Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by EricJ » April 30th, 2011, 5:01 pm

Dacey wrote:So...they're allowed to make sequels to Pixar films, but not Disney ones?.
Yep: Since A) Pixar's production is not technically Disney's and can make its own creative decisions, and B), the people who made the originals are still involved in the decision-making and can director-approve them. (As opposed to Walt having no say in "Bambi II".)
And, of course, Pixar don't even like to do sequels anyway; it's just the TS3 and Monsters mess that forced their hand, and the Cars thing was Bob's idea as much as John's.

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » May 1st, 2011, 7:32 am

I don't think they've said "no" to Disney sequels, it's just that there hasn't been a recent film that's been huge enough to warrant one. But it's fun to see Eric on first name terms with Disney brass, and reporting back what he's obviously overheard in personal meetings between them. ;)

Discounting the DTVs, which weren't really anything to do with Lasseter anyway (he just put a decent argument in to nix 'em based on them devaluing the original films), I expect Lasseter would OK a sequel to any Disney film as long as it was warranted creatively or commercially.

The only recent one that I could see getting a follow-up in story terms would be Bolt, and if that had been a bigger success, I bet we'd have heard about a Bolt 2 by now. But most films have their stories wrapped in in their single movies (Tangled). If there are places for them to go (Toy Stories, Cars) and the potential financial returns are healthy, they'll make those films, Disney, Pixar or otherwise.

At the end of the day, it's all about the money. If something hits big enough, you can always be guaranteed of more. I don't agree with the Monsters sequel, since as a prequel I think it throws away the basic concept and there was much that could have been played out as a continuation, but the first one made money and so we'll get a second.

And, as said again before, Pixar's upcoming bigger ambitions means they need a safety blanket in terms of bottom line. In case John Carter isn't a usual Pixar smash, their bottom line won't be hurt too much as they have the inevitable success of Cars 2 to fall back on. It's when Pixar's bottom line thins out too much that Disney will exert more creative control. At the moment, Lasseter is picking his projects carefully and protecting those interests.

But that by no means implies they won't make a Disney sequel: it just needs to have a big enough hit to warrant spending out on a second film, and they just haven't had they yet. Successful as Tangled has been, that will probably translate not into an actual "sequel" but in spin-offs and (hopefully) some more-of-the-same fairytale films.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » May 1st, 2011, 6:13 pm

Ben wrote:I don't think they've said "no" to Disney sequels, it's just that there hasn't been a recent film that's been huge enough to warrant one. But that by no means implies they won't make a Disney sequel: it just needs to have a big enough hit to warrant spending out on a second film, and they just haven't had they yet. Successful as Tangled has been, that will probably translate not into an actual "sequel" but in spin-offs and (hopefully) some more-of-the-same fairytale films.
Although one of the things that pushed the issue was David Stainton's announced plan that every new WDFA film would get mandatory tie-in DTV sequels fresh after their release (after the "franchise-validating" success of Brother Bear 2, fresh on that title's release)--And had ToonStudios' CGI assembly line ready to pump out the sequels to Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons, before the revolution crashed down.

The "Sequels = Merchandising" loophole was the main sticking-point between Disney and Lasseter in the first place, and it runs a little too deep to imagine that Lasseter is simply going to "leap at the money" for one.
The "No DTV sequel" rule is set, but as for a full Disney theatrical sequel feature, it would need a lot of persuasion to get past ten years of stigma. (And from what we've seen, even that would have to come from a darn good story.)

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5615
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » May 28th, 2011, 5:18 pm

Took it a long time to do so, but "Tangled" did finally get past the $200 million mark:

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rapunzel.htm
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » May 28th, 2011, 5:45 pm

Nice! That's nearly $600m worldwide! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 84
Joined: January 18th, 2011

Re:

Post by carlminez » June 2nd, 2011, 10:42 am

Does that qualify as a box office success?

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5615
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » June 2nd, 2011, 2:42 pm

Um...why wouldn't it?
"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: 1642
Joined: December 16th, 2004
Location: Burbank, Calif.

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by droosan » June 2nd, 2011, 3:03 pm

10+ years of development :evil:, for one.


--------

But still .. yay, Tangled..! and yay, DAS..! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 84
Joined: January 18th, 2011

Re:

Post by carlminez » June 2nd, 2011, 3:05 pm

Dacey wrote:Um...why wouldn't it?
I have no idea "how much" box office is good box office. I guess it depends on what you compare with.

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5615
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » June 2nd, 2011, 3:19 pm

Well, to answer your question, it's not only "good" box office, it's very good box office. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 3rd, 2011, 4:52 am

And that's without adding merch and home video, so even taking into account the ten years development, Tangled is going to wind up doing very well for Disney (and then we might get the proper kind of disc that it should have got the first time)!

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

Post by Dusterian » June 16th, 2011, 12:58 pm

I didn't know where to talk about this, but...

The Academy announces NOW that they are allowing up to four nominations even if their are only 13 to 15 movies released that year, and 15 came out last year...but only three got to be nominated! So if Tangled had only been released next year...it would have been nominated! Argghhhh!!!!

It is only now that I realize, I guess it does mean the Academy still didn't think Tangled was good enough to take one of the three spots.
Image

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 16th, 2011, 2:25 pm

Well, you could look at it that way, or you could take the more positive view that it's very likely possible the Academy has added this clause precisely because many felt Tangled should have been nominated. That alone means it got recognition and has actually affected some change for the good.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 199
Joined: July 3rd, 2007

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by CGIFanatic » June 16th, 2011, 7:07 pm

I think if there was an extra spot last year, it would have probably have gone to Despicable Me...

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 16th, 2011, 7:39 pm

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... :shock:

Post Reply