DVDizzy Forum

Rudy Matt wrote: Sir, America in the 30's and 40's was a segregated nation. Walt only lived to see the rise of the Civil Rights Act after Kennedy's death in the 60's, not its flowering. If Walt were alive today, you'd better believe he would have no problem altering Fantasia or any other cartoon, especially since he had already demonstrated he was willing to alter his films to remove ethnic stereotypes, The Three Little Pigs being a famous example. Besides, by making the older films acceptable for modern demographics, Walt would have been extending their commercial potential, making Roy happy and allowing him more funds to followhis crazy projects.

First off: Sir is my Grampa Well that's not his actual name but you know

Secondly: I know very little about American history so I'm not aware of any events mentioned in your post.

Thirdly: I think that the Walt Era shorts etc. are products of their time, while they are offensive yes to change them would be odd to me since it seems like your trying to make it look like it never happened, Sunflower being a famous example. I think that Disney has learned since then not to use stereotypes and have realized it's not ok.

Fourth: I have no idea what the last part of your post has to do with anything really about Walt and Roy

and finally: If Walt was willing to remove harmful stereotypes like in 3 Little Pigs then WHY did he continue to put them in the shorts? Why is Mammie there in Pluto shorts, why is Mickey's Mellerdrammer even existing, why is Sunflower around? See my point? He changed one short out of how many that have offensive stereotypes, that's why I doubt he would change them now IMO because if he didn't do it then, then why now?

Rudy Matt wrote:

BelleGirl wrote:I have Fantasia on dvd and Fantasia 2000 on VHS.
I'm planning to replace the latter for a Dvd when the new edition comes out!
I might also douple-dip Fantasia as the copy I have has no extras except one deleted sequence.I suppose this upcoming edition is crammed with extra's?

The Netherlands didn't receive the version with the Making Of Documentary?

Not as far as I know. I happened to find the Fantasia dvd in a shop shortly afer I bought my first dvd-player. I just wanted to buy a dvd, and this was the first good title I saw! Who knows how long it had been lying around there...

Rudy Matt wrote:Well, if Walt were alive today, he would have re-animated the sequence or would have also wanted the sequence altered. Walt was not in the business to offend anyone, and there is historical precedent of Walt changing his films after people were offended by them.

Yes, but that is of a different kind, that happened shortly after the films were made, like the cuts in some of Aladdin's lyrics. With Fantasia, you're dealing with a historical document, and the centaur is reflective of people's attitutes of that time. Let's just show them and hope people will learn from it. If they can present the Treasures unedited, why not Fantasia?

Rudy Matt wrote:I recognize the affront people take to altering films for tobacco, etc.,

Why is altering films for tobacco not allowed but altering films for stereotypes isn't?

Rudy Matt wrote:Sir, America in the 30's and 40's was a segregated nation. Walt only lived to see the rise of the Civil Rights Act after Kennedy's death in the 60's, not its flowering. If Walt were alive today, you'd better believe he would have no problem altering Fantasia or any other cartoon, especially since he had already demonstrated he was willing to alter his films to remove ethnic stereotypes, The Three Little Pigs being a famous example. Besides, by making the older films acceptable for modern demographics, Walt would have been extending their commercial potential, making Roy happy and allowing him more funds to followhis crazy projects.

That America indeed was a segregated nation in the 1930's and 1940's makes no difference to Walt not editing shorts like 'Mickey's Mellerdrama' and others with black stereotypes in it. He editied out a Jewish stereotype in 'Three Little Pigs', because of complaints, yet he didn't edit any black stereotypes out. Yet I imagine many African Americans were offended by them, who might have boycotted Disney as a result, which cost the company money. Yet Walt never edited those. And on a related note: how many protest have you seen over the inclusion of these shorts in the Treasures line? Oh, right: none. So why edit out Sunflower, yet release Treasures with ethnic stereotypes in them?

my chicken is infected wrote:I'm gonna go against the grain here, but this is one of the few times I support the censorship. They definitely need to find a better way to do the censorship, but I'm actually ok with this, as Sunflower's presence really has no point except to say that black people were only put on Earth to serve the "prettier" "white" people.

