Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 (Special Edition Combo Pack) (1 Viewer)

[urbo73]

This type of presumption is just elitist horse crap. It's like saying you can't fully enjoy a hockey game unless you've banged out 100 slap shots prior to sitting down to watch one. Ridiculous! Many of us have seen Fantasia in the cinemas. I have. Twice. And I'm "only" 36! I too would like to see this as originally it was meant to be shown, uncensored and with the original narration. As it stands, this Bluray is "good enough". That doesn't make me or anyone who thinks so ignorant, we know what the issues are. It just means we can understand the compromise, and we enjoy the film enough to accept it with the hope that it gets done properly next time.

You and others will not accept the compromise, that's fine too, but there's no need for elitist name calling. Yeah, it's an enthusiastic forum, but it doesn't have to be a childish one.

I agree 100%. Little temper tantrums...

 

[Mike Frezon]

That's enough!

As I noted above, the discussion will now return to the issue at hand which is personal opinion about the Blu-ray release of Fantasia/Fantasia 2000.

There will be no further comments about the people making those opinions nor the validity of those who are making those opinions.

People disagree about this presentation. That's fine. That's what internet forums are for: good discussions based upon different perspective and differences of opinion. But we will NOT attack other members and their opinions.

From the HTF Rulebook:

Discussions on this forum are polite, cordial and respectful. We do not hesitate to express our opinion on matters involved, knowing other members may or may not share those opinions. We will always respect opinions of other members, even if we do not share a particular opinion ourselves. We will not verbally attack other members in a personal way, but instead try to contribute to the common knowledge about, and understanding of all applicable topics discussed.

Let's please keep that in mind from here on in.

 

[urbo73]

I do however care that those who are critical, vehemently or otherwise, can't voice their frustrations without the "it's good enough" or "well, that's YOUR opinion" contingent shouting them down.

To me it's clear where the childishness lies.

We'll agree to disagree. Let's move on as Mike says.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

that restores the painted out cigarette and the few seconds of footage of Goofy taking a puff. At least some progress is being made at Disney...

Apples to oranges. Disney knew that Walt & El Grupo was geared towards adults, so the cigarettes were left they way they were meant to be seen without any "what about the children?" political correctness. If there were any similar scenes in "Waking Sleeping Beauty, the same principle would apply. Disney views Fantasia as a "family" product, which means that Sunflower et al will continue to be digitally painted out until we can all get past the nonsense that is political correctness. The same goes for Song of the South.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by ahollis
Indications for the 1990 re-release was that they went back to the original music by Stokowski from the Irwin Kostal recording, but not the narration and used Mr. Douglas' voice once again.

The video releases in the 90s (VHS and laserdisc) had the original Deems Taylor voice tracks. I have the laserdisc version. I'm familiar with Taylor's voice from other sources, such as old radio shows he appeared on. It's definitely his voice on those video releases. When you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense to go back to the Stokowski music tracks but keep the re-dubbed voice, if for no other reason than the expense involved in the editing.

 

[Ruz-El]

 

[ahollis]

The video releases in the 90s (VHS and laserdisc) had the original Deems Taylor voice tracks. I have the laserdisc version. I'm familiar with Taylor's voice from other sources, such as old radio shows he appeared on. It's definitely his voice on those video releases. When you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense to go back to the Stokowski music tracks but keep the re-dubbed voice, if for no other reason than the expense involved in the editing.

So then every release, theatrical and home has been a different version than the previous, either sections or narration cut out, restored, music re-dubbed, narration re-dubbed, intermission card moved around, stereo removed and put back and aspect ratio changed. Walt always said he wanted this to be forever changing, but I don't think this was what he was thinking.

