In light of #MeToo, Disney quietly deleted a "blooper" scene from the latest release of Toy Story 2
Aux Features toy story 2
It looks like Disney is reevaluating some of its earlier work to better fit the current climate—one that hopefully finds creepy behavior less amusing and more…well, fucking creepy. One such moment took place in Toy Story 2's faux blooper reel. The scene begins at 3:29 where Stinky Pete, the antagonistic prospector voiced by Kelsey Grammer, is seen in a box with twin Barbie dolls. Pete is speaking rather lecherously, asking them if they are “absolutely twins,” and suggestively flexing his ability to get them parts in the next Toy Story sequel while grabbing one of their hands. As soon as he realizes he’s being filmed, his demeanor changes entirely and he quickly escorts them out of his box. As quick as it is, Disney is now realizing that the implications of the clip are not worth the potential laughs and removing it entirely from future DVD and digital copies.
It’s a familiar casting couch scenario and a common trope that has often been used to denote a character’s creepiness. But with the parade of stories of harassment and abuse at the hands of many men in the industry—including Pixar’s co-founder and former head John Lasseter, the scene is just a gross reminder of behavior that has been excused and overlooked for decades. It’s also an example of how the public is socialized to downplay this kind of interaction from a young age. Hopefully this is a sign of more thoughtful writing to come, which would spare them secret editing sessions in the future.
[Via Vice]
397 Comments
OH MY GOD DISNEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE
Thank heavens society has finally been protected.
I don’t think that’s the bar they were aiming for.
“….is just a gross reminder of behavior that has been excused and overlooked for decades. It’s also an example of how the public is socialized to downplay this kind of interaction from a young age.’This seems like it could also be a description of Barbie dolls.
or twitter
Barbie has been going through a lot of changes herself the last several years. Not that I’m sure you’ve noticed. But go on with your “good ol days” bullshit mawma, whatever. Protecting society yarp yarp yarp. PC culture blah blah blah. SJWs gurgle gurgle gurgle.The rest of us will try to appreciate the little (VERY little) things we see happening to try and make the world a better place while it still fucking exists.
Barbie dolls remind you of sexual harassment?
I’m sure the bar they were aiming for was articles and discussions like this to generate buzz about how sensitive (“Song of the South”) Disney is.
Has it
God I hope so.
You misspelled “Disney’s IP”
Uh, more like Disney protecting their brand by removing something in bad taste from a kid’s movie. but sure. whatever’s clever, my dude
Wow I didn’t remember seeing that.But then again, I actually did not realize there was stuff to see in the Marvel movies’ end credits until a little over a year ago.
I was not a small child when Toy Story 2 came out and did not have small children at that point either, and so, like all well-adjusted people in that same situation, I did not see it.
I saw it in college with my roommates……We were drunk
What else did you do in college with your roommates when you were drunk?
Mostly play Goldeneye on N64. We sobered up before the hot steamy sexual experimentation stuff
Drinking and playing Goldeneye and Mario Kart on N64 with my friends is 50% of my college experience
It was my major in college
Did you make sure to pause Goldeneye first?
More like Browneye on N69, amirite
We banned Odd Job but never blow jobs!
Also, point of fact. You have to be really flexible to involve the brown eye in N69. At the very least have a very long, flexible tongue
Where’s your butthole?
Cincinnati
Hey there
That… sounds like quite the experience. 🙂
I was not a small child when Toy Story 2 came out and did not have small children at that point either, and you can bet your ass I saw it on opening day. And loved it.
Disney removes scene of villain doing something questionable.
Oh man, they should totally cut out the scene of Woody and Buzz live animals a la Cannibal Holocaust in this G-Rated film too!
Make it happen!
They cut Tim Allen out?
Tim Allen is absolutely a trash person that I dislike but even with that I can’t hate his work in either the Toy Story movies or in Galaxy Quest.
I can’t hate his work in either the Toy Story movies or in Galaxy Quest. Me neither – and I’ll add the unfairly ignored Big Trouble, based on the Dave Barry novel. It’s a fun movie, Tim Allen is just part of a great ensemble. There’s a scene with a nuclear bomb getting smuggled onto a plane, and the movie was due to be released in September 2001, so… There was kind of a delay.I saw Toy Story 4, and although Buzz had some good material I found myself noticing how easy it would be to write him all the way out of the movie. Obviously Woody was the focus but Buzz was relegated to like 4th banana in this one…
He’s also good in Redbelt, the Mamet film with Chiwetel Ejiofor.
He’s also good in Redbelt, the Mamet film with Chiwetel Ejiofor. Thanks for the tip – I actually own that movie and for some reason never watched it. (I know why I bought it: Mamet, Ricky Jay, martial arts and 2 bucks at a library sale..)
Who’s the 3rd banana? Woody’s B1, Bo’s B2, B3…?
Forky… Gabby gabby. Shoot that makes buzz 5th banana.
Duke Caboom!
Probably the Spork.
I liked Tim Allen in Redbelt, but he’s meant to be a mostly unlikable asshole in that one.
I’m here for any good press on Big Trouble. It was a very funny movie that just was in the wrong part of history at the worst possible time. People always say that you never hear any comments from fans of Big Trouble, but I’m a fan, and I’m commenting now! What am I commenting? I’m commenting that I’m a fan, and I’m commenting!
OMG yes Big Trouble is such an underrated movie! I tell everyone about it when I get the chance. Allen is not specifically good, but he adds enough to the ensemble cast that it doesn’t matter. Other than this movie though, I prefer Allen’s voice acting roles, so I don’t have to see that its him since, as a person, he kinda sucks
I still sometimes think about the dog barking, “Arugula! Arugula!”I remember nothing else about the movie or book.
Agreed and it’s kind of unfortunate.
More than half the people in Hollywood are self serving garbage that I dislike, but they sure can be entertaining.
Exactly. I could never sit down for a beer with him, but I’ll continue enjoying his acting guilt-free, no problem. Unless he starts making Ayn Rand movies or something, I guess.
It’s important to separate the art from the artist. You can hate the latter and still enjoy the former.
“Important” might be overstating it a little, especially with a living person who is mostly in mediocre movies and tv shows. Home Improvement is basically forgotten already.
