Full Details: Disney's "Aladdin"! (1 Viewer)

[Tim_P_76]

Well compared to the the previous Platinum editions I'd care wouldn't you?

The film's integretiy is still there. Also thats why they include the theatrical versions. Anything creepy about that? And not noticing a mistake or a change makes me wrong or different?? Considering these changes are in the background and not that noticeable?

Completing films to acheive perfection in one's eye have nothing to do with rewriting the past. I think thats a stretch. This edition seems to be about bringing the best possible looking picture to you, the DVD owner

 

[Johnny Angell]

Since Imax versions of the film has been mentioned several times, I hope this isn't too off topic. Did Disney try to drive too hard a bargain with the Imax theaters?

I ask, because the Imax in Little Rock has never shown a Disney Imax film. I've always assumed the Disney priced it so only the biggest markets could afford it. It would certainly fit in with their corporate culture of greed.

 

[Ernest Rister]

My personal opinion is that - like Spielberg's unease with the first release version of Close Encounters - if the original creative team feels like correcting details of a film they are unhappy with, it is absolutely their right to do so, if they so wish. There are clear instances in the release version of Aladdin where characters go off-model, or are just flat-out poorly drawn. If Muskers and Clemens and Disney wanted to fix some of these issues, that's their right. If Coppola wants to make a chronological version of the Godfather films re-incorporating some deleted scenes, that is his right. If James Cameron wants to release a long-form version of The Abyss, that is his right. If Peter Jackson wants to go back and fix Fellowship of the Ring so that Gollum is on-model with The Two Towers and Return of the King (as he has stated he wants to do for some future release version), that is his right. If George Lucas wants to futz around with Star Wars until he's 80 years old, that's his right. It's my right not to LIKE what these people have changed, but I have no right to tell these artists what they can or can't do with their own films.

This is a bit different than Ted Turner colorizing Orson Welles' Citizen Kane just because Turner bought the rights to a film library that includes Kane. I think - in most cases - it is an abomination to alter an artist's work without his or her express permission.

But even here, some exceptions exist. I, for one, stand behind Roy Disney's version of the road-show presentation of Fantasia on DVD, because Walt Disney had a specific history of removing ethnic stereotypes from his films, and were he alive today, knowing the cultural landscape of modern America, there is *no way* he would release Fantasia with the African-American stereotypes seen in "The Pastorale". It just wouldn't happen. I trust Roy Disney's decision in this regard, and I think he made the right call (though Walt probably would have had those few shots re-animated with new non-offensive figures, as he did with his alterations to 1933's "Three Little Pigs").

The entire "Zip A Dee Doo Dah" number and the "Brer Rabbit Runs Away" sequence from Song of the South is found on the new Alice in Wonderland DVD. It originally aired in black and white. On the DVD, it is seen in color, with the rationale being that Walt Disney probably would have wanted it to be seen that way today (that was the explanation Disney Home Video gave on the Alice laserdisc, anyway). I haven't heard anyone make a peep about that. It's not the way it originally aired, it is an alteration of the original black-and-white TV show. Where is the outcry about altering history? There is none, because it is common sense (and because people are damned happy to have at least 1/3rd of the animated sequences from Song of the South on DVD in any form).

On the other hand, the censorship of Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music and Melody Time was made *without* the consent of either Roy Disney nor the surviving animators. It was made without taking Walt Disney's wishes into account. It was a marketing decision, and the alterations were made so that the films could be shown in today's day cares and public schools. That, in my opinion, is morally wrong. Walt said throughout his lifetime that he didn't make films for children, and censoring them for pre-schoolers would have insulted him.

I also think it is wrong to make sequels to the works of deceased artists, unless the artist intended to make sequels to them.

In the case of modern films, until I hear that Ron and John or Eric or Andreas or Glen and the rest of the gang had their work altered without their consent, I can't really get up on my soapbox yet. And didn't Disney put the original versions of Beauty and the Beast and Lion King on their respective DVDs? If so, why does anyone think they won't do so with Aladdin?