 

[bigshot]

Actually, Disney specifically said that he designed his films to appeal to mothers because the moms were the gatekeepers of what the whole family got to see. Probably true, but I'm glad that all studios didn't employ that technique.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Jason_V /forum/thread/306163/htf-blu-ray-review-fantasia-fantasia-2000-special-edition-combo-pack/120#post_3761866
Quote:
I hope we can all agree that Disney owns Fantasia just like Paramount owns Trek, Lucas owns Star Wars and so on.

they own the right to profit from them, but popular culture belongs to all of us. If we don't demand that corporations be better stewards of our cultural treasures, we will lose them to decay and bowdlerization.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by ahollis /forum/thread/306163/htf-blu-ray-review-fantasia-fantasia-2000-special-edition-combo-pack/120#post_3761887So as I understand it the 1982 release of Fantasia to theatres, Deems Taylor was re-dubbed by Hugh Douglas and in the 2000 DVD release Mr. Taylor was re-dubbed again my Cory Burton.  So in actuality, Mr Taylor's voice narration has not be heard since the 1969 re-release.

The VHS and laserdisc release included Deems Taylor's voice and Stoki's original soundtrack (both stereo and mono on the LD). The only problem with that release was the censored scenes. Corey Burton's voice is on the bluray. I know Corey and he is a great actor. He didn't get the opportunity to show that in this particular job.Kostal's rerecording was a wrong headed move from the very start. It was intended to smooth over the soundtrack where the cuts in Pastoral had created bad jumps in the sound. I saw it in theaters when it came out. It had a dreadful rearrangement of Toccata which didn't go with the visuals, presumably because they couldn't get Stokowski's estate to go along with the wallpapering over of his original arrangement; and the synchronization of sound and picture was terrible, particularly in Rite of Spring.Disney has a terrible recent history of alteration. I remember the last time Snow White was released to theaters. I saw it in Westwood at a very nice theater and they showed Ferdinand the Bull before the feature. But it was cropped to widescreen and the bullfighter's head was cropped off throughout the cartoon. I got up and asked for the manager to point out the error, and he told me that he had been getting complaints about it all week, but there was nothing he could do because Disney had bungled the aspect ratio ON THE PRINT!I don't think there's much hope for Disney to create an "Archive" line of unaltered films. The last time they released an animated feature that looked and sounded the way it originally was released was the first VHS and LD release of Pinocchio. Since the first release of Snow White, they've implemented an organized process of remixing, recoloring and censoring. With each release, the films get further and further from the source, and young people assume that this is the way it's always been. The only reason I can think of to think these are "good enough" is to not know what they were in the first place.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by bigshot
The VHS and laserdisc release included Deems Taylor's voice and Stoki's original soundtrack (both stereo and mono on the LD). The only problem with that release was the censored scenes. Corey Burton's voice is on the bluray. I know Corey and he is a great actor. He didn't get the opportunity to show that in this particular job.Kostal's rerecording was a wrong headed move from the very start. It was intended to smooth over the soundtrack where the cuts in Pastoral had created bad jumps in the sound. I saw it in theaters when it came out. It had a dreadful rearrangement of Toccata which didn't go with the visuals, presumably because they couldn't get Stokowski's estate to go along with the wallpapering over of his original arrangement; and the synchronization of sound and picture was terrible, particularly in Rite of Spring.Disney has a terrible recent history of alteration. I remember the last time Snow White was released to theaters. I saw it in Westwood at a very nice theater and they showed Ferdinand the Bull before the feature. But it was cropped to widescreen and the bullfighter's head was cropped off throughout the cartoon. I got up and asked for the manager to point out the error, and he told me that he had been getting complaints about it all week, but there was nothing he could do because Disney had bungled the aspect ratio ON THE PRINT!I don't think there's much hope for Disney to create an "Archive" line of unaltered films. The last time they released an animated feature that looked and sounded the way it originally was released was the first VHS and LD release of Pinocchio. Since the first release of Snow White, they've implemented an organized process of remixing, recoloring and censoring. With each release, the films get further and further from the source, and young people assume that this is the way it's always been. The only reason I can think of to think these are "good enough" is to not know what they were in the first place.

