Talk:Fantasia 2000

Untitled

This entry states that Fantasia 2000 was shown exclusively in IMAX theaters. However, when I saw it, it was in a normal United Artists movie theater. LJade728 13:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Apparently changed by now. States it went to Imax first, then other theaters.--PvtDeth 18:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Title

I hate to be nitpicky, but I think the correct way to write the film's title is Fantasia/2000 as a reference to it being a continuation of the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.38.253 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, IMDb also lists the title this way. Ghostkeeper (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As ever IMDb does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being a reliable source. MarnetteD | Talk 20:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Celebrities

In August, I added the slightly POV statement that the celebrities are "attempting to be funny". This went unchallenged for three months, but was just removed. Since I feel this is a true statement (Steve Martin stands for the most embarrassing part of the whole film, IMHO), I re-inserted it, despite the slight POV. Discussion, please! --Janke | Talk 07:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No response... I inserted Some of these introductions appear contrived, and fail to be funny. Is this better? --Janke | Talk 20:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I just restructured that section a little bit, as I tried to fit in the word "interstitial" (the official name given to those segments), and moved the criticism down to the end of the paragraph rather than the beginning. --Joe

I thought the James Earl Jones intro was kind of amusing... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Levine

I removed the section on Criticism of Levine because it seems unfounded. Below are quotations from the removed section and my commentary:

"There has also been criticism of Disney's decision to hire the controversial conductor James Levine."

Who has criticized Disney's decision? Where? When? No citations were given.

"Currently, there are allegations that Levine has engaged in unspecified criminal activity and pedophilia."[1]

Does this qualify as an "allegation"? The article does not name Levine in the body-- only in the Usenet headline. Unless an actual allegation comes out in print from some kind of news source, this sentence is unfounded.

"These allegations against Levine were serious enough to prompt the German Green Party to demand a "certificate of good behavior" from Levine showing that he had no criminal convictions or charges pending against him when he became Music Director of the Munich Philharmonic.[2]"

The linked article does not give the reason why the Germany Green Party demanded the certificate. Whoever added the "Criticism of Levine" article to the Fantasia Wikipedia entry may know something, but unless a valid citation can back up this statement, it should be cut.

NapoleonicStudent 00:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Firebird

In the "Firebird" section, the article used to read that the mountain sprite awoke the "Firebird spirit of the volcano". That's a misunderstanding of the original music; the Firebird is the good character, representing the Phoenix, reborn from the ashes. The volcano is better imagined as corresponding to the evil Kastchei. [The final few seconds of the Firebird suite are the Firebird theme itself, victorious over evil] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.40.226 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Think the visuals of that segment were partly based on Mt. St. Helens and its aftermath... AnonMoos (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, person-who-spoke-first, but this isn't the original version. In the Fantasia 2000 version, the Firebird is an evil character.--216.74.195.122 (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 commentary describes the Firebird as being just as much a part of the natural order of things as the Sprite. The forest can't be renewed without first being purged by fire. Lee M (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rumored sequel?

No citations, but people talk. Until there's a confirmed source for a sequel, don't bother brining it up past this thread, I suppose. All I've "heard" in these rumors is things like Mannheim Steamroller, Vanessa Mae, Yanni, Regina Spektor, etc., etc., are involved. I highly doubt it. The only thing I've ever seen was a print-out at a local library with, what I think, was either a rave or a phony logo stating Fantasia's sequel is called Fantasia 3-D for release in IMAX/OmniMax 3-D theaters. I also read in this phony paper that A Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria and Dance of the Hours to be redone in 3-D, along with other classics like stuff from Chopin (SHOWPAN, damnit! Not "choppin'"!), Mozart, some Russians, some Americans (Leonard Bernstein was named on the phony paper), and some classical from the Far East, if such exists.

I wholly think it's all rumor, and would prefer that nobody adds any info into the main article for a third sequel. For all we know, the rumors can evolve to the point where music by Smike.dk and The Prodigy are included! Fictional Science Sextuple Feature! 17:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagentaTimCurryElbowSex (talk • contribs)

CGI

The article states that this is the first Disney film to use computer generate imagery. I immediately thought of the ballroom scene in Beauty and the Beast, eight years earlier, which Wikipedia confirms uses digital animation. PurpleChez — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.249.207.195 (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It may be one of those hairsplitting situations where CGI was being used in 1990 on this film before it was being used on BatB but that would need sourcing. So I have performed a copy edit to fit the sourced info in the article. MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Distributor in infobox

Putting Walt Disney Pictures as distributor in the infobox just makes it redundant and as we all know, WDP is a releasing label, not a distribution label. That distinction belongs to Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (formerly named Buena Vista Pictures). I already have enough problems with one IP user who puts Touchstone as distributor on infoboxes on Touchstone pages. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

If you would take a moment to look at the edit I linked to the same article that you did - I just refined it so the reader would be taken to the section of the article that is about BVP. This avoids the WP:EGG problems mentioned in the edit summary. MarnetteD|Talk 04:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fantasia 2000/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 06:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Terrible, awkward, and utterly unready for a GA review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Deferred
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Appropriate
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Appropriate
	2c. it contains no original research.	None identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None located with Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No Coatracks noted.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Balanced reception section
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No more vandalism than expected for this profile of an article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Appropriate
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing after GOCE prose doctoring.

