The Altering of The French Connection and Home Video Overview
Credibility score: 40/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "The Altering of The French Connection and Home Video Overview" and rated it 40/100 for credibility (a BS score of 60/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-22. Its weakest claim — "Disney altering Fox films, like 'The French Connection', is 'cultural vandalism' and should be legally prohibited. — Loaded Language" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 31 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 31 claims analyzed: 8 scored under 40, 21 between 40 and 69, and 2 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a strong, emotionally charged framing of the topic. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:00
Calling it an 'idealistic Crusade' and a 'hot button issue' immediately sets a dramatic, confrontational tone. — It primes the audience for outrage.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'downfall idealistic Crusade' and 'hot button issue' right from the start. This isn't just introducing a topic; it's framing it as a major battle or controversy. A neutral framing would simply state the topic: 'Today we're discussing the editing of The French Connection.' The chosen words are designed to evoke strong feelings and signal that this is a significant, perhaps alarming, development for the 'film community'.
Original quote: “hello and welcome back to this downfall idealistic Crusade I had to say something in video form about the censorship of The French Connection which became a real hot button issue among the entire film Community when it”
Claims Disney edited 'The French Connection' across all iterations, including past purchases and public screenings. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 0:12
The claim is broad, but the specific details of *which* edits and *when* they occurred are missing. — It implies a widespread, sudden change without specifics.
Why this score: The speaker makes a very strong claim that Disney edited the film 'not just for streaming but for all available iterations,' including 'streaming copies that you purchased even in the past' and 'all public screenings.' While it's true that Disney (via 20th Century Fox) did make edits to 'The French Connection' for streaming, the blanket statement about 'all available iterations' and 'all public screenings' lacks specific evidence. Commenters suggest some issues have been fixed (e.g., Max having the uncensored version), which indicates the situation might be more nuanced or evolving than…
Original quote: “was discovered that Disney had actually edited the film not just for streaming but for all available iterations so that means you're streaming copies that you purchased even in the past have now been updated to this edited and altered version and all public screenings here in the US and on…”
The altered version is now the 'de facto standard' in the US — framing as a widespread, accepted change. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Calling it the 'de facto standard' implies universal acceptance, but it's a forced change. — The language downplays the controversy.
Why this score: The phrase 'de facto standard' is loaded. While the altered version might be widely distributed, calling it a 'standard' suggests a level of acceptance or legitimacy that isn't necessarily present, especially given the speaker's earlier framing of it as an 'alteration.' It subtly normalizes a change that many might view as problematic, making it sound like an established norm rather than a controversial edit.
Original quote: “earrings it also felt like I was the tree falling over in the forest that nobody heard so I was very surprised that this became such a a significant news item this year when it reappeared on the Criterion Channel and then people started noticing this particular edit and also that was showing up on…”
The French Connection was edited poorly, removing a scene, which is 'terrible, terrible, reprehensible'. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 2:30
Calling the edit 'terrible, terrible, reprehensible' is pure emotional button-pushing — it's an opinion, not a fact.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, subjective language ('terrible, terrible, reprehensible') to describe the film edit. While the edit itself might be objectively poor (a jump cut, a scene removed), the strong emotional framing is designed to elicit outrage rather than provide a neutral assessment. It's an opinion presented with the weight of an objective truth.
Original quote: “any edit that is done after the fact and done so poorly that it resembles an old broadcast television edit where a whole scene is pretty much lopped out which is actually what happened here they just ripped a whole part of a scene out of the film and it's very noticeable because there's a jump cut…”
Censoring a racial slur alters the film's effect, despite being in character for 1971 New York — frames the edit as damaging. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 4:30
Framing the removal of a racial slur as 'diluting' the character and 'altering the overall effect' of the film.
