The Fantasia/Fantasia 2000 Platinum Edition Thread

[Flanger-Hanger]

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.

Walt did make a PG rated movie, Treasure Island, that was cut down in it's 1975 re-issue to remove violence that had originally been in it. he had always been criticized about the amount of scares and violence in his animated films as well.

Over the top, realistic Bonnie-and-Clyde like violence may have been the thing Walt was against (in addition to explicit sex) but violence in general was not something he was totally against if he felt it was appropriate for the story (and I don't need a biography to tell me that, I just watch his movies!).

Audiences change over time and PG in America today is the new G, with PG-13 the new PG. Audiences learned to accept the idea of PG rated Disney films in the 90s (The Rocketeer, Newsies, Hocus Pocus, White Fang etc) and I'm sure Walt would have changed with the times, perhaps being upset with the shift of values in the 70s (or movies like Bad News Bears which show kids swearing like crazy) but he would have accepted some shifts in values if he felt the basic morals that made his movies good were still there. He wouldn't have just sat and made outdated irrelevant fluff like most of what Disney actually made in the 70s, he would have pushed technology and done everything he had done before, just in a newer decade.

[Rudy Matt]

I'm sure Walt would have changed with the times, perhaps being upset with the shift of values in the 70s (or movies like Bad News Bears which show kids swearing like crazy) but he would have accepted some shifts in values if he felt the basic morals that made his movies good were still there.

As I'm sure you're well aware, the PG rating to Treasure Island in the 70's caught the company by surprise, hence it was edited to bring it back down to a G. That is an example of how something from 1950 could find itself less acceptable to a wide general audience in the 70's. Sort of like, oh, I don't know....racial stereotypes in Fantasia.

Your point about adaptation is noteworthy, as can clearly be seen in the music of the Disney films in the 50's and 60's, and subject matter certainly became more diverse...but even in something like The Parent Trap, which broached the modern subject of divorce, Walt's values of love, faith, optimism, renewal and hope won out.

You're mistaken if you think I believe Walt would have hermeticaly sealed the subject matter of his work, but the man wouldn't have made Looking For Mr Goodbar or The Exorcist either. Splash? Certainly -- just without the sex scenes.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

You're mistaken if you think I believe Walt would have hermeticaly sealed the subject matter of his work, but the man wouldn't have made Looking For Mr Goodbar or The Exorcist either. Splash? Certainly -- just without the sex scenes.

Just what exactly do these two films have to do with anything? Looking For Mr. Goodbar was released (asaik) by Paramount, and the Excorcist by a different company, neither of which are affiliated (again afaik) with Disney. So your use of them is rather confusing if not pointless because neither Disney nor it's subsidiary companies have released these films.

Perhaps some clarification is in order on your part. Splash I can understand though.

[Goliath]

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.

Well, that's the whole discussion in a nutshell: you may find it splitting hairs, but to people who belong to the groups that are being stereotyped in the movies, it is a big deal. Remember people said the same about the caricatures of black people in the 1930's, 40's and 50's? But nowaday, we don't find it acceptable anymore. Just like we don't vilify Indians, Jews and Japanese anymore, like we did in the movies from 50-60 years ago. The Arabs are the last group of whom we find it acceptable to always paint them as terrorists, barbarians, villains, fools etc.

About Aladdin: something can be said about stereotyping and racism concerning Arabs. All the villains/goons are black-bearded, dark skinned and have an Arab 'look'. All the heroes/good guys (Aladdin, Jasmine, Sultan) are white and look like Westerners. Probably this was all subconscious, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.

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.

PC can also be a device to hide behind if you don't want to adress issues concerning racism and stereotyping. As exemplified on this thread.

[a-net-fan]

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.

Thanks for the link! I never thought to look for Destino on You Tube for some reason. Anyway now that I have seen it....

Its beautiful, odd, sweet, and um IMO over rated. I dont know what I was expecting but im left disappointed. It has some amazing parts and the animation for the most part is beautiful but its just very odd. Its amazing to think at one point they wanted to make a Treasures volume from this 5 min short.

As for Fantasia I dont see anyting wrong with Sunflower and normally I would stand behind all the purists who think that having her included is necessary. But after seeing her and the lack of quality in the way she is animated I actually would rather have the edited version. Fantasia is a work of art....almost like a fine painting in motion. Sunflower has the quality of a early animated short and frankly comes off to me as an eyesore in this masterpiece. I actually winced when I first saw the footage on You Tube. Original to the picture or not ...... having her animated in such poor quality was a mistake. So in this case I would rather have Sunflower remain out of the final picture and release the entire unedited segment as a bonus in the set.

[my chicken is infected]

^ You know, I never thought of that as another good reason for the censorship - it's just not on the same level of artistic quality as the rest of the scene, but you're right. It's like slapping Elmer Fudd into the shot.

