Talk:Fantasia (1940 film)/Archive 1

Song of the South untelecast?
It is mentioned that Fantasia is one of two films that have never been fully televised in one go. It states that the second film is Song of the South. I have a full and unbroken copy of Song of the South that was televised in 90's Britain and recorded onto VHS, therefore the second statement cannot be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.61.31 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening Review
In the second paragraph of the opening review, the original roadshow is described as a "two-hour and twenty minute" film. However, later in the paragraph it's described as "the original 124 minute roadshow version". Two hours and twenty minutes adds up to 140 minutes. One of these two descriptions is incorrect, and should be researched to its correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoactivist (talk • contribs) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Reception
I think the reception section of this article needs to be re-written. It is one of AFI's top 100 films, and it has a 100% fresh rating on whatever. It should be described as a classic, looking at its accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Title issues
The Dutch title is Fantasia.

Fantasia (also Phantas(y,ie), Fantasy) also has a common musical meaning from the Baroque/Tudor era, writing off the top of my head, referring to a type of piece, or movement of a piece. There was an attempt by Cobbett to resurrect the Phantasy tradition in a competition he organized in the first decades of the 20th century, which resulted in several works - Benjamin Britten's Fantasy Quartet for oboe and strings, Frank Bridge's Phantasy-Trio (the first of his two,) the first of John Ireland's three piano trios, ...- of chamber music. (The distinction is made neither here, nor under Fantasy or Phantasy. Thanks!) Schissel 21:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * We don't have an article on fantasia/fantasy/phantasy yet, and really need one. Along with Ricercar, Canzona, and a few other things, it's a pretty big deal in the late Renaissance/early Baroque, as you point out.  It could go a couple of ways:  move Fantasia to Fantasia (movie), and have the article on the musical form at Fantasia; leave the Disney film where it is and put the musical fantasia at Fantasia (music); or make a disambiguation page for Fantasia with links to both Fantasia (music) and Fantasia (movie).  Anyone else have an idea? Antandrus 21:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stravinsky vs. Stokowsky
This was recently added, and I removed it:

''Contrary to popular belief, Igor Stravinsky was very pleased by Walt's animation and interpretation of his work. Igor Stravinsky was also the only composer to work alongside Walt Disney for music advice and explanation of themes. Stravinsky once remarked that even though he found the idea of Dinosaurs 'odd', he was still very open minded and knew his work could be interpreted to mean many different things. Stravinsky use to spend time at Disney studios going over the score with Walt, which in turn provided Stravinsky a chance to see the models and concept art of the dinosaur sequence. It many Fantasia bios, Stravinsky is noted as liking the idea of Rite of Spring depicting the early stages of the world, mostly for it's primitive themes and new approach to his music.''

<<>>From the very beginning Stravinsky was very upset. Stokowski(note spellibng) had re-orchstrated the music. The staff atthe showing for Stravinsky toldhim how Stokie had "mproved" his score. When Stravuinsky objected, they told him to go to Hell. The score was in the public domain and there was nothing Stravinsky could do about it. There had been a screw up whenthe copyright was registered, and the registration was invalid.<<>>

<<>>But what about fantasia in the Renaissance? This is a terrible article.<<>>

That may be mere re-writing Disney publicity stuff - we've seen all the photos... I've seen other versions in the literature, so if the above is included, we should maybe also add this:

However, it is said that Stravinsky some years later criticised Stokovski's handling of the score, calling it "execrable".