Kelsey Grammar is kinda in the same ballpark.
Another way of saying it: Disney removes a scene in which a character does something creepy which was originally intended as a hilarious joke to make the audience laugh, but which in 2019 doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t.
Here I thought it was going to be the scene where Jessie takes off to save a toy and Buzz’s wings pop up while watching her. But then I remembered that’s actually in the movie.
Boner jokes are okay as long as they are done with characters voiced by convicted drug dealers who got rat out their friends
You know with the popularity of shows like Breaking Bad, Queen of the South, and Snowfall it’s only a matter of time until they make his story into a movie or tv series.
I’m surprised he isn’t out there pitching it himself and blaming liberals as the reason it hasn’t been picked up.
I’m surprised [Tim Allen] isn’t out there pitching it himself and blaming liberals as the reason it hasn’t been picked up.You know, that would actually be great television. It would be kind of interesting to see any dickhead famous person reenact a period from their life where they were an undebatable dickhead, with a realistic script that doesn’t twist everything to make them look like a hero. (OK, not OJ. Maybe Mel Gibson if the script really was unflinching.)
and in good taste
Yes, because we all hate those folks that we buy our weed from. Especially hate them when they rat out their suppliers and still sell us weed afterwards. I hate those guys.
First off, it was cocaine not weed. Second he rattled out everyone including other dealers. Lastly he is now a right wing asshole who supports government that will continue a useless war on drugs instead of fixing actual issues with addiction. It’s the hypocrisy that I dislike most.
You missed my point entirely. So I will be more clear: People everyday buy their drug of choice from dealers who have done the exact same thing. That does not stop them from buying for said dealer, does it? His politics are irrelevant as you did not make them a considered choice in your original post. And every reformed addict is now a hypocrite according to your thinking because they hate drugs and want their usage stopped. PS: Our government has continued the “War On Drugs” irrespective of who held political sway in DC.
Wait what
I didn’t realize Buzz Lightyear was rat coke addict…….I just thought he was a fun little character in a kid’s movie.
Oh yeah. That toy was fucked up. Why do you think he didn’t realize he was a toy in the first movie? Guy was tripping balls!
“There’s a snake in my pants!”
Is that one really harmful? I don’t think it’s inappropriate for one person to find another attractive.
Not yet, wait until 2020! #dontlookatme
Boner jokes are ok as long as the character isn’t sexually harassing anyone.
Eh, there’s nothing wrong with being attracted to someone, it’s when your attraction crosses the other persons line is where it’s wrong.
Oh my god, implying that a male (toy) character is attracted to a female character? Horrifying.You people are parodies of yourselves at this point.
It’s not like this clip was an innocent little coincidence. Disney was alluding to true events when they created this clip, and they were fully aware that they were doing such. This is an example of them them admitting their sins before they become public record, which they must somehow think absolves them of some level of wrongdoing. Or else why would they do it?
I think you’re giving them way more credit that is warranted.
6 of one: it’s a dumb joke in bad taste in a fake blooper reel in a movie twenty years old and no one will miss it.Half a dozen of the other: removing a dumb joke in bad taste from a fake blooper reel in a movie twenty years old for reasons of…what, Decency? Is a waste of everybody’s time.
Even if you object to it being removed, how is it a waste of “everybody’s” time?
It’s a waste of time for the people who had to go in and clip it out
Even if one accepts that as true, how is it a waste of anyone else’s time?
Being a pedantic literalist for the sake of scoring a cheap point in a meaningless online debate among anonymous people is a colossal waste of anyone’s time.
If you believe that, why are you engaging in just that?
I had a little time to kill before a meeting. Which I guess makes this retroactively NOT a waste of time, so I’ve played myself.
Because I’m not only self-righteous, I’m also a massive hypocrite!
Had you not seen this article, you never would’ve known about it. Yup, surely a waste of your precious time.
Precious time that could be spent writing bullshit half snark comments in response to internet articles! Fuck you Disney for taking that time away from me…Oh, I guess I still have time to do that and have this this unnecessarily edited version of Toy Story 2 exist. Huh. I learned a lesson today.
If I saw the blooper reel without this, I probably would have noticed, if not maybe some time later.Though I doubt I would have cared.
“Is a waste of everybody’s time.”
Or, it’s not a waste of anybody’s time.
The internet does hate a bit of hyperbowl, doesn’t it?
Me, I like the Packers chances this year.
Its not hyperbole, it’s non sensical. It was literally a waste of nobodies time. The person who removed it was paid, the company that thought about removing it worries about their image. You satiated your curiosity by reading the article, and the rest of us gained knowledge.
Only reason being that we can’t stream it for free (legally) and by the time the Superbowl has concluded, we really don’t have any enthusiasm remaining for another week of Blitzball…
Ice cream! Ice cream!
The comments from the shitbags in the greys who clearly only found this article from their daily quest to own some libs via a #MeToo Google search are both hilarious AND sad.
Nah, it’s just that your argument hinges on something that’s totally wrong.
BINGO! We have a winner!!!
Seems to me that anybody who watches the new release will actually save a few seconds.
A few seconds that can spent remembering the way the movie was originally! With those slutty Barbies throwing themselves at Stinky Pete in an attempt to advance their careers.
A very fair point!
Yeah, you sound like fun. Probably have a #metoo bumper sticker.
But doesn’t Disney get bonus points for this incredible act of wokeness?
Sorry, we don’t need to sanitize everything just because some find it offensive. It fit with his personality and while it was bad behavior, it offered an opportunity for parents to discuss with their children about bad behavior.
Doesn’t it actually *save* time?
Wait.. I didn’t spend any time deleting it.. did you spend time deleting it? Do you know someone who had to spend time deleting it? Did they cash their paycheque?
Took me fucking ages.But I was doing it in Paint, so…(Also, I added a cock and balls onto Dennis Nedry’s chicken suit but that’s just for my personal copy)
Removing it didn’t waste my time.
Alternatively, this is a movie which already was watched by millions of kids, and with a sequel in theaters was going to get even more kids to watch it again, and removing a joke that has dated extremely badly is not a bad thing.
