The Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 Platinum Edition Thread

[The_Iceflash]

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?

I agree. I don't see the big deal either. We're supposedly more "open" today then in those days so you'd think there wouldn't be a problem with preserving a film's historical integrity. We all know that the scene's purpose isn't to offend anyone so saying it needs to remain out is a bit ridiculous. If we went through every movie in existence with a fine toothed comb do you know how much we'd find? or should I say, think we'd find? We are supposed to be more open today but at the same time the political correctness movement is quite large. You saw what happened with "The Princess and the Frog". People in many respects are more sensitive to these things and when they "think" something is supposed to be offensive (like with the princess and the frog), they jump all over it and call foul. It's like they are looking for some sort of hidden innuendo.

I think the bottom line is that people try to please everyone and that's impossible. People will alway look for and thing they find come kind of innuendo.

I think some are just overly sensitive.

[Rudy Matt]

People in many respects are more sensitive to these things and when they "think" something is supposed to be offensive (like with the princess and the frog), they jump all over it and call foul.

Which is why you won't be seeing the Sunflower character anytime soon restored to Fantasia. Modern America is simply too reactionary in regards to race.

[Goliath]

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).

Well, that certainly sheds a very different light on the whole subject. What irked me, as Chernabog_Rules noted, is the fact that people claimed to know what a deceased Walt Disney should have wanted. So you're saying Walt approved of the censorship. That seems kind of arbitrary to me, since he didn't cut racist stereotypes in other theatrical shorts (Mickey and Donald cartoons) and he kept rereleasing Song of the South.

Since the Disney Company rereleased all the short subjects uncut in the Treasures series, I would propose Fantasia be released in a similar fashion, with Mr. Maltin giving an non-skippable introduction at the beginning of the film.

[Goliath]

I agree. I don't see the big deal either. We're supposedly more "open" today then in those days so you'd think there wouldn't be a problem with preserving a film's historical integrity. We all know that the scene's purpose isn't to offend anyone so saying it needs to remain out is a bit ridiculous.

Well, I for one *do* see the big deal. I was not arguing whether or not the bit with Sunflower is offending. Because it is. There's no doubt about that. Did Disney and his team of animators meant to offend anybody? I don't know; people's attitudes were different in those days about stereotyping certain groups of people in popular culture. However, that doesn't make it right. So I definately see why Sunflower is offensive. I'm just against cutting and censoring already existing films, because it's a violation of its historical context, and denying a piece of Disney history.

If we went through every movie in existence with a fine toothed comb do you know how much we'd find? or should I say, think we'd find? We are supposed to be more open today but at the same time the political correctness movement is quite large. You saw what happened with "The Princess and the Frog". People in many respects are more sensitive to these things and when they "think" something is supposed to be offensive (like with the princess and the frog), they jump all over it and call foul.

We would *find* a lot. We would especially find a lot in recent films. You would be surprised how many ethnic stereotyping still goes on in Hollywood. Last year, a documentary was made about this, called Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People. Aladdin is cited as one of the films offending to Arabs. The fact that you and I don't see anything bad in them, doesn't mean there *is* nothing bad in them. I think the term 'political correctness' gets increasingly hijacked by people (I'm not saying you) who use it as an excuse as to not having to adress these issues.

It's like they are looking for some sort of hidden innuendo.

Well, that's different. People who say: "When Simba lies down, the dust spells out 's-e-x', if you tilt your head to the left!!1!" are clearly looking for something, because it's obviously so ridiculous. But there is a lot of stereotyping that is offensive that maybe you and me wouldn't immediatly recognize, because we are not 'members' of the group that is getting stereotyped.

[Rudy Matt]

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.

What rubbish. To predict the future you only need to study the past. Walt was not known for criminal behavior in his lifetime, therefore, it is highly unlikely that were he here today he would be a criminal. Walt was not known to love hard R rated movies, and he spoke out against violence and sex in Holywood, hence it is unlikely he would have ever produced Midnight Cowboy or Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Conversely, Walt was known to allow his films to be edited for content and he produced new animation to address an ethnic stereotype in Three Little Pigs. Ergo, it is more likely than not he would do the same with Fantasia.

Unlike you, I don't need absolute 100% certainty, just 51% probability to allow the revisions in Fantasia. Roy Disney personally produced the last Road Show DVD and oversaw the changes, and that SHOULD be good enough for you, since you just cited family approval.

