Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Post by Dusterian » November 19th, 2010, 1:42 pm

Don't worry EricJ, I agree with that.

Macaluso, I still think you know what I really mean, and The Lion King isn't really trying to be Hamlet, it's just partly inspired by it, as it is inspired by Bambi.

Estefan, so, you like the books but you won't see the rest of the films that you have stuck with for so long, just because of the direction? Geeze. You'd think you'd want to at least finish what you started with those versions of the characters.

Tristy, that new trailer is better in many ways, but also...there hasn't really been any trailer that I think is particularly good from this movie. I suppose this is the best one, but I think the editing and specific choice of clips could still be better.
Image

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

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Vernadyn » November 19th, 2010, 4:41 pm

The CD soundtrack was released Tuesday and I gave it a listen. I'm going to wait to see the movie before I judge it completely, but for now, I think it's a step below Enchanted (which I enjoyed almost as much as Aladdin) in terms of the quality and memorability of the melodies. Mandy Moore's singing voice felt a wee bit off in some places, but Zachary Levi does quite well with the little singing he's been given. Donna Murphy is great, even if her song is a more lighthearted version of Frollo's prelude to "Out There" (in content, not in melody). The score is standard Menken; listenable, with some brief but impressive action tracks, yet not reaching the mighty heights of Hunchback and Beauty or the finale of Enchanted. I have a feeling that the songs especially will grow on me after seeing the film, but for now, I think it's one of Menken's lesser efforts. That said, he is the guy who brought us Mermaid, Beauty, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, and Enchanted! (Haven't heard Home on the Range). It's still a decent listen, and possibly even a great one for some.

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

Post by Foxtale » November 19th, 2010, 11:49 pm

That Japanese trailer is so much better than the American ones. :P
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v188/Foxtale/almostthere_signature_smaller.jpg[/img]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by EricJ » November 20th, 2010, 2:24 am

Vernadyn wrote:That said, he is the guy who brought us Mermaid, Beauty, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, and Enchanted! (Haven't heard Home on the Range).
(Actually, the Menken music was arguably the best part of Home on the Range: :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg6LBOGdyZ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKFz8hnietw )

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

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by ELIOLI » November 20th, 2010, 10:09 am

A little bit off topic, but some current art from me is in the process :) or...from Eli anyway. It will be good quality work don't worry!

And why are all trailers better than U.S? Yeah..no need to explain :/
http://www.elioliart.com/

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8293
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by ShyViolet » November 20th, 2010, 8:18 pm

I'd love for Tangled to do well, and am greatly looking forward to seeing it, but the truth is I'm just not that hopeful about its prospects.

The parts of early reviews posted earlier have partially confirmed what I already feared were factors in this film: breathtaking visuals (with Keane how could there not be?) but also the cute factor mixed with "attitude" (the "this isn't another old-fashioned Disney fairy tale/animal adventure, but it's really hip and the girl won't be pushed around!" vibe) which I suspected from the trailers but was very much hoping was not representative of the whole film. I'm sure it's NOT, but so far early reports have indicated that the spirit of the clips are part of the film's basic vibe. Once again, playing it safe.

It's just such a shame. I mean, a lot of this actually began in 1988. When Oliver and Company came out, the tagline was "The first Disney movie with attitude." Well, Tangled certainly is not, but the trailers would have you think it is; which many trailers for animated films have done, but you'd think Disney marketing would know not to do anymore at this point. Also, I've seen very little stuff from Tangled so far, and I know the trailers are out there: but what about toys, books, and other stuff? They certainly exist (I have seen them) but aren't being pushed out there the way they should be.

A BAF nomination is CERTAINLY plausible, but a win--no way. So sad because this is the third time a relatively good WDAS film has come out in two years and will no doubt be nominated but is not in the camp of winning. These are good films, but not great ones. Again, a real shame. I know it will take a while for FA to work its way up to its earlier greatness, but this is the third movie that has been labeled by critics as being: "Not a classic, but fun for the whole family!" So I don't feel that FA is approaching the camp of Pixar quality because no Pixar film has ever received a review like this. Not even Cars was branded with the almost kiss-of-death stamp of: "Cute but forgettable," even with its less-than-stellar reception.

