Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4058
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 21st, 2010, 12:48 pm

Ben, please, I beg of you....WHERE is that op/ed piece I sent? :)
They're not getting it!

(Seriously, I can't emphasize enough--It's not about the title and whether one sounds better than another, it's about Disney projecting their own fears of a faceless Audience onto their own inferiority complexes, dating back to traumas of a past time when Disney animation took a lot more unfair beatings than it does today...
If we don't take a hand in slapping them across the face and saying "Snap OUT of it!", we're going to get more loopy decisions made for the most imaginary of reasons:
There isn't a single complaint against the title change that doesn't also mention the cancelling of "Snow Queen", and THAT, friends, is the heart of the issue.)

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7481
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Post by James » February 21st, 2010, 1:45 pm

To those saying there is no point discussing this since Disney is not going to change it, please find a better argument. Using that logic most of what we discuss here would have to be halted! If you're not interested in the discussion you don't have to read it.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4058
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » February 21st, 2010, 3:24 pm

I'm saying, they can change it back--they've bowed to public pressure before, and the opinion seems to be evenly divided between the public and in-house who think it's a bad idea, and the cynics who shrug "What's the big deal?" What seems to be missing are those who are in favor of it...We haven't heard a single one of them yet, and that's gotta count for something. :D

The problem is, if anyone does want to change things, well...we'd kinda better hurry:
A week ago, when the news came out and was headline on every single animation blog if fans and animators had hit them RIGHT with an organized-feedback punch to the gut in the first seconds, we would've gotten it.
Now, it's been a week: The cynics, tired of the headlines, have taken over, those who think they can't change anything have gone into Rationalization ("Hey, it's the story anyway, not like it'll be a different movie on disk!"), and any letter campaign now has more and more the possibility of sounding like Cranky Unsatisfied Fans with every passing minute.

If you want to show the Power of the People, by writing print letters to Mr. Iger and the producer at Burbank, and who knows, maybe grab a few lucky stabs at getting a few cancelled projects back--Disney does tend to overreact when they're positively surprised--whatever's going to be done is going to be done FAST.
So far, we haven't even seen an address posted, and hope everyone here enjoyed their weekend off. :P

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

Rapunzel

Post by Dusterian » February 21st, 2010, 5:56 pm

Forgot to say estefan, now I don't know, but I have a feeling Walt found the original treatment too broing and was trying to make The Jungle Book more fun. Like he added more animals to Sleeping Beauty's first romance scene because it was too boring. But two things: It was still the story of The Jungle Book, and so it was called that, and if Disney makes Rapunzel comical, it's probably not to be more fun, but to suit today's cynical pop-culture audience they don't think would want a straight fairy tale.

Randall, well, as someone who grew up with Aladdin not knowing all the references, I still find it funny and do not cringe. I still makes sense to me that this wacky, magical, other-worldly (and out of this world) genie would do stuff like that. Thanks for letting me know about Basil of Baker Street, indeed it should have been called that, then! In fact, this Tangled business mirrors that event, people came up with a list of names for Disney's other films like "Seven men help a girl" for Snow White after the change to "Great Mouse Detective" and people have made similar lists after Tangled, like calling Snow White "Poisoned".

Ben, I agree with you on so, so much.

As for Unbraided, yes, I didn't like that either, but that title did fit what we knew they were doing, twisting and changing Rapunzel. Remember she was a squirrel in that one?

However, we have heard from many, many sources that Rapunzel (Tangled), though perhaps more humorous and with a bandit, will still be the story of Rapunzel. They can't change the story this late in the game, as you know, so only the title was changed.

And aside from all that, if I heard Disney was doing Rapunzel but not traditionally, and called it Tangled from the beginning, I would still be upset, because I, like many, many, many people, have been waiting for the classic Disney fairy tale treatment of this classic fairy tale, one of the last great, well-known ones to do!

As for the CGI, remember Glen Keane said he has been trying to make it more hand-drawn like, as well as look more like a painting? And the traditionally animated films were also hand-painted! So you see why I think it's still a traditional, classic way of doing the story...except for the fact that what we have seen lately doesn't look like they did that very much! I remind everyone, didn't you want to see this come to life?:

I read that these images for Rapunzel, that look like paintings, were made on a computer in 3D CGI:

Image

Image

And some other stuff I read about even making Snow White's cottage look like the watercolor background in the film...but then Glen Keane saw it rotate, because it was actually made on the computer in 3D CGI! But alas, we don't seem to be getting something quite that amazing...still, Glen Keane tried, and he apparently still has a softer and more of a painting look than average CGI in the current way the film looks. Like their skin looks softer for one.

I'd love to hear more about Ward Kimball's aliens.

