BVHE Press Release: Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 Special Edition (Blu-Ray) (1 Viewer)

[Brandon Conway]

Kids care because parents care, as with any Disney film that is as old as Fantasia is.

 

And history suggests that Disney would get a major PR headache if they released it uncensored. Just look at the broo-ha-ha over the "good teenagers take off their clothes" sound garble (that never actually said that) on Aladdin as how certain factions out there see an opportunity for stirring up the zealots with a big juicy target that the Disney corporation presents. And if that will hurt their image Disney will stay far, far away. Song of the South is being held back not for its content, but for its perceived promotion (falsely) that it promotes racist sentiments. Truth doesn't matter here. It doesn't help Fantasia that, unlike Song of the South, the stereotypes in the character of Sunflower are legitimately inappropriate.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

And history suggests that Disney would get a major PR headache if they released it uncensored.

Yep. The worst part is that any other studio could release a movie with stereotypes that are as bad or worse and it wouldn't even cause a blip on the radar if it was released but threatening a boycott against Disney is a guaranteed headline so Disney is forced to tread more lightly than any other studio.

 

[Matt Hough]

Is this fear of reprisal the reason the Blu-ray of Dumbo was postponed indefinitely earlier this year?

 

[ahollis]

PR Departments are for PR headaches, not to just sit and do nothing. Disney released a majority of their non-PC cartoons in the Disney Treasures line without incident except for people to applaud them for letting them be seen again. Warner Archive has the Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor films out and they are certainly not PC but again they only discussion was thank you for letting these be seen and how great the Mammy restoration was. We have a history and we need to re-visit history in order that we do not live it over again. We can not erase it. The world will not stop, life will go on if Fantasia is released as original and Song Of The South is released. However the same can be said if it is not.

 

[Jack Theakston]

You guys are overlooking a major point here– FANTASIA has and always will be marketed at children, because it's supposed to be a children's film. MAMMY and other politically incorrect films fly under the radar as historical curios for collectors. With FANTASIA, Disney is looking to actively market the film to children. So in that case, I can understand why they would want to remove material that would potentially confuse or offend children or their parents. The Treasures series is aimed at collectors, not children.

 

This is also the reason these films don't look the way they used to. Children today are used to seeing video-generated colors. I am sure Disney feels that they have to keep the films up to the times to sell copies, and unfortunately, I'm sure they're correct. This is nothing new. SNOW WHITE has never, even in all of its reissues in the theater over the years, look like it did in 1937. It never will. Modern audiences could never accept how subtle the color was, or how yellow some of the indoor timings were. But to harp on these things is to argue with an echo. The collector is the minority, the average market is the majority.

 

[ahollis]

 

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

You guys are overlooking a major point here– FANTASIA has and always will be marketed at children, because it's supposed to be a children's film. MAMMY and other politically incorrect films fly under the radar as historical curios for collectors. With FANTASIA, Disney is looking to actively market the film to children. So in that case, I can understand why they would want to remove material that would potentially confuse or offend children or their parents. The Treasures series is aimed at collectors, not children.

 

This is also the reason these films don't look the way they used to. Children today are used to seeing video-generated colors. I am sure Disney feels that they have to keep the films up to the times to sell copies, and unfortunately, I'm sure they're correct. This is nothing new. SNOW WHITE has never, even in all of its reissues in the theater over the years, look like it did in 1937. It never will. Modern audiences could never accept how subtle the color was, or how yellow some of the indoor timings were. But to harp on these things is to argue with an echo. The collector is the minority, the average market is the majority.

I am really not overlooking that point. As a person that has been in the exhibition and distribution industry for more years than I care to remember, not once in the three re-releases I have been involved with has the make up of the film audiences been families with children, the ones that did come left pretty early on. They may be marketing it to Children, but they are not going for the market that made the film a success in the 70's and 80's. While the film is an outstanding classic and is revered, it turns children off very quickly and is more or less a collectors item and not a film that is played ten times in a row on the TV because the child demands it.
 

You are right that the collector is the minoity as for as Disney looks at their libariry now days with the end of the Treasures Series, which is very sad indeed. But as I said, the world with turn and cars will run and lights will turn on whether Disney releases the original Fantasia or not. It does not make a difference to me. The film is an outstanding acheivement in animation with or without Sunflower.  