Why this score: The speaker argues that removing a specific line containing a racial slur, even though it's 'not out of place for this character and this time in 1971 New York,' 'dilutes' the characterization and 'alters the overall effect' of the film. While the speaker's opinion on artistic integrity is valid, the language used ('dilute,' 'alter the overall effect') is loaded. It frames the edit as inherently damaging without acknowledging potential counter-arguments or the reasons behind such censorship (e.g., modern sensibilities, corporate policy). A more neutral framing would simply state that the line…
Original quote: “because this is supposed to be an in your face challenging character just like the film and the the the film builds to a climax that once again makes you question the nature of Doyle's actions so if you dilute any of the characterization in any small way you're altering the overall effect of the…”
Disney altering Fox films, like 'The French Connection', is 'cultural vandalism' and should be legally prohibited. — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 6:30
Calling it 'cultural vandalism' is strong language designed to evoke outrage, rather than a neutral description of content moderation.
Why this score: The term 'cultural vandalism' is highly charged and emotionally manipulative. While the speaker is expressing a strong opinion about film preservation, this phrasing is intended to inflame the audience's feelings rather than present a balanced argument about copyright and content ownership. A more neutral framing would discuss the ethics of altering historical works without using such inflammatory terms.
Original quote: “the idea that Disney took it upon themselves to touch a frame of The French Connection let alone any Fox film which the only connection they have to these films is they bought the fox Library you know there there should have been a clause or something that uh they were not allowed to touch these…”
Framing 'messed up people' as necessary for certain roles — a loaded justification. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 8:30
Suggests 'messed up' is a prerequisite, not a consequence, for some roles. It's a dark take on leadership.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'messed up people' and 'only type of person' to frame a cynical view of power, implying that moral compromise is essential for effectiveness. This is a loaded way to justify questionable character traits, presenting them as necessary rather than problematic.
Original quote: “in this world that you have to have truly messed up people in certain roles”
Framing a single line as 'central' to a character's understanding — a strong interpretive claim. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 10:30
Calling a single line 'central' is a strong interpretive choice, not an objective fact about a character.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'central line' to elevate a specific quote's importance, framing it as the definitive key to Popeye's character. While it's an important line, calling it 'central' is an interpretation that could be debated, as character understanding often comes from a multitude of actions and dialogues, not just one line. It's a way to guide the viewer's interpretation very specifically.
Original quote: “but his his comeback line is never trust anyone which is the central line to understanding Popeye's character”
Framing audience upset as justified — 'as they should be' — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 12:30
Calling the audience's upset 'as they should be' frames it as a universally correct reaction, not just an opinion.
Why this score: The phrase 'as they should be' is loaded language. It's not just stating that people are upset, but validating that emotion as the correct and expected response, subtly guiding the viewer to feel the same way. A neutral framing would simply state that people are upset without adding a judgment on the validity of that emotion.
Original quote: “you have people who are
talking about this and very upset as”
Most films lack original audio, are remixed, and this is revisionism — a strong, broad claim. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 14:30
Calling all audio changes 'revisionism' is a loaded term, implying malicious intent rather than technical updates or creative choices.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'revisionism' to frame any audio remix as a negative, intentional alteration of the original artistic vision. While some remixes might be poorly done or unwanted by purists, 'revisionism' implies a deliberate rewriting of history or intent, which isn't necessarily true for all audio changes. A neutral framing would describe the technical changes without the loaded moral judgment.
Original quote: “however you're seeing them are actually compromised in some way most of the time it's on the technical side of things particular really in the audio film audio is so badly manipulated and so badly treated and because it's not as obvious as as seeing issues or technical problems and the picture…”
Criterion Channel's 'director's edit' label for the altered film is 'insulting' and Friedkin couldn't have approved it. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 16:30
Claims 'no way in hell' Friedkin approved it, despite acknowledging no official word from him.
Why this score: The speaker states with absolute certainty ('no way in hell') that William Friedkin did not approve the edit, despite having just mentioned that 'we still have not heard anything from William Friedkin.' This is a clear confidence mismatch. They are presenting a strong, definitive conclusion about Friedkin's intent without any direct evidence from him, relying instead on their own interpretation of what he 'would' or 'wouldn't' do. This frames their personal conviction as an undeniable fact.