And by the way, as far as "who's right" goes, it doesn't matter if you thnk I'm right or wrong, because Roy Disney agrees with me, not you, and that means you're not getting the Sunflower character on DVD or Blu-Ray, ceratinly not in 2010, perhaps not ever.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

What rubbish. To predict the future you only need to study the past. Walt was not known for criminal behavior in his lifetime, therefore, it is highly unlikely that were he here today he would be a criminal. Walt was not known to love hard R rated movies, and he spoke out against violence and sex in Holywood, hence it is unlikely he would have ever produced Midnight Cowboy or Looking for Mr. Goodbar. Conversely, Walt was known to allow his films to be edited for content and he produced new animation to address an ethnic stereotype in Three Little Pigs. Ergo, it is more likely than not he would do the same with Fantasia.

Unlike you, I don't need absolute 100% certainty, just 51% probability to allow the revisions in Fantasia. Roy Disney personally produced the last Road Show DVD and oversaw the changes, and that SHOULD be good enough for you, since you just cited family approval.

And by the way, as far as "who's right" goes, it doesn't matter if you thnk I'm right or wrong, because Roy Disney agrees with me, not you, and that means you're not getting the Sunflower character on DVD or Blu-Ray, ceratinly not in 2010, perhaps not ever.

I find the bolded parts most interesting. Your stating things as fact (when they could very well not be fact) and your only relying on probability and predictions to back up these facts. I find your post laughable and hard to take seriously now, especially with the last paragraph of yours no offense but it came off as childish with the "so and so agrees with me so you don't get what you want nyah nyah" tone. I'm not saying YOUR childish, just that last part came across as it I want to make that perfectly clear.

For all we know maybe Walt WOULD have gone into PG or higher rated movies, he knows that he needs to cater for adults as well not just children he even made sure to cater to everyone. Things change over the years, people change, adults these days may not have wanted the same products from him that adults back in the 50's wanted. So just maybe he would have done that so that he could still cater to them. It wouldn't have been super gory horror type movies, but still adult ones.

Also, your constant use of the Three Little Pigs evidence is tiring, get some new facts to use because you can't just cling to that one single example when there are hundreds of shorts with offensive material that were never changed. 1 out of hundreds, hardly evidence he would go back and change them imo, if he had gone and edited more of them then yeah the odds would be better.

[Rudy Matt]

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.

[Rudy Matt]

For all we know maybe Walt WOULD have gone into PG or higher rated movies, he knows that he needs to cater for adults as well not just children he even made sure to cater to everyone.

I don't know what Walt biographies you've read, but its perfectly clear that Walt was alarmed and upset about the ever increasing sex and violence in films of the 60's -- do you know why Dick Van Dyke captured Walt's attention? Not his stellar work on Broadway or his TV show -- it was an interview he gave decrying the very same sex and violence and content that had upset Walt.

Things change over the years, people change, adults these days may not have wanted the same products from him that adults back in the 50's wanted. So just maybe he would have done that so that he could still cater to them. It wouldn't have been super gory horror type movies, but still adult ones.

In Walt's case, he solidified his principles -- naturualism, patriotism, family, optimism. I find it diificult to believe that Walt would have ever compromised those to make a buck - especially since the audience for his films was such that he never had to.

Also, your constant use of the Three Little Pigs evidence is tiring, get some new facts to use because you can't just cling to that one single example when there are hundreds of shorts with offensive material that were never changed.

Sure I can cling to it -- because ethnic jokes regarding the Jewish people quickly became extreme bad taste given what began to happen to the Jews in Europe, so Walt adjusted the short. Meanwhile, racial jokes regarding Africans were accepted and in vogue -- they wouldn't become "extreme bad taste" until the consciousness-raising of Martin Luther King in the late 50's and 60's. The Disney company adjusted the film, and no one in Walt's family complained, and given the inclusiveness of Walt himself, no one in the company complained.

1 out of hundreds, hardly evidence he would go back and change them imo, if he had gone and edited more of them then yeah the odds would be better.

Oh yeah? How many times did "Commando Duck" air uncensored in prime time? How many times was it shown on the Mickey Mouse Club? How many times was it re-released into theaters after 1955? There are indeed scores of shorts with objectionable content -- Walt chose not to air them.