As has been said it's really time Pixar lets FA take risks with its films because I think ALL great movies have done well by taking risks. The first Toy Story did. Finding Nemo did (some intense subject matter there even with sure-fire lovable marketable characters) Beauty and the Beast did, Little Mermaid did, and even Oliver and Company did.

Iger has mentioned so many times about how he wants Disney culture to reflect risks and innovation and quality, and Pixar has said that they want to bring back the feel of classic Disney. Unfortunately, even with valiant efforts, this hasn't happened yet. I really hope it does, but I think at this point if directors/animators don't get more freedom to do crazy stuff, it's still a long way away.
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 814
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » November 21st, 2010, 12:29 am

Never fear Shy Violet. An article in the LA Times has announced that Disney will not be doing anymore fairy tales or musicals in the foreseeable future. So lots of pushing innovation can go on, while Pixar can do sequel after sequel after sequel.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » November 21st, 2010, 4:11 am

Although keep in mind, at the moment "Foreseeable future" is two to three films at best.
(And while "Mort" ranks as Book Adaptation, wouldn't exactly call that "no fairytale"...)

Unless Disney's made an actual press statement, sounds more like LA Times trying to manufacture the story they wanted to write after Princess&Frog, and pretend that Tangled is "troubled" before opening.
ShyViolet wrote:It's just such a shame. I mean, a lot of this actually began in 1988. When Oliver and Company came out, the tagline was "The first Disney movie with attitude."
Although keep in mind, by pre-Mermaid 1988 standards, Disney putting Billy Joel in a film instead of Phil Harris was "attitude". (And to their minds, Bette Midler even more so.)
Their Attitude threshold in those pre-transition years back then was historically low.
ShyViolet wrote:I really hope it does, but I think at this point if directors/animators don't get more freedom to do crazy stuff, it's still a long way away.
When I hear "Animator freedom" and "Crazy stuff", I picture the David Stainton era...'Nuff said. :shock:
They're fighting a long uphill battle back to Sincere Mainstream, and just because they don't want to split three-nomination votes with TS3 doesn't mean we shouldn't be supportive.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8293
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re:

Post by ShyViolet » November 21st, 2010, 3:54 pm

Bill1978 wrote:Never fear Shy Violet. An article in the LA Times has announced that Disney will not be doing anymore fairy tales or musicals in the foreseeable future. So lots of pushing innovation can go on, while Pixar can do sequel after sequel after sequel.
No, I should explain: of course I want Disney to do more fairy tales, even if not only those. What I was trying to say was that Princess and Tangled were well-told but in a more by-the-numbers way than they should have been. We can still have fairy tales but they can be told differently: not in a Shrek/update satire or cute comedy, but some other way.

I also found that article very upsetting and can't believe they're going to just give up on this genre. Because fairy tales have never really died: what are WALL-E and Up except bold, beautiful Disney fairy tales for a modern age? If you look at it a certain way even Dragons was a fairy tale, but an original, even intensely done one that audiences responded to.
Disney doesn't get that if they just let FA make DISNEY films again rather than struggle to fit into a model that comes from a spreadsheet, their films could be great again. I wanted to see Snow Queen so badly and I know it could have been GREAT if, like with Dragons, they went for an epic, original feel that covers familiar ground but doesn't retread it.
EricJ wrote:Although keep in mind, by pre-Mermaid 1988 standards, Disney putting Billy Joel in a film instead of Phil Harris was "attitude". (And to their minds, Bette Midler even more so.)
Their Attitude threshold in those pre-transition years back then was historically low.
In my opinion Oliver was a breaking away from old traditions because unlike Phil Harris Billy Joel was a pop star who didn't act or do VO work, but had a recognizable name that would attract audiences, and of course could perform the film's songs. Bette Midler's career was very much in the upswing at this point (thanks to Disney hiring her during her career slump) and was another draw for the film. The humor was really different than previous Disney films (much more edgy) and had a contemporary New York City via 1988, also a break from the more timeless approach of other films. Fortunately, all these things worked because the Disney type humor/slapstick/emotion was ALWAYS there; you never felt you were watching a satire, but a real movie. It was the best of both worlds; old and new.
EricJ wrote:When I hear "Animator freedom" and "Crazy stuff", I picture the David Stainton era...'Nuff said. :shock:
They're fighting a long uphill battle back to Sincere Mainstream, and just because they don't want to split three-nomination votes with TS3 doesn't mean we shouldn't be supportive.
But there really is no Sincere Mainstream, or a specific model for a Disney film: there's aspects everyone recognizes as Disney but there's no one way to do it. Tangled could have been just as bold and original as Up or Ratatouille, but they wanted to make a "Disney" film instead of a Disney film--that's what Pixar does.
Last edited by ShyViolet on November 21st, 2010, 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

