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

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by TonyD

As much as we might like to think that movies are art, they aren’t. They are, in fact, commerce.
Doug

I disagree with this statement, for the simple fact that you can then say that music, literature, paintings, etc. are also not art. EVERYTHING that is art is commerce one way or another. And that does not make it any less. It's just how it is. Having said that, I agree with you completely otherwise. I find people get sometimes too fanatical about the smallest of minutia and maybe in return waste time and miss out on the bigger picture (no pun intended). While we are all here because in a way we ARE fanatic about movies and their presentation in the home, I do think one has to find some balance. The thread about Sound of Music is insane! I have to sometimes ask myself if people truly enjoy things anymore or are too spoiled...

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that films don't sometime rise (or lower depending on your opinion of so called art) to the level of art. But for the most part they aren't made for arts sake. They are made to make money.


Doug


What isn't?

even Paintings, and sculptures are made to be sold aren't they?

As with a movie or a song they are the creators expressions put on film or canvass or whatever, ut they still usually want to sell them and make cash, make a living.


Most people who paint and are creating "art" have very few expectations of making a profit. Those who make money painting are, more often than not, call illustrators, not artists.


Doug

 

[Jon Lidolt]

Interesting comments guys, but truth be told the Disney organization has been tampering with Fantasia ever since it was first released.

During one of its theatrical reissues, the original 1940 Fantasound stereophonic recording was replaced by a new digital recording. While it may have sounded technically superior, it was no longer the recording of Leopold Stokowski conducting the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra heard during the film’s initial run. But the worst revision occurred in the mid 50’s when Fantasia was reissued in so-called Superscope for projection onto the then-new CinemaScope screens. The almost square shaped (1.37 ratio) live action scenes were positioned in the middle of these wider (2.55 ratio) screens. Cut to the first animated sequence and the picture magically expanded to fill a bit more of the screen’s surface (read stretched as if it had been printed on a rubber band). And finally, when the more abstract scenes appeared, they were stretched to almost twice their normal shape in order to fill the entire screen. Surprisingly enough, this re-formatting which ruined the look of the beautiful artwork, took place while Walt Disney himself was running the studio.

So what what does all of this have to do with the new Blu-ray? I’m just very happy with what we have... it could’ve been a lot worse.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Jon Lidolt



So what what does all of this have to do with the new Blu-ray? I’m just very happy with what we have... it could’ve been a lot worse.

Could not have been said better.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

As much as we might like to think that movies are art, they aren’t. They are, in fact, commerce.
Doug

I disagree with this statement, for the simple fact that you can then say that music, literature, paintings, etc. are also not art. EVERYTHING that is art is commerce one way or another. And that does not make it any less. It's just how it is. Having said that, I agree with you completely otherwise. I find people get sometimes too fanatical about the smallest of minutia and maybe in return waste time and miss out on the bigger picture (no pun intended). While we are all here because in a way we ARE fanatic about movies and their presentation in the home, I do think one has to find some balance. The thread about Sound of Music is insane! I have to sometimes ask myself if people truly enjoy things anymore or are too spoiled...

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that films don't sometime rise (or lower depending on your opinion of so called art) to the level of art. But for the most part they aren't made for arts sake. They are made to make money.


Doug


Again I disagree. Are Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas or Mozart's operas not art? Of course they are - of the highest level. Were they not created to make money for their respective composers and publishers? Of course they were.. Were they not edited the changed because so and so thought it better than the composer? Sure they were. The same can be said of many directors and their films (we're not talking popcorn flicks here). Both the music and the films are personal as well as something to make money from. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by urbo73

As much as we might like to think that movies are art, they aren’t. They are, in fact, commerce.
Doug

I disagree with this statement, for the simple fact that you can then say that music, literature, paintings, etc. are also not art. EVERYTHING that is art is commerce one way or another. And that does not make it any less. It's just how it is. Having said that, I agree with you completely otherwise. I find people get sometimes too fanatical about the smallest of minutia and maybe in return waste time and miss out on the bigger picture (no pun intended). While we are all here because in a way we ARE fanatic about movies and their presentation in the home, I do think one has to find some balance. The thread about Sound of Music is insane! I have to sometimes ask myself if people truly enjoy things anymore or are too spoiled...

