A Few Words About A few words about...™ Fantasia -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Scott Calvert]

The censoring is indeed a judgment call and although I am normally a hard line purist I really can't fault them for that. I can see both points of view but some of those images have the potential to be really hurtful for certain audiences and really have no place in a commercial release intended for a general audience, IMO. Maybe in some super expensive collector's set aimed at the academic crowd but not something people are buying at walmart as Christmas presents for their kids.


The digital image manipulation and audio editing is way beyond the pale though. I'd like to own all of Disney's pre-1960 animated output but as of now I have 0. I saw how they treated them on DVD and I'm not about to buy the same manipulated stuff again. These things are essentially frame by frame remakes completely re-color corrected. They look like anything else made today and digitally composited and painted. They retain none of the character of a good IB tech print. Yes I know those prints are grainy but they are what they are. Shame, but there it is. Nothing else I can do except post my displeasure on a message board.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben

Speaking as a moderator who (a) is not involved in any threads in the Testing area, (b) has written Blu-ray reviews highly critical of older releases that have been poorly handled, and (c) has actively debated people making these kinds of "derogatory remarks", I submit to you that almost any type of "bias" can be found if one reads selectively.

(BTW, I have not seen the Fantasia disc and can offer no opinion on it. But this type of argument is not limited to Fantasia.)

C'mon Michael. You know there is a problem when someone who posts a negative opinion about a release is constantly followed around and sniped at by the same people, and even receive PMs that if they post again they'll have their mod buddy ban them. Lets not be disengenuous here. This isn't about selective reading.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert


It's funny how the mods never weigh in after one of their nasty swipes but as soon as I speak up about it they step in and then all of a sudden I'm the one who derailed the thread. There's a thread going on in the testing area where the usual gang is posting derogatory remarks about the "whiners" and the "nitpickers". There's a Mod who has posted several times in the thread so he is obviously chums with them.
I have PMd a Mod about my concerns but of course have not received a response. The one-sidedness is so obvious it's driving me up the wall. At least do a better job of hiding the bias, fellas. I've been a member here for 12 years now and it was the same crap back then with crap nonanamorphic dvd transfers and the same damn people calling us whiners and nitpickers.

Scott:


I've made two posts in this thread...both of them directing all members to cease making comments about others who have posted in the thread and return to the task at hand: rendering opinion on the Blu-ray release of Fantasia/Fantasia 2000. In neither of those posts did I direct any attention to you or accuse you of derailing the thread. I don't know why you feel as if you were singled out.


I would be more than curious to know how those posts which simply asked all participants to follow the HTF rules are in some way biased and one-sided.


I am now guilty of breaking my own rule and posting a thread which has nothing to do about the films in question. It's a shame, really. Because there are so many more important things to discuss about the release.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by John Morgan

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert

C'mon Michael. You know there is a problem when someone who posts a negative opinion about a release is constantly followed around and sniped at by the same people, and even receive PMs that if they post again they'll have their mod buddy ban them. Lets not be disengenuous here. This isn't about selective reading.

First of all, thanks for agreeing (tacitly) that I'm not a "one-sided" mod.


Second, anyone can write anything in a PM, but that doesn't make it true. I've been a moderator for 8 1/2 years, and no one has ever been banned because some friend asked for it. Bannings are discussed and reviewed, and multiple people are involved, including both moderators and owners. If someone is going around making claims that they have special clout at HTF, they're lying. (If you want confirmation, forward the PM to me.)


Third, the phenomenon of the same people showing up whenever an issue is discussed isn't new and isn't limited to this particular issue. (I have my own bête noires.) Yes, it can be frustrating, but that's why a thick skin is useful when participating in an internet forum.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Scott Calvert The digital image manipulation and audio editing is way beyond the pale though. I'd like to own all of Disney's pre-1960 animated output but as of now I have 0. I saw how they treated them on DVD and I'm not about to buy the same manipulated stuff again. These things are essentially frame by frame remakes completely re-color corrected. They look like anything else made today and digitally composited and painted. They retain none of the character of a good IB tech print. Yes I know those prints are grainy but they are what they are. Shame, but there it is. Nothing else I can do except post my displeasure on a message board.