First read through

• "Disney considered to use Clair de Lune..." Gack. Considered using?
• "Disney and Ernst decided to go with Hunt's idea, who avoided to produce an entirely abstract work..." Again, gack.
• "... noting down points where to use color when the music was bright and switch to darker textures when the music felt dark" This really needs a thorough read through.
• "that were scanned into the Computer Animation Production System (CAPS) system" So they were scanned into the system system? Did they pay for that using an ATM Machine?
• "The eyes on the whales were drawn by hand as the desired expressions from them were not fully achievable using CGI." More awkwardness.
• "It was already in production when Disney requested to include it in the film." ditto.
• "Rachel was designed after the Goldberg's daughter" Where does that apostrophe really go?
• "This being noted, the sequence was so chromatically complex that the delays the Computer Animation Production System took in rendering the segment delayed Tarzan." Delays delayed?
• "When Disney suggested to use the Shostakovich piece," even more...

OK, I'm going to quit critiquing the text now. It's pretty obvious that it hasn't recently been gone over by a native English speaker with editing skill. On prose, this is a fail. BUT, I daresay an hour or two of good editing could resolve this, so I'm not failing it entirely outright. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

To expand, while I haven't identified any other problems besides the terminally awkward text, it's not reasonable to try to review the other elements that I've not yet reviewed, until I can go through the text without needing to point out basic corrections. My deferring them isn't any sort of a vote of no confidence, but rather an emphasis that getting the text into reasonable shape is so important that there's no point in doing any of the rest of the work unless and until it's polished throughout. I will be placing the article on hold, and return to this review once the text has been improved. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I addressed all of the points you made above, and corrected a number of others like you mentioned. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be back to it over the weekend. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"It's pretty obvious that it hasn't recently been gone over by a native English speaker with editing skill." You are not wrong there. I really need to improve my English! I shall invest in a ... for Dummies book on grammar and clarity for starters! Thank you for reviewing the article, @Jclemens:, it's much appreciated. Cheers, LowSelfEstidle (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Second Read Through

There are still a few errors and cringe-worthy things in the text, but you've done a decent job cleaning stuff up. I will be providing more feedback later. For now, continuing on hold. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The family join a pod of whales who fly and frolic through the clouds and emerge." Emerge from what? To where? Why?
• "Disney and Ernst decided to go with Hunt's idea, who avoided producing an entirely abstract work because "you can get something abstract on every computer screen" with ease." What is the subject of this sentence: Hunt, or his work? Make the relative pronoun match.
• "The bottom of his toothpaste tube reads "NINA", referencing what Hirschfeld did in hiding it in his pre-production illustrations following the birth of his daughter Nina." Shorten this up and clarify, please.
• "This being noted, the sequence was so chromatically complex that the delays the Computer Animation Production System caused in rendering the segment delayed Tarzan" try "The sequence was so chromatically complex that rendering it in CAPS delayed Tarzan."
• "Goldberg got his research from his former co-directing partner Mike Gabriel who would play with a yo-yo as he took a break from working on Pocahontas (1995)." How many redundancies can you count in this sentence? "Goldberg was inspired by co-director Mike Gabriel's yo-you antics while they worked on Pocahontas", maybe?
• The whole critical reaction section feels like too much there: you've got multiple critics and then portray their reaction to each segment. Might it not be better to give those per-segment reactions together e.g., "X, Y, and Z liked the Firebird suite, with Y saying ..." And then go on to the next segment.
• There's no ref or wikilink for the Phoenix Film Critics Society nom. Source it or lose it.
• Too many navbars on the bottom. Noah's ark media? Really?

There's a lot of other things going on here that simply aren't bad enough to individually call out, but the prose seems pedestrian and labored in a lot of places. I'm concerned that I'm not giving you a fair shot after all the hard work you've done to clean up some of the excesses, as I don't want to be holding you to near-FA quality expectations on a GA, so I'm going to ask for someone else to weigh in on the prose. Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Sounds like a plan. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for second opinion. There has been a request for second opinion from Jclemens with regards, after his two read throughs here, for the continuity of narrative in this eleven page article on Disney's Fantasia 2000. Jclemens brings up a valid issue and after reading the article it would appear not to have had the benefit of a GOCE review to enhance the writing in the text. The lede appears to lack the type of confidence that one would normally expect in a GA article. Paragraph 3 in the lede also seems to use an odd standard of putting commas after all cited dates whether they are needed or not (they are not). Another example is in the long preface in the Production section which dwells alot on the original film which already has its own Wikipedia article. The Production section would benefit from getting to the sequel more quickly and calling it the "sequel" rather than just another "film". The nominator and the reviewer seem to get along well, and the article might benefit from being listed on GOCE (2-3 week backlog) for someone there who is able to do an over-night copy edit of the narrative throughout the article. Its really up to nominator and reviewer to decide on how best to enhance the narrative quality in the current article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait for a GOCE intervention. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have nominated the article for a GOCE retouch, hopefully we'll hear from them soon.QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• If article has gone to GOCE, then you may update the request for second opinion notification on the GA noticeboard. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • How would you prefer it be updated? @Fountains-of-Paris: Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If the request for second opinion has been met and the article has now gone to GOCE then perhaps the request for second opinion should be removed from the GA nomination page. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    • How does that look? Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Just right. GOCE backlog is about 2-3 weeks and you should hear from them about then. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I note that a GOCE volunteer is working on the article now. Please feel free to ping me once the work has been completed. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by ip editor

Greetings. Please refrain from making such large changes, mostly cosmetic, to an article which has just recently been through a GA review. Several of your changes are simply incorrect, or poor grammar. Others make the text less specific about details, which is not a good thing, usually. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Onel5969, especially about the poor grammar. MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You guys do a great job in keeping the quality of such articles intact. Nice work! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks LSE. The same edits are now being made by Rectify 54 who is clearly the same person who edited as the IP. MarnetteD|Talk 15:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantasia 2000. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.eonline.com/news/disneys_fantasia_2000_going_imax/37717
• 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424041350/http://annieawards.org/28thwinners.html to http://annieawards.org/28thwinners.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)