We need to be NPOV on this. --Janke | Talk 16:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we do need some info on Stravinsky's reaction to the film. After all, he was the only composer featured who was still living when it was made. But everything I've read from reputable musicologists suggests that, as you say, he was incensed by the way his work was portrayed (and considering the nature of his work, and the fact that they cut it and reordered it significantly and turned it into a "family-friendly" subject I can see his frustration). Beggarsbanquet (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Centaur
I heard that some scenes of a black centaur woman were cut out from the movie. Is this true? KinseyLOL 13:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the article! There is even a picture of the deleted black centaur. — Walloon 15:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit more description to that part, as it didnt actually say that Sunflower was black.... --03crichardson 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Its on youtube, and yes she was obviously black. Someone needs to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.103.234 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

After watching the clips, I think this is not one character, but three separate ones. Either that, or she takes the time to change her hair style between assisting different centaurs. One of them has 4 pigtails with bows. The next has only 2 pigtails with bows and a large sunflower on her head. The third has 2 pigtails with little yellow flowers instead of bows. KainashiHanyou (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice
As as soon as I read this passage...: "Mickey is seen wearing his famous red wizard's robe and sorceror's hat....." I knew it was wrong. Any Disneyholic worth his mouse ears knows that the robe might be red but the hat is blue. I've never edited an article before even though I am a long time Wikipedia reader. I will attempt to correct this entry. Buggsbuny 20:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Was Sunflower excised from ALL releases after 1969?
The article mentions that the character of Sunflower was cropped out of the 1969 theatrical re-release and all subsequent releases. However, on various websites, I've seen clips of the Sunflower sequences which appear to come from VHS or TV sources, suggesting that these uncensored versions remained in circulation long after 1969.

Is it worth investigating the possiblity that the original versions continued to be distributed in countries where this sort of content was less controversial? After all, Song of the South was released on home video in many parts of the world, and the original version of Three Little Pigs - complete with an anti-Semitic caricature considered so offensive that it was even left off of the Walt Disney Treasures DVDs - actually surfaced on a Japanese laserdisc at one point. 217.155.20.163 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rite of Spring
I remeber reading somewhere that Deems Taylor suggested The Rite of Spring to be about Dinosaurs is this true?124.189.93.28 10:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The original choreography has been lost, but it was wild enough to cause a something like a riot, supposedly. If I remember right it has a lot to do with ancient tribal war dances and carrying off women from a neighboring tribe,. . . etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.189.227 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the article
In my opinion, thye structure of the article could be improved. Right now, there are 3 different sections of the article in which all of the segments of the animated film are mentioned. First in the "music program", then in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and "Production and synopsis of the other segments", and then again in the "credits" section. Why not merge these 3 sections into one chapter which mentions and describes all segments (including musical score & credits) ? RagingR2 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go; I thought let's go from words to actions, so I restructured the article as I proposed. Only issue that still bothers me: right now the "index" of the article is pretty long; I'm not sure all those chapters and sub-chapters are justified, considering the relatively small amount of information in each of the sections 2.2.1 - 2.8.3. Maybe just remove those headers, so the index won't go deeper than 2.1 - 2.9 if you know what I mean? RagingR2 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, fixed that too. I removed the redundant section headers. See [history of the article] if you don't know what I'm talking about. RagingR2 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mega Drive game
Should we not include a link at least to Fantasia (video game)? Tim (Xevious) 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

