Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Ben]

Here's a suggestion:

It's best to do these things as "officially" generic as possible, so dually care of Robert Iger and of John Lasseter at the central offices at the WD Studio in Burbank, California. 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.

[disneybelgium]

Damn, they took the trailer down before i had a change to look at it...

Did anyone save it?

Any place we can see it again?

[Foxtale]

noooooo, the two days I neglect to check the forum and a sneak peek gets posted and taken down >.<

*sits in the corner and waits patiently for an official teaser*

[Olorin]

Well, clearly, Dusterian, the Estonian tale is NOT a version of Rapunzel, as my synopsis indicated. Actually, having gone back & checked Andrew Lang who reproduced the Estonian tale in his Violet Fairy Book, I see it was a creepy old man and not a witch in that version, and it plays out differently with a series of formulaic tasks to be accomplishes, but it's the set-up that Disney needed to borrow in order to make their Rapunzel work.

Really, there is nothing new in this approach for Disney. The fairlytale classics that Walt made often varied greatly from the source material. Cinderella is often quoted as being Walt's personal favorite, but more than half the movie focuses on the mice's struggle against Lucifer, which is certainly not in the original. And why? Because fairytales are pretty stripped down folk narratives and don't provide enough material for a feature length movie. Aladdin owed every bit as much to the 1940 Alexander Korda movie The Thief of Baghdad as it did to The Arabian Nights (in which Aladdin was originally Chinese!), so it's certainly nothing new to graft material from elsewhere. Similarly the Household Objects in Beauty & the Beast were a development of the Invisible Servants in Jean Cocteau's movie version, but have no basis in the original Perrault tale.

I do wholeheartedly agree that the title should have been left as 'Rapunzel', but seriously - it's just a name! 'A rose by any other name would smell as sweet'. Disney will never again produce those 'classic' or 'straight' takes on traditional fairy tales because we live in a different age. They belong to a more innocent time. Yes, they still enthrall children today on DVD, but they would never find a theatre audience. The Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast and Aladdin ALL put 'a fresh new spin' on the classic stories, because if they hadn't, they would not have found an audience in the '90s and we wouldn't be having this debate now because Disney Feature Animation would have been wound up 10-15 years ago. I'd predict that in 10 or 20 years time, TP&tF AND Rapunzel/Tangled will be looked back upon as defining versions of these tales because the Disney brand tends to redefine the stories for a new generation.

The jitters that the studio are currently feeling, which has led to the cancellation of The Snow Queen, are the real problem here. The Rapunzel/Tangled issue is just a symptom of the real issue that we should be addressing. My own feeling is that the Winnie the Pooh movie will absolutely TANK at the box office, in terms of the studio's inflated expectations, because if they were disappointed that not enough 8-12 year old boys went to see The Frog, wait until they see the tumbleweed reaction old Pooh's going to produce in any child over the age of 6. Now presumably Lassiter has a plan for this, claiming it's going to appeal to the whole family rather than just toddlers (and they've made the Hundred Acre Wood look like genuine English woodland! ?!?!). Well, THAT is going to require a promotional strategy of blinding genius if it's going to overcome public perceptions that are so entrenched of a brand name associated with very young kids. Well, good luck with that one, John, because if you can pull off THAT little marketing miracle, selling a fairytale like Rapunzel or The Snow Queen as broad family fare would have been a doddle.

[chernabog]

I agree entirely with Olorin.

[chernabog]

Having seen the new title logo (which I'm really not keen on) I have to admit that it would suggest Disney is going for a more comical tone than had previously been intended. Obviously still cannot make any real judgments as of yet, but based purely on this new title font Tangled seems to be far more appropriate.

[Macaluso]

noooooo, the two days I neglect to check the forum and a sneak peek gets posted and taken down >.<

*sits in the corner and waits patiently for an official teaser*

http://videolog.uol.com.br/video.php?id=520286

here you go

[Foxtale]

Yay! Thanks Macaluso! (I must have watched that segment 20 times by now. )

I love seeing things in this stage where its a composite of pieces at various stages of being complete. It always warms my heart to see "traditional" story boarding. Looks like it is going to be a fun movie. I just hope they don't go too overboard on the silliness, but since this is a "trailer" I feel like movies nowadays like to play up the silly and funny gags to try and get people into the theaters.


Do they want to get rid of any verbal/textual association to the name Rapunzel? At the end of the clip, instead of saying "rapunzel, rapunzel let down your long hair," he just says "let down your long hair."

[chernabog]

The trailer looks pretty good, although I'm hoping it's a bit more than just a romantic comedy. It does seem to focus more on Flynn and it's not particularly obvious that the female is actually Rapunzel. I have a real problem with the music. A few smplaes from the soundrack would have been a lot better or at least some classic Disney score laid over it. I'd rather there'd been a voice-over as well to add a bit of the classic Disney feel, but as this is a rough version it's possible a lot will change. Still, it's nice to finally see something.