I adore animation, and I agree with Edwin that too many people - especially the Artist's Rights Foundation - don't take the art form seriously because they assume the medium is a medium for children (where was the ARF when Disney Home Video censored Saludos Amigos, Make Mine Music, and Melody Time?). Even modern Disney seems to think their films are children's films, hence the contemptible level of child-pandering seen in their wretched direct-to-video sequels. But I can't claim I have the right to stop the original artists from making different release versions of their own work, if they agree to it. I'm sorry, I just can't. I'd love to join the crusade, and if I had my preference, the original release version would always be made available for films that receive substantial alteration. Failure to do so suggests that the film was unfinished when it was released, which raises problematic ethical questions all their own.

But I can't tell Kirk and Gary and Don that they can't spiff up Beauty and the Beast if they so choose. I can't tell Ron and John that they can't spiff up Aladdin to fix some animation flaws if they so desire. It's just not my right. The only right I have is to not like it, and play the original version, which hopefully will also be included on the DVD.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Ernest, well said, and I couldn't agree anymore with what you said, in fact for me to say anything else in this post regarding what you just said wouldn't be adding to it, it would be redundant.

I want to find out how the original animation team feels about these changes, whether or not I will before this is released is a different story, but if they're behind it I really don't have a problem.

 

[ChrisRose]

But I don't think Disney did put the original versions of Beauty & The Beast and Lion King on their DVDs. Weren't there a lot of complaints about the false advertising of the "original theatrical version" being included?

I think the only difference between the 2 versions is that the "Special Edition" has the new song/scene inserted, and the "Original" version doesn't. If I'm not mistaken, all the "enhancements" made for IMAX, exist on both versions.

I have very little faith that the original version of Aladdin will be on that DVD.

It makes me furious.

 

[James Reader]

I'm fed up with this talk about creator's rights to alter films. Newsflash! No director will ever be 100% happy with their film. It may be little things - the lighting isn't quite right. A performance is wrong here and there. The weather on a location shoot was wrong. An effect doesn't quite work. It's hard for a creative mind to be 100% happy with their creation. It's how creative minds work. Does this mean any film can come out in an altered form, just because the director wishes it?

As an extreme example, we all know David Fincher wanted Nicole Kidman for Panic Room but circumstances conspired against him. Does this mean it would be OK for him to film and digitally paste Nicole into a future release - just to make it "closer to his original vision"? That's obviously ridiculous, but where do you draw the line?

To be more on-topic (and realistic) Disney's Beauty and the Beast was originally to have opened with an animated prologue. Does this mean in a few years time you'll all be happy to pick up the "Super Special" Edition with a newly animated opening and Human Again sequence? After all, it would be closer to the creator's original vision. And I'm sure there's lots of other sequences they would have liked to include as well. How about a "Extra Super Special" Edition in 2015?

I've got it! Disney doesn't have to make any new films from this point onwards. They can just keep re-releasing their films from the 1990's onwards with slight changes. After all, the changes will be approved by the original creators. Why bother getting people to create something NEW?

It's nonsense to spend time, money and effort altering films that have already been "finished" and released. Do you really think Human Again was added to please the creators or to attempt to get more people to pay to see the IMAX version?

Any filmmaker should do the best that they can with the resources they have when making a film. And they should learn from the process and use that new knowledge to make better films in the future. It's how talent progresses. It's how great directors are made. Look at Sam Rami. He learnt a lot making his earlier films, and (from what I can see) still uses a lot of the mechanical and artistic techniques in his modern films. But I've never heard him moaning about his Evil Dead films and expressing an interest in "fixing" them, despite often expressing disatisfaction with certain aspects.

I don't really see any benefit from altering past films. It's almost like an admission that the new films aren't as good and the creators are living in the past (and want to view the past through rose tinted glasses).

But what is most unforgettable is when the original films are no longer available to purchase. There's no point preserving films if nobody can see them!

