DVDizzy Forum

There actually is historical purpose in releasing these classic movies unedited: people who bother to can actually learn from them. It's bothering that they dont bother to do just that already, without the aid of an introduction and a massive neon sign with flashing lights making them aware of it.

Rudy Matt wrote: 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.

You know you're contradicting yourself with that statement? If they used seamless branching, there's no need for three versions of the same movie on the same disc. Just the movie once, plus all of the scenes that are different from it. Either way, the movie looks horrible on dvd.

Rudy Matt wrote: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'd rather be a spoiled brat than someone who thinks he can answer for Walt Disney himself. Unless he gave specific orders not to give people the unaltered version, there's absolutely no reason not to give it to the people who love the movie. What's so wrong about releasing a movie how it was originally released?

I disagree that Walt would have reanimated it. Either he's racist and thinks the scene should stay, or he likes to represent a time in history and would want it to stay so people would get a feel for the time period.

I think all the scenes of race (especially in Dumbo) are just story-telling from the time in which they were made. There no evidence in Walt's work that he's racist.

Again I think it *should* be released uncut, but that one little scene isn't important enough for me to really be all that concerned.

Heil Donald Duck wrote: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.

KubrickFan wrote:I'd rather be a spoiled brat than someone who thinks he can answer for Walt Disney himself. Unless he gave specific orders not to give people the unaltered version, there's absolutely no reason not to give it to the people who love the movie. What's so wrong about releasing a movie how it was originally released?

Exactly. How could anyone know how Walt would feel? You can't, that's why they need to stop using Walt's name to promote political correctness.

As for Song of the South, it's the protesters ignorance on the matter that absolutely offends me. Statements that Walt wouldn't want it released are completely asinine. Walt grew up reading the Uncle Remus stories that originated in Africa and wanted to adapt them for the screen. It's an adaption of African folklore, so any so-called racism comes from the African's themselves. People look at the Tar Baby and claim it's offensive, but that is only caused purely by their ignorance. It's a simple morality tale that has no underlying racism, but with today's sanitized politically correct world, people are likely to look for racism where it doesn't exist (if you look hard enough and with enough ignorance on the matter, you're likely to find it). Heck, people claimed it was racist that Disney's first black princess was featured in a European fairy tale instead of African folklore but after seeing how easy people are to attack it as racism, I don't blame them.

Other claims that the post-Civil War freed slaves are too happy or that they are too much in harmony with their white employers is also ignorant. So what if they're happy; do they constantly have to be portrayed as sad and depressed, just to keep the feeling of Black oppression alive in America? There is no problem in celebrating your freedom. Does promoting Black/White harmony conflict with the poverty pimp's goal of making black people feel oppressed and in need of reparations? Seriously move on, poverty pimps are very much to blame for holding their "people" back. The fact that the White people in this movie are portrayed as ignorant and need wise old Uncle Remus to help them out, was making a statement at the time of release, and to reduce the significance of his role down to nothing more then the "magic negro" is way beyond ignorant (quite frankly, I find that comment itself racist). This was a time when African American actors didn't get roles beyond dumb/comic relief servants, let alone the staring role in a big budget musical adaption from a big studio (Cabin in the Sky being an exception). Don't even get me started on those who feel the way they talk is offensive and doesn't put in perspective the lack of education, time period, and location of the film (here is a hint: they don't talk that way to make them look dumb).

No one has ever given me a good reason for them to be offended by these movies. When they claim they are, it's based on ignorance and not understanding what they're seeing (I blame sugarcoating history in the guise of politically correctness for that). Add an intro to educate people and you'll quickly loose those misguided "offended" people and just be left with poverty pimps.

What does this have to do with Fantasia and Sunflower? Nothing really but I feel educating people on the matter can only help their cause.

Edit: Learned a new word; replaced black supremacists with poverty pimp

Flanger-Hanger wrote:Maybe, just maybe, you can't give the respect to others or take a chance or try to understand where they are coming from?

You first.

There are a number of people who want this. In fact many who flat out want Hollywood to get rid of stuff like this altogether. I'm not fighting for that. All I'm asking for is the ability to own products that already exist. Why can't you see where I'm coming from? Thus far, you have failed to do so.

jpanimation wrote:

Heil Donald Duck wrote: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.

KubrickFan wrote:I'd rather be a spoiled brat than someone who thinks he can answer for Walt Disney himself. Unless he gave specific orders not to give people the unaltered version, there's absolutely no reason not to give it to the people who love the movie. What's so wrong about releasing a movie how it was originally released?

Exactly. How could anyone know how Walt would feel? You can't, that's why they need to stop using Walt's name to promote political correctness.

