Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5804
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » July 1st, 2010, 1:06 am

Okay, they're Walden movies, but he's saying that the first seemed like "Disney". Will Dawn Treader not seem like Disney, because it lacks the Disney name?

I think we all know the "Disney magic" you're referring too. And we believe in it. We just can't grasp that it can only come out of a studio founded by the guy. Lots of other filmmakers were inspired by Disney, and they work in a variety of places. In fact, in some ways, one might be more successful doing "Disney" if one didn't have to work under the current regime, for all their best intentions.

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

Post by Dusterian » July 2nd, 2010, 12:49 pm

Yes.

Well, I still only believe that the people at Disney can make Disney magic. I think even the people at Disney don't always make Disney magic, that's how special it is. And no, Narnia didn't feel that Disney magical to me.

Let's just say I believe in something very specific. It can't just be made anywhere. And like the most magical Disney films, which always talk about believing and holding onto it, I will.
Image

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5644
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » July 2nd, 2010, 1:39 pm

And no, Narnia didn't feel that Disney magical to me.
That's sort of beside the point of what I was trying to say, but anyway...

I feel like this topic is starting to go around in circles, so I see no reason in adding anymore points.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 7288
Joined: October 16th, 2004
Contact:

Post by James » July 2nd, 2010, 5:19 pm

Yes, it's probably time to either get back to Tangled, or start a new "Disney Magic" topic. This thread is way off topic for the past several pages!

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

Post by Foxtale » July 7th, 2010, 10:27 pm

So Tangled... I saw the same trailer before TS3, besides some stills and toys any other news? All the artists that have worked on it have been tight lipped. ;P
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/Foxtale/almostthere_signature_smaller.jpg[/img]

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19948
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » July 8th, 2010, 9:58 am

My local theater just got a UK trailer in, but he's not showing it until on the front of TS3. I'll look forward to that, though, and to seeing a bit of Rapungled in 3D.

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

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dusterian » July 21st, 2010, 3:41 pm

Macaluso the point of labels is so you know who made what. Labels are supposed to mean something, and they did back when Walt Disney was alive. Maybe not on all merchandise but he tried to put quality and special magical feelings into all he oversaw that he labeled. During the renaissance they also did that but now today Disney is losing it.

However, they have made quality, magical feeling CGI and concept art in these new images:

Image

Image
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3683
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by EricJ » July 21st, 2010, 4:34 pm

ShyViolet wrote:As Ben said, L & S actually had a very Disney feel to it: the loneliness of the protagonist (s) and their need to fit in and be loved, dead parents, and the essential goodness of the characters.
Walt believed that ANY project could be redeemed by yanking a few heartstrings, and he would've fallen for the mushy ugly-duckling and aloha-oe stuff like everyone else.
As far as "wacky experimental style", however, sorry, he would have kicked American Dog out the door faster than Lasseter did. If Walt originally turned down "Bedknobs & Broomsticks" for being threadbare, what chance did wacky self-indulgent Quirkiness have?

But getting back to Tanzeled, it would still have to be All About Character, and keep more of the fairytale intact.
The project's fighting its own "Rapunzel Unbraided" nature and trying to come to grips with it, but think Walt would have supported its struggle to make something a little more coherent out of itself.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 821
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Bill1978 » July 22nd, 2010, 1:00 am

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before but one of the reasons why I'm excited about Tangled is that it will be the first true CG animated theatrically released musical (I think so anyway). I've always wondered why the musical was never used in the CG style of animation.

On that light over at imdb, there is a thread that mentions one of the song titles. It's called
I Can See The Lights
which apparently is the duet between Flynn and Rapunzel. I saw a another title over at Wikipedia that even had a citation but it's been removed. I can't remember the title exactly but it came from some toy fair where the Rapunzel doll sang her song from the movie, apparently there is a new range of princess dolls where they sing their song from the movie. Not too sure why the info got deleted as it seemed pretty legit. There was also another song title mentioned but the site was in Spanish and I had no idea how accurate that was.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 40
Joined: April 5th, 2008

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Wolf » July 28th, 2010, 10:28 am

Featurette - A Tangled World: Creating the Look


AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 821
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Bill1978 » July 28th, 2010, 7:38 pm

Thanks for posting that clip. The clip of Rapunzel running through the forest is absolutely gorgeous. The stuff I'm seeing. combined with the news of some of the song titles, makes me wish it was November already. I really think Disney is onto a winner here.

And another clip I found posted at imdb, this time rough animation that is being shown as Disney Hollywodd Studios. You even get to see Gothel


User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19948
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » July 30th, 2010, 2:42 pm

It's funny...seeing that featurette (which'll probably turn up on the video disc release anyway :roll:) almost got me to thinking that maybe the movie should be called Rapunzel.

BUT...then I started to think - and this is something I've been meaning to mention here for a while - that it is perhaps 100% correct for this film not to be named Rapunzel. Why? Because "Rapunzel" is a straight-told version of the fairytale that was conceived and to be directed by Glen Keane.

That film basically doesn't exist anymore, or otherwise we'd be complaining that Keane has had his dream project taken away from him, etc, etc. That already happened. After many false starts and delays while he attempted to get CGI to mimic traditional hand animation, and more false starts while they tried to hammer the story issues out (trying to please his attempts to make a straight Beauty And The Beast in CG alongside the studio's wishes that fairytales could only be approached as self-aware comedies after Shrek), he was eventually taken off the film as director.