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

People continue to make the unprecedented assumptions that these animators and directors were offered consultation and even some sort of creative input into this venture, validating some means of artistic justification for what has been done. That is simply not the case! Half of the artists and employees who were initially involved and responsible for the production of the Aladdin feature were either laid off, or no longer work for the Disney company! John Musker & Ron Clements were esentially fired; Dave Pruiksma, Mark Henn & Eric Goldberg all recently broke away and have since contracted with various other studios in pursuit of a more promising career in animation that Disney was no longer able to offer under Michael Eisner's reign. I'm not sure about Ken Duncan or Hofstedt but it would seem that out of the original hired talent, only Glen Keane and Andreas Deja seem to still be in connection with Disney animation. These are not perfectionists augmenting their dexterity and craft! To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they called in the crew of Disney's Recess on their off-day to lend a hand with these "restoration enhancements". It's desecrating, disrespectful and unnecessary!

 

[Tim_P_76]

Better check them again. What else are they?

 

[Christian Preischl]

The original "threatrical cuts", but with the newly "enhanced" animation.

Chris

 

[Tim_P_76]

I think it would be great to see screen captures in order to prove the point. I'm curious.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"But I don't think Disney did put the original versions of Beauty & The Beast and Lion King on their DVDs. Weren't there a lot of complaints about the false advertising of the 'original theatrical version' being included?"

You know, I think I've seen the original cut of Beauty and the Beast nigh on to twenty times, if not more, in my lifetime. Watching the DVD version, the "enhancements" to backgrounds and facial details and such are so subtle in some cases, you'd have to be running an A - B split screen comparison almost frame by frame to find these things.

"I think the only difference between the 2 versions is that the 'Special Edition' has the new song/scene inserted, and the 'Original version' doesn't. If I'm not mistaken, all the 'enhancements' made for IMAX, exist on both versions."

I haven't watched all of the "original cut" of the Lion King on DVD, but the original version begins with the dedication to Frank Rich seen in original release, while the new version begins with the Walt Disney logo created for Dinosaur, seen in the IMAX release.

I will say this, as regards Beauty and the Beast - what is the point of placing three versions of a film on one DVD, if one of the versions is merely missing a newly-created musical number? Seems like seamless branching would take care of that problem quite easily. But I framed my question as a question..."didn't they put the original versions of the films on DVD?" because I haven't watched them in their entirety.

"I have very little faith that the original version of Aladdin will be on that DVD. It makes me furious."

Well, stop and count to ten. Don't create a boogeyman to rage at, wait until you know for a certainty an offense has been made.

 

[Paul_Stachniak]

While I really hate that they're altering the film, which is what they're doing. This is the only animated Di$ney film I like, so I'll get the DVD.

That being said, I'm getting the LD off Ebay.

 

[MarcoBiscotti]

The original theatrical versions of both The Lion King and BATB are not presented on either Platinum DVD's, that is not questionable - they are not available in DVD format!!!

There are various alterations and changes in style as well as additional and even omitted animations, the color schemes are totally off, these are NOT the original cuts of the film!!!

This is the most obvious and widely discussed issue, but just look how Disney has altered the following ENTIRE sequence in TLK. The color issue is also very apparent in the following screen captions:


Original Theatrical:



Platinum Edition:

 

[Beast]

Indeed. And I'm glad they fixed the crocs/birds. Since the original versions don't fit the more cartoonish animation and coloring of the 'Just can't wait to be King' musical number.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I'm fed up with this talk about creator's rights to alter films. Newsflash! No director will ever be 100% happy with their film."

We agree on that, there is no such thing as a perfect film, except, of course, for Chuck Jones' One Froggy Evening.

"It may be little things - the lighting isn't quite right. A performance is wrong here and there. The weather on a location shoot was wrong. An effect doesn't quite work. It's hard for a creative mind to be 100% happy with their creation. It's how creative minds work. Does this mean any film can come out in an altered form, just because the director wishes it?"

Yes. It's the artist's work. It is his right. It's not our right to tell Peter Jackson he can't put Gollum on-model in a future release of Fellowship of the Ring, for one recent instance where a director has said he wants to make a change to an acclaimed film.

