PETITION FOR UNCUT UNCENSORED FANTASIA BLU RAY

[jpanimation]

I can see it now:

Your menu lets you choose either edited or unedited (warning its only for mature audiences)

If you select edited, you get a giant censor bar covering up Sunflower

Seriously, Disney brings this artificial controversy upon themselves. By leaving this character out (or in Song of the South's case, self-banning it), they're reminding people who probably would've never had a problem with it in the first place, that they should be offended by a 70 year old stereotype. If this was made available from the get go (no self-ban on Song of the South), there would be no controversy and no one would think to bring it up. Why can't we learn from history, instead of trying to bury or sugarcoat it?

This is a mature world, put it in context and people will understand. The problem could be solved by an introduction, commentary comment, or they could include it via seamless branching (just give us the option). I personally believe the best option is to just include it and not bring ANY ATTENTION to it at all, as that's what's causing the problems. The vast majority of the public wouldn't even notice the inclusion or know it was ever missing to being with (until some A-HOLE Black supremacist brings attention to it with false information to gain attention to himself).

[milojthatch]

I can see it now:

Your menu lets you choose either edited or unedited (warning its only for mature audiences)

If you select edited, you get a giant censor bar covering up Sunflower

Seriously, Disney brings this artificial controversy upon themselves. By leaving this character out (or in Song of the South's case, self-banning it), they're reminding people who probably would've never had a problem with it in the first place, that they should be offended by a 70 year old stereotype. If this was made available from the get go (no self-ban on Song of the South), there would be no controversy and no one would think to bring it up. Why can't we learn from history, instead of trying to bury or sugarcoat it?

This is a mature world, put it in context and people will understand. The problem could be solved by an introduction, commentary comment, or they could include it via seamless branching (just give us the option). I personally believe the best option is to just include it and not bring ANY ATTENTION to it at all, as that's what's causing the problems. The vast majority of the public wouldn't even notice the inclusion or know it was ever missing to being with (until some A-HOLE Black supremacist brings attention to it with false information to gain attention to himself).

It's funny you should say that because I've been saying and even a little bit fighting for the same thing with the airline edits of ALL Hollywood films. I'm ready for some backlash after posting this, but I really find it stupid how Hollywood claims this reason and that reason for not releasing the "family friendly" edits of their films and feed us this crap how that's the way it has to be and then turns around and they don't give us a film like "Song of the South" or only give us edits of "Fantasia."

They claim it's because for those films people are offended. Well I'm offended that a film like "Iron Man" has a sex scene in it! So why can't I watch the edited version? And we are not even talking about someone who doesn't have the copyright for the film, this is the studios themselves who go to the trouble of making these edits. They do it to show on air planes and to sell on DVD in Muslim Countries. I've done the research, I know what I'm talking about here!

The thing is that Hollywood could have ended this themselves. "Beauty and the Beast" actually set the standard. The tech the DVD has to have not one, not two, but three different versions of the same film on one disc could have been used for other films to include the "family edited version" that they already make on the disc for people to choose.

In fact with the added space Blue Ray offers, even more of a reason to do this. I'm all about options and frankly every reason I've heard as to why they shouldn't do this is crap with each new technological achievement met with new home video options. Basically, all that is left is that they are evil and stupid. Basically.

They need to integrate this option into new releases. If they do this, a lot of the fights over this issue will be put to bed and everyone will be happy. Don't want to watch the "R" or "PG-13" version but you like the film? Then watch the "edited version." See "family edits" as a crime against nature? Fine, the original theatrical version is there to with all it "glorious" sex and violence for you to get lost in your base human nature.

Like wise, Disney could give us the full version of films like "Fantasia" and not feel bad and thus make both sides happy.

[KubrickFan]

I can see it now:

Your menu lets you choose either edited or unedited (warning its only for mature audiences)

If you select edited, you get a giant censor bar covering up Sunflower

Seriously, Disney brings this artificial controversy upon themselves. By leaving this character out (or in Song of the South's case, self-banning it), they're reminding people who probably would've never had a problem with it in the first place, that they should be offended by a 70 year old stereotype. If this was made available from the get go (no self-ban on Song of the South), there would be no controversy and no one would think to bring it up. Why can't we learn from history, instead of trying to bury or sugarcoat it?

