Don't buy the Fantasia DVD unless you want to waste money. (1 Viewer)

[James D S]

Deja Vu. Ehh, Seth?

 

[Michael Shannon]

I really hope that none of us at the Forum use movies to raise children, but when watching a film and questions are asked by a child it is a good place to start conversation about subject matter they may not learn in school.
------------------
View MShannon's DVD Collection
If You Want "The Five Heartbeats" Go Here:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/001946.html
Petition for Eddie Murphy Films GO HERE:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/...ML/002420.html

 

[David Tolsky]

Well, all I can say is, at least when you buy the Fantasia box set, you get 3 drink coasters out of it!

Ahh, we've raised the "Song of the South" issue all over again, but in a different movie.
I really view this as a business decision by Disney. They don't want any particular races boycotting their products and I can't blame them for that. I'll live with the zooming and enjoy the hell out of the rest of the set.
DT

 

[Kevin M]

You don't know what I mean by "Jim Crow"?
Are you kidding?
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Ho-sanna-hey-sanna-sanna-sanna-ho-sanna-hey-sanna-ho...sanna!!"
....what the hell does that mean anyway?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

quote: But Shakespeare was for the masses, meant to make some money, so does that mean that we can edit out the "Queen Mab" soliloquy when society deems it "offensive". [/quote]Seth,
I know it's not essential to your point, but I don't think you would have to use the fingers on your second hand to count the number of full text Shakespeare productions that have been released as films. Similarly, his plays are constantly re-staged, re-imagined, and re-conceived theatrically. In this sense, I'm not sure that Shakespearean text is the benchmark to be used for unadulterated uncensored presentations.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Brad Vautrinot]

I have to respectfully disagree with that analogy. First off, movies are made to entertain and hopefully make a profit to finance future films while history books are written about factual events to teach others about those historical events. When I read a history book I'm reading it to gain knowledge, however, my main goal in watching a film is to be entertain.

True, Robert, but I also can think of movies as a lesson in history from a societal and cultural point to some degree. When I view some older films from the 20's, 30's, 40's, and so on in most cases they show me the fashions, architecture, automobiles, language (slang and other "lingo"), political and cultural beliefs and philosophies of those times that I can't always find in a book. To change any of this in an attempt to appease someone who may be offended (either real or perceived) is not right. This is pandering to special interest groups at best. If one is offended by a film, don't watch it but don't prevent me from doing so.
If someone is worried that seeing Goofy smoke a cigarette will leave an impression, a parent should take the time to explain to the child why this is in the film (smoking was not considered a health hazard in those days, but today it is so don't you do it). I haven't found any child yet in the 5-10 year age group that I've shown Song Of The South to who thought of blacks as inferior or subservient to whites. In fact, I haven't known any black adults who were offended by SOTS.

 

[george kaplan]

You don't know what I mean by "Jim Crow"?
Are you kidding?

I assumed you meant to imply that somehow the crows were racist stereotypes. I disagree with that. Disney has done a lot of things that aren't very good, but they get blamed for a lot of things they don't deserve. I've had people tell me that the happy chimney sweep in Mary Poppins is Disney trying to tell poor people to be happy in their proper place in society. Give me a break. I think that the scenes in Fantasia were racist, but not the crows in Dumbo, nor frankly do I find Song of the South troubling. Birth of a Nation is another story.
But no, I don't really *know* what you meant by the Jim Crow reference.
------------------
"That audience - 12 to 19 year old pimply faced, mean spirited males - came, watched and went on to whatever god-awful other pursuits" USA Network CEO describing professional wrestling fans

 

[Seth Paxton]

Deja Vu. Ehh, Seth?

Uh, yeah, unfortunately I guess.
Oh well, it's obviously a serious subject that shouldn't be taken as cut and dried by either side of the debate.
One good thing about HTF is that it's a nice reality check. You are just CERTAIN that everyone feels the same way as you do, but then you come here and find out that even people you normally agree with don't see it the same way.
I seriously think that has to be socially benificial despite the pain in the ass that debating can be.