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that films don't sometime rise (or lower depending on your opinion of so called art) to the level of art. But for the most part they aren't made for arts sake. They are made to make money.


Doug


Again I disagree. Are Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas or Mozart's operas not art? Of course they are - of the highest level. Were they not created to make money for their respective composers and publishers? Of course they were.. Were they not edited the changed because so and so thought it better than the composer? Sure they were. The same can be said of many directors and their films (we're not talking popcorn flicks here). Both the music and the films are personal as well as something to make money from. The two are not mutually exclusive.


One thing though. Don't confuse the presentation itself for the art.


Just as you can easily turn Beethoven and Mozart into elevator music (or what have you), so can the actual presentation of certain films. So the question should be what's Disney's *current* intentions (and target audiences) for these animated classics and other films. Clearly, they are trying to walk a fine line to satisfy *both* the masses who tend to view these works as mere pop entertainment *and* the enthusiasts as much as they believe feasible. And there will *always* be some small vocal minority who feels something's not done right, etc.


Besides, wasn't Fantasia originally intended to be modified and updated from time to time as the filmmakers see fit? Wasn't it always a work-in-progress?


Anyway, if there's enough of a market for Disney to do otherwise, they probably would... Maybe those who want otherwise should consider starting a petition for a different, more "definitive" release. Maybe Disney would consider offering that later, if there really is enough demand for that...


_Man_

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool

As much as we might like to think that movies are art, they aren’t. They are, in fact, commerce.
Doug

I disagree with this statement, for the simple fact that you can then say that music, literature, paintings, etc. are also not art. EVERYTHING that is art is commerce one way or another. And that does not make it any less. It's just how it is. Having said that, I agree with you completely otherwise. I find people get sometimes too fanatical about the smallest of minutia and maybe in return waste time and miss out on the bigger picture (no pun intended). While we are all here because in a way we ARE fanatic about movies and their presentation in the home, I do think one has to find some balance. The thread about Sound of Music is insane! I have to sometimes ask myself if people truly enjoy things anymore or are too spoiled...

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that films don't sometime rise (or lower depending on your opinion of so called art) to the level of art. But for the most part they aren't made for arts sake. They are made to make money.


Doug


Again I disagree. Are Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas or Mozart's operas not art? Of course they are - of the highest level. Were they not created to make money for their respective composers and publishers? Of course they were.. Were they not edited the changed because so and so thought it better than the composer? Sure they were. The same can be said of many directors and their films (we're not talking popcorn flicks here). Both the music and the films are personal as well as something to make money from. The two are not mutually exclusive.


One thing though. Don't confuse the presentation itself for the art.


_Man_
I wasn't. I was responding to a statement saying movies aren't art, but commerce. I agree with you on the presentation, and in my original reply spoke to that as well. I think we're on the same page, but not sure why some think movies are not art...

 

[Charles Smith]

I saw Fantasia in its 1963 re-release and I remember the widescreen thing, but I don't recall the image being stretched, more like "zoomed" and matted as the image was expanded to the sides. I'd like to think that even as a 14-year-old I would have found stretching noticeable and objectionable, but I know how reliable a 47-year-old memory can be. The effect I'm remembering is like the first Cinerama film when the picture expands from the Lowell Thomas intro to the Cinerama dimensions. In Fantasia the sides of the picture slowly moved out as each piece began, and during the last several bars they drew back in. If they simply stretched them, then shame on me for not realizing that.


When did Disney censor those images in the Beethoven? When I looked at them online I strongly felt I recognized having seen them, and the last time I'd seen the film before home video came around was that 1963 showing. I also saw the 1956 re-release, but I was 7 then so the memories are even sketchier.


I'm relying on IMDB's release dates, by the way. I wish they had re-release info as well tracked for other stuff, including other Disney films, as they seem to on this one.

 

[Vern Dias]

If they simply stretched them, then shame on me.....

Shame shame shame.


