Tangled Discussion - Part V

[Sotiris]

New Interviews:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SM9Qadvc5kE" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FCKm9_q0qc0" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xI73aAkYCzQ" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[DisneyAnimation88]

Why does it matter? Not everyone finds Pixar the glory of animation and/or story. Unless only opinions that agree that Pixar is the best thing since Chaucer count here.

Did I say that? I was curious as to what Disney Duster thinks about Pixar, that's why I asked the question.

[estefan]

Anybody else impressed at Tangled's staying power? I just checked what will be playing at my local multiplex this weekend and wow, Tangled is still sticking around. It must really still be attracting the crowds and it's February! Little Fockers, Yogi Bear, Chronicles of Narnia, Tron: Legacy and even True Grit are leaving this Friday and yet, Tangled will still be there. I don't think Disney has seen this much staying power for one of their own animated features, since at least, The Lion King. It astounds me how it's still able to hold onto screens. Heck, at this point, I wouldn't even be surprised if it still played next week even with Justin Bieber and Gnomeo & Juliet entering the marketplace.

[Disney's Divinity]

And yes, Tangled does feel like 90's Disney in many ways, except the backgrounds of characters being changed, the title, and the more modern, quick-cutting, more cynical humor, that's all un-Disney.

I'm not sure if there is much cynical humor to Tangled. I think both it and TP&TF do have cynicism in parts/characters of their stories, but the overall point usually revolves around overcoming cynicism, believing that dreams can come true, yadda yadda. For example, the whole "I've Got A Dream" part of the movie, Flynn reflecting on his past, and Rapunzel's confrontation with Gothel--the cynical model--all make Tangled about escaping cynicism. Even L&S has that, imo. The point should not be to gloss over reality, but to respond to it. There's nothing wrong with showing a broken family in a Disney movie, if the point of the movie is to have characters overcome those problems to become happy (something that could even be said for Treasure Planet). That's really not different from most protagonists in Disney's films--a bad background/situation brings more sympathy.

The only thing I would agree that is perhaps too modern about Tangled is Flynn's narration. The beginning does start off just like what you would expect from the modernized advertisments, but I think it actually ends up working so-so at the end. Either way, that one mistake doesn't damage the whole movie for me.

6. We do not know if audiences would think of the movie as the real version if the title was different. One other huge way of telling it's not the real version is that there's no prince, but a thief. Only a little harder to remember than that is Rapunzel was originally a peasant, and Mother Gothel was a witch, and the stealing from her garden part.

What I meant is that audiences rarely know anything about these tales. Honestly, the only thing people probably know about Rapunzel is that she was a girl with long hair, trapped in a tower. Because audiences are clearly not knowledgeable on the subject, they base their feelings on what advertisements want them to feel. The ads for Tangled (and TP&TF) are uber-modern and Dreamworks-esque. For that reason, people think Tangled is uber-modern and Dreamworks-esque, regardless of how the actual movie is. The Fab Four from the '90s were treated like classics, with beautiful, classic-like theatrical posters and ads. And I'm guessing most of the Walt-era classics were treated the same way. Which is why they are mostly regarded as classics.

There are exceptions, of course, such as TSitS, where people generally know the Arthurian mythos, and think the movie should've been more serious (the joke here is that most of these people still haven't read TSitS before, but judge the movie based on stories like the Green Knight, the Lancelot-Guenivere story, the tragedy with Morgoth, Morgan le Fay, and Arthur--which don't really have the same tone as TSitS). But generally audiences have never read the source material for these movies, and only have vague ideas of what "Rapunzel" or "Snow White" are.

Btw, I'm not advocating that Disney's films are the "definitive" versions (neither are you, I think), but discussing how the public feels about them.

Let's try something groundbreaking: Tangled is the greatest film in the post Walt era since Beauty and the Beast.

Well, to be fair to DDuster, not even I would agree with that. There were a lot of good/great movies between points A and B there.

[Goliath]

Let's try something groundbreaking: Tangled is the greatest film in the post Walt era since Beauty and the Beast.

and you know what they call that, an opinion.

I know it's only your opinion, but... seriously, dude! Have you *not* seen Tarzan and/or Lilo & Stitch? Don't get me wrong, Rapunzel was the best Disney has done in about 8 years, but is it the best since BatB? It doesn't really cover any new grounds; it's all familiar territory. Well executed, sure, but is it *that* special? By the way, I agree with everything else you said.