Original quote: “there's not really been anything official that has been said outside of the Criterion Channel issuing a statement and saying that this was the version they were provided with and it was labeled as a a director's edit which seems even more insulting by Disney because there is no way in hell that…”
Disney's edit of The French Connection is a 'dangerous precedent' — using emotional language to amplify concern. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 18:30
Calling it a 'dangerous precedent' and lamenting 'not enough anger' uses emotionally charged language to frame the edit as a major threat. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker uses strong, emotive words like 'dangerous precedent' and 'boggles the mind' to describe Disney's editing of 'The French Connection'. While the act of editing a classic film can be controversial, framing it this way is designed to evoke a specific, strong emotional response from the viewer rather than presenting a neutral assessment of the situation. It's a classic example of loaded language to sway opinion.
Original quote: “edit of The French Connection by simply just ripping a scene out again this is the type of thing that you would expect from the old days of broadcast television of oh well we need to to censor this part because it you know it's it's too objectionable for television so let's just you know they got…”
The 'giant mad rush' on older video copies is presented as a direct, obvious consequence. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 20:30
Using 'of course' and 'giant mad rush' frames the market reaction as inevitable and extreme, without showing the scale.
Why this score: The phrase 'of course' implies the reaction was universally expected and understood, while 'giant mad rush' uses hyperbole to describe demand. This framing exaggerates the immediate impact and the consensus around it, making the audience feel like they should already know this was a huge deal, even if the actual market shift was more gradual or less dramatic. A neutral framing would simply state that demand for older copies increased.
Original quote: “of course led to a giant mad rush on older”
Film owners are 'caretakers' or 'museum curators,' not changers — sets up a specific role expectation. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 22:30
Framing film owners as only 'caretakers' or 'curators' creates a false dilemma, implying they have no creative or commercial rights to alter. — It ignores the complexities of ownership.
Why this score: The speaker frames the role of a film owner as strictly a 'caretaker' or 'museum curator,' implying that their only responsibility is to preserve the film in its original state, not to alter it. This creates a false dilemma by presenting only two options (pure preservation or malicious alteration) and ignoring the legal and commercial realities of intellectual property ownership, which often include rights to modify, adapt, or re-release works. While many would agree with the sentiment of preserving artistic integrity, the framing here simplifies a complex issue into a black-and-white choice,…
Original quote: “and you're also caretakers of these films you you were not um people who are supposed to go in and change or alter those films in any way you are simply caring for them while you own them you are a caretaker you are at best a new museum curator because these are our treasures and they do belong in…”
Claiming a specific tape release is 'just about the only version' with original mono mix – a strong, specific claim. — No Frame (75/100)
At 24:30
A very specific claim about audio mixes on home video, which is verifiable for film enthusiasts. Sounds like a deep cut.
Why this score: The speaker is making a very precise claim about the rarity of the original mono mix for 'The French Connection' on home video, attributing its absence to 'technical revisionism'. This is a factual statement about film history and audio preservation, which can be confirmed or refuted by examining various home video releases. The specificity of the claim (original mono mix, 'just about the only version') makes it a strong, verifiable statement rather than a vague opinion. Community comments also touch on this, suggesting it's a known issue.
Original quote: “what's important about this though is this is just about the only version of the film with its original mono mix on the entirety of its home video history because very quickly for some reason and it may be because it this is freaking already doing some of his technical revisionism The French…”
Speaker claims only two home video iterations have the original mono mix – then immediately adds a third. Classic 'oops, wait, there's more' framing. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 26:30
Says only two versions, then remembers a third right away. The confidence doesn't match the recall. 🤷♂️
Why this score: The speaker initially states there are 'only two iterations' they are aware of that have the original mono mix. This sets a definitive tone. However, almost immediately after, they introduce a 'third version' (the CED release) that also has the mono mix. This shows a slight mismatch between the initial confident assertion and the actual breadth of their knowledge, suggesting the claim was made with less certainty than implied.
Original quote: “analog track and it's only the Left Channel because it's bilingual so the left channel has the original mono mix of the film and the right channel has a Japanese dub of the film and of course that LaserDisc being Japanese has hard-coded Japanese subtitles in the picture so not really the intended…”
Lamenting the 'stereoized' audio mix — highlighting a perceived flaw. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 28:30
Using 'stuck with' and 'unfortunately' frames the stereo mix as a negative, even if it's technically accurate.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'stuck with' and 'unfortunately' to convey disappointment about the audio mix not being the original mono. While the technical detail (stereoized vs. original mono) is factual, the framing emphasizes a negative subjective experience. A neutral framing would simply state 'The film features a stereoized version of the mono track' without the added emotional weight.