Theres nothing wrong with realizing your past behavior, actions, decisions, etc. were in poor taste and apologizing for it (or in this case, removing it from public accessibility)
Yeah, but then how would Disney get free PR from sites like The AV Club .com?
This is Disney we’re talking about.
You know, the company that tried to de-Racist up Song of the South a couple of times before eventually pretending it didn’t exist. Or the company that approved the Moana full body Maui tattoo costume. Or… or… or…
We’re honestly lucky that Disney didn’t just nuke the archives from orbit just to be sure.
Considering it’s a deletion, it actually saves everyone’s time
This website has gone down the fucking drain.
Ya, since the kinja apocalypse. If only Gawker hadn’t been sued in to oblivion, eh. Remember when everyone got mad at them for outing that one rich guy?
Ok, I thought I was going insane. I just rewatched this movie last night, coincidently, after watching Toy Story 4. And I could have sworn there was a blooper where Stinky Pete promises the Barbies a role in Toy Story 3. An understandable move by Disney, but I also don’t appreciate them momentarily making me think I’d lived my whole life with an imaginary memory of a blooper in Toy Story 2 like a crazy person.
Bizarrely, my boss showed me this scene last night (she had watched it a few days ago and recorded it on her phone) and so I sent her this article this morning. She had no idea about the edit. I guess, like her, a bunch of people rewatched the earlier ones recently and the noise was loud enough.
Why was your boss showing you a scene about trading sexual favors for career enhancement???
Don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not, but I work in the entertainment industry so lots to talk about with that scene.
I wasn’t being sarcastic, but I was making a joke.
Funnily enough, I watched this movie for the first time about a month ago on a plane ride, and it was still in the film. I guess that was one of the last opportunities to see the uncut version. (For the record, I thought it was gross and unfunny, but now I feel strangely satisified to have gotten to see something that will now be considered rare.)
I had that feeling for a long while about Goonies and the octopus scene. For years I basically had decided that it was just some weird constructed dream.
The octopus is mentioned by Data at the end of the movie. And the scene made it into the MAD parody.
Pretty sure (?) still images from the scene were included in the novelization….
Are you watching them in Machete order?
False Memory Syndrome!
Can’t wait to put my old TS2 DVD on Ebay as the “uncensored edition”
Hey man…er….do you have any of ‘Song of the South’?
I actually do … but, do you have a Betamax?
There are stores in the US that sell it.
Not many, but they are out there.
I saw Song of the South in the Tennessee Theatre in about 1974, and there was an organist playing along with the songs.I remember hating the movie because it wasn’t very exciting.
Make sure to word the description as something like, “Toy Story 2 DVD BANNED VERSION!!!”
“#MeToo-ed for your viewing pleasure”
#FreeVBucks #ProFortniteStrats #Nude #funny #cute
NO LONGER SOLD IN STORES!!!!
Thanks for the idea. Man, I can probably at least grab $30 bucks for that.
Hot Coffee!
The scene will still be available on Japanese DVDs and Blu-Rays, alongside the “Song of the South” disc that has the out-takes of Walt yelling at James Baskett being on “CPT” and warning him to NEVER use his office bathroom.
Nothing like a bit of reactive, revisionist history. No, no, don’t learn and progress—sterilize the past, and play pretend.
A dark cynical part of me wants to see John Ratzenberger get milkshake ducked just to see how fast Disney rushes out an alternate dub for literally every Pixar movie
He supported Trump, so something coming out about him genuinely wouldn’t shock me.
I didn’t need to know that. I DIDN’T NEED TO KNOW THAT.
He’s always been a conservative, hasn’t he? I know they don’t all like Trump, but it was highly likely that Ratzenberger did support him.
lol, it amuses me so much how fragile you all are. Just finding out someone voted for a person you don’t like shatters your world. It’s adorable.
He supported Trump “Here’s a little known fact, Norm: it’s very difficult to support Trump, because he is in fact one of the more weighty, and girthful, presidents of all time. Sure he wears a giant girdle, but that coupled with his actual height of 6 foot one means he’s neck and neck, obesity-wise, with the elegantly mustached William Howard Taft.”
https://gph.is/28Sij2J
I love this comment so much.
You really got inside his head.
Yeah, his shitty politics have been out in the open for some time now. But, AFAIK, he’s not a predator or a criminal.
His main gigs outside of Toy Story have been signing commemorative Cheers beer coasters and protesting against a woman’s right to any sort of dominion over her own body.Fuck that guy.
Where can I get a coaster?
Are tea party rallies still a thing?
Considering the movie was directed by John Lasseter, known creep, deleting this joke is probably a good thing.
Nah, I don’t think censorship is a good thing, even if there are things in poor taste.
Censorship is when the government does it.
Seems like a lot of people lately have forgotten what censorship is. When someone chooses not to say something, that’s not censorship, that’s utilizing your personal filter.
Disney has filtered itself in this instance. It was not ordered to remove the scene in question by some sort of organization, it willingly did so of its own accord, presumably because it didn’t think audiences would react favorably.
My question is this: Why should Disney refrain from doing what it can to help its movie succeed (read: “continue to make money”), especially when it’s not something that is pertinent in even a minuscule way to the plot or theme(s)?
The goals of corporations rarely line-up with those of social justice. I wish that, when they did, everybody didn’t seem to such have a HUGE problem with it.
I’m not really a fan of going back and censoring past artwork. Pretending the past wasn’t what it was also tends to end badly. What’s next, cutting kiss the girl out of little mermaid because of it’s endorsement of not getting consent? (Seriously, the only way to find out if a voiceless girl likes you is to just start kissing her? Creepy.)Just own it and let it stand for what it is.
I had suggested our uke group learn “Kiss The Girl” because everyone loves Little Mermaid songs, and I’ll be damned if someone didn’t raise that very objection the first time we practiced it.
ugh
Can’t wait to see the 21st century edit of Blazing Saddles
But Stinky Pete’s a dickhead anyway. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to keep it in?
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. It has nothing to do with the voice actor.
You are completely wrong on this. Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Kelsey Grammar is a creepy dickhead as well so isn’t it appropriate to show him as such?
But Kelsey Grammar’s a dickhead anyway. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to keep it in?