As for Song of the South, it's the protesters ignorance on the matter that absolutely offends me. Statements that Walt wouldn't want it released are completely asinine. Walt grew up reading the Uncle Remus stories that originated in Africa and wanted to adapt them for the screen. It's an adaption of African folklore, so any so-called racism comes from the African's themselves. People look at the Tar Baby and claim it's offensive, but that is only caused purely by their ignorance. It's a simple morality tale that has no underlying racism, but with today's sanitized politically correct world, people are likely to look for racism where it doesn't exist (if you look hard enough and with enough ignorance on the matter, you're likely to find it). Heck, people claimed it was racist that Disney's first black princess was featured in a European fairy tale instead of African folklore but after seeing how easy people are to attack it as racism, I don't blame them.

Other claims that the post-Civil War freed slaves are too happy or that they are too much in harmony with their white employers is also ignorant. So what if they're happy, do they constantly have to be sad and depressed to keep the feeling of Black oppression alive in America? Their is no problem in celebrating your freedom. Does promoting Black/White harmony conflict with the Black supremacist's goal of making black people feel oppressed and in need of reparations? Seriously move on, Black supremacist are very much to blame for holding their "people" back. The fact that the White people in the movie are portrayed as ignorant and need wise old Uncle Remus to help them out, was making a statement at the time of release, and to reduce the significance of his role down to nothing more then the "magic negro" is way beyond ignorant (quite frankly, I find that comment itself racist). This was a time when African American actors didn't get roles beyond dumb/comic relief servants, let alone the staring role in a big budget musical adaption from a big studio (Cabin in the Sky being an exception). Don't even get me started on those who feel the way they talk is offensive and doesn't put in perspective the lack of education, time period, and location of the film (here is a hint: they don't talk that way to make them look dumb).

No one has ever given me a good reason for them to be offended by these movies. When they claim they are, it's based on ignorance and not understanding what they're seeing (I blame sugarcoating history in the guise of politically correctness for that). Add an intro to educate people and you'll quickly loose those misguided "offended" people and just be left with Black supremacists pushing their agenda.

What does this have to do with Fantasia and Sunflower? Nothing really but I feel educating people on the matter can only help their cause.

I fully agree. Fact is someone is offended by something all the time. I think it somewhat hypocritical that Hollywood take the stance that they have to cater to some who may be offended by somethings but other who may be offended by other things can just go away.

This is why once again I favor options. What is Hollywood afraid of? I say release everything and let the public decide individually what they want to watch.

I say for all the fan boys out there that complain about "too many versions on the store shelf's" that fine, the studios can release the "controversial versions" like the un-edited "Fantasia" or "Song of the South" and the "sanitized" version of their other films that I am fight for off of their web sites or places like Amazon.com and have a DVD on demand situation and only sell the number of copies that are actually sold and charge more to. Watch those version fly off the shelf's anyway!

milojthatch wrote:You first.

There are a number of people who want this. In fact many who flat out want Hollywood to get rid of stuff like this altogether. I'm not fighting for that. All I'm asking for is the ability to own products that already exist. Why can't you see where I'm coming from? Thus far, you have failed to do so.

Firstly, you misinterpreted my quote that was relating to your concern about R rated movies begin shown in colleges. Secondly when you stop insulting those who don't care for the edited versions ("get lost in your base human nature") then I'll listen to you.

I see you can't be bothered to answer any of my other questions either.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:

milojthatch wrote:You first.

There are a number of people who want this. In fact many who flat out want Hollywood to get rid of stuff like this altogether. I'm not fighting for that. All I'm asking for is the ability to own products that already exist. Why can't you see where I'm coming from? Thus far, you have failed to do so.

Firstly, you misinterpreted my quote that was relating to your concern about R rated movies begin shown in colleges. Secondly when you stop insulting those who don't care for the edited versions ("get lost in your base human nature") then I'll listen to you.

I see you can't be bothered to answer any of my other questions either.

You have not answered any of mine yet. So I guess we are at a stale mate for now.

All this makes me wonder what idiots are crying "racist" at the "Step-in-time" sequence in Mary Poppins?

These issues are as ugly as sanitarian-ism can be.

I'll try again to answer your key question about why can't you have the edited version, and I'll use Iron Man as an example for both simplicity's sake and because it's a title you'd buy:

First, how many copies the DVD has sold: 9,100,995.
Secondly how many individuals have joined your Facebook group: 420
Thirdly, how many individuals on the cited ABC poll want "edited films": 481 (approx 44% of 1002 surveyed).

There's a big difference in numbers. The market for Iron Man on DVD is likely in the tens of millions (assuming each household who buys the title has more than one person living in it). Compared to that, several hundred is minuscule to the point of begin easily unnoticed. If the title has such a strong selling power to begin with, what is the incentive to cater to a small group by offering an edited version of the same disc which requires extra effort when putting the disc together and including in a marketing campaign?