But as EricJ said, Ben, James, anyone, what addresses can we send our hand-written letters to try and get the name changed?
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 4058
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » February 21st, 2010, 6:33 pm

It's best to do these things as "officially" generic as possible, so dually care of Robert Iger and of John Lasseter (credited as studio x-producer on the film as well as animation head) at the central offices at the WD Studio in Burbank, California would be "symbolic" enough, unless anyone has any more specific suggestions--
The main switchboard is at (818) 560-1000...NOT for specific complaints, but for serious inquiries about which name to address organized mass-correspondence to, and under which conditions they would be accepted and read. (If anyone doesn't plan to, tell me by Tuesday, but I'd rather leave it to someone with a little more established website to show for it.)

Remember, the issue is not "The title sounds funny!"; the ISSUES to be addressed are
A) For WDFA to restore confidence in our audience support for fairytale film under its original title and restore the current film accordingly before release/marketing, since
B) Box office release strategies and competition were the more influential real-world contributions to P&tF's poor box office, NOT any "public's dislike for fairytales" as they have imagined, which is why
C) We would continue to support Disney's return to traditional 2-D animation, and were saddened to hear of the cancelling of many upcoming film projects including "Snow Queen"--Seeing as such projects had the in-house support of many of the creative animators who were enthusiastic about seeing it developed.
Yes, we know, the title does sound "funny". But keep that implied.
Stick to more marketing reasons that both fan and non-fan audiences will have difficulty recognizing the movie, and it may prove more difficult to market.

(The last time Disney challenged us to put-up-or-shut-up a petition was with the complaints against "Princess Mononoke" on disk, back when Disney was convinced we didn't want Studio Ghibli movies either, after another mismarketed box office disaster:
The representative of the Internet-wide petition was told by the head of BVHE to come up with 500 letters by customers who stated that they would eventually buy the disk if released--please note emphasis--and was presented with 50,000.
It worked, but only because it followed established business protocol. They won't pay attention if it doesn't.)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 164
Joined: April 13th, 2009
Contact:

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by ELIOLI » February 21st, 2010, 7:37 pm

Not sure if it has been posted but..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsC18NRKCBs

Thoughts?
http://www.elioliart.com/

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3845
Joined: May 31st, 2005
Location: Maryland

Post by Meg » February 21st, 2010, 10:59 pm

Ah...Hm.

Not really big on the humor, or Rapunzel's voice, or the awful pop songs...Still, this is obviously a really rough trailer so let's hope the final one will play a little less desperately.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Macaluso » February 21st, 2010, 11:01 pm

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! >:O Mandy Moore is perfect in anything
ELIOLI wrote:Not sure if it has been posted but..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsC18NRKCBs

Thoughts?
Dear god, THANK YOU for that. FINALLY. SOME footage from the movie, even if it's incomplete!

Also after seeing that Tangled is WAY more appropriate than Rapunzel

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

Rapunzel or Tangled

Post by Dusterian » February 21st, 2010, 11:54 pm

Yes, THANK YOU for that.

Aside from everything else I said, I forgot to say I didn't think Tangled was the best title. "The Hidden Tower" sounded best to me, mysterious, possibly attracting more boys and other audiences, and still sounding like a classic fairy tale, if not like Rapunzel!

But even with that Trailer, "Rapunzel" still fits. Why? Because it's still the story.

And remember we haven't yet seen the serious moments or heard the moving songs, including the love song the couple and the villain sing...

And don't forget to take another look at those gorgeous painting-looking CGI pictures I posted, too. What did you all think of it when it looked like that? Could it still make it to that by the release date...?
Image

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 6113
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » February 22nd, 2010, 12:06 am

Nice to see some footage!

There is little doubt that the movie could be called Rapunzel; but Tangled is also appropriate, given that the two leads are evidently tangled together in the plot. Really, it's a matter of personal preference--- whether to go with the traditional title or not. I could go either way. And, as even Dusterian points out, we haven't really seen the whole film yet, not even close.

Re: the art posted above--- it looks like concept art, just a few out of hundreds (maybe thousands) created in pre-production. Hard to say how much will be retained. Sure looks nice, though.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8492
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by ShyViolet » February 22nd, 2010, 2:13 am

At first I felt a real resistance to the name change but now I guess I'm getting used to it. I also agree that the quality is what makes the film. (People expressed reserve at MANY movie titles of movies that did very well; Good Will Hunting, Phantom Menace etc...)

Some movies have had great titles and did quite badly (or at least not what was expected): Cutthroat Island, The Postman, Heaven's Gate, Pearl Harbor, Wild Wild West, etc... The Iron Giant was a wonderful film with a pretty great title but as we know things didn't turn out the way they should have.

It's often hard to predict BO but I totally agree that the title isn't everything.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 20982
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » February 22nd, 2010, 7:35 am

I'm sure the pop songs are for the trailer only. And, after seeing that, I'd suggest yet another name change... Rapunzel: Shrek'd!