[Rudy Matt]

Just what exactly do these two films have to do with anything? Looking For Mr. Goodbar was released (asaik) by Paramount, and the Excorcist by a different company, neither of which are affiliated (again afaik) with Disney. So your use of them is rather confusing if not pointless because neither Disney nor it's subsidiary companies have released these films.

Perhaps some clarification is in order on your part. Splash I can understand though.

I was going to respond, but then some shred of common sense reminded me to say Never mind. Life's too short.

So, never mind. Life's too short. You go on with your "I want Fantasia to say Walt hated black people" crusade, all so you can get your 12 seconds of deleted footage. At the end of the day, its all about you anyway, isn't it?

Isn't it?

[Chernabog_Rocks]

Just what exactly do these two films have to do with anything? Looking For Mr. Goodbar was released (asaik) by Paramount, and the Excorcist by a different company, neither of which are affiliated (again afaik) with Disney. So your use of them is rather confusing if not pointless because neither Disney nor it's subsidiary companies have released these films.

Perhaps some clarification is in order on your part. Splash I can understand though.

I was going to respond, but then some shred of common sense reminded me to say Never mind. Life's too short.

So, never mind. Life's too short. You go on with your "I want Fantasia to say Walt hated black people" crusade, all so you can get your 12 seconds of deleted footage. At the end of the day, its all about you anyway, isn't it?

Isn't it?

So you never answered my question, thanks for that.

Now on to the part I've bolded I am not on any crusade thank you very much and I NEVER EVER anywhere said anything about Walt hating black people.

I would appreciate it if you would take a minute to not put words in my mouth and keep them to yourself. Don't ever put words in my mouth.

Also that last little comment of yours could be a personal attack, and no it's not about me, I never said it was about me again stop putting words in my mouth and trying to paint me as the bad guy.

[BelleGirl]

About Aladdin: something can be said about stereotyping and racism concerning Arabs. All the villains/goons are black-bearded, dark skinned and have an Arab 'look'. All the heroes/good guys (Aladdin, Jasmine, Sultan) are white and look like Westerners. Probably this was all subconscious, but that doesn't mean it's not wrong.

Sigh...
I looked up several pictures of Aladdin in The art of Walt Disney but found the heroes as much tanned as the villains and I certainly don't find anything particularly 'western' in Jasmine or the Sultan, maybe a bit in Aladdin himself. Villains/goons are caricatures most of the time in Disney movies, while the heroes are mostly more realistic- and the Sultan is the typical father-caricature in the same league as professor Porter in Tarzan.
Just look at Beauty and the Beast for instance: crammed with caricatures of 'caucasian' characters but that doesn't alarm anyone. But when those caricatures are Arabs it's suddently subconscious racism. It doesn't make sense to me.
It's probably to avoid more of these kind of accusations that there is not a single caricatured Indian in Pocahontas, though several of the white settlers are broad caricatures. This in turn lead to accusations of 'reverse racism'. So what should Disney do not to offend anyone, can you please tell me?
Either way I believe that Arabs are not the last group of people 'we find it acceptable of' to offend, but the Catholics!

[Goliath]

I looked up several pictures of Aladdin in The art of Walt Disney but found the heroes as much tanned as the villains and I certainly don't find anything particularly 'western' in Jasmine or the Sultan, maybe a bit in Aladdin himself.

I wouldn't say they're tanned. They're white. Maybe Jasmine took a sun bathing, but she doesn't look Arab or Middle Eastern.

Villains/goons are caricatures most of the time in Disney movies, while the heroes are mostly more realistic- and the Sultan is the typical father-caricature in the same league as professor Porter in Tarzan.

But there's a difference in that, in Aladdin, all the bad guys/goons are portraied as Arabs, while the heroes are portrayed as white. Whereas in other movies in which villains/goons are caricaturized, *all* people are white. So it's not a racial issue in those other pictures.

Either way I believe that Arabs are not the last group of people 'we find it acceptable of' to offend, but the Catholics!

Excuse me? You'rem kidding, right? You actually believe Catholics are being portrayed as badly as Arabs in films/tv shows?

That's delusional. Seriously. It's not anywhere near the truth.

[Neal]

Generally Arabs are portrayed much worse than Catholics - but it depends upon the show. South Park puts Catholics and Arabs on the same level!

[my chicken is infected]

South Park puts EVERYONE on the same level.

[BelleGirl]

Either way I believe that Arabs are not the last group of people 'we find it acceptable of' to offend, but the Catholics!

Excuse me? You'rem kidding, right? You actually believe Catholics are being portrayed as badly as Arabs in films/tv shows?

That's delusional. Seriously. It's not anywhere near the truth.

No, I just think it's the last group 'we' 'find it acceptable' to ridicule/stereotype and think nothing else of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Call it what you like. You may think I'm mad, but look around you: the whole world is mad!