I think, by that point, the studio's Shrek take had won over (though Keane managed to kill the contemporary spun bookends) and the Rapunzel Unbraided title had been adopted. By this point, the film wasn't "Glen Keane's Rapunzel" anymore, and it never would be.

While his naturalistic, hand-drawn CG style seems to have almost survived apart from a slightly simplified look, this isn't the film he set out to make. As such, it wouldn't really be right to call the film Rapunzel, whatever directions the story takes.

Sorry to bring up the sore point of these title shenanigans again, but it just hit me the other day: Rapunzel was Glen Keane's film, and this isn't that anymore. And it isn't the interim Rapunzel Unbraided. Just as Bolt wasn't Amercian Dog (and not the later studio considered Hollywood Dog).

While it may have started as Rapunzel, and while that may still work very well as a title (as we have seen with some European marketing), Tangled - the best of all the alternate titles, everyone has to agree (to think it could have been called "Hair" as in those wonderful tests; is that Menken's score on that? Wow!) - is the result of what this film is. And from the looks of it, even from that featurette, I think it's going to suit this film very well.

"What's Tangled?" / "It's Disney's comedy take on Rapunzel" is the right way to go, since it's not Disney's (and certainly not Glen Keane's) straight take on Rapunzel. If for nothing else, the title change shouldn't be putting people off this movie, which looks stunning otherwise.

If Disney's marketers feel this is the way for a good movie to find its audience and - hey! - put Disney back on the map in terms of feature animation, which this looks set to do nicely as Lasseter's first "real" CG project since he took over (or at least the one he was around for to rebuild from the ground up), then that's a small thing to accept.

And it still allows Disney to make a straight version of Rapunzel - called Rapunzel - in 20 to 30 years! ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 821
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Bill1978 » July 30th, 2010, 10:19 pm

I'm glad you bought the issue of the title back up Ben as I too have been thinking recently about the title change. The reasons you have given for it make absolute perfect sense. More sense than the reasons the directors recently made about the stpry not just being about Rapunzel but Flynn as well. And even though that's the official PR line, I'll admit I'm buying it and prefer it to the boys won't go see see princess movies line.

I also think that possibly subconsciously it was changed from Rapunzel to Tangled to help avoid silly people thinking it was about a different Rapunzel. Remember Rapunzel was evil in Shrek The Third and possibly there are people out there who may have thought that this movie was about Shrek's Rapunzel. Sure we here know the difference between Disney and Dreamworks but I could give you plenty of examples where people think Shrek is Disney or Pixar. And really are those people going to take their kids to see a movie about an evil princess who wasn't really that memorable in the film

The other thought I've had is that by changing it to Tangled you will help those dopey parents who think that their daughter has already seen Rapunzel, cause they rented Barbie as Rapunzel, go to the cinema because Tangled doesn't conjure up the Rapunzel story straight away.

On another note, I am loving the teaser poster. It is definitely aimed at the older crowd. And all the concept art and footage I'm seeing I really do think Disney has a winner here. And in my fantasy world that I like to live in, it's going to thrown down a major challenge to Toy Story 3 for that coveted little golden guy. But then I think I'm currently being blinded by the concept of having another full blown Alan Menken musical arriving this year.

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

Disney's Tangled or Rapunzel?

Post by Dusterian » July 30th, 2010, 11:46 pm

Well...remember that Glen Keane is still working on this, overseeing the animtion, and helping it look as 2-D and as painterly as it is, which may not be as much as was originally, but is at least still there.

Also, remember, it started out as Rapunzel, became Rapunzel Unbraided, then became Rapunzel again, and then, what really happened was marketing told them to change it to Tangled, which the directors didn't decide or want to do.

Also, this film looks amazing now, and I don't see why they would make another Rapunzel after this.

So, for all of this, aside from the other reason being that this really is still very much about Rapunzel and her story...it could still, and yes, I'm going to say it, should still be called Rapunzel. I mean, in an interview they said they wanted to make the definitive version of Rapunzel like all the previous Disney fairy tales. It can't be the definitive version of Rapunzel if it's not called Rapunzel, or like those past films if it doesn't keep the traditional naming they had.

Ben, what about Glen doing Beauty and the Beast in CGI?! I know that one test for this film's look included making Snow White's watercolor background of the cottage in CGI, meaning it looked like the original 2-D painting, but then it moved in 3-dimensions. At least I heard. But that seems to have been all but tossed out, as the painterly look seems only mildy in this now.
Image

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19948
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » August 1st, 2010, 7:26 am

As I said, it could still very well be called Rapunzel, but the fact is that it's not a straight version of the story and it's not Keane's original vision either. My point was that if had to be called Tangled to draw in an audience (Bill raises some good comparison points as well, though I'm not sure I buy the Shrek connection) then there are many reasons to consider this a not-so-terrible change.

Also, I never said Glen Keane was doing Beauty And The Beast in CG. And it's clear that, while he remains solidly on the film, the traditional look is down to him even if it has been rendered a little more simply, presumably because of budgetary reasons.

Post Reply