Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[EricJ]

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".

Hey, waitaminute: I already posted that historical comparison first, get your own!:

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.

Ie., while you get 9 out of ten marks for "Frog : Tangled :: Oliver : Mermaid", you'll notice the correct comparison was "GMDetective : Mermaid": As the point about Frog was that it might not have been memorable-good, but leaped forward from its old days in the same way that GMDetective surprised us by working 90's-style action scenes into its cuddly 70's Ron Miller critter-design, and that only a year after "Black Cauldron : Chicken Little".
(If that makes "Detective : Robinsons", maybe, but then the rest doesn't work after that. As Oliver, OTOH, came off as a limp, scattered last-days-of-Ron-Miller mess that felt held-back trying to be modern, only addng fuel to our brief fling of thinking that Disney should just put its Robin Hood act out to pasture and Don Bluth would change the industry after "Land Before Time".

Again, Randy Newman "Frog" songs about 'Nawleens, while pleasant, just didn't feel as Ariel/Belle Broadway as "Mother Knows Best" or Rapunzel's I-want song, and Broadway was what we wanted back again. Maybe not complete Katzenberg-formula Broadway, with all those annoying stage shows we got, and "Hunchback" pushing the idea over a cliff--But at least the ability to take a fairytale source and make a unified A-B story out of it, with theme, structure, character goals and songs all incorporated into one vision.
Rapunzel was Glen's Story and had some affectionate character-goal vision, whereas Frog wanted to entertain, but didn't have a coherent story at its heart for even those making it to care about. (Dr. Facilier's song felt like it was going to lead back into the old song-and-story days, but that was too early on and misleading.)
As a result, Frog ended up bringing back all but one of the ingredients, and left it for one more film to find the last isolated Coke-formula secret ingredient.

[Ben]

Could it have been a disaster bigger than Sleeping Beauty? Possibly

You remember that Sleeping Beauty nearly killed the Disney Studio, right? If Tangled had done that now, after the last few underperforming films, that would have definitely done it this time.

Pooh's not going to do any big business and unless they can keep making films that do the kind of numbers Tangled is doing, Pixar will end up being Disney Animation's only output. The End.

[Darkblade]

Here's the review I was talking about, a bonus goes to the person using scores from Alan's previous works for Disney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-0mJQy6Z9Q

Anyways. I saw the movie last night. There were a few good things here and there, the soundtrack was pretty impressive and Alan still gets it. I know my friends are saying "its not good enough", but either way the soundtrack is good. As for the villian, she wasnt great. But not a perfect one either, but she's okay.

[Ben]

Little Mermaid, Beauty And The Beast, Little Mermaid again, Pocahontas...only four cues.

But I can't take any review seriously that wants to call a film Rapunzel Unbranded. I mean, that's what eventually happened, but...!

And I don't know what Sleepy Hallow is, either! A lot of typos and misinformation in there, especially at the end...

[Darkblade]

Ben, I didn't make the video. Besides I think he didnt want to go over ten minutes of the youtube time allowance(meaning that the videos on youtube go up to 10 minutes, although they just changed that to 15 but then again. I didn't make the video so that user called the shots for it). Now that he mentions that he thought the villain song was disturbing, when I was seeing the film I saw a few guys quite shocked while two were disgusted over the song. But I was expecting it to be on the lines of "Poor unfortunate souls".

As for the horse, I think he may be talking about this.

[American_dog_2008]

Tangled might save Disney, but Pooh took the wrong spot next summer.

[Ben]

Ben, I didn't make the video.

Um...I'm not aware that I ever suggested you did!?

[Dusterian]

Darkblade I can't believe the people you knew looked "disgusted' by the song. If anything was offensive to me, it would be the snarky almost Warner's like humor and pub thugs. What kind of people were these, your friends? Why would they be disgusted?

Ben...if Rapunzel used that animation, the numbers of people seeing the film and the reviews would still be roughly the same, maybe even better, right?

And what would happen is Disney and their investors would know that the film not making it's money back was not a problem of people wanting to see it, but of how lavishly they made the film. They would notice it had the best Thanksgiving weekend second only to Toy Story 2. They would notice Disney was still making a huge hit.

So they may have just gone cheaper on the next film. Pooh should actually be really cheap, I mean, it's Pooh, it was a bunch of shorts before, the designs are like those of a little kid's.

However, because of the amount of money they did spend on this film, the problem of it making it's money back may still, well, be a problem!

[Dacey]

Um...a LOT of people have been disturbed by that song, mainly because Gothel is acting so sweet and "motherly" when she isn't in reality her mother.

You're really starting to take other people's opinions of this film too seriously.

[Whippet Angel]

And what would happen is Disney and their investors would know that the film not making it's money back was not a problem of people wanting to see it, but of how lavishly they made the film.

Nope, Hollywood doesn't work that way. A box office failure is still seen as a failure. If the studio was already in a tight spot, then that's it. It's over.

[droosan]

While the gala world premiere of TRON: Legacy was being held at the El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood this evening .. the American Cinematheque presented a tribute to the career of Glen Keane at the Egyptian Theatre, just one block away.

It began with a screening of the 1989 Disney feature The Little Mermaid, on a beautiful 35mm print that looked as if it had just been released yesterday. Happily, the movie itself still also plays to an audience as if it were released yesterday .. a few of the younger kids yammered during the opening titles; but by the time Ariel makes her first appearance, they had settled-down and were transported -- along with the rest of the audience -- Under the Sea.


