What's new

Full Details: Disney's "Aladdin"! (1 Viewer)

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
I just checked the "Original Theatrical Version" option on the Lion King DVD...the shot of the crocodiles is the "corrected" shot from the IMAX release. I'd wager that the waterfall shot is the same as well.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
Ernest:

Neither TLK nor BatB include the original theatrical versions, despite misrepresentation on the packaging and press releases.

They simply allow you to select a version that doesn't include the inserted footage (mostly, the new song for each film). The altered footage is still altered.

If 20% of Aladdin has been altered (worst case scenario: as much as the crocs in TLK), it is not the same film that that made much cash and was well-loved by many.

I've got no problem with such revisionism as long as some version of the original film is still available. Disney has a $50 collector's box for Aladdin, and that would be the perfect place to include the original film. I don't mind paying a premium, but I do mind the original version being deleted, probably indefinitely.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"Yeah, they "fixed" the crocs by taking highly stylized renditions that evoke African folk art, and turning them into generic cartoony animals similar to those that could be seen in a zillion generic kids movies/shorts. I about spit milk out of my nose when I read about them being 'fixed'."

The animals in the entire sequence are "cartoony". I think the change is unnecessary, but then, if you want to throw a fit over three seconds of re-drawn crocodiles, you must go postal when watching the extended edition of The Abyss.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
Of course all the animals are cartoony, it is a feature length 'cartoon'.

But the crocs were once cool and unique, now they are generic cartoony.




Hardly. I can disagree with a change but still watch a movie and enjoy it. And I can express an opinion without throwing a fit. I use the crocs as an example of revisionism. In fact, during the releases of BatB and TLK on DVD, some of us warned that the relatively small changes to the theatrical cuts could grow into much larger changes in future releases. 20% is a lot more than we have ever seen changed before.

Fortunately, the ill-conceived IMAX project is dead, so hopefully we are starting to see the end of such changes. I don't see them going to such expense in the future for a regular home-video release, especially since Eisner has cut the theatrical animation division.

Oh, and your Abyss comparison is a red herring. The DVD at least allows us the choice of which version we watch; the true original theatrical version is still available. Disney doesn't give us such a choice, and that's all some of us are asking for.
 

Chris Farmer

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 23, 2002
Messages
1,496
Then again Michael, how much of Lion King was changed? A lot of the enhancements were made tbecause of the IMAX screen, such as adding faces that were charcters that were too small to be seen on a 35 mm frame. If that is the case, then it well could be that a similar percentage of the Lion King was reanimated, but DVD lacks the reslution to show anything but the crocs, the waterfall, and the removal of SFX or SEX, take your pick.

As for the changes, I'm meh with them. Yes, the original crocs looked like African art, but they did seem somewhat out of place when nothing else did. The old ones looked African, the newer ones are more in keeping with the style of the rest of the scene. Either way, it's a small enough difference (a few seconds of background character changes that are never seen again) that I personally have a hard time getting worked up over.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
It's simply a matter of principle. I can understand that not all will agree.

Some of us are collectors and/or are interested in the history and origin, and we would like the original theatrical film to be available in current and future formats.

Why does anyone care that this matters to some people? If I didn't care, I'd buy the disc and be happy, and I couldn't care less if others disagreed.

I can respect that not all of our opinions are the same. Why do you feel the need to convince try and others that our opinions are wrong?

Or are you really trying to convince yourselves.... ;)
 

James Reader

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
1,465


Everything I've read about Beauty and the Beast is that they went with the static panels because the production ran out of time and money. I haven't seen anything where it's stated the creators are happier with the opening "forced" upon them.

It's all semantics anyhow. A film is a document. To "film" something is to document it. As a document, it's part of history. A film tells many stories. The actual story of the film, but it's also tells the story of technology of the time, of the creative talent of the time, or the actor's skill at the time. It's possible to follow the evolution of a director or actor by following his films.

