Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.

Do you like the new title change?

Yes
4
3%
No
50
34%
It's not that bad/I'm used to it by now
45
31%
I hate it with a passion
28
19%
I love it
1
1%
I don't care either way
18
12%
 
Total votes: 146

User avatar
BelleGirl
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
Location: The Netherlands, The Hague

Post by BelleGirl »

I just don't get this 'marketing to boys' argument. I think the new title will only lead to confusion: "So what's this "Tangles" about, what do they mean with that? well, it's based on the familiar fairy-tale 'Rapunzel', Well why don't they just call it 'Rapunzel' then?"

I don't like the underlying sexims either. The reasoning is that boys don't want to see movies with a woman's name in the title, because they think it must be 'too girly', so let's change it. Would Disney ever consider changing a movie title with a man's name in it so that girls won't think 'Hey this movie is only for boys, I don't want to see this?"
So, just as a thought-experiment, instead of reference to a man in the title,let's make it refer to the girl or 'gender-neutral' and confusing at the same time:

Aladdin : Princess Yasmin and the streetboy/The (mystery of the magic) lamp
Hercules: Meg's sacrifice/Gods and mortals
Tarzan: Jane and the jungle prince/ The Gorilla kingdom

:D :twisted:
Image

See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
User avatar
Someday...
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:23 am

Post by Someday... »

Well there is a lot more of a stigma on a boy doing something girly, than a girl for doing something boyish- sissy is negative, tomboy is positive.
User avatar
BelleGirl
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
Location: The Netherlands, The Hague

Post by BelleGirl »

Someday... wrote:Well there is a lot more of a stigma on a boy doing something girly, than a girl for doing something boyish- sissy is negative, tomboy is positive.
Yes, I know. But isn't this the entire problem? 'feminine' is negative, 'masculine' is positive. But hasnt' it been that way for ages? Why hasn't that been a concern to Disney so far, and now all of a sudden they think they have to go along with the prejudice?

Still, the 'girly' things do not apply to Disney cartoon features, merely to the toy merchandise.
Image

See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
User avatar
tsom
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:09 am

Post by tsom »

I still don't know what to think of the title. At least with "The Princess and the Frog," you know it probably has to do with "The Frog Prince". With "Tangled," it's a different story. On Monday, I told two of my friends (who are Disney fans) "Hey guys, in November, we're going to see 'Tangled'!" My friends said "what?" I had to explain that it's the new title for "Rapunzel". This made me realize every time I mention the movie, I have to add that it's based on Rapunzel.

This is not good.
User avatar
toonaspie
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1438
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:17 am

Post by toonaspie »

I'm surprised that Disney is making this a concern, especially since they had various marketing failures in the past targeting boys you would think that now Disney has given up.

Of course some boy-targeted films were major hits: Aladdin, Peter Pan, Hercules, Tarzan because of their source material.

Which makes Tangled all the more challenging cause the source material is a Princess Fairytale. I'm wondering if Disney is just trying to mess around and experiment or what. There's lots of boy-centric fairytales still out there that Disney couldve done in place of this if they wanted to take that route.
User avatar
BelleGirl
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
Location: The Netherlands, The Hague

Post by BelleGirl »

tsom wrote:I still don't know what to think of the title. At least with "The Princess and the Frog," you know it probably has to do with "The Frog Prince". With "Tangled," it's a different story. On Monday, I told two of my friends (who are Disney fans) "Hey guys, in November, we're going to see 'Tangled'!" My friends said "what?" I had to explain that it's the new title for "Rapunzel". This made me realize every time I mention the movie, I have to add that it's based on Rapunzel.

This is not good.
Exactly the point I made before: confusion!
Image

See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
User avatar
tsom
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 10:09 am

Post by tsom »

Honestly, I thought Disney was all about "Family Films"!

The Disney princess franchise shares part of the blame.

People need to realize that these fairy tales (except Beauty and the Beast) were written by males (Perrault, Grimm, Andersen). Then Walt Disney, a male, with a staff full of males, made these movies. The writers, directors, and even song writers were all males. It's just today's society that automatically thinks "Oh, Cinderella is a girl's movie because there's a ball and all that. Lion King is a boy's movie because it has scary animals".

Sigh
User avatar
ajmrowland
Signature Collection
Posts: 8177
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Post by ajmrowland »

Beauty and the Beast also had the benefit of a completely gender-neutral title. It didn't focus on one character. It mentioned two. Girls would be interested in the Beauty, and boys in the Beast. It might not work as well with the Rapunzel story, but it worked for that film. they were truly marketing to both sexes. They should just do that.
Image
User avatar
BelleGirl
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:36 am
Location: The Netherlands, The Hague

Post by BelleGirl »

"Rapunzel & Flynn"?
Image

See my growing collection of Disney movie-banners at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78256383@N ... 651337290/
User avatar
Flanger-Hanger
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3746
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:59 pm
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters

Post by Flanger-Hanger »

When I worked at the Disney Store I distinctly remember the issues we had with selling Sleeping Beauty to families with boys. We'd ask if parents would like to pre-order the film and they'd say that their son or sons wouldn't be interested in a "girls movie". We discussed ways to sell this movie to the male gender through pointing out the adventure aspects of the film, but it really annoyed me that we had to take that effort to change the public perception of the movie one person at a time. We even had cool merch geared towards boys based on the movie!