This is a mature world, put it in context and people will understand. The problem could be solved by an introduction, commentary comment, or they could include it via seamless branching (just give us the option). I personally believe the best option is to just include it and not bring ANY ATTENTION to it at all, as that's what's causing the problems. The vast majority of the public wouldn't even notice the inclusion or know it was ever missing to being with (until some A-HOLE Black supremacist brings attention to it with false information to gain attention to himself).

It's funny you should say that because I've been saying and even a little bit fighting for the same thing with the airline edits of ALL Hollywood films. I'm ready for some backlash after posting this, but I really find it stupid how Hollywood claims this reason and that reason for not releasing the "family friendly" edits of their films and feed us this crap how that's the way it has to be and then turns around and they don't give us a film like "Song of the South" or only give us edits of "Fantasia."

They claim it's because for those films people are offended. Well I'm offended that a film like "Iron Man" has a sex scene in it! So why can't I watch the edited version? And we are not even talking about someone who doesn't have the copyright for the film, this is the studios themselves who go to the trouble of making these edits. They do it to show on air planes and to sell on DVD in Muslim Countries. I've done the research, I know what I'm talking about here!

The thing is that Hollywood could have ended this themselves. "Beauty and the Beast" actually set the standard. The tech the DVD has to have not one, not two, but three different versions of the same film on one disc could have been used for other films to include the "family edited version" that they already make on the disc for people to choose.

In fact with the added space Blue Ray offers, even more of a reason to do this. I'm all about options and frankly every reason I've heard as to why they shouldn't do this is crap with each new technological achievement met with new home video options. Basically, all that is left is that they are evil and stupid. Basically.

They need to integrate this option into new releases. If they do this, a lot of the fights over this issue will be put to bed and everyone will be happy. Don't want to watch the "R" or "PG-13" version but you like the film? Then watch the "edited version." See "family edits" as a crime against nature? Fine, the original theatrical version is there to with all it "glorious" sex and violence for you to get lost in your base human nature.

Like wise, Disney could give us the full version of films like "Fantasia" and not feel bad and thus make both sides happy.

Not really, because you're creating a solution of a problem that simply doesn't exist. Just like fullscreen dvds there's no reason for an edited version of a movie being on the same disc. If you don't like it, don't watch that particular movie. If we start with that nonsense, where does it stop? Musicals that have the songs removed? (for people who don't like singing?) Movies that have actors removed, because they don't like him?
And honestly, where is the sex scene in Iron Man? All I see is two adults kissing each other, then falling off a bed. No sex scene there.
Frankly, the 'added' space on a Blu-ray needs to go to the high def picture and sound. What you have left isn't nearly enough to add another inferior version of a movie. I'd rather that they spend it on some useful extra material than on something that's completely unnecessary.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Petitions never work because they can be easily manipulated to skew results and the number of people who sign them is rarely enough to convince anybody that change should be made. Even the impressive now complied for Song of the South shows there is only about a WDT sized demand for the title (150,000 copies or so). Should the new Fantasia include the cuts? From a completest standpoint I'd say yes (along with content like the 1982 soundtrack) but considering how long it's been absent I wouldn't be offended if they decided not to included.

Iron Man's rating is rated PG-13 for "some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content". Where's the sex again? If the MPAA of all people can't find it....well, KurbrickFan said it best.

[ajmrowland]

Firstly, the MPAA cannot be trusted.

Secondly, KubrickFan, the only reason BATB was fitted with all three versions was because of Seamless Branching-a technology still available for today's blu-rays. The shorter version and the longer one could fit on one disc seamlessly, with little more space being taken up.

[KubrickFan]

Firstly, the MPAA cannot be trusted.

Secondly, KubrickFan, the only reason BATB was fitted with all three versions was because of Seamless Branching-a technology still available for today's blu-rays. The shorter version and the longer one could fit on one disc seamlessly, with little more space being taken up.

I know about seamless branching (although I believe that wasn't used for BatB, given its poor quality) but just because that technology exists, doesn't mean it should be used for a censored version of the same movie.

[Rudy Matt]

Firstly, the MPAA cannot be trusted.

Secondly, KubrickFan, the only reason BATB was fitted with all three versions was because of Seamless Branching-a technology still available for today's blu-rays. The shorter version and the longer one could fit on one disc seamlessly, with little more space being taken up.