The only way you can experience an IB tech print again is to see it projected. No home video technology can capture that or reproduce it. I can live with the difference providing the films are not radically and drastically undermined the way The Searchers was, where the red sky that Ford stipulated in the script to his dp was turned into an orange sky, and the ruddy earth was drained of its red to look brown. Perhaps Disney's earliest DVD releases 1998-2001 of the original animated features best represent the photochemical look of theatrical screenings, insofar as accuracy is possible. They are all out of print now, replaced by new 2K and 4K restorations, but I recommend you buy them (Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Dumbo, Saludos Amigos, Three Caballeros, Melody Time, Fun and Fancy Free, etc) at amazon marketplace or ebay. I have a complete set up through 1985's The Black Cauldron. They do justice to the original films insofar as home video can, they are worth owning and enjoyable. The recent releases of The Reluctant Dragon (1941) and The Wind In the Willows (1949) are sourced from IB tech prints that are less than perfect and represents the cartoons very well, with minimal clean-up. The Walt Treasures tins are literally that -- treasures.


I have the same issues you do with the new HD restorations, but I recommend you buy them on Blu-ray as well. There is more to gain from them than not.

 

[Scott Calvert]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

The digital image manipulation and audio editing is way beyond the pale though. I'd like to own all of Disney's pre-1960 animated output but as of now I have 0. I saw how they treated them on DVD and I'm not about to buy the same manipulated stuff again. These things are essentially frame by frame remakes completely re-color corrected. They look like anything else made today and digitally composited and painted. They retain none of the character of a good IB tech print. Yes I know those prints are grainy but they are what they are. Shame, but there it is. Nothing else I can do except post my displeasure on a message board.

The only way you can experience an IB tech print again is to see it projected. No home video technology can capture that or reproduce it. I can live with the difference providing the films are not radically and drastically undermined the way The Searchers was, where the red sky that Ford stipulated in the script to his dp was turned into an orange sky, and the ruddy earth was drained of its red to look brown. Perhaps Disney's earliest DVD releases 1998-2001 of the original animated features best represent the photochemical look of theatrical screenings, insofar as accuracy is possible. They are all out of print now, replaced by new 2K and 4K restorations, but I recommend you buy them (Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Dumbo, Saludos Amigos, Three Caballeros, Melody Time, Fun and Fancy Free, etc) at amazon marketplace or ebay. I have a complete set up through 1985's The Black Cauldron. They do justice to the original films insofar as home video can, they are worth owning and enjoyable. The recent releases of The Reluctant Dragon (1941) and The Wind In the Willows (1949) are sourced from IB tech prints that are less than perfect and represents the cartoons very well, with minimal clean-up. The Walt Treasures tins are literally that -- treasures.


I have the same issues you do with the new HD restorations, but I recommend you buy them on Blu-ray as well. There is more to gain from them than not.

[/QUOTE]


I agree that it can't be produced 100% but I have to believe with 1080 lines of res and the available colorspace they can get in the ballpark. I agree about the very early DVD releases. Pinocchio looked about right and Fantasia looked pretty good (of course Deems Taylor narration was replaced on that version too), The four compliation pictures all looked pretty good, censorship aside. Snow White and Sleeping Beauty were complete travesties, IMO. Those were the only newer ones I bought.


Considering the price and that there's so many releases I want to buy the Disneys are taking a back seat. If they had been done differently they would have been priority 1.

 

[BCGHR2]

so....just curious: where MacQueen now?

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by BCGHR2

so....just curious: where MacQueen now?

IIRC he left Disney in 2003 (under less than amiable circumstances on Disney's part) and went to work for Pro-Tek. He is in the end credits of the Robert Harris restoration of The Godfather.

 

[bigshot]

Originally Posted by Richard--W 


The only way you can experience an IB tech print again is to see it projected. No home video technology can capture that or reproduce it.

That's not true. Adventures of Robin Hood on bluray projected onto my ten foot screen looks very close to theatrical presentation of a Tech print. Even the Technicolor shorts on the Warner Archive Dream Factory DVD box set look great. And Kino's two strip Black Pirate is spectacularly accurate. The reason that Disney blurays (with the exception of Dumbo) don't look like the films is because they don't intend to look like the films. They are creating a totally new, flawless product with color balances that resemble current Disney films, which are drenched in lime green and orange with bright purple shadows. This probably makes sense from a marketing standpoint. It's just a shame that our cultural history gets held captive by commercial interests. Classic animation has been poorly served on home video. Even back in the DVD era, DVNR and cut prints were the norm. There was a brief period at the beginning of laserdiscs when historical accuracy counted for something, but that was short lived. Bluray has been much kinder to live action films, and in particular silents. All the enthusiasm I used to have for animation on home video has been overtaken by the spectacular Kino and Chaplin releases in recent months. Maybe someday animation will return to the spotlight. But I'm afraid we may be stuck with the new and improved Disney features for many years to come.

