Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 199
Joined: July 3rd, 2007

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by CGIFanatic » June 16th, 2011, 7:55 pm

Okay, maybe not would but it could. :lol:

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

Post by estefan » June 17th, 2011, 4:09 pm

Actually, it's not out of the question for Despicable Me to have gotten it. After all, it was nominated for the Producer's Guild Award and it was an extremely well-received film by both critics and the public.

I do think Tangled would have gotten that fourth slot, though.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3111
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » June 17th, 2011, 11:46 pm

Dusterian wrote: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.
I'm....missing a key gap in logic, there :?: , but if this were back on the Oscars thread, I think it's because they expect a good number of animateds to continue, and they want a set figure that they don't have to spend time debating it every year.
(And if Tangled had been released this year, it probably would have WON, with only Cars2 as its closest competition....Now there's something to beat your head over. :x )

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18422
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » June 18th, 2011, 2:26 pm

Not, of course, that any of us have actually seen Cars 2... :roll:

User avatar
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 77
Joined: October 31st, 2005

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Riv » August 20th, 2011, 11:13 pm

From the D23 Expo (spoilers for Tangled!)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3111
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Post by EricJ » August 21st, 2011, 12:35 am

(Thought it said "Forever After", but they haven't done the second or third movie yet!) ;)

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18422
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » August 23rd, 2011, 3:56 pm

That's...um...not real is it?

What a shame...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 676
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » August 23rd, 2011, 9:40 pm

I had a slight different response Ben, but only because I thought maybe I would be getting more Alan Menken songs.

From what I can gather, it is not a full length movie for theatres but more of a short movie to be shown on TV.

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

Post by Macaluso » August 23rd, 2011, 10:15 pm

It's just a short film, not a sequel, so it's not a big deal. I do wish they had just left it alone though.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 676
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » August 24th, 2011, 4:02 am

From that image, I'm assuming it will be a fill in movie covering the part from Rapunzel meeting her parents to when he marries Flynn. I imagine there will be plenty of high jinx to be had.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18422
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » August 24th, 2011, 4:33 am

Ahh, not so bad, no. Looks like it might be a "race to the church" type thing, what with that archbishop in the corner.

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

Post by Dusterian » August 25th, 2011, 10:58 pm

I think it looks great except I swear I've seen those same images before and they're just altered slightly.

I'm glad they are doing a little short of their further adventures. It shows the happily ever after, it gives us a sequel, but doesn't make a full-length film that will ruin it and go so against what Walt said.

Of course, it should say "Rapunzel Ever After". :P
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3111
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » August 26th, 2011, 12:12 am

Ben wrote:Ahh, not so bad, no. Looks like it might be a "race to the church" type thing, what with that archbishop in the corner.
I agree, that's pretty likely--
There's a ceremony where Rapunzel will be "officially inducted" into the "club" of Disney Princesses, where it will also be worked into the story that she officially married Flynn.
I'm assuming they're going for the synergy tie-in here, and making the wedding the 'between-quel" story.

(And guessing this'll probably be TV special for timeliness, not to mention taking a page out of DW's Shrek-special book...The rule was, no feature sequels on DVD, but nothing said about TV specials.)

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5323
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » August 26th, 2011, 1:13 am

I'm still not sure what "source" Eric is talking about whenever he refers to this "rule" that Disney has regarding animated sequels. I can't find anything "official" anywhere on it. :?

Anyway, looking forward to the short. I'm sure it'll be fun.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Post Reply