I know about seamless branching (although I believe that wasn't used for BatB, given its poor quality) but just because that technology exists, doesn't mean it should be used for a censored version of the same movie.

They used seamless branching for the Beauty and the Beast DVD. The reason the disc had such poor video quality was due to the fact they squeezed three versions of the same movie onto one DVD. Even seamless branching couldn't rectify simple math.

[Rudy Matt]

Oh, and I in no way support releasing an "unaltered" Fantasia. If the past is any guide, Walt Disney (rest his beautiful soul) would have the scene reanimated were he with us today. So why would I support a release of a version Walt himself would have changed? Amswer? I don't. And you shouldn't either. You people are just greedy and you want to own every scrap of film ever shot by Walt and his crew. You have no right to demand that and God willing, you will pass on without obtaining it and will have to learn humility in the afterlife. Until then, I will delight in the frustrations of you spoiled brats who care more about your collections than you do about the film reputation of Walt Disney.

[Heil Donald Duck]

Oh, and I in no way support releasing an "unaltered" Fantasia. If the past is any guide, Walt Disney (rest his beautiful soul) would have the scene reanimated were he with us today. So why would I support a release of a version Walt himself would have changed? Amswer? I don't. And you shouldn't either. You people are just greedy and you want to own every scrap of film ever shot by Walt and his crew. You have no right to demand that and God willing, you will pass on without obtaining it and will have to learn humility in the afterlife. Until then, I will delight in the frustrations of you spoiled brats who care more about your collections than you do about the film reputation of Walt Disney.

I beg to differ and I want to see all Walt era films as they were originally released to theaters, for an historical purpose, and Im glad that I have the original version of Three Little Pigs.

[Heil Donald Duck]

Oh, and I in no way support releasing an "unaltered" Fantasia. If the past is any guide, Walt Disney (rest his beautiful soul) would have the scene reanimated were he with us today. So why would I support a release of a version Walt himself would have changed? Amswer? I don't. And you shouldn't either. You people are just greedy and you want to own every scrap of film ever shot by Walt and his crew. You have no right to demand that and God willing, you will pass on without obtaining it and will have to learn humility in the afterlife. Until then, I will delight in the frustrations of you spoiled brats who care more about your collections than you do about the film reputation of Walt Disney.

I beg to differ and I want to see all Walt era films as they were originally released to theaters, for an historical purpose, and Im glad that I have the original version of Three Little Pigs.

[Elladorine]

How exactly does it preserve Walt Disney's film reputation to only release edits of 70-year-old films? I don't think anyone asking to see them uncut is being selfish. Plenty of uncut shorts have already been made available on the Treasures line, which is obviously targeted towards the collectors looking for this type of material. As far as I can tell, those releases have yet to tarnish any reputation, especially since they're careful to give the scenes in question some historical context.

[milojthatch]

It's funny you should say that because I've been saying and even a little bit fighting for the same thing with the airline edits of ALL Hollywood films. I'm ready for some backlash after posting this, but I really find it stupid how Hollywood claims this reason and that reason for not releasing the "family friendly" edits of their films and feed us this crap how that's the way it has to be and then turns around and they don't give us a film like "Song of the South" or only give us edits of "Fantasia."

They claim it's because for those films people are offended. Well I'm offended that a film like "Iron Man" has a sex scene in it! So why can't I watch the edited version? And we are not even talking about someone who doesn't have the copyright for the film, this is the studios themselves who go to the trouble of making these edits. They do it to show on air planes and to sell on DVD in Muslim Countries. I've done the research, I know what I'm talking about here!

The thing is that Hollywood could have ended this themselves. "Beauty and the Beast" actually set the standard. The tech the DVD has to have not one, not two, but three different versions of the same film on one disc could have been used for other films to include the "family edited version" that they already make on the disc for people to choose.

In fact with the added space Blue Ray offers, even more of a reason to do this. I'm all about options and frankly every reason I've heard as to why they shouldn't do this is crap with each new technological achievement met with new home video options. Basically, all that is left is that they are evil and stupid. Basically.

They need to integrate this option into new releases. If they do this, a lot of the fights over this issue will be put to bed and everyone will be happy. Don't want to watch the "R" or "PG-13" version but you like the film? Then watch the "edited version." See "family edits" as a crime against nature? Fine, the original theatrical version is there to with all it "glorious" sex and violence for you to get lost in your base human nature.

Like wise, Disney could give us the full version of films like "Fantasia" and not feel bad and thus make both sides happy.

Not really, because you're creating a solution of a problem that simply doesn't exist. Just like fullscreen dvds there's no reason for an edited version of a movie being on the same disc. If you don't like it, don't watch that particular movie. If we start with that nonsense, where does it stop? Musicals that have the songs removed? (for people who don't like singing?) Movies that have actors removed, because they don't like him?
And honestly, where is the sex scene in Iron Man? All I see is two adults kissing each other, then falling off a bed. No sex scene there.
Frankly, the 'added' space on a Blu-ray needs to go to the high def picture and sound. What you have left isn't nearly enough to add another inferior version of a movie. I'd rather that they spend it on some useful extra material than on something that's completely unnecessary.

Actually yes there is a problem and yes this would be a solution. It has been for a few decades now in fact. I used "Iron man" as an example, but it pretty much goes for most movies. The MPPA can't be trusted. We have the worst movie rating system in the world.

By the way, your tired defense that "if you don't want to see the violence/ sex, then just don't watch the movie" does not fly. Beyond the fact that it isn't so easy not watching movies in a very movie based society and that many people enjoy characters and stories but don't like the extra crap Hollywood seems to tie to these films (like Iron Man or Batman or any number of classic characters like that) there is the fact that many "R" rated films are shown at schools. There are many people that are left with sticking by their morals or getting that better grade. Just because someone like you may not see a problem does not mean it does not exist. That kind of thinking is why there are so many unnecessary disagreements in the World and why there are so many problems.

Many, MANY people feel the way I do. An ABC News poll in 2005 found that there are a lot of people who feel this way. Point is that yes, there is a problem and yes, this could be a way to deal with it legally. Hollywood already makes these "family friendly edits" but refuses to let to public own them. I say that's wrong and want to know why they are willing to only release edited version of films like "Fantasia" and not the original ones and then also release "Unrated" versions of films that add more sex, violence and language and yet refuse to let people own work they already make. Please, someone explain how that works? It comes down to the Hollywood agenda and their crap needs to come to an end.

Seamless branching could work with Blue Ray and I predict it would get a lot more copies of various films sold. Hollywood is first and foremost a business. Their stubbornness and unwillingness to do something about this has only hurt their bottom line.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Until you have any dollar and cents evidence to suggest that the numbers you speak of have any significance, you're just as whinny and stubborn yourself Milo. Of course, the rest of the world is the issue, never you or your "morals". Do you even listen to yourself? The $585 million Iron Man made worldwide, the more than 150,000 votes submitted making up the average 8/10 rating on IMDB and the 93% approval rating from more than 200 votes submitted on Rotten Tomatoes shows how well Paramount is doing without your minority opinion.

You're arguments are based on emotion in an attempt to change the view of a system that runs on facts, dollars and cents. Until you comprehend that your cause will be a lost one taking this route because of how easy it is to ignore or find fault in, you won't get what you want.

[Rudy Matt]

I beg to differ and I want to see all Walt era films as they were originally released to theaters, for an historical purpose.

What a load of crap. You want the Sunflower scenes so you can complete your collection. No other reason. You are so full of @#$% Historical purpose? My ass.

[Maerj]

I beg to differ and I want to see all Walt era films as they were originally released to theaters, for an historical purpose.

What a load of crap. You want the Sunflower scenes so you can complete your collection. No other reason. You are so full of @#$% Historical purpose? My ass.

Who cares what reason people want the footage?

[jpanimation]

Oh, and I in no way support releasing an "unaltered" Fantasia. If the past is any guide, Walt Disney (rest his beautiful soul) would have the scene reanimated were he with us today. So why would I support a release of a version Walt himself would have changed? Amswer? I don't. And you shouldn't either. You people are just greedy and you want to own every scrap of film ever shot by Walt and his crew. You have no right to demand that and God willing, you will pass on without obtaining it and will have to learn humility in the afterlife. Until then, I will delight in the frustrations of you spoiled brats who care more about your collections than you do about the film reputation of Walt Disney.

Spoiled brat? Really? Immature name calling aside, my motivations are not as a collector. I own 6 Disney DVDs and 3 Disney Blu-rays, so I guess it I'm doing a pretty bad job at collecting every scrap of film that Walt ever touched.