Real, indisputable evidence that several thousand (if not hundreds or millions more) want the edited titles, sent in matter that could grab a studio execs attention would increase the likelihood of these edited version released.

Finally, what would happen if fault (either in content still begin deemed "questionable" or issues with how it's edited etc.) was still found in the film by one of your Facebook group members or another person? Should the discs be recalled by the studio and redone? What if another problem still exists after that? This all comes down to the issue of personal standards which are impossible to please because in reality you can't please everyone, even with the best of intentions. Without a common standard among these people, issues could still arise.

Flanger-Hanger wrote:I'll try again to answer your key question about why can't you have the edited version, and I'll use Iron Man as an example for both simplicity's sake and because it's a title you'd buy:

First, how many copies the DVD has sold: 9,100,995.
Secondly how many individuals have joined your Facebook group: 420
Thirdly, how many individuals on the cited ABC poll want "edited films": 481 (approx 44% of 1002 surveyed).

There's a big difference in numbers. The market for Iron Man on DVD is likely in the tens of millions (assuming each household who buys the title has more than one person living in it). Compared to that, several hundred is minuscule to the point of begin easily unnoticed. If the title has such a strong selling power to begin with, what is the incentive to cater to a small group by offering an edited version of the same disc which requires extra effort when putting the disc together and including in a marketing campaign?

Real, indisputable evidence that several thousand (if not hundreds or millions more) want the edited titles, sent in matter that could grab a studio execs attention would increase the likelihood of these edited version released.

Finally, what would happen if fault (either in content still begin deemed "questionable" or issues with how it's edited etc.) was still found in the film by one of your Facebook group members or another person? Should the discs be recalled by the studio and redone? What if another problem still exists after that? This all comes down to the issue of personal standards which are impossible to please because in reality you can't please everyone, even with the best of intentions. Without a common standard among these people, issues could still arise.

First off, it's 450 members thank you very much. I've had a hard time getting the word out so far and I promise you my group does not reflect the numbers behind this.

I have heard the claim that Hollywood makes tons of money already, and I grant you that. However, they also loose a lot of money. Do you know anything about the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act?

It has been well documented that in a number of news articles over the years that many parents groups and religious groups are interested in this happening and Washington has been asked to do something on it. This of course goes beyond even just films, but also video games and music. I personally am keeping to films for now, but anyway, for the sake of not filling up this whole posts with news articles, it's there and I'd hope most people would know of it.

My question to you is this: how many industries do you know would create a product, spending a ton of money on it, and then not sell it? That is exactly what Hollywood is doing. They take the time and money to make a product and then tell us we can't have it. Why?

The "family film" issue has even become a very lucrative industry, but also controversial. Some of gone the route of on their own creating these versions and selling them, like CleanFlicks did. Where they went wrong was they bent and some would say flat out broke copy right law.

Others have gone the rout of creating tech that would "mask" the offensive materials, like ClearPlay has. ClearPlay by the way is where the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act comes in, as Hollywood tried to sink it the way they sank CleanFliks, but Government created a law protecting such tech. The other side of the law here is that it cracks down on Movie Pirates, a thing most good Studio Execs would lump people who create, sell and harbor "family friendly" films as.

Here's a fun article to read about in fact, just so you have something:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-p ... d_DVDs.pdf

The greatest push thus far has been in Utah, however you can bet your britches that it goes beyond Latter-day Saints. Utah has just been the most defiant, but many others who side with this issue come from other walks of live as well. Parents and other religious individuals are at the front of the march.

The problem with numbers is they don't count for everything. Life is not perfect, but you do the best you can. While the numbers you gave as example for "Iron ma," a film I love by the way show how many units sold, those number do not count for people who bought it but watch it on a ClearPlay DVD player, people who have their remote in hand and keep skipping parts they don't like, people who while not as passionate about this as people like myself, would still own the "family friendly versions" if they were available, nor does it account for the number of "boot leg" version that the "family edited" industry could account for as one of theirs.

On to your final question about what if some still don't like the edited versions after they exist? And you have something there, but let me break that answer into a few parts.

First off, I'm rather sure the same could be said about films like "Fantasia" or "Song of the South," which is part of why they are not released. Do you like other people telling you what you can and can not watch? I don't.

Second off, yes, you will never get a perfect solution. Life is not perfect as was talked about. But, if we carried that kind of thinking over into other political issue, nothing would ever get done. And in fact when things do not get accomplished, it is that kind of thinking that can be blamed more times then not.