Immediately after the movie, animation historian Charles Solomon introduced a sequence of film clips which spotlighted key characters and moments from Glen Keane's Disney career. These included scenes featuring:

--- Penny from The Rescuers
--- the bear from The Fox and the Hound
--- Willie the Giant as the Ghost of Christmas Present from Mickey's Christmas Carol
--- Ratigan from The Great Mouse Detective
--- Sykes and Georgette from Oliver & Company
--- Ariel from The Little Mermaid
--- Marahute (the giant bird) from The Rescuers Down Under
--- the Beast from Beauty and the Beast
--- Aladdin from Aladdin
--- Pocahontas from Pocahontas
--- Tarzan from Tarzan
--- and Long John Silver from Treasure Planet


After which, Glen Keane himself arrived on-stage. He discussed his early career at Disney .. including a collaboration with John Lasseter on a test-clip featuring Max from Where the Wild Things Are (a one-minute chase sequence, which was then shown to the audience).

Keane and Lasseter had apparently been inspired to create this test in 1981, after viewing 'work-in-progress' shots of the Light-Cycle sequence in TRON. It was an attempt to free the animation 'camera' from its restrictions (a traditional animation camera-stand can really only 'pan' or -- on a multiplane setup -- 'push in' slightly). That test was the first attempt at the Disney studio to blend traditionally-animated characters with computer-generated environments and camera motions.

Lasseter -- of course -- left the Disney studio, helped to form Pixar, and (about 20 years later) returned to Disney as head of animation .. but in the meanwhile, Keane had also continued to work on his own to push the envelope of blending hand-drawn character animation with computer-generated imagery; notably, by helping to develop the 'Deep Canvas' environment process for Tarzan and by adding CG robot limbs to a hand-drawn Long John Silver in Treasure Planet.

At this point, Keane paused the discussion to sketch a few characters (which were projected on the screen as he drew, so the audience could see). While drawing Ariel, the Beast, and Tarzan, he related stories about the process of 'creating' each of them.

Then the conversation turned to Tangled.

Keane showed the audience the cover of the original story proposal for Rapunzel, onto which was affixed a 'post-it' with a feebly-handwritten note which read, "Glen, I really hope you get to make this movie. --Ollie". The note had been written by Keane's mentor and former supervisor, Ollie Johnston; one of the famed 'nine old men' of Disney animation, shortly before he'd passed-away. Keane would spend over 12 years of his life (nearly half of his career!) working toward that very goal.

The trials and troubles of many of those years (during which the film was changed from a sincere fairy tale to a Shrek-like farce, and then changed again into a sort of reverse-Enchanted) were glossed-over. But Keane did relate some of the 'horror-stories' of dealing with computer-generated hair (including screening a hilarious clip illustrating one of Rapunzel's 'hair malfunctions'), and showed several examples of how he'd helped Disney's computer animators to improve their posing and animation by 'sketching over' their CG shots using a Cintiq tablet.

The presentation concluded with a screening of the sequence "I See the Light".

Presumably, Mr. Keane is now free to pursue his new dream.

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

Unfortunately, I did not bring a camera to the event. But I saw several people down in the front of the audience who were obviously video-ing the discussion between Charles Solomon and Glen Keane .. so, it will likely turn up 'online' somewhere, soon.

[Ben]

And...hopefully, recorded for inclusion on the eventual BD, though I don't expect they had the foresight, unfortunately.

However, because of the amount of money they did spend on this film, the problem of it making it's money back may still, well, be a problem!

So then why attempt to pour more money down the drain by suggesting that they had done the film as lavishly as Keane originally envisioned?

Basic math: say they've spent $200m on this film, and it makes back $350m in the US. That, considering the figures the last few films have done, would be accepted as a hit, especially adding the merchandise and the audience good will towards the film which could translate into a bigger hit next time.

But, say they went Keane's way all the way with the animation. Say that added $100m to the budget, for a $300m total. When that same film brings in the same $350m, things aren't looking so rosy. They see a $50m gross, worse than the last few films, and then all the merchandising does is to make up the losses. But that's not a hit. And then the view is "well, we tried. We tried making the absolute best looking thing we could, and not enough people came". That's the end of Disney Animation.

As I said before, Walt already learned that lesson with Sleeping Beauty, going all ornate with the artwork and not making enough back. Hence why the features following that had their costs cut by developing the Xerox process. But do you think for a minute that if Ub Iwerks had not come to that solution that we would have those films that followed? Nope. Maybe two, maybe three, made every five years or so, but if they had all failed like Sleeping Beauty, that would have been the end of Disney Animation there.

Anyway...from what I've read, the animation in Tangled is beating the spots off of other CG pics, including the best of Pixar. Keane did manage to exert an influence over the film, in a very big way, perhaps as it turns out in exactly the right area he should have been all along rather than directing. And, at the end of the day, do we want a "Disney animated musical fairytale" out there making money and guaranteeing future such films? Or do you want one final elaborate classic that fails to register with modern audiences, dies at the box office, and takes the chance of more films with it?

But now we're repeating ourselves. End. Of. Conversation.

[Darkblade]

So whats in stored for Disney with CG?

[EricJ]

And, at the end of the day, do we want a "Disney animated musical fairytale" out there making money and guaranteeing future such films? Or do you want one final elaborate classic that fails to register with modern audiences, dies at the box office, