Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 493
Joined: November 11th, 2007
Location: NY

Re:

Post by Foxtale » September 16th, 2010, 10:41 pm

Bill1978 wrote: I understand (but don't condone) Disney Marketing focusing on Flynn to get the boys but damn Rapunzel has really sold the movie to me with these new trailers.

Once again to hide it from boys who clearly hate musicals. Hopefully it doesn't get any of the Sweeney Todd type backlash for hiding the singing.
I was afraid of that as well. Instead of marketing is as a princess singing movie (which it partly is) boys and many people might get annoyed when it has singing and a lot of "princess" in it. :P I personally won't be one of them but I'm afraid that it might happen. I guess they can't win. Market it as princess, get not as good of an audience turnout. Market it incorrectly and get upset viewers. I'm just hoping its so good that those people won't care (but knowing the pig headedness of some people it will).



By the way, I have proof that their marketing towards Flynn is working..... I posted the link on facebook, one of my friends who has no idea about the movie saw it and left a really long post on my facebook wall. Here is what he said, " I'll admit, I do enjoy a Disney movie with the Prince character being the main character." he said some other things but after seeing the trailer he believes the movie is about Flynn..... who is the main character and a prince. :P
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/Foxtale/almostthere_signature_smaller.jpg[/img]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 608
Joined: January 22nd, 2007

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Whippet Angel » September 17th, 2010, 7:27 am

A bunch of high-res concept art

http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-new ... rt-stills/

Am I the only one who wonders how uncomfortable it must be to spend an entire film running around with no shoes? :P

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 398
Joined: May 28th, 2009
Contact:

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by estefan » September 17th, 2010, 11:28 am

Whippet Angel wrote: Am I the only one who wonders how uncomfortable it must be to spend an entire film running around with no shoes? :P
Well, those hobbits spent three hours in three films each doing just that. Rapunzel is going to doing so for only 90 minutes (and she has the advantage of having magical hair :) ).

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1519
Joined: December 16th, 2004
Location: Burbank, Calif.

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by droosan » September 17th, 2010, 1:17 pm

Whippet Angel wrote:Am I the only one who wonders how uncomfortable it must be to spend an entire film running around with no shoes? :P
Personally, I wear shoes as little as possible. I find I'm most uncomfortable when I've had to wear 'em for more than an hour, or so.

Rapunzel's feet in those promo stills seem almost as awesomely expressive as Tarzan's..! :mrgreen:

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 432
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dusterian » September 17th, 2010, 5:57 pm

High-heeled shoes are different from more comfortable shoes, and Rapunzel actually has comfortable, non-high-heel shoes on the dolls.

The trailers...not good enough. If they mixed up the action and Flynness with story, emotion, and Rapunzel and Gothelness, then the trailer would actually be good.

Can anyone believe this is Disney's 50th animated feature? If it really was, I would say it would (seamlessly/successfully) mix hand-drawn with CGI, just freaking look better and more Disney, tell a story a little more faithful to the original, be more classic, mixing the old and new forms of Disney's past movies, and of course have the title "Rapunzel". But, nope. I guess one thing's more important, that it makes money, and I tell you, I think it would make more money with the things I suggested.
Image

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5325
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » September 17th, 2010, 11:06 pm

Well, that's why they're calling it "Tangled," Dust. Because it's clearly not the story of "Rapunzel." ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 25
Joined: September 5th, 2010

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Tristy » September 18th, 2010, 12:39 am

Well, i looked through the tie-in books (yeah I shouldn't but I'm a sucker for those kinds of things) and --Surprise! Surprise!-- Rapunzel IS the main character from start to finish. It is all told from her perspective.

Look out guys! I think Disney's got another Tim Burton/Johnny Depp/Alice in Wonderland false advertising ploy on their hands!

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

Post by Macaluso » September 18th, 2010, 6:50 am

Still looks good so who cares??

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

Post by ELIOLI » September 18th, 2010, 10:43 am

I know. I know. I've mentioned this many times before. It really bugs me that so many people look at the trailer and actually think that's how the movie is going to be. I'm sure when everybody saw HTTYD's trailer, they assumed that it looked like another one of those pop-culture infested Dreaworks knock-offs, right? And now look at the positive reaction from the critics and audiences. I'm sure people are going to be the same with Tangled. They will be surprised. (Although I watched Alpha and Omega's trailer, and that one is an exception of a bad trailer. You can actually tell what was going to go wrong. Well, for me anyway. :( )
People should learn by now not to judge from a trailer..for the whole entire movie!!!

And look. So what Disney didn't make it in 2D. I'm sure it would look beautiful, but now it's in CG. And it looks awesome. Life goes on. If you want to change the way movies are made..go make one yourself in your way..just sayin'. ;) It's not going to help by complaining about it :(
http://www.elioliart.com/

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 25
Joined: September 5th, 2010

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Tristy » September 18th, 2010, 12:12 pm

And what about the trailers for Hunchback of Notre Dame. Yeah. I know that was earlier. But that was another example. The trailers made it look like a knockabout comedy with gargoyles and soldiers getting hit in the groin, and while the final product did have those, they weren't the main focus.

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

Post by ELIOLI » September 18th, 2010, 12:16 pm

Exactly what I was saying tristy...umm..yeah.
Anyway. :/
http://www.elioliart.com/

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

Re:

Post by Macaluso » September 18th, 2010, 2:22 pm

ELIOLI wrote:I'm sure when everybody saw HTTYD's trailer, they assumed that it looked like another one of those pop-culture infested Dreaworks knock-offs, right? And now look at the positive reaction from the critics and audiences.
I don't think so, because the trailer presented itself exactly how the movie was. People just assumed it was full of pop-culture references and stuff because... well, Dreamworks.

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5325
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » September 18th, 2010, 2:24 pm

Trailers are supposed to give you an impression of what a movie's going to be like. That's why if "Tangled" is marketed as a comedy more than anything, people are going to expect it to be that way.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

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

Re:

Post by Foxtale » September 18th, 2010, 3:32 pm

Macaluso wrote:Still looks good so who cares??
I agree! :D
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/Foxtale/almostthere_signature_smaller.jpg[/img]

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

Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)

Post by ELIOLI » September 18th, 2010, 3:36 pm

Dacey wrote:Trailers are supposed to give you an impression of what a movie's going to be like. That's why if "Tangled" is marketed as a comedy more than anything, people are going to expect it to be that way.
A movie with some comedy, but I haven't seen one thing in the trailers hinting a musical.And I hope it goes well when the people realize it isn't JUST a comedy.I really hope it doesn't trun people off when they watch it. :/ So not all trailers always make out what the movie will be like..just part of it. My parents don't even know it's a musical yet. :D
and..
Macaluso wrote:
ELIOLI wrote:I'm sure when everybody saw HTTYD's trailer, they assumed that it looked like another one of those pop-culture infested Dreaworks knock-offs, right? And now look at the positive reaction from the critics and audiences.
I don't think so, because the trailer presented itself exactly how the movie was. People just assumed it was full of pop-culture references and stuff because... well, Dreamworks.
I see what you mean, but there are always a small bunch of people for some reason claiming it had 'lame jokes' or whatnot that were in the trailer. Just a small group. I never saw it, and I guess that's what I meant by some people's quick judgements on some trailers. But yes you're right.
Last edited by ELIOLI on September 18th, 2010, 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.elioliart.com/

Post Reply