Well said. It's unfortunate these blurays get an immediate pass because of how nice and shiny they look. I want films to be presented as they are (or where), I want an archival quality release. I don't want a new "reimagining" every 5 years. Until enough people start demanding that it will never happen.

 

[bigshot]

There seems to be a different standard of quality among bluray reviewers for classic animated films as opposed to classic live action. When I read reviews of Flynn's Robin Hood or Night of the Hunter, I read comments about "well resolved grain structure" and no use of DNR. Yet the same reviewers don't mention that there isn't a bit of grain in any of the recent Disney releases, and the textures in the backgrounds have been scrubbed clean of brush strokes, textures and paper tooth along with it. In fact, the backgrounds are video freezes with no movement at all. The characters often weave slightly over dead still backgrounds.
Every time I've seen Fantasia on the big screen, it had film grain. And the movement of the film grain revealed a depth of texture in the backgrounds. Now, everything is so scrubbed, it looks like the backgrounds were painted with airbrushes instead of brushes. They did use airbrushes on Fantasia, but the smoothness was contrasted against textures from traditional watercolor painting. Now everything is as shiny and silky smooth as the pin striping on a low rider car.
Walt said that Fantasia would be constantly changing. But he didn't do that. The film was a failure at the box office and he moved on to other things. The film is now fixed in a particular place and time. Because Walt wanted to change things up, it isn't an excuse for executives and video engineers to have at it more than half a century later.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by bigshot
There seems to be a different standard of quality among bluray reviewers for classic animated films as opposed to classic live action. When I read reviews of Flynn's Robin Hood or Night of the Hunter, I read comments about "well resolved grain structure" and no use of DNR. Yet the same reviewers don't mention that there isn't a bit of grain in any of the recent Disney releases, and the textures in the backgrounds have been scrubbed clean of brush strokes, textures and paper tooth along with it. In fact, the backgrounds are video freezes with no movement at all. The characters often weave slightly over dead still backgrounds.
Every time I've seen Fantasia on the big screen, it had film grain. And the movement of the film grain revealed a depth of texture in the backgrounds. Now, everything is so scrubbed, it looks like the backgrounds were painted with airbrushes instead of brushes. They did use airbrushes on Fantasia, but the smoothness was contrasted against textures from traditional watercolor painting. Now everything is as shiny and silky smooth as the pin striping on a low rider car.
Walt said that Fantasia would be constantly changing. But he didn't do that. The film was a failure at the box office and he moved on to other things. The film is now fixed in a particular place and time. Because Walt wanted to change things up, it isn't an excuse for executives and video engineers to have at it more than half a century later.

There has been debate about this as well. Most people seem to think that presentations of Disney's animated films should look like they came directly from the original cells, rather than from a film source. In other words, no grain, because the grain gets in the way of what the true look of the film was intended to be. I don't really agree, but that is the way it has been for some time now. I always thought that they had gone too far in making the picture look "pristine" even on the DVDs. BAMBI is a good example. The aging of the film gave that particular movie a soft, pastel look that I found rather appealing given the subject matter. When it was released on DVD, it had been cleaned and processed so much that it looked like it had virtually been shot the day before. It looked just like any of Disney's recent 2D animations such as Aladdin. The whole thing looked sort of flat to me and I thought that they had overdone it on trying to remove all signs of grain or age. It looked like it had been entirely recoloured and the backgrounds appeared to have lost some of the illusion of depth. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is anyone who would agree with me that removing all signs of aging from a film might actually be a bad thing because it also removes some of the character.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
class='bbc'>BAMBI is a good example. The aging of the film gave that particular movie a soft, pastel look that I found rather appealing given the subject matter. When it was released on DVD, it had been cleaned and processed so much that it looked like it had virtually been shot the day before. It looked just like any of Disney's recent 2D animations such as Aladdin. The whole thing looked sort of flat to me and I thought that they had overdone it on trying to remove all signs of grain or age. It looked like it had been entirely recoloured and the backgrounds appeared to have lost some of the illusion of depth. Unfortunately, I doubt that there is anyone who would agree with me that removing all signs of aging from a film might actually be a bad thing because it also removes some of the character.