That's exactly what they did. For most animation, since nothing actually references real objects, a horizontal stretch is not nearly as obvious as it would be with easily recognizable objects such as faces, bodies, eyes, stop signs, etc.


Vern

 

[Paul Penna]

More about the interesting, if wrong-headed, variable-anamorphic projection process devised by Disney for the 1956 Fantasia re-release in the links below, including a period technical article from International Projectionist (also shows an image of the four-track optical stereophonic soundtrack). "Size of screen image can be automatically expanded or contracted to enhance subject matter of each sequence." This is how I first saw Fantasia around 1960.


http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home%20Page/WhatsNewArchivesNov09.htm#whenfantasiaspreadout


http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Home%20Page/WhatsNewArchivesNov09.htm#bensononfantasia

 

[SilverWook]

There is some evidence to suggest Walt was contemplating widescreen in 1940 as well.


http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/sound/fantasound1.htm


Anybody recall what it looked like in the late 70's reissue? I can only recall the 1990 re-release being the 1:37 ratio.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Chas in CT

I saw Fantasia in its 1963 re-release and I remember the widescreen thing, but I don't recall the image being stretched, more like "zoomed" and matted as the image was expanded to the sides. I'd like to think that even as a 14-year-old I would have found stretching noticeable and objectionable, but I know how reliable a 47-year-old memory can be. The effect I'm remembering is like the first Cinerama film when the picture expands from the Lowell Thomas intro to the Cinerama dimensions. In Fantasia the sides of the picture slowly moved out as each piece began, and during the last several bars they drew back in. If they simply stretched them, then shame on me for not realizing that.


When did Disney censor those images in the Beethoven? When I looked at them online I strongly felt I recognized having seen them, and the last time I'd seen the film before home video came around was that 1963 showing. I also saw the 1956 re-release, but I was 7 then so the memories are even sketchier.


I'm relying on IMDB's release dates, by the way. I wish they had re-release info as well tracked for other stuff, including other Disney films, as they seem to on this one.

The censorship occurred in the 1969 re-release, which is also the release the film finally turned a profit. There is some debate if Disney, who had died by then was involved in the censorship. Some staff members say the discussions on the cuts were started before his death and he approved, while others say the cuts were decided on shortly before the release date due to concerns from Black leaders of the time. There was not an official 1963 release but a 1956 release in which it was first presented in Widescreen and 4-track magnetic stereo, I would think that the 1956 release was available in 1963.. I have heard that the 1956 release was presented in various aspect formats in which lens and aperture plates was changed from reel to reel depending on the what the image was on the screen for that segment, but have no real proof of that.

 

[Paul Penna]

Originally Posted by ahollis

I have heard that the 1956 release was presented in various aspect formats in which lens and aperture plates was changed from reel to reel depending on the what the image was on the screen for that segment, but have no real proof of that.

See my preceding post (#69) about that.

 

[john a hunter]

thanks for the links Paul. Most interesting.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by urbo73

As much as we might like to think that movies are art, they aren’t. They are, in fact, commerce.
Doug

I disagree with this statement, for the simple fact that you can then say that music, literature, paintings, etc. are also not art. EVERYTHING that is art is commerce one way or another. And that does not make it any less. It's just how it is. Having said that, I agree with you completely otherwise. I find people get sometimes too fanatical about the smallest of minutia and maybe in return waste time and miss out on the bigger picture (no pun intended). While we are all here because in a way we ARE fanatic about movies and their presentation in the home, I do think one has to find some balance. The thread about Sound of Music is insane! I have to sometimes ask myself if people truly enjoy things anymore or are too spoiled...

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that films don't sometime rise (or lower depending on your opinion of so called art) to the level of art. But for the most part they aren't made for arts sake. They are made to make money.


Doug


Again I disagree. Are Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas or Mozart's operas not art? Of course they are - of the highest level. Were they not created to make money for their respective composers and publishers? Of course they were.. Were they not edited the changed because so and so thought it better than the composer? Sure they were. The same can be said of many directors and their films (we're not talking popcorn flicks here). Both the music and the films are personal as well as something to make money from. The two are not mutually exclusive.