I belief a lot of people would appreciate it and use it. And if nothing else it would show that Hollywood is willing to work with their customer base instead f command them lie they seem to have a history of doing. It would cut down on "boot leg" copies and give Hollywood more control on the issue and less resistance ultimately.

One thing that has been said by many nay sayers is that they don't watch a zillion copies of a film on the store shelf's! Fullscreen versions are normally cited as an example of how inconvenient it is. I have yet to hear any of those same people complain about how there are "unrated" versions make it inconvenient in picking up the right version of a film. In fact most of the nay sayers would fight against the "family friendly" push most likely enjoy the options of the theatrical version of a film, or the various version for extended cuts.

Why is that market being catered to, but a market that has been in existence for decade constantly offer looked? All I'm fighting for is equality and choices? It does not get any more American then that: freedom to choice what version of a movie you want to watch.

With new ways of selling films such as DVD-on-Demand or even Video-on-Demand or the space Blue Ray is constantly touted as have, thus allowing for a cleaner version of a film to be placed on it, their is little reason to not do this. In fact Hollywood already places "edited" versions on DVD. They can't sell in many Muslim Counties otherwise. The only thing in the way of American families watching this is a region code.

Wrapping it up, yes it's not perfect, but nothing in life ever is. But many, many people would still want this and use it and buy it if it existed. Yes, Hollywood makes money, but they could make a lot more and have one less fight to fight. Win-win.

milojthatch wrote:The problem with numbers is they don't count for everything. Life is not perfect, but you do the best you can. While the numbers you gave as example for "Iron ma," a film I love by the way show how many units sold, those number do not count for people who bought it but watch it on a ClearPlay DVD player, people who have their remote in hand and keep skipping parts they don't like, people who while not as passionate about this as people like myself, would still own the "family friendly versions" if they were available, nor does it account for the number of "boot leg" version that the "family edited" industry could account for as one of theirs.

At the same time though, nobody can know for sure the exact number of individuals who do the things you say. At the end of the day they still bought the title and my quote does not include Blu-ray sales either.

milojthatch wrote:On to your final question about what if some still don't like the edited versions after they exist? And you have something there, but let me break that answer into a few parts.

First off, I'm rather sure the same could be said about films like "Fantasia" or "Song of the South," which is part of why they are not released. Do you like other people telling you what you can and can not watch? I don't.

There's a difference between having an alternate version of a movie and not having any copy at all. I wouldn't use SotS in this argument for that reason. As for Fantasia, we know exactly what has been removed and why. With that we can argue about why would should get it, but other film edits could still lead to other issues, and not just ones about "objectionable" content. What if a recall on an edited version you found just fine were to happen? Would you be annoyed that someone else's personal opinion was still valued more than yours after all the efforts you took to get the edited version released in the first place.

milojthatch wrote:I belief a lot of people would appreciate it and use it. And if nothing else it would show that Hollywood is willing to work with their customer base instead f command them lie they seem to have a history of doing. It would cut down on "boot leg" copies and give Hollywood more control on the issue and less resistance ultimately.

Is there any evidence on the sales of the bootleg titles? Bootleg titles and torrents exist for all movies regardless of their edits and the efforts by Hollywood to discourage them are failing miserably. Most likely, bootleggers would still exist even if alternate versions were able to be legally purchased.

milojthatch wrote:Why is that market being catered to, but a market that has been in existence for decade constantly offer looked?

Size and history? How long have alternate versions and extended cuts been a selling point on laserdisc before DVD came along? It's also possible the that extended cut market has a larger audience appeal than the family friendly versions. Without numbers nobody can't say for sure.

milojthatch wrote:All I'm fighting for is equality and choices? It does not get any more American then that: freedom to choice what version of a movie you want to watch.

I wouldn't bring America into this if I were you. It's the kind of emotional argument that's likely to induce laughter and eyeball rolling in some.

milojthatch wrote:With new ways of selling films such as DVD-on-Demand or even Video-on-Demand or the space Blue Ray is constantly touted as have, thus allowing for a cleaner version of a film to be placed on it, their is little reason to not do this. In fact Hollywood already places "edited" versions on DVD. They can't sell in many Muslim Counties otherwise. The only thing in the way of American families watching this is a region code.

Wrapping it up, yes it's not perfect, but nothing in life ever is. But many, many people would still want this and use it and buy it if it existed. Yes, Hollywood makes money, but they could make a lot more and have one less fight to fight. Win-win.

In the article you posted, it mentioned the legal action in Hollywood that was done to ensure certain edits wouldn't happen. Recently, the director of The Exorcist objected to the idea of putting his film into 3-D. As simple as it changing a film and distributing it sounds, the protection of intellectual property is a huge legal issue, and one that certainly can not be put down easily. Not with the kind of legal protection that exists in various countries.