Sometimes Duster reminds me of a politician: 'if only I explain my position often enough, the people will eventually agree with me'.

[Tangled]

Let's try something groundbreaking: Tangled is the greatest film in the post Walt era since Beauty and the Beast.

and you know what they call that, an opinion.

I know it's only your opinion, but... seriously, dude! Have you *not* seen Tarzan and/or Lilo & Stitch? Don't get me wrong, Rapunzel was the best Disney has done in about 8 years, but is it the best since BatB? It doesn't really cover any new grounds; it's all familiar territory. Well executed, sure, but is it *that* special?

Well it's VERY special to me and probably the best Disney movie since Tarzan. Lilo and Stitch came close though.

[Super Aurora]

Let's try something groundbreaking: Tangled is the greatest film in the post Walt era since Beauty and the Beast.

and you know what they call that, an opinion.

I know it's only your opinion, but... seriously, dude! Have you *not* seen Tarzan and/or Lilo & Stitch? Don't get me wrong, Rapunzel was the best Disney has done in about 8 years, but is it the best since BatB? It doesn't really cover any new grounds; it's all familiar territory. Well executed, sure, but is it *that* special? By the way, I agree with everything else you said.

Sometimes Duster reminds me of a politician: 'if only I explain my position often enough, the people will eventually agree with me'.

I think he was joking/ being sarcastic on that.

[Goliath]

Now, I'm not saying that this means he would have blindly embraced CGI, 3D, Blu-ray, and whatever else we're dealing with these days, [...]

Like Joe Grant said on the Lilo & Stitch dvd (I think that's where I've heard it), had Walt Disney still been alive, he would have pioneered CGI animation. He wouldn't have let Pixar get the première of the first CGI-animated film. He would have embraced the medium and have done away with hand-drawn animation a long time ago. I tend to agree. Because, contrary to what Duster keeps saying, Walt Disney was an innovator.

Why does it matter? Not everyone finds Pixar the glory of animation and/or story.

Unless only opinions that agree that Pixar is the best thing since Chaucer count here.

I would like to know why you're always so hostile toward Pixar. This post is not an isolated incident.

[Disney's Divinity]

I’m actually rather ambivalent towards Pixar, if you can believe that. The hostility isn’t directed towards them, but a general atmosphere that people can’t possibly find fault with them (because, like, they have 99% on RottenTomatoes and, like, that proves they‘re, like, gods, don’tcha know!), and, if they do, there must of course always be some bias involved (I‘m sure people reading this have already started turning their cogs that direction, because I can't point out anything that could possibly be miscontrued as anti-Pixar without having some kind of bias). You can’t genuinely dislike Pixar/a Pixar film without being questioned, lambasted, or distorted; there's no "everyone can have opinions" when it comes to them. That’s probably because most people like Pixar, so there are more of them who are going to treat anti-Pixar comments that way and more often. Either way, it’s oppressive--or, should I say, biased?

Besides, that comment was just my way of defending DDuster from having his other ideas discredited on the basis that he doesn’t like Pixar. As if one must follow the other. There are other, more valid ways and/or reasons to debate/disagree with him than that.

Anyway, I haven’t commented on it yet, but congratulations to Tangled for being such a success! I can’t say I honestly expected it way back when the first pictures/trailers were coming out.

[PatrickvD]

I know it's only your opinion, but... seriously, dude! Have you *not* seen Tarzan and/or Lilo & Stitch? Don't get me wrong, Rapunzel was the best Disney has done in about 8 years, but is it the best since BatB? It doesn't really cover any new grounds; it's all familiar territory. Well executed, sure, but is it *that* special? By the way, I agree with everything else you said.

Sometimes Duster reminds me of a politician: 'if only I explain my position often enough, the people will eventually agree with me'.

I think he was joking/ being sarcastic on that.

of course I was

It doesn't matter if I think it is or isn't. Acting like a baby and pretending like Tangled is some kind of unholy abomination spitting in the face of Walt Disney's legacy is also an opinion. A childish one if repeated a hundred times. That was my point, I guess. I mean, it's fine if DD hates it so much, but why be such ***** about it? Every time I open this topic there's the same rant.

[Elladorine]

I've grown rather tired of hearing the "fact" of how Tangled somehow "s***s" all over Walt's legacy because of changes made to the name and story. Because it's not a fact that it "s***s," it's an opinion. People are entitled to their opinions of course, whether or not they agree with what's been stated above.