And even though you say that Aladdin and Jasmine are white, they are supposed to be Arabs, right? How else could Jasmine be daughter of a Sultan ? i'm also curious to know how a real Arab princess cartoon character would look like. Can you draw her for me?

Maybe, instead of ridiculing me, you could try to answer my question: What should Disney do in order not to offend groups of people?

To go back to the original topic: It's quite certain that Disney won't put back Sunflower in Fantasia, so we don't need to worry about that.

[The_Iceflash]

Villains/goons are caricatures most of the time in Disney movies, while the heroes are mostly more realistic- and the Sultan is the typical father-caricature in the same league as professor Porter in Tarzan.

But there's a difference in that, in Aladdin, all the bad guys/goons are portraied as Arabs, while the heroes are portrayed as white. Whereas in other movies in which villains/goons are caricaturized, *all* people are white. So it's not a racial issue in those other pictures.

.

No.

There's not a racial issue. Those who "think" they found an issue in that were just looking for one to cause trouble.

[The_Iceflash]

Either way I believe that Arabs are not the last group of people 'we find it acceptable of' to offend, but the Catholics!

That's actually quite true. I notice there's never an uproar whenever Catholics/Christianity is made fun of but when something else (insert what you want) gets made fun of equally there's an uproar.

[yaksplat]

What should Disney do in order not to offend groups of people?

The only thing that they could do to not offend anyone is no longer release anything. Any release is sure to offend someone.

[Darby]

What should Disney do in order not to offend groups of people?

The only thing that they could do to not offend anyone is no longer release anything. Any release is sure to offend someone.

Well said, yaksplat!

Darby

[Escapay]

That's actually quite true. I notice there's never an uproar whenever Catholics/Christianity is made fun of

I remember watching an episode of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip" where they made fun of Christianity in a sketch and it had to be pulled from the show for fear of an uproar by the Catholics/Christians. Don't remember the outcome of the episode (if they did the sketch or not), though I remember thinking, "Wow, that's something you don't see every day" (a protest against making fun of Catholics). Cause it seems to be more tolerable and is definitely easier to make fun of us. I need only point to Saved! or Dogma.

Still, there are some Catholics without that sense of humor, and they ruin it for the rest of us.

What should Disney do in order not to offend groups of people?

The only thing that they could do to not offend anyone is no longer release anything. Any release is sure to offend someone.

I only get offended by releases that come with a slipcover.

albert

[Goliath]

Generally Arabs are portrayed much worse than Catholics - but it depends upon the show. South Park puts Catholics and Arabs on the same level!

South Park is honest in that it portrays *everybody* equally bad.

No, I just think it's the last group 'we' 'find it acceptable' to ridicule/stereotype and think nothing else of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

You think it's the last group? What about Arabs? Have you been to the movies lately? Which movie has been so offensive to Catholics as it has been to Arabs?

And even though you say that Aladdin and Jasmine are white, they are supposed to be Arabs, right? How else could Jasmine be daughter of a Sultan ? i'm also curious to know how a real Arab princess cartoon character would look like. Can you draw her for me?

They're supposed to be Arabs. But they don't look like it.

Maybe, instead of ridiculing me, you could try to answer my question: What should Disney do in order not to offend groups of people?

I'm not ridiculing you, I'm disagreeing with you. (What's with this forum that everybody feels personally attacked when you disagree with them? People disagree with me all the time and I don't feel personally attacked.)

I'm not saying Disney can't use caricatures. I'm just saying: don't use *only* caricatures for a certain group of people. It's alright to show a Mexican with a big sombrero who's sleeping on the side of the road. Just don't paint all of them that way. And don't make all the bad guys of a particular ethnicity and all the good guys white, but take a more balanced approach. I'm not saying we can't laugh at anything anymore.

Also, I wasn't saying I personally feel Aladdin is insulting or racist. It's one of my favorite Disney movies. I'm just playing'devil's advocate' to show the side of people who are offended by it. So we can look at all sides of an issue.

There's not a racial issue. Those who "think" they found an issue in that were just looking for one to cause trouble.

That's extremely short-sighted. It shows no capability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. The same thing was said about racial stereotyping of blacks in the 1930's and '40's: those NAACP people who were complaining were just looking for something to cause trouble...

That's actually quite true. I notice there's never an uproar whenever Catholics/Christianity is made fun of but when something else (insert what you want) gets made fun of equally there's an uproar.

Then you haven't been following the media, my friend! E.g. they went ballistic over Bill Maher's jokes about the Pope.

[Edited for quote-tags]

[BelleGirl]

The only thing that they could do to not offend anyone is no longer release anything. Any release is sure to offend someone.

Well said, yaksplat!

Darby

Yes, that´s so true!