Tangled Discussion - Part V

[RodryCroft]

I found a 98% real english Tangled dvdrip (its a torrent)!! Who wants the link?

here's a preview:

http://www.imgcafe.com/view/uploads/tanglebrb.jpg

Mokka please!!!!!! I want that link!! =DDDD

[mokka456]

I found a 98% real english Tangled dvdrip (its a torrent)!! Who wants the link?

here's a preview:

http://www.imgcafe.com/view/uploads/tanglebrb.jpg

Yeah the quality is pretty decent!
It's a PPV Rip.


Here are some kinda random screencaps in a rar file (spoilers for some): http://www.sendspace.com/file/s01d7u

Do you have Tangled in a better quality Mobje?

[disneyboy20022]

I found a 98% real english Tangled dvdrip (its a torrent)!! Who wants the link?

here's a preview:

http://www.imgcafe.com/view/uploads/tanglebrb.jpg

Please email me the link..I will send you my email via Priavte message

[DisneyDude2010]

thanks

[Rapunzel]

And no, there are no 'true' versions of age old fairy tales.

That is not always true. Some stories that we now call fairy tales can be pinpointed to the original author so there is a true original version. I believe The Little Mermaid is one for example.

However, in the case of something like Cinderella and Rapunzel, there are many versions from all over the world and you really can't determine which story is the original. You may find a country of origin, but even there the tale was told many times over and you have no idea who told it first and what was exactly said.

An aside: I really dislike the mindset that Disney or any other telling is "the definitive" story. It could be "the most popular" retelling, but aside from the few that have obvious original sources, there is no definitive.

[DisneyDude2010]

well Tangled is still an instant classic

[Kyle]

There isn't a 720p rip out yet is there? I'll want that version even after buying the blu ray, since my pc doesnt have a blu ray player, and I can't stand watching movies in standard def anymore.

[Atlantica]

Does anyone have the numbers for Tangled's opening weekend in the UK ? On the UK Disney Pictures Twitter account, it said it was fantastic .... I really REALLY want to believe this, just would like to see some facts first ..... ?

[Sotiris]

I'll write up what they had to say later, if anyone would like to know ? As I don't have a lot of time to do it justice. My questions did get anwered, but after the Q and A, when all 3 guys were down in the lobby signing autographs and chatting to fans etc.

We're still waiting. I'm on the edge of my seat here.

[PatrickvD]

Does anyone have the numbers for Tangled's opening weekend in the UK ? On the UK Disney Pictures Twitter account, it said it was fantastic .... I really REALLY want to believe this, just would like to see some facts first ..... ?

Initial estimate is $7.3 million, but that was underestimated. Last figure I read on Box Office Mojo was $8.1 million.

Positioned right before school break it looks to be headed in the $30 M to $40 M direction.

so yeah, BIG hit.

[Mobje]

Yeah the quality is pretty decent!
It's a PPV Rip.


Here are some kinda random screencaps in a rar file (spoilers for some): http://www.sendspace.com/file/s01d7u

Do you have Tangled in a better quality Mobje?

No i don't mokka456.
I have the same PPV rip.
It's the best one out there at this point though!

[Goliath]

That is not always true. Some stories that we now call fairy tales can be pinpointed to the original author so there is a true original version. I believe The Little Mermaid is one for example.

Of course! (*slaps forehead*) I stand corrected; I had totally forgotten about authors like Andersen.

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. The last we heard from Walt was way back in 1966. If we stopped to ask what Walt would have done, we would have to go back to the 1960's. We'd be stuck in the past. Besides, I don't think Walt would have like today's media environment one bit. He was already complaining about modern films being too violent and too much about exploitation in the 1960's --or so Dick van Dyke told us on the Mary Poppins bonus dvd. His way of filmmaking from the 1960's would be totally out of place nowadays and would flop at the box office.

[DisneyDude2010]

can anyone else tell me why when Rapunzel first see's the town she is obviously saying WOW but nothing comes out of her mouth ???

[Animalia]

can anyone else tell me why when Rapunzel first see's the town she is obviously saying WOW but nothing comes out of her mouth ???

