Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 228
Joined: November 26th, 2005
Location: Birmingham, England
Contact:

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by chernabog » February 23rd, 2010, 5:33 am

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.
I was hoping to stay away from this discussion but this statement really caught my eye. If you truly believe that humour isn't the main draw in animated films today then you're either in denial or running out of reasons to support your argument. Shrek, Madagascar, Over the Hedge, Ice Age, Kung-Fu Panda... You really think these films drew audiences because of their emotional weight? And to say that Beauty and the Beast would have the same effect now is simply not true. Firstly, traditional animation looks dated compared to CG which is the main turn off for children. Secondly, in the 20 years between that film and now there has been a degradation of innocence in family films and a strong tendency towards comedy over pathos. Finally, the musical has fallen largely out of favour since the mid-90s and the occasional success of films like Moulin Rouge and Chicago have merely proven to be the exception, not the rule.

Even if one looks at Pixar's films, as brilliant as they are, there is no denying that there is an overt "cartoony-ness" that features far more prominently in CG than hand-drawn animation. Even Up, for all of its emotional complexity, fails to come close to the dramatic seriousness and maturity of The Lion King, Pocahontas or the Hunchback of Notre Dame. This is not to say that CG is incapable, merely that Toy Story was both a gift and a curse in that it opened the gates for second rate studios to throw up pretty visuals at expense of the story. With the success of the comedy toon and the realisation that they didn't have to copy the Disney formula, these studios have been able to establish a new market for kids who no longer have to turn to Disney for entertainment. Consider the films that attempted to compete with Disney during the 90s. Thumbelina, Fern Gully, Titan A.E.; box office disappointments which failed to steal away the Disney audiences because they attempted to replicate the Disney formula. And coincidentally, these films weren't billed as comedies either. But then a switch to CG comedies and... low and behold, a new market is born.

This entire basis behind this debate has reached an absurd level. So certain people don't like the title. Neither do I. Life goes on. Disney has not said screw you to its fans, it's changed a title. Get over it.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 347
Joined: May 25th, 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Vernadyn » February 23rd, 2010, 3:15 pm

Even if Pixar's films don't carry the emotional weight of the those from the second Disney renaissance (though I think every Pixar film has parts to rival emotion in even the very best live-action films), there is no denying that Pixar has overall been able to achieve a more consistent tone with its films.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Disney films from Little Mermaid to Tarzan as much as Pixar (with the exception of Pocahontas.) But even in Beauty and the Beast there was the slapstick fight with the enchanted objects that led without transition to the dramatic Gaston/Beast/Belle confrontation. Little Mermaid had a cook whose teeth fall out alongside a villain who is stabbed and electrocuted, pieces of her sinking to the ocean floor. Lion King had a farting warthog. Pocahontas had animals that, though well-animated, felt like they were from a totally different movie. And then there were the infamous Hunchback gargoyles. I'm not saying that these are necessarily bad, but one does have to acknowledge the humor in these Disney films that some may find discordant with more serious topics like growing love, the death of a father, racial prejudice, and sexual torment. Of course, Pixar also blends the humorous with the serious, but in their films, it feels a little less out of place because the gap is not quite so large.

Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other. Just making an observation.

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5733
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » February 23rd, 2010, 4:18 pm

I'm glad Vernadyn made those points. I was thinking the same thing, but he stated it very well. Humor is always in these films, and sometimes placed in awkwardly. One cannot say that Disney films, even the modern "classics," totally avoid slapstick and lowbrow humor. If Tangled is more of a comedy, at least the tone may be more consistent.

Again, we haven't seen the film, people. Try to save some vitriol for the premiere. ;)

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

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Jake » February 23rd, 2010, 5:28 pm

I thought the talking dogs in "Up" were completely jarring in tone and style.

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

Rapunzel or Tangled

Post by Dusterian » February 23rd, 2010, 6:53 pm

I think a lot of you, heck everyone, has said some good points and some true stuff.

If The Princess and the Frog was based on The Frog Princess, then it turns out that is yet another misleading title! Because I have heard The Princess and the Frog as another title for The Frog Prince. They probably tried to get the best of both worlds, make people think it's their take on The Frog Prince. It is doubtful they will do the traditional version of The Frog Prince now either way. Sigh.