What? No one is advocating presenting film with age related defects like faded colors. Bambi looked the way you remembered not because the colors were faded but because that's what the colors where!

It has nothing to do with leaving age related defects and everything to do with returning something to its original state. That is where the character lies.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S /forum/thread/306163/htf-blu-ray-review-fantasia-fantasia-2000-special-edition-combo-pack/120#post_3762019

I always thought that they had gone too far in making the picture look "pristine" even on the DVDs. BAMBI is a good example. The aging of the film gave that particular movie a soft, pastel look that I found rather appealing given the subject matter.

That isn't aging. Technicolor doesn't fade. That's the color palette of the original film. Snow White originally had a very subdued palette too, but you'd never know it from the video releases. The color balances on the Disney animated features have been "corrected" to suit "modern tastes". The trailer for Alice on Fantasia looks pretty accurate, so I have high hopes for that one, but I'm probably a fool.It's a common misconception that film grain obliterates detail. The opposite is true. In motion, it REVEALS detail. If you smooth out grain, you lose detail. You can correct for this a little bit by sharpening, but that only affects edges. It does noting for small grained textures that are wiped out along with the grain smoothing. Universal's classic horror films were destroyed by grain smoothing, but the degree of smoothing on Dracula is nothing like the atomic bomb of smoothing dropped on Snow White and Fantasia.

 

[Edwin-S]

What? No one is advocating presenting film with age related defects like faded colors. Bambi looked the way you remembered not because the colors were faded but because that's what the colors where!

It has nothing to do with leaving age related defects and everything to do with returning something to its original state. That is where the character lies.

That's my point. It's entirely subjective. I feel that Bambi lost some of its character because the age related colour fading was how I had always seen the film. The "pastel" look of the film appealed to me. The restored film looks good, but I think it has lost some character that delineated it from Disney's new output. All of Disney's "new" output looks flat, especially in the background art. Disney's old classics had background art far superior to anything in their recent films, but the constant attempts to make their old films look "as good as new" has only resulted in making them look like their "new" films, which to me do not have the depth of artistry to backgrounds as the old classics.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I feel that Bambi lost some of its character because the age related colour fading was how I had always seen the film. The "pastel" look of the film appealed to me. The restored film looks good, but I think it has lost some character that delineated it from Disney's new output.

I am responding to your mistaken assumption that the color you remember in Bambi is due to age-related fading. It is not. That's what it's supposed to look like. The bambi released on DVD is not "restored". It's "re-imagined".

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by bigshot
That isn't aging. Technicolor doesn't fade. That's the color palette of the original film. Snow White originally had a very subdued palette too, but you'd never know it from the video releases. The color balances on the Disney animated features have been "corrected" to suit "modern tastes". The trailer for Alice on Fantasia looks pretty accurate, so I have high hopes for that one, but I'm probably a fool.

Whoops. I just read this. Okay, thanks for the correction. I thought that look was the result of aging. The main thing is that I preferred that subdued palette. The colour "correction" has made all of the old classics look just like any of the recent stuff that Disney put out, and that includes "Beauty and The Beast". Their new stuff is fine, but it does not have the artistic level of the old classics, especially in the backgrounds. The constant tinkering to meet "modern tastes" has resulted in these older animated films losing some of their character.

 

[bigshot]

Precisely.
If you want a vivid example of the degree of manipulation check out how many different sets of colors the orange fairy sports in the bluray of Sleeping Beauty.... And none of them are orange!

 

[Edwin-S]

I am responding to your mistaken assumption that the color you remember is Babmbi is due to age-related fading. It is not. That's what it's supposed to look like. The bambi released on DVD is not "restored". It's "re-imagined".

Okay. Thanks to you as well for the correction. I always thought that look was age related, not as a result of Disney tampering with the colour balance. In any case, I wish Disney would release these old films with the orginal palettes.