inaccuracy of the greek gods
1. Bacchus is the roman god of wine, not the greek

2. It's Helios who drives the sun charoit, not Appollon

3. Morpheus is the god of dreams, not of sleep -- by user 213.113.217.133, July 2007

The person riding the drunken donkey is, as far as I can tell, Silenus and not Bacchus. The description of Silenus fits to a tee. However, there is so much written about Bacchus being the person depicted here, both in this article and in the Greek deity's article, that I am hesitant to change this without further confirmation. --Eitheladar (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are probably correct Eitheladar. The problem is that the Disney studios have, virtually from the beginning, described this character as Bacchus. This includes both print promotional material and the various documentaries they have made over the years (this applies to the anon IP's comments above also). Remember that the studios promotional department did not have the web, or your knowledge, to do deeper research with when they were doing there thing. I think that you might add a little note in parentheses to both pages stating that the character, as protrayed, fits Silenus better. Thanks for pointing this out. MarnetteD | Talk 17:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantasia f.jpg
Image:Fantasia f.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantasiafront.jpg
Image:Fantasiafront.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantasiaposter.jpg
Image:Fantasiaposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fantposter.jpg
Image:Fantposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantasia as package film?
I'm not sure about this one ... if using the purest definition for a package film, Fantasia does fit the bill. However, in the Disney sense, where a package film was a bunch of featurettes were put together, while Fantasia was intended as such, I'm not so sure. Opinions? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "package films" were collections of largely unrelated shorts put together to get a feature into theatres quickly to make money for the studio in between major films. Fantasia was conceived from the start as a unified idea and was one of the most ambitious projects ever made by Disney. So I don't think there is any comparison. Markhh (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the same editor made changes to a number of the other true Disney package films, as well as to Fantasia 2000, so you may want to look at those, too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Markhh (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A search through the web does not turn up the use of the terminology of "unrelated shorts" that you are applying. Indeed Wikipedia's page states that package films can have a unifiying theme. Virtually every list that I came across on the web for package films, including wikipedia's, includes Fantasia on it. If the distinction that you are using between package and anthology is one that only Disney studios used then I feel that the broader usage should apply to wikipedia's pages. If my asumption is an error, and if you can provide sources for the more split view of the terms, you probably should make some edits to the anthology film's page so that other editors don't make the same mistake that I did in trying to determine what does and does not fit the categories. Thanks for you time and efferots here at wikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 00:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Unspecified comment refering to the future of the series
Even though this should be in Fantasia 2000 Talk Section, but this concerns something extremely important for both Fantasia articles. In Fantasia 2000, Roy Disney mentioned that Walt Disney's dream came true after mentioning that his dream was to make Fantasia a recurring adaption of new animation and music that came yearly. Also, even though I don't have Fantasia Anthology, there are other things that also imply that there may be a new Fantasia coming soon. Could we add this to the article if someone finds enough evidence?? Anyone who has Anthology should start searching. Remembering that next year will be the 70th Anniversary of Fanatsia. --Mr.Mario 192 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Disney's Fantasia" by John Culhane
I have ordered this book on-line and it's on its way. It will be a great help for details and to develop the article. Bring on the postman! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Working on the article
With the change I made to the article from this, to this, I think it's looking much more like a proper article now. I notice that quite a few film articles that are GA status don't have credit sections, including Aladdin (a Disney film) and even Avatar, so I removed those listed in Fantasia. In the mean time, I will continue to find some nice sources for the Reception, Additional material and Legacy sections. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I think you overdid the condensation. Much valid and interesting information has been removed.  Kostaki mou (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Credits
Regardless of what may have been done on other articles I think that deleting the credits here is a big mistake. Is this not precisely the kind of information that someone would expect to find in a reference article on this film? Especially in Fantasia where the credits are so important to understanding the different styles and concepts of each work. I vote that the credits ber restored. The format most recently used where they were hidden and could be opened at the reader's choice offered the best solution, providing the information but allowing the general reader a smoother flow of text. Otherwise I think the recent changes ahve been good. Markhh (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Critical response section
I included some 'not really fit for children' criticism, for that seemed missing in the entire article. Since it's a Disney production, I don't see any reason not to include it. Robster1983 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Beethoven and Schubert credited. Thanks
These are two composers whom are not mentioned on the article. The Pastoral Symphony links to "Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)" but it could also be explicitly mentioned, that the derivative was based on Ludwig van Beethoven. Sorry for all this, I just now noticed that it is already in the article. Thanks for adding or having the credits section. I just realised that what I asked for just now is already in the article,(I needed to click on "show" for the credits to show) so I thank you for all the work you did. Crediting both Ludwig van Beethoven for "Symphony No. 6" and Franz Schubert for "Ave Maria". Logictheo (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