But cramming such an opinion down everyone's throats in hopes of somehow turning it into fact simply isn't cutting it. Disney may have founded the company, but I think most here will agree that we're glad the company didn't die with him over 40 years ago. And to lock into the mindset that they must do what they think Walt might have done will end up killing the company; it almost happened before! Times have changed. As much as we love films like Snow White and Cinderella, had they been made the exact same way but released in modern times? They would have failed. The company has to keep up with the times in order to survive. We may be able to pretend to know what he'd have done if time had stood still and we were still living in the 60's, but there's simply no way to know what Walt would have done in this modern era full of cable, smart phones, internet, instant-access movies/tv programs, changing family values, and increasingly short attention spans.

Even I don't agree with the name change, but it's not the first time it's happened at Disney and I doubt it will be the last. At least we ended up with a film that most agree is good overall, and that it's been successful enough to ensure at least a little more future for the studio we're all here to talk about. And if changing the name somehow helped with the marketing and got more butts in the theater seats? So be it. I can't tell you how good it feels for me to see general audiences appreciating Disney animation again.

Like Joe Grant said on the Lilo & Stitch dvd (I think that's where I've heard it), had Walt Disney still been alive, he would have pioneered CGI animation. He wouldn't have let Pixar get the première of the first CGI-animated film. He would have embraced the medium and have done away with hand-drawn animation a long time ago. I tend to agree. Because, contrary to what Duster keeps saying, Walt Disney was an innovator.

I've long felt that Walt would have pioneered CGI, that he would have wanted to be the first to have his artists experiment with shorts until they were ready to take on a full feature. He may have even embraced Lasseter's ideas in the 80's instead of casting them aside like the studio did.

However, even though he was losing interest in hand-drawn animation, he'd stated in low times that he felt he owed those artists that built up his company, that he didn't want that part of the company to die even though his main focus had wandered elsewhere. It's only my opinion of course (like you I won't pretend to know what Walt would have done), but I feel he'd have made sure that hand-drawn animation lived on even as CGI gained popularity.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Besides, that comment was just my way of defending DDuster from having his other ideas discredited on the basis that he doesn’t like Pixar. As if one must follow the other. There are other, more valid ways and/or reasons to debate/disagree with him than that.

Just to clarify, I only wanted to know what Disney Duster meant in that post, whether he was referring to Bolt or Pixar. I didn't have any interest in starting another Disney vs Pixar debate and dragging this post off topic or trying to discredit DD in any way.

Back to the topic at hand, I completely agree with everything enigmawing says and don't think I could add anything to it. I would say that I too would rather appreciate that Disney is once again adding quality to the legacy of it's founder than complain about how things have changed in the forty-four years since he died. Imposing your belief that you can somehow be sure of what Walt Disney would have done and liked does not make your opinion fact in any way.

[Wonderlicious]

I've grown rather tired of hearing the "fact" of how Tangled somehow "s***s" all over Walt's legacy because of changes made to the name and story. Because it's not a fact that it "s***s," it's an opinion. People are entitled to their opinions of course, whether or not they agree with what's been stated above.

I agree. You know what you and I (and probably others) need in times like these?

4. I already explained, explained, explained that the old Disney films FELT like the original, definitive versions of the films, to a lot of people, which can't be said of Tangled. I already explained that they took versions of the fairy tales which DID have authors, Perrault and Grimm, who TRULY ARE the authors of the versions of fairy tales as we know them today and that we accept as the true or original versions IN A WAY. THERE ARE TRUE VERSIONS WITH TRUE AUTHORS, and that's what Disney based their films on to make what FELT like the definitive versions to many people because they made them a certain way, unlike Tangled. They FELT like the REAL versions. It's about how they made it that made it FEEL like that.

Or one could say that Disney was simply colonising the stories and making their versions appear to be the only ones that should be remembered, by using standard literary or established cultural models and then promoting and pushing their versions to extraordinary levels, in many cases not giving much credit to any previous contributors and becoming the versions people only remember. I'm sure most people when asked to tell the story of Snow White will recount the Disney version, I know people who have thought that The Little Mermaid was an original story by Disney and not an adaptation of an Andersen story. As much as I adore the Disney classics and think that changing the title of the film was silly, I don't think there's a great deal to be proud of in this sort of cultural colonisation.