Yeah, he’s creepy too.
Technically it is Pete. The idea with these bloopers is that the characters are actors who filmed a movie. The Buzz bloopers are things Buzz messed up not things Tim Allen messed up.
crazy, i never realized weinstein acted in toy story. learn something every day
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “ac…Oh, damn, someone said it already.
They were wrong too.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
While I agree with the sentiment, I’m not sure that it can be stressed enough that technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Tell him again!
You mean this guy?https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/25/nyregion/a-grand-jury-refuses-to-indict-frasier-star-on-a-sex-charge.html
But is it supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, or the character from the movie?
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
What’s going on here?
I’ve seen this a lot on Kinja recently. Either a lot of people are posting the same comment over and over again, or more likely, the site is glitching out and posting certain comments a bunch of times.
I thought it was just my browser having issues..
Typical Kinja fuckery is what’s going on here.
The Kinja echo.
What’s going on here?Stuck in the same loop as this guy.
If you’re asking me, I’d say that technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Kinja. Kinja is what is going on here.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
They got Kinja’d.
Somebody got Kinja’d HARD.
Kinja’d
I think ApathyMonger is trying, and rather poorly I might add, to imply that technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
The clip involves twins. Whats 2×2? Paradox.Im tired
Technically…
technical difficulties
Reposting error?
I think it works (if that’s the word) to imply that the actor playing Pete (not Kelsey Grammer, but the fictional actor obviously) is a creep and a dirty old man. I mean – at no point in the scene is it implied that this is proper behavior.I understand Pixar’s reasons but I do wonder how far this could go. I mean – the Prince in Sleeping Beauty is pretty much a stalker, and the one in Snow White sure doesn’t have consent … So there go the endings of two movies.
“ at no point in the scene is it implied that this is proper behavior.”
But it is, unquestionably, played for laughs.
OK. So now we cannot find inappropriate behavior funny?
“ at no point in the scene is it implied that this is proper behavior.”
But it is, unquestionably, played for laughs. I know, but… a lot of humor is based on improper behavior or pain or — you know, societal non-norms. I don’t think Pixar or specifically the writer of that particular blooper joke is endorsing.. um, sleeping with twins. As I said though, I do understand why Pixar removed it, and if I was in charge of Pixar I might have done the same thing; though if I was in charge I would hope to focus more on what the company does for laughs in the future.
A lot of terrible things are.
Then you have Beauty and the Beast, the whole premise is kind of disturbing.
Yeha, Beauty and the Beast is basically a loving ode to grooming
No it isn’t. Belle didn’t start falling for Adam until *after* he realized his behavior was shitty and, more importantly, began actively working to change himself. Once he quit being an asshole and grew up, she found she really liked who he was. People can change, it’s just uncommon for them to acknowledge they’re assholes and even more uncommon for them to do shit about it.
Cursed prince falls in love with a woman and is inspired by said love to change his ways and stop being a fuck up? Or that the woman who craves adventure finds it, inspires a dick to be a gentleman, and finds love in the process?
Well there is the whole hostage aspect…
GTFO with that bologna.
As much as I like Grammer’s work and that he, outwardly at least, appears to have learned and grown from his past it isn’t free from controversy. That he’s had accusations of abuse leveled at him in the past makes the whole combination that much more pointedly distasteful even if it wasn’t commentary on him.
Surprised Gaston was allowed to exist in the modern retake of Beauty and the Beast.
I know these characters and traits are awful, but they served as important parts of my moral compass growing up; showing me how NOT to be as a human being. Removing these examples, only hurts our society, by ignoring bad behavior instead of showing it is inappropriate in the first place.
Did you miss the scene in Snow White when she and her prince fell in love and the other one when she sang to the dwarves about their love and her desire to marry him? If my evil stepmother had me on the run and then murdered me, I wouldn’t begrudge my girlfriend a kiss goodbye when she found me. Disney isn’t flawless, but calling the kiss at the end of Snow White nonconsensual is insulting and false. You’re taking the moment completely out of context and the context is important. He thought he was kissing his girlfriend goodbye and she was clearly thrilled to wake to his kiss.
So what are you saying? That this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie?
Maybe he’s got OCD.
You can say that again
‘Banana’
I’m seeing double here…five ApathyMongers!
With 5 Clones, Abraham experiences depersonalisation-derealisation disorder coupled with dissociative identity disorder and Imposter Syndrome… on a very special episode of Clone High.
I get that reference.
Can you post your comment again?
I’m a bit hard of reading, is there any chance you could repeat that?
What I love are the 15 people that gave this a star the fifth time they saw it. They weren’t convinced at first, but in the end you won them over. Sorry this happened to you, but the resulting comments are hilarious.
So technically, who is this supposed to be? The “actor” playing Pete, or the character from the movie. Technically, I mean.
ApathyMonger sure seems to care a lot.
Yeah, I’m not sure he’s clear on what he’s been monging all this time.
There’s no way Stinky Pete has that kind of pull with the studio.
Yeah he couldn’t even get himself included in the prequel or 2 sequels let alone somebody else!
About what I have NO idea.
Why? What did he say?
I bet he uses that same reply with all the commenters. Typical Kinja.
…
Technically, he cares a lot.
Gotta love a person who is happy to repeat things for good measure.
wait, is the character in the blooper reel supposed to be Stinky Pete, or is he supposed to be the “actor” playing Stinky Pete?
Watch the bloopers. The characters are the toys. These are fake bloopers.
There is no Pete but Sneaky!
https://y.yarn.co/2b4ce355-be3e-4252-97aa-ceb829f580f2.mp4?1562264385127
yes, and make him look foolish and icky
Not when liberals are making the decision. They don’t understand words like context.
Welcome to modern time where everyone is wrapped in an egg shell.
Technically, this is supposed to be the “actor” playing Pete, not the character from the movie.
Yeah, I don’t think the lesson here is a bad one….Plus something something those who forget/erase history are doomed to repeat it something something…
To me, it would be a problem if Pete actually went through with it. Instead, he’s caught and quickly backpedals knowing his behavior is wrong. Because it is.