List of segments
I would not count the film's introduction and intermission parts (where the title card is revealed and jam session) are not the main animated segments of Fantasia (I also think they act as "spoilers" in a way, too). Culhane's book does not consider the introduction or the intermission a "segment", which is why I added a citation to each of them. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True. This is more of a program description in addition to listing the official program numbers. I'm not sure that spoilers are a concern for a film as familiar as Fantasia. (There's no mention of the guy knocking over the chimes. lol) A description of how the film is constructed and the novel placement of the title card in the middle seems valuable information to me. Perhaps the header should be changed to just "Program" or "Program description"? Best, Markhh (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you also bring up a good point. Trouble is, the title card placement in the middle of the film did not exist in all versions of Fantasia. I suggest we just keep the main segments on the list and change the section title to "Program"??? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, at least for now, left the program including the live segments and added a note that this is as seen in the roadshow version. This was the original concept for the film and is now the version most frequently seen by contemporary viewers in the last two video releases. I hope this seems okay. Thanks, Markhh (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Taylor's Voice
Another point, although for many probably a very small one. I sympathize with your replacing the somewhat wordy paragraph I wrote re the redubbing of Taylor's voice with a single neat sentence. Problem is that what is says is incorrect. Most of Taylor's voice tracks do still exist just as they have been in all versions up to 2000 (except those in the the 80s and 90s that had different narrators). Only the restored footage is missing the soundtrack with his voice. Burton redubbed the narrator's voice throughout only for consistency, not because all of the tracks are lost. I hope my recent revision of this sentence will seem satisfactory to all. Best, Markhh (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I removed the NYT ref here because it seems to suggest, incorrectly, that all of Taylor's voice recordings have been lost. Best Markhh (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks man! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Audio commentaries as sources?
I am thinking about using the audio commentaries from the most recent Fantasia releases (one by Roy Disney, James Levine, John Canemaker and Scott McQueen [2000 DVD and 2010 Blu-Ray], the other by Brian Sibley [2010 DVD and Blu-Ray]). I feel that they may contain valuable material and will help improve the article. Is it necessary to use audio commentaries as sources? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good idea, and yes you should still provide a citation. Consult Template:Cite video for more information; Template:Cite audio redirects to the video template, so apparently they've been combined. -- McDoob  AU  93  22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * They are perfectly acceptable, and two sources cite the audio commentary and/or making of featurettes. I have The Fantasia Anthology set and will go through that again at some point soon. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

segment introductions as references?
hello? I might have discussed about including Taylor's introductory dialogue for the segments before... but anyone think it sounds fair to put said descriptions as references? Visokor (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Spoken Article
Hi. This is User:Psychonavigation, not logged in. I have decided to record a spoken version of this article. I have an Australian accent.. by no means a strong or abrasive one, though! :P Give me two days. Thank you, and peace. Note: I place my reply above the request due to formatting issues.

Spoken article
Note : this I Psychonavigation posting this notice - not logged in as usual - as such, leave comments on my talk page. Peace :) 124.171.96.74 (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Madame Upanova & Elephanchine
Is that ostrich's name actually "Madame Upanova"? And is the elephant called "Elephanchine"? According to "Walt Disney's Comics and Stories", Issue #43, Pages 34 and 35 the ostrich is named "Ossie Ostrich" and the elephant is named "Ella Elephant". It also confirms the hippo is named "Hyacinth Hippo". Deltasim (talk) 12:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I remember that, in the program given out at the 1954 revival (those days are gone!), the ostrich's name was indeed given as "Upanova" (Mlle rather than Madame, if memory serves). Kostaki mou (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

question
Is it possible to add information about the concert to the Legacy section? Visokor (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a working draft of the article with a Concerts section, but I removed it after thinking it's not such a worthy bit of information. Live concerts of the film seem to be sporadic, i.e. not a regular occurrence. I suggest to leave it out. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This will really make ...
Is there any truth to the rumour that some genius of an executive said "This will really make .." Naming one of the composers who everybody else already knew about? I've seen it where the quote mentions Bach, Beethoven and other composers). Or is it just an urban legend? -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not on very many active editors watchlists anymore so I would suggest that you post your question here Reference desk/Entertainment‎. There are all sorts of editors there who know how to look for answers to a question like this. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Disney did in fact mention, regarding the Pastoral Symphony segment, that "this will even make Beethoven.", to which Stokowski replied along the lines of, "...sure, Walt. To some people, this will." LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for popping in with the info requested L. MarnetteD | Talk 19:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