"As an extreme example, we all know David Fincher wanted Nicole Kidman for Panic Room but circumstances conspired against him. Does this mean it would be OK for him to film and digitally paste Nicole into a future release - just to make it 'closer to his original vision'?"

Well, let's try to stick with reality. It's impossible to soundly debate extreme fantastical scenarios.

"That's obviously ridiculous, but where do you draw the line?"

We don't. We draw our line based on what we purchase. The artists draw the line based on what they wish to do with their own work. We don't have the right to tell an artist what he can and can't do with his films.

"To be more on-topic (and realistic) Disney's Beauty and the Beast was originally to have opened with an animated prologue."

Yes, until the creative team realized how strong it was to open the story in panels.

"Does this mean in a few years time you'll all be happy to pick up the 'Super Special' Edition with a newly animated opening and Human Again sequence?"

It wouldn't happen, because the creative team feels the panels were much stronger...actually, they're a throw-back to the device of a storybook opening to a prologue, seen in many of Walt Disney's own films, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty.

"After all, it would be closer to the creator's original vision."

Yes, but the vision changed during production to something they felt was stronger. Spileberg's original casting idea for Quint in Jaws was Sterling Hayden, before he eventually cast Robert Shaw, who was brilliant in the role. "Original vision" never equals "original version" in any collaborative art form.

"I've got it! Disney doesn't have to make any new films from this point onwards. They can just keep re-releasing their films from the 1990's onwards with slight changes. After all, the changes will be approved by the original creators."

Ah, now you're just being silly.

"It's nonsense to spend time, money and effort altering films that have already been "finished" and released. Do you really think Human Again was added to please the creators or to attempt to get more people to pay to see the IMAX version?"

Well, first of all, if it was an attempt to get more people to pay to see the IMAX version, it was a failure, because neither Beauty and the Beast nor The Lion King performed especially well in IMAX - certainly nothing like Fantasia/2000, which grossed $40 million on IMAX screens.

But allow me to turn the question around -- don't you think Disney could have just simply dumped Lion King onto DVD *without* paying the money to go back and fix clean-up errors and rushed animation, etc.? Sure they could.

You know, Pocahontas is supposed to be coming out on DVD, with the song "If I Never Knew You" restored into the film. As Disney buffs know, that sequence was cut late in the game because of a bad test screening where kids became antsy during the number. I think Eric Goldberg jokingly referred to it as the "squirm factor". So the song was cut - and yet this moment was the moment in the film where Pocahontas and John Smith essentially devoted their spirits to the other, each thanking the other for making their lives complete. Without this expression of love, there is a hole missing in the emotional evolution of the movie. Now, for the DVD, Disney is putting back *in* what should have never been taken *out*.

But it won't be the original version.

Are we all saying that if a craftsman creates something that he feels broken or defective or flawed, he doesn't have the right to fix that entity? Pocahontas *should* be fixed to make that film complete. Should the film be forced to stay in the compromised form it is now?

"Any filmmaker should do the best that they can with the resources they have when making a film. And they should learn from the process and use that new knowledge to make better films in the future."

Ever go to the theater? Ever see the same play performed more than once? It's never exactly the same, is it? Actors feed off the energy of the moment, how their other actors are responding to them. Should this be outlawed? Should the actors be told, "No, you must perform this in exactly the same way with the exact same vocal energy as you did on opening night"? Are filmmakers supposed to be banned from ever making changes to their own films?

Better call Peter Jackson before he spends any more money on the extended edition of Return of the King.

"It's how talent progresses. It's how great directors are made."

No, it's reality. Certain films are given a certain budget and a certain deadline. Filmmakers do what they can within those parameters of the moment. They make do with the resources available to them. Denying them the right to fix blatant flaws in their own films if they so choose to do so is presumtpious in the extreme. Why do we have the right to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their own work? They do that in Cuba and China...not in the U.S and the U.K. (well, not to the same extent, anyway).