 

[Steve Christou]

The missing black centaurs don't really bother me, but the redubbed narration does. I want Deems Taylor back and not someone pretending to be him.

 

The original soundtrack is on the VHS edition, they could easily have included Taylor's narration on an alternate audio track, for posterity. Bummer.

 

[Jack Theakston]

 

As a person that has been in the exhibition and distribution industry for more years than I care to remember, not once in the three re-releases I have been involved with has the make up of the film audiences been families with children, the ones that did come left pretty early on. They may be marketing it to Children, but they are not going for the market that made the film a success in the 70's and 80's.

 

Sorry to say, but who made this film a success, what children think of it, or if the content is even really racist have no bearing on the financial success of this video release. Movies today— particularly children's films— are sold on imagery, not content. Illustration in movie advertising disappeared not because it was expensive (what's $1500 for a painting when your film costs 1000% more than that?), it's because marketers found that George Clooney's smiling face is more likely to get peoples' keisters into movie seats.
 

So, in perspective, a kid passing by this release in Wal-Mart is going to nag his mother to buy it because it has Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on the front cover. What's the likelihood that that parent is going out of their way to return the disc if the kid doesn't like it? Pretty slim, because return policies don't work that way. However, if there's something particularly outrageous and offensive is on that home video release, yeah, I can see how Wal-Mart would be less inclined to stock the movie because it means a higher possibility of returns.

 

PS. This will be my last post on HTF until they can figure out a better way of putting advertising on this site. I tried posting this message THREE times, and every time I was interrupted by a link to an advertising page for Smallville, simply because I clicked on the wrong part of the page (because EVERYTHING on the sides of this window is unmarked banner).

 

[ahollis]

 

Originally Posted by Jack Theakston

 

 

Sorry to say, but who made this film a success and what children think of it have no bearing on the financial success of this video release. Movies today— particularly children's films— are sold on imagery, not content. Illustration in movie advertising disappeared not because it was expensive (what's $1500 for a painting when your film costs 1000% more than that?), it's because marketers found that George Clooney's smiling face is more likely to get peoples' keisters into movie seats.
 

So, in perspective, a kid passing by this release in Wal-Mart is going to nag his mother to buy it because it has Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on the front cover. What's the likelihood that that parent is going out of their way to return the disc if the kid doesn't like it? Pretty slim, because return policies don't work that way. However, if there's something particularly outrageous and offensive is on that home video release, yeah, I can see how Wal-Mart would be less inclined to stock the movie because it means a higher possibility of returns.

I am not arguing with you my friend for we are both really talking about the same thing only on different levels. I don't care if the film is cut or not, I don't think it matters one way or the other. Walt Disney said that Fantasia was one film that will never be finished and that vision brought us Fantasia 2000. So the changes in the film could be considered be part of his vision of it always changing.

 

I just don't think things should be changed because the PR department does not want a headache. But, the more a title sells the more likely we will see other titles released. Cannot wait for a Blu-ray of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea or Swiss Family Robinson.
 

By the way George Clooney's smiling face is getting them into see The American, but the film is getting them back out to the box office to ask for their money back or passes.
 

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by ahollis



 


I am not arguing with you my friend for we are both really talking about the same thing only on different levels. I don't care if the film is cut or not, I don't think it matters one way or the other. Walt Disney said that Fantasia was one film that will never be finished and that vision brought us Fantasia 2000. So the changes in the film could be considered be part of his vision of it always changing.

 

I just don't think things should be changed because the PR department does not want a headache. But, the more a title sells the more likely we will see other titles released. Cannot wait for a Blu-ray of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea or Swiss Family Robinson.
 

By the way George Clooney's smiling face is getting them into see The American, but the film is getting them back out to the box office to ask for their money back or passes.
 

But what is unclear is whether Walt Disney approved the changes.

 

Frankly, the PR department will get a headache no matter what they do.

 

And as for the film being marketed to children, so what? We need to stop patronizing them; the sooner they realize that things were not, and never will be, hunky-dory and conflict-free, the better.

 

[ahollis]

 

Originally Posted by MatthewA




But what is unclear is whether Walt Disney approved the changes.

 

Frankly, the PR department will get a headache no matter what they do.

 

And as for the film being marketed to children, so what? We need to stop patronizing them; the sooner they realize that things were not, and never will be, hunky-dory and conflict-free, the better.

