Tangled Discussion - Part V

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
Atlantica
Signature Collection
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:33 am
Location: UK

Post by Atlantica »

Any more news on the box office for Britain ?

EDIT: Just read IMDB and Tangled is #1 !!!! With £5.11 milion !!!! I'm not good with box office .... is that good ?

I seriously can't remember the last time a Disney Animated Classic was the UK no.1 .... pretty sure TPATF wasnt ?
User avatar
Elladorine
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
Contact:

Post by Elladorine »

Disney Duster wrote: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.
Disney Duster wrote: But this time, they broke it, they did something un-Disneyfied but called it Disney, but I'll keep defending the Disney way that's getting s*** upon these days.
*feels confused*
Image
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

enigmawing wrote:
Disney Duster wrote: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.
Disney Duster wrote: But this time, they broke it, they did something un-Disneyfied but called it Disney, but I'll keep defending the Disney way that's getting s*** upon these days.
*feels confused*
I was wondering why it took DD so long, but naturally an essay was in the works. This time conveniently ignoring my point: stop ranting. Not happening.

But as can be seen above, it's also confusing.
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Big One and I are also confuse by the long ass rant. Enigmawing's point is one in particular is confusing and contradictory.
<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

Re: Tangled

Post by PatrickvD »

Disney Duster wrote: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.
:lol: I don't even know what to say here. Is there an argument in here somewhere? I can't tell. For now we'll just keep Beauty and the Beast: Enchanted Christmas in place as the more offensive film in regards to Walt's legacy. Whatever that even means.

I'll let the Nostalgia Chick explain what's wrong with it. A reminder of a time, not so long ago, when the Disney legacy was actually (and almost literally) being shit on: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... 5171-ep022
Last edited by PatrickvD on Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matt
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1777
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:33 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Post by Matt »

Was P!nk's song "Trouble" in the movie Tangeled? Or only in the trailer?? :?
PatrickvD
Signature Collection
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by PatrickvD »

Matt wrote:Was P!nk's song "Trouble" in the movie Tangeled? Or only in the trailer?? :?
just the trailer. :)
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Matt wrote:Was P!nk's song "Trouble" in the movie Tangeled? Or only in the trailer?? :?

Image
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 19912
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pCadsU20gkI" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Disney's Divinity wrote: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 [...], and, if they do, there must of course always be some bias involved. [...] 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. [...]
Hmm... I don't know that's true. Or did you ever criticize Pixar, found people disagreeing with you for just reasons and therefore you think *any* criticism of Pixar is treated in an unfair way? I'm not saying this is the case. Fanbases can be annoying. God knows I have experience with it. Try to say on a forum dedicated to Disney comics that you dislike the artist Don Rosa. Soon, you'll be battling one flamewar after another. So, I can understand your attitude, but one must be careful not to confuse the behavior of the fan community with the actual films (like some member of UD has done with e.g. The Godfather).
Disney's Divinity wrote: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.
Believe me, Duster gets his ideas discredited for a whole plethora of other reasons and rightfully so. :D

Rapunzel wrote: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.
Duster's complaints are completely arbitrary! (Is that a word in English?) I mean that he only complains about story changes on films that he personally didn't like; and he's okay with story changes on Disney films he does like or which were made by Walt personally (because, as we all know, Walt was infallible, like the Pope). It's personal preference disguised as 'objective' criticism. He then desperatly seeks 'arguments' to support his claims, but they're far-fetched and 'made up'.

Disney Duster, reading your posts makes it look like you're 'afraid' to admit you like a current Disney films; it makes it look like you're 'afraid' to admit you like anything to doesn't fit the "traditional" Disney mold. Why is that a bad thing? Honestly, I would like to know. Why must everything stay exactly the way it was when you were a kid? Why can't you enjoy Rapunzel for what it is?
User avatar
phan258
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:28 pm

Post by phan258 »

I hear ya about not being able to get a semi-negative word in edgewise re: Pixar, DDivinity. I love most of Pixar's work, but I despise UP with a passion and am constantly told I am "soulless" because I don't like it. Yeah, the beginning made me cry....but the rest of the film ruined it for me. :roll:
<a href="http://s1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... t=sig2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1116.photobucket.com/albums/k56 ... 8/sig2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 13334
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

enigmawing wrote:
Disney Duster wrote: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.
Disney Duster wrote: But this time, they broke it, they did something un-Disneyfied but called it Disney, but I'll keep defending the Disney way that's getting s*** upon these days.
*feels confused*
THIS must be used as an example for people not reading what I say the correct way, or more probably, not carefully enough. Here is the sentence with extra emphasis to show you:

"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."