On another note...
Fantasia aired for the first time on UK television, in full and in high definition, on BBC Two today. It was interesting to note that the title card normally shown during the intermission was not shown; instead, the curtain just opened and closed and was shown for a few seconds right after Ave Maria. A monumental day! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the roadshow version?!Visokor (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It looked like it to me, with all the extended narration, applause after The Sorcerer's Apprentice, chimes falling down, intermission scene... LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose you did notice that I put down in the legacy section that Mickey will appear in Disney Infinity in his Sorcerer's Apprentice guise?
 * Indeed I did! But I think it's not really useful in an article about Fantasia the film? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 19:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I know most wikias mention Fantasia. I think Fantasia should get it's own wikia one of these days. I mean what with Music Evolved coming up and all...Visokor (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Apropos the extended narration: in the original 1940 movie, as released on VHS Video, Deems Taylor appeared only once, prior to the Toccata and Fugue. Thereafter his voice was heard only the soundtrack. In a later reissue, the narration was re-recorded by someone else and that's how it was heard in the first DVD release. However, in the version shown by the BBC, Taylor appeared at the start of all the musical items, not just once. Can someone with knowledge of all the various versions confirm that it was indeed Taylor himself seen on-screen for the subsequent numbers, because I formed a sneaking suspicion that it was an actor "look-alike" who'd been filmed and inserted at various points for the latest reissue. A comparison with the original and the one aired by the BBC would soon prove or disprove the point! Philipson55 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed Deems Taylor. The live action footage dates from the original road show edition of the film and has been restored on the latest video reissue. The voice is dubbed because some of the rediscovered footage of Taylor speaking no longer had any matching audio parts. Instead of only dubbing the scenes with missing soundtracks Disney chose to redub all of Taylor's dialogue so it would sound consistent throughout. If you listen to Taylor's actual voice it's remarkable how well the voice actor captured his style. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! I wonder if this version will get an annual UK TV showing from now on, as does 'The Wizard of Oz'? Philipson55 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is definitely Taylor! His voice was replaced by that of Corey Burton's, as the article mentions. You are right about the narrative introductions when comparing, as Taylor only appears once in the 1990 VHS. It's great that they managed to find the restored footage in such great quality. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the UK 2000 DVD. Corey's lines are only heard in that.Visokor (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantasia 3
The unproduced Fantasia 3 - which was supposed to include segments like The Little Matchgirl etc. - should be mentioned in the article.

From List of unproduced Disney animated shorts and feature films: "Fantasia III - Also known as Fantasia 2006, this would have been the third film installment in the Fantasia series, until the plans were eventually altogether dropped, and proposed segments from that abandoned film was instead produced and released as individual stand-alone Disney animated shorts. "--Coin945 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

General release contradiction
Hello all! I have noticed Infobox now shows that the film was put on general release on 10 April 1942, whereas the article itself mentions January 1942. We may have to go through the reliable sources for a better consensus on the 1942 date. Thoughts? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! The reference to the January 1942 general release date, I believe, is incorrect.  The reference cited is from an article from the Press-Courier, but the article itself only mentions the year, 1942, with no month.  The AFI database, where I pulled the information regarding release dates (and Koala15 made even more specific), is pretty thorough (although not infallible - as I found out while researching the release date for Success at Any Price), and ties in with the dates from the Culhane source. My thought is that the January date in the body of the article should be changed to April.Onel5969 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