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

Post by Tristy » November 21st, 2010, 4:31 pm

Well, I guess there's info from Ed Catmull saying that info from the LA Times was erroneous.

Thank you.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3621
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » November 21st, 2010, 4:55 pm

Well, if you'd linked the article, we'd know for sure--
But, again, sounds like the LA Times wanted a fear-on-demand tie-in story of "Will Tangled do as badly as Frog did at this same time last year?" on pure speculation, noticed the current shaky-transition drought of unannounced WDFA projects, put the nearest two and two together, and made sweeping assumptions ("No fairytale projects appear to be on Disney's immediate slate") that could be misread as pronouncement coming from the actual source.
But without reading the article, that's just a guess.
ShyViolet wrote:But there really is no Sincere Mainstream, or a specific model for a Disney film: there's aspects everyone recognizes as Disney but there's no one way to do it. Tangled could have been just as bold and original as Up or Ratatouille, but they wanted to make a "Disney" film instead of a Disney film--that's what Pixar does.
My point was, before Lasseter came in, the Stainton era had almost zero sense of studio identity--As long as they had a project in the works, that was cause for relief, no matter how audience proof or ill-conceived:
Animators pursued pet projects, and you want crazy, we GOT crazy: American Dog. Wild Life. The Broom Movie. Chicken Little and A Day With Wilbur Robinson were practically commercial by comparison.

I know I've quoted it a hundred times, but when Lasseter & co. first looked at "Gnomeo & Juliet" and said "Why are we making this?", I don't think he realized what a generation of the studio's history he was speaking for. (Or maybe he realized it afterwards, and it only helped strengthen the pursuit for individual studio brand image.)

You wouldn't sink millions of dollars of studio resources into a Pooh movie that wanted to look like it was made in 1974, unless you were trying to make a statement.
Whatever that statement is, it's Sincere, and Mainstream. :)

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19812
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » November 21st, 2010, 5:36 pm

But...it doesn't look like it was made in 1974!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 5963
Joined: September 1st, 2006

Post by Daniel » November 21st, 2010, 6:34 pm

EricJ wrote:Well, if you'd linked the article, we'd know for sure--
Disney's Facebook:

A headline in today’s LA Times erroneously reported that the Disney fairy tale is a thing of the past, but I feel it is important to set the record straight that they are alive and well at Disney and continue this week with Tangled, a contemporary retelling of a much loved story. We have a number of projects in development with new twists that audiences will be able to enjoy for many years to come. - Ed Catmull

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8293
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » November 21st, 2010, 6:57 pm

Winnie the Pooh is very cute and I'm glad they're making it (good reminder of Disney's great days) but it also reflects two things that they should really be staying away from at this point: an old (albeit well-loved) overexposed character that so many already know and by extension what many simply think of nowadays as A TOY. Not the greatest pathway to a brave new golden age.

I've always loved Pooh (classic cartoon, TV show and the books) but, I guess kind of like the WDAS logo, it reflects the PAST. If it was in addition to a potentially awesome film like Snow Queen (say as an opening short) it would gangbusters, but as an individual film that many are probably not even going to be able to distinguish from the Piglet movie five years ago, it's just such a waste.
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

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

Re: Re:

Post by Whippet Angel » November 21st, 2010, 8:06 pm

ShyViolet wrote:What I was trying to say was that Princess and Tangled were well-told but in a more by-the-numbers way than they should have been.
Um... how exactly do you know this? Have you seen the film already?

Post Reply