Finally, if all that's separating you and others from watching edited films is a region free DVD player...why not just get one? Sounds far simpler than trying to change Hollywood's mind.

Flangy, I love you. In a non-commital internet kind of way.

SpringHeelJack wrote:Flangy, I love you. In a non-commital internet kind of way.

Awwwwwwww I wubs you too Brenders. I mean really, who else can I talk to about things like A Little Night Music?

ajmrowland wrote:There actually is historical purpose in releasing these classic movies unedited: people who bother to can actually learn from them. It's bothering that they dont bother to do just that already, without the aid of an introduction and a massive neon sign with flashing lights making them aware of it.

This is an absolute lie. You don't need Fantasia's Sun flower scene to learn about racial stereotypes in American film. This is such a blustering obfuscating falsehood as to defy logic. There are thousands of films - including animated films - that readily display racial stereotypes. Why in the world does one need Fantasia or the unaltered Three Little Pigs to learn this lesson? Answer - you don't. The truth is that you people are Disney fanboys and fangirls and you want EVERYTHING you can get your hands on. You'd pillage the Disney archives if you could. This has nothing to do with "history", it has everything to do with your own fandom and your own lust and greed. Walt Disney re-animated films and edited films to bring them in line with modern sensibilities, you are deluding yourself if you think he would release the original Fantasia Sunflower scenes today. The fact that any of you would argue otherwise proves how you are out of touch with modern corporate reality and Walt's own history. No way would Walt release those scenes. That's why ROY E. DISNEY CUT THEM HIMSELF AS PRODUCER OF THE 2000 DVD. You know better than Roy, right? I trust Roy more than I trust fanboys who lust after ever single scrap of film ever made by a filmmaker, and then try to disguise their greed and lust by saying they have a historical interest. Hey - you want to see it? For historical purposes? Go watch it on YouTube, and leave the rest of us alone who don't want Fantasia's release hijacked by you people, especially since there is no way on God's green Earth that Walt Disney would ever release that version today.

Oh, and to the charming gentleman who who doesn't know what seamless branching is....Beauty and the Beast had three different versions of the movie squeezed onto one disc. Even using seamless branching, that was too much information for one DVD, and so the video suffered major compression artifacts. Even WITH seamless branching, the differences and extra scenes overloaded the DVD. Anyone who knows anything about DVD commented on this back in 2001. Go do some light reading before you accuse others of sharing your ignorance.

Rudy Matt wrote:
This is an absolute lie. You don't need Fantasia's Sun flower scene to learn about racial stereotypes in American film. This is such a blustering obfuscating falsehood as to defy logic. There are thousands of films - including animated films - that readily display racial stereotypes. Why in the world does one need Fantasia or the unaltered Three Little Pigs to learn this lesson? Answer - you don't.

Because it is part of animated history. Seeing butchered version or re-animated is not the same and is also disrespectful to the original content and the original artist.

Rudy Matt wrote: The truth is that you people are Disney fanboys and fangirls and you want EVERYTHING you can get your hands on. You'd pillage the Disney archives if you could. This has nothing to do with "history", it has everything to do with your own fandom and your own lust and greed.

What part of "animated history" do you not understand it does not have anything to do with greed too wanting too see theses films as Walt and his staff originally entertained people when they were originally released to theaters, people today should have same opportunity to see those films as they were originally made, both animation historians and casual fans it makes them more valuable ween times moves on to have them in there original format. Its adds too the knowledge of animation historians and they know more about hove those films were supposed to look.
Its also gives casual (and ignorant) people like you opportunity to understand way those films were made the way they were originally made. So pushing the original version of Fantasia or three little Pigs and Song of the South under the rug and act like they don't exist makes more damage than releases them as they were originally shown in theaters on on DVD or Blu-ray, (sounds familiar to many WDT intros, o no you ignore them since they include lot of footage that are similar to the sequence in the original Fantasia (that you want too deny so many people to see). What you are asking for is more dangerous than you probably understand. You want censored version (it is also unrespectful to the pepole that originally made those films) of those films and censorship is bad bad bad, as censorship damages the free speech and allowing big companies to decide unelected what people can see can lead to major damage in the democracy.

Rudy Matt wrote: Walt Disney re-animated films and edited films to bring them in line with modern sensibilities, you are deluding yourself if you think he would release the original Fantasia Sunflower scenes today. The fact that any of you would argue otherwise proves how you are out of touch with modern corporate reality and Walt's own history. No way would Walt release those scenes.

You can't assume what Walt would do to day, you cant read his mind, quite frankly he could do the opposite that you sluggest. I wonder if Walt would have allowed re-animation on films if he knew that his studio could make fortune by release the films as they were originally made on collectors DVDs.