Original quote: “The French Connection is still stuck with a stereoized version of the mono track and from what I've sampled of some of the older releases it does seem like the same mix but the quality is of course better because here you've got a PCM track on a LaserDisc and it's a much cleaner transfer and a much…”
The French Connection's original mono mix was missing from home video releases until the 2000s. — No Frame (75/100)
At 30:30
He's just laying out the history of the film's audio on home video — seems like a straightforward account.
Why this score: The speaker is providing a factual history of the film's audio releases. He's not trying to spin it or omit crucial details, just explaining the evolution of the home video versions. This is a clear, descriptive account of a technical issue.
Original quote: “the original untouched mono mix of the film and this is otherwise just like the previous release the best and only widescreen iteration of the film on home video up to that point this is how it stood for for all the iterations of the film and I should say that all of the later 90s and into early…”
Framing the DVD era's 5.1 obsession as consumer-driven — a 'Volume Game' of features. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 32:30
Blames consumers for the 5.1 push, implying studios just gave them what they wanted, not that it was a marketing strategy. — A classic 'Volume Game' framing.
Why this score: The speaker frames the shift to 5.1 mixes as solely driven by consumer demand for new sound systems, implying a 'Volume Game' where more features (5.1 channels) equaled better sales. This overlooks the studio's role in marketing these new formats and potentially pushing 5.1 as a 'premium' feature, even for films not designed for it. It's a common framing to shift responsibility for creative decisions to market forces.
Original quote: “in the Heyday of DVD the focus was always on everything had to be a 5.1 mix because people loved uh purchasing systems and they wanted every film to be in 5.1 regardless of it being a very grungy mono mix like we had on the French Connection because this film was never designed for multi-channel…”
Claiming a 'purported restoration' was used for all releases until 2009 — implies a lack of transparency. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 34:30
Calling it 'purported restoration' casts doubt without explaining why it's 'purported'.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'purported' to suggest the restoration wasn't legitimate or was misrepresented, but doesn't provide evidence for this skepticism. A neutral framing would simply state it was a restoration without the loaded term, or explain the specific issues with it. This choice of word primes the viewer to be suspicious.
Original quote: “um so unfortunately that's how how it stood in regards to the French Connection up until 2009 so this means all of the releases which was basically just repackaging the five-star DVD over and over uh sometimes without the second disc of supplemental features and so you had to make sure you got the…”
Questioning the director's statement about his intent due to a history of revisionism — Missing Context (45/100)
At 36:30
He's implying Friedkin's statement is disingenuous by referencing his past, but without direct evidence for this specific instance.
Why this score: This is a classic 'missing context' play, leaning into 'ad hominem' territory a bit. He's casting doubt on Friedkin's statement about the disc not turning out as intended by bringing up Friedkin's general 'habit of going back in and changing his own films' (like The Exorcist). While Friedkin's history is relevant context, directly implying his statement about *this specific disc* is untrue based on his general behavior, without specific evidence for this instance, is a form of framing that encourages skepticism without direct proof. A more neutral framing would present Friedkin's statement…
Original quote: “he even freaking said that you know again released a statement that you know it didn't turn out how he intended although it is still debatable on on just just how true that statement is because he does have a habit of going back in and changing his own films of course The Exorcist many times”
Framing a specific Blu-ray as a sudden overnight skyrocket in value — uses specific numbers to build hype. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 38:30
Uses 'skyrocketed overnight' and specific eBay prices to create urgency and perceived scarcity, but doesn't explain *why* it skyrocketed.
Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'skyrocketed overnight' and 'over 350 on eBay' to emphasize the disc's value. While the price might be accurate, the framing implies a sudden, dramatic increase without detailing the underlying reasons for the demand or the specific time frame of the 'overnight' change. It's a classic way to make something seem more desirable and urgent to acquire.
