Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[ELIOLI]

LOL at Dudette, Get your hair cut ..haha

[Ben]

That it is not called "The Toccata and Fugue in D Minor Nutcracker Suite Sorcerer's Apprentice Rite of Spring Pastoral Symphony Dance of the Hours Night on Bald Mountain Ave Maria Pictures To Music Movie" really means I can't ever watch Fantasia as a "classic", either.

Of course, I'm teasing...no?

[EricJ]

Dusterian implies that even if the movie sucked, if it was called Rapunzel it would be an automatic Disney classic.

No, but it would've driven the point home, with an extra pound in the stake of Chicken Little's heart--
Princess&Frog wasn't a classic title (it was a book from eight years ago!), and didn't feel like a classic, so didn't much matter what title it had, and no matter how good-mediocre the final product was, nobody came away thinking the musical had historically "returned" after ten years.

But Tangled turned out to be such a perfectly realized 90's-time-machine at heart (P&F had mere songs, but Tangled had Broadway numbers), made BY one of the genuine 90's people, it deserved a 90's fairytale title, just to rub it in their faces.
It even got one, in the Euro countries where executives weren't a bunch of paranoid panicking ninnies, who had some faith in their own product and didn't wuss out at the last second.

[droosan]

The Princess and the Frog was made by a bunch of genuine 90's people, too.

I do agree that it 'missed the mark' a bit in trying to recapture that era, though.

[EricJ]

Another observation that sprang to mind (ran long, so needed its own post):

When Bob Iger tried to unify Disney Princesses as a "house brand", they tried to play down complaints of "faceless" princesses by emphasizing what one unique personality trait each classic princess represented: Cinderella was "good", Aurora was "graceful", Jasmine was "independent", Belle read books, Snow White made friends with everyone, and even Megara had "sass".
No prize for guessing what role-model virtue Tiana was supposed to represent, which was her problem--Every time she seemed on the verge of having an actual personality, there seemed to be a producer standing behind saying, "Quick, don't let five minutes go by without reminding us she wants to build a restaurant all by herself, with no help from anyone else!" (And when Bob said that Tiana was going to be "permanently" featured in Princess marketing, it seemed like forced nyah-nyah petulance at the critics, but looking at current Disney children's books, he wasn't kidding.)
That's probably one of the reasons why P&tF didn't seem like it cemented itself in the memory...And with Tangled being such a representation of what we did like in the 90's, Frog may end up being remembered as just a pleasant sleeper during troubled times, like "Great Mouse Detective" did before Mermaid.

I was worried that Rapunzel would also lean too far into revisionist "agenda" during the first half hour, with her hundred empowered hobbies and her mastery of the frying pan--But she comes off with so much organic personality in the story, Iger won't have to work as hard forcing her into the marketing pantheon; we seem to remember her anyway.
One of the bits of Disney marketing at the moment is to license character clips for appropriate public-service announcements: Ariel for clean water, Bambi for preventing forest fires, Wall-E for recycling, Kenai & Koda for the Sierra Club, etc...And in establishing Rapunzel's identifying marketing-trait, can't you just see her turning up in parent-teenager "Talk to your kids" PSA's?
(Or even just the Girl Scouts, for one hundred ways you can paint your room.)

[James]

I am reallllllllly late on this review! Coming soon!

[Dusterian]

Okay, people still don't get what I mean.

I know that Disney was never 100% faithful to the originals, and that's actually one reason I liked Disney, I always liked their versions better.

However, when Disney did them, you still felt like it was the classic story, that this was how the story really happened.

But with Rapunzel, this is the most they ever changed the story (unless you count The Princess and the Frog which was more like a brand new story), so it's only recognizable by the girl with the long hair in the tower. They changed the major characters backgrounds so much. The star of the film was changed from a peasant to a lost princess, the prince into a wanted bandit (!) and the witch who wanted a daughter into an ordinary woman who wanted to live forever young. It's so different, the beginning isn't even recognizable, it's like, what is this drop from the sun? What is this flower? Who is this woman? Why are we seeing a King and Queen? Oh, finally, there's someone we recognize, Rapunzel!

If you want to know how they could keep the original story's elements but still have a longer, "more interesting for today's audience" story: A witch plants some magical rapunzel lettuce to eat and live young forever. A peasant tries to take it to heal his pregnant wife, and the witch notices his act of love makes the rapunzel plant's magic more powerful. When she catches him, she tells him he can have the lettuce (and his life) in exchange for his child when it's born, for the witch knows the magic will live longer and stronger in their child. But when she takes the child, who she names Rapunzel after the plant she came from, she must also love her for the magic to be strongest, and work.

Then, either Rapunzel accidentally learns she is "adopted" by the witch and wishes to seek out her real parents, or she just wants to go outside for one adventure/party for her birthday.

Instead of a bandit, there is a prince who wants to explore and have adventures more than rule his kingdom. He finds her tower when escaping from the palace guards sent after his parents who want him back. Rapunzel and him have a love of adventure and exploring in common, and, well, the movie goes pretty much the same with those details replacing what we got.

It's just that the version we got is the most they have ever changed the story, and something we can at least bet on is that Walt Disney wouldn't want the title changed to something like that.

