Hoo boy, where to start?
Before I begin to quote bits and pieces of everyone's posts, let met just get this out of the way...
I love
Beauty and the Beast. It's one of my favourite movies of all time and ties (and sometimes overtakes)
Aladdin as my favourite Disney Animated Classic. I love the story, I love the characters, I love the music. I can forgive some of its animation flaws because there are still sequences that take my breath away. The Argument. The Ballroom Dance. The Transformation. Lots of things. Even little moments like Belle kicking her foot up during the "Belle" reprise ("...his little wife" *kick* "no sir, not me!"), or Beast's deadpan "Stupid!" remark at his new haircut. Perhaps the only thing I dislike about the film is the continuity issues, but even that I can overlook because of the general mood and romantic nature of the story. And at the end of the movie, I don't sit and think to myself "Gosh, Belle's face was never consistent and the townspeople sure could have looked a lot better." I'd just be humming along with the Celine and Luther, content that Belle and Adam lived happily ever after. I love the film for all its faults and for all its wonders.
And yet, as much as I love the film, and as much as I'm sure many other people love it (and some likely love it even more), it's not my film. And it's not their film. The film belongs to nobody but the filmmakers and studio that made it.
Yes, there are always arguments and opinions made that once it's out there for public exhibition, it belongs to the public. But even so, the public does not have any rights to say how it should be changed or how it should remain the same. That right will always and only belong to the filmmakers. That's not an opinion, it's fact. Joe Bob Greenberg can't call up Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale and say, "Hey, when you put
Beauty and the Beast on home video again, matte it down to 2.35:1!" I don't expect Wise & Trousdale to start a UD account and post here saying "Calm down, Marky, we didn't use Microsoft Paint for this" or "Cheer up, Rudy Matt, in 2021 we'll re-animate all the bad and dodgy parts!".
The filmmakers don't have any obligation whatsoever to let the 1991 version be the *only* version out there or the *only* version available. It's their film, and provided that they have the means and capital, can change things and make new versions of the film. These new versions are not necessarily replacing the old versions (despite what some people think), merely serving as enhanced versions, director's cuts, etc. You didn't hear of any sacrifical bonfire of all the 1991 film prints or the deletion of the unaltered CAPS files after the 2001 IMAX version was released. That version still existed, even if it wasn't being released anymore. Perhaps in 2021 we'll see yet another version of
Beauty and the Beast, or perhaps they'll have let well enough alone. The fact of the matter (and this is indeed fact, not opinion) is that no matter how many changes and versions there are, no matter which ones they release and which ones they don't, the original version still exists.
What seems to irritate fans, though, is which version is available. And some fans skew that to the point of "what I want to see should be the only version available!" which does a disservice to everyone, from the original filmmakers to the die-hard fans, to the casual movie-watchers. Because even if 10,000 ardent Disney fans want the original 1991 theatrical version of
Beauty and the Beast on Blu-Ray, there are more who enjoy the film in whatever incarnation it will exist in, and there are the original filmmakers who want to present the film in the version that they are most proud of.
In an ideal world, every version made is released to people who want whatever particular version they want. They can watch it and be content that it's available for them.
But this is not an ideal world. Even when every version (more or less) of a film is made, there will always be people who complain. Compare the multiple releases of something like Ridley Scott's
Blade Runner. There are five official versions: The 1982 Original Workprint, the 1982 US Theatrical Release, the 1982 European Theatrical Release, the 1992 Director's Cut, and the 2007 Final Cut. And I'm sure somewhere in the world, someone complained about how unnecessary the Final Cut was, even if that's the one that Ridley Scott calls *his*, the version where he had complete artistic control on the content, the editing, etc.
It's a lose-lose situation. The filmmakers can't release the version they want, because there will be fans who say, "We don't want this, give us the first version." And the fans can't get the version they want because the filmmakers want *their film* to be presented *their way*.
If the filmmakers want to present their movie a certain way, to be able to say "
This is the version of the movie that we're most proud of and want to share with our audiences", then they should. As filmmakers, they deserve that. It's their time and devotion, their blood, sweat, and tears, their vision.
At the same time, yes, it would be nice (and some may say mandatory) that they respect their previous work by keeping it intact. And they do. I'm sure the original CAPS files and film prints still exist. But if the filmmakers want to present the version that *they* want on home video and theatrical re-releases, that's their right.
Mike Duster said "Disney should respect their fans", and I agree.
But honestly...if Disney wants to respect their fans, the fans should respect Disney as well.
Now then, to everyone else's posts...
Disney's Divinity wrote:It seems random to me that a filmmaker--who works for a corporation--can do whatever s/he likes, regardless of whether it's for the worse.