If you still don't get it, that's you guys.

Goliath wrote:Duster's complaints are completely arbitrary! (Is that a word in English?) I mean that he only complains about story changes on films that he personally didn't like; and he's okay with story changes on Disney films he does like or which were made by Walt personally (because, as we all know, Walt was infallible, like the Pope). It's personal preference disguised as 'objective' criticism. He then desperatly seeks 'arguments' to support his claims, but they're far-fetched and 'made up'.

Disney Duster, reading your posts makes it look like you're 'afraid' to admit you like a current Disney films; it makes it look like you're 'afraid' to admit you like anything to doesn't fit the "traditional" Disney mold. Why is that a bad thing? Honestly, I would like to know. Why must everything stay exactly the way it was when you were a kid? Why can't you enjoy Rapunzel for what it is?
Ah, here is finally the proof you're wrong about that. I did like some of Tangled. When I was watching it, I was sad and happy at the same time. The title instantly dampened my mood. I felt highs and lows during the whole thing, and it was because of the humour or no Rapunzel plant and Flynn being a thief or Rapunzel being a princess or Mother Gothel not doing what she did in the original. I wanted to like it so badly, but I couldn't. I don't see why Disney had to do this to it's fans and what it is. What's the point of the company name surviving if who they really are dies?

So I'm not doing what you said I'm doing. I can honestly tell you that.
Image
User avatar
Elladorine
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
Contact:

Post by Elladorine »

*shrug*

Which lead to you saying it's why Disney is being s*** on in your matter-of-fact tone. If I'm not being "correct" enough in how I've read your posts, perhaps your self-proclaimed authority on Walt's modern day opinions has finally gotten to me.
Image
User avatar
Patrick
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 475
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 6:39 am

Post by Patrick »

Disney Duster wrote:Ah, here is finally the proof you're wrong about that. I did like some of Tangled. When I was watching it, I was sad and happy at the same time. The title instantly dampened my mood. I felt highs and lows during the whole thing, and it was because of the humour or no Rapunzel plant and Flynn being a thief or Rapunzel being a princess or Mother Gothel not doing what she did in the original. I wanted to like it so badly, but I couldn't. I don't see why Disney had to do this to it's fans and what it is. What's the point of the company name surviving if who they really are dies?

So I'm not doing what you said I'm doing. I can honestly tell you that.
Hm... well would you have wanted Flynn to have his eyes scratched out and Rapunzel to bare two children that she took care of in a distant desert until Flynn stumbled upon her? The original story was really dark and inappropriate for a Disney flick. On top of that, the entire original story happens in a tower.. and that's it. I don't see how they would make a movie like that.

Disney made a movie full of wonder and magic, just like they were supposed to. It was charming and had a ton of endearing characters. I can not believe you would go into a movie and instantly dislike it because of the title. I also think it's a bit strange that you're complaining about the humor of Rapunzel when many of the films from the 90's had the same. On top of that, most of the witty puns and gags were only in the trailers and didn't even make the final cut.