I would never support censorship, no matter what the circumstances might be, because it is denying history. It's denying there was a time when that kind of thoughts were considered normal and mainstream. I actually think you would do African Americans a great disservice by censoring Sunflower, because you would pretend a certain mindset had never existed in America.

BelleGirl wrote:Not as far as I know. I happened to find the Fantasia dvd in a shop shortly afer I bought my first dvd-player. I just wanted to buy a dvd, and this was the first good title I saw! Who knows how long it had been lying around there...

Hey, another Dutchie! Hoe gaat het met je?
As far as I know, no special edition of Fantasia (meaning including serious extra's) has ever been released in The Netherlands.

I hope they include more characters on the cover art for Fantasia other than just Mickey. I hope they include Chernabog!!!

I once bought Fantasia 2000, but the VHS didn't work, so my mum had to return it (and she didn't take a new one because I was too young, she thought, and insted she took another movie, Alladin, I believe).
So I never saw that movie, Fantasia I also haven't seen, heard of since I came on this board.
So I'm waiting fo these releases!

Hey, another Dutchie!

Hier is er nog een!

I expect the best and prepare for the worst for the release of Fantasia.
By this I mean that I hope the restoration will be wonderful and accurate and the feature will not be censored in any way shape or form however I fear
that Disney doesn't have the guts to pull such a thing off and will modify in some way the notorious scenes...hope not

supertalies wrote:I once bought Fantasia 2000, but the VHS didn't work, so my mum had to return it (and she didn't take a new one because I was too young, she thought, and insted she took another movie, Alladin, I believe).
So I never saw that movie, Fantasia I also haven't seen, heard of since I came on this board.
So I'm waiting fo these releases!

Hey, another Dutchie!

Hier is er nog een!

Met mij gaat het goed! En hoe gaat het met jullie?
Weten jullie of er ook een Nederlandse Disney-forum, zoals deze, bestaat?

English translation:
Here is another one!
I'm fine, how are you (two)?
Do you know if there is a Dutch Disney forum, like this one?

He editied out a Jewish stereotype in 'Three Little Pigs', because of complaints, yet he didn't edit any black stereotypes out. Yet I imagine many African Americans were offended by them, who might have boycotted Disney as a result, which cost the company money. Yet Walt never edited those.

Black stereotypes were pervasive throughout all of society, in all of the arts and media. When the Urban League complained about Song of the South it wasn't the performance or dialog of James Basset that they found worrisome, it was the empathy between Remus and Johnny's grandmother - the plantation owner. They complained about the portrayal of an "idyllic slave/master relationship".

In taking Constitutional Law, you're presented with the sin of Formalism -- where adherence to a law or edict is so rigid, it winds up being self-defeating and sometimes even contrary to the purpose of the statute. I think many people who are zealots about original release, those who demand that a re-issue of any given film must be presented to them with every single grain of the original film arranged in the exact same way as the day of the first screening -- these people need to trade zealotry for wisdom. The outcry over matted aspect ratios and alterd/edited works rose from a movement demanding the respect of artist's rights. 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. 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.

I say its great to have guidelines and goals, but these should never become self defeating. 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. Or he'd just cut the Pastoral all together and do something else. The same man who produced the People and Places series and It's a Small World was not a racist, he was a humanist and a naturalist. Those who think Walt would allow those scenes to remain in Fantasia if he were alive today are deluding themselves.

So I say, honor the rights of the producer and creative force, and present the Pastoral in the manner that producer would want it seen today. That's not formalism to some ideal, that's honoring the artist and protecting his wishes.

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?

I agree with Rudy Matt. There is no need to keep Sunflower. It's out of respect that she should be taken out of the piece. As far as foriegn releases go, if the demand is so popular then include it. Here in the US it should be discarded.