Walt Disney would have removed the Sunflower Centaur in 1969 for its rerelease, I simply think he would have spent the money to reanimate the shots, based on his previous actions along these lines.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I don't know what Walt biographies you've read, but its perfectly clear that Walt was alarmed and upset about the ever increasing sex and violence in films of the 60's -- do you know why Dick Van Dyke captured Walt's attention? Not his stellar work on Broadway or his TV show -- it was an interview he gave decrying the very same sex and violence and content that had upset Walt.

Who says I've read biographis on him? Honestly I choose not to read them simply because theres a number of them written by different authors who are showing Walt in different ways. I'd rather watch him on t.v in the old clips etc. and hear what people who've worked with him say and base my opinion on him off of that then read a bunch of bio's that paint him in different ways from different perspectives. Especially since I don't think a few of the authors have met him or knew him as well as say Virginia Davis, Roy Disney, Annette etc.

Oh yeah? How many times did "Commando Duck" air uncensored in prime time? How many times was it shown on the Mickey Mouse Club? How many times was it re-released into theaters after 1955? There are indeed scores of shorts with objectionable content -- Walt chose not to air them.

How am I supposed to know? I don't have a TARDIS to go check, I didn't live through those times either. How do you know? I find it hard to believe Walt chose not to air a single one of his shorts that had objectional content due to the number of them. Same with the fact that Walt was also releasing new shorts in the 50's with objectional content if memory serves correct. So in a way (potentially) they still did air, just not the old ones.

[Rudy Matt]

Who says I've read biographis on him? Honestly I choose not to read them simply because theres a number of them written by different authors who are showing Walt in different ways.

Well, taken together, they present a kaleidoscope of Walt, and certain truisms and refraining themes develop. Don't decry others for stating they know what Walt would do since they've studied his life and his works, when all you've done is watch DVD bonus features and some of his TV introductions.

I'd rather watch him on t.v in the old clips etc. and hear what people who've worked with him say and base my opinion on him off of that then read a bunch of bio's that paint him in different ways from different perspectives. Especially since I don't think a few of the authors have met him or knew him as well as say Virginia Davis, Roy Disney, Annette etc.[/i]

I've met Virginia Davis. I've spoken to her about Walt and his character and temperment when they worked together. She's a wonderful woman. I haven't met Roy...yet...

How am I supposed to know (how many time Commando Duck aired uncensored)? I don't have a TARDIS to go check, I didn't live through those times either. How do you know?

Because I'm an animation and film scholar, that's why. You were bluffing, trying to say there were no other examples of Walt editing his shorts for content, when in fact they are legion -- I'll admit the new animation for Pigs was a special case, but then, so is Fantasia, and I doubt Walt would have treated it differently.

I find it hard to believe Walt chose not to air a single one of his shorts that had objectional content due to the number of them.

Sir, as I've tried repeatedly to explain, the racial stereotypes in the cartoons and of the 30's and 40's became offensive to the majority after their conscience was raised by the works of Dr. King and others in the 50's and 60's. Walt did not live to see Dr. King's dream fulfilled (Walt didn't live to see his own dreams fulfilled, in some instances). You need to grasp that "mammy" caricatures and black face did not become the stigmatized taboo that they are today until Walt's final years. In short, while they offended some, they didn't offend most -- and so those shorts were not altered. They would be today, and Walt would certainly alter them.

[BelleGirl]

We would *find* a lot. We would especially find a lot in recent films. You would be surprised how many ethnic stereotyping still goes on in Hollywood. Last year, a documentary was made about this, called Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People. Aladdin is cited as one of the films offending to Arabs. The fact that you and I don't see anything bad in them, doesn't mean there *is* nothing bad in them. I think the term 'political correctness' gets increasingly hijacked by people (I'm not saying you) who use it as an excuse as to not having to adress these issues.

I don't see Aladdin as particularly villifying/offending Arabs. Sure, the movie is full of exaggerated caricatures, but most Disney cartoon features are, whatever the etnicity of the characters. Moreover, it is a fairy tale, taking place in a fictional country! What relation does it have to modern-day Arabs or the modern-day world for that matter? People who find offence in Aladdin are hair-splitters IMO.

[The_Iceflash]

We would *find* a lot. We would especially find a lot in recent films. You would be surprised how many ethnic stereotyping still goes on in Hollywood. Last year, a documentary was made about this, called Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies A People. Aladdin is cited as one of the films offending to Arabs. The fact that you and I don't see anything bad in them, doesn't mean there *is* nothing bad in them. I think the term 'political correctness' gets increasingly hijacked by people (I'm not saying you) who use it as an excuse as to not having to adress these issues.

I don't see Aladdin as particularly villifying/offending Arabs. Sure, the movie is full of exaggerated caricatures, but most Disney cartoon features are, whatever the etnicity of the characters. Moreover, it is a fairy tale, taking place in a fictional country! What relation does it have to modern-day Arabs or the modern-day world for that matter? People who find offence in Aladdin are hair-splitters IMO.

That brings up a good point. If you think about it, it's common for animated characters to be exaggerated. One may argue that exaggeration is a big part in cartoons and other sorts of animation.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I've read REEL BAD ARABS, and here's my 2 cents:
Techinally, Aladdin exists in it's own fantasy, Middle-Eastern universe. Agrabah could be in Persia, or it could be in Iraq or Arabia; there are even slight Indian elements. It just borrows lots of visuals elements and names from Islamic cultures. There's nothing exclusively Arab about it, especially when you take into account the original story is set in China.

Plus, I find it funny when the PC police complain that everybody is a hook-nosed Arab sterotype, except the Americanized heroes. To me, while good looking, Al and Jas have the same black hair, tan complexion, and Middle-Eastern look as everybody else in the movie. It's not like they have blond hair and blue eyes. So just because they're heroic and good looking, they're Americanized or Anglicized?

Goddamn, some people like to complain about anything.

I'm half Persian, and Aladdin was my first favorite movie and TV show when I was a little kid. Subconsiously, I guess I could relate to him more because of my ethnicity. I recently bought the DVD, because I hadn't seen it in years, and I was especially surprised to see how well it treats these Muslim characters, in a positive light.

PC groups bitched about it back in the day, but unfortunately I doubt a positive movie like this would get made now, because of the recent socio-political climate.

[tlc38tlc38]

PC groups bitched about it back in the day, but unfortunately I doubt a positive movie like this would get made now, because of the recent socio-political climate.

That's why supposedly it's been taken out of the "Platinum Line" which I think is just stupid.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

It's really been taken out of the Platinum line? That sucks. I think it's a better movie than many of the other choices, but that's just me.

So no Platinum Edition BD, eh? Then maybe it will come out sooner.

[tlc38tlc38]

It's really been taken out of the Platinum line? That sucks. I think it's a better movie than many of the other choices, but that's just me.

So no Platinum Edition BD, eh? Then maybe it will come out sooner.

I think we'll still get a BD release but not under the Platinum line. Personally, I think Dumbo should be part of the Platinum line. It's my all-time favorite Disney movie.

[The_Iceflash]

PC groups really annoy me with some of the stunts they pull like with Aladdin. They can do some very ridiculous things. PC itself can and does go too far on many occasions.

[The_Iceflash]

It's really been taken out of the Platinum line? That sucks. I think it's a better movie than many of the other choices, but that's just me.

So no Platinum Edition BD, eh? Then maybe it will come out sooner.

I think we'll still get a BD release but not under the Platinum line. Personally, I think Dumbo should be part of the Platinum line. It's my all-time favorite Disney movie.

I think so too.

[tlc38tlc38]

PC groups really annoy me with some of the stunts they pull like with Aladdin. They can do some very ridiculous things. PC itself can and does go too far on many occasions.

I agree.

[BelleGirl]

PC groups really annoy me with some of the stunts they pull like with Aladdin. They can do some very ridiculous things. PC itself can and does go too far on many occasions.

I agree.

Example: Disney apparently fell compelled to change a racist sounding line from a song that was sung by a racist character who clearly was the villain of the movie ("Savages" from Pocahontas: "their whole disgusting race is like a curse" was changed because it was apparently to bad, but "filthy little heathens", "only good when dead" and 'vermin' could pass - so did the change make the song less racist?).
I actually read a complaint by an american indian woman who wanted to boycot Disney for this song, because some nasty boys sang it to her son.
It's sad that people cannot make a distinction between the 'message' of an evil character and the overall message of a movie, but this attempt at 'political correctness' is more like trying to take account of idiots.