Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3564
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 15th, 2010, 6:16 pm

I could do it if you want--
Do you want focus on the "Start the Petition" angle, the "Historical basis for mistake" (eg. the comparisons to TP's mis-marketing after Atlantis) angle, or the Jim Hill-esque (in the good way) "All the reasons Why For it doesn't work" angle borrowing from those Robster's already stated?
Some of us are serious about this, y'know; once you look at the details, it starts becoming For Principle.

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7284
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Post by James » February 15th, 2010, 8:47 pm

For a good exhaustive piece I think you could include all those aspects. Maybe start off with a recap of the current issue, go into the historical aspect, bring it back to the current issue with the "reasons it won't work" angle, then bring it all home at the end with the "what can we do" bit.

Nice to see people fired up about this!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3564
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » February 15th, 2010, 9:45 pm

Ready to go, where do you want it?
It's about five pages, but as you'll see, the history takes up a LOT of room to explain the present. Please consult before editing. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Rapunzel Oops I mean Tangled...No, Rapunzel!

Post by Dusterian » February 15th, 2010, 9:55 pm

EricJ, Ben, and James, please please help us.

Please suggest the best places for us to send our letters or whatever we send. Ben, I would think you would know who to talk to.
Image

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7284
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Re: Re:

Post by James » February 15th, 2010, 10:44 pm

EricJ wrote:Ready to go, where do you want it?
It's about five pages, but as you'll see, the history takes up a LOT of room to explain the present. Please consult before editing. :)
Just email it to contact@animatedviews.com and Ben and I will both get it. And we never edit without consulting the writer! But I will warn you Ben will likely have a lot of editing suggestions! That's just the way he rolls! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3564
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 15th, 2010, 11:03 pm

Ben, huh? Yyyyeah. I'm SURE he will. :P

(...Kidding, kidding!)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 493
Joined: November 11th, 2007
Location: NY

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Foxtale » February 15th, 2010, 11:05 pm

So it's official then? (I guess it is because the Wikipedia with that title was just removed and changed. >.<)They changed the title... Everyone must be freaking out (or they changed the title sooner and didn't make it public). The movie comes out at the end of the year correct? Aren't the toy and merchandising people already producing items for the fall and christmas season? I can understand the change since the "General public" hasn't been introduced to the film yet, but doesn't this throw a whole cog in their promotion? People are already selling "Rapunzel" items, I can't imagine the toy companies being too happy about the change. :P
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/Foxtale/almostthere_signature_smaller.jpg[/img]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Post by Dusterian » February 15th, 2010, 11:47 pm

Oh, and EricJ, I just wanted to say, you decide if you think so, too, we shouldn't have too much about TP&TF, that's comparing this film to another film and assuming that's what this title change was for.

And some other points I wanted to add were:
A little non-princess liking boy probably won't know what the movie is about and if he wants to see it from the title Tangled or Rapunzel.

The trailers and commercials are what will tell him what the movie is about and if he will want to see it. The boy will either figure out its about a princess named Rapunzel from the previews, or he will know he wants to see it from the previews (if it has lots of action, jokes, and Flynn Ryder it would probably make him want to see it).

The previews, not the title, are what will make children decide whether they want to see the film or not. Any title other than Rapunzel can't hide or do anything except make people mad or confused!
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 800
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Bill1978 » February 16th, 2010, 12:47 am

What I find funny with the title change is blaming it on the princess moniker. I personally think that Disney is aware of the poor managing of The Princess And The Frog, from marketing to release schedule but just don't want to publically admit there judgement in error so are using the princess route as an excuse.

Cause surely, if it was all about the princess they would have to can the whole Disney Princess brand which must be losing so much money in the merchandising business. From my understanding the Disney Princess brand is a big money earner, so that really can't be the real issue at stake.

I think one thing that may have worked against TPatF is that the trailer gave away the ending that they got married - true this is Disney and it's expected but why confirm it in the trailer? But maybe that's just me focusing on my pet peeve of trailers telling me everything.

To get this back on track, regardless of the title, based upon the one official promotional still we have of Tangpunzel I'm still very much interested in this movie. My gut feeling is that this could be an Aladdin-esque fun adventure

American_dog_2008

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by American_dog_2008 » February 16th, 2010, 7:46 am

I thought it was Tangela from Pokemon! :mrgreen:

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 228
Joined: November 26th, 2005
Location: Birmingham, England
Contact:

Post by chernabog » February 17th, 2010, 8:04 am

I have a major issue with people constantly referring to past examples as if that justifies Disney always creating films in this vain. Just because Pinocchio and Dumbo were successful doesn't mean that's always going to be the case. To put it another way, simply because Disney were popular in the 90's doesn't mean that harking back to the style will produce the same results today. What people have to realise is that audiences evolve just as the films do, so Disney trying to return to its glory days is largely a futile task. The key is not in looking back, but moving forward and developing a fresh style for the 21st century.

Personally, I would have much preferred the title to have remained the same, but right now Disney has to do whatever it can to make a hit. Naturally this doesn't advocate becoming the cynical, pop-culture obsessed mentality endorsed by other studios and I don't think this would ever happen under Lasseter's tuteledge, but the success of emotionally vapid films like Ice Age, Madagascar and Shrek indicate that story is not the contributing factor towards a films success.

