Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by **Ben** » February 4th, 2011, 2:49 am

Dusterian wrote:Does "frack me" mean like "I would be wrong if I"?

Well...if THAT needs explaining...

Post by **Bill1978** » February 26th, 2011, 6:07 am

An alternate opening:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE2c9GcDbrM

Now I'll sit back and wait for the posting of When Will My Life Begin (Reprise 1) and the complete Mother Knows Best sequence.

Post by **Dusterian** » February 26th, 2011, 11:54 am

That opening is...not exactly what I wanted, it's not really that great. I would have opened with the title "Rapunzel" appearing, then have it turn out the title is on the book cover, it opens, still narrated by Flynn, about Mother Gothel creating a magic rapunzel flower in her garden that gets stolen...

Ah well, it still would've been better than the one we got, except that we need the longer time given to how Gothel uses the flower.

Ben wrote:The original story didn't play out here at all, and the focus on Flynn did make it a two-hander. Tangled may well have been a marketing ploy, but it's one that, in retrospect, works anyway.

But in the opening lines of the film, Flynn still says, "This isn't my story, anyway."

Aside from that, I say it was in between - it was close enough to the story to be Rapunzel, and be Disney, but far away enough from the story to still feel a little un-Disney and make me mad!

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 26th, 2011, 1:41 pm

Dusty...

The movie's a few months old and is leaving theaters now...

Seriously, your shtick has gotten really old and annoying.

Please, for the love of G--, back away from your monitor and keyboard...

You're becoming Charlie Sheen!

Post by **Macaluso** » February 26th, 2011, 4:15 pm

I'm glad they went with the current version of the opening. Besides me liking that Flynn narrates it, I think if they had gone the storybook route, it would have seemed too close to Enchanted.

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 26th, 2011, 8:04 pm

I totally agree, Mac.

You can't open every film the same way...

Another example -- I love the way Superman: The Movie opens with a kid flipping through the pages of Action Comics #1 as he reads what's on the pages... (By the way, I'm very familiar with Action Comics #1. The cover on the copy in the film IS right but the interior art is totally different from the historic version of the comic.)

The music arrangement in this Prologue isn't repeated elsewhere in the film or any of its sequels. It's one of my favorite pieces of John Williams' music.

And I am so glad nobody bothered to redo that intro. It was perfect for that film and didn't need to be repeated.

Post by **Bill1978** » February 27th, 2011, 2:17 am

Wow Dusty just wow. When I stumbled upon the alternate opening, I thought well that will please Dusty. Apparently I was wrong.

Post by **Whippet Angel** » February 27th, 2011, 2:52 am

I can't imagine him being pleased by anything made after 1959.

Post by **Dan** » February 27th, 2011, 12:37 pm

Wonder if Mandy and Zach will be in costume when they perform at the Oscars tonight...

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » February 27th, 2011, 12:53 pm

Ben wrote:
Dusterian wrote:Does "frack me" mean like "I would be wrong if I"?
Well...if THAT needs explaining...

Obviously, he's never hard of the Glen Larson school of alternate foul language...

It's real obvious to me now WHAT "felger-karb" and "frak" were supposed to mean!

(Look it up, folks. I'm not gonna 'splain everything to you! Google, urban dictionary, and wikipedia are useful research tools. If you can't use them properly, OR find them on your own, you really didn't learn anything in school.

(The links don't all have to be handed to you on a silver platter!)

Seriously, the longer Dusty keeps this thread going, the more concerned I get.

This has long gone past annoying, amusing, and pointless to obsessive.

It's..................... borderline psychotic now.

Post by **Ben** » February 27th, 2011, 7:13 pm

OKAY...

I wonder if THIS will finally satisfy those who wanted a straight version of Rapnuzel:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tangled-Up-NOT- ... 692&sr=8-4

This one is hilarious: seriously, I really can't see why Disney isn't suing these people. I love how they have to really point out this isn't anything to do with the Disney film...

Post by **Randall** » February 27th, 2011, 7:32 pm

Yagottabekiddingme.

I would've thought they'd just stick to "Rapunzel" since Disney abandoned it.

Post by **Ben** » February 27th, 2011, 7:44 pm

Exactly. If ever there was grounds for a rip-off lawsuit, this is it!

Post by **Dusterian** » February 27th, 2011, 11:05 pm

I don't see how a non-Disney, badly animated version that's not even full-length would please me. I am about Disney, the Disney traditonal way, not a knock-off.

Even the mountains and waterfall are a knock-off. The horribly bad title just comments on the horribly bad one Disney's still has.

Post by **Macaluso** » February 28th, 2011, 12:26 am

Well you don't think Tangled, which is more Disney than any Disney movie has gotten in probably ten years, is very Disney-like, so it would stand to reason that you would find something that's completely non-Disney, very Disney like.

Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Tangled

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)