Originally Posted By ecdc >>And they are usually right.<< No, they aren't. All it does is tells us about the human struggle with change. It tells us little about the loss of values. Unless of course one only judges morality by clothing styles, ignoring things like letting women vote, civil rights, and a myriad of other progresses.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Yes, they are, according to my standards of morality. You are free to believe differently.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yes, they are, according to my standards of morality.<< So when moralists complained at the turn of the 20th century that ballroom dancing was an abomination, they were right? When religious conservatives complained about Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington, they were onto something about the immorality of jazz music? I suppose if your definition of morality revolves around whether or not your shorts are below the knee, but fortunately the rest of us have a little bit deeper beliefs.
Originally Posted By utahjosh And you could NOT be more wrong about my beliefs. You know a lot about the LDS Church, but you sure don't understand the heart of it.
Originally Posted By ecdc I didn't mean for it to be a pot shot; I apologize. My point remains: Morality is subjective. Movies that you and your family would gladly watch today and would obtain a G rating were decried by people as immoral in the '20s and '30s. Which means one of two things: Either you're watching something immoral or the people in the '20s had different standards. If we accept your assertion, then any music you listen to, any movies you watch, were at one time labeled (or would be labeled) immoral by people you say were right about younger generations. Unless you avoid movies, only listen to Mozart, and don't watch TV, it's unavoidable.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "And you could NOT be more wrong about my beliefs. You know a lot about the LDS Church, but you sure don't understand the heart of it." I'll take a disaster of immorality and vapid shallowness over LDS morality. At least the "vapid" kids will allow people who love each other to get married regardless of sexual orientation. "only listen to Mozart," I saw Amadeus. Vapid twit. ;-P
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm not sure why Josh brought up the LDS church. I didn't and had no intention of doing so. My comment about shorts was a broad swipe at modesty culture in general. It's a huge part of LDS culture, sure, but it's a big part of the wider conservative Christian culture as well. I have no interest in picking on his beliefs.
Originally Posted By LVdisneyfan The point of the thread at least to me was wish there was a way to watch "Vault Disney" that once aired in the middle of the night on the Disney channel, whether it were to be released on DVD or back on the regular Disney Channel. I don't think we need marathons of "That's So Raven or Jake & Josh." Those shows are geared towards kids who should be asleep in the middle of the night.
Originally Posted By ecdc My last comment: "By unanimous vote it was decided that the present condition under which waltzing is not permitted at our social parties continue in force." Anthony W. Ivins diary, February 28, 1906, Mss B2, Box 3, Fd 2, Utah State Archives, Salt Lake City, Utah. Yes, those immoral, vapid waltzers
Originally Posted By mawnck >>whether it were to be released on DVD or back on the regular Disney Channel<< The Disney Movie Club sort of fills that need. Be advised that their releases tend to be kind of ... careless ...
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Be advised that their releases tend to be kind of ... careless ...<< Which really differentiates them from Disney's main line of home video releases, which are all lovingly and accurately restored to their original quality...
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Which really differentiates them from Disney's main line of home video releases, which are all lovingly and accurately restored to their original quality<< The difference is one of active ineptitude vs. passive indifference.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 My deepest disappointment with the Disney Company currently is the unavailability of the anthology shows. Moreso than anything else that I watched growing up, the Disney anthology shows had a profound impact on the person that I am today, and I don't mean just being a Disney fan. As I have reached middle age and see mortality facing me, my yearning to see those shows that I loved so much in my youth only deepens and I grieve that Disney is withholding them. There are avenues through which they could make them available for a reasonable cost to them and us, I think. I have come to feel that they just don't care. I have come to believe, regrettably, that the current Walt Disney Company really doesn't care about us of a certain age. It's all about kids, tweens and families. If you're middle aged, or worse, middle aged and single, you pretty much don't exist. The thing is, being single and middle age, I have money to spend, IF they give me something to spend it on (besides ever rising AP prices) and price things reasonably. Some of the older Disney movies that I also love are now being sold not only through the Disney Movie Club, but on the Disney Store online. But, their prices is ridiculous. $25 for bare bones DVD's. Some of them aren't even feature length movies, they're one hour anthology episodes or short films. Thankfully, I recorded quite a bit of stuff from the Disney Channel when they still had Vault Disney. But, there are some things I didn't get that I really want to see again. I'm afraid that by the time Disney gets around to making the stuff available, those of us who it meant so much to will be dead and gone. I find it disingenuous for the Company to always tout it's great history but to withhold so much of that past to the fans who would really appeciate it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I'm afraid that by the time Disney gets around to making the stuff available, those of us who it meant so much to will be dead and gone.<< I'm also afraid that by the time Disney gets around to making the stuff available, the elements will be unsalvageable and it'll be lost forever. The horrendous quality of the Disney Movie Club releases indicates that it may already be happening.
Originally Posted By schnebs Agreed, Dbitz2. I mean there's iTunes, Disney Family Movies channel on many cable providers, the Disney Music Store (if they can make music available for download, they can make TV shows and movies available)... there are lots of potential platforms where they could make this stuff available, but since the old Vault disney stuff will only make a tenth of the revenue of "High School Musical Rehash, Vol. XVIV" or "Yet Another Tinker Bell Adventure", they don't wanna bother. Our money spends just as well as the tweeners' and toddlers' parents, guys...
Originally Posted By mawnck Here's your model, by some poor obscure starving company with nothing better to do … <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://shop.warnerarchive.com">http://shop.warnerarchive.com</a> and <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://instant.warnerarchive.com">http://instant.warnerarchive.com</a> Their DVDs are bare bones, but very high quality. If they don't have a suitable master of something, they spend the money to make a new one. It's a sideline of their ASSET PRESERVATION program. I'm old enough to remember when it would have been Disney, not Warner Brothers, that would have come up with this. Bugs 1, Mickey 0.
Originally Posted By ecdc >><a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://instant.warnerarchive.com<<">http://instant.warnerarchive.com<<</a> I love Warner's blu-ray releases and their commitment to proper restoration and archiving. I don't love their half-baked in-house Netflix competitor. But it's inevitable that studios will stop licensing and start charging for their own streaming services. Harper and Across the Pacific - not a couple of bad titles.
Originally Posted By DBitz2 I've known about the Warner Archive for a long time, I didn't know about the instant archive. Thanks for the mention of that. I've also been frustrated with the lack of availability of many of the old Paramount Studios movies. As a historian for the National Park Service owned Paramount Ranch movie ranch site, part of my work is to find, collect and view old Paramount movies that may have shot at the ranch back in the day. Universal, who owns the old Paramount films has put out some of them, but many are still not available. It's not as frustrating for me as the lack of Disney titles (and, some of those I would like to view because there are some things I suspect may have used Paramount Ranch. I've already found some titles like The Love Bug and Herbie Rides Again in my research.) because a collegue does more of the work on old stuff while I work more on the 1950's through the 1970's and up to tracking when we get shoots there now.
