Don't buy the Fantasia DVD unless you want to waste money. (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

Continuing this just a bit regarding marketing, etc.
What do you think editors say to writers, not only after the book is brought in, but sometimes before the writer even begins? They suggest ideas, strongly sometimes, hint at characters, settings, titles, etc.
And record producers?
Yes, there is NO ART untouched by other factors around it during creation. I mean, come on, the SISTINE CHAPEL for chrissake. It wasn't like Mikey just said "F**k it, I'll start painting here for a goof".
He was PAID TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED. But we have no problems defending the restoration and preservation of that art, AS IS. I'm sorry but that is 100% the same thing. Instead of selling his painting to the church, Walt sold Fantasia to the masses.
Talk about money, you mean NO ONE is willing to pay to have a piece of that painting torn out and brought to their home. Or what about those statues that were blown up in the middle east about a month ago? Would America SELL the Statue of Liberty and let it be altered to the new owners tastes? Would you want to defend such an action?
Boy, where is Mike Knapp when we need him?

 

[Patrick McCart]

I'd like to mention that the DVD divsion indended for the general public to have no idea on what these movies looked like before home video release.
Unfortuently for them, most people actually function using a brain cell or two.

They cut a 10 minute segment out of Make Mine Music (Martin's and the Coys) and expected no one to notice that it was gone! This is a sign that they believe that even people who saw the movie in the theater are so stupid that they wouldn't notice a segment being gone from a 54 year old movie!
Make Mine Music may not be that famous of a film, but don't you think people would notice if Ben-Hur was put on video minus the chariot race?
I find it deeply ironic that Disney has released all the "animation set to music" films in censored forms.
But there's one thing that makes me wonder...
Disney gave the Library of Congress the edited version of Fantasia on laserdisc (no film prints...gee, I wonder why).
Couldn't the pastoral symphony be bootlegged since the original version hasn't been used since 1968?

Let's be glad that Disney didn't buy the Warner Bros. cartoons instead of Turner in the 80's. They'd make short work of a lot of cartoons (Edit all the non-violent scenes from the Roadrunner cartoons into 1 5 minute cartoon)

------------------
-P.J. McCart

http://cztoondb.tripod.com

 

[James D S]

quote: We shouldn't cut Disney slack because Fantasia is not Catcher in the Rye, because it is. [/quote]
I would take exception to that. I think Salinger would take exception to that.
Simply stated, despite an editor's recommendations, books are FAR closer to the mythical 'artistic integrity' line than films will ever be. I could see fighting for the rights of art if film were even close. But the fact is, they are not. Sure books are to make money as well. No denying that. But we defend them, as we would a painting, because they DO embody artistic integrity free (mostly) from corporate hands. That, I think, makes all the difference. Mr. Salinger was not approached by the owner's of Doubleday, with the idea of a story involving one Holden Caulfield (sp), signing Salinger to produce a book accordingly. The distinction is clear, I think. And, so we are more passionate as a nation about books, or paintings, or whatever. (I know that there are other distinctions, and this is simplistic, but the point, as if it needs any addressing, is all I care about)
quote: The money Disney makes comes from US, WE are supporting it, not some mysterious THEM that go unnamed.[/quote]
I agree. We should speak with the ONLY voice we have in the matter, our wallets. If that is what our primary concern is when watching a movie, that it tell life in an honest view, then not supporting it with our money is the only recourse we have.
We, as consumers, are in complete control on whether or not we elevate this medium, which over time has become little more than a two-hour Pepsi/Reebok ad, into something of more substance. Like your Rapheal, that by the way, I will take off your hands if you do choose to sell it.

Would you want to defend such an action?

I am defending a system, that till now, has given me MANY hours of entertainment. Without that return on their investment, or the prospect of making more money, it would all come crashing down.
We have a lot of treasures in our hobby, but a syrup bottle collector can say the same thing.