Rudy Matt wrote: That's why ROY E. DISNEY CUT THEM HIMSELF AS PRODUCER OF THE 2000 DVD. You know better than Roy, right? I trust Roy more than I trust fanboys who lust after ever single scrap of film ever made by a filmmaker, and then try to disguise their greed and lust by saying they have a historical interest. Hey - you want to see it? For historical purposes?

it was not Roy that ordered the butchering on Fantasia, it was the restoration department that made the cut all on its own, because the people that worked on the restoration didn't know the history of the film so they didn't know what they were doing and the Disney historian went fluming when he discovered those unrespectful edits were made.

Rudy Matt wrote: Go watch it on YouTube, and leave the rest of us alone who don't want Fantasia's release hijacked by you people, especially since there is no way on God's green Earth that Walt Disney would ever release that version today.

Seeing them illegally then, no way I do respect Walt more than that. I would rather buy complete restoration of uncut Fantasia rather than watch bootleg of it on youtube. You talk about respect to Walt then you tell people to watch his films illegally that is a paradox that implode you as fraudsters/troll that don't know anything about history of this greatest animation studio to ever be established.



In addition it is unrespectful to accuse loyal Disney fans of greed and lust, as they want the studio do show respect to Walt's original films by release them uncut and OAR with original Columbia/UAP/RKO opening and closing logos. I wonder what merlinjones would think of your comments. People like me want spend dollars on Disney product but then Disney must do those film the justice they deserve, by present them on DVD or Blu-Ray as they were originally made. Pepole that earns there dollar hard way should not reward the studio for second rate product, that can lead to more greed of corporation part and it can try to get a way with no real effort, which is unrespectful to Walt, his original staff and they present day viewer. As I assume majority of people want to buy the original version rather than butchered re-issue.

SO your are on the wrong side of the argument But your positioning might be bit a more understandable if you are male equivalent to soccer moms. nut I'm fright to tell you that the only trouble maker are the soccer moms not the people that want the original version of those films.

Rudy Matt wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:There actually is historical purpose in releasing these classic movies unedited: people who bother to can actually learn from them. It's bothering that they dont bother to do just that already, without the aid of an introduction and a massive neon sign with flashing lights making them aware of it.

This is an absolute lie. You don't need Fantasia's Sun flower scene to learn about racial stereotypes in American film. This is such a blustering obfuscating falsehood as to defy logic. There are thousands of films - including animated films - that readily display racial stereotypes. Why in the world does one need Fantasia or the unaltered Three Little Pigs to learn this lesson?

I believe you do, actually. The fact that even the squeaky-clean Disney studio fell under creating such stereotypes, just as the rest of the US studios did, is a reflection of our culture at the time. Are they immune to admitting this just because they are Disney? This example shows just how mainstream these stereotypes were in our history, and that quite often no malice was intended. Should people be allowed to assume that oh yeah, people were racist back then but at least the Disney studio was never like that? Let's just go ahead and sanitize a piece of our history for the sake of not "tarnishing" their reputation . . . that's what the "absolute lie" really is.

I like how you avoid what I brought up earlier in this thread, that Disney has already released similar material targeted to collectors, without drawing the negative attention or tarnishing the company's reputation as you keep raving on about.

You also keep making assumptions about what Walt would have done. Yes, of course he was sensitive to the sensibilities of his own time and altered some of his own material accordingly, but who's to say that he wouldn't have had any value for the growing number of collectors that enjoy the Treasure series in this day and age? Times are changing. While I don't ever see Disney releasing an uncut version of Fantasia as a "regular" release that would be targeted to children and families, I see no reason why an alternate release targeted toward collectors would be some kind of "hijacking." Perhaps he would have realized the historical importance of such material? No one is qualified to make any assumptions over what a person that died over 40 years ago would have done today.

Of course it's Disney's own prerogative to release whatever it wants however it wants, but I believe it's a shame that some material has been put into hiding for the sake of political correctness, and I feel it's disrespectful to the original artists.

Rudy Matt wrote:Answer - you don't. The truth is that you people are Disney fanboys and fangirls and you want EVERYTHING you can get your hands on. You'd pillage the Disney archives if you could. This has nothing to do with "history", it has everything to do with your own fandom and your own lust and greed. Walt Disney re-animated films and edited films to bring them in line with modern sensibilities, you are deluding yourself if you think he would release the original Fantasia Sunflower scenes today. The fact that any of you would argue otherwise proves how you are out of touch with modern corporate reality and Walt's own history. No way would Walt release those scenes. That's why ROY E. DISNEY CUT THEM HIMSELF AS PRODUCER OF THE 2000 DVD. You know better than Roy, right? I trust Roy more than I trust fanboys who lust after ever single scrap of film ever made by a filmmaker, and then try to disguise their greed and lust by saying they have a historical interest. Hey - you want to see it? For historical purposes? Go watch it on YouTube, and leave the rest of us alone who don't want Fantasia's release hijacked by you people, especially since there is no way on God's green Earth that Walt Disney would ever release that version today.