Original quote: “the version you want to track down this is the version that suddenly skyrocketed overnight to at some points over 350 on eBay for what was normally a disc that sold at retail for 9.99 this is a standard Fox disc it has most of all the old special features I I don't think it has 100 of everything…”
The 2012 Blu-ray of The French Connection was the first home video release with the original mono mix, unadvertised. — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 40:30
He's claiming this 2012 release was the *first ever* with the mono mix, but top comments suggest an earlier 2009 release also had it. — That's a pretty big detail to miss.
Why this score: The speaker frames the 2012 Blu-ray as a groundbreaking release for including the original mono mix, claiming it's the 'very first release since the dawn of Home Video' to do so. However, community feedback (top comment) indicates the mono mix was also present on the 2009 Blu-ray, albeit on a 'horrid' master. Omitting this earlier release, even if flawed, creates a misleading sense of uniqueness for the 2012 disc. A more neutral framing would acknowledge the 2009 release and then explain why the 2012 version is superior despite not being the absolute first.
Original quote: “getting most of all the old extras a proper presentation from the best scan currently available and making for a really solid 2012 Blu-ray presentation this does still have remixed audio that's the default track however something that is not really advertised hardly ever discussed and you wouldn't…”
Film schools don't care about film preservation or original audio mixes, using non-archival copies. — Missing Context — Missing Context (45/100)
At 42:30
Claims film schools ignore preservation without acknowledging the vast scope of film education. It's a broad generalization.
Why this score: The speaker frames film schools as universally negligent regarding film preservation and original audio. This is a sweeping generalization that lacks nuance. While some programs might prioritize other aspects, many film schools, especially those with strong archival or historical departments, do cover preservation, sound mixing, and the importance of original versions. The framing omits the diversity of film school curricula and focuses only on a perceived negative.
Original quote: “example you could use in film School of why remixed audio is bad and of course this stuff should be gone over in film school but you know film school doesn't care about the nitty-gritty of film preservation or sound mixing or revisionism of films or doesn't ever go into the fact that you know most…”
Urging viewers to 'move Heaven and Earth' for the Signature Series Blu-ray. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 44:30
Using hyperbole to emphasize the urgency of acquiring the Blu-ray, playing on a sense of scarcity or importance.
Why this score: The phrase 'move Heaven and Earth' is an emotional appeal, not a literal instruction. It's designed to create a sense of extreme urgency and importance around getting this specific release, rather than simply stating its benefits. It's a common rhetorical device to motivate action.
Original quote: “and so that's why you do need to try and move Heaven and Earth to get a copy on the Signature Series Blu-ray release”
Highlights the rarity and difficulty of acquiring the 'vital' Signature Series Blu-ray. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 46:30
Creates urgency and desirability for a hard-to-find item. — Classic scarcity marketing, even if unintentional.
Why this score: This segment, while seemingly just informative, functions as a 'Plain Sales Pitch' by creating artificial scarcity and urgency around the Signature Series Blu-ray. By emphasizing that it's 'vital and important' but 'very difficult to find' and 'exorbitantly priced' unless you 'catch it at the right time' by 'constantly watching the Amazon page,' the speaker is inadvertently (or intentionally) driving up its perceived value and desirability. This framing encourages immediate action from viewers who might want to secure this 'vital' item before it disappears again. It's a classic marketing…
Original quote: “so that's why it is so vital and important to have the Signature Series Blu-ray in your collection again it is now very difficult to find a copy of this that is not exorbitantly priced it has been coming it back into stock at Major retailers at the normal price but it's very fleeting you have to…”
Calling the 2009 Blu-ray a "horrible debacle" and "worst disc releases of all time" — Loaded Language — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 48:30
Using such strong, negative adjectives without specific, objective criteria is pure emotional appeal. — It's a subjective judgment presented as fact.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged language like 'horrible,' 'freaking supervised debacle,' and 'worst disc releases of all time' to describe the 2009 Blu-ray. While it's clear they dislike the transfer, these are subjective, emotionally loaded terms rather than objective criticisms (e.g., 'poor color grading,' 'excessive noise reduction'). This framing aims to evoke a strong negative reaction from the viewer without providing a neutral, detailed technical breakdown of *why* it's so bad, beyond 'supervised debacle transfer.' A more neutral framing would describe the specific technical issues…
Original quote: “but I'm sure and I've seen even unfortunately the 2009 Blu-ray with the horrible uh freaking supervised debacle transfer has been going for for higher dollar amounts because people mistakenly think that's that's the film on Blu-ray and they just need it in their library and they don't want it…”
If 'French Connection' is censored, will 'Shaft' be next? — creates a slippery slope argument — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 50:30
Draws a direct parallel between two films to predict future censorship, implying similar treatment is inevitable.