From what I have read, and the time frame, Walt Disney did not approve of the changes nor did he disapprove of them.
 

You are correct in that the PR department will get a headache not matter what is released, but it would be hit with a bigger fire storm it the changes were not continued. Past history shows that Disney will change what they feel they need to change to bring less controversy to the table. It is their right to do so since they own the elements.
 

I myself have never seen Fantasia with out the cuts so it does not make any difference to me.. However I have seen the posts on you-tube and understand it not viewed in the correct perspective they can be offensive. The key words are the correct perspective. As Jack pointed out earlier, some older films that are not PC are released with the collector in mind and Disney intends to release their library with the families in mind. Pecos Bill will never smoke again and Sunflower will never be seen again.
 

PS - Jack I am with you on the Banner Ads. It is very annoying how they automatically pop-up, but don't quit posting. Your viewpoint and knowledge is always refreshing and needed.
 

 

[Nelson Au]

Yeah, that Smallville ad was jarring the first time I saw it!

 

Regarding Fantasia, I guess it's a safe bet that the big box laserdisc set I have also has the cuts and missing intro? It's still mint-in-the-box with the original shrink wrap, as they say. It's a CAV set from 1991 if I have the year right.

 

I deliberated a long time before I bought it back in '91 and after a year of seeing it at my favorite LD store, I got it. I never opened it. It's a very nice box! What's amusing is that there is a round gold sticker on the shrink wrap that says, "The final Release of this Original Masterpiece".

 

[MatthewA]

Originally Posted by ahollis



 


From what I have read, and the time frame, Walt Disney did not approve of the changes nor did he disapprove of them.
 

You are correct in that the PR department will get a headache not matter what is released, but it would be hit with a bigger fire storm it the changes were not continued. Past history shows that Disney will change what they feel they need to change to bring less controversy to the table. It is their right to do so since they own the elements.
 

I myself have never seen Fantasia with out the cuts so it does not make any difference to me.. However I have seen the posts on you-tube and understand it not viewed in the correct perspective they can be offensive. The key words are the correct perspective. As Jack pointed out earlier, some older films that are not PC are released with the collector in mind and Disney intends to release their library with the families in mind. Pecos Bill will never smoke again and Sunflower will never be seen again.
 

PS - Jack I am with you on the Banner Ads. It is very annoying how they automatically pop-up, but don't quit posting. Your viewpoint and knowledge is always refreshing and needed.
 

It may be their right, but legal rights and the right thing to do are two different things in this case.

 

Disney has aimed many releases at collectors, using intros from Leonard Maltin explaining the context to any cartoon containing racial jokes (and also guns and drinking, and later it seems that only cartoons with black jokes warranted intros and inclusion in the "from the vault" section of the Treasures DVD) and there's no reason they can't do that here. Looney Tunes on DVD was the same way. Seamless branching can and should be used in this case.

 

Of all the excuses given to whitewash (no pun intended) material that may be offensive, the "think of the children" one is the worst. I am thinking of the children. They should be taught about why racism is wrong as soon as possible, and they should not have the truth hidden from them: that their favorite cartoon producers were not above making racial jokes. One moderately distasteful character in a 70 year old film that most kids will probably not even like will not create a generation of bigots. And a convincing argument can (and was, in fact, by the editor of SaveDisney.com) be made that Song of the South is not only not racist but anti-racist.
 

Frankly, if this is worthy of censorship, why do the following get a free pass:

 

—The crows in Dumbo

—The Indians in Peter Pan

—Tony in Lady and the Tramp

—Musical cats of several nationalities in The Aristocats

 

I'm not even going into the live action material. And of course, while they went out of their way not to offend blacks with The Princess and the Frog, they still managed to offend cajuns. What bothers me is not only the suppression of this material but the inconsistency and hypocrisy. This is not the same as defending the material itself. I never cared for the character of Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's, and neither did Blake Edwards, but he was overruled. But I wouldn't cut it from the film.

 

I always thought mice had backbones.