 

[GaryEA]

This discussion is incredibly one-sided in the fact that film, as a medium and as an art form, has been comfortably reduced to the role of "product". Has anybody that has participated in this discussion ever made a film? Written a screenplay? If so, did you set out to create a product, or tell a story? Did you engineer your time to make money, or to inspire?
There is no myth to artistic integrity; it exists. Just ask any film student trying to finish his or her thesis. Ask any of the grips, craftsmen or talent that work to complete a film. They will tell you it is an art.
The "catch-22" with film is that it has been married to money since it's inception, to the point where the money dictated the art more than the reverse, even though the intent was to progress photography to a new level both technically and artistically. Most people do not regard film as art, and I find it sad. I went to film school and I didn't strive to just get your eight dollars or whatever a ticket costs on any given day. I studied and wrote draft after draft and shot a heck of a lot of film, just to get started, so that someday, I could inspire a smile, a laugh, a tear, a thought, an opinion.
I think I know why people do not regard film seriously. It's either one of two things. They've never been involved in the production of a film so they're opinion is not as educated. Educated in the sense that do not know the levels of commitment, creativity and passion that goes into making a film. Or it might be that to them, film is only there to serve them as entertainment. Those opinions are fine with me, but please don't disregard the artistic nature that goes into making a film.
As for the editing of a film due to sociological and humane concerns, such as racial issues. To me, the issue is clear; Release the film intact, educate the audience. Editing a film does nothing but create revisionist history, and that can lead to ignorance. If there has to be an edit (when the money dictates), provide the original in some capacity, but still educate the audience.
I'm sorry for the long post, but I'm just tired of film being treated as product (something I know will never cease). It's not. From just my sliver of experience, I can tell you that it's more than just entertainment, it's about trying to inspire.
That is art.
-g
------------------
"My life has a superb cast, but I can't figure out the plot..."
-- Ashleigh Brilliant

 

[James D S]

And then there's the pardoxical problem of films like Pearl Harbor. Which version will we decide is the one that has most of this 'artistic vision' intact. Since there are going to be several different versions of the final film distributed around the world, which one will we fight to save. Will we consider our collection incomplete if we do not have all available versions? Are all versions equally representative of the artist's initial vision?

 

[Dwayne]

The film-maker can only answer that question.
-Dwayne

 

[Kevin M]

George Kaplan,
My advice is for you to look up the historical significance of the racial slur "Jim Crow" and then re-watch the sequence in Dumbo.
It has been speculated (and I happen to agree with this speculation) for more than a few decades that it wasn't just a simple coincidence that the film had clearly stereotypical black characters in it who also happen to be "Crow's". Do the homework and then you can decide for yourself. In my mind it's obvious, but others might disagree.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Ho-sanna-hey-sanna-sanna-sanna-ho-sanna-hey-sanna-ho...sanna!!"
....what the hell does that mean anyway?

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

As much as the humanitarian in me hates to say this, I don't think Disney should have zoomed these shots from the movie either. Once you start editing art for its content because it's "offensive" you open the doors to all kinds of other alterations. As film goers, is that what we really want? Of course not.
However, Seth, I think your comments on Huckleberry Finn are a little off. Sure that book does refer to blacks in some pretty negative ways, but ultimately, the book is very anti-slavery, anti-racist. The negative aspects of that book need to be included for that message to really come across. However, the scenes we're discussing from Fantasia have no such purpose. Does that make it all right to do what Disney did? No, but as I said before, I think your analogy is a little flawed in this case.
------------------
-J.Fo

 

[BarryR]

I'm sure when ol' Walt ran the studio, NOBODY could imagine having final say other than him alone.

 

[Seth Paxton]

(edit, Jeff, I keyed in on your Huck Finn stuff and didn't notice the "Disney shouldn't edit" comment so some of my comments are debating with you when you have no debate on that point with me call it a whoops and leave it as I originally wrote it