I don't understand why you feel the need to be so accusatory and aggressive. "Greed and lust?" Really? You have no right to make assumptions on why any of us as fans/collectors want to see any particular material released.

BTW, did you ask Roy yourself exactly why they were cut? Did he specifically say it's what his uncle would have wanted or are you making yet another assumption? We're talking about the exact same person who made the Treasures releases possible, which included many cartoons containing racial stereotypes. Once again, those releases were targeted toward the adult collector, and I don't see why a future release of Fantasia couldn't be as well.

Not to mention if Walt DID re-animate stuff today, we'd have another Star Wars/George Lucas type of ridiculing going on and we dont want another one of those.

Rudy Matt wrote:Go watch it on YouTube, and leave the rest of us alone who don't want Fantasia's release hijacked by you people, especially since there is no way on God's green Earth that Walt Disney would ever release that version today.

Hijacked by you people? You seem so passionately against having the unedited Fantasia released, that I feel you would protest it if they did, as if it would ruin the movie.

I've never seen anyone advocate the edited release of a movie they loved.

enigmawing wrote:There actually is historical purpose in releasing these classic movies unedited: people who bother to can actually learn from them.

Give me a break. Learn what? Racial and ethnic stereotypes exist in films? All one needs to do is turn on their TV and they'll see hundereds of racial stereotypes each and every day. This is such a BS argument. No one needs to see the Sunflower Centaur to learn that racial stereotypes exist in films. What is more compelling is the argument that such hurtful images DO NOT NEED TO BE PERPETUATED WHEN THEY CAN BE CORECTED.

Walt Disney received complaints from the Jewish community that his film The Three Little Pigs contained a hurtful Jewish ethnic stereotype. Walt corrected the scene and reanimated it. Was this act some terrible slight against film history? No - Walt did not want his films to HURT people, he wanted to appeal to the largest possible audience. It was his film, he took out what shoiuld never have been put in.

The fact that even the squeaky-clean Disney studio fell under creating such stereotypes, just as the rest of the US studios did, is a reflection of our culture at the time.

You say this as if this was the only example of racial stereotypes in animation or even Disney animation. These examples are legion. They aren't restricted to the 30's and 40's, these stereotypes exist today. What is so damned important about seeing the Sunflower Centaur? Answer - there isn't anything important about it, it has been missing for 40 years, if you want to see it, go watch it on YouTube...why do you want millions of modern people to be hurt and offended by Fantasia, when the creators of that movie would never want their film to hurt or offend anyone? Why do you want African-American children to be hurt and offended by this movie, when it was never created to hurt or offend anyone. Yes - the original version is a reflection of the culttre at that time, those images are no longer a reflection of our culture today. This is why you people reveal yourselves to be selfish fanbots who only want "complete" collections - you don't care about the larger implications. You only care about the gleaming hole in your video shelf.

Are they immune to admitting this just because they are Disney? This example shows just how mainstream these stereotypes were in our history, and that quite often no malice was intended.

Anyone who cares about such things can see those exaples in numerous other shorts and from numerous other films from other studios. This is how I know you are spouting crap - because this has nothing to do with "history" or "learning" about American culture. You people want a time machine via home video and you want to own every scrap of film ever produced by Walt Disney. Education? History? What lies! This has nothing to do with either, you just can't escape your blind lust and greed to own a version with uncut footage. History my eye!

Should people be allowed to assume that oh yeah, people were racist back then but at least the Disney studio was never like that?

Who in the world assumes that the Disney studios didn't have racial stereotypes in their films? Everyone knows that.

Let's just go ahead and sanitize a piece of our history for the sake of not "tarnishing" their reputation . . . that's what the "absolute lie" really is.

The MODERN company has a RESPONSIBILITY to not TARNISH the REPUTATION of the studio by REPEATING steroetyoes that NEVER SHOULD HAVE APPEARED IN THE FIRST PLACE, hurtful images that WALT DISNEY HIMSELF WOULD HAVE REMOVED 30 YEARS AGO, JUST AS THE STUDIO DID THAT BEARS HIS NAME.

I like how you avoid what I brought up earlier in this thread, that Disney has already released similar material targeted to collectors, without drawing the negative attention or tarnishing the company's reputation as you keep raving on about.