In reality, I just REALLY hate the fugly zoom and distracting self-unraveling carpet. It takes me out of the scene. As I've said countless times, I don't care if Disney re-colors Sunflower to some other color of the rainbow or re-animates her, just as long as they don't leave it in it's current distracting form as it's very unprofessional.

As it is, you're supporting a version of the film that Walt himself wouldn't have. You said it yourself, Walt would've had it re-animated, not extreme zoomed and digitally removed. Unfortunately, Walt didn't re-animate it and I find Disney's current tactics distracting (I doubt Walt would approve the reframing and restaging of his film).

Since Disney is unwilling to re-animate or re-color Sunflower (like they did the "red" Native Americans in Peter Pan), I support the release of the original unedited version of Fantasia. I don't understand why this is a big deal as Warner has had absolutely no problem releasing the original uncut versions of Looney Tunes on DVD that contained similar stereotypes (Looney Tunes appeals to the same adult demographic that Fantasia does).

[milojthatch]

Until you have any dollar and cents evidence to suggest that the numbers you speak of have any significance, you're just as whinny and stubborn yourself Milo. Of course, the rest of the world is the issue, never you or your "morals". Do you even listen to yourself? The $585 million Iron Man made worldwide, the more than 150,000 votes submitted making up the average 8/10 rating on IMDB and the 93% approval rating from more than 200 votes submitted on Rotten Tomatoes shows how well Paramount is doing without your minority opinion.

You're arguments are based on emotion in an attempt to change the view of a system that runs on facts, dollars and cents. Until you comprehend that your cause will be a lost one taking this route because of how easy it is to ignore or find fault in, you won't get what you want.

I'm not the fool, but the new voice fighting for what is right. You don't like watched "sanitized" films? I'm not saying you have to. And would you get off the "Iron Man" kick. I kind of feel like those who have responded to me so far haven't even payed much attention to what I'm writing. If you did, you'd know I used it as one example. It easily could have been something else, like "The Dark Knight" and how a "R" rated films somehow got off with a "PG-13" rating. So why are you telling me what I can and can not watch? You like forcing people and telling them what they can and can not do?

A legitimate issue was brought up concerning Fantasia and I agree with it, the original version should be available, I'd own it. But I also think and firmly believe the same situation should be used across the board. Or is my money only good for the "theatrical" versions?

Look, I'm the most freedom fighting person here. I'm not saying we should only have one version or the other, people like you are. I'm saying people should have as many options as they want. That's what I'm about, choices. This is not even a matter of getting Hollywood to start doing something they are not already doing, this is a matter of getting them to let people own something THEY ALREADY SPEND A TON OF MONEY WORKING ON AND MAKING!

http://www.waea.org/about_waea/faqs.asp#35

I mean my gosh, Hollywood cares about what people see or does not see 10,000 miles up in the air, but on land whatever? If you look at the FAQ about how one can get a hold of the "cleaner" versions (the fact that that question is on the FAQ tells me enough people have asked that it is once again an issue) they say to contact the home entertainment divisions of the studios. I personally wrote Paramount, Disney, Sony, Fox and Warner Brothers, a few times for some of them to ask if I could pay for a copy of their airline versions. Didn't even get a single response. Yet when I wrote Disney about "Ducktales" and shows like that being released anymore on DVD, they wrote me back about that.

Maybe if more people were educated on the facts around this issue, some may change their minds when they realize of flat out evil Hollywood is. How else do you account for so many inconsistencies?

A lot of people want this. Maybe not the majority just yet of Americans, but almost half in many instances. Check it out:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=692068

And besides, maybe if this was finally figured out, we'd all get that restored version of "Fantasia" we all want. I think most thinking people would realize the issue is very much one in the same.



If anyone on here is on Facebook and agrees with me, check out this group:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gi ... 643&ref=nf

Once I have the time and my personal life is not so crazy, we will have a regular web site up soon so people not on Facebook that cares about getting this done can fight along side myself and others that care about this. Thanks.

[milojthatch]

Oh, and I in no way support releasing an "unaltered" Fantasia. If the past is any guide, Walt Disney (rest his beautiful soul) would have the scene reanimated were he with us today. So why would I support a release of a version Walt himself would have changed? Amswer? I don't. And you shouldn't either. You people are just greedy and you want to own every scrap of film ever shot by Walt and his crew. You have no right to demand that and God willing, you will pass on without obtaining it and will have to learn humility in the afterlife. Until then, I will delight in the frustrations of you spoiled brats who care more about your collections than you do about the film reputation of Walt Disney.

