Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[GeorgeC]

I think a lot of us felt the same way, too.

This is a film I'd buy on Blu ray first day of release.

I WON'T be buying it in 3D for various reasons. Aside from technical issues with the 3D, it's still an excellent story and presentation.

The problem with other recent Disney projects was not the general animation staff... it was leadership in both the outside executive and film management. The right stories at good levels of refinement were not okayed.

This is NOT a post-Walt phenomenon.

Same thing happened during his time contrary to what those who mythologize him think.
It's just that during Walt's era it seems like the leadership gap was recognized faster and resolved quicker many times. There doesn't seem to have been as much 'deadweight' at the time, either.

Lessons seem to have to be relearned again and again more often now because of sheer arrogance and people's unwillingness to study history and try to figure what went right or wrong before.

The main reason the Disney Archives was established was to be a living sounding board for current and future productions. Take advantage of it, learn from the past, and maybe avoid some very costly mistakes!

[Whippet Angel]

This is NOT a post-Walt phenomenon.

Same thing happened during his time contrary to what those who mythologize him think.
It's just that during Walt's era it seems like the leadership gap was recognized faster and resolved quicker many times.

I couldn't agree with this more. Walt didn't produce those films by magic, he was a GOOD leader. I'm SO TIRED of hearing people say "Walt wouldn't have done it this way", "Walt wouldn't have liked this." etc...

He's gone. It's way past time to move on.

[James]

Tangled review is finally up! (Late due to the holidays opening week and obligations of another site I run last week. Sorry!) As always, no major spoilers.

http://animatedviews.com/2010/tangled-film/

[Whippet Angel]

Nice review James! I agree with pretty much everything you said. Just out of curiosity, which song was it that felt out of place?

I wonder if it's the one I'm thinking of (the only one that I didn't like).

[James]

Mama knows best. Didn't mean to imply it was bad. Just that as the more traditional Disney musical type song it oddly seemed out of place with the more pop flavored songs.

[Whippet Angel]

Nope, not the one I was thinking of. "I've Got a Dream" was the one I wasn't crazy about.

[Dacey]

I liked "I've Got a Dream."

[Dusterian]

Why are people running Walt's company if "he's gone", should people not care about his dream or make movies in the same vein as he made them, or at least try?

Anyway, I remember all the tunes from Tangled accept "I've Got a Dream". I agree that that one was out of place, because honestly, the whole thugs thing was out of place and seemed quite obviously inserted in their for comedy, for boys, or because the directors of this picture like funny "guy" things.

"Mother Knows Best" was a great song. It seemed not to fit when it had certain over the top Broadway parts, but as part of the film being great, it certainly did fit! More than "I've Got a Dream".

[Bill1978]

Why are people running Walt's company if "he's gone", should people not care about his dream or make movies in the same vein as he made them, or at least try?

Is the same question being asked of Warner Bros Studio? Is that being run to the ideals of the brothers Warner?

Anyway, I remember all the tunes from Tangled accept "I've Got a Dream". I agree that that one was out of place, because honestly, the whole thugs thing was out of place and seemed quite obviously inserted in their for comedy, for boys, or because the directors of this picture like funny "guy" things.

I haven't seen the movie yet (HURRY UP JANUARY 6!!), but I'll admit I scratch my head whenever people over at imdb state this is their favourite song. It's my least favourite on the soundtrack and maybe the visuals help, but while it sounds fun I think there are many other more memorable tunes that I've Got A Dream.

I love the true musical feel of Mother Knows Best and I enjoy all renditions of When Will My Life Begin. And I absolutely adore I See The Light.

[Whippet Angel]

Why are people running Walt's company if "he's gone", should people not care about his dream or make movies in the same vein as he made them, or at least try?

'Tis not what I meant Dust. I was saying that in the past they've been way too focused on trying to do things exactly the way he did.

That's impossible, because he's not there anymore. They can continue to carry on the legacy, but they simply can't make the films that Walt would have made without Walt. You can emulate another person's talent, but you can't recapture it without that person around. That's what I was getting at.

[Darkblade]

I saw this do a review(it wasnt from Spill.com, but is it safe to post the review on here?)

[Dusterian]

Why are people running Walt's company if "he's gone", should people not care about his dream or make movies in the same vein as he made them, or at least try?

Is the same question being asked of Warner Bros Studio? Is that being run to the ideals of the brothers Warner?

EXACTLY. Disney is different. It was lead by one man, and he entailed many artists to follow the vision that was only in his head. His films all had similar messages, feels, and there was a certain theme of magic and fantasy to all of them. He created a kind of film. People say the term "Disney films" and "Disney fan" but not "Warner Brothers films". Walt came up with a kind of something.