It would, but the point of the short is not “this is bad”. It’s “this is funny”.The whole concept is played for laughs, but that has since stopped being seen as something to laugh about.
The important part is that it’s played for laughs. Keep in mind that this is a faux blooper real. People came up with an idea for this vignette, wrote it, and animated it with the hope that seeing a lecherous old man attempt to coerce sisters to have sex with him in exchange for helping with their careers would get laughs out of the audience. It makes a joke of something that is too real, and has harmed too many women.
I promise that I am not taking this animated prospector doll quite as seriously as you think I might be.
I promise that I am not taking this animated prospector doll quite as seriously as you think I might be But … he’s mint, in the box! How can you not take him seriously?
I don’t know how seriously, or not, you’re taking him. It’s not really relevant anyway.
Neither is your attempt to try and mansplain this to me. Oh, you mean gross jokes about women affect women? You don’t say.
You asked if it wouldn’t be more appropriate to keep the clip in because Pete is a bad guy. I explained why the fact that he’s a bad guy doesn’t make the clip better. Then you struck the “I don’t really care about this issue that I commented on” pose, and I responded that the level of your care about the specific issue isn’t really relevant to your original post.
Did I need to be reminded that gross jokes about women affect women? No.
Did I need to be reminded that this is from a fake blooper ‘real’? No.
Did I need to be reminded that this gag on a fake blooper reel in a kid’s movie isn’t really funny anymore given its modern context and should probably be forgotten about? No.
Did I need a further mansplaination of what has already been said by both you and me? No.
Have you added anything of value to this conversation that I didn’t already know going in? No.You obviously can’t see it from where you are, but I just pantomimed the ‘oh look, there’s someone else across the room I need to talk to’ move that I use at parties and in crowded rooms.
You asked a question, making a point with which I disagreed. I explained why I disagreed, politely. You responded, I responded back. I’m sorry if that came across as mansplaining, but to me it sure seemed like good faith engagement on a platform designed to facilitate conversations. But sure…
I thought it was funny and in character when I first saw it. Also, I saw it as a “never forget” moment too. When a gross old man promises you something, he is a liar.
I thought that it was funny as well, but I was also 19 in 1999. Since that time, I don’t think that sexual harassment is super funny.
That’s what I thought too….he was caught being an asshole, because he’s an asshole.
DANGER: Prince Ruprecht the Shit-Sucking Monkey Boy just liked this post. What have we done to deserve his terrible presence to make itself known again? God help us all.
et tu stinky pete? my disillusionment is complete
#MeDrew
Or it’s an acknowledgement of what really goes on. There’s always truth to comedy.
It’s… supposed to satirize the thing, not condone it. Cutting references to Hollywood sexual assualt out of 20 yo movies doesn’t mean sexual assaults never happened.
Perhaps, but a joke obliquely referencing Hollywood sexual assault probably didn’t have much business being in what’s ostensibly a children’s movie in the first place.
it’s a movie for all ages. I suppose you enjoy sitting through The Vegetable Kids Meet Meat 2. Enjoy your mundane existence.
Enjoy forcing your kids watch adult humor so you aren’t, god forbid, bored by taking care of your kids.
or perhaps a joke that parents will understand as a more sinister creepy also works as a way to warn kids about this type of behaviour.
Eh. Animaniacs was for kids, but half the jokes were aimed squarely at adults. Even whole skits. What little kid back then had seen Goodfellas?
Not to mention all the times Yakko did the “g’nite everybody” routine whenever someone said “pianist.”
God, Animaniacs was such a good show. The “finger prince [prints]” joke stands out in memory. I’ll have to look for some more.
“Helloooo, nurse” doesn’t work anymore, does it.
Same with Freakazoid. It may have been animated for children, but half of that show was written for adults.
Yet very few rape jokes.
It’s supposed to be a laugh line about women being sexually harassed. Cutting it doesn’t mean that Hollywood sexual assaults didn’t happen, but it does mean that we don’t think that it’s light comedy anymore either.
Satire is allowed to touch sensitive topics. The best comedy comes from dark places, and even if modern times find it inappropriate, censoring old art for that is not the solution to anything.
Sure, satire is allowed to touch sensitive subjects, but how it touches on it matters. This makes light comedy out of really objectionable actions that were and are all too real and which were covered up. And the reason that it made light comedy from that subject is because at the time the subject wasn’t taken very seriously. The scene isn’t taking a stand against sexual harassment, it’s making sexual harassment funny.As for censoring old art, like most things, there’s a continuum here. Nobody should support draping clothes over Michelangelo’s David, but removing a faux blooper from a family cartoon that made light of sexual harassment isn’t the kind of censoring that I think we should be super concerned about.
I understand where you are coming from, but things like this being censored is kind of insane. First we censor a joke in a 20 year old movie that maybe less than 0.1% are offended by, then we do (insert escalating censorship). I don’t like the idea of censorship in older films. At some point people won’t be able to watch Birth of a Nation because it will be deemed too politically incorrect. These films are signs of their times, and I think it’s important to put our foot down now so the escalation of censorship can stop asap. Yeah the scene isn’t exactly art at its finest, but that’s what the filmmakers wanted in their film. I’d like to see what they wanted me to see, not what some PC Police want me to see 20 years later.
There’s no clear line on these issues, but there’s a pretty big difference between Birth of a Nation, which is both a historically important film and also one which uses racist imagery to make a fairly explicit political point, and a badly-aged joke in a fake blooper reel from the credits of a kids movie, the removal of which doesn’t really impact the film at all. The slippery slope argument is an informal logical fallacy for a reason: there needs to be a good basis for assuming that one minor decision will lead to greater and great similar subsequent decisions. There’s no reason to believe that Disney, a company with a heavy interest in marketing their products to kids, is going to apply this principle broadly, or to entire films.
Especially when everyone is alive. Stuff gets cut out of Shakespeare all the time.
It’s supposed to be a laugh line about women being sexually harassed. Cutting it doesn’t mean that Hollywood sexual assaults didn’t happen, but it does mean that we don’t think that it’s light comedy anymore either.
The violence is ok though!
Man, the greys must be pissed over this.
I think Disney just saved society.