[estefan]

I think the reason for the DreamWorks-esque trailer is to get people to see it. Let's be honest. The Princess and the Frog grosses were a tad under-whelming. So, I think they are going to try even harder to make people see Tangled. And considering the people who did see Frog liked it a whole lot, I expect Tangled to do better.

I do agree with Olorin on Winnie the Pooh. I don't think Disney should expect a gross higher than how The Tigger Movie did (though, considering how pleased they were with Tigger's grosses, I don't think they will be too disappointed with how Pooh does).

[chernabog]

To be fair, Pooh is being produced with a $35 million budget which is pretty small by today's standards. It shouldn't be hard for it to break even and then make a reasonable profit, even if it doesn't exactly set the box office on fire. Even if it only manages to match TPATF's $200 million + (and counting) take, that's still more than 6 times it's original cost.

I'm more concerned about Tangled tbh. If it doesn't manage to pass the $300 million mark worldwide, then Lasseter is going to have a real problem on his hands figuring out exactly what options are left for the company.

[Bill1978]

The one day that I'm too busy to surf the net and a trailer gets put up and then pulled down. And since I'm at work I can't access the new link until I get home. Anyone want to guess what I'll be doing this afternoon?? So pumped to seeing it.

[EricJ]

Here's a suggestion:

It's best to do these things as "officially" generic as possible, so dually care of Robert Iger and of John Lasseter at the central offices at the WD Studio in Burbank, California. 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.

And if anyone's tried it, then you know that nobody answering the phones over there seems to know either--
So, I tried going back to the first suggestion, dually addressing it to:
Robert Iger, CEO
cc: John Lasseter, Chief Creative Director
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista
Burbank, CA 91521

(And again, just about what it would take to get one started, and save all the fanboy soapboxing until after whether we know for certain that they want to hear it.)

[Dusterian]

Oh Olorin...

There is a difference in two things: one, gtting creative by coming up with stuf originally that fits the story, and getting ideas for the story...from other versions of the story. Which according to you are what Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast did, but not what Rapunzel, or Tangled is doing. By the way, Beauty and the Beast was by Madame Le Prince de Beaumont, not Perrault.

Walt Disney took the mice that were already in the story, and also borrowing from the German version of the tale, he had them help Cinderella as the animals did in that version. Yes, the beginning seen with getting food is not as necessary or based in the original descriptions of the tale, but I think ou will agree, if a tale has little description, you can put in lots more stuff, as long as it still comes from within the tale as the mice were always in the original tale.

But that Estonian tale is not another version of Rapunzel, it's a whole different fairy tale.

And once again I say, it's like we're not getting the Disney version of Rapunzel, but some new twisted thing, it's hardly very Disney at all, by the looks of it. But a different title makes it like they aren't doing Rapunzel, they're doing something...well, called Tangled. If you look at the Animated Classics list, you won't see the name Rapunzel.

And the 90's films were not that different, they still told the stories and had the original titles. But what one Earth makes you think different audiences means more slapstick and whacky humor and a new, funny title? What makes you think audiences wouldn't want another Beauty and the Beast? If that serious, dramatic film came out now instead of back then...it would still be smash. If mainly by word of mouth, so be it.

If Disney needs to dumb itself down to survive with new audiences, they can do that with some movies. They can do that to any movies other than the fairy tales. They can do that to the movie that comes after Rapunzel. Hell, they have Pixar's money to take profit from. They can make a classic fairy tale because that is them, that is what they have become known for, they can do it for the Disney fans and for the smarter, more appreciating audiences, the kind that may nominate it for Academy Awards. Hell, if it did as well as The Princess and the Frog, that would not be a bad thing at all!

So we're not getting the proper Disney versions of The Frog Prince or Rapunzel. Disney just said "screw it" to their loving fans and their own past, they said "screw it" to who they were, even though they could make any kind of movie they want in between those classics or depend on Pixar for the giant profits they want, while the classically done films would probably get lots of money anyway, if they just did them like that again, because that way was so damn good, and got freaking nominated for Best Picure.

[eddievalient]

Um...Have you seen Patf? At all? They weren't doing the "Disney version" of The Frog Prince. They were doing the Disney version of The Frog Princess by E.D. Baker. It says so right there in the end credits. And just because they're not doing the "traditional" take on Rapunzel, that's no reason to assume that it's going to be a bad movie. They are allowed to be original when they want to be. And if Olorin turns out to be correct and they're fusing elements from two different stories, that's okay too because it makes the film unpredictable and that can only be an asset. Personally, based on what we've seen so far, I think Tangled is kind of daring precisely because it's not the kind of film we would expect Disney to do. It's different (for them). So I say, go for it! I hope the film is as good as it looks (if it is, I bet they have a major hit on their hands).