Though I'm probably the only person on this forum who still hasn't managed to see this film (though should do very soon, FINALLY), I think I'll agree with Renata that the jist of the story is still there, regardless of a royal switch round or whether or not Gothel has no powers. I have to say that I was cynical at first about Rapunzel being made a princess by birth, simply due to the fact that I felt that it was probably a choice to push her further into the Princess line. Other than that qualm, the story appears to be quite the same in its premise; it's a coming-of-age story about a young woman being awakened to the world after being sheltered incessantly by an overbearing parent. Sure, it skips some of the overt sexuality of the original (I'll take it that Rapunzel doesn't have twins), but I think that anyone expecting that was being unrealistic, and I feel pretty safe in thinking that it's not some sterile, ultimately shallow "Someday My Prince Will Come" story that we could have got.

[Rapunzel]

Why the "what would Walt have done"-argument is ultimately pointless: Walt Disney was always moving forward, always trying to find new ways and means to tell stories...

I think you and I see eye to eye. Plus Disney changed a whole lot even with hist first full length feature. Snow White is not 100% like the Snow White stories being told before Disney made his film. During the renaissance all of the films are modified from the original or from the well known versions of the stories. The Little Mermaid is completely changed. Beauty and the Beast is changed. I will try not to touch on Hunchback, but my goodness gracious it is NOT the tragic novel that Victor Hugo wrote.

I don't think people should complain about changes in one movie (Tangled) when every single other movie made also has HUGE changes.

Also, just because one movies does or does not seem like the "real" version to one person, it doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. We all have opinions!

[Rapunzel]

Or one could say that Disney was simply colonising the stories and making their versions appear to be the only ones that should be remembered, by using standard literary or established cultural models and then promoting and pushing their versions to extraordinary levels, in many cases not giving much credit to any previous contributors and becoming the versions people only remember.

Wonder, you put it perfectly.

[Prince Edward]

Ah, Tangled opens in Norway this Friday. FINALLY!!! I am so excited^^

[mariadny]

And in Spain this Friday too

[tu]

in Taiwan TODAY! ( first day of the chinese new year )

happy rabbit year everyone

[Disney Duster]

PatrickvD, I looked at the original Jungle Book and it was impossible to be faithful to that and turn it into a feature because it had stories about other boys and characters in other places, it wasn’t all about one boy. But the book was mostly about Mowgli, so in order to make a movie on that book that followed one story, that was the only way to do it. That one was also around the end of his life when he had the least control or interest in the animated features.

Tangled is not as bad as those other things you said, but in a way it’s worse because it takes Disney’s old traditional subject matter and then twists it, like twisting what Disney is and stood for. In other words, I can think of Chicken Little as it’s own thing, not the original story. But Tangled makes me think, “So it’s supposed to be the original story, but it’s not, and it doesn’t feel like it? What?!” Anyway it doesn’t matter because it’s all bad, Tangled just came out now, so that’s what I’m talking about now.

As for the other things, I already have all the right reasons in my post before this, those still stand, if you need to, read them again.

Pinkrenata, that Snow White thing is not a twist…since you’re just doing that to be devil’s advocate, I wish you didn’t try to make it into one. The main point is that even Disney themselves have said in advertising that this has a twist. Yes, it’s advertising, but it’s what the company is saying about their own product. It simply illustrates what I’m talking about and why Tangled specifically is wrong.

The Little Mermaid had a happy ending, but that’s it. And that’s the Disney way, it is what we have all expected, it is what Disney is about. Disney’s fairy tales were faithful in character backgrounds but always had a happy ending. Tangled breaks the backgrounds of the characters and the title, something that The Little Mermaid didn’t do, so that’s why Tangled is different.

DisneyAnimation, I think that Pixar films are good but bland compared to Disney films. I think Disney films are more fantastic/fantasy and creative. How creative I think they are may be opinion, but I think it’s clear that Disney’s films have always been more fantastic/fantasy. I know Pixar has done things that you would think are part of the realm of the fantastic/fantasy, but I am saying that Disney has always been more fantastic/fantasy, including in how they animate/what they show/the visuals. However Bolt was even blander than most Pixar films.

Disney’s Divinity, I meant the cynicism in Tangled was more cutting. Compare Flynn to Grumpy. There’s a cutting, sharp-tonguedness to Tangled that I don’t feel fits the gentler Disney I know.

