Tangled Discussion - Part V

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
Sky Syndrome
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:07 am
Location: Maine

Post by Sky Syndrome »

Tristy wrote:I really like that poster. it kind of reminds me of those Fantasia/2000 Imax countdown posters back from its release. Btw, don't you just love how Disney's doing this by even putting the films on there that they are ashamed of? (Black Cauldron, Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, etc.)
Yeah. But out of those films they're ashamed of, TBC's picture is the least visible on that poster. If I didn't study the poster more closely, I would continue thinking they left a black void where it was suppose to be.
Image
User avatar
monorail91
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:39 am
Location: Berkeley, CA

Post by monorail91 »

I just saw the Tangled trailer on the new Alice in Wonderland DVD. Same as earlier promo's, but it just reminded me how lousily they marketed this movie. The trailer is just Flynn being roped up by Rapunzel's hair and thrown out of the tower, with lots of shots that aren't even in the actual movie.

Which is a shame, because I think it's a fantastic movie. Probably my favorite Disney film since Hunchback!
User avatar
Disney's Divinity
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 15767
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
Gender: Male

Post by Disney's Divinity »

Big One wrote: Speaking of the Renaissance era - that, my friend, is when Disney started becoming similar to each other. I think you're confusing the Renaissance era with Classic Disney, probably due to some type of blind nostalgia fanboyism, but the Renaissance era of Disney wasn't Disney in feel, or tone, or anything of that sort. Matter of fact it took a different approach and altered the classic tales even further with modernized concepts and characters and sometimes even destroying great classics (Hunchback of Notre Dame), and made all of the movies into these musical epics. It worked, cause they were still good movies, but the "Disney feel" of them is severely overstated. There is nothing about these movies that are even remotely similar to what Walt Disney did back in the day, or the people he worked with. For this matter, Disney grew a more modernized image of what they do and what they're good at.
Actually, DDuster has been very critical of the '90s era. I think the only reason he doesn't outright tear it apart is because he grew up with it, and has some fond memories. :lol:

And, personally, I do think the films from the '90s do have a certain feel that goes along with the older movies, although they have steep differences. But I agree that the films from the '90s are extremely formulaic--the problem with making so many films right on top of each other, with the same story ideas, and all in the musical vein.

I think something I've noticed about their modern films (as compared to old Disney) is the need to specifically define everything. Like the way every character must be given a specific name, and a specific motivation. I don't find that a detractor, but, taking Mermaid as example, old-Disney probably wouldn't have given Triton and Ursula names at all--they probably would've just been "the King" and "the Sea Witch." In some ways, that vagueness makes a story come across more timeless for some reason. Not that Mermaid needs help. :P

As far as Tangled goes, Flynn/Eugene is the only weird name in the movie. Mother Gothel has a classic sound to it--I can't remember if this is a name they came up with or that was in the original story.
Image
Listening to most often lately:
Ariana Grande ~ "we can't be friends (wait for your love)"
Ariana Grande ~ "imperfect for you"
Kacey Musgraves ~ "The Architect"
DisneyAnimation88
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am

Post by DisneyAnimation88 »

DisneyDuster wrote:I'm sad because people aren't reading what I'm saying. But I'm also happy because I know that I already explained why I'm right about what I say and the answers to their questions, so them not reading them is just ignoring them.
No you haven't explained why you're right, you've explained why you THINK you're right. I would say the majority of people who have responded to you disagree with you in some way, some don't even understand what you're trying to say,so no ones ignoring what your saying.
BigOne wrote:Any complaint you have with Tangled, applies to The Little Mermaid also, and Beauty and the Beast too.
That is the point I think you're ignoring Disney Duster. A change is a change, no matter how obvious it may or may not be. The Little Mermaid is as different from it's original source as Tangled, no technicality or haphazard explanation you apply to that will change it. It is not FACT that Disney make the "real" version of classic stories at all, again it's your OPINION. If you don't like Tangled, fine that doesn't bother me, what does is your belief that you need to educate the rest of us and impose your OPINION on us, believing that is fact that we all should agree with. Get it through your head that you are not some protector of Disney tradition, your a fan, just like the rest of us. No doubt you'll make up another vague argument to disagree with everyone again but the fact remains, you still have yet to give any adequate evidence to back up what you're saying.
We're not going to Guam, are we?
mariadny
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:06 pm

Post by mariadny »

I'm going to watch Tangled this night¡¡¡
Finally in Spain, yeah¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡
VISITTTTT, SPANISH DISNEY FORUM
http://animacionud.mforos.com/
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

LOL HOLY SHIT Big One HOLY SHIT! LOL I'll see you on AIM later after I have Taco Bell. We have lot to lulz about.



One complaint I don't get why Duster complained about is Rapunzel and flynn's roles.

He was Rapunzel to be a peasant and Flynn be a Prince. I always thought, what difference it makes since in end they both become Prince/princess, whether we went Duster vision or one we have now.

We had a girl peasant, male prince numerous times in Disney. Flynn being a thief I find refreshing, new and interesting. Only other time Disney had similar roles was in Aladdin.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

Super Aurora wrote:LOL HOLY SHIT Big One HOLY SHIT! LOL I'll see you on AIM later after I have Taco Bell. We have lot to lulz about.