You know, the one no one is touching here is Huck Finn. Twain wrote for entertainment and he most certainly wrote for kids. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were staples of literature in school when I was young.
So I think Huck Finn matches with Fantasia in terms of what they were and that they were out to make some money as entertainment.
So do we cut Huck Finn for kids to read now??? See, to me it SEEMS like if you start talking book editing of a classic people get freaked, but if it's film then it's no biggie (to the average guy, not film nuts). For some reason society very incorrectly treats books as more art AND, for some mind boggling reason, as less influential than films.
To me it would seem that whatever offense, whatever damage that Fantasia could cause would be similar to what Huck Finn would induce in kids.
So should we chop up Huck Finn as well, then make a note of it at the back of the book? If the answer to you is NO, then I think we need argue no further over Fantasia being cut because it seems to be very much the exact same thing. If the answer is YES, then I guess it will be a long night.

BTW, I haven't had the cash to pick up Fantasia Box DVD yet (I have the LD), but this current edit wouldn't make me not buy it because I still want to enjoy as much of the art as possible. But I would like to see Disney "fix" this mistake, IMHO.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Ken, (not to be smart ass but this is going to sound like it, sorry)
Is this a re-interpreted version of Fantasia we are talking about? Is this the novelization? Or a live Broadway version?
No. To compare apples to apples you would have to say that Shakespeare's writings are being edited when presented as the original work. And in the case of Fantasia there isn't even an option for seeing the original work as it was presented to the public and intended by the artists.
If it helps, we can switch to Huck Finn, but I think either is the same thing.

 

[cafink]

Could someone please tell me exactly where on the "Anthology" disc the feature explaining this edit is. I briefly went through the disc last night but couldn't find it. Thanks.

 

[Philip Hamm]

BTW, I haven't had the cash to pick up Fantasia Box DVD yet (I have the LD)

Holy smokes. Get it. The video transfer is 20 times the quality of the LD, I've A/Bed them and the difference is breathtaking. This from someone who is usually very happy with LDs! Keep the LD for the original non-roadshow cut with original audio, but get the Legacy box. It's great stuff!
------------------
Philip Hamm
AIM: PhilBiker

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Is this a re-interpreted version of Fantasia we are talking about? Is this the novelization? Or a live Broadway version?

No, which proves my point that using a Shakespearean play is a poor analogy more concisely than my own post did. I already said that it was not essential to your point, so let's not belabor it any more.
Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[James D S]

quote: But no, I don't really *know* what you meant by the Jim Crow reference.[/quote]
Maybe you should pick up a history book instead of trying to learn history through the movies. I'm not picking on you, just the silly notion that we can watch movies for specific historical knowledge.
quote: You are just CERTAIN that everyone feels the same way as you do, but then you come here and find out that even people you normally agree with don't see it the same way. [/quote]
True, true. Gives you more reason to think about your convictions. Also, provides a way/means to honestly take an oppositional point of view seriously.
quote: So I think Huck Finn matches with Fantasia in terms of what they were and that they were out to make some money as entertainment.[/quote]
And if Mark Twain were here now and making the 'changes,' the analogy would be valid. If you truely respect 'artistic vision,' you would have to respect and allow for any changes he made after the fact, as he is the artist of whom's vision you speak. I would say that the Disney machine is just as much the artist as any single stoyrboardist, director, preoducer, etc., as Mark Twain was over his novels. No one working on Fantasia sneezed without express permission from the board of directors, so to speak. The Disney studio's input and control was such that they should be considered the single most important artist over any Disney movie. If Disney decides to change anything, being the artist it is, they should be given the same respect as you would Mark Twain. So, the fact that Disney is deciding to alter a work that directly affects the image that THEY must answer to, we should, as people who respect artistic vision, respect their decision.
quote: I briefly went through the disc last night but couldn't find it. Thanks.[/quote]
Carl, if I remember correctly, it is during the main 'Pastoral' segment. I don't remember it being anywhere else, but I may be wrong. The narrarator does not go into great detail, but does acknowlegde the change.

 

[Todd H]

If Disney decides to change anything, being the artist it is, they should be given the same respect as you would Mark Twain.

The corporate machine...Disney....an artist? Excuse me for a second...

