supertalies wrote:Goliath wrote:Hey, another Dutchie!
Hier is er nog een!
Gezellig!
Rudy Matt wrote:[...] And yet, the focus on original release versions is so intense from the zealots, such people would deny artists the right to revise their own works in their zeal to preserve the original release version.
Why do you have to insult people you don't agree with by calling them 'zealots'? By the way, all people who worked on
Fantasia are long gone. They aren't here anymore to revise the film. Only the people who own the company now, and they had nothing to do with the creation of the original movie.
Rudy Matt wrote:Films are not allowed to evolve, even when common sense suggests they should. For the zealots, the films are frozen in carbonite, forever, from the moment the first ticket is sold. That's formalism.
Call it 'formalism' if you want to. Just don't expect me to be impressed by your newly learned word-of-the-day. Films *are* frozen products. They can't evolve because of their very nature. Theatre productions can evolve. You can act out a play on stage very differently from one night to another, reacting to the audience and polishing it until it is perfect. A film, however, is finished at a certain moment. The footage has been shot, the film has been edited and the final product has been released. That then *is* the film. If you call that the concept of a 'zealot', you don't understand the first thing about cinema.
Rudy Matt wrote:Walt Disney would not allow the Sunflower centaur to remain in Fantasia today. There is no question. None. Walt being Walt, he'd have the scene reanimated despite the cost.[...] Those who think Walt would allow those scenes to remain in Fantasia if he were alive today are deluding themselves.
Bow, people, bow to Rudy Matt, the self-proclaimed holder of all truth when it comes to Walt Disney. He must still have a mental line with big Walt himself, who's telling Rudy Matt exactly what he wants from beyond the grave. What more does Walt want, Rudy? Please tell us. We're waiting eagerly...
Rudy Matt wrote:I laugh at people who argue that Fantasia shouldn't be altered because it is "changing history". Fantasia is probably the most revised film in the history of film, and was always planned to be. I laugh at those who say changing the Sunflower centaur would be hiding or erasing the past, and racial stereotypes must remain in Fantasia or "history" would be lost and people would not be able to learn about racial stereotypes from the 40's -- as if there weren't thousands upon thousands of examples of racial stereotypes in media from that period! I laugh at those who say we need the Sunflower centaur so we can "learn" from it. What are you going to learn? That racial stereotypes were a mainstay of American humour in the 30's and 40's, similar to Middle Eastern and Indian comic stereotypes in the 80's and 90's and today? You need the Sunflower centaur to learn that?
Boy, must you have a good day because of all that laughing. Too bad people who laugh at things that aren't laughable always come of as kind of ignorant. Like being ignorant about history and the powers of censorship. Sure, we could cut
Fantasia. Why not? Plenty of other films left to see examples of prejudice and racism toward African Americans, righ? Wait, what if we edit them all too? Let's just put the scissors in *all* of them!
See? We were never racist! Just look at all these movies! No racist thing in them at all! We always were such tolerant, open-minded people.
Of course this means we have to cut
Dumbo too. A crow named Jim, talking in African American dialect? I don't think so. And we have to cut
Peter Pan, too. Have to pretend Hollywood never vilified Native Americans. Also on Rudy's cut-and-paste list:
Aladdin! Portraying Arabs as thiefs, while the heroes look like American teenagers? Can't have that. Sure, it will leave you with a Disney collection completely cut up, but at least it won't be 'formalist'...