It will be interesting to see how what was described as a haunting and beautiful ballad from Alan Menken will fit into the film if it is so comedic...

I still say Disney is leaving it's traditions that defined what it was just to get more audiences that are probably less sophisticated, and less caring. They could still do that with any film, as long as it's not Pooh or the fairy tales, the already established Disney kinds of stories. I'd love to see them get wacky and more different, but with their own original stories, not a classic, not the types of stories they've done classically in the past.

Anyway, I still would like to know how to at least try to get Disney to keep the original title, just to try. EricJ, so now what do you propose we do?
Image

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5733
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Randall » February 23rd, 2010, 7:12 pm

Jake wrote:I thought the talking dogs in "Up" were completely jarring in tone and style.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one! I stuck with them okay for a while, but once they started flying planes, that pretty much lost me.

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5733
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Re: Rapunzel or Tangled

Post by Randall » February 23rd, 2010, 7:24 pm

Dusterian wrote:It will be interesting to see how what was described as a haunting and beautiful ballad from Alan Menken will fit into the film if it is so comedic...
I'm sure there will be different tones to the film. Just think--- if Disney advertised Aladdin as a comedy (which it was, in many ways), then "A Whole New World" would have seemed like a puzzling choice before seeing the film. As it was, it all worked beautifully. I'm sure it'll all come together in the end for Rapunzel/Tangled.
Dusterian wrote:They could still do that with any film, as long as it's not Pooh or the fairy tales, the already established Disney kinds of stories. I'd love to see them get wacky and more different, but with their own original stories, not a classic, not the types of stories they've done classically in the past.
I totally get this argument (though I think there's room for both approaches). However, we don't know for sure that Tangled will be any different than the TLM/B&B/Aladdin trilogy--- some comedy, but also heart and action. Too early to say for sure, even from that early footage. How it's marketed may bear little relation to how the movie actually looks when complete. (And I know--- if that's the case, then "Rapunzel" for a title would have been fine. Not disagreeing there.) Until then, it's all conjecture. (Funny how we've gone from "it should have been called Rapunzel because it's a classic take" to "it's not a classic take, and that's bad", just based on a little leaked footage. :) )

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

Re: Rapunzel or Tangled

Post by EricJ » February 23rd, 2010, 10:37 pm

Dusterian wrote:If The Princess and the Frog was based on The Frog Princess, then it turns out that is yet another misleading title! Because I have heard The Princess and the Frog as another title for The Frog Prince. They probably tried to get the best of both worlds, make people think it's their take on The Frog Prince. It is doubtful they will do the traditional version of The Frog Prince now either way. Sigh.
Anyway, I still would like to know how to at least try to get Disney to keep the original title, just to try. EricJ, so now what do you propose we do?
I gave the address, start writing. :D
(And again, about queries how to write, and save the soapboxing for when they respond...They'll certainly get the point if they see you're concerned about asking, especially if you play the "May be difficult to market" angle.)

Oh, and btw, Eddie was correct, P&tF was based on E.D. Baker's book--
The title change may have had to do with not giving away plot spoilers, OR it may have had to do with legally distancing themselves from any obligations springing from a strict book adaptation, seeing as the movie shared almost no similarity whatsoever, except for the title, the backwards-kiss concept, a swamp journey, and a few fly-catching gags.
We'll never know, but Rapunzel was very definitely changed because of Fear.

(And as for Pooh, that definitely sounds like Lasseter got on his Studio-Image Principle again, and wanted to reclaim the franchise back from preschool cable shows and give us old-schoolers'--like his--memories of Sebastian Cabot narration, to flagship the new 2-D renaissance.
As commented, it's going to take a miracle to sell that one to the public nowadays, and they may even fall short of the brass ring, but at least I'm not jumping on the "Run out of ideas" bandwagon quite yet until we see the production art.)

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

Rapunzel

Post by Dusterian » February 24th, 2010, 2:48 pm

Jim Hill said:
As for the reason that Disney opted to change “Rapunzel” ‘s title to “Tangled” … According to the Mouse’s market research, it would seem that – outside of the United States & Germany – the story of Rapunzel itself has very little name recognition. More to the point, even those among surveyed who actually recognized Rapunzel’s name, these people had little or no knowledge of what her fairy tale was actually about. They knew that this story featured a princess with long hair who was trapped in a tower. But beyond that … zippo
But he also mentions The Princess and the Frog's underperformance and title as bing an in-house reason, too, and that they will heavily market the film towards boys in previews, so that seems to be the reason, too. From http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... -tale.aspx


I'm going to write to them. Can anyone tell me if there's any changes I should make to this?:

Dear (who should I address it to?),
I have heard that the title of Disney's 50th animated classic of the story Rapunzel has changed from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled".

We have been told that this change was made to get bigger audiences, because according to market research, people in other countries don't know the story of Rapunzel outside of the U.S. and Germany. But the other countries are going to retitle the film, as they have with many other Disney films including The Princess and the Frog. France is already planning on calling this film in their country "Princess Rapunzel" in their language.

We also heard that the reason the title was changed was to get more male audience members to see it.

But no one will know what "Tangled" is from the title. If people in some countries don't know what Rapunzel is, they definately will not know what Tangled is even more so! It is only the trailers, previews, and advertisements that will tell them what the film is about and if they want to see it or not. So you could keep the name "Rapunzel" and sell the film how you want in the trailers, previews, and advertisements. That is what will sell the film, not the title, though the name recognition of Rapunzel would help.

Another good title might also be "Rapunzel and the Thief", which has the male character boys will like in the title, and which sounds more like Disney's other films, like the title of the first Disney film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, and also like Beauty and the Beast. But the title "Rapunzel" will be the name most people recognize, and the name of the story that the film is telling.

I have asked people, boys and girls, if they are excited to see the new Disney film "Tangled" coming out and they made faces and said they didn't know what that was. When I said it was about Rapunzel they got excited and said they had seen pictures and wanted to see it.

I am looking very forward to the film, and I hope it is a smash success the likes of the past Disney fairy tales which were huge hits!

Sincerely,
(my name)

What do you think?
Image

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

Re: Rapunzel

Post by EricJ » February 24th, 2010, 6:14 pm

Dusterian wrote: Dear (who should I address it to?),

We have been told that this change was made to get bigger audiences, because according to market research, people in other countries don't know the story of Rapunzel outside of the U.S. and Germany. But the other countries are going to retitle the film, as they have with many other Disney films including The Princess and the Frog. France is already planning on calling this film in their country "Princess Rapunzel" in their language.
What do you think?
Nice focus--Stick to audience title identification/marketability, and there'll be more of a nice, rational united front.

And again, until they give us a name to go on, put Iger's name on top and Lasseter's name second, and it'll lkely be forwarded down as needed. Oh, and Beautiful Downtown Burbank, in case anyone's forgotten. :D

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

Post by Macaluso » February 24th, 2010, 7:39 pm

"But no one will know what "Tangled" is from the title. Sure they'll figure it out when they see the poster, commercials, previews, merchandise, dvd cover, art books, simple searches on google, but they won't know from the TITLE"

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

Post by EricJ » February 24th, 2010, 8:02 pm

With any luck, they'll even know it was a Disney movie--
There was supposed to be some fairytale-spoof sequel to "Hoodwinked" coming out, after all...

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

Rapunzel

Post by Dusterian » February 24th, 2010, 11:53 pm

Macaluso, that was my point! I guess we agree on that one!

As long as no one thinks anything I wrote is going to hurt the chances, I think I'll send it that way with very little changes.

I just want to know who's name to write after the "Dear" part. Do you mean it should look like:

Dear Bob Iger
John Lassseter

?

If I could have an example that would be cool.
Image

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

Re: Rapunzel

Post by Macaluso » February 25th, 2010, 12:15 am

Dusterian wrote:Macaluso, that was my point! I guess we agree on that one!
What no, we don't agree. That was my whole point

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

Re: Rapunzel

Post by EricJ » February 25th, 2010, 12:24 am

Dusterian wrote:I just want to know who's name to write after the "Dear" part. Do you mean it should look like:
.
I put the salutation address as:
Robert Iger, CEO
cc: John Lasseter, Chief Creative Director,
The Walt Disney Company, (etc.)

and continued the letter as "Dear Mr. Iger"...Figured it'd be handed to anybody else if he didn't read it. :D

Post Reply