Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5396
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » April 28th, 2011, 10:07 am

I actually felt that the CGI contributed to the magic of the film (the lanterns wouldn't have been nearly as breathtaking in 2D). But I may be one of the only people willing to admit that.
"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: 441
Joined: December 21st, 2007

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dusterian » April 28th, 2011, 3:20 pm

It should be obvious why I post mostly in this topic. It's because this is such an important film for Disney and one that was almost Disney at it's most traditional, but got changed at the last minute. It also was going to be a film that made me feel happy like I haven't been in a very long time...and then that got taken away from me. That's why.

Dacy, no, I was just saying the humor should have been more gentle in the Disney way. Disney never used to be so quick and cutting. That's what I meant.

Also, I told know if I told you this before, but it would have been easy for Flynn to be a Prince but still have the same funny personality audiences liked. He could have been a prince who didn't want to settle down, so he went on adventures, and the castle guards were after him because the king and queen wanted their son back.

Ben, why didn't you answer my question about the evidence of why the title's more right a certain way? Anyway...as I pointed out above with Prince Flynn, the movie could have been traditonal but still kept the things audiences loved. We could have both won.

Also, you may think Make Mine Music and Fun And Fancy Free did more "interesting things" than certain classics like Cinderella, but that's pretty much just inventive and experimental stuff you're talking about, not the heart and emotion of a classic, especially one they poured themselves into to save the studio.
Image

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5396
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » April 28th, 2011, 3:37 pm

But Flynn being a bandit played a MAJOR factor in the film's plot. So, no, it wouldn't have been "the same movie" then.

But I don't even know why I'm trying anymore...
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18817
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 28th, 2011, 8:34 pm

Dusty,

I wrote you a perfectly fine explanation of several points you raised about my review of Tangled, and yet you still come back with more of the same?

At this point, pal, I think you really are just trying to wind us all up.

You're now going back over comments you've already made, we've already replied on, and you've made again, I've replied on, and now you're making again.

Obviously, you do have some sort of obsessive disorder, and because of that I don't want to drag this out anymore for you or for us, and I don't want this to break down into anyone causing you distress because they don't understand your condition. But we can't keep going on like this. We really can't.

You have made your feelings clear.

Basically, they don't matter.

My review doesn't matter.

Disney has made a movie and it's out there and over. It's over.

It's not the movie you wanted it to be. That's very clear. But many other people loved it.

And I wouldn't worry about Disney doing any more fairytales. The Studio has announced there are no more in production at this time. John Lasseter is not a fan of the musical fairytale, hence why none of the Pixar films follow that style.

It now doesn't matter what we say. You're going to just keep going on and on. It doesn't matter anymore. It doesn't matter that Flynn is or is not a prince (neither was Aladdin). It doesn't matter about the title. The title worked and the film made money. After video sales, perhaps this will encourage Disney to make more like this.

But, really, enough is enough. And now you're asking me to change the way I answer one of your questions? You need to seriously seek some help with the intense nature you find you have to keep pressing with these views.

They're your views. That's all. Everyone else has theirs too.

In short, Tangled is not the film you wanted it to be. Well, too bad.

You've now ruined this entire thread with your constant returning to the same old thing and absolute refusal to see other viewpoints.

I'm writing this post in such a drawn out fashion in the hope you read it, read it again and read it again, line by line.

Take it all in, accept what we are saying. And then shut the **** up. Because you're not contributing anything to a discussion anymore, you're just pushing and pushing and pushing a viewpoint that a lot of people DO. NOT. AGREE. WITH.


I'm going to respond to one other comment here, from Dacey, who said the lanterns might not have been as impressive hand-drawn. I would admit that it might not be as breathtaking, but actually, I think they would have used CG for this sequence anyway, in the "tradigital" sense, and so there's no real reason they wouldn't have been just as visually amazing. I think they would have been quite as beautiful but maybe in a slightly different way, but not by much. :)


And now, because this thread has fallen apart and is basically being hijacked by one individual who can't accept one film wasn't to his exact liking, it is going to be closed for a while. Perhaps it will re-open in future, but for now it's become all tangled up itself.