Well if you look at the whole scene of her at the town, no one speaks. It's just the instrumental and sound effects.

[SWillie!]

can anyone else tell me why when Rapunzel first see's the town she is obviously saying WOW but nothing comes out of her mouth ???

Well if you look at the whole scene of her at the town, no one speaks. It's just the instrumental and sound effects.

Actually I always got that she isn't actually making any noise in the first place. Like, she's literally just mouthing "WOOWWW!!"... a lot of people do that kind of thing in real life. It's so amazing she's speechless basically.

[Disney Duster]

Semaj, you should be commended for writing that so well, like a very concise evaluation of Disney's creativity today.

Goliath, Divinity, PatrickvD, everyone...

I have countlessly, countlessly explained all my reasons for why I say what I say and why Disney is doing things wrong today. So maybe if I put them all in a very concise list, it can spell it out as clear as it needs to be.

1. I know that there was a time when the Disney company asked "What would Walt have done?" and flopped during that time. But they did it wrong. If bold decision-making was deemed "unDisneylike", that's wrong because Walt Disney was very bold. But he also kept some things the same, traditional. His new movies were similar to past ones, but different, too. The key was figuring out what to keep and what to be bold with. When the Disney cpmpany kept the traditional Disney subject matter, stories, characters, themes, and story songs, but done in a bold new way, that was the Disney Renaissance. The Disney Renaissance turned out to be more "what Walt would have done" because it was like fairy tales or Bambi, but done in new ways.

2. I actually think Chris Sanders' version of Bolt should have been done instead. Chris Sanders' more different version fit with the imagination and fantasy Disney was known for. His American Dog version felt more about going to far away places and meeting strange characters than the bland Pixar-like Bolt. Lilo & Stitch was not their last major triumph though. That would be Tangled or The Princess and the Frog now.

3. I can believe that people don't like that Tangled is yet another fairy tale in Disney's canon. Disney needs to simply retain similar Disney stories, subject matters, or themes, and the Disney way of the past films. Tangled did not keep that with the title or the re-mixing of the story. Flynn could have been a prince running away from his responsibility at the palace and showed the peasant Rapunzel his castle's lanterns and it would have been more like the original story and the original Disney way and still would have been 90 minutes. And I do agree that they did overshoot taking "bold steps forward".

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.

5. The point of what I think of Walt being perfect or a god does not matter, especially because I don't think he is a god, or perfect. I simply am saying that HIS COMPANY should follow HIS WAY. As MUCH AS THEY CAN. There is nothing wrong with them asking "Do you think this idea sounds Disney?" and trying to talk or vote on it. There is nothing wrong with them thinking about it or checking themselves, not all the time, but in the beginning of the project and certain key times. 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.

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.

PatrickvD, the fact is Disney didn't call Snow White Dwarfed. He set the examples for how all the rest of the Disney films should be, and the company ignored it and s*** all over it, not caring. If you want to s*** all over or not care what Walt wanted Disney to be about and what Disney has been till now, that's you. Disney didn't have to make the definitive versions that felt like the real ones. The issue is that they did, from the very beginning, for a long time, so that the "Disneyfied" versions were the ones that felt real and definitive. 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.

You're right, there aren't very many versions of Rapunzel. That's why it's a shame Disney didn't make a version of Rapunzel. They made something called Tangled which had a girl in the film who's name was Rapunzel and had long hair and a tower like hers and that's it. Shrek had Rapunzel in it, I guess they made a version of Rapunzel, too, according to you?

It's a real shame Disney almost made a really good version of Rapunzel which is such a hard story to adapt, but by changing the story and title so much, it's not a version of Rapunzel. It's Tangled, something else.

Something I don't understand is why they are making fairy tales in the first place if none of you think they should keep the Disney ways and traditions. You can say it's just to be successful or make money or because audiences want it, but the fact is audiences want it from Disney. The fact that Disney is making fairy tales at all still says that they are doing it because they know that's the Disney way, it feels right, it feels Disney. But then they try to change it to put their own modern spin on it, and that part is wrong, and un-Disney. It's like they're taking the Disney subject matter and doing it an un-Disney way. The Disney way is most important, and the Disney way can include how they pick their subject matter (fairy tales), but that's not all it is.