The problem I see is that it's only ever marketed to boys when the movie gets released from the Vault, which is like once every 7 years. The 6 years it's OOP the only image of the movie out there for the general public to see is the Disney Princess merch. When Aurora looks like this:

Image

How to you convince a boy to like it?

The Princess line makes billions for Disney on an annual basis, but what is the cost in having this brand image of these collections of films? Even people (usually young adults) who like Aladdin, notice and dislike how the title character of that movie has taken a back-seat to his love interest and how the film has become a "girl-movie" too to Disney's marketing department.

Disney needs to go back and re-think how it's Princess centric practices might be hindering it's chances to make addition money from these films (I guarantee you that if SB were marketed more often to boys the girls' stuff would still sell). It's this brand that needs a new outlook before any new properties are closely associated with it.

I wish they'd have pushed the "Disney Heroes" line beyond The Disney Store like the Princess brand is.
Image
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13327
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Rapunzel

Post by Disney Duster »

I just wanted to say that Wondy, I think your idea of calling the film "Rapunzel and the Thief" is a brilliant one.

Walt did change the title of his first fairy tale from Snow White to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which is something I did not like when I found out about it, and I still don't like it, but it's not that much difference, it still sounds like the story, like the fairy tale.

It would also sound like Beauty and the Beast.

So if they called it "Rapunzel and the Thief" or "Rapunzel and the Bandit", I would be A-Okay with that. It would still sound like a Disney classic fairy tale, but also appeal more to boys.
Image
User avatar
IagoZazu
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 4:50 pm
Location: Indiana

Post by IagoZazu »

Flanger-Hanger wrote: I wish they'd have pushed the "Disney Heroes" line beyond The Disney Store like the Princess brand is.
That would be a great idea. I don't see why it wouldn't be. Boys can be just as big profit getters as girls.
Say no to moldy, disgusting crackers!
User avatar
Margos
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA

Post by Margos »

You know something? I was excited for Disney's "Rapunzel." And I still am. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." We're getting the same rose, they're just calling it by another name. And maybe it's for a stupid reason. But who cares? It's the same movie, even if they called it "The Chick with the Hair and Her Most Excellent Adventures." If you think about it, if they had to change the name, "Tangled" is much better than alot of the other alternatives they could have gone with....
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com

^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19883
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

ajmrowland wrote:Beauty and the Beast also had the benefit of a completely gender-neutral title. It didn't focus on one character. It mentioned two. Girls would be interested in the Beauty, and boys in the Beast.
Actually that was the way the merchandise was marketed. Belle was for girls while Beast was for boys.

Image

Image
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

WILDTHING???? :lol:

man, where are the guys that marketed those movies? That is just awesome.
User avatar
ajmrowland
Signature Collection
Posts: 8177
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Post by ajmrowland »

They're off on their lunch break................since '97.


I'll give it five more minutes, or they're fired.
Image
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

that beast game was horrible. i've played it. controls sucks
<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:that beast game was horrible. i've played it. controls sucks
but it looks so tough and manly :lol:
Aqua
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:49 pm

Post by Aqua »

I don't blame the Disney Princesses in any way, shape, or form. You can blame the company for essentially destroying their personalities/uniqueness/individuality and making them all...Well, the same. I'm a gay male and I really don't like the pink. AURORA LOOKS BETTER IN THE BLUE DRESS!!!!

It's very upseting that it's almost as if they INTENTIONALLY exclude boys in general. BATB is my favorite Disney animated feature and it makes me sad that my girl Belle has been watered down to be exclusively for little girls and that she, along with the other Princesses, are now being berated and scapegoated by fans, despite the perception Disney is for little girls/kids is enforced by people who hate them or don't know any better, not them. Between Neo-Nazi feminists, the anti-Disney crowd, the Christian fundies and hyper-masculine men, boys who like/take interest in the Disney Princesses are berated and scrutinized. Pushing for a Disney Prince line over the Disney Princess one sounds eh to me just because we're to get rid of one merchandise line to appease one demographic?

I agree with what somebody mentioned. There's no problem if a girl hates the Disney Princesses and likes more "boyish/masculine" stuff but people like me and my friend (he adores Cinderella) who take interest in what's suppose to be for girls...Quick, call the police!!!!!


BTW, sorry for going off-topic it's just sad that Disney has been so watered down and has been very '"discriminatory " towards gender. But whatever floats Disney's boat.
User avatar
pap64
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:57 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Post by pap64 »

So in that Beauty and the Beast game, girls could be the strong, smart, creative and inventive Belle while boys would be the angry, hairy, smelly, ugly, bad tempered, rude, lacking manners Beast?

Am I the only one detecting a hint of sexism here?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ImageImageImageImage

Image
Post Reply