Oh, the irony.

END OF LINE. ;)

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18817
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 29th, 2011, 11:55 am

Hey all...

After my "rant", above, Dusty emailed me separately with a response in which he said he felt I was being unfair. In the interests of giving him the answer to the email that he has asked for, and as a way of asking you if you think I am being unfair, I quote his email in its entirety below, reply to his points line by line.

Dusty, I trust you don't mind this being reprinted below, since I very much feel it's the kind of reply you would have made here anyway. This is the absolute last work on this that I am going to give, and if the same kind of nonsensical discussion keeps repeating itself, the thread WILL be locked...FOREVER! Mmmmmmmmwwwaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaaaaaa!!
Subject: Rational Talk

Ben, of course this is Dusterian, and I need to talk to you on a civil level.

I am sorry if I caused you distress, so I understand you were emotional, but the things you said to me weren't very fair.

Telling someone they are obssesive and need help and to "shut up" is simply not very nice.

I may have annoyed you, but you could have said something different, something like "please stop, I think you are obsessed and may need help, if you don't stop I will lock this thread because I think you are doing this just to rile us up."

But that's not what you did. Intsead, what you did was not very fair.
Actually, after the many, many times this has bounced back and forth, and CLEARLY you have not been reading what we have been saying, or at least not listening to it or taking it on board, I think it's perfectly understandable that someone - who for some reason has become the point person you have focused on in this whole thing - should snap back, especially after giving you, out of courtesy one final answer to points you raised following my review. A review should be the last word that that particular person writes: everything they want to say should be in their review. But you had some things you wanted clarifying, and so I went out of my way to accommodate you and wasn't mean or nasty at all. But then you still came back with the same points, asking why I didn't agree with you! And that was all in the review and in my further reply to you. It's as simple as that!
If a person thinks something is wrong, do they ever quit on it? If Disney said they were changing their name to "Super Cool Animation", I would not quit talking about how bad that is until I got people to help me change the name back to "Disney". When you think something is wrong, you keep trying to make it right. And me continuing to try to do this is what you called over obsessional, something I "need help" to quit. I was hoping to rally up enough people to try and make things right again, and I was also trying to understand why no one else felt the way I did. Everyone said they didn't agree with me, but they didn't always explain why, while I always explained why I felt how I did. I think I deserved a clear answer. You may have thought you were answering me, but either you really didn't or I didn't get it, and I'm sorry if I didn't get it. None of us really seemed to understand each other, so I kept talking to try and get us to understand each other, but you just didn't want to hear it after so many of my attempts.
No-one should ever quit on what they feel is right, but there comes a point when anyone should see that trying to press for change is simply futile. Perhaps before Tangled came out you could have pressured Disney into changing the title. But here isn't the place to do it. We didn't support your argument and we don't have any clout with the Studio. In fact, we wish to PROTECT our relationship with Disney so that we continue to work together in future on new reviews. You were quite free to keep pushing for change, but should have picked up that - hey - we actually were not that bothered, interested or put out about it.

Ultimately, we didn't care enough to get so obsessed about a title that you didn't care for. If people didn't explain why they didn't feel the same way as you, leave them alone about it! Most people just didn't care that much about it! Some people thought Tangled was a better title! Again, we were hearing what you were saying. But it didn't bother us that much and we didn't care for the countless ways you just continued to say the same old thing.

In fact, even typing this now is driving me slightly nuts, as I am repeating what many other people have already said. By this point, I really do think you are just trying to mess with our brains, because I can bet that you're going to come back with another round of "why this, why that?" questions to even this reply, when the bottom, basic, very clear message is: we don't care enough about the title change/tone of film/Disney magic in Tangled to get so wound up about it. IN FACT: MANY OF US THINK TANGLED IS JUST RIGHT. Just deal with it. No one here has any interest (any more, because you have just run this way into the ground) in your views on Tangled any more.

