Fantasia / Fantasia 2000 (1940-1999) (Special Edition)

[shinobipopcorn]

If they were able to pull off "Something's There" and "Morning Report" back on DVD, I'm sure there would be a way to do at least a blu-ray with the roadshow and 1990 versions on the same disc. They'd probably just have to have separate and distinct audio tracks per playlist.

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

The animation segments are generally identical across the many cuts, so it's a matter of encoding several different interstitials. Except there's some mystery to why the 1942 cut is so much shorter since the runtime difference is far more than what cutting the Toccata and interstitials would have done.

The section of the Wikipedia article that mentions the 1942 cut cites "Gabler, Neal (2008). Walt Disney: The Biography", and says there was a first revision before Toccata was removed. If anyone has access to that book and wants to go fishing, you might find something.

[SuperheroFan]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

The "Night on Bald Mountain" segment used to scare me when I was four, but so did this WB vanity plate:

1989 - Warner Home Video - YouTube

I'll bet it was the loud noise.

That always scared the crap out of me, it made the Tim Burton Batman movies on VHS even scarier as a set up!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

The animation segments are generally identical across the many cuts, so it's a matter of encoding several different interstitials. Except there's some mystery to why the 1942 cut is so much shorter since the runtime difference is far more than what cutting the Toccata and interstitials would have done.

That's the RKO cut...Walt turned it over to RKO for general release, they cut the heck out of it and released it on a double-bill with a western. This is what I'm talking about...there are so many different versions of the movie, where do you draw the line and say, okay, after decades of different versions, this is the definitive version? Because I don't believe for one second if Walt was alive today, Sunflower would remain. Disney isn't in the controversy business, they're in the "we make you happy and you give us money" business. James Cameron turns a blind eye to True Lies because he feels, after 9/11, it's in bad taste. That's his right. He doesn't think the film works anymore -- what they thought was funny then isn't funny now. People thinking they're ever going to see an official modern release of Song of the South or the Pastoral are deluding themselves. It's never going to happen, no matter who introduces the movie to try and explain ethnic stereotypes from the 40's. It isn't worth the blowback, especially in the Facebook/Twitter age, and it isn't worth hurting anyone's feelings in a larger point of view. Iger's been delicate addressing this, because it apparently comes up annually during stockholder meetings, and he thinks about the brand and the company as a whole, and says - basically - it isn't worth it. Sunflower isn't worth hurting someone's feelings. Song of the South (as misunderstood as I think it is, while also being a lousy movie) isn't worth hurting anyone's feelings. We move on.

[Treadwell]

Originally Posted by Class316

But not original because originally it was not zoomed hence false advertising no matter how you spin it

Well, the packaging didn't claim to be "all original". It said "uncut". A zoom is not a cut.

I agree with you that the statement wasn't terribly forthright, but it was not technically false.

[Class316]

Originally Posted by Treadwell

Well, the packaging didn't claim to be "all original". It said "uncut". A zoom is not a cut.

I agree with you that the statement wasn't terribly forthright, but it was not technically false.

Now if they said "uncut version" technically that would have been true.

But how is it Walt's own "original"?

[Ernest Rister]

Anyone remember when Pinocchio came to home video in the early 90's, advertised as "available for the last time this century"? Then it came out again around 1999? Some lawyer actually sued them over that, wanted a class-action.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Class316

Now if they said "uncut version" technically that would have been true.

But how is it Walt's own "original"?

It still is "uncut".

The term you're looking for is "uncensored" - which they don't use.

[Vidya]

It's incomplete, yes? Then it isn't uncut.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Vidya

It's incomplete, yes? Then it isn't uncut.

They should have just used vague terms -- "Fantasia as You've Never Seen It Before" or "Expanded" or "Extended".

Boom. Done. Common sense for the win.

When Fantasia came to home video in the first place, the marketing department said it was the "final release of the original masterpiece", so they painted themselves into a corner.

[Class316]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It still is "uncut".

The term you're looking for is "uncensored" - which they don't use.

Right, but they also say it's Walt's ORIGINAL. Which it obviously isn't. Hence false advertising.

I'm surprised no one sued them over it.

[Bandit Tajomaru]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

isn't worth hurting anyone's feelings. We move on.

Poor babies, they were offended by a Black cartoon character. Lets make a safe space for them with crayons and coloring books.

[Egbert Souse]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That's the RKO cut...Walt turned it over to RKO for general release, they cut the heck out of it and released it on a double-bill with a western. This is what I'm talking about...there are so many different versions of the movie, where do you draw the line and say, okay, after decades of different versions, this is the definitive version? Because I don't believe for one second if Walt was alive today, Sunflower would remain. Disney isn't in the controversy business, they're in the "we make you happy and you give us money" business. James Cameron turns a blind eye to True Lies because he feels, after 9/11, it's in bad taste. That's his right. He doesn't think the film works anymore -- what they thought was funny then isn't funny now. People thinking they're ever going to see an official modern release of Song of the South or the Pastoral are deluding themselves. It's never going to happen, no matter who introduces the movie to try and explain ethnic stereotypes from the 40's. It isn't worth the blowback, especially in the Facebook/Twitter age, and it isn't worth hurting anyone's feelings in a larger point of view. Iger's been delicate addressing this, because it apparently comes up annually during stockholder meetings, and he thinks about the brand and the company as a whole, and says - basically - it isn't worth it. Sunflower isn't worth hurting someone's feelings. Song of the South (as misunderstood as I think it is, while also being a lousy movie) isn't worth hurting anyone's feelings. We move on.

The other problem is that the shots would confuse the hell out of people since they've been altered for so long. At least on the Blu-ray, the image quality isn't terrible, as was the case with the DVD. More so that the "matting" on the DVD was a bit amateurish at times - the shots with Bacchus had some really odd "clone stamp" problems.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Egbert Souse

The other problem is that the shots would confuse the hell out of people since they've been altered for so long. At least on the Blu-ray, the image quality isn't terrible, as was the case with the DVD. More so that the "matting" on the DVD was a bit amateurish at times - the shots with Bacchus had some really odd "clone stamp" problems.

OMG, what the heck is that? Is that a leg? Whose is it? I MUST KNOW!

[Show spoiler]It's from the zoom job on the VHS/LD.

[Class316]

Originally Posted by Bandit Tajomaru

Poor babies, they were offended by a Black cartoon character. Lets make a safe space for them with crayons and coloring books.

Precisely. If these caricatures offend, then let them be offended and have their feelings hurt cause there are a shit ton worse things than this that will happen to them in life.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Class316

Precisely. If these caricatures offend, then let them be offended and have their feelings hurt cause there are a shit ton worse things than this that will happen to them in life.

I'm in favor of releasing the uncensored version for historical purposes, but I can understand the viewpoint of wanting a censored version for children. Imagine a black little girl, after having seen all these grand princess movies with white girls in palaces and only the one movie with Tiana, sees the little black horses following the other horses around as servants. Especially a little girl who might live in an area with a lot of racism. Parents can explain the scene all they want, but children are impressionable after all.

All this talk about branching doesn't preclude the possibility of including both scenes. Why not stretch the technology to its limit?

[JulesAndJim]

If the modification of this scene in the movie bothers people, let them be bothered cause there are a shit ton worse things than this that will happen to them in life. Let them have a safe space watching Birth of a Nation on blu-ray.

[Bandit Tajomaru]

Funny how these people that are offered by a Black cartoon character don't have a problem letting their kids watch rap videos and Family Guy which contain far worse ethnic stereotypes.

[JulesAndJim]

Originally Posted by Bandit Tajomaru

Funny how these people that are offered by a Black cartoon character don't have a problem letting their kids watch rap videos and Family Guy which contain far worse ethnic stereotypes.

What do you mean by "these people?"

[Bandit Tajomaru]

Originally Posted by JulesAndJim

What do you mean by "these people?"

Liberals.

[JulesAndJim]

Actually, conservatives are much more likely to let their kids watch Family guy and listen to rap while complaining about old Disney movies.