That's clearly the tone they are going for here, Menken songs or no, and so Tangled will probably work more as a name for this direction. After all, there's nothing to say that they don't later make a more faithful adaptation of Rapunzel, maybe even traditionally.

Has anyone heard any songs from this yet? After hearing those pop songs in the trailer, I'm wondering if Menken's music will be more Little Shop/Hercules/Sister Act stage rock than Broadway show tunes. Whatever else, he'll not want to be repeating himself after Enchanted, which the humor going by in this trailer is certainly pointing towards.

It's fairly obvious with this trailer and the new name that Disney is aiming Tangled to the Enchanted crowd, though if anything is going to kill it, it's going to be the too-similar and overused comic sidekick character, and the same old fall-hit-fall-hit-fall-smash type of slapstick shtick that all animated movies must have nowadays (the only thing this trail didn't show was a zooming through a perspective tunnel or landscape).

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1347
Joined: January 23rd, 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere

Post by eddievalient » February 22nd, 2010, 10:57 am

Just watched the rough "trailer" and personally, I think the movie looks great. I'm a big fan of comedic adventure movies (Galaxy Quest, Men In Black, Bill and Ted, etc) and this looks like it fits the bill nicely. Love the tagline (Rinse, Recue, Repeat). And am I the only one who thinks "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" is a perfect fit? I hope they actually use that song in the movie (the version in the trailer was pretty good IMO).

And to those of you freaking out over PatF's performance, relax. It'll sell a gazillion copies on dvd and Disney will take that as a sign that the audience is there. Besides, as was discussed elsewhere, now that the hand-drawn division has been rebuilt, their next traditional film shouldn't cost anywhere near what PatF did, making profitability more of a sure thing. Don't panic. It'll be okay.
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2
Joined: February 22nd, 2010

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Olorin » February 22nd, 2010, 11:11 am

I'm sorry they've seen fit not to call the movie 'Rapunzel' but it may be that the title 'Tangled' is more apt than we have realised. My understanding was that they solved the story problems that the basic Rapunzel mythos was giving them by conflating the Rapunzel story with a separate Estonian fairy tale, and this is the source of the Flynn Ryder character ...




POSSIBLE SPOILERS



IF this is the case, then the people who have been complaining that Flynn is just a common bandit and not a fairy tale prince can rest easy. He IS a prince by birth, he just doesn't know it. In the Estonian tale, a king & queen agree to give up their first-born child to a witch, but when a son is born to them, they secretly switch the baby for the daughter of a peasant family. The witch gets the baby girl, mistakenly thinking she's a princess, and the true prince grows up to become a bandit. If they really ahve used this tale, I think we can see how Rapunzel would fit in. After all, in original tale, Rapunzel is NOT a princess by birth, but the daughter of peasants. Whatever your feelings about the brand of humour they're using, I for one am glad we're seeing a new breed of Disney princes/heroes with real personality rather than just a horse & a big sword.


I do think that the real issue here is NOT the title change (regretable though that is) but the mind-set behind it. The real loss here is 'The Snow Queen'. If changing it's title to 'Frozen' would get it back into production, I'd be prepared to suck it up. But Disney MUST wake up to trusting their own legacy. Make great, compelling, entertaining movies, based on fairy tales, classic literature or original pitches, and the market them properly and people WILL start coming back in droves. I thought all this test screening/demographic /second-guessing the audience nonsense had gone with all the Corporate Suits that Lassiter sacked. Sadly, it seems not!

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

Rapunzel

Post by Dusterian » February 22nd, 2010, 12:47 pm

As I have said before, it's not a great thing to combine one fairy tale with another fairy tale and call it the same fairy tale. That's why I don't think Aladdin is like Puss in Boots, but the new story parts they invented for it came originally and were pulled from within the original tale.

UNLESS that Estonian tale is the Estonian version of Rapunzel, in which case it's not really a new tale.

I finally realized what I really will lose:

If they don't call it Rapunzel, it won't feel like they did Rapunzel (and if they stray too far from the story, it really won't feel like they did it). Looking at the Animated Classics List, you wouldn't see that they did Rapunzel because you wouldn't see it's name. The Princess and the Frog actually is an alternate title for The Frog Prince that I have heard (though they still strayed too far with that one, too).

Now, I'd love if someday they did do the traditional Disney versions of these tales, but it is very, very unlikely now, you know? And they made such a great tower, and a great villain (from what we have heard) and great music (from what we have heard, by the way Ben yes Menken is going for a 60's rock feel, it was said), that it is like some parts are perfect, but the rest is ruined.

It doesn't feel like we are getting the Disney version of this tale, you know?

And still no addresses for us to send our letters to? PLEASE, ANY SUGGESTIONS!
Image

Post Reply