All I can say is we have given you the clearest answer we can: you have one viewpoint, we don't share it. There, answer done. If you don't like it I suggest you grab a European copy of Tangled, where it is called Rapunzel, and just sit at home and watch it over and over and over and just keep mumbling to yourself that you don't like the lack of Disney magic in it. Or, get this...just don't watch it! You are being obsessive, and you really should think about keeping quiet about this now. I honestly can't think of anything more I can say about this, except repeating the basic, bottom line:

You didn't like Tangled's title or lack of magic. We did. End of story.
I'm trying to be really rational now. Please be the same with me.
I may not have been rational here, but really I am at the end of my tether on this. At least I have bothered to reopen this thread and give you a reply, which is way more than I should really be doing (please, before you do, don't ask me why, as I really may then just lose the plot completely). Just accept what I and many others here have told you. We're not bothered by Tangled's title change. We love the Disney magic in Tangled. It's ridiculous to get completely obsessed (there really isn't any other word) and wound up about elements of one movie when there's nothing you can do about it.

Seriously, maybe before Tangled came out, you could have started a petition, but to start a petition you need the support of people that feel the same way. Oops...not many other people (at least here) felt the same way, which is why you had trouble raising the support you were looking for. And once the film was released, that really was it. Too late, time to move on, they're not going to change the title again now.

And before you ask, yes, it's called Rapunzel in Europe, because marketing shows that they're more romantically inclined there anyway, and the fairytale is better known: they didn't need the cool factor to pull in audiences. But then again, A Bug's Life in France is translated back as 1001 Feet. That's a terrible title, but is there a Dusty out there in France trying to get them to change it? No, it's just accepted.

So...please...just accept it, and let this be the very end of what has vastly leaped off topic. And, now, I am done on this. I don't want any messages about this reply, I don't want any emails asking why I posted your email here, I just want you to understand what this post says: we do not care or feel as much about the Tangled title change or "lack of Disney magic" as you do. We don't mind the title change and we like the Disney magic in Tangled just fine.

And that, as they say, is just that. Take it how you want, but just don't bring it back up here or, as I said, this tangled thread will be locked in its own tower for much longer than Rapunzel was.

Can we all live happily ever after now? Please? Please?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1555
Joined: December 16th, 2004
Location: Burbank, Calif.

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by droosan » April 29th, 2011, 12:41 pm

TBH, I had stopped paying attention to this thread ages ago.

I just went back and re-read my last comment (ELEVEN pages back..!), and it directly addressed several of the same points which Dusterian is still making today (and -- in all likelihood -- eleven pages before that; I didn't check). :?

------------

Dusterian, I do sympathize that this movie was not everything you wanted it to be.

But it is only a movie.

-------------

Disney animation is none the worse for it; Tangled doesn't seem to have been quite the 'make-or-break' project it was hyped to be.

But I'm glad the movie did well .. and that it was enjoyable, for many people (myself included).

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5396
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » April 29th, 2011, 2:24 pm

Just gonna quickly add here that Dust has been doing this for well over a year in this topic. And almost all of it in one way or another had to do with the title.

Anyway, this isn't really "news," especially since it's from an article that's months old, but apparently the "Tangled" directors would be game for directing a sequel:

http://www.moviehole.net/201135303-excl ... alk-sequel

Just making a last ditch effort to save the thread here. ;)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 5400
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » April 29th, 2011, 7:21 pm

Ditto to everything said. Dusterian, rant time is over now. Let's move on. If we want your opnion, there are many pages reiterating it now, all available for review.

That said, I'd enjoy hearing your opinions on any other topics in the forums. :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 717
Joined: July 9th, 2008
Location: Australia

Post by Bill1978 » April 30th, 2011, 2:49 am

I could deal with a Tangled sequel if it meant more Menken music, but TBH I'm not clamouring out for one. I think a TV series would be the best path to take.

Looking forward to its release in Australia on the 11th.