Yes, but we as consumers only judge if it's "for the worse" after it's already been done. And if there was already a lot of "outrage" over the 2001 IMAX version, then the 2010 3-D version would have used the darker colours and removed "Human Again". But as far as we know, "Human Again" still exists and from screen caps coming out, we can assume (but not fully know) that the older colours are being used.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Doesn't that counteract the point of making movies these days (to make money)?
No, not really.
The filmmakers have the freedom to change the movie - or I should probably say, make a newer version of the movie - as they see fit, if they feel it is worth the time/money and will get an audience.
To me, it seems that most fans seem to think (as far as I can tell) that if *they* think it's a bad idea, then the filmmakers made the wrong choice. As if the fans know the movie and the business of moviemaking better than the filmmakers do. That's a big slap in the face to any filmmaker, regardless if it's Disney or Warner or indie films, or whoever. No one but the original filmmakers should have a say in how a movie is presented in whatever official capacity it's being presented in.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Escapay wrote:Fans can watch the film 100 times a day, invest their money in loads of merchandise, read every book and watch every bonus feature. But the film is not theirs. Lasseter may think otherwise, but the fans do not have a say in how a film should be presented.
But, you see, you're going into opinion now.
I don't think I am.
A fan is a paying customer, he's not the filmmaker.
I disagree with Lasseter's (and anyone's) opinion that a fan "owns" a movie once it's released because to own anything means you have a say in how it's used/treated/discarded/whatever. As far as I know, no fans ever hold that right or have truly influenced a filmmaker to make a change for the fans. And if it ever is done, it's a rare once-in-a-blue-moon thing. And the only thing I can think of is Peter Jackson's
Lord of the Rings. He's has gone on record that the theatrical editions are his director's cuts, and he compiled the Extended Editions "for the fans" who want every little detail included. They're interesting curios but really, IMO they only serve to over-extend three movies that are long enough already.
Disney's Divinity wrote: If even Lasseter believes fans should have some role in how a film is released (since they are the ones who will ultimately be paying to have it), then that shows that some people do believe that fans should have a say in how a film their going to fork money over for should be presented.
The problem with that is it's thinking from the mindset that the fan has as much rights to a movie as the filmmaker, simply because they pay for it.
When someone donates blood to Red Cross, do they tell them, "Make sure it goes to only people in Such-and-Such, I don't want it going anywhere else"?
When someone makes a contribution to UNICEF, do they say "I want this money to support a child in Zambia, but not Madagascar"?
Sure, paying to see a movie is not the same as a donation, but even so, the same rights apply. You're freely giving your money/time/etc. to something you believe in or are interested in. Whether or not you're dissatisfied with the results after it's been done doesn't matter anymore. They already have your money anyway. People often say, "I wish I didn't spend my money on that lousy movie" or whatever they wasted money on, and very few times can they get that back.
In our money-centric society, anything is up for grabs so long as there is $$$, but from an artistic point of view, creativity has no price and IMO, it shouldn't. The filmmakers may lose money if they present a film in a way that people dislike, but it's their creative vision and a risk they have to take. And very rarely does a filmmaker get full creative control over that vision.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Yes, they can make a film like they want. But to change a film that has already been released, one that is well-known to the general public at that, doesn't fall under the same category as demanding that an artist paint a similar type of painting to what you've seen before. Nobody would want the Mona Lisa after it had become famous to have been re-done because the artist thought, "There should be a little more color here, maybe something else going on here, maybe get rid of the smile, blah, blah," and still be placed on the same pedestal as the original (ignore the fact that I know zip about the Mona Lisa or its painter's history). Mostly because it would not be the same piece of art that had become renowned. And that's how I feel about the 2002 DVD. It's not B&TB, it's some highlighted imposter parading around with that movie's name slapped on it, manipulating people out of their money by pretending it's the same movie they saw in 1992 (or 91?) when it's not.
But they're not changing it. They're making a newer version. The 1991 version still exists, as I said, it's not going anywhere. The filmmakers are simply choosing to present another version to the audiences. If they don't want to see it, they don't have to see it. They're not being forced to like the new version because the filmmakers want them to. For people who love the 1991 version, yeah, that may suck. But the 1991 version is still out there for them. Just because it's not the one that's on the Blu-Ray doesn't mean that it doesn't exist anymore.
Disney's Divinity wrote:I would rather the filmmakers make up their mind about what we should see the first time, rather than change their impression 10-20 years later.
Believe me, so would I. But if they feel inclined to present a new version for audiences to enjoy, I would be open to watching it.
I was watching Steven Spielberg's 20th Anniversary Edition of
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial a couple days ago, along with the bonus features, and Spielberg himself says that he knows that the 1982 version has its fans, and that he felt it was perfect as it is. But he did the 20th Anniversary Edition because there were some things he still wanted to do with the film, fix shots and such that he was dis-satisfied with and always wanted to change, and was able to do with modern technology that didn't exist in 1982. He basically says that both versions will co-exist peacefully and that fans can choose which one they want to watch.