We still can’t really say whether audiences would feel that Disney made the real versions were it not for the marketing. You make a good argument with good reasons, but I am still not sure, and I don’t think you can be entirely sure either. I mean, not really everyone is that clueless about the real fairy tales before they see the movie. And I’m not saying that it’s a fact Disney makes the definitive version, but I am saying it’s a fact that to most people, Disney’s have felt like the definitive versions.

Goliath, you missed the part in my list where I said Walt was bold (as in an innovator). What he did was made films that were similar yet different from each previous film. They were similar in some ways, bold in others. But some things were always kept the same. Certain themes, messages, and a certain, specific amount of faithfulness, like the title and backgrounds of characters.

And guess what, I think Walt would have embraced CGI, too! But he would not have let hand-drawn animation die. He would probably actually have preferred hand-drawn, after some experimenting with CGI.

Why? Because remember when Walt didn’t like the style of 101 Dalmatians? It’s just like that. For certain reasons, Walt would have probably preferred the look and feel of hand-drawn animation to CGI.

Enigmawing, I didn’t say it was a fact Tangled was sh*ting all over Walt’s legacy, I said it was a fact that previous versions of Disney films felt like the real versions of those stories to people. However, it is a fact that Walt set a standard of how all his studio’s films should be, all his fairy tales had certain things in common, they had the character backgrounds the same, the names the same (or extremely close so you could tell they were the same story, they basically were the same names), and they always ended happily. Also, they were really more added to than changed. For instance, scenes and motives were added in without changing the original characters, such as Maleficent was the original snubbed fairy, but they expanded her role to do more, too. In Tangled, people are changed, not just added to.

It’s funny you mention short attention spans, because another problem I had with the film was the quick-cutting humor. It wasn’t as gentle as how Disney used to do things. I don’t think Disney should pander to short attention spans, because that makes attention spans even shorter over time. These films are seen when children are young, which means their attention spans are being developed at that time (for instance watching TV at too young an age can make it harder for children to pay attention to anything slower as they grow up). I think Disney should try to stay at the same gentle pace as they were. But I won’t say this one is fact, it’s just something I’m wondering about.

Finally, if Disney changes just to stay alive, is Disney really staying alive? In other words, if audiences will eventually only like films that end sadly and seem hopeless, should Disney make movies like that, and then survive, but be un-Disney? It would mean what Disney is is dead, but the company, with the name, is still alive. Why would Walt want that?

As for Walt liking CGI, see what I wrote to Goliath.

Wonderlicious, I don’t think it’s so bad that Disney makes what feel like definitive versions because I think they are the best. I would have thought Tangled was the best if they didn’t mess it up and make it not really Rapunzel. But anyway, they credit the original sources in the credits, so I don’t really know how Disney could stop their films from being taken as the definitive versions. What would you have them do? Isn’t it just that their films speak for themselves, and audiences either like them, take them as definitive, or not? If the film seems definitive on it’s own, doesn’t that just mean it did a really good job, as long as they credit the original source?

And for the rest of what you said…during the film, when Rapunzel was in the forest with Flynn, I was like…who is this guy? Where’s the prince? What’s going on…it’s just a real shame that it was so easy to make this the real Rapunzel, and there’s so much of the Rapunzel story there, but it’s still not the real Rapunzel. It’s just a real shame. I want to think it’s the real Rapunzel, but Disney barred me from it, mainly with the title.

Rapunzel, what I said to Enigmawing covers The Little Mermaid. The only problem I have with Beauty and the Beast is the silly girls that fawn over Gaston could have been Belle’s sisters, but really, maybe we just don’t see Belle’s sisters. You are right that it was changed more than the others, but here’s the reason it’s different from Tangled: In Tangled, the main characters, the title character, her love interest and the hero, and the villain, had their backgrounds, who they were, completely changed. The title character went from the lowest place (peasant) to the highest place (princess), the hero went from the highest place (prince) to the lowest place (thief, even lower than a peasant!), the witch with a garden who was stolen from, and promised to help a man’s wife live in exchange for his daughter, which she wanted to raise for herself, was changed to an ordinary, greedy woman who just found a magic flower and wanted to use it and the girl to be young forever. What?!

And it still stands that while all Disney’s past films can and have felt like the real versions to countless people, Tangled doesn’t feel like the real version to anyone.

I want to think this movie is the real Rapunzel, but Disney barred me from it, mainly with the title.

[Fairytales]

new hq still i wonder where people get these