Disney stopped being an "artist" when Walt died.
Just remember the HTF mission statement...
It is our goal to promote the advancement of the Home Theater hobby through the technological support and philosophical guidance of our members. We believe that the purpose of Home Theater is not only to provide entertainment, but to preserve the artistic integrity of film in the video format as well. We stress the need for accurate reproduction of film and strive to create, as closely as possible, the theater experience in our homes. Our philosophy is rooted in the firm belief that Home Theater should be first and foremost honest to the film makers intent.
And on that note, I am done.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Money, Phil, money. That's the only reason. If it makes you feel better it is literally at the top of my "already released, need to buy" list. It was behind Ken Burns Baseball, but I finally sucked it up and got it.
I could've bought it with the money spent on the Monroe set, but I didn't even have any of those on LD, so...

 

[James D S]

quote: Disney stopped being an "artist" when Walt died.[/quote]
I agree, even to the point that the parenthesis should be removed in your statement. But, fact of the matter is, the only 'vision' coming out of Disney's factory can be attributed to the studio as a whole, no single individual, like what may be argued at other studios. The studio heads decide on EVERY aspect that goes into production. Nothing, (almost nothing

) escapes their critique and 'okay.' On that fact, Disney Co. should be considered the 'artist' we so iconify when discussing points like this.
Can you attribute ANY Disney movie to ONE individual? Not even Walt had 'final cut' in the end. And from what I've read regarding Fantasia, it is the product of several directors, all with near autonomy of their segements in presentation, but that presentation must pass muster with Walt and other policy makers at Disney. So who is REALLY the 'artist' of purpose?
And further, Fantasia was DESIGNED to be a movie in motion. A dynamic presentation that evolved over a period of time. How can this 'evolution' occur without the artists of the particular time in which the changes are to be made? And if we take artists of a particular time, we must also take the 'time' along with it. So naturally, Fantasia is open to this type of revisionism. i.e. Disney would be well within their own 'mission statement' with regards to Fantasia, and as per Walt, to cut out the Pastoral segment ENTIRELY.
I think the fact that they left it in says more to upholding 'artistic vision' than the zooming says against it.

 

[Seth Paxton]

And, James, I agree. If WALT was alive and making the changes....just like Twain, right?
Actually I don't totally agree with that because I usually think that once an artist says "Here it is, I'm done" that he turns it over to the collective conciousness, unless they are battling against money or perhaps longing for better technology that doesn't exist at the time.
Example: I don't mind cleaning up shots in SW, but altering the story later does bother me. One thing was something that involved the limitations of your creativity at the time, the other is changing your mind about what you wanted to say.
I could call you a f***ing jerk and then later apologize, but it wouldn't erase the history of what I said from your mind, even if you forgave me for saying it. I understand mistakes or changes of heart, I just don't understand trying to pretend it never happened. So Disney made Fantasia that way. Now they say "Sorry". Ok, nuff said. As long as you are not celebrating that aspect of your work, it doesn't offend me to leave it in.
My biggest fear is that we live daily with ideas in film about religion, sexism, violence, racism that all could become offensive in the future. Will Some Like It Hot be edited when cross-dressing becomes offensive, OR the humor at the implied portrayal of real cross-dressers becomes offensive. Or the sexism in it becomes offensive. Etc. etc.
I don't see how those cuts are any different. And if you can justify one, then why not the rest. And if the rest, then aren't those quite a lot of changes to the films. And at that point do the films represent the artists' initial artistic intent, or the current mood of society.
If we want to capture the current social mood, we can always just make MORE art, not rely on altering the art from other eras to fit the current one.
In fact, do a remake, a modification, an interpretation. Romeo + Juliet represents the 1990's more than or as much as any of Shake's original intent. We identify such a film as unique from previous works and different than the original writing.
Fantasia 2000 is all about that, you don't need to capture today's morals with Fantasia original.