I know people have argued this with you before, but the majority of DAC's that are based on fairytales are actually nothing like them. As a company, they've taken several liberties and deviated from every one of the original plots to adapt it to flow well as a film rather than a work of literature. The fact the Rapunzel was not a peasant is so insignificant to the moral of the story that I find it strange it would bother you. Both the message of Rapunzel as well as the classic Disney "Love concurs all" theme have been displayed prominently in this film.. It's a true tribute to the most warmly accepted DAC's, taking bits of each to make one heartfelt, modern but classic film.
DisneyAnimation88
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am

Post by DisneyAnimation88 »

Goliath wrote:Duster's complaints are completely arbitrary! (Is that a word in English?) I mean that he only complains about story changes on films that he personally didn't like; and he's okay with story changes on Disney films he does like or which were made by Walt personally (because, as we all know, Walt was infallible, like the Pope). It's personal preference disguised as 'objective' criticism. He then desperatly seeks 'arguments' to support his claims, but they're far-fetched and 'made up'.
This sums it up perfectly for me. It always seems that Disney Duster is happy to rewrite history in a way that he think backs up his arguments.
enigmawing wrote:Which lead to you saying it's why Disney is being s*** on in your matter-of-fact tone. If I'm not being "correct" enough in how I've read your posts, perhaps your self-proclaimed authority on Walt's modern day opinions has finally gotten to me.
I think it's gotten to a lot of people now. Once again, Disney Duster your argument makes you seem like you think your the guardian of Disney tradition and have an insight into Walt's mind. I don't think you believe that but I think now it's time to stop telling the rest of us that we're wrong and accept that on some points, we simply don't have to agree with you.
Last edited by DisneyAnimation88 on Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

Tomorrow, tomorrow.........I CANT WAIT¡¡¡
:shock:
VISITTTTT, SPANISH DISNEY FORUM
http://animacionud.mforos.com/
User avatar
Semaj
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:22 am
Location: Buffalo
Contact:

Post by Semaj »

Disney Duster's logic, or lack thereof is like that of other classic cartoon fanatics where they over-romanticize the past and hold the present to a ridiculous standard. Whatever point they are out to prove too often gets blurred in the sport of winning an argument.

If you read David Koenig's "Mouse Under Glass", he provides listings of nearly all the animated features up to Hunchback that compares the final Disney screenplays to their original source material. Pinocchio is a heavily remixed morsel of the original Collodi story. Alice in Wonderland was the result of Walt spending 15 years trying to make a workable movie out of Carroll's two stories, only to get skinned for "ruining a literary classic" anyway. The Jungle Book has almost nothing to do with the Kipling tales, largely because Walt rejected Bill Peet's screenplay.

Just as a few examples. To those who might've seen those films back in the day, and were perhaps already familiar with the source material, and might've also seen a few previous movie adaptions, Disney's relatively new brand of storytelling must've taken some getting used to.
User avatar
Rapunzel
Limited Issue
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:21 am

Post by Rapunzel »

Goliath wrote: Duster's complaints are completely arbitrary! (Is that a word in English?) I mean that he only complains about story changes on films that he personally didn't like; and he's okay with story changes on Disney films he does like or which were made by Walt personally (because, as we all know, Walt was infallible, like the Pope). It's personal preference disguised as 'objective' criticism. He then desperately seeks 'arguments' to support his claims, but they're far-fetched and 'made up'.
I think I am going to have to agree with you.


Ariel is not at all like the mermaid in the original story. Her wants and desires are very different. A soul vs life on land. The original little mermaid wanted a soul and had no restrictions as to her visitations to the surface after her birthday. She is an entirely different character and the story is very different.

However, the change in Rapunzel's and Flynn's statuses really have no bearing on the story itself. All you need do is have her mother be the queen who wants rampion from the witches garden and who cares what the prince is. Thief or prince, as long as he finds and falls in love with Rapunzel it doesn't change the story. I don't know why anyone would make a big deal out of Rapunzel not being a peasant.

What about The Princess and the Frog? That story isn't the same in any way whatsoever from the frog prince fairy tales. Did we get a big argument about this too? The girl in that story was ALWAYS a princess. But Disney made her a regular girl. In America. Who turns into a frog.



I think this whole argument is silly when every single Disney film has many changes and often drastically modified story lines and characters.
"you came for your darling, but the sweet bird sits no longer in the nest, and sings no more"
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 »

Rapunzel wrote: What about The Princess and the Frog? That story isn't the same in any way whatsoever from the frog prince fairy tales. Did we get a big argument about this too? The girl in that story was ALWAYS a princess. But Disney made her a regular girl. In America. Who turns into a frog.
Yes. Yes, we did.
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"
Locked