:end edit)
No, Jeff, that's actually even closer to my point.
You are now doing exactly what I'm talking about, subjectively judging what things get changed and what don't.
If you guys don't want ME in charge of deciding what gets left in or out when I revise films, then you don't support revision.
If you don't want ME chopping out the offensive parts of Huck Finn, then you really don't support Disney editing Fantasia eiher.
You can't just pick and choose which things stay and go. THAT is the slippery slope aspect of this. For presentation in a public place, YES you can enforce some social standard to appease everyone, but for private use/rental/sale you shouldn't be able to. Unedited versions should be made available to the public, but not forced upon them (thus TV edits, "no public nudity" laws, etc)
The mistake people make with this subject is saying "If I don't like it, then it's ok for it to go, but if I want it left in then it should be untouched." You must understand that this is NOT a valid defense for altering art because you are contraditing yourself by sometimes supporting it, sometimes not.
The point is not WHICH content should go, but should ANY content go. To defend the removal of art content I suggest you pick an edit that you wouldn't support, and then tell me why you would still think it's ok to do.
So Jeff, if I was going to edit the dialog of Jim in Huck Finn because it was offensive to some people, would you support THAT? You can't say that some people's feelings are more important than others by saying that it's ok to be offended by Fantasia but not by Huck Finn.
For me, whenever I think of rules, laws, moral concepts that are based on what is "good" I try to imagine how that would work if the person with the most opposite opinion of me were in charge of deciding what was "good". Tends to make me back off rules that are so subjective.

 

[Seth Paxton]

quote:I would take exception to that. I think Salinger would take exception to that.

Are you kidding, James? I honestly doubt he would. I think many artists are heavily influenced by the other arts. Do you really think Salinger didn't think music, film, or painting were arts on the same scale of literature?
Also, Salinger was 23 when Fantasia came out and in WW2 at the time I believe. Rye came out 9 years later.
From the web site www.morrill.org/books/salbio.shtml

quote:What does Salinger do for entertainment?
He watches old movies and it might depress you to know that Salinger has always been an avid TV watcher. Gilligan's Island, Leave it to Beaver, The Andy Griffith Show, Peyton Place, Dynasty. He watches TV while eating dinner off of a tray. There's a satellite dish on his house.

quote:What's his favorite movie?
39 Steps, without a doubt.

So maybe, just maybe, the film arts have affected his art, and he possibly respects Fantasia a great deal. He certainly seems to have respect for at least some film art.
And do you really think that Fantasia is not considered high art in the area of film, or that no artists have seen it and then been influenced having seen it.
I'm not sure why it's ok to be influenced by Rye, but Fantasia is just a little side goof. That is offensive as if I said Fantasia is a masterpiece and Rye is just some pulp fiction novel meant to make Salinger a ton of dough and make him famous.
Or did Salinger keep Rye hidden from everyone till it was STOLEN and published against his will for sale to the public. No. He was picky and strange about the publication, but they weren't beating down his door to force him to publish it either.
Come on. It's starting to sound to me like you guys simply don't respect the film arts which gives you the comfort to walk all over them.

 

[Jon Strong]

Magnolia is a film with artistic integrity. Final Cut. etc.

 

[Damin J Toell]

quote:If WALT was alive and making the changes....

afaik, Walk expressed a desire to make those changes before his death.
DJ

 

[James D S]

Seth,
I'm not sure I made the point clear enough. I was simply saying that I think in terms of a single artistic vision, Rye is leaps and bounds above Fantasia in that Salinger was the ONLY force decding what went into the final book. I don't think he would compare the level of control, and motivation for profit, with ANY Disney production. His book exists on a more 'pure' level form of art.
(On a related side note. Is there a movie version of Catcher in the Rye? No. Salinger will not permit it. He feels that a movie COULD NOT do justice to his book. There is an inherent inferiority towards movies in that opinion. (BTW Salinger HATES movies with a passion.) Further, Holden's character in the book also feels that anything phony is disgusting. As for movies, as one would expect, he considers them phony. So I stand by my original statement on that point too. Thanks for bringing it up. )
If Fantasia were an indie film, made outside Hollywood by people who made no compromises in the first place, I'd be right along with you. However, Fantasia was made for the sole reason to be consumed by the masses, Disney is just ensuring in viability. Viability that was ORIGINALLY intended. If the movie was made with the purpose to make money, then changes made to ensure its marketability are in keeping with that initial vision.