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by bigshot

That's not true. Adventures of Robin Hood on bluray projected onto my ten foot screen looks very close to theatrical presentation of a Tech print. Even the Technicolor shorts on the Warner Archive Dream Factory DVD box set look great.

He meant the actual prints themselves. They were seldom used for video transfers because of contrast issues.

 

[jquirk]

Originally Posted by Brian Kidd

...and then some jerk comes along 60-70 years later to impose his own creative decisions.

"Some jerk" refers to Scott MacQueen, who was in charge of the initial Roadshow Version restoration. I can assure you that he is not some talentless hack who takes a pair of scissors to a film on a whim. I don't know him personally, but I have a very good friend who does and speaks quite highly of him. The explanation I was given at the time of the DVD release was that a combination track simply would not work. It was not a decision that was made lightly or on the spur-of-the-moment. I don't know if anyone here knows Mr. MacQueen and can ask him for any more clarification, but, to be honest, I don't know what anyone would want him to say. The decision was made in order that the viewing audience, many of whom would be seeing FANTASIA for the first time, wouldn't be drawn out of the film by audible and awkward edits during the narration. People on this site are great at armchair quarterbacking, but, save for a very small number of individuals, have no actual firsthand knowledge of how or why editorial decisions are made. In this case, the change in narration was explained by Disney. It was a valid, if unfortunate, decision. All of us would unquestionably want a complete version of FANTASIA with the narration intact. Save for some miracle whereby the complete narration is found, it isn't going to happen. Folks can feel free to rend their garments and shout their displeasure to the mountaintops, but, in the case of Deems Taylor's narration, it serves no constructive purpose.

I can't agree with your comment, "The decision was made in order that the viewing audience, many of whom would be seeing FANTASIA for the first time, wouldn't be drawn out of the film by audible and awkward edits during the narration."


I've seen voice edits to other classic films that have worked well. For instance, in the restored version of "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," Lee Van Cleef was dead when they set out to add dialogue to certain scenes, so somebody else was hired to fill in for Cleef's dialogue sequences. The studio did not, however, substitute the existing sequences that included Cleef's dialogue with the voice of the fill-in actor. If they had, there would have most certainly been an uproar. The voice of the actor who provided dialogue for Cleef in some sequences, meanwhile, was close enough to Cleef's that some people likely didn't even notice the change.


The point, however, is that there should not have been a problem in retaining Deems Taylor's original narration and filling in the blank spots with the voice of another actor who sounded like him, or could have made himself sound like him. What Disney did with "Fantasia" is unadulterated laziness. Instead of trying to find an actor who could mimic Deems Taylor, Disney instead trashed all of Taylor's narration and replaced it with narration by somebody who sounds nothing like Taylor.


After the outcry that followed the 2000 DVD release, you would think that somebody at Disney with half a brain would have addressed this by bringing back Taylor's original narration and filling in the missing dialogue sequences with a sound-alike voice. This wasn't the case, however, and consumers are again forced to endure a sub-par release. This to me is no different than what Paramount/CBS did with the DVD releases of the second and third seasons of classic TV show "The Fugitive," where much of the original music was replaced by horrible synthesizer music.


With all that said, the Blu-ray of "Fantasia" will still be part of Christmas in my home, as my son - who loves classic animation - never saw it.

 

[BCGHR2]

I understand he went to work for Waste Management and is now an x-ray technician

 

[Edwin-S]

I watched some of the film very early this morning. The colour saturation is eye blindingly bright and the picture is so clear that it almost looks 3D. It doesn't look anything like I remember from previous viewings. The revisionist practice of making these old classic animated films look like they were digitally constructed and not shot on film is getting ridiculous. I suppose a lot of people will find this impressive and in a lot of ways I guess it is, but I'd rather see these films look the way they were originally shot.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

I watched some of the film very early this morning. The colour saturation is eye blindingly bright and the picture is so clear that it almost looks 3D. It doesn't look anything like I remember from previous viewings. The revisionist practice of making these old classic animated films look like they were digitally constructed and not shot on film is getting ridiculous. I suppose a lot of people will find this impressive and in a lot of ways I guess it is, but I'd rather see these films look the way they were originally shot.

There seems to be a lot of pure speculation as to what was done, and the term "revisionist" thrown around by those doing a lot of speculating. The film doesn't look at all close to 3D (looks like vintage Disney animation, not new stuff). To me it looks like a damn good Blu-ray like Mr. Harris agrees with. I don't see over-saturation either. What are you going by? Old releases or memory, both of which are never accurate? I'll take this outstanding transfer any day over any other. The only thing I wish this set had was the extras from the Anthology set - mainly the 3d disc form that set. BD-Live is lame, and not a substitute for me. So I'm keeping that set for the time being. I will probably throw out the 2 DVDs that came with this Blu-ray, and put the Anthology disc 1 and disc 3 in their places.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by urbo73

. I will probably throw out the 2 DVDs that came with this Blu-ray, and put the Anthology disc 1 and disc 3 in their places.

