Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II
- Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
The font is going to be black?
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
- Prince Edward
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:23 pm
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Contact:
- UmbrellaFish
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:09 pm
- Gender: Male (He/Him)
Well, Disney certainly doesn't use the same logo from Snow White's 1937 release. Heck, they don't even use the same logo from BATB's 1991 release. Regardless, I don't understand your aversion to the logo. It's not that much different from the previous one, it's not ugly, and I think it represents the movie's title well. At least, that's my opinion.Prince Edward wrote:The new title (font) is horrible. Just bad and wrong for so many reasons, and just another step down for Disney. In 70 years this title will not fit in with the rest of the classics. But then again Rapunzel, eh, Tangled, may have been forgotten in 70 years.
Last edited by UmbrellaFish on Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6867
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
Re: Rapunzel or Tangled
singerguy04 wrote:But isn't that the point? I mean, that is what the petition is. Also, that's what all of the points you are suggesting being brought up are. lolDisney Duster wrote:I think people seeing all our complaining and ranting on this forum would not be a good thing!
In my opinion, the title change was inconvenient but not a huge deal. I personally would not want our entire community here at UD being represented as pissed off about the title change. I know that the email was sent to robster16, but to ask for "our" opinion on what to ask would directly be "the word" of the citizens on UD. So if we are going to be a part of this apparent article they are writing, I'd rather them come here to the forum and ask us personally. Otherwise, the Times should just ask people who signed the petition and robster should do the same.
Well I can see the concern....next thing you know UD/Dvdizzy will be in the tabloids if they uncover some rather odd disscussions.....such as the 2012 hit....f discussion going on right now....it could spell doom for the forum as we know it.... (actually now that I think about it......no not going there.. )
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
- singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
Isn't the font the same as before, only a bit more ragged looking?
I also highly doubt it'll be just black and white. I think that is just a basic image of it.
And my point from earlier is basically this. We are a massive community of people, and taking just one person's opinion from that community and throwing it out into the public eye (who has no idea what UD is) will be seen as the entire communities opinion.
I also highly doubt it'll be just black and white. I think that is just a basic image of it.
And my point from earlier is basically this. We are a massive community of people, and taking just one person's opinion from that community and throwing it out into the public eye (who has no idea what UD is) will be seen as the entire communities opinion.
Last edited by singerguy04 on Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- UmbrellaFish
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:09 pm
- Gender: Male (He/Him)
Of course it's not going to be black and white. I don't know why anyone would assume that (not you personally, just in general).singerguy04 wrote:Isn't the font the same as before, only a bit more ragged looking?
I also highly doubt it'll be just black and white. I think that is just a basic image of it.
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
- Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 13334
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Rapunzel or Tangled
singerguy, first, ranting is more like saying "No, nooooo! No way! They can't! This is stupid! This is horrible!" or even an argument with some explanation that is just as aimless.
However, I provided a more organized, tame, list of explained reasons why the title should have stayed the original. What robster wants is an organized, coherent, reasonable list of complaints, reasons, and suggestions, not just anything they find on the forum.
Also, they did not ask for the opinions of the whole of UD. They asked for robster's opinions and then robster asked us what he should include, which is what he will ultimately decide.
It would not be good for the LA Times to see just anything we write and spin the story however they want.
robster16, I suggest that you not wait too, too long to respond to them, because they are waiting, and also because Disney is moving forward, too, as the new logo proves. We have to ast fast. Let's get some more people's thoughts and suggestions, here!
EVERYONE, the title was changed not because the creators wanted it, but because Disney marketing did. So voice your thoughts, especially if you would like to see the title go back to what the original creators wanted, and what helps the film fit alongside the other Disney classics.
However, I provided a more organized, tame, list of explained reasons why the title should have stayed the original. What robster wants is an organized, coherent, reasonable list of complaints, reasons, and suggestions, not just anything they find on the forum.
Also, they did not ask for the opinions of the whole of UD. They asked for robster's opinions and then robster asked us what he should include, which is what he will ultimately decide.
It would not be good for the LA Times to see just anything we write and spin the story however they want.
robster16, I suggest that you not wait too, too long to respond to them, because they are waiting, and also because Disney is moving forward, too, as the new logo proves. We have to ast fast. Let's get some more people's thoughts and suggestions, here!
EVERYONE, the title was changed not because the creators wanted it, but because Disney marketing did. So voice your thoughts, especially if you would like to see the title go back to what the original creators wanted, and what helps the film fit alongside the other Disney classics.
- disneyboy20022
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 6867
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm
Well I've told people that usually probably don't look into future projects of movies...and they thought the title change was confusing....it sounds to me more like they should just call it Rapunzel: Unbraided if they really want a name change...which was the original name....ultimatley I don't think it will change the overall outcome...whether or not this is a hit or a so-so or a Chicken Little Nightmare.....like someone said on here....it will still to be refered to by a lot of people when asked what the heck is Tangled and then you tell them the story of that its that disney movie about Rapunzel they say ohhkay....that is odd
like people are still amazed when or havnt heard about Toy Story 3 they wanna know more and ask WHAT THEY ARE MAKING TOY STORY 3 WHEN IS THAT COMING OUT OMG WAIT DIDN"T THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE
like people are still amazed when or havnt heard about Toy Story 3 they wanna know more and ask WHAT THEY ARE MAKING TOY STORY 3 WHEN IS THAT COMING OUT OMG WAIT DIDN"T THEY ALREADY HAVE ONE
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
-
- Special Edition
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:01 am
- Location: at home apparently
- Contact:
Is there a requirement for titles now?Giygas wrote:Yes, but with that title [The Princess and the Frog] you instantly know what the film is about.yukitora wrote:I personally think The Princess and the Frog is a worse title than Tangled.
YES!Giygas wrote:Would rather have it called Voodoo Frogs?yukitora wrote:The title is misleading and that bothers me.
- MadasaHatter
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:58 am
Rough cut of Tangled trailer - watch it before they take it down:
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/disney ... nline-9268
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/disney ... nline-9268
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
I personally, agree that the chosen title is stupid. Not only will it NOT market to boys(especially with the shampoo-tagline), but keeping the release date so close to Harry Potter is cinematic suicide. Anyway, the title of the film WILL confuse people, and if they were ever to rename the movie in an attempt to be gender-neutral, any smart company would've called it Rapunzel and the Bandit. It doesn't sound like a classic, the tagline is crap, and the marketing department that came up with this title just throw darts at their ideas to see what sticks. Not even the Filmmakers like it.
EDIT: On another note, I'm writing a new book. It's a study called The Suicidal Mind: Behind the Scenes at Disney PR & Marketing
EDIT: On another note, I'm writing a new book. It's a study called The Suicidal Mind: Behind the Scenes at Disney PR & Marketing
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
And where were you in the last topic when we saw this and discussed it? It was taken down.MadasaHatter wrote:Rough cut of Tangled trailer - watch it before they take it down:
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/disney ... nline-9268
- MadasaHatter
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:58 am
- ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That trailer is just......afwul!
It looks like the most generic cgi film I've ever seen.
What's up with the characters? They look like a computer game.
Is this for real? Or is it some fan made thing?
And all those scenes are NOT funny at all, just a very tiring compilation of cheap slapstick moments.
What is this?!
That trailer is just......afwul!
It looks like the most generic cgi film I've ever seen.
What's up with the characters? They look like a computer game.
Is this for real? Or is it some fan made thing?
And all those scenes are NOT funny at all, just a very tiring compilation of cheap slapstick moments.
What is this?!
-
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:44 pm
Even though it took some time for me to get over the name change and before that the stupidity in letting go Kristin Chenoweth (who i believe is one of the best comedic geniuses of our time) I actually am starting to believe that this maybe the hit the studio is wanting. Even though it has some shrek-like characteristics last time I checked all three Shrek films made alot of money. Even though I know its not the classic Disney story we just got a classic Disney fairy tale with the PATF we cant get that every time. So for now I am excited to see whats next for this ever changing animated film.
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5166
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
.....Marky_198 wrote:Oh no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That trailer is just......afwul!
It looks like the most generic cgi film I've ever seen.
What's up with the characters? They look like a computer game.
Is this for real? Or is it some fan made thing?
And all those scenes are NOT funny at all, just a very tiring compilation of cheap slapstick moments.
What is this?!
you know absolutely nothing about animation, do you?....
Especially for you:
- Jules
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4573
- Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:20 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Malta, Europe
No, I don't think he does.PatrickvD wrote:You know absolutely nothing about animation, do you?...
He wastes a lot of energy ranting on colour choices and animation in general, but I doubt he can define - for example - what a key pose is. Or how an animator must keep in mind things like squash and stretch while on the job (and how squash and stretch affects the final animation). And how the animator makes his characters or objects anticipate a movement effectively. I doubt he knows of the existence of the storyboard ... or the exposure sheet. Does he know of people like Ruben Aquino, or Nik Ranieri or Dave Pruiksma?
No. To him bad animation is defined as "flat", "sequelish" and "slapsticky", because that's all he talks about. I hope eventually he'll realise that Sleeping Beauty, for example, really is flat ... because, well - that's the whole point!
And Marky, the footage in that Rapunzel trailer was mostly incomplete. That's why it looked (to you) like a "computer game". *sigh*