animated vs. animated/live action
An editor made a change in the article from "animated" film to "animated/live action" film, which was subsequently reverted by another editor, who suggested that it be taken to the talk page and case made for the change. This was after I almost reverted it myself. However, within the paragraph which references it as an animated film it says, "Music critic and composer Deems Taylor acts as the film's Master of Ceremonies, who introduces each segment in live action interstitial scenes." Well, if there are live action scenes, which are part of the film, then wouldn't it be an animated/live action film? Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the thread. We usually use that designation if the live action is mixed into the animation. See the Tom and Jerry and Gene Kelly sequence in Anchors Aweigh (film). In this film the interstitial scenes are separate from the animation. Of course, in genre situations like this we can turn to WP:RSs. Most of the ones I have seen refer to animation but if others are available we can add them though we should not use the piped link that the other editor created. Also apologies for the edit summary - the same editor had made the edit on Fantasia 2000 and I was referring to that edit summary in the edit on this article. MarnetteD | Talk 23:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One more thought. Since this article recently went through a GA review you may want to contact the editors who worked on that and ask them for their thoughts on this situation. MarnetteD | Talk 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks MarnetteD... I'm a bit new to this, only starting to work on Wikipedia in January. A lot is simply common sense, but I thought there might be something more technical this time, as you've pointed out.  I don't have a horse in this race, I simply wanted to begin the discussion and follow, so I could learn what others think.  So, I guess if a film has integrated live action/animation, like your example of Anchors Aweigh (which I absolutely loved), or Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, that would earn an animation/live action moniker, but when it's a separate, non-integrated combination, then it would default to the basic medium of the film, in this instance animation.  I'm guessing Mary Poppins would be live action/animation?  While Enchanted would be a live action film? And I'm pretty sure that films with animation only in the opening and/or closing credits would be live action (like Catch Me if You Can and The Pink Panther).


 * MarnetteD suggested that I bring you into this conversation. Onel5969 (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Wikipedia article that the editor linked his edit to describes "live action/animated" as describing the combination of live and animated figures together. Does that help? I've never seen Fantasia referred to as anything but an animated film, although it does have live scenes in between the animated segments, and, of course the brief famous moment where Mickey shakes Stokowski's hand. But that's not more than a few seconds. A sweet bit of humor in an otherwise often self-serious film. I vote for "animated". Cheers Markhh (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Credits
Although the Stravinsky and Beethoven music sections are noted as 'abridged' in this table, I believe the Dukas score also has some blatant cuts - unless of course this was due to the particular video version I watched. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The running time for this segment is a little over 9 minutes. Commercial recordings of the Dukas piece run from 9 minutes (Toscanini NYPhil, quite fast) to about 11 minutes. Hard to say, maybe Stokowski, like Toscanini, just plays it very fast. Or there may have been some trims to fit the action, but I've never heard of it. One would have to follow the film with score in hand to know for sure. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To begin with the Toscanini recording was used to get an idea on the pace and rhythm. The Smith source cites that Pearce "made a rough footage estimate of 795 feet of animation (8 minutes, 50 seconds), based on a stopwatch timing of a Toscanini recording." He continues that "Possible slight cuts and changes in the music were discussed". So there could have indeed been some modifications to the original L'apprenti sorcier score. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See (or rather, hear!) for yourself. There are differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNaNDXyXRFo LowSelfEstidle (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov did the version of Night on Bald Mountain used in the film so can I put (arr. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov) near Modest Mussorgsky's name on the article about fantasia?

Runescapefan10000 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 06:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. However, the version of Night on Bald Mountain used in Fantasia is not the one by Rimsky-Korsakoff. Stokowski created his own orchestration for the film. He is credited at the bottom of the article in the credits section (which you have to expand to read the details). Best, Markhh (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor issue: per cent vs. percent
In the sub section of Theatrical runs, 1940-1941 roadshows with Fantasound, I the final paragraph, the older form of the "percent" is used, "per cent". Is this older form used because of the source? Would the use of the modern word "percent" change how the reader understands this section? Charliecombs (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Charliecombs

copyright
Can we get a section that talks about copyright? I think that this film is probably out of copyright in Australia (for example) as it is more than 70 years after being published. Is it also out of copyright in other locations? This is interesting because this is a classic example of Disney stuff (like the original Mickey Mouse stuff). Obviously it's still in copyright in USA, which is insane... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.80.244 (talk) 11:51 UTC, 26 November 2014


