrected. Also, there should be sections on the production of the film, how people reacted to it when it was originally released, etc. Also, the 1986 reissue poster should be replaced with an original theatrical poster from 1946 (images from the original release can be found on the Song of the South campaign page). With some effort, this could turn into a nice featured article in the future. (Ibaranoff24 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few comments 

message: I seperated the pop culture references from the Trivia section into their own seperate sub-section. (Ibaranoff24 18:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture references 

message: The article spends many words on the film being controversial, yet does not describe the controversy, except that it has something to do with black people. As the film was released in other countries than U.S., it is presumably controversial only in the U.S. Perhaps everyone living there will instantly understand everything about this, but it left me more confused than informed. 130.234.170.84 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a whole paragraph that described this.  I don't know how/why it was deleted (maybe it was considered POV), but I dug through the archives and re-added it for clarification.  You may want to check fast before someone deletes it again! — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This film is available on DVD in the US.  I don't know if it's grey market from Asia or what but they are only $15 from an outfit in Oregon so I doubt they are bootleg.  It is also legally available on laserdisc and PAL VHS on Ebay every day of the week. To call this film "unreleased" to the US video market when anyone who wants it can readily get it is rather strange. Tommypowell 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "unreleased" from Disney.  Like I said, any copy you get in the US is bootleg. — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD 

message: *First of all the Pal-VHS and Laserdiscs of this film being sold in the US are completely legal.  They were pressed by Disney in the 90's.  I bought mine at Disneyland Paris!  Secondly, this film is  being sold as DVD's by an outfit out of Oregon which calls itself the "official" site.  Their DVD has the Disney hologram with art work and DVD extras.  They quite openly advertise their Oregon address.  To date Disney has taken NO action to shut them down.  Disney is a multibilion dollar company.  I personally find it unlikely this company would be so brazen as to try to bootleg Disney from a fixed U.S. address!  If anyone has a link which shows Disney or the government calling these DVD's bootleg please post such a link.  Until then we must assume they are a legitimate pressing, perhaps by a quiet deal Diney has cut with this distributor.  Again, if someone has a link showing their bootleg status-fine.  But simply yelling "their bootleg cause I say so" isn't going to cut it. Here is the site:   If it is bogus Disney can serve them with court papers and post such a press release. Tommypowell 02:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged Bootleg