For the people running his studio to not keep that kind, to not keep those messages and themes, those things all those films have in common, to not be artists that continue one man's vision, and instead, I dunno, do whatever the heck they want or what makes money just because they can, is not right, and certainly not what Walt wanted.

Whippet Angel, then I guess I agree with that.

[Ben]

Can someone please turn over the broken record?

Dusty...back when Walt died, the company was run by a board that was constantly asking "What would Walt have done?" all the time. That kind of thinking got them stuck into the late 1970s rut when a famous survey produced the answer that a high percentage of teenaged kids "wouldn't be caught dead at a Disney picture" in the theater.

When the new management of 1984 came in, the new magic came with them. Many people have forgotten the spark that Michael Eisner brought with him, though it took four years (from '84 to '88) for the spark to materialize properly. We're going through a time when the new-new management is only just starting to make its mark.

Arguably, although Iger had succeeded Eisner a few months earlier, you could say that the new regeneration (which seems to have to happen every twenty years or so - 1966-1984, 1984-2006) really started when Disney bought Pixar in 2006. Hey, whadayaknow: that's four years! So we're only just starting to see that influence emerging now, and if what I'm hearing about Tangled can't be called "classic" Disney, then you're obviously pining for a time that doesn't, and can't exist anymore.

For a while now, I've kind of been comparing The Princess And The Frog with Oliver And Company, if you believe in what is old is new again, what goes around comes around and cycles repeating themselves. Those films were step ups from what had been coming out before, and though neither was outright successful, they were both honest attempts to try and recapture that Disney magic that you (and you alone, me thinks?) say is missing.

And think about what came next: The Little Mermaid. From what I understand about Tangled, I'm seeing some very similar attitudes, both in audience response and box-office. Suddenly, going to see a Disney movie - and an animated fairytale musical no less - is cool again. People are now starting to sit up and take notice. This is because Disney has done what Walt would have done: "keep moving forward".

They've adapted their magic to the current crowd, and it's obviously working. Just think, if my comparisons are anywhere near being right, what lies ahead in the 2010s...more Beauty And The Beasts, Aladdins, Lion Kings, etc...but the new and necessarily contemporary versions of these films.

After all, as Princess And The Frog showed, if they just keep on making the 1990s kind of films which were inspired by the 1950s films, then they may as well just shut Disney Animation and just make Pixar films. The Disney magic, core ideals, etc is there. I just don't think you want to see it.

And let's not forget that Walt was just as interested in making money as spending it: had Snow White not brought back the money it needed to, we wouldn't be having this conversation anyway!

[James]

Very astute Ben!

Twice (once in a forum message and once in the review) I almost compared Tangled to The Little Mermaid. Both felt like big come backs after a relatively dry spell, and they both have very similar vibes -- classic with a lot of humor.

Good observation from someone who hasn't seen it. Now I wish I had said it first!

[Dusterian]

I agree with so much of that, I only have a few things left to say. I have a feeling you might get mad, but this is a place for free speech. I've listened to you, I've listened to you very well, but I can't help the way I still feel on the whole matter.

First is that even though they said that thinking "what Walt would have done" was bad for their pictures, and that not thinking like that made the more successful pictures, I see the more successful pictures of "the renaissance" to actually be more Disney and more like Walt would have done than the previous pictures. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King feel like remakes of Disney fairy tales and Bambi. They are more classic than The Rescuer's contemporary song opening or Oliver & Company's modern spin for example.

The Princess and the Frog was intended as their comeback, and it's also different from Oliver & Company in being a fairy tale. However, what they did wrong was the very thing Oliver & Company did, and that was put a modern spin and twist on it. I actually think Oliver & Company is more okay than The Princess and the Frog, though, because they didn't base Oliver & Company on a fairy tale and it was more like a new story with a very fittingly different title.

I don't think Walt would fully approve of the CGI as it is in the film, I think he would only approve of this move forward if they had made it look more like the original intention, to make it look as much like a painting, and like hand-drawn, as possible. Could it have been a disaster bigger than Sleeping Beauty? Possibly. But would it at least have looked more like the Disney way, and become even more of a classic? Yes. But the animation at least looks more Disney, more beautiful, more hand-drawn, moere painterly, and more classic than any past CGI, so it's like half-there.

The same goes for how I think Walt would approve of the story, and I don't think Walt would approve of the snarky and constant attempts at humor. The Little Mermaid was a little more balanced in it's drama to humor ratio, and Tangled isn't.

But one thing I do feel I know, that I think we all know, that Walt wouldn't approve of, is the title. The fact that this can even be called Tangled does indicate a big difference between this and the past classics, meaning it's not quite Disney come back in it's classic ways, but more like half-back.

But hopefully you are right Ben, and that the Beauty and the Beasts, Aladdins, and The Lion Kings come, and not too contemporary so as to be less classic.