 

[Brandon Conway]

It's not a matter of backbone, it's a matter of profitability. Restoring Sunflower to Fantasia has been determined to be a problem to their bottom line. The scenes have been changed for 40 years now, and they're not going back, because they have what they believe is 40 years of evidence of the film staying relevant in the market without Sunflower. And there it is. Song of the South became a marketing problem upon its 1980s theatrical re-release, and it hasn't been seen since. This is not a coincidence. For whatever reason that was the film that took the brunt of all the "Disney is a racist, bigoted company" spin, and after that happened they have been fine to keep their hands off it. Fantasia more than likely was censored because someone realized leaving Sunflower in the film for the 1969 re-release was just begging for a major PR disaster, and that it would hurt the financial stability of the film in the shadow of the civil rights movement, and even MLK's assassination. I'm no mind reader, but that isn't too much of a stretch, IMO.

 

As for those other stereotypes - the complaints haven't been loud enough to hurt the profits of those films. There's no pattern to this. For whatever reason Warner felt the heat on Speedy Gonzales and not much else. Gone with the Wind gets a slap on the wrist occasionally, but generally escapes unscathed, though if McDaniel had not won an Oscar I think modern finger-waggers would be more vocal about it. Thems the breaks.

 

Personally, I do not care whether Sunflower makes it back into Fantasia or not. I've never seen the film with her in it, and I don't think she would add anything. And I'd rather be in the situation of having seen the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the uncensored movie and enjoyed it than to have never seen it at all, which is the case for me re: Song of the South.

 

[cafink]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway

And I'd rather be in the situation of having seen the other 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the uncensored movie and enjoyed it than to have never seen it at all.

This is a huge exaggeration. I don't know exactly how long the Sunflower scenes last, but Fantasia is only 125 minutes long, so even if it's only ten seconds, that's still more than 0.1% of the film--you're number should only have one nine after the decimal point.

 

[WillG]

 

Disney has aimed many releases at collectors, using intros from Leonard Maltin explaining the context to any cartoon containing racial jokes (and also guns and drinking, and later it seems that only cartoons with black jokes warranted intros and inclusion in the "from the vault" section of the Treasures DVD) and there's no reason they can't do that here. Looney Tunes on DVD was the same way. Seamless branching can and should be used in this case.

But that's the thing. Those sets (Disney and Looney Tunes) were marketed towards collectors. Fantasia is a release that is marketed as a kid or family film. It's a completely different type of product from a marketing standpoint. The other issue is that unlike the crows from Dumbo for example is that while they might be stereotypical of blacks, they're still crows while Sunflower from Fantasia is clearly a black character (although still, what happens if a kid starts doing an imitation of the crows at school)

 

Anyway while I think it would be nice if the film could be left untouched, I think it's understandable why Disney would want to just avoid a potential issue here. It's not like cropping out Sunflower is really going to hurt the film so it's probably not worth the hassle. There are some, unfortunately, powerful opportunists out there who would probably like to jump on the issue.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by MatthewA
 

Of all the excuses given to whitewash (no pun intended) material that may be offensive, the "think of the children" one is the worst. I am thinking of the children. They should be taught about why racism is wrong as soon as possible, and they should not have the truth hidden from them: that their favorite cartoon producers were not above making racial jokes.

While I'm sure people would say that they want to protect kids, I don't think kids figure into it one way or the other. 25 years ago, I saw Tom And Jerry cartoons that had disgusting racial stereotypes and I had no clue what was I seeing. Today, kids are even more unaware of things like black face or mammy jokes, etc. so any old time racist crap would go way over kids' heads.

 

[WillG]

 

Today, kids are even more unaware of things like black face or mammy jokes, etc. so any old time racist crap would go way over kids' heads.

Still though, what if a kid started going around imitating the stereotyped dialect or started drawing blackface pictures in school or something. Suppose the media got ahold of something like that. It would be a shit storm.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by cafink

This is a huge exaggeration. I don't know exactly how long the Sunflower scenes last, but Fantasia is only 125 minutes long, so even if it's only ten seconds, that's still more than 0.1% of the film--you're number should only have one nine after the decimal point.

I was exaggerating to make a point. If you want to get technical, the Sunflower footage is about 25 seconds long. 125 minutes is 7500 seconds. 25/7500 is .003. So, 99.7% of the film is uncensored. Hooray for math.

 

[Craig Beam]

Originally Posted by cafink




This is a huge exaggeration. I don't know exactly how long the Sunflower scenes last, but Fantasia is only 125 minutes long, so even if it's only ten seconds, that's still more than 0.1% of the film--you're number should only have one nine after the decimal point.

 

Please tell me you're fucking kidding with this.