Importance aside, I find this level of censorship disgusting. I think Editing a movie (even a credit sequence) to align with a company’s current PC stance is a mistake and should not be lauded as “brave” or “woke”.Something like this should be acknowledged for what it is, that is, “a joke out of time” and left with the film to be witnessed and critiqued by all. To edit in an attempt to assuage anyone and/or curry favor with any kind of group/movement is at the very least a breach of artistic integrity.
yeah, but this is also Disney who has been doing this exact type of censorship for decades. So fairly on brand for them
Besides the scene can still be found on youtube. So it’s not like it’s completely gone from existence.
Huzzah! Three cheers for censorship!!!
In the future, offensensitivity will chip away at anything that is deemed funny until it leads to a total ban on all jokes and laughter. We’re constantly bombarded with articles from overly sensitive “purists” who seemingly have never done anything out of step with wholesome behavior, and therefore feel they’re allowed to dictate how the rest of us should be amused.
I am not sure if I own this one. I’ll be pissed if I don’t.
But jive talking crows remain perfectly acceptable.
But jive talking crows remain perfectly acceptable I mention this a lot— no, that scene in Dumbo isn’t … right, but when I was a kid, that pun-filled song filled me with joy (“I seen a peanut stand, heard a rubber band…”). It still does, or at least I still like puns. [In the modern Dumbo I half expected them to replace the jive crows with rapping [some other animal] and not change the lyrics, only speed them up and add a beat box. I haven’t seen the new one but I don’t guess they did that?]
That’s the bummer about Song of the South being problematic. The songs are some of the best Disney ever did.
Actually, the whole crow scene is not in the live-action remake, and I think I heard about Disney planning to cut the crow scene from the original animated movie when they put it on their streaming service. Which is a shame, you should give kids context about the sterotypes involved, but that scene is important to the plot and has a great song, as opposed to this gross and completely unnecessary “blooper.”
I see no problem with permanently squashing the media propagation of the Casting Couch as a necessary evil we accept by default.
Don’t be so hasty. How else are strippers and part-time sex workers going to move on to ensemble roles in straight-to-video slasher movies? Don’t you want them to have the same opportunities as people that learned to act or type? Or are you one of those people that wants to tell women what they can’t do with their bodies?
Victim blame much?
What ‘victim?’ The situation I’m describing above is transactional. There’s a reason it’s “the oldest profession.”
I feel like people in these comments are interpreting it as a sex joke instead of a rape joke? Hopefully? Because otherwise I’m kinda horrified.
A twincest joke in a kid’s movie?
LEAVE IT BE.
This is ridiculous. The political correctness nowadays because of all the snowflakes is getting out of hand!!! Geez.
The world is going to hell in a handbasket you can’t even have a light-hearted risque joke. everyone is so damn sensitive these days that the level of political correctness as being forced on society is going to destroy this country.
Show how damn soft people are these days. This is pathetic. Hopefully one day the writer of a movie will sue for shit like this. First amendment is a right. If you do not like the script or what is said. Dont buy it. Simple as that you soft ass pusses
I think what they did was stupid but this isn’t a first amendment issue. The government didn’t intervene, the company decided to remove it.
Right? A bunch of grown ups crying about their cartoon being changed. Soft ass motherfuckers.
The fuck are you talking about? This was 0.00% in the script. It was a vanishingly tiny gag shown after the entire movie was over. There are NO people in the world sitting, stewing, thinking, “Oh they took out the best thing I wrote for this movie! I labored over those completely unimportant sentences!”No one’s suing Disney for this because YOU are probably the angriest person on earth about it.
I’M OUTRAGED!
Ok retard
Fine. But I’m not going to pretend that joke was beneath me. I chuckled then, and watching it again, I chuckled now.
I mean it’s gross and unfunny and hypocritical considering who directed it so good riddance.
It’s one of those jokes that no one really paid much attention to. Just pokes alittle fun at the industry. That is, until people realized it was a real thing, that was really happening. Then the humor was kinda lost.
Bambi’s mom shot first
I like how much of this, our new and more enlightened age, seems to consist of shoving stuff down the memory hole so that no one can ever see it again. Because nothing better shows respect for the individual than taking away their choices.
Welcome to the future the current generation is shaping. Imagine what a shithole this place will be when they turn 60! Hopefully they, like my generations “hippies” will be relegated to the Pacific Northwest and rock ‘n roll cruises.
Exactly. And I find it ironic that the same people who want to tear down any reminders of the Confederacy are the same people who invoke the words “Nazi”, “Hitler”, and “concentration camp” a thousand times a day.
JFC you are all having a conniption fit over a kids movie. This is the saddest comment section in AVC history.
Does that change if you think about this as a barely-veiled rape joke? I mean, I’m as averse to cutting parts from old media as anyone, but it’s a pretty gross bit.
Why would you think that?
The joke is that Pete/Grammer is trying to trick the Barbies into sex by promising them parts in a movie, a reference to the sort of behavior epitomized by Harvey Weinstein. That is, it’s a reference to actual women having sex under threat of damage to their careers.
It’s pretty gross!
That’s not rape. Words have meanings.
Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim’s agreement and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions.
Harvey Weinstein raped women who wouldn’t do the casting couch thing once they were alone.
You do realize stinky is a a hole villain in the movie. It’s a after credits joke, it’s not saying its alright that sort of thing. I’m not surprised a black female monkey like you is over reacting. Lmao
It doesn’t change the tone of the movie or characters itself, not being part of the actual narrative, so I’m fine with it.
Social Justice Fatties; Ruining everything since forever.
Poor baby’s cartoon was changed! Maybe next they can do your diaper.
The whole trying to be patronizing when you’re the whining cunt doesn’t really work that well, kiddo. 🙁
Keep on being a triggered fatty though! <3
I think it worked just fine. It seemed to upset you, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Saying “I upset you” doesn’t make it true.
Sorry, snowflake. 🙁
Right back at ya, champ!
…that doesn’t even make sense as a response. Guessing you’re Autistic.
No fun playing with a retard. 🙁
Have a nice life, try not to eat any paint.
Right back at ya, champ!
Hey, ya made yourself look dumb, ya mongrel. Get back in the forest, you fucking animal baby.