Why this score: The speaker uses 'Shaft' as a 'case in point example' to argue that if 'The French Connection' is censored, 'Shaft' will inevitably follow due to shared themes, time period, and even screenwriter. While both are iconic New York films from the same era, the specific reasons for any potential alterations to 'The French Connection' (which the speaker is questioning) might not directly apply to 'Shaft'. This creates a slippery slope argument, suggesting an inevitable negative outcome without sufficient evidence that the same rationale or pressures would apply equally to both films. It's a…
Original quote: “if they're going to defend trying to censor or edit the French Connection well just as a case in point example for this being a dangerous precedent and this could happen further on down the line with other films for whatever reason does that mean that you're going to censor or change anything in…”
Comparing 'The French Connection' and 'Shaft' to highlight potential censorship – a hypothetical scenario. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 52:30
Comparing a hypothetical censorship of 'Shaft' to 'The French Connection' to imply similar outcomes, despite different ownership. It's a 'what if' scenario presented as a direct parallel.
Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by comparing the actual alteration of 'The French Connection' (owned by Disney) to a hypothetical alteration of 'Shaft' (owned by MGM). While both films share some production similarities, their current ownership by different studios means the motivations and likelihood of censorship are not directly comparable. The 'uproar' for 'Shaft' is speculative, used to amplify the perceived injustice for 'The French Connection'.
Original quote: “you know because the the same rationale should Coulda could apply you know to both films and they share the same screenwriter so you know they were released in the same year and shot on the same location so you know if they're going to take an entire scene out of the wrench connection there is no…”
Demanding unity against 'revisionism' and Disney's stance, claiming 'no arguments' against it — Volume Game — Volume Game (20/100)
At 54:30
Calling for collective action and dismissing any opposing viewpoints as indefensible, creating an echo chamber.
Why this score: The speaker uses a 'volume game' by calling for all film fans to 'Stand United' and be 'as vocal as possible,' while simultaneously asserting that 'there's no arguments that can possibly defend their stance.' This framing attempts to shut down dissent and create an overwhelming consensus against the perceived 'revisionism.' It implies that any opposing view is inherently wrong or indefensible, rather than engaging with potential counterarguments. A more balanced framing would acknowledge that different perspectives might exist, even if the speaker strongly disagrees with them.
Original quote: “do not support any type of revisionism of films do not support Disney stents on this definitely be as vocal as possible if if you feel the need to do so about this issue and I think all film fans should Stand United on this because there's there's there's no there's there's no arguments that that…”
Declaring this moment as the "line in the sand" for Disney's "horrible" revisionism, dating back to the early 90s. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 56:30
Uses highly charged terms like 'revisionism,' 'bastardizations,' and 'horrible' to condemn Disney's actions, framing them as inherently malicious.
Why this score: The speaker employs intensely negative and judgmental language ('revisionism,' 'bastardizations,' 'horrible') to characterize Disney's actions. This framing presents Disney's alterations as unequivocally bad and intentional acts of destruction, rather than, for example, creative decisions or attempts at modernization. A more neutral framing might describe the specific changes made and their historical context, allowing the audience to decide if they are 'horrible' or not. The claim about 'early 90s' revisions is a specific historical claim that would require evidence to verify, but the…
Original quote: “and this should be the point at which Disney's revisionism stops and this needs to be the line in the sad because they've gotten away with with revisionism and alterations of films for far too long long since at least the early 90s with their own animated titles in terms of their over-intensive…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →