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

[Saturius]

I've always liked the Fantasias but I never really searched the internet much over them. It wasn't until I started getting info about the Blu Ray release of both films when I discovered how little people seem to think of Fantasia 2000. From people who didn't want it even as part of the collection, to those who just think it's plain bad. They way some talk you'd think F2K was as bad as Gigli or something. Still, one's opinion is their opinion, and how one feels is how one feels so I would never hold that against someone.

Myself, I don't see F2K as inferior or less mature than Fantasia at all. I think it stands up equally, if not a tad better than the original. I don't see the shorter run times as bad. If anything, the original was just too long. I think it's fine when Taylor explains the music or instruments being used in between segments, as that's informative, but him practically describing every single second of every single scene in a segment that was about to be seen was painful and horribly redundant. That was a huge waste of time. Thankfully F2K keeps that to a minimum and except for a few misfires (Martin, Penn and Taylor, and maybe Bette M, all of whom's humor felt "wrong"), I think the hosting was as brief, succint, and effective as it needed to be.

I think some might feel F2k is a little more childish and lighter, but to me the only dark and mature segments in Fantasia were Night on Bald Mountain and to a lesser extent, Rite of Spring. Everything else in the original is similar in tone to the other segments in F2K. And while Firebird Suite is nowhere near as dark and foreboding as Bald Mountain, I think its theme is equally evocative and has good symmetry with Bald Mountain. Rhapsody in Blue has real pathos as well, so I don't think F2k is lacking in depth or anything. I guess, like some others, I just find it a worthy followup and had the urge to defend it.

[Antiochus]

Originally Posted by The Blu Knight

Sorry, but a simple check of Disney's BD-Live site will reveal that BD-Live is only available in the US and Canada. And that is rather unfortunate considering the bulk of the extras is only on BD-Live.

I know that, but I actually could access BD-Live on WALL·E US BD (but not on any other Disney Blu-ray)

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

I think what he's asking is whether or not a player physically located outside the US & Canada could access the BD-Live features using a US or Canadian copy of F/F2K. (The US BDs have been confirmed region-free by both this site and blurayregioncodes.com, despite the Region A logo on back; I assume the Canadian BDs are identical.)

Edit: In other words, does Disney control access to BD-Live by IP-address nationality, or do they simply not include a BD-Live link in their releases outside the US & Canada? (Unlike WB, I'm sure Disney does *NOT* use the same disc masters worldwide.)

Yes, that's what I need to know.

Originally Posted by whbinder

Interestingly. My German Blu-ray has an option for BD-Live. Of course I can't access it here in the U.S.

Now I only need to know if it works vice versa...

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

I look forward to F2000, which I think was far more creative visually, and honestly had far better music. I'll take Elgar and Respighi (even chopped up Respighi) and Saint-Saens and Gershwin over Beethoven anyday.

(Well, I first learned to like Beethoven as a kid by way of Disney, but I'll certainly take Elgar and Shostakovich over twenty minutes of Stravinsky...)

Originally Posted by Saturius

It wasn't until I started getting info about the Blu Ray release of both films when I discovered how little people seem to think of Fantasia 2000. From people who didn't want it even as part of the collection, to those who just think it's plain bad. They way some talk you'd think F2K was as bad as Gigli or something.

You have to remember, in summer '00, there was a perfect storm of anti-Disney sentiment. (The movie had technically opened in January '00, and serious fans had to make pilgrimages of up to a hundred miles just find the 50 or so IMAX theaters playing it, while the lazy folks stayed home and didn't even notice it till it hit the cineplexes.)

At that time, the Anti-Katzenberg revolution against the "formula" of Hercules and Hunchback was just coming to a boil, there was the false promise of really neat alternative animation like Final Fantasy promising to "replace" old-fashioned Disney (F2K opened in 'plexes the same week as the geek-awaited Titan AE), Disney films had been sinking in quality, and Eisner's troubles and the fans' Lilo Wars were still another two years away.
Compile that onto the naturally expected 2010 Syndrome ("Sheesh, this is supposed to be a sequel to a classic?--This sucks, it looks cheap!"), and fans raged their loyalty by dogpiling on how "cutesy" the flying whales segment was, and how everything now had a new-Disney story to it.
Not to mention, for those who had never heard of the movie till it hit the cineplexes, or had their expectations raised too high by not being able to get to the IMAX'es, the popular cineplex version was a bit...minor in comparison, as it focused only on the film and not the experience. (Although they should have been grateful it was at least whole, and not as randomly chopped up as RKO's small-town version of F40.)

You just have to take it for granted that all of '99-'05 Disney just Couldn't Get No Respect (adjusts tie), and do your homework and try to revise history for the better since then.

[Ernest Rister]

There was no anti-Disney bias clouding my judgement in early 2000, out between Santa Monica and LAX, in a thrown-together giant metal temporary IMAX theater built specifically for F2K by the Walt Disney Co. I admired Tarzan greatly, aside from the regrettable inclusion of the Rosie O'Donnell character. Try as I might, I couldn't convince anyone that Emperor's New Groove was a lot of fun, and a great time at the movies. I didn't pester my best friends into going to see F2K with me on opening night because I wanted to dislike the film.

The thing is, there is really no right way or wrong way to make a "Fantasia", they merely express how the employees of a studio in 1938-1940 responded to a challenge, versus how the employees of the same studio responded in the early 90's on to 2000. How they responded gives us insight to the artisitic and economic priorities of the respective producers. Fantasia is largely serious, adult, and oddly both introspective and extroverted. Fantasia 2000 is genial, ingratiating, relaxed, but like a modern child, it has a short attention span, and can't be asked to focus on anything that doesn't have a story with good guys and bad guys. Even the *abstraction* in F2K has a story with good vs. evil and a happy ending.

If Fantasia never existed, and Fantasia 2000 was reviewed purely on its own merits, I think it would merit stronger marks. But Fantasia does exist, a film of such fervent commitment to an idea, that the artists seem more like they are hell-bent on leading a movement more so than merely trying to entertain. F2K is the polar opposite. The film only wants to please, and it is deathly afraid of offending anyone by making them feel ignorant, or boring them with long examinations of action.

There is a sequence in the Pastoral where Peter Pegasus and one of the cupids fly around the descending arc of a rainbow. It is a pure experiment in color and technique, as the characters change hues as the fly behind the striped colors of the rainbow. This goes on for quite a long time, well over a minute.

In F2K, the opening snip from Beethoven's 5th runs roughly three minutes long in total. Not much room for meditation there, let alone real drawn acting.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Saturius

Myself, I don't see F2K as inferior or less mature than Fantasia at all. I think it stands up equally, if not a tad better than the original.

There's nothing in Fantasia 2000 that even comes close to approaching the power and beauty of the Night on Bald Mountain sequence that segues into Ave Maria in the original Fantasia. There is artistry and emotion in Fantasia that is almost transformative. Fantasia 2000 is not even in the same league, imo.

[johnns]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The thing is, there is really no right way or wrong way to make a "Fantasia", they merely express how the employees of a studio in 1938-1940 responded to a challenge, versus how the employees of the same studio responded in the early 90's on to 2000.

That's one way of putting it. I do think it could be said that the first "version" of Fantasia was more successful at its response to that challange than the 2000 edition, if we're saying that both are responding to the same challange. 2000 is an effort to update the Fantasia experience for a modern audience, but is definately less sophisticated.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by johnns

That's one way of putting it. I do think it could be said that the first "version" of Fantasia was more successful at its response to that challange than the 2000 edition, if we're saying that both are responding to the same challange. 2000 is an effort to update the Fantasia experience for a modern audience, but is definitely less sophisticated.

Well, I'd say that the 1940 crew answered in a far more challenging, interesting, dramatic, insane and contemplative manner, while the 2000 crew wanted to drop all pretense of "animation as a movement in art" and simply entertain.

[johnns]

My least favorite host in 2000 has to be Bette Middler.

"Now Salvadore Dali . . . you know, the limp watch guy?"



Steve Martin was out of place too, but at least his lines were funny.

[PowellPressburger]

Originally Posted by johnns

My least favorite host in 2000 has to be Bette Middler.

"Now Salvadore Dali . . . you know, the limp watch guy?"



Steve Martin was out of place too, but at least his lines were funny.

If it puts things in perspective they didn't write their intros, hate the writing not the presenter. I really don't like watching them at all, just wish Disney's set up wasn't when you hit the next chapter stop or scan your screen is interrupted by their pop up menu design.

But I think the writers were trying to talk (down) to younger generations, or make them feel at ease with watching it. Maybe? Either way the intros are uncomfortable in some ways.

[DVDave]

Fantasia 2k sucks.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by DVDave

Fantasia 2k sucks.

I disagree, it doesn't "suck". Pines of Rome loses impact even on 50" screens - to have seen it in IMAX on opening night...people in front of me were wiping their eyes when that piece was over. It was astounding...and too damned short to really develop. Rhapsody in Blue - again, who can fault the line work and art direction here? And the Magnolia/Short Cuts intersecting lives storyline could have led to something...but the piece is too damned short to really develop emotional depth and impact. And of course, The Firebird -- there is no devil on the screen, but there was behind the scenes, as I believe Roy chose this piece out of revenge. Yes, revenge. The Stravinsky estate sued the Disney company for "Rite of Spring" royalties, and during the trial, continued an old claim that Walt Disney told Igor Stravinsky that Igor better sell him the rights to the Firebird, because if Igor didn't, Walt said he was just going to use it anyway. I am not making this up.

Why such an outlandish claim? Opinion and mood in the arts is fickle and competition is legion, Igor had earned modern acclaim and notoriety, he was a critical darling much like Walt. When Fantasia was released, and music and art critics howled, and Stravinsky was asked, "how could you have let them do that your music", etc., Stravinsky said he was deeply upset with it and disliked it intensely.

This flies in the face with studio records, which show photos of a clearly engaged Igor Stravinsky beaming from ear to ear while holding Rite of Spring models, designs, concept art, even telling an assistant that the setting was "just what I meant, I suppose". Igor even walked in on an animator, who for whatever reason was playing the score backwards for inspiration. "Sounds good backwards too!" Igor grinned.

So Fantasia is released, the music critics howl, and Igor savages the film in the press, using words like "imbecility". Walt responds by telling the studio side of things, and points out that when Stravinsky came to the studio, based on what he had seen, Igor agreed to sell Walt the rights to The Firebird, as well.

And of course, logic dictates that this is likely closer to the truth. If Walt Disney truly could make a film out of the Firebird suite without paying for the rights, then why in the world would he offer to pay Stravinsky thousands of dollars for the rights anyway? It doesn't make sense, and such a tale is way out of line with Walt's known gentle, charming hand when dealing with talent outside the studio.

Stravinsky was the only living composer to get the "Fantasia" treatment in 1940, and Stravinsky's comments all but sealed Fantasia's critical fate. After Fantasia became a money-maker, the Stravinsky family sued for royalties and also wanted the rights to Firebird reverted as the sale was made "under duress". The Stravinsky family lost their suit. F2K went into production, the concluding piece of which was The Firebird.

Roy Disney - clearly protective of his father and his uncle's work - knows the inside history of this inside and out, and I think it was not without a certain amount of chutzpah and pique and revenge that he chose to conclude Fantasia 2000 with the Stravinsky Firebird. It must have driven the Stravinsky estate to certain distraction.

Anyhoo, Fantasia 2000 does not "suck", it merely illustrates the studio priorities and entertainment philosophies in the late 90's.

[Afrobean]

Having trouble with playback on Fantasia 2000 on my Panasonic BD65. Seems that I'm not the only one having trouble. Disabling BDlive allowed the movie to actually begin playback... but then I got a constantly refreshing error that keeps popping up telling me that it "Cannot connect to network," and recommending that I "Please confirm Network Settings or BD-Live Internet Accesss in Setup." During playback of the normal movie.

What kind of crap is that? Why is it constantly checking for a BDlive connection during playback of the NORMAL MOVIE?

I had to pull the ethernet cable out of the back of the thing just to have normal playback. Stupid.

[Crimson King]

The Pastoral Synphony is again censored! Films like Fantasia should be presented the way the were filmed/intended. The transfer on the blu is prestine i must say.

[RYJAPE21]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Pines of Rome loses impact even on 50" screens

That it does not. My eyes were glued to my 50" screen during that entire segment and I was so entranced that I let my pizza burn in the oven

The only thing I'm disappointed with this set is the lack of the Clair de Lune segment as a deleted scene; unless I missed it I was upset that it was not included.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by BillyJack

The Pastoral Synphony is again censored! Films like Fantasia should be presented the way the were filmed/intended.

Fantasia is not censored.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by RYJAPE21

That it does not. My eyes were glued to my 50" screen during that entire segment and I was so entranced that I let my pizza burn in the oven

The only thing I'm disappointed with this set is the lack of the Clair de Lune segment as a deleted scene; unless I missed it I was upset that it was not included.

You have to dig, but it is there. It is part of the BD-Live virtual vault on Fantasia 2000. From the V.V., hunt down "The Fantasia That Never Was" on the Fantasia menus, and you should find it.

My favorite is the Swan of Tuonela, because I think it would be absolutely gorgeous to see. Slow, moody, mournful, incredibly beautiful, no story, just the Swan taking the souls of the departed to the realm of the dead.

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Fantasia is not censored.

I suppose in the literal sense of an authoritarian blockading of expression, no.

Dictionaries aside, it is edited and content has been removed or altered. And that's a shame.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Having trouble with playback on Fantasia 2000 on my Panasonic BD65. Seems that I'm not the only one having trouble. Disabling BDlive allowed the movie to actually begin playback... but then I got a constantly refreshing error that keeps popping up telling me that it "Cannot connect to network," and recommending that I "Please confirm Network Settings or BD-Live Internet Accesss in Setup." During playback of the normal movie.

What kind of crap is that? Why is it constantly checking for a BDlive connection during playback of the NORMAL MOVIE?

I had to pull the ethernet cable out of the back of the thing just to have normal playback. Stupid.

Both of the discs for Snow White and Sleeping Beauty "talk" to the internet for all kinds of you-specific content. On Sleeping Beauty, the menu screen displays the kingdom based on the weather conditions outside your house. If it is snowing in your neighborhood, it will "snow" on your menu screen. If it is raining, it will rain and storm around the castle on your menu screen. Windy, fall, spring, summer - it changes along with the weather. It also displays the weather conditions at the studio's 5 Disneyland theme parks in California, Florida, Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong.

On Snow White, the Magic Mirror will wryly comment on the weather or time of day in your home, and also gripe if you haven't played the disc in a while.

Now, why in the world the disc for Fantasia 2000 needs an internet connection to function is beyond me, as aside from the BD-Live, I can't discern any content that depends on internet functionality.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by whbinder

I suppose in the literal sense of an authoritarian blockading of expression, no.

Dictionaries aside, it is edited and content has been removed or altered. And that's a shame.

The creator and producer of the film himself corrected his own movie. Brian Sibley says this was done in 1960, and I assume he is referring to foreign releases, because the amended Fantasia American release did not happen until 1969. "We acknowledge the history, but we do not perpetuate the image." Sibley says, and it sure sounds like he is speaking for the company. If so, that sounds like the correct policy.

[The Blu Knight]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I disagree, it doesn't "suck". Pines of Rome loses impact even on 50" screens - to have seen it in IMAX on opening night...people in front of me were wiping their eyes when that piece was over. It was astounding...and too damned short to really develop.

I think that's it. Anyone who saw this in IMAX has a more profound respect for the films art, I know it was quite an experience for me as a child. Outside of that the movie's only weakness when compared to the original is as someone else said, a certain lack of sophistication.