Beethoven and Mozart both worked primarily for patrons. They were composers for hire and they worked at the whim and desire of their clients, be those client royalty or a rich merchant. They were frequently asked to make changes to their works based on the likes and dislikes of the person paying for it.


This notion that artists and composers working in centuries past were some how making “pure art” just because that is the way it is regarded to day, is poppy cock. Just like everyone else they had to earn a living and that involved compromise. Mozart himself was apparently very difficult to work with and he slowly stopped getting commissions. He died a popper and was burred in an unmarked grave. This is to take nothing away from his brilliant work, but imagine how much more of it we would have today if he had been able to satisfy his patrons and still keep his artistic integrity as so many other composers did.


In addition many composers, Mozart included, would have been considered the equivalent of Lady Gaga in their day. They were rock stars making popular entertainment that had to appeal to a wide audience.


Fantasia, among other things was Disney’s first attempt to become its own distributor. However the film was a massive flop at the box office, nearly taking Disney down with it. Their attempt to salvage something was to turn the thing over to RKO and let them do what ever they needed to do to make some money. So RKO hacked it down to a reasonable running time and put it in general release. Again there is art, and then there is reality.

Today the patron is no longer a rich merchant or a king, but rather the general public. Disney is simply trying to satisfy their client. Is Fantasia no longer art because Disney has altered it to make it palatable to its audience?


Doug

 

[Charles Smith]

Good points. And my thanks, too, for the links. I'm leaving this open to read all of that a little later. This is fascinating stuff.

 

[Brian Kidd]

More about the interesting, if wrong-headed, variable-anamorphic projection process devised by Disney for the 1956 Fantasia re-release in the links below, including a period technical article from International Projectionist (also shows an image of the four-track optical stereophonic soundtrack).

Whee! Posts like this one are the reason I still visit the site. Thank you!

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by Paul Penna

I have heard that the 1956 release was presented in various aspect formats in which lens and aperture plates was changed from reel to reel depending on the what the image was on the screen for that segment, but have no real proof of that.

See my preceding post (#69) about that.

[/QUOTE]

That just about confirms what I heard from the people that were there. Thanks and sorry I missed the post earlier. Very interesting and worth holding on to.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

As much as we might like to think that movies are art, they aren’t. They are, in fact, commerce.
Doug

I disagree with this statement, for the simple fact that you can then say that music, literature, paintings, etc. are also not art. EVERYTHING that is art is commerce one way or another. And that does not make it any less. It's just how it is. Having said that, I agree with you completely otherwise. I find people get sometimes too fanatical about the smallest of minutia and maybe in return waste time and miss out on the bigger picture (no pun intended). While we are all here because in a way we ARE fanatic about movies and their presentation in the home, I do think one has to find some balance. The thread about Sound of Music is insane! I have to sometimes ask myself if people truly enjoy things anymore or are too spoiled...

[/QUOTE]

I didn't say that films don't sometime rise (or lower depending on your opinion of so called art) to the level of art. But for the most part they aren't made for arts sake. They are made to make money.


Doug


Again I disagree. Are Beethoven's 32 piano sonatas or Mozart's operas not art? Of course they are - of the highest level. Were they not created to make money for their respective composers and publishers? Of course they were.. Were they not edited the changed because so and so thought it better than the composer? Sure they were. The same can be said of many directors and their films (we're not talking popcorn flicks here). Both the music and the films are personal as well as something to make money from. The two are not mutually exclusive.



Beethoven and Mozart both worked primarily for patrons. They were composers for hire and they worked at the whim and desire of their clients, be those client royalty or a rich merchant. They were frequently asked to make changes to their works based on the likes and dislikes of the person paying for it.


This notion that artists and composers working in centuries past were some how making “pure art” just because that is the way it is regarded to day, is poppy cock. Just like everyone else they had to earn a living and that involved compromise. Mozart himself was apparently very difficult to work with and he slowly stopped getting commissions. He died a popper and was burred in an unmarked grave. This is to take nothing away from his brilliant work, but imagine how much more of it we would have today if he had been able to satisfy his patrons and still keep his artistic integrity as so many other composers did.