Ernest, I'm sure you've got a copy of the Mickey Mouse in Black and White boxset. Now, watch those shorts in order and marvel at how far animation progressed in seven short years. It's a story in itself. It's a major chunk of the history of Amarican animation. We all know Walt hated "rubber banding" on limbs which was common on those early animations. Thankfully Walt didn't decide to go back and alter the early cartoons later to "fix" them. He concentrated on moving forward. As a result we can now enjoy the original Mickey Mouse cartoons. We can watch history. Only the incredibly stupid or the incredibly vain think that they can alter history.

Let people change their films, if they believe it is their "right" but make sure the original - flawed or unflawed - is always available for those who appreciate and study history.

All of the other examples you have quoted are still available in their original form. Disney have no intention of releasing the original versions of their altered films ever again (by the looks of it).
 

Keith Paynter

Screenwriter
Joined
Mar 16, 1999
Messages
1,837

I keep going back to a Monty Python Sketch from "Live At The Hollywood Bowl", where the Pope (John Cleese) commissions Michelangelo (Michael Palin) to paint the Last Supper, and calls Michelangelo to the carpet for painting 13 apostles and deciding to paint three Christs ("The fat one balances out the two skinny ones!")

In the end the Pope says "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like!"
 

Jacinto

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
450
Location
Littleton, Colorado
Real Name
Jacinto
The original theatrical version of Aladdin has never been available on any home video format, considering the altered song lyric. Nor has the original theatrical version of Beauty and the Beast ever been available on any format, as the laserdisc, even with the original animation and audio, was presented 1.66:1, while the film was shown 1.85:1 in theaters. Sure, it sucks, but the fact is without a theater projector and the original reels, you will never be able to see the "theatrical versions" of these films again.

My little girl recently discovered Aladdin, so I have been watching it a few times a week for the last month on LD. Although I am a bit leery of the animation changes, I will welcome the DVD into my collection for the improved video alone (I have a hard time watching the LD on my RPTV now, as so much of the picture and colors seem a bit muddy).
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Folks,

I'd politely request that you resist the urge to "challenge" Michael St. Clair in regards to the changes made to B&TB and Lion King. He's absolutely correct about the objective changes that were made and the particular reasons (good or bad) behind them. His comments about the "African Art" motif of the original crocodile theme is 100% on target--it's even discussed in the extras on the DVD (the one that does not actully *have* the original art-work for that scene!).

He's presented the facts. And he's presented them fairly. There is already an established base-line of facts on these matters and it helps no one to try to turn over what's already KNOWN.

Now, if folks still want to argue all day about the moral issues at stake in making such changes, or how destructive or potentially helpful they may be, that's another matter because it's entirely subjective. And I think it's fair to say that regardless of how one may feel, its important that we respect everyone's feelings. But I might suggest that rather than starting out this thread like we're discovering something for the first time and debating it like the arguments have never been addressed before, that it might be helpful folks do a search and check out what discussion has already taken place... This forum has had *plenty* of discussion about these EXACT issues and rather that simply repeat all the same back-forth banter it might be valuable to spend some time reading what intelligent discussion has already taken place about it.

Ok...signing off. Enjoy!

dave :)
 

Roy Batty

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
293
Real Name
Jose M Mendez

There is no deafer man that the one who does not want to hear (or should I say "read"?).

Where in my message did I deny or even question creator's right to tinker with his/her creation? Quite the opposite in fact, if you want to go back an re-read my posts. What I denied is their right to erase a piece of history and replace it with a "fixed" one, depriving us of the real deal.

As somebody else has quickly pointed out, the ABYSS example supports exactly my stand on this whole matter, providing the original version along with the extended one, so nobody has reason to complain.

As in many other instances in life, I find it odd and frankly disturbing that when there are two different options to deal with an issue, one serving to please both sides, while the other implies imposing the will of one side upon the other, it is the latter option which wins more often than not.

A sad sign of the times, I guess.
 