Spoiled brat? Really? Immature name calling aside, my motivations are not as a collector. I own 6 Disney DVDs and 3 Disney Blu-rays, so I guess it I'm doing a pretty bad job at collecting every scrap of film that Walt ever touched.

In reality, I just REALLY hate the fugly zoom and distracting self-unraveling carpet. It takes me out of the scene. As I've said countless times, I don't care if Disney re-colors Sunflower to some other color of the rainbow or re-animates her, just as long as they don't leave it in it's current distracting form as it's very unprofessional.

As it is, you're supporting a version of the film that Walt himself wouldn't have. You said it yourself, Walt would've had it re-animated, not extreme zoomed and digitally removed. Unfortunately, Walt didn't re-animate it and I find Disney's current tactics distracting (I doubt Walt would approve the reframing and restaging of his film).

Since Disney is unwilling to re-animate or re-color Sunflower (like they did the "red" Native Americans in Peter Pan), I support the release of the original unedited version of Fantasia. I don't understand why this is a big deal as Warner has had absolutely no problem releasing the original uncut versions of Looney Tunes on DVD that contained similar stereotypes (Looney Tunes appeals to the same adult demographic that Fantasia does).

Relax jpanimation, I like your idea and think the original version should be out. Some people get really stupid on issue of how a movie should and should not been seen and enjoy forcing that upon others. I guess they like the power of telling people how to live?

[Flanger-Hanger]

The ABC poll Milo was a sample of only 1002 individuals and does not explain where the "40 million" representation come from. It's just a random poll, that can be spun for any purpose if the question is not clear. Editing sex and violence out of movies? Great! But um....what movies? And what scenes? Without any consistency or common standard for what is and what isn't decent how would studios go about the editing process? What if a "Family Version" was released and a backlash happened because someone still found something objectionable about it, either because some "indecency" still existed or the editing is poorly done etc? Should a group of people supervise the edits? What if the airline version isn't good enough for some? Would they be in the same position you are now? It's very easy to play the victim. And considering how good studios are at squeezing pennies from their customers do you not think that if they felt they could successfully pull off this "family friendly campaign" (which will cost them to put together even if the prints "already exist" according to you) and there was a market they would have done so by now? I think they are smarter than you think.

And again the success of The Dark Knight and other movies shows that Hollywood is doing just find without catering to you.

Fullscreen movies could exist because at one point in time there was a common standard for TV aspect ratios (where most people did movie watching outside the theatre). Now there isn't which is probably why they have largely, if not entirely, died out.

Finally on your "college morals" point, what was the movie in question shown? What was the course begin taken? What was the purpose of the movie begin show? Were others offended and if so were they for the same reasons you were? Does the movie have the equivalent of an "R" rating in other countries? What percentage of students who took the course since the movie became part of the curriculum were offended? What other movie should be shown? What would happen if the professor took the time set up an alternate assignment to appease you? Would the other students be upset with your "special treatment"?

It's so easy to play the victim and point the finger. But without any facts or evidence it sounds as though you expect everyone to bend over backwards to please you. As much as America seems to encourage this way of thinking it doesn't really make you look better than your "enemies". Maybe, just maybe, you can't give the respect to others or take a chance or try to understand where they are coming from? It certainly shows a better strength of character to be able to do this and still believe in your opinion, then just complain.

[Heil Donald Duck]

I beg to differ and I want to see all Walt era films as they were originally released to theaters, for an historical purpose.

What a load of crap. You want the Sunflower scenes so you can complete your collection. No other reason. You are so full of @#$% Historical purpose? My ass.

Your probably happy that Disney is producing crap like Hanna Montana and High School Musical and if anything that is what the current heads of the studio do too ruin Walt is legacy not released of Fantasia in its original form to DVD and Blu-ray.

Your probably also happy that another film of Disney Song of the South have not been released at all even animation historian Jerry Beck have singled the studio out for not release it on DvD.

And in addition to that you must be fluming that Animated short masterpiece like Der Fuehrer's Face is already released on DVD as it is already available on two WDT set it is that awesome.