I hate how people talk about segregation like it was something that happened in the past and still doesn't exist. Sure things have gotten better and we've even elected a black president. We've made great strides but to pretend that the US is still not a racist nation is on the border line of complete ignorance. That is why we have censors. The censors are there to try to protect the audience. Simply editing film is not erasing history. We learn about it in any historical text book, there are hundreds of documentaries that even feature a character like sunflower, and above all that if you go to any small white town ("redneck country") in the US i guarantee you'll be reminded quickly of any stereotype and ignorant joke of the past.

the point is, a young black child and a young white child watching the original fantasia would see sunflower and make a sour connection. They wouldn't learn anything from it. In perspective the Platinum line and the Treasures are made for completely different audiences. An adult demographic can handle the old cartoon and a young one really couldn't. That's why I believe Song of the South should be released as a Disney Treasures title.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_iugexeWqLbs/Rjd ... flower.jpg


A few pictures for people like me that have never seen any.

yaksplat wrote:http://bp2.blogger.com/_iugexeWqLbs/Rjd ... flower.jpg


A few pictures for people like me that have never seen any.

Here's the UNCUT version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPKpFNm3QMM

I totaly understand where your coming from Rudy Matt. If Walt was alive today he would have had the sequence re-animated for this and past home video releases. But (the artist) Walt isnt alive today and I dont thkink he and the crew of Fantasia would want any one messing with one of his greatest achievements. So my point is LEAVE FANTASIA ALONE!!! The simple solution is to offer the uncut and zoomed in (from the past dvd release) version on the disc. Just like they did with the wide screen and pan and scan versions on the 03 release of SB. But unfortunately mostly likely the exctuives at Disney probs think like you and dont think re-animating is screwing up Walts greatest film.

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'...

It really is insulting to alter a film seventy years later, after the animators poured so much work into it, just pecause our delicate sensibilities can't handle our historical past.

I honestly don't see the big deal: It's not like Sunflower is eating a bucket of chicken and chomping on watermelon, talking in stereotypical jive-talk.
I guess Disney movies are offensive to white people too, since they always show them as either constantly happy gold-digging women, or effeminate guys who always break into song. Granted, that argument doesn't make much sense, so I really don't know where I'm going with it...

Plus, there aren't that many black characters in the Disney canon as it is; do we really want to get rid of one of the few?

Well, if Walt were alive today, he would have re-animated the sequence or would have also wanted the sequence altered.

Here is what's irking me, your stating this as a fact. It's not. You don't know Walt Disney, I don't know Walt Disney. Nobody knows what he WOULD or WOULD NOT do 100% for sure except Walt Disney himself, or maybe his family as well. Unless the Cyborg-body-frozen-head-somewhat ash-covered ghost of Walt Disney comes from the grave and tells you himself he would do this I suggest you stop stating things for fact when you in fact don't know.

We can make all the guesses and hypothesis we want but we will never. Ever. Be able to find out who's right because the whole "If Walt were alive" thing will never happen, and at this point it's pointless to use it anymore.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:Unless the Cyborg-body-frozen-head-somewhat ash-covered ghost of Walt Disney comes from the grave and tells you himself he would do this I suggest you stop stating things for fact when you in fact don't know.

And I keep praying for it! I yearn for the day when RoboDisney will rise from his cryogenic tank located behind the Temple of the Forbidden Eye and rule the company with an iron fist. Literally, his fist will be made of iron.

Dr.Mirakle32 wrote:I guess Disney movies are offensive to white people too, since they always show them as either constantly happy gold-digging women, or effeminate guys who always break into song. Granted, that argument doesn't make much sense, so I really don't know where I'm going with it...

I think your argument makes perfect sense, because there has been lots of criticism from a feminist perspective of the Disney Animated Classics, which says Disney films are very sexist in their depiction of women and womanhood. The reason why films aren't boycotted or censored for this reason, is because sexism is still (sadly!) deemed much more acceptable than racism. Racism gets treated seriously (as it should!), yet sexism is mostly laughed at, as most people (especially those in power who make the decisions = men) "don't see the problem".

So yes, there certainly is a double standard.

Um, it's been widely noted that the Fantasia edits were approved by Disney prior to later reissues (I'm saying while Walt was still alive, it's even mentioned on the old DVD which nobody seems to have except a few of us and I guess that's why there is some confusion).

Here's somethin for everybody, for those who've been curious bout what Destino is....I present to you the complete Destino

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6WCpoWdpCw


it's full and somewhat fair quality.

Wow . . .