Tim_P_76

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
271
Real Name
Timothy J. Parkans


All I see is 2 different opinions. Nothing else. I don't understand this whole thread after seeing Marco's screen caps. I share Ernest's opinions on this thread. Maybe one side is getting tired of hearing about changes. How many threads are like this? I count three too many now.You don't have the power to stop a filmmmaker. Their film is their passion.

I'd enjoy these 2 disc editions while they last. Disney is an enternal mess and they let go their one true champion for animation.
 

Roy Batty

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
293
Real Name
Jose M Mendez

Well, it seems this thread has plenty not only of deaf men, but blind men as well.

My option: Take both sides into account. Original theatrical version included along with new, revised version in same package or separate releases. So you are willing to trade the film's integrity for some added stuff? Well, I don't, so you go buy the "bettered-up" version while I keep the old one. Me pleased, you pleased, happy both.

Your option: Take one side into account, give the other one the boot. Scrap the original version as if it never existed in the first place, make it unavailable –most likely FOREVER– and release only the revised version. Now you go and buy your version of choice, while I simply can't buy mine. You pleased, me not.

Can you see the difference now?
 

Roy Batty

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
293
Real Name
Jose M Mendez

Oh, really? Then I would have to surmise that you simply do not care about any other sides than yours.

You know what? You are right, I am wasting my time here.

You can fire away, I am keeping my mouth shut from now on.

(1) I had to come back and re-edit the post, because it first said "f*** you", and then I decided to change it to the softer "you are screwed". But since Tommy P. quoted it prior to the edit, I did not want it to look like I was editing after the fact to try to cop out.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"Ernest, I'm sure you've got a copy of the Mickey Mouse in Black and White boxset. Now, watch those shorts in order and marvel at how far animation progressed in seven short years. It's a story in itself."

Yeah, I cut together a four-minute montage of Disney animation from 1928 - 1937, beginning with "Plane Crazy" and ending with "The Old Mill". It's part of a seven-hour video thesis I created on Disney Animation in 1999. I just got finished dumping off the first three hours from VHS to DVD this past week, just to archive the thing so I don't lose it (it's already showing serious signs of wear and degradation). I'd make QuickTime or WMP versions of some of the briefer sequences, such as all the instances Spielberg has tipped his hat to Disney films (it happens more times than you think, even Always has a little nod to Snow White, and Saving Private Ryan brings up "Steamboat Willie"), but I fear these would be copied and distributed, and then I'd wind up with Disney lawyers crawling up my rear end looking for spare change.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
By the way, if a DVD says "Original Theatrical Version" included, it should actually include the original theatrical version. Not cool, Mouse House.

Has anyone watched the "OTV" on the Beauty and the Beast DVD to see if it, too, has been altered?
 

Ray H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
3,570
Location
NJ
Real Name
Ray
I'm not sure as far as audio is concerned, but the OTV and the SE of Beauty and the Beast do have some differences aside from the new song. For example in one scene where Beast is taking a bath, one version has the bathroom quite messy. In the other, it's clean.
 

Ernest Rister

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2001
Messages
4,148
"But the crocs were once cool and unique, now they are generic cartoony."

All the animals in the "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" are drawn in a very simple style. The elephants do not look anything like the elephants seen at the beginning of the film. Ditto the giraffes. It seems to my eyes the crocs and the birds are changed to more closely resemble the style of the other animals during that musical number. I don't think it was a question of the quality of the drawing or animation, but rather the style. It seems an odd, unnecessary alteration, but someone obviously wanted to change the shot, and for specific reasons. It wasn't changed to remove sex, smoking, guns, or ethnic stereotypes, it was altered to change the designs of the crocs and birds themselves. Who ordered it? Who approved it?

Again, it's not that I'm deaf or blind (thanks, Paul O'Neil) - but I can't fault people for wanting to make changes to their own work.

What I think we *can* criticize is Disney Home Video stating that the disc contains the "Original Theatrical Version", when it clearly does not.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,721
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top