 * I don't know everything about copyright law, but I would think that the laws of the nation where the work was originally produced would apply, and in the case of Fantasia that would be the United States, where, yes, the film is still copyrighted. If there is some reason why the copyright status of Fantasia is notable, then it should have a section, provided said section is populated with information from reliable sources and is not a personal analysis of the subject. -- McDoob  AU93  15:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
Can you change 'centaurette' in the "Controversies" section to 'centaur'. Centaurette is not a word, there are also significant feminist objections to rendering a previously gender neutral term into a gendered one by making the male the 'default' and adding extra clarifying suffixes for the feminine form.

82.33.89.156 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to those that reply to this. Per this Centaurette is a word though archaic today. It is used in at least one of the "making of" documentaries on the DVD release of the film. The question would be if it was used in any of the production papers at the time the film was made. If it was then the term should be left in per WP:NOTCENSORED. I am a long time proponent of gender neutral language so if a ref can't be found then the change can be made. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Centaurettes
Roger Ebert directly quotes a Disney archivist, who labels them as "centaurettes". PopMatters, The New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , Entertainment Weekly , and NPR all label them as "centaurettes". I would not have labeled them as such myself, but it seems pretty well established by reliable sources. However, I see no reason why consensus couldn't establish our own style. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your work research . I do understand the desire to change something like this. OTOH there is historical context for the use of the word. For instance the song and dance scene with the black field hands in A Day at the Races (film) is so very offensive today and always fills me with unease. OTOH I wouldn't have it removed from the film as it is representative of the US at that time. If we don't know how narrow the thinking was we won't completely understand why there was a need to change it. If the consensus is to change the term I do think that a footnote should be created explaining its use at the time the film was made and in the years after. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 02:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Centaurette is the name coined by Fantasia's creators to name these characters. You can describe them as female centaurs but the film names them "Centaurettes". Check out these character sketches. http://www.tumblr.com/search/Fred+Moore#  Cheers,Markhh (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, centaur isn't really a gender-neutral term. In Greek mythology female centaurs were called centaurides. See: Kentaurides. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Perucci Ferraiuolo
Is his critical remark stating that the film was Disney almost glorifying witchcraft and Satanism really a notable enough criticism to include in the article? It's eccentric and a bit WP:Fringe. It seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to such a bizarre criticism. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox issue
The credit given to Joe Grant and Dick Huemer is "Written by" but the official credit was "Story direction", even though no one was actually credited in the film per se. Maybe it should be changed from "Written by" to "Story by" since that is closer to the official credit? I'm not there. Message me! 22:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that the infobox template only provides certain options. "Story by" isn't one of them. Of course one could look at changing the infobox, if it was thought that this was a necessary change. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the response. Actually, "Story by" IS part of Template:Infobox film and it is used in many articles. And since this infobox is used in this article, maybe change "Written by" to "Story by" would be an option? What do you think? Thanks. I'm not there. Message me! 22:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction! It sounds okay to me. I'm not sure I know what Story Direction actually means, but Story by is probably closer than Written by. Cheers. Markhh (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Smart correction, there! Good work. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Swan
I don't think Sibelius wrote The Swan. "The Swan of Tuonela by Jean Sibelius" Swimmeret (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC) swimmeret 11/13/2015
 * I'm not sure I understand your question exactly.. The Swan of Tuonela is by Sibelius, maybe his most famous work after Finlandia. Perhaps you're thinking of Camille Saint-Saëns's orchestral suite Carnival of the Animals which includes a famous cello solo entitled "The Swan". As far as I know this was not part of the recordings made for the original Fantasia. The finale of that work was used in Fantasia 2000, but not "The Swan". Cheers, Markhh (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to change Atari game reference of "Yen Sid's" to game package text which says "Sorcerer's" (see citation 171)
The current text on this page says:

In 1983, Atari released a game called Sorcerer's Apprentice for the Atari 2600, based on that segment of Fantasia. The player, as Mickey Mouse, must collect falling stars and comets which will prevent the marching brooms from flooding Yen Sid's cavern.[171]

The description on the Atari game package reads:

Based off the animated Disney classic "Fantasia", Sorcerer's Apprentice puts players in charge of Mickey Mouse as he collects and shoots stars and meteors on the mountaintops to keep the walking brooms from filling the Sorcerer's cavern below.