The reason I don't feel the film is classic is partly because of the title which doesn't sound like a classic (No one will ever utter the words "Disney's masterpiece Tangled"). It had a certain cutting, biting, quick humor and snarkiness about it, mostly from Flynn, Maximus, and the thugs, and to be honest, the film is good, and maybe has moments of greatness, but doesn't compare to Disney's past classics. I don't know if it will be a classic.

By the way, The Princess and the Frog actually has been an alternate title for The Frog Prince in some books before the Disney version came out.

EricJ, I agree, Rapunzel this time was a modern Disney heroine that was likeable and will be fondly remembered. She was actually like the more kind and innocent heroines of Walt's era, so she was at least one of the more classic parts of the film. Too bad she didn't get her own film named after her!

James, I want to see your review, but we will also get to see Ben's when the DVD/Blu-ray comes out?

[Randall]

Yes, Ben will handle the BD review when it comes out.

[GeorgeC]

I liked the film personally.

It felt like a Disney film... A VERY good one. First time in almost 10 years I've felt this way about a Studio film.

What I didn't find flattering was the 3D effect.

Hated wearing the glasses and the film seemed overly dark to me the entire time. Even the daylight scenes seemed dark!

(No experience with headaches... It's just the colors and light weren't there. Sort of like seeing a live-action Batman. All that darkness and you can't see half the film!)

I know it's part of the 3D process... I've read the commentary about the limitation of light in 3D. Someone familiar with the tech said it's a consequence of the filming method.

I just felt it detracted a bit from the color and actually reduced some of the detail in the film.

This is a film I think would actually benefit from being seen in 2D to be honest. It would take of the issues I had with the 3D effect.

*****

It'll probably be the last film I see for a while in a theater.

I'm not a fan of ticket prices and the experience of waddling through 20-some minutes of annoying commercials and trailers. I love being able to fast-forward through that stuff on DVD/BD players at home!

With bigger TV sets, sharper video since the DVD era, and the ability to control time-out for snacks and Mother Nature, the home experience can't be beat now!

[EricJ]

But with Rapunzel, this is the most they ever changed the story (unless you count The Princess and the Frog which was more like a brand new story),
By the way, The Princess and the Frog actually has been an alternate title for The Frog Prince in some books before the Disney version came out.

(P&tF was...a freakin'.....BOOK! The author's name...was in...the CREDITS!!
Although, granted, they changed 99% of that story to utterly improvised unrecognizability that only the concept, a couple of scenes and one rewritten minor character remained, which might fit in with your complaint--And also likely a legal reason why they had to change the book title for that movie at the last minute, too.)

[Bill1978]

It's just that the version we got is the most they have ever changed the story

Haven't you just provided an argument FOR the title change?

[Ben]

I know that Disney was never 100% faithful to the originals, and that's actually one reason I liked Disney, I always liked their versions better. However, when Disney did them, you still felt like it was the classic story, that this was how the story really happened.

But with Rapunzel, this is the most they ever changed the story (unless you count The Princess and the Frog which was more like a brand new story), so it's only recognizable by the girl with the long hair in the tower.

Um...hence why this was called Tangled, then, and not Rapunzel.

I don't think people would be calling The Emperor's New Groove a "masterpiece" either, because that's not a classic name, but it's still a fun picture. On the other hand, Chicken Little has the classic name...but that's far from being a masterpiece/classic or fun picture come to think of it!

Seriously...moving on now...let's discuss the merits of the movie. From what I'm seeing at the box office, people are liking it! #1 movie of the week now, in its second week (not many films achieve this!), bouncing up a spot instead of dropping down.

I'm seriously betting that in ten to twenty years, Tangled is called a "contemporary classic", just like some of the other recent films.

[Dusterian]

I already talked about the film's merits. Some great animation, some great acting and some great emotion, and a fairly great character in Rapunzel. It is also sometimes very funny.

But Disney's Classics have always been more than that. Something better, grander, greater than that. And without the snarky attitude, so much changed, and underwhelming everything else the film had.

I am dissapointed in the way Chicken Little and The Emporer's New Groove (and their titles) were done, but those are rather different beasts from Rapunzel/Tangled.

This film is still clearly about Rapunzel, both the character and story. There may be some arguments for the title change, but those don't trump the arguments for the title staying as it was, the number one reason being that everyone who worked on the film wanted it to be called Rapunzel, it was the marketing department that changed it.

Keeping to Walt' s legacy, traditions, and what the company is about, should be above everything else, even if it means only being able to keep it with a few things, even the title.

EricJ don't get mad, I already knew about that book. But it is also a fact that some versions of the very same Grimm's The Frog Prince had the title "The Princess and the Frog" in some versions written before Disney's or that E.D. Baker book came out. I consider it to be an almost equally well known title for that Grimm's story.

[Ben]

Seriously...moving on now...

[The Zany Bishojo Evalana]

I just saw it tonight, and I have to say, I loved it! Especially the songs (can't wait to buy the soundtrack). It was the first movie, Disney or otherwise, to make me tear up in a long time. Can't wait for the DVD/Blu-ray!