One complaint I don't get why Duster complained about is Rapunzel and flynn's roles.

He was Rapunzel to be a peasant and Flynn be a Prince. I always thought, what difference it makes since in end they both become Prince/princess, whether we went Duster vision or one we have now.

We had a girl peasant, male prince numerous times in Disney. Flynn being a thief I find refreshing, new and interesting. Only other time Disney had similar roles was in Aladdin.
........

Image
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

PatrickvD wrote:
........

Image

Image
Image
Image
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Rapunzel
Limited Issue
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:21 am

Post by Rapunzel »

Disney Duster wrote:
Rapunzel I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts. In the original The Little Mermaid she really did want to live on land with a human prince in addition to a soul, I read the book. Removing the talk about a soul was a Disney thing to do because Walt would do that for example he took out the religious stained-glass windows in Fantasia's last segment. But Tangled did un-Disney things.

I already complained a lot about The Princess and the Frog, the only thing that makes that a possible exception is it shows the original Frog Prince story so it is in a way not meant to be the original story, but I still was mad about that and you missed that thread.
Glad to hear you argued TPTF too. Shows you are consistent. ;)

However, I did read your responses about Mermaid and you are contradicting yourself simply because you can accept Mermaid's changes and not Rapunzel's. You are telling us you are okay with major changes to one story but not to the other. Although you keep arguing that Mermaid's changes are minor and not as big as Rapunzel's, most people would disagree with you. Your view is not shared by many.

You say "I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept". Yet, Disney was not faithful. This is a fact, not an opinion. Disney changed many things in his versions. You just prefer the changes in the old movies better than the changes in the new ones. Maybe this is because you were introduced to those films when you were young and did not have as critical an eye, or maybe it is because you like movies with an older feel. Regardless, all the films are different from the original stories whether or not you like the differences.

Also your repeated statement of "I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept" is difficult to read and doesn't really make sense. You are missing something in the wording.
"you came for your darling, but the sweet bird sits no longer in the nest, and sings no more"
User avatar
Big One
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 155
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:35 pm

Post by Big One »

Disney's Divinity wrote:Actually, DDuster has been very critical of the '90s era. I think the only reason he doesn't outright tear it apart is because he grew up with it, and has some fond memories. :lol:

And, personally, I do think the films from the '90s do have a certain feel that goes along with the older movies, although they have steep differences. But I agree that the films from the '90s are extremely formulaic--the problem with making so many films right on top of each other, with the same story ideas, and all in the musical vein.

I think something I've noticed about their modern films (as compared to old Disney) is the need to specifically define everything. Like the way every character must be given a specific name, and a specific motivation. I don't find that a detractor, but, taking Mermaid as example, old-Disney probably wouldn't have given Triton and Ursula names at all--they probably would've just been "the King" and "the Sea Witch." In some ways, that vagueness makes a story come across more timeless for some reason. Not that Mermaid needs help. :P

As far as Tangled goes, Flynn/Eugene is the only weird name in the movie. Mother Gothel has a classic sound to it--I can't remember if this is a name they came up with or that was in the original story.
Well I hope no one reads too much into my post; I love Renaissance Disney, and I wasn't critique it. I love Tangled too, even more-so than most Renaissance Disney films. Matter of fact if you find my tier list in another thread, you can see that I hold no bias against that era. But to say it has a Classic Disney "feel" is pretty ridiculous.

I'll explain, as I said there are only 3 films in the Disney era that I feel are even remotely similar. I should probably take that back, as there's also Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros, and Make Mine Music and Melody Time.

Aside from that, the following movies aren't similar to each other in any real way, and aim to tell different stories: Pinocchio, Fantasia, Fun and Fancy Free, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp.

I might as well extend this to the post-Classic era of Disney too...well Robin Hood and The Jungle Book are very similar to each other. Then there's the movies that aren't similar: One Hundred and One Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, The Aristocats, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, The Rescuers Down Under.

And then it gets to the Renaissance era and what I like to call the "Renaissance revival era" with the two recent movies., where Disney starts getting REALLY similar: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Princess and the Frog, Tangled.

And then there are the other movies, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet are similar to each other, but what about these: Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo and Stitch, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt?

This means there are approximately 28/50 Disney films that aren't really similar to each other, and most of them are what people call "Classics." The "Disney feel" is practically non-existant, and seems to be some type of blind nostalgia fans tend to have. I've seen similar cases over the years and as I get older it gets more apparent to me.
User avatar
pinkrenata
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1915
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:33 pm
Location: Mini Van Highway
Contact:

Post by pinkrenata »

Oooh, I was too engrossed in the drama and didn't realize just how large this thread had gotten. I'm going to go ahead and close it and whoever wants to can feel free to carry on the discussion in a new one.

Discussion continues hair (here): http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27888

Have a Disney day! :minnie:
WIST #1 (The pinkrenata Edition) -- Kram Nebuer: *mouth full of Oreos* Why do you have a picture of Bobby Driscoll?

"I'm a nudist!" - Tommy Kirk
Locked