Bambi - Platinum Edition for March 05! (1 Viewer)

[Sam Favate]

It should not mean that. However, take a look at the non-computer generated animated films of the last several years. Is there anything in terms of the artistry in Home on the Range or The Price of Egypt that is going to hold up against Bambi or Fantasia?

Seems to me some of the best "old-fashioned animation" of the last 15 years was done on television, on programs like Batman The Animated Series or Pinky and the Brain (portions of which were CG, but you see my point).

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I haven't seen Bambi since...hmmm, there must have been a theatrical re-release some time in the mid-to-late 80's. Maybe even earlier."

Bambi was re-released in 1982, and again in 1988, the same summer as the release of Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That was my first semester of college at UT-Austin, and I had completely forgotten how it was possible for me to go to the old AMC in South Austin and see a Warner Bros. cartoon, followed by Roger Rabbit or Bambi. Talk about animation nirvana. Every 17-year-old animation fan should have it so good. Kids today are getting weened on Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Clone Wars, Home on the Range, and Shrek 2.

I had Chuck Jones, Walt Disney, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis and Richard Williams. Advangtage: me.

 

[Michael Qualen]

Whats the point of storing the original movie reels in a bunker/safe that can withstand nuclear attacks when Disney ruins it anyway by not making the originals available ?

 

[Ernest Rister]

What originals are you referring to?

 

[Michael Qualen]

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991)
FANTASIA (1940)

Which referring to another post should be in this vault...

These are not available in their original theatrical versions...(not on DVD at least)

Im not trying to stir up the pot here, but I just find it a bit amusing that Disney will protect their movies in a vault to preserve history, and then on the other hand they wont release these films as they were originally seen in theatres...whats the point then ?

Look here for more info: http://www.widescreen.org/commentari...1_04_apr.shtml

I know this quote at the bottom of the page is a bit harsh, but it gets the point across regarding cencorship (please read the link to understand that this is censorship and not "artist edits")

 

[Ernest Rister]

Woo - laying on the hyperbole a bit thick, are we? Censorship is a government action. Editing is the word you're looking for.

"Im not trying to stir up the pot here, but I just find it a bit amusing that Disney will protect their movies in a vault to preserve history, and then on the other hand they wont release these films as they were originally seen in theatres..."

I think common sense has to reign here. If Walt Disney were alive today, in today's politiical and social and cultural environment, there is *no way* he would have released Fantasia in it's 1940 form. Like he did with "Three Little Pigs", he would have created new animation to replace the offensive images. Scores upon scores of Disney films have been altered in myriad ways, long before home video was even a twinkle in Michael Eisner's eye. Fidelity to original release is an absolute goal, but it should always be one seen in the context of intent...Disey shot many of his TV episodes in color, yet they aired in black and white. On DVD, they are seen in color because Walt would have wanted them to be seen that way. That's the context of intent I'm talking about.

"whats the point then ?"

The point is to not let comic stereotypes from the late 30's completely derail apppreciation for a staggering work of American cinematic art in the 21st century.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I'm still flip-flopping on whether or not to get Bambi. On one hand, it's good Disney and has significant cultural and historical value. On other hand, I can't help but chuckle that a male is called Bambi. Such a stripper name. It's another one where I have to flip a coin to decide.

 

[Michael Qualen]

U know, I just finished writing a lot of stuff about what I thought about the censorship or editing going on and my PC froze up, and I didn´t save it...

Im kinda glad I didn´t save it, because I think I took it a bit over the line...Frankly they are "just" movies..

But I would like to know if anyone here is afro american, and If THEY are offended by the black minotaur in Fantasia, or if they know that its in fact an old movie made in different times, and that we moved on...?

I am Danish, and therefore I dont live in the US, but I have visited though. What I dont get is that in the US you go out of your way to censor/edit out thing from the past that would reflect badly on your society, you are outraged when you see a damn nipple for a second, you "beep" out cuss words in televison (I think its mostly done here, right ?) but when it comes to violence, its no biggie. I dont think that violence in movies are affecting normal young people...I think poor parenting is...so Im not for editing violent movies at all. Im not for editing AT ALL. Whether its because of language, sex or violence.

I just find that the US often uses the saying "Out of sight, out of mind" a lot in these cases. "If we edit out the black stereotypes in Fantasia, If we edit out the smoking in other cartoons, we dont have a problem...its all gone away..."

...but it is not.

If I was afro American, I would be offended that a big company like Disney edits out a black minutaur in the name of political correctness...

Look, Im sorry for this rant, but I just dont like censorship in either shape or form...even if someone wants to call it "editing"

We cant change the past...and we shouldn´t

And in regard to the "offensive images", what would be wrong with a disclaimer that says something like "May contain offensive images" and then let everyone decide for themselves what THEY find offensive. I dont like people telling me what to think...

And regarding the stereotypes, you refer to them as "comic stereotypes"...dont you think that afro Americans (for example) can see this too and laugh at this too ?

 

[Lew Crippen]

After reading the comments made by whoever wrote the editorial pointed to by your link, I was relieved that your writing had more substance and coherence than the writing in the link.

Without either defending or attacking Disney’s actions, I would observe that it makes plenty of sense to save the originals for posterity, even if the versions being made available today are altered (I do wish that you would drop the word censorship, as it is both inaccurate and inflammatory—I write this with the understanding that you are not a native English speaker and likely don’t appreciate the distinction).

In the end, political correctness of the day is transitory and will likely change over the years. What is now unacceptable may be viewed with less hostility years later. At that point, having saved the original versions will be of value, as they can be released as they were first produced.