Ben, regarding your review I agree that the 3D aspect didn't really add anything to my viewing except for the lantern scene where I felt fully immersed and surrounded by the lanterns. But I still would have been blown away by that scene without wearing silly glasses.

The only gripe I have about the home release is the lack of the deleted scene of the first reprise of When Will My Life Begin.

And thank you for re-opening the thread, so I could share my thoughts.

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18817
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 30th, 2011, 7:06 am

I actually didn't hear anything about a potential sequel before, but I personally hope they don't make one...the story has played itself out.

Sure, you could do a prequel series centered on Flynn's adventures, maybe, but that's about as far as you could push it. It's not like you could go back and say that Rapunzel used to drop out of the tower for adventures and make sure she was back by the time Gothel arrived, since they've established that she never left.

And running anything as a continuation smacks of desperation, since she no longer has the golden hair - though maybe a bit of sun dropped through into their baby? ;)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3275
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re:

Post by EricJ » April 30th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Ben wrote:I actually didn't hear anything about a potential sequel before, but I personally hope they don't make one...the story has played itself out.
News I heard was--since they technically can't make "sequels" under the Lasseter Treaty--they were going to borrow a page from Pixar's sudden gold mine and make "Tangled shorts" about the further in-between adventures of Flynn, his pals and the horse, though no word if Rap is involved.
Think someone's getting a little too happy about the medium and not the message. Pixar can work as individual toons since the Toys and Cars never really had plots in the first place, but Disney?--You've already GOT shorts characters; how about a Mickey or Goofy, since you're trying to re-franchise those?

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

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dusterian » April 30th, 2011, 3:23 pm

Fine. Then at least you will see these three things I say are all new points:

The first is that you said "it just wasn't the film you wanted" to me like I was the only one who wanted it traditional, but other people, including official animators like Glen Keane and Floyd Norman (who knew Walt Disney!) also wanted it traditional. So it wasn't just me. Glen Keane actually said in an interview that he sees Pixar as "What would happen if..." but he sees Disney as "Once upon a time..." as an example of how they are different and what Disney is.

John Lasseter has actually said he has always wanted to do a fairy tale. That's why there's going to be Brave.

Finally, there was a petition. I signed it. Then it got in an article. And that did nothing. I wanted to change the title, but by the time I had a plan on how to protest it, the trailer with the "Tangled" name had come out, and I thought changing the title at that time would make the film lose a lot of money because of the confusion. Then I figured that once Disney had their huge amount of money from the box office, the heads in charge would not care about the name anymore because they had what they wanted, and then the name could return to normal.

I believe in it never being too late to make things right. Some of you may say it's "just a movie" but happiness in life is made out of each individual happy thing, and this is/was going to be one of them, plus I'm sure the people who poured themselves into this art wouldn't say it's "just a movie", and it's a lot more to me, too, as Disney is one of the biggest things in my life that makes me happy. So, if I can't get your support here, if you will not join me in talking about plans to fix this, then I guess I will have to accept that. I finally will stop.
Image

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » April 30th, 2011, 3:50 pm

Hey Ben,

I have a new synonym for futility!
Works on two different levels.

PM me if you can't figure both meanings...

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18817
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » April 30th, 2011, 4:22 pm

Dusty, they weren't three "new" points...you've said all that before. But I'm glad you will finally stop now. Once a movie is out, they're not going to change it to "normal". The released movie title IS the normal one: to change it would be to confuse people all the more ("What happened to Tangled, the one Disney movie I actually liked!?", etc). What's done is done, and I'm glad you will finally leave us alone about it.

Eric, I figured that's how they'd go on with "sequel" ideas, going along the Flynn route, and I agree that there isn't really the scope to go through with these.

George: yep. Though you may need to PM me those details...! ;)

Animated Views Staff
Animated Views Staff
Posts: 5396
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by Dacey » April 30th, 2011, 4:51 pm

So...they're allowed to make sequels to Pixar films, but not Disney ones?

Well that's just stupid.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

Post Reply