For historical accuracy, I propose changing "Yen Sid's" to "Sorcerer's", as afaik, the names "Yensid" or "Yen Sid" are not mentioned in the 1983 Atari 2600 version of the game. You can see the front and back covers on this page: http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-2600/sorcerers-apprentice Pirkster (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No comment on the details of this request, but the user making the request has on his/her user page that he/she owns the copyright to "Yensid". If this is a copyright claim, it should go through this page: Contact us - Licensing. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Fantasia (1940 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312005736/http://disneydvd.disney.go.com:80/fantasia-fantasia-2000-2-movie-collection-special-edition.html to http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/fantasia-fantasia-2000-2-movie-collection-special-edition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Request Edit
Hi, I'm new to this, so I hope I'm making this request in the right place. I'd like to add to this page that in 1990, the United States Library of Congress deemed this film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. However, this page is protected, understandably. Is there someone else who is able to make this change? Thank you. The Film Enthusiast (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! To answer: First, the LOC Registry is already mentioned in the article under the "Awards and honors" heading. Second, as a registered user you will have the ability to make edits to a semi-protected article as soon as you have ten other edits under your belt and have "confirmed" status. See: WP:Protection_policy Cheers, Markhh (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

2000 and 2010 discs: identical content?
The article claims "The 2010 version ... was editorially identical to the 2000 version". I'm pretty sure that's not strictly true. IIRC the 2000 version begins with the title card before the orchestra arrives. The 2010 version begins with the orchestra arriving and the title card isn't seen until the intermission. The 2010 release also restores material cut from Deems Taylor's narration, plus little bits of business like Taylor being briefly interrupted by the tubular bells getting knocked over. Confirm/deny? Lee M (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Live action adaptations" and "Parodies and spin-offs"
Just finished merging redundant contributions regarding the planned live-action Night on Bald Mountain film from the "Parodies and spin-offs" subheading, and noticed that both it and The Sorcerer's Apprentice have similar entries under both it and "Live action adaptations". So... should they be moved and merged under the latter, or should the two headings be merged together, or...? ElCartero (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantasia (1940 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://disneydvd.disney.go.com/fantasia-fantasia-2000-2-movie-collection-special-edition.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422064928/http://old.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml to http://old.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Night on Bald Mountain and Ave Maria
This section lacks any reference to the author of the lyrics used, Rachel Field. The singer is also absent. I will add if there are no objecitons. surfingus (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Herman Schultheis
I see that Herman Schultheis was the engineer behind the special effects.

In a movie known for the special effects maybe the guy who did all the work could be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.202.211 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Schultheis, according to reports is a rather mysterious figure. He receives no credit for Fantasia. He did work for Disney at the time and left a notebook of invaluable notes and photos of Disney's production and effects processes that was recently discovered and published. His actual contribution is I think not clear. There are a number of visual effects editors who did receive credit for Fantasia and we should consider adding their names to the article in the credits section. Thanks for the interesting suggestion, Markhh (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning Herman! I'm working on developing the article a little more and includes a section on special effects and his name, as many of the effects used in Fantasia were not entirely known until the accidental discovery of his notebook behind a wall by Howard Lowery (featured in the "making of" documentary on the Fantasia DVD) in 1990. Cheers! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantasia (1940 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707092536/http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/TOP10.pdf to http://connect.afi.com/site/DocServer/TOP10.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122014557/http://animationarchive.net/Deleted%20Movies/Fantasia%202006/Notes/ to http://animationarchive.net/Deleted%20Movies/Fantasia%202006/Notes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)