The film that almost killed Disney
I finally got to re-watch this movie after seeing it more than 30 years ago. It's October as I write this, which means Halloween is coming, so this is a good film to write about.
In the mid-2000s, I made a decision to re-watch a bunch of movies I saw as a kid. One of them that I couldn't watch was Disney's The Black Cauldron because no DVD release was available at the time. It didn't become available until some years later, but I didn't know that, so I just gave up. However, I just found out it's on Amazon and available to stream, so I finally got to re-watch this again.
The first time I saw The Black Cauldron was in 1985 when in theaters. Before re-watching this, I remembered next to nothing about this flick other than it had this villain so scary that it was enough to give any kid nightmares. More on that in a moment. I also vaguely remembered the red eyes of the villain and red smoke that took on skull shapes during certain cauldron scenes.
When re-watching this, I wasn't sure if this was the movie I just had vague memories of from so many years ago. But the moment The Horned King's face appeared on screen, yep, this was the one. This was that elusive Disney movie I had been searching to see again for so long...
...and it was fantastic. This is by far one of the darkest Disney animated movies ever made. It's so dark that on a test screening, kids were fleeing from the theater crying, along with angry parents thinking this was going to be some kind of happy-go-lucky Disney movie when it definitely is not. The Horned King character, the way he was voiced, his animations and everything else about him will scare the crap out of kid.
Critics of the time actually liked this movie, but parents and kids hated it. And I mean REALLY hated it.
The Black Cauldron unofficially earned the title of "the film that almost killed Disney". It did not do well in the theaters, and Disney lost a bundle on this one. They lost so much cash on it that it was put into question whether Disney animation studios was even worth keeping in operation.
This film did so bad in the theaters that Disney did not release a home video copy of it for over 10 years. And when they did finally release one in the VHS format in 1997, it was only in the UK, probably to test the waters just to see if fans would recoil from this flick seeing the light of day again. Fans didn't recoil but instead quite enjoyed it, so about a year later in 1998, Disney released a VHS edition in the United States. And for the DVD release, that didn't happen until 2010!
Is the movie bad?
No. While true the characters aren't really that memorable, this is not a bad movie...
...but it's dark. Dark enough to where it's not kid-friendly, but not so dark as to be considered horror.
The one thing fans of this movie want - myself included - is that infamous 12 minutes of deleted scenes that show the undead army fighting other soldiers, which includes one soldier's flesh rotting off and another tossed into a green pool and "misting" (as in melting) to death. I'm not into horror nor gore, but to see that stuff in a Disney animated film would be incredible.
Disney has never released that 12 minutes of The Black Cauldron deleted scenes. Should they? Yes. It was fans of the movie that pleaded and outright begged for the movie to be released on home video in the first place that got it there. These same fans to this day still want to see those 12 minutes, but Disney has never delivered. The "deleted scenes" on the DVD releases do not show the undead fight sequences.
Those 12 minutes caused a lot of infighting at Disney between the film producer, the studio chairman and even went all the way to the CEO himself. The story of what happened with this flick, the very rocky road it took just to get it out to theaters, the fact it was originally scheduled for a Christmas 1984 release before rescheduled to a later '85 release, and tons of other things just make The Black Cauldron a fascinating film.
After re-watching this, I can honestly say that yes, I enjoyed it.
I can also say that yes, if Disney grew a backbone, spent the money and put back in those 12 minutes, I'm 100% certain home video sales would not only make up the cost but also turn a profit. From what I understand, fans of The Black Cauldron would throw money as Disney just to see what the true original cut of the film was supposed to be. I know I would.
Even though those infamous 12 minutes aren't in the film, I'm still glad Disney actually released The Black Cauldron out on home video. It's a great movie, especially for those interested in seeing the darkest Disney animated film of all time.
Tagima TG-530, the next great cheap Strat?
Squier Strats are great, but the Tagima TG-530 is also pretty darned good too.
Tagima is a company out of Brazil, and it just so happens they make a Strat that's under $200 you can buy right now. That's squarely pitted right against Squier's price point for their lower-end models.
What's the best thing about Tagima's TG-530? Choice. Lots of great colors with the all-maple neck. Squier also has a lot of choices but the majority of the time you have to take a darker wood for the fingerboard. There are a few lower-priced models from Squier that do have the all-maple neck like the Vintage Modified '70s Stratocaster, but you're not going to get anywhere near as many body color choices with the all-maple neck as you do with Tagima.
How does it sound? Good. Sounds like a Strat is supposed to.
From what I could find out about this guitar, the body is basswood and the electronics are just your typical Strat style.
Yes, Surf Green is a color choice offered. And that's just cool.
I very much like that there's some good competition to Squier in this price range. Tagima really seems to be delivering with the TG-530. If you're sick of waiting for Squier to release the color you want, Tagima most likely has it right now.
Guitar gear that is not worth saving
Sometimes when old guitar gear breaks, it has to be thrown out.
While I understand that some older guitar gear is valuable, when something starts falling apart so badly that there's simply no way to repair it, the decision has to be made whether to keep or toss it.
An example of this is my old 1993 Fender Stratocaster case. It has 3 latches. Left, center and right. The center latch plastic broke off years ago, but the case could still be used since the left and right latches still worked. I discovered today the right side latch plastic is now broken as one side lifted away from the case; that doesn't allow it to securely close anymore, and now it's at a point where it can't even be used.
In the early 1990s, standard Fender hardshell cases were terrible because the molded plastic does not stand the test of time. The inside foam and carpet held their shape well enough, but what would happen is that the outside latches would simply break off right out of the plastic. It's not the latches that would break but rather the plastic itself. Cheap plastic? Yes.