I would also suggest that your passionate statements put aside commercial reality. The owners and distributors of these films are trying to produce a product that will make money—and which will not engender a firestorm of protest that might degrade the company’s image. Remember that things like this are not a poll, where if most people are happy, then everything is good. All it might take is a concerted public effort by a significant interested party and Disney would now be defending themselves in the court of public opinion.

Now you or I might think that they are being too cautious, but it is not our money or reputation that is on the line.

 

[Michael Qualen]

I think the whole thing about using the word "censorship" and using the word "editing" depends on the eyes that see. Granted, Im not a native english speaker, but I think that I do pretty well in both expressing myself verbally and in writing.

But could you please explain to me why I cant call the beeping out cuss words censorship ? Im not trying to be annoying here, I just want to know what to call that then. I likely dont have the same understanding of the word "censorship" as Americans do, but please try to explain it to me...cause it seems like the word in just a big no no...but we all know what it means, right ?

I know this is a bit far off, and I can appreciate that Disney wants to make money...everybody wants that, and I am not that naive that I dont know how business works...its about the same all over the world

But is the US government the only ones that can use the word censorship...and if so, why is that ? Is it like "dont mention the war...dont tell our citizens that 20 of our soldiers just died in Iraq"...please enlighten me

Again, I dont want to sound like a smart ass...I just want to understand why I cant use the word

 

[Sam Favate]

Censorship is censorship -- it does not require government action. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't know what they are talking about. The only way the government factors into it is when someone alleges their First Amendment right to free speech has been violated -- that requires government action. Also note that "government action" is a legal term of art and means quite a number of things. (For the record, I am an American, a native speaker and a lawyer, and I do understand the distinction between an "edit" and "censoring.")

Anyone can censor. The government, a corporation, a parent.

And yes, censorship is unAmerican.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

Basically it's only censorship if a third party bans/edits something without the consent of the owner. This third party would usually be the government as they're the only ones with the power to do so.

So basically if the government prevented Disney from distributing the original version of Fantasia, that would be censorship. If Disney decides that because of market conditions, they don't want to release the original version of Fantasia, that's them exercizing their rights as the owner.

 

[Lew Crippen]

You can Michael. It would be an act of censorship to prohibit your from using that word.

I’ll look this up in the OED, but in practical terms it is figures in authority, such as governments (could be State or local—not necessarily Federal), religious institutions, or even private authorities such as existed in film industry (the Hays Code) that limit either before or after the fact what is printed or shown.

So censorship is not limited to governmental agencies, although they are more likely to have the authority to back up their views.

Censorship can also be societal, in the sense of meeting generally accepted community standards (though here I’m getting on shaky ground and will likely need to check the exact definition). In this area we are getting close to the actins taken by Disney. But,

Editing is what is done by the owners or creators of a work on their own to make it either more nearly meet what they envision or to be more commercially viable or to be more socially acceptable or for any other reason (other definitions exist, of course, I’m trying to stick to the area at hand). Here there may be a bit of an overlap, but basically a film might be edited in order to get a PG-13 rating (making it more commercially viable). Censorship would be what would happen when an outside agency would require the owner to edit out (for example) nudity in order for the film to be released.

In short, you can use the word, but the pejorative nature of its use indicates to me that when it is used out of context, the writer has an agenda outside of the rather minor nature of editing in the cases we are discussing.

 

[Michael Qualen]

Yeah, no need for that as thats allready done in the rating system...how convenient (dont take this remark too serious, ok ? But sarcasm never killed anyone)

We have a rating system in Denmark as well, but directors and moviestudios doesn´t send the movies to be rated, and I have never heard that changes were made to get a lower rating. I guess the rating-people just watch the movie and then decide that this is gonna have this and that rating. We use mostly numbers on out rating system..A for all, 12 if u must be 12 to see this movie, 15 and 18 and so forth

 

[Dan Rudolph]

The rating system is an outside entity, but they have no real enforcement power, thus the recent rash of unrated DVDs.

 

[Michael Qualen]

But how serious do you Americans take ratings anyway ? Its more like a guideline anyway, right ? But it seems to me that editing some cuss words (which in reality is nothing compared to the way young people talk in real life), nudidy (God forbid that children will see one more nipple) and violence (violence seems to be less of a problem) is a widely used thing, right ?

I can understand ratings in terms of providing guidelines for what you should let your children watch...But I dont like ratings when they are made to "protect" the young people from...what exactly ? They cuss in school, with their friends, they can find porn on the internet faster than anything...and violence is pretty much widespread in the news every day...it just seems a bit amusing to me as an outsider...

 

[Sam Favate]

Actually, I would say that the use of a word like "edit" implies an agenda. For example, I'd say Steven Speilberg censored the scene in ET where he replaced guns with walkie-talkies. There was some content there that he wanted changed for reasons of sensitivity. Not saying he didn't have the right to do it, not saying he shouldn't have done it; I'm simply not making a judgment on it. All censorship is not inherently wrong.

I suppose we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

But one point I feel is necessary to make again: The fiction that only the government can censor is a dangerous bit of misinformation to be putting out there. Lets not do that.

 

[Joe_Pinney]

I thought this was a thread about Bambi.... I click on the last post and I'm seeing it's morphed into a thread about censorship and America vs. the World. What the hell happened?

Bambi, people, Bambi.

 

[Michael Qualen]

Bambi ? Who the heck is that ?

No, seriously...I think I was the one taking this a bit off topic...lets get back on track, shall we...

ahem...

So...Bambi on DVD, huh ? Nice...Im gonna get that for sure...how about you guys ?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Oh no - not THIS discussion again!