"Look at Sam Rami. He learnt a lot making his earlier films, and (from what I can see) still uses a lot of the mechanical and artistic techniques in his modern films. But I've never heard him moaning about his Evil Dead films and expressing an interest in 'fixing' them, despite often expressing disatisfaction with certain aspects."

That's his right. Should all artists be constrained to the contentment of Sam Raimi? Besides, the raw low-budget production values of the Evil Dead films are part of their charm.

"I don't really see any benefit from altering past films."

Pocahontas. The Abyss. Spartacus. Legend. Blade Runner. The Lord of the Rings. Should these films be forced to return to their original theatrical versions only? Despite the wishes of their creators? Are there no exceptions to your rule? Do you have the right to tell Ridley Scott and Peter Jackson what they can and can't do with their own movies?

 

[Roy Batty]

It is not a matter of whether the new version is "better" or "worse" than the original. I would go as far as saying that, in this case, I like the new, altered crocs scene more than the first incarnation, but that's not the point.

The point is that it is NOT the original. Period. And I want the original, I want to have it as it was released, I want to know how it came to the public and why, I want to preserve the version that dropped as a bomb at the box office or that won accolades. If you can't understand the importance of this, I am afraid I will never be able to explain it to you, so this whole debate is kind of useless, really, since Disney is not listening either.

But at least let us vent our frustration.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"People continue to make the unprecedented assumptions that these animators and directors were offered consultation and even some sort of creative input into this venture, validating some means of artistic justification for what has been done. That is simply not the case!"

You know that for a fact? I didn't hear Kirk and Gary and Don complaining about Human Again on the "Beauty and the Beast" DVD commentary track. I saw scores of new interviews with the original artists and the original composer talking about the sequence with enthusiasm on Disc Two.

"Half of the artists and employees who were initially involved and responsible for the production of the Aladdin feature were either laid off, or no longer work for the Disney company!"

Did Ridley Scott ask his entire crew if it was okay if he created a new cut of Legend or Blade Runner? Did James Cameron get Ed Harris and Alex Funke's permission to make the longer cut of The Abyss?

"John Musker & Ron Clements were esentially fired"

Their contract was not extended. Did that occur *before* or *after* the new work on Aladdin was completed? Answer: After.

"Dave Pruiksma, Mark Henn & Eric Goldberg all recently broke away and have since contracted with various other studios in pursuit of a more promising career in animation that Disney was no longer able to offer under Michael Eisner's reign."

Yup. I chat with Mr. Pruiksma every now and again via e-mail. Did Eric Goldberg not want his original sequence from Pocahontas completed and restored into his movie? Did John and Ron *not* want to fix some animation flaws?

"These are not perfectionists augmenting their dexterity and craft! To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they called in the crew of Disney's Recess on their off-day to lend a hand with these "restoration enhancements". It's desecrating, disrespectful and unnecessary!"

In your opinion. Until I hear from John and Ron that they didn't want to fix some off-model animation and fix some rushed and substandard work, then I can't tell them what they can and can't do with their own films.

 

[Mark Palermo]

ALADDIN is my favourite of the post-LITTLE MERMAID Disney movies. But I'm hesitent to buy this at all now, as I hate artistic revisionism. That LION KING example displays a pathetic desecration of the original artwork.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"The point is that it is NOT the original. Period. And I want the original, I want to have it as it was released, I want to know how it came to the public and why, I want to preserve the version that dropped as a bomb at the box office or that won accolades. If you can't understand the importance of this, I am afraid I will never be able to explain it to you, so this whole debate is kind of useless, really, since Disney is not listening either."

I value artistic integrity, but I also value the right of film artists to make changes to their own work. Neither you nor I have the right to tell an artist what he or she can do with their own films. Can you understand the importance of that?

"But at least let us vent our frustration."

No one's stopping you. Vent away.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Yeah, they "fixed" the crocs by taking highly stylized renditions that evoke African folk art, and turning them into generic cartoony animals similar to those that could be seen in a zillion generic kids movies/shorts.

I about spit milk out of my nose when I read about them being "fixed".