My case spent almost its entire life indoors. But even so, the latches rusted (surface rust, no rot) and as the years went on, the plastic became brittle to the point where it started falling apart right where the latches were installed.
There is no fix for this. Superglue will not hold the broken plastic in place.
If this were a tweed case, then yes, it could be repaired, but not this. A case of this type was never designed to be repaired when it breaks.
Do I feel bad that my guitar case has broken to the point of no repair? No, because I knew it sucked when the center latch broke off years ago. It was only a matter of time before one of the other latches did the same thing, and it finally happened.
Was this "user error" on my part? No. This literally happened from the case just sitting in a room. The case was not jostled or slammed around in a way that would break the thing. Again, cheap plastic.
Granted, the plastic is 25 years old now, but still, this is a case, so to see it do this all on its own is a bit disappointing.
Some may say to hold on to the case anyway since it's the original issue from Fender in '93, and it may be worth something even in broken condition...
...but nah, I don't think so. I'm okay tossing this crappy case out and buying a replacement.
Fender waterslide decal replica - is it wrong?
In my possession I do I have a replica Fender waterslide decal. I do intend to use it at some point.
I have not used it yet because I still have to source a neck that is good enough to my liking, because once this label goes on, it obviously can't come off.
I own a 1993 USA Fender Stratocaster. I am the original owner of the guitar, but the neck is broken beyond repair (truss rod issues). In the early '90s, Fender was still using a silver "transition" logo with black outline, so a while back I ordered a replica decal to put on another neck.
Do I ever intend on selling the guitar once the new neck and decal are applied? No. The '93 Strat was an 18th birthday present from my father so it is never getting sold. Not happening. In fact, one day I will in fact take the original neck (yes, I still have it) and have someone with the necessary skills take out the old truss rod, install a new one, refret whole thing, install a new nut, and so on. Basically, the entire neck needs a full restoration. And that's not exactly cheap, so I'll do it when I have the cash.
For now, a non-Fender replacement neck with the logo I bought will do once I source a neck I like.
Why not buy a new Fender USA replacement neck?
I could buy a new USA Fender neck right now. 100% legal, 100% legitimate, 100% correct...
...except the logo doesn't match what was originally on the guitar.
As I said above, the original logo is the '90s silver with black outline, and Fender does not sell a replacement neck that has that specific era of logo. The three types available at the time of this writing are black transition logo, spaghetti logo and '70s era gold with black outline. The '90s silver with black outline is not available.
Yeah, I could have just installed a neck with the wrong Fender logo type and nobody would have cared, but I care. And it's more important to me to have the correct 1990s logo treatment because that's how the guitar is supposed to look.
Am I splitting hairs with this? Yes. But it matters to me.
Is it wrong to use a replica decal?
My answer to this is, "Only if you intend to sell the guitar as a fake Fender."
Mine will never be sold, so my conscience is clear.
Can you get alternative "legal" decals?
Yes, of course you can, and should if you're doing your own custom build.
Tube-type guitar amps are not louder than solid-state
There is a common misconception that since tube-type amps don't require as many watts to output the same volume as a solid-state amp with double or more the watts, tube-type must be "louder".
Not really.
Understanding why solid-state has more watts compared to tube-type can actually be summed up in one word: Overhead. But it takes some explanation to understand what that means.
When a tube-type guitar amp has its volume increased, a change in sound occurs called "breakup." As the amplifier and loudspeaker get driven more, they become overdriven, and what you hear sounds like a "breaking up" of the tone.
The breakup noise heard from a tube-type amp is a good sound. Nearly all electric guitar players agree on this point. The natural breakup sound of an overdriven tube-type amp is pleasing to the ear - if you're okay with never being able to play "clean" loudly. More on that in a moment.
On a solid-state amp, its overdriven sound is terrible. When the amp is pushed to its limit, what you hear is best described as a jarring "flappy" noise. Guitar players all agree that this sound is just plain bad.
Solid-state amps have more watts to specifically avoid being overdriven at higher volumes. With a tube-type, its overdriven tone when pushed is desirable, so a lower wattage where you overdrive earlier is totally okay. With solid-state, its overdriven tone when pushed is awful, so a higher wattage where you overdrive much later is desirable.
In very basic terms, solid-state amps have more watts to give it more overhead so it doesn't overdrive as much when compared to tube-type.
I said above that it's not possible to play a tube-type "clean" loudly. That's the #1 drawback of tube-type. If you always prefer an overdriven sound when playing loud, tube-type always works. But for music styles where the guitar tone can't be overdriven or distorted when playing loud, solid-state is the better choice.
Fun fact: Many guitarists who prefer tube-type amps that need to play clean will purposely use a chorus effect, as that helps mask the overdriven breakup sound at higher volumes.
To note, guitar players do not want "clean" tube-type amps. What they want is something like the VOX AC30, or maybe a different tube head connected to a cabinet with Celestion speakers in it. These amps and loudspeakers get the breakup sound very easily when even moderately pushed, which is exactly how guitarists like them to be. That is the rock-and-roll guitar sound, after all.
Solid-state does in fact give you more control for the reason it will basically sound the same at any volume. When tube-type amps are pushed, the sound changes. When solid-state amps are pushed, the sound doesn't change but instead just gets louder. In addition, you can trust that solid-state will sound the same every time, all the time. With tube-type, those amps change in sound depending on tube temperature, how new or old the tubes are, and so on.
"But tube-type sounds louder to me"
Yes, it does. But that's because the overdrive happens sooner with tube-type, tricking your brain into thinking it's louder when it isn't.
You hear that distortion sooner, and your brain thinks, "This is louder!" It's not.