Goofball, everyone expects American wartime propaganda cartoons from the 40's to bash the Germans and Japanese, that's why no one cared when Disney released them (in limited quantities). Fantasia is one of the highest selling home video titles of all time. It is a mass market title. The modern company does not want to hurt or offend or perpetuate negative racial stereotypes. Maybe you do, for your own selfish reasons, so you can own the unaltered film. But by doing so, you only reveal your own selfish motives. You don't care about the feelings of others, you don't care about the damage done to the company or the reputation of the movie, or the feelings of others, you only care about owning every frame of footage produced by Walt Disney.

You also keep making assumptions about what Walt would have done.

Yeah, based on the fact that Walt was a modernist and continualy updated his work and was known to correct ethnic stereotypes in his films. You are wrong and wildly incorrect in assuming Walt WOULDN'T remove or re-animate the footage.

Yes, of course he was sensitive to the sensibilities of his own time and altered some of his own material accordingly, but who's to say that he wouldn't have had any value for the growing number of collectors that enjoy the Treasure series in this day and age?

Walt always wanted the largest possible audience for his compay -- he would throw you 150,000 fanboy collecters under the bus if the alternative meant hurting millions of Americans. Get over yourself - Walt was not a patron for elitists and specialists. He wanted to please everyone. There is no way Walt Disney would release Fantasia unabriged today. No way. Shoot, the fim was never intended to be re-released in the same version anyway, it was always intended to change release-to-release.

Times are changing. While I don't ever see Disney releasing an uncut version of Fantasia as a "regular" release that would be targeted to children and families, I see no reason why an alternate release targeted toward collectors would be some kind of "hijacking."

A-HA! I knew it - you don't want it for history, you are a collector. That's the only reason any of you want it, you just want to fill and complete your collections. Maybe you should switch to collecting butterflies, at least your collection won't offend people with racial stereotypes from the 30's and 40's.

Perhaps he would have realized the historical importance of such material?

Seeing as how the same man produced "It's a Small World" and the People and Places series, I doubt Walt Disney would have found hurtful racial stereotypes important to be mass-released to the public.

No one is qualified to make any assumptions over what a person that died over 40 years ago would have done today.

BS. Based on what a man did over the course of his life, it is entirely possible to make assumptions on what he would do. It is more possible than not that Walt Disney would not murder someone. How do I know? Because he never commited an act of violence towards anyone.

It is more probable than not that Walt would continue to upgrade his park, continue to make films and attractions celebrating the brotherhood of man.

It is more probable than not that Walt would continue to alter his films to remove hurtful stereotypes because of his growth as a producer and the changes in American society.

No one is qualified to make those assumptions? No, we make those assumptions every day, but you fanboys and fanboys only care about your collections, not Walt the man, not the company, not the people who would be hurt by returning images rightly cut 40 years ago. Selfish, greedy, lusting fanbots.

Of course it's Disney's own prerogative to release whatever it wants however it wants, but I believe it's a shame that some material has been put into hiding for the sake of political correctness, and I feel it's disrespectful to the original artists.

Not the sake of "political correctness" -- the sake of hurting people with racial stereotypes, something you don't care about.

I don't understand why you feel the need to be so accusatory and aggressive. "Greed and lust?" Really? You have no right to make assumptions on why any of us as fans/collectors want to see any particular material released.

It's the truth. If you want to see it, you can see it on YouTube. But that's not good enough for you, you want it re-incorporated into the film and mass-marketed onto DVD and Blu-Ray, regardless of the damage that would do. Seeing as how your stated reason (history) is bollocks, that leaves one only answer -- you are a fanboy collecter and you want something that you think is missing from your collection. I have every right to make that accusation, because it's the truth.

BTW, did you ask Roy yourself exactly why they were cut?

Yes, actually. I didn't use those words, but in my correspondence with him, I thanked him for bringing the 1940 cut to DVD. He stated he thought Walt would have been aggressive with home video and he thought Walt would be pleased with their 2000 version.

Did he specifically say it's what his uncle would have wanted or are you making yet another assumption?

You're the one making assumptions to justify your own greed.

We're talking about the exact same person who made the Treasures releases possible, which included many cartoons containing racial stereotypes.

And the Three Little Pigs is shown on Roy's Disney Treasure set the way Walt altered it, not the way it was originally shown. And if it's so damned important to see racial stereotypes in Disney animation, they can watch the many examples in the Treasure sets, as you just pointed out, so why in the Hell is it so important to see these in Fantasia? Hypocrite much?

Once again, those releases were targeted toward the adult collector, and I don't see why a future release of Fantasia couldn't be as well.

Because Fantasia is a mass-market title for all the world, it isn't an obscure wartime cartoon or a black and white short from the early 30's. You want to see that footage, go on YouTube, leave the rest of the world and African-American families alone.