In addition many composers, Mozart included, would have been considered the equivalent of Lady Gaga in their day. They were rock stars making popular entertainment that had to appeal to a wide audience.


Fantasia, among other things was Disney’s first attempt to become its own distributor. However the film was a massive flop at the box office, nearly taking Disney down with it. Their attempt to salvage something was to turn the thing over to RKO and let them do what ever they needed to do to make some money. So RKO hacked it down to a reasonable running time and put it in general release. Again there is art, and then there is reality.

Today the patron is no longer a rich merchant or a king, but rather the general public. Disney is simply trying to satisfy their client. Is Fantasia no longer art because Disney has altered it to make it palatable to its audience?


Doug


So what I'm reading is that you now consider both Mozart and Beethoven's works not art of the highest level (as I said), but commerce - like you do films. Interesting...Or that they could have produced better work if they didn't compromise? But the reality is they could not have. We would never have heard any of it! Also, what I said is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Who are these uncompromising composers of Mozart's time (or Bach's, Beethoven, etc.) that produced better music and more "art" according to you, but were somehow squashed by these "rock stars" who compromised themselves and had better "marketing skills"? Was Bach also just commerce? He did the same. I guess the pure artists (or just plain artists according to you) are not known to the masses and lived in caves....A funny notion. The cream rises to the top for a reason - not just marketing as you imply. Beethoven had no peers because they simply were not at his level. Bach at best had Handel, but was he not also just an employed composer according to you? The notion that the real artists are somehow underground is indeed funny to me and something I don't subscribe to. As I said, the cream rises and stays at the top for a reason. We are not talking about "one hit wonders" here. You think Lean, Scorsese, Fellini, Kurosawa, etc., etc., etc. just made films to sell? That they compromised so much of themselves in the process that no art came out of it? That there were others more talented we don't know of because they didn't have the skills to market themselves as well? If so, then they were NOT more talented I say. An artist is always at the mercy of the public that consumes his art in one way or another. A talented artist is both skilled in his art and shrewd enough to make it see the light of day. After all, what good is art if it lives in a cave, never to be see or heard? What is the point of that?


So to me Fantasia IS art - doesn't matter what Disney alters. And Disney is doing its best to bring it to the consumer in the best possible way.

 

[Richard--W]

[SIZE= 16px]I'm not going to be sidetracked into an irrelevant debate over films as commerce vs art.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 16px]Deems Taylor was a conceptual and creative force behind Fantasia, collaborating with Walt Disney every step of the way. He participated in the writing and the music selections and the origination of the film. He is as much a part of the creative process and as responsible for the final result as the animators and Disney himself. [/SIZE]


[SIZE= 16px]Damnit, where is his voice? To cut his voice is tantamount to taking Disney's name off the film. I've listened to, and watched, the previous release in which 98% of his voice is intact. Further, his voice is part of the overall sound design and character of the film. It is not arbitrary. Disney Home Video has no justification for eliminating his voice altogether. It could have been easily included as an option on the menu with the revoice kicking in where the two or three sections of the original voice are lost.[/SIZE]

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

[SIZE= 16px]I'm not going to be sidetracked into an irrelevant debate over films as commerce vs art.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 16px]Deems Taylor was a conceptual and creative force behind Fantasia, collaborating with Walt Disney every step of the way. He participated in the writing and the music selections and the origination of the film. He is as much a part of the creative process and as responsible for the final result as the animators and Disney himself. [/SIZE]


[SIZE= 16px]Damnit, where is his voice? To cut his voice is tantamount to taking Disney's name off the film. I've listened to, and watched, the previous release in which 98% of his voice is intact. Further, his voice is part of the overall sound design and character of the film. It is not arbitrary. Disney Home Video has no justification for eliminating his voice altogether. It could have been easily included as an option on the menu with the revoice kicking in where the two or three sections of the original voice are lost.[/SIZE]

No need to shout! It has already been explained pretty well. If it could have been done easily, you'd think they would have...Disney did what they could. People need to take it easy a bit