Awww, wittle fatty got mad. 🙁
I said, get outside. You do not belong indoors.
No one cares what the wittle fatty said. <3
I’m going to have to rub your nose in that one, you bag of fleas.
Oh God, you’re one of those Autistic Furries with a fetish for fucking animals.
Sorry weirdo, but I can’t help you with your mental deficiencies.
You’re too loud. You need a muzzle.
Okay I agree with what your saying, but don’t call him autistic, that gives autistic folks like me a bad name. I don’t want to be associated with SJW idiots like him.
Good point. Sorry.
Cause trump, Carlson, limbaugh, and huckabee are in such great shape. If only libs like dwayne Johnson and Chris Evans took care of their bodies, there wouldn’tbe anything to bitch about.
Oh look, an NPC made it about Trump.
Keep on being a triggered fatty.
Low quality article. When you watch the actual clip, it’s not nearly as menacing as the text portrays. Even the quote “absolutely twins” is never said. He says “and so you two are absolutely identical?” How can you screw up this badly in a short article? Zero standards of publication. It’s related to the modern outrage movement, so of course it’ll be published in its 1st draft.
Even though sexual assault and casting couches are actual problems, removing this scene from Toy Story 2 solves nothing, better, it could even serve as awareness for it.Thinking that doing this will solve anything, is the same logic from when conservatives were against violent videogames, claiming that violence in games was creating murderers and mass shooters in real life.
Even though sexual assault and casting couches are actual problems, removing this scene from Toy Story 2 solves nothing, better, it could even serve as awareness for it.Thinking that doing this will solve anything, is the same logic from when conservatives were against violent videogames, claiming that violence in games was creating murderers and mass shooters in real life.
I would argue that this scene, the way it was written any way, doesn’t really help against casting couches but normalizes them.
But isn’t Disney already known for tasteless sex innuendo hidden in all their cartoons? They’d have to delete out half of The Little Mermaid.
Deleting satire. Brilliant.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I mean sure, lets erase everything that offends someone so we can’t remember the past, what could go wrong.
Erasing a faux blooper reel from a kids movie is hardly the same as pretending casting couch acts don’t exist.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”- William Shakespeare.Get it?
George Santayana.
Yes, because from the time the movie was made up until right now, men in power had stopped taking advantage of women without it.Those powerful men sure will be glad Disney’s letting people forget about their behavior again!(If it’s not clear, I’m calling into question your logic here)
Metoo isnt a thing and nobody outside of extremists in big coastal cities thinks it is. Go fuck yourself.
Part of me wishes they had called out the scene but kept it in, encouraging parents to talk to their kids and use it as a teachable moment. But it’s such an ugly bit of reality, keeping it in is a reminder of what shouldn’t have been tolerated for so long.
My wife and I were looking at houses the other day and this guy came from across the street to tell me three things (he ignored my wife and the realtor who was also a woman).1) He is our crazy neighbor.2) There are UFOs here and we should know for our own safety.3) It’s about time someone with tits and ass move into the neighborhood.We were going to put in an offer on that house too and now we’re not. My wife was so passive about it in the car, like it was no big deal, and I had to spend the drive to the next house convincing her a guy from across the street and up 3 houses who comes over to tell us about UFOs and say some crude stuff to her is not a place we want to live and that I’d not feel safe with her there.She’s so desensitized to it and that sucks, it’s just a thing that happens and to me it was a million red flags and to her it wasn’t much of anything.Thankfully, the next house was far, far, far nicer and $20,000 cheaper so we’re putting in an offer for that.
Good luck with your cheap-o house in what is sure to be a UFO-riddled slum.
I feel a bit bad about making a silly joke about this shitty experience.
I’d be fine with writers realizing that this kind of joke is unfunny and not putting it in any movies going forward, but I don’t agree with censorship (even self-censorship) of decades-old movies that have been seen by hundreds of millions of people already. If you regret something you put out in the past, own it; don’t just try to pretend that it didn’t happen.
“absolutely identical*”
the dirty prospector asks if they are “absolutely identical” rather than “absolutely twins”. “Twins” probably mentally slipped in because that was the implication..
Normally the censorship would bother me, but this isn’t part of the actual movie. It’s just the fake blooper reel at the end so it’s all good in my opinion.
They’re Barbie dolls, fergawdsakes.With or without Stinky Pete’s help, they are going to end up naked and made to kiss each other – before being thrown onto a pile of other naked Barbies.
The next Toy Story movie will have a sex-trafficking subplot about the Barbies, and will include a PSA reminding little girls that any annoying younger brothers who undress the Barbies and make them kiss are “already infected by patriarchy” and “must be taken care of by any means necessary.”
Oh, please. It’s the girls undressing the Barbies and making them kiss for their owners’ amusement. Mark my words… the Barbies in that movie have seen some shit.
I understand why the Toy Story series has not given us a Sid-like look at the room of a Barbie-obsessed little girl whose piles of plastic naked bodies resemble a children’s diorama of Salo: The 120 Days of Sodom, with the Barbies conditioned by the child’s play into having PTSD-infused romantic feelings for each other, but also, I don’t understand why they haven’t done that.
Look in your heart. You know this is the real fate of all Barbies.
This is by far the best response on this comment section.
While we’re at it, can we overdub Joan Cusack entirely? Her voice gets on my nerves and might trigger my PTSD that happened during my first viewing of Grosse Point Blank.
Jesus
This is why I love Looney Tunes. They don’t go back and censor their own work bc of the fragile sensibilities of today.
Just watched Toy Story with my toddlers… Aside from how terrible the look of it has aged (I can forgive this, the film was groundbreaking as the first 3D animated feature) The tone was cringey at a lot of times.Every scene with Bo Peep is sexual. Woody is a creep and kind of a total dick. The amount of times the characters call each other “idiots” or “stupid” is hard to count.
I love how the AV Club has taken over making all decisions about how one is supposed to feel about something.
And look at you letting them by getting all worked up.
Comedy is dead
Silly, but Disney knew they were on the radar. Once the losers with nothing going in their lives are done going through people’s six year old tweets from high school you know they are moving on to corporations.Disney stopped showing their racist cartoons from way back in the day a long time ago (at least in syndication) so this is not unprecedented for them.
stinky pete is canceled
Not surprising given his show already was.