Unfortunately, Disney is of the mindset that only one version should *officially* be out there for
Beauty and the Beast, which is why all these stupid arguments about it come up. And even more unfortunately, I'm apparently in the rare group of fans who feel that if only one version of
Beauty and the Beast can be released on the next home video release, it should be the version that the original filmmakers approve of and want to be presented.
Scully wrote:Scaps admit it your not into BATB either.
Actually, it's one of my favourites.
Marky_198 wrote:If artists/filmmakers produce something, and the world falls in love with that, the people do "own" it in a way. People pay money for it, it becomes part of their lives.
Fine, then please write to Disney and tell them that since you are one of the millions of owners of
Beauty and the Beast, to release it the way you want to.
Again, it's not about fan ownership of a film or about what's "right" or "wrong". The filmmakers have more say in how a film is released than the fans ever will. If they want to release a new version of
Beauty and the Beast in 3-D, they will. And oh my, they are!
Because you fell in love with the 1991 version, maybe you shouldn't see the 3-D version even if it goes "closer" to the colours you care so much about. After all, it will be in 3-D, something that wasn't done in 1991.
Marky_198 wrote:It also doesn't matter what the filmmakers think 20 years later, because times have changed, different things are "in", and if the filmmakers happen to be in a happy time of their lives, they might prefer bright, cheery colors, and if someone close to them just passed away, they might be in the mood for darker colors. My point is, it DOES NOT matter what they want 20 years later. All that matters is what the filmmakers chose and decided when the film was actually made, and that product they have given to the world.
You might as well tell Richard Donner that he never should have made
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut because the
Superman II that was made 20-odd years ago should be the only version out there.
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you that the 1991 shouldn't be tampered with. I've already stated in my earlier post that filmmakers usually get it right the first time and that version should be preserved. But if filmmakers have an opportunity to revisit a film and change it and present it in a new way, they have that right! It's not like they're erasing the original version of the film from collective memory. They're not recalling every VHS or DVD or whatever made and hiding them. They're simply presenting an alternative look at a movie they already made.
Marky_198 wrote:Who knows what they might like in 20 years from now?
Personally I'm hoping for Wise & Trousdale to co-direct a live-action version and saying, "Forget the animated version, we want this to be our official version". Simply to annoy everyone in this thread.
Marky_198 wrote:A good example is the American "National Anthem".
A beautiful song.
The composer is probably dead by now, but if he'd still be alive, and would wake up one day and decide that he was in a certain mood and "change" the melody of "And the rocket's red glare", and make that sentence go down instead of up.
And present it as the new song.
And he would make sure that every recording that will ever be available has this melody changed.
And he would claim that he could do that because he is the composer?
And his opinion is the only thing that counts?
Would you agree?
If he says that his new version of "The Star Spangled Banner" be the official version for whatever reasons he has, then yes. He has that right.
What you're trying to do is come up with a scenario where what the composer/filmmaker/creator wants will go against everything that the fans want. And honestly, that will never happen because the filmmaker/composer/creator will already be aware of what made fans love what they created in the first place.
Obviously any creator will be aware of a fan's love for something they created. And obviously they have to take that into consideration when they want to present a new/different version of what they created.
Fans can like it, fans can hate it, fans can be indifferent towards it.
But ultimately, what the creator wants will outrank, outstrip, outlast any amount of love or ownership a fan feels they have over whatever it is they're loving.
Marky_198 wrote:You cannot just change things. Because then it's not the same song anymore.
People should open their minds to more than one song.
Marky_198 wrote:No one has a say in how the original film should be presented. Because there is only one way, and that is how the film was released when it was made.
Opinion, not fact.
Marky_198 wrote:If anything is changed, it is NOT the same film anymore, so it should be presented as something different.
And it is. You didn't hear Disney call the 2001 re-release "Original Theatrical Edition". It was called the "IMAX Special Edition". The 2010 release is being called the 3-D Edition.
The problem, again and again, is that fans feel they're being slighted when the original is not being released along with the new version. But really, why should Disney release two versions of the film to theatres when they're intending to promote the 3-D version?
Marky_198 wrote:What on earth are you talking about here?
It has NOTHING to do with making different/new films.
It's all about the original, existing films here, that they should leave alone.
I'm talking about the respect for the filmmakers. Filmmakers aren't little puppets that do what fans want them to do. Fans shouldn't tell filmmakers how to make their films.
Marky_198 wrote:It really shows how much respect you have for the originals.