 

[James D S]

quote: I understand mistakes or changes of heart, I just don't understand trying to pretend it never happened. [/quote]
Which Disney is not doing. The zooming is well documented in the supplementals, and throughout the net. The fact that it is zoomed is going nowhere. Posterity will always have access to the information. Posterity will always have access to the history of biggotry and racism. If we look to movie studios as a bastion of truth, we are in far worse shape than ANY edit could incur.
quote: My biggest fear is that we live daily with ideas in film about religion, sexism, violence, racism that all could become offensive in the future. [/quote]
This brings up a problem we, as film lovers, should take very seriously. We are the purveyors of an artistic medium of which financial concerns CANNOT be exorcised. This brings up a dilema. We love movies for their artistic merit but must constanty yield to corporate influence and control. We know this when we pay high prices at the box office. We know the movie we are going to see is nothing more than a corporate product, sometimes devoid of artistic soul, perpetrated by schills for the mighty dollar. We know, yet still we go.
We praise director's like Scott, Anderson, Howard, Reiner, Cukor, Lucas, McTiernan, or whomever for their 'vision,' yet we know these guys have little control once they make movies for a Hollywood studio.
Sure, they have complete autonomy for their student work, but once they sign on a producer, etc., they give up any claim to producing their definitive artistic vision. This is how Hollywood works, and with the amount of money we're dealing with, the amount of money that THEY put their necks on the line with, to get these movies to market who can blame them?
We know this, yet still we praise movies for their 'artistic integrity.' We know 'artistic integrity' is not a realistic goal. Entertainment, on the otherhand, is.
I challenge anyone to name 5 movies put out by Hollywood since 1941, where the director had COMPLETE control and final cut. (I'd be surprised if any of these happened since 1980.)
So, if we concede tha directors are puppets (to more or less degrees), what are we striving to protect.
If I wanted a unedited 'Aunt Jemima' bottle of syrup, I'm SOL. Syrup is meant to be consumed (purchased) by consumers. If I wanted a reversion back do the doo-ragged mammi-esque label art, I'm SOL. (They don't even make it as an option or supply a supplemental disc taped to the bottle explaining their actions.)
Movies are pop art. We don't kid ourselves that they are not. But, we lament when they are treated as such.
Movies are pop art. They are suject to all the concerns that govern such a genre, be they financial or political. But we lament when owners exercise their financial control to make political statements.
Movies are pop art. Hollywood is not a charity. They are not tax-exempt. But we lament when Hollywood acts like they are not a charity and put money ahead of our need of fabled 'artistic integrity.'
Movies are pop art. And I still love them.

 

[James D S]

Seth,
I wish I saw movies as an untouchable sacred artform, but I'm too cynical to overlook the several facts of the matter that show otherwise. That's my sin.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Yeah, luckily books, music, paintings were never pop art, not even in the pop art era.
I just don't see how a Stephen King novel is any different than a film, except that a film is more collaborative. Or a record album.
The intent is to make money on these things, money is invested to do so before hand and must be recouped. Certainly painters even are subject to the trials of trying to make a living at doing art.
I think it's a mistake to think that film is more of a business than any other art. Books may not generate the money films do, but their are less hands in the process. Much like tennis vs. baseball, but both are sports and both are about winning and making money at it.
We shouldn't cut Disney slack because Fantasia is not Catcher in the Rye, because it is. Catcher in the Rye was written AND published, with the intent of selling books to the masses, just as Fantasia was made to show to the world.
Or maybe you would like to sell me a Raphael painting for $10 since it's NOT pop art, not a business, like film is.
It may be that the eternal war is between artistic freedom and the need to finance art, but that doesn't mean film gets some "Get Out of Jail Free" card for revisionism while the rest of the arts don't. And the very fact that there IS THIS BATTLE means there are sides to choose. I pick the side where we keep the art how it was. If everyone was on my side then Fantasia wouldn't be altered, so that tells me that there are people in the world on the other side of this. Not explaining it, but in fact, defending the practice.
If people were unwilling to defend and support Disney's "financial" decision, then we wouldn't be having this debate. It sounds like you are on the side FOR altering/revising because you do support/defend the practice. Why would they ever stop if everyone keeps saying "fine, go ahead". Treating it like the money comes from nowhere is wrong. The money Disney makes comes from US, WE are supporting it, not some mysterious THEM that go unnamed.
I hate the "Why fight, that's just how it is" approach to serious matters such as these. I agree some battles are hard, but I can keep my opinion even if the effort to change things is beyond me.