[PatrickvD]

Goliath, Divinity, PatrickvD, everyone...

I have countlessly, countlessly explained all my reasons for why I say what I say and why Disney is doing things wrong today.

and you lost me right there. You do not own the truth. You've explained why YOU THINK they're doing things wrong. That does not mean they're doing anything wrong AT ALL. And on top of that, you're beating a dead horse.

Like I said, do you want us all to 'see the light' (yes, pun intended) and accept your opinion as a universal truth?

We get it, you don't like the current directions they're going in. Maybe it's time for you to accept you're in the minority here. Tangled is a huge success and a even critical hit. I saw people smiling and talking as they left the theater. I seriously doubt Walt would have cared what it was called. He didn't write a manifest telling us how to make and name the studios' future productions. I'm pretty sure he even halted production on The Jungle Book due to being true to the book. How does that fit into the logic? Tarzan was a much more faithful adaptation. Fact of the matter is it none of it matters, because he's dead.

Even if we are gonna play the 'what would Walt have done' game we could go on for millennia. And in the end Walt also said he'd take his chances with audiences (not critics like you) and audiences have spoken. They love Tangled. They love it now, they will love it ten years from now.

I know nothing could ever change your mind, I get that and I don't care, but I do wanna let you know how annoying it is to wanna discuss the actual movie and be faced with annoying "but it doesn't feel like the definitive version" rants on every single damn page.

PatrickvD, the fact is Disney didn't call Snow White Dwarfed. He set the examples for how all the rest of the Disney films should be, and the company ignored it and s*** all over it, not caring. If you want to s*** all over or not care what Walt wanted Disney to be about and what Disney has been till now, that's you.

Good lord, if you feel like Tangled is sh!tting all over Walt's legacy, then I don't even wanna know what you find of Chicken Little or Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas. 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.

But HOW does it work??!?!

It's magic.

[pinkrenata]

I've got a few things to say (just because I'm feeling contrary ). Back in the days of <i>Snow White</i> and the early animated features, a full-length fairy tale film was pretty much unheard of, much less one that was entirely animated. Guess what? That was Disney's "twist". See, I don't believe Walt was necessarily a traditionalist. 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, but he would have been looking for ways to be ahead of everyone else. Back in the 1950s, that meant expanding into theme parks and television. That was then -- what about now?

Now, I still think changing the title to <i>Tangled</i> was a pretty stupid act on Disney's part, mainly because I still insist that the story is not "tangled", nor is there much of a "twist". Despite some changes in who's royal and who isn't, I still feel that it's a pretty straightforward story.

In fact, if we're going to really pick things apart, I would say that the changes to <i>The Little Mermaid</i> could be considered much more offensive. That story is based on one version by a single author. In fact, I have a hard time considering it a fairy tale -- I guess that's where the differences between fairy tales and folk tales come into play. Yet, I can assure you that Disney's <i>The Little Mermaid</i> is widely considered to be the "definitive" version. So, in that case, is Disney's "twist" acceptable?

[DisneyAnimation88]

His American Dog version felt more about going to far away places and meeting strange characters than the bland Pixar-like Bolt. Lilo & Stitch was not their last major triumph though. That would be Tangled or The Princess and the Frog now.

Are your calling Pixar films in general bland or just Bolt?

I can understand why someone would say that about Lilo & Stitch taking into account the spin-off films and tv series, as well as the amount of merchandise from the film and a theme park ride. I think that the film with the best chance of replicating that success is Tangled, based on the critical and commercial success of the film.

[Disney's Divinity]

His American Dog version felt more about going to far away places and meeting strange characters than the bland Pixar-like Bolt. Lilo & Stitch was not their last major triumph though. That would be Tangled or The Princess and the Frog now.

Are your calling Pixar films in general bland or just Bolt?

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.

Sorry to be off-topic in this post. I haven't had time to read DD's response at the moment.