I guess you didn't read what I said in my post:
I'm not trying to make it seem like I don't want the original 1991 theatrical version available. I'm all for having the original theatrical version of *any* film be released when possible. Most of the time, they get it right the first time and revisionist editions that come later are unnecessary.
So next time you wanna spout out that I don't have respect for the originals, re-read the parts of my posts that you might actually agree with.
Here's the later part of the post that you'll likely disagree with:
But I don't close my mind to the idea of other versions becoming available, be it a Director's Cut or an Extended Edition. So long as the film reflects what the filmmakers wanted, I'm all for it. I would rather respect the filmmakers' intentions for the film (even if sometimes I don't agree with them) than the audience's.
And honestly, it's worth saying again. I'd rather respect the filmmakers than a bunch of whiny fans, even if I may agree with a part of what they're whining about (that the 1991 version be made properly available on the next home video release).
enigmawing wrote:Some of you know that I'm an artist. Sometimes I like to go back and revisit a piece I've released/posted. Sometimes I'm not entirely happy with what I did and will change a few things around, alter the colors, rework the proportions, or just do some old-fashioned touch-ups.
And it's amazing how often I get harshly criticized for posting an altered version at a later date, even when I leave the original version of the artwork up.
But the way I look at it, it's my creation, it's my piece, and if I want to alter it, I'm free to do so. My work doesn't "belong to the world" any more than a Disney film. I may dislike changes Disney may make to any of their films and I may criticize it, but I still respect their right to do so in a situation like this.
And really, people are free to criticize me for altering something of my own as long as they respect me as the artist and keep in mind that I'm entitled to make those kinds of decisions.
Thank you, Sunny Wing!
singerguy04 wrote:Yes, you may love the film and like to watch it now and then, and have as much merchandise as you can get your hands on. But to imply that the people who made this film their passion in life, the ones who spent years in development, the ones that are essentially pouring their souls into their work trying to meet the demand of shrinking deadlines, stockholders, and a public to match past work all of the sudden have absolutely no ownership or say in that films future past it's initial release... well that's one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard on this site.
Thank you, singerguy!
I mean, is it really that hard to understand?
If only one version of
Beauty and the Beast can be released on the next home video or theatrical release, it makes perfect sense for it to be the version that the original filmmakers approve of and want to be presented. Sure, it might annoy a lot of people that the 1991 version isn't presented, but come on. That version still exists, regardless if it's available or not on the 2010 Blu-Ray and DVD. Disney didn't burn all the negatives and film prints in a sacrificial bonfire or delete the original CAPS files. There are still the 1992 VHS and Laserdisc releases that people have in their collections.
It saddens me that some of the Disney fans come across as being more concerned about what *they* want rather than what the *filmmakers* want. Half the time it doesn't even seem anyone's using the more plausible "the 1991 version should be preserved on the next release because it's how the film was first released" argument anymore. Most of the posts here come off as "I want it this way because that's how I remember it and how I want it" and there's little to no concern for the filmmakers' rights or intentions.
Mike Duster wrote:Albert, when I said "Duh", I thought I wrote something so obviously true, everyone would agree. I thought people would read it and say "well, yes, Disney should respect their fans. That is right, that is better." I actually don't see how that statement could be false in anyone's opinion, unless someone's opinions are like...the better thing to do is whatever you want without any regard for anyone else, or something. But I just don't see that as opinion. I see that as clearly right.
It really sucks that it is hard for me to convey what I mean in just text on the internet. As I have said before, it's great that everyone thinks differently and uniquely, but then it means we don't always get what everyone means.
I never meant to offend you or anyone or suggest they were stupid.
Thank you for explaining, Mike.
I wasn't offended by your remarks or opinions, just that you felt you had to use a "Duh" to support them.
Hope you understand now.
KubrickFan wrote:It's just about getting the original version, without any alterations. Yes, filmmakers can do whatever they want with their movies but if they have just a little bit of common sense they always include the original versions.
I'm not against releasing the original versions, I actually prefer most of the originals to later Director's Cuts or Extended Editions (since so few Director's Cuts these days seem more of a gimmick than a proper vision of the director).
KubrickFan wrote:I can't understand what's wrong with having the original version of a movie?
There's nothing wrong with that.
What I've been arguing for in this thread is not for a purging of the original. I'm trying to get people to accept that if the filmmakers want to present another version as the definitive version, they have that right.
The original still exists, it will always exist. Nothing will change that. The problem Disney fans have is they don't have the ability to own it on the newest home video release. If the filmmakers choose not to release the original theatrical edition in the next home video release, yeah, I'll be annoyed too. But I'll still be grateful to have the film in the version that they feel most proud of.
Anyway, I think I've ranted enough about my thoughts on filmmakers' rights versus fans' wishes so I think I've come to the end of this post. If anyone sat through the whole thing and read it all,
for you.
albert
