Possibly=/ *shrugs*

"Visually beautiful, however so are lots of really crappy movies today"

I think you answered by yourself. If the movie is "really crappy" doesn't matter how visually beautiful it is, it's still crappy!

So are you saying that if everyone likes Fantasia, then they must like it for something other than the visual aspect?

It's original, it (was) new, it's different from any other film.

"then they must like it for something other than the visual aspect" Why, is it poorly drawn? Doesn't seem, to me. And I'll tell you what else is that people like: music. Cause basically that's what it is.
If you don't like it, fine, as we say here "It's not what is said to be beautiful that is beautiful, beautiful is what you like"

No, it's not poorly drawn. That's my point. The only reason people like it is because it's very, very pretty. That's all. Sure, it's not like any other film. Why's that? Because it's probably the only feature-length film that splits itself up into segments and literally has no story whatsoever. And what makes me mad about all this is the fact that every movie critic I can find will prop this movie up as if it's made of heavenly light, but then they'll turn around and rightfully criticize movies like "Avatar" because it's very pretty, yet lacks a good story.

I have never seen Avatar, though if you want to make a movie with a story you have to make sure it makes sense. If your movie deliberately doesn't have story you can't criticize on that!

Yes you can. Without a story, a movie is boring. And the most basic purpose of a movie is to entertain.

I have honestly never watched Fantasia in all my life...

I'll tell you what was amazing and groundbreaking about this film: Stereo sound. Theaters had it installed just for this movie.
Also, the point is not so much that it's a movie, but a concert. It's structured like a concert, and is meant to entertain like a concert. If you went to a classical music concert and enjoyed it, you'd enjoy Fantasia.

It's not bad, it's just probably not your thing.

Yeah, but the thing is that it's nothing but a bunch of unrelated cartoons of a bunch of things dancing. Sometimes it's not even that. If they wanna structure it like a concert, fine. But it's still not a concert; it's a film. And as a film, in order to be entertaining OR meaningful, it has to at least have a character that stays throughout the length of the film; a character that the audience cares about. Otherwise, it's just nothing but pretty pictures that are put to music that you don't even have to buy the 'movie' to hear.
So to sum it up, if they wanna structure it like a concert, then fine. But if they wanna do that in the form of a film, it HAS to at LEAST have a story.

Let me reply about this as well...

Nobody ever said that films had to have a plot and fixed characters. The first ever film, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker.....mière_Factory doesn't have any plot or relevant characters, yet everyone went nuts for it.
Soon, film had begun being considered as a vector for theatre, with its actors, plots and settings, yet nothing prohibits not to follow that scheme.

Second, "it's nothing but a bunch of unrelated cartoons". Sure, they are. But think about a concert. Most of the times, the pieces played are unrelated, and everyone is happy with that. So are the cartoons in the movie.

"But if they wanna do that in the form of a film, it HAS to at LEAST have a story." This only works if you go to the cinema to see fiction, if you want the screen to be a gate to another world. It doesn't have to be though.

lol Uh, no. The entire point of a film is to tell a story. Sure, it started out like that, but that was when film was a novelty, and everyone was going nuts over the fact that pictures were now moving. By the time Fantasia was made, that novelty was long past. Movies quickly needed to have stories to tell. And yes, I get that it's supposed to be a concert. Everyone keeps saying that, and it's obvious in the film itself. But again I say, it's NOT a concert. It's a FILM. Without a story, a film is a chore to watch. Fantasia could have very easily emulated a concert without completely taking away any story or meaning the film could have had. Here, let me give you an example of how that could have happened:

In the first segment, we are introduced to a character, and he has lost something valuable. For the rest of the movie, each segment takes him on a magical adventure that either brings him closer to or father away from finding what he lost. At the end, he experiences the most difficulty, but ends up regaining what he lost and learning that it's the journey that makes an adventure worth while.

That allows it to still be structured like a concert and also allows a lot of freedom, but it still allows the audience to care about what's going on in the film.

Still, films don't have to have a plot. You say it's a chore to watch a plotless film, but in fantasia there's not just the "watch" part, there's the "listen", too.

Usually, films have soundtracks.
In Fantasia, the soundtrack IS the film. So it doesn't actually matter what you see, what you hear does

Sorry, but no. Believe it or not, there are certain requirements that a film needs to meet. They're small and vague, which makes the requirements extremely easy to meet no matter what you're trying to do, but there are requirements. Having at least a shallow story is one of them. You're speaking like it's a good thing that Fantasia is nothing but a soundtrack (a soundtrack made up mostly by songs that already existed for years). That's not a good thing when you're trying to make a film, even if you want to emulate a concert. It's a very, very bad thing.
I apologize, but as a film student I am frankly insulted that people seem to think a film like Fantasia is considered a masterpiece just because it's pretty animations put to classical music. That doesn't cut it.

I respect your film studies. Yet, what you are talking about are rules about plays put on film.
And a movie doesn't have to be a recorded play.

I'll give you an example: 1910, futuristic theatre.
I don't remember the title of the play, but it works like this.
Characters: Dad, Mom, Daughter, Son, Table and Credenza.

The human characters just go around the house, from time to time walking in the living room, saying a few words to each other. Most of the time the stage is empty, save for Table and Credenza who sometimes go "Creak. Crac. Toc. Creak". No plot, no characters that the audience may care about.

Sure, it's pure exaggeration, yet it is considered avantgarde theatre!

*facepalm*
I'm not talking about plays put on film. I'm talking about films. Not simply recordings of plays, not even interpretations of plays. In order to be an acceptable film at all, it has to have a story. That is just part of the medium of film. An animated, plotless video is called an animation. A live-action, plotless video is called a video. But you can't make an hour-long video or animation that tries to be a concert and call that a film. Sorry, but there's more to a feature length film than moving pictures and a length of one and a half to two hours.

Well apparently many (including me) lack of appropriate glossary to describe it correctly. It's not a film. OK then. Still, it looks like it's a beautiful (long) video to me.

Yes, it is very pretty. But like I said, I personally don't find it very entertaining.

De gustibus!