Great idea, I already did that.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by urbo73

I watched some of the film very early this morning. The colour saturation is eye blindingly bright and the picture is so clear that it almost looks 3D. It doesn't look anything like I remember from previous viewings. The revisionist practice of making these old classic animated films look like they were digitally constructed and not shot on film is getting ridiculous. I suppose a lot of people will find this impressive and in a lot of ways I guess it is, but I'd rather see these films look the way they were originally shot.

There seems to be a lot of pure speculation as to what was done, and the term "revisionist" thrown around by those doing a lot of speculating. The film doesn't look at all close to 3D (looks like vintage Disney animation, not new stuff). To me it looks like a damn good Blu-ray like Mr. Harris agrees with. I don't see over-saturation either. What are you going by? Old releases or memory, both of which are never accurate? I'll take this outstanding transfer any day over any other. The only thing I wish this set had was the extras from the Anthology set - mainly the 3d disc form that set. BD-Live is lame, and not a substitute for me. So I'm keeping that set for the time being. I will probably throw out the 2 DVDs that came with this Blu-ray, and put the Anthology disc 1 and disc 3 in their places.

[/QUOTE]

Well, I watched the film again. Using the term "3D" was an overstatement and a lot of this film looks good, but to me parts also look different, especially the pastoral symphony sequence. I also still think the colour on this release looked boosted. Maybe my memory or old releases might not be accurate, but I don't believe that this release is any more accurate when it comes to colour. In some sequences colours were so bright that they almost became distracting. When I start noticing the colours in a sequence, more than the sequence itself, then AFAIAC something has been changed. I don't know, maybe the colours in this film are more accurate to the actual cels; however, I've never seen the cels from this film. The only way I have ever seen this movie is on film and video and I don't remember the colours ever "popping" the way they do in this release.

 

[bigshot]

Some of the sequences have accurate colors, like Dance of the Hours, while others are WAY off, like Pastoral. I interviewed some of the color key artists who worked on these films. Color theory at Disney involved subtle contrasts. Bright colors were applied to smaller areas and were contrasted against larger more neutral colors. Warm colors were balanced against cools. Different hues of the same value were set against each other to blend the colors into a harmony. They grayed down colors with complementary colors instead of black to create grayed colors that still had an internal brilliance.... the sorts of colors you can't quite put a name to. But they never just put a bunch of "straight out of the tube" colors together at one time. They were very concerned about eye fatigue, the result of a solid hour of seeing solid blobs of pink and purple and yellow bounce around the screen. Their goal was to create pallettes of colors that all fell together to create an overall feel. It's not possible to do that with several large areas of screaming colors on the screen at one time. I'm not going to comment on the value of a particular expert's opinions other than to say that there are three ways to approach a project like this. The preservationist strives to halt deterioration and keep the work in its prevent state. The restorationist goes a bit further, striving to reverse the deterioration and return the work to the way it appeared when it was created. The recreationist attempts to add to the work with the goal being to make it look "better" than it originally did. Keeping those definitions in mind, I don't think anyone can argue that Disney is engaged in restoration or preservation. These films are being processed with the intent of improving what the original artists created. In a situation like that, there are going to be people who like having something old brought up to date, and there are going to be those who would prefer it to remain true to the original artist's vision. Ultimately, however, it comes down to the question, "Who is more qualified to establish color pallettes, the artists who made the film, or the technicians who prepared it for home video release?" It's my opinion that the best looking home video releases are the ones that start with a carefully done chemical restoration first, and then the digital copy is tweaked to follow the chemical restoration. Night of the Hunter is a superb example of this. Disney's recreations of their classic animated features engage in digital "Lilly gilding" that loses sight of the baseline of what these films originally looked like. That may not bother you, but it isn't restoration.

 

[Robert Harris]

Disney is doing two things. Creating new editions of their classic works for a new audience, and producing new preservation elements that support the original works and intent. There is no doubt that what is being released on Blu-ray is not a recreation of the original works, however, in the background, all of the work necessary to preserve their library is being done.

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, maybe Disney should start thinking about their old audience and start releasing versions of these films that show the original work and intent that older fans remember. I'd like to see the colour work of the original artists, not a primary colour fest for toddlers that makes the pastoral symphony sequence look like a Care Bears cartoon.