I demand they remove all the “offensive” bits form Blazing Saddles!
Imagine actually caring about dumb shit like this.
Well, thank goodness they got rid of this filth! I always had to skip this movie in my rewatch and replace it with A Bug’s Life, in which nothing at all has aged poorly about the jokes or casting.
Just a reminder: Peter Pan still has “Why the Red Man is red in it.” I have a blu-ray with the scheezy scene. Always thought it was…wow, a bit adult for a kid’s movie. Not really seeing need to remove, beyond it’s…weird to explain to a kid in any era what Pete’s actor is doing. The better outcome is that kids (or adults) in 2019 wouldn’t get it anymore, because the trope is dead.
This is the saddest comment section I’ve seen on AVC in awhile. Imagine getting upset because a cartoon blooper was removed. If only you jerkoff motherfucker fuckers cared as much about sexual harassment as you do cartoons.
Let me rewrite that headline for you:In light of people being too sensitive and fragile for humor anymore, Disney (and everybody else) will be systematically removing jokes from their entertainments
This reminds me. I could have SWORN in the original theatrical cut of Roger Rabbit that Betty Boop’s tits popped out.Im not joking. In fact, my friend and I immediately looked at each other in surprise, so it wasn’t just me imagining it.
Nope. I can assure you I would remember that.
It was a scene in which Betty Boop, acting as waitress carrying a serving tray, talks to Eddie. Split-second, then she hiked up the front of her dress with a giggle.
Maybe don’t make weird sex jokes in kids movies at all?
Go step on a rake, Stinky Pete.
Creepy? Hm. Yeah, I guess.But lets remember that Harvey Weinstein’s problem wasn’t that he was offering actresses movie roles for sex.His problem was not being able to decipher the difference between women who were cheerfully willing to make this trade and those that weren’t. Because let’s be clear, it wasn’t exactly a binary thing. You have a spectrum of participants here: a) the women who would happily suck a dick or let some fat dude fuck them for a role, b) women who would do it grudgingly but might need to be talked around to accepting it (ie “We’ve established you’re a whore dear, now it’s just a question of price”), c) women who really didn’t want to do it but felt they had no choice if they wanted to be in that business (actual blackmail, basically) and d) women who didn’t want to and were able to articulate their “no”. HW is in trouble because of the “C”s. And unfortunately for men, women don’t carry signs, they can change their minds from a to d in a picosecond (sometimes retroactively 😐 ) and we as men are supposed to understand what they actually want when often they aren’t even sure.What I’m looking forward to is hopefully a list of all the women he fucked for roles who took the deal and never said boo. Because if you want to stop these sorts of shady deals, you can’t just shame half of the transaction. (Well, you can if you’re a hypocrite, I guess.)
More likely they didn’t want to potentially remind anyone of all the casting couches Disney has in the closet. Bad enough they can’t get people to forget Walt was anti-Semitic.
Fucking Leftists! Purge every last Leftist on Earth! Leftists are a fucking cancer to this world.
My childhood wasn’t protected from this. I’m launching a class-action suit.
My uncensored DVDs and Blu-rays are now worth a fortune! Muahahaha!
Okay…I think we’re starting to take this too far.I can understand being more mindful of content in the age of MeToo, but that’s a funny scene, and deleting it is just…I dunno. Some people are just too sensitive and reactionary these days. And I say that as someone whose in favor of all these scumbags being outed as perverts and being punished for it (and as someone who really doesn’t care for Kelsey Grammar after his continued support of Trump).I mean, if even G-rated movies can’t get away with a simple joke like that, what does that say about the future of comedy?
That maybe G-rated comedies shouldn’t have jokes normalizing sexual harassment? Yeah its a “bad” character doing it, but there is no come-uppance for him, just laughing at the idea of him harassing and propositioning these female characters and being embarassed about being caught. And then you add it to a million other “casting couch” gags in entertainment that might imply its seedy, but never get to the point of calling it criminal, and make it seem like something that’s just going to happen regardless of how questionable it is.I am no prude, I watch some fucked up movies (love me some David Cronenberg and Takeshi Miike) and enjoy plenty of porn, but there really shouldn’t be ANY kind of sexual references in a G-rated cartoon. Almost nothing is G-rated anymore, everything is PG or PG-13 for violence or gross humor etc., Disney/Pixar seem to be the only ones who can score an occasional G-rating. If I had kids, I would like to trust that means nothing inappropriate.
The irony of this is I can totally imagine Grammar himself having done this more than once in his expansive career. Yet another person who’s work I enjoy with the caveat that they are garbage in real life
PC is outa control. Now we have to feel offended for Barbie dolls…wtf
Would have been better if all you seen was the top of the twins heads 😆
ohhh god so triggering. no more humor! im telling you niggas no more humor!
OK, I guess. I feel like the scene raises awareness of the shit that made #Metoo necessary more that it condones or encourages it. The cynic in me can’t help feel Disney is more bothered by the audience being reminded (or alerted) of a hostile work environment than the idea of a hostile environment itself. But it’s done.
Pretty sure they just caught Kelsey Grammar on a live mic and animated the sequence to the audio clip.
So THAT’S where John Lassiter got the idea from!
Yes, he got the idea for this scene while sexually assaulting an employee.
MeToo standards of propriety are pathetic.
The SJW’s have struck again. What is wrong with having the bad guy do bad things? Just recently feminazi’s were complaining about Darth Vader killing a stalker who kept his flaked skin, claiming that star wars was sexist for killing off a potential love interest for Darth Vader. Um A. She’s a stalker, B he’s evil he will do evil things. Remember the padawan’s? Same thing applies here. He’s the bad guy he’s going to be a jerk. I swear this much censorship should be illegal.
Jesus Jesus tap-dancing Christ we have failed as a species. Can a meteor just hit the planet now and kill off all life on Earth please? Society has quite literally become too sensitive to the point where it should just be eradicated.
Disney has been destroying their old movies by replacing the animation for HD but removing a rape joke from the credits of a 90’s CGI movie is apparently what upsets people here.