Frankly if altering the title will help towards re-establishing Disney's dominance then I fully support it. True, one may argue that a name change may not have any effect and certainly their approach to marketing in-house toons has been inadequate over the past decade, particularly in comparison with the amount of support given to Pixar productions; however, there is today a predilection for spectacle over quality and despite the critical success of The Princess and The Frog, I have found people rolling their eyes at the mere mention of it, as if the very concept of a princess in today's cynical world is laughable. It's unfortunate, but it does highlight an interesting dilemma. If story is truly key, as Lasseter claims, then was The Princess and the Frog a failure on this account? Or is it more practical to concede that Disney needs to evolve?

Quite how they do this is not easily remedied. As I have said, a name change will not rectify their many wrongs, but it is at least a start. The publics faith in Disney has been shaken so much over the past decade that there is a slight trepidation in returning to their good old fashioned morality lessons and perhaps it will take another decade for Disney to regain it's position as the leader of animation. In essence, the senior employees need to take a brief hiatus to determine how to move forward: how to strike on a formula that provides audiences an experience which far supersedes those of any other studio, whilst retaining the unique sensibilities which have always defined Disney.

A trailer would be a good start...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Post by Dusterian » February 17th, 2010, 1:37 pm

So...No one wants to see Disney or what Disney does best anymore, so they should stop being Disney! Got it. Don't worry, I know you are saying that they should try to retain what makes them Disney while "evolving", but I want to point out how this title change is not retaining that at all.

They already made a very Disney classic fairy tale (from everything we have heard of the current version sans the new title), the only thing kind of new or modern is a bandit and more humor and adventure, but it's only a bit further than what Disney did with some other past fairy tales like the calypso fun The Little Mermaid and the comic Aladdin which still retained seriousness, drama, and were classics.

This name change is completely different. "At least its a start?" No, they already made the film the classic fairy tale Rapunzel, calling it something different is only a start in stupidity and getting audiences confused or mad!

There's nothing wrong with them making fairy tale classics sometimes and more edgy modern original films other times. Just leave the classics alone and then make the "different" films in addition to them.
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 68
Joined: July 27th, 2006

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Jake » February 17th, 2010, 2:35 pm

I think evolution is the wrong word. Aren't we supposed to be getting smarter? With what's successful at the box office these days, I would conjecture audiences are getting dumber.

Disney can't cater to the pop culture audience. We get results like Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons. Even Bolt wasn't very memorable, but it was better in comparison to their earlier CG work. Disney can't be as snarky as Dreamworks! It totally goes against their brand and would undermine the entire company's legacy. So we get "safe" movies with "safe" jokes with unoriginal stories and characters. What characters from Disney's canon are truly memorable? Thankfully they have Pixar's success to ride on. But there is no Shrek, no Nemo. Reaching further, there is no Belle. No Simba. "The Princess and the Frog" was a step in the right direction, but again they played it too safe. It was a safe, by-the-numbers attempt to recreate nostalgia from the 90's. I do agree they need to "evolve", but they CANNOT COPY! Themselves or others!

Okay, I'm done for now lol.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 228
Joined: November 26th, 2005
Location: Birmingham, England
Contact:

Post by chernabog » February 17th, 2010, 3:52 pm

In response to Dusterian, I'm not entirely sure what point it is that you're making, although claiming that a name change is somehow a betrayal of Disney's past is absurd. Aside from the fact that a title has literally no effect on the quality of a product (Cars anyone?), you're using it as an excuse to condemn a film which not only hasn't yet been released, but hasn't even received a full trailer yet. Surely it would be best to wait and see the film before making a judgement on something as insignificant as a movie title?

In response to Jake, at no point did I state that Disney should follow the route of other studios. In fact quite the reverse, I emphatically stated that it is something they should neither do or are likely to do under Lasseter's direction. However, Disney has to find a way to connect with the public (whom I agree appear to be becoming dumber), because recreating the magic of the 50's or the 90's is a futile task. The audience today is different, just as 10 years from now there will be a change again. And I completely agree that copying another studio is definitely out of the question. But when one considers the number of difficulties the animation division of Disney has faced over the past decade, creating such a issue out of something as shallow as a namechange is laughable.

Consider it this way: If Tangled is a quality film, would you rather it retained it's name and as a result was a bigger success, or reverted to Rapunzel and made less money? As a Disney obsessive, I have to answer the former.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Rapunzel or Tangled

Post by Dusterian » February 17th, 2010, 11:36 pm

The title is indeed a betrayal of Disney's past. Name a film that is very Disney, and was successful, and had a name like that. The Emporer's New Groove is the closest, but that was more like Warner Bros. humour than Disney, and it was not successful. And no movie that makes people think of Disney, no very successful Disney movie, has a title like that.

And from what we have heard the story will be the classic tale of...Rapunzel. I already mentioned the things like humor and a bandit that are kind of new, but Aladdin was like that, Aladdin wasn't renamed, it was still a classic film with a classic title, and more humor and a bandit doesn't warrant a name like "Tangled" when the story is indeed still about...Rapunzel.

And when people hear about what movies are coming up, hearing the name Tangled will probably make them go wtf is that and not really want to see it. It sounds plain bad.
Image

Post Reply