 

[Mike Knapp]

By removing this content the Disney Corporation has denied us the ability to teach others, by example, the wrongness of this concept.
During this time period blacks were almost always drawn this way (by white artists). By admitting and displaying your mistakes you have elevated yourself above the pedestrian concerns of political correctness to the position of educator.
By hiding your mistakes and deleting them under the guise of "not wishing to offend" you have become a common "slick salesman" trying to sell your wares by not revealing all the flaws in it.
Disney blew it. Ebert is correct about children not being able to discern the difference but he missed the boat by not saying that an opportunity has been lost for parents to use this terrible imagery to school their children on the transgressions of our ancestors and the sickness of racism.
It is my understanding that the Cartoon Network chose not to air some cartoons, this is completely different than editing the cartoons to cover prior sins.
Mike

 

[Robert Crawford]

quote:By hiding your mistakes and deleting them under the guise of "not wishing to offend" you have become a common "slick salesman" trying to sell your wares by not revealing all the flaws in it.

Mike,
What gave you an impression that Disney or any other studio was anything more than seller of goods which happens to be films and merchandise? Living as close to Orlando as you do, this revelation should not have surprised you! Most of these studios are run by bean counters who care little about their film heritage but more so about the bottom line.
Crawdaddy

 

[Mike Knapp]

Yes, No revelation....but it is sad that (insert studio of choice here) have missed an opportunity. They have influence, it is a shame it is not used for a positive cause more often.
In fact, almost all cartoons now have positive teaching messages. Showing a blemish or two from the past would also be a positive move.
Mike

 

[george kaplan]

quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But no, I don't really *know* what you meant by the Jim Crow reference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you should pick up a history book instead of trying to learn history through the movies. I'm not picking on you, just the silly notion that we can watch movies for specific historical knowledge.

OK, first of all let me clarify. I know what Jim Crow means, but I don't see it in the dumbo characters, and I wasn't catching the 'crow' in both.
Please do not insult me (I'm talking to James, not Kevin) by saying that I get my history from movies not books. I have a Ph.D (not in history, but the point is I'm quite well eductated) and while I'm no history expert, I know quite a bit, and I don't learn it from movies.
Just because a cartoon character is drawn black doesn't make it a reference to African-Americans anymore than having a blue character makes it a reference to smurfs. Kevin and I may have a legitimate difference of opinion about the nature of those characters, but let's keep the discussion on a higher plane than accusing one another of believing in the historical accuracy of movies.
------------------
"That audience - 12 to 19 year old pimply faced, mean spirited males - came, watched and went on to whatever god-awful other pursuits" USA Network CEO describing professional wrestling fans

 

[george kaplan]

quote:George Kaplan,
My advice is for you to look up the historical significance of the racial slur "Jim Crow" and then re-watch the sequence in Dumbo.
It has been speculated (and I happen to agree with this speculation) for more than a few decades that it wasn't just a simple coincidence that the film had clearly stereotypical black characters in it who also happen to be "Crow's". Do the homework and then you can decide for yourself. In my mind it's obvious, but others might disagree.

Jim Crow, as we all know from reading our history books , refers most commonly to the segregationist laws and customs in the South up to the 1960s. It also refers (less commonly in my opinion) to a black cariacture from the early 1800s that got picked up in minstrel shows and is reflected in things such as pickaninnys and white-face.
Now, if this were a discussion of Fantasia (pickaninny) or Holiday Inn (white-face) then I'd see the relevance to Jim Crow. But in Dumbo the crows never show any reference to Jim Crow laws that I can see, nor do they appear to have any of the stereotypical images from minstrel shows that I can see (they're not in white face for instance). They appear (to me) to be cool, jive-talking types. I personally don't see any Jim Crow reference there, with the exception that they are indeed crows. But perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
------------------
"That audience - 12 to 19 year old pimply faced, mean spirited males - came, watched and went on to whatever god-awful other pursuits" USA Network CEO describing professional wrestling fans

 

[Rain]

I've thought better of it and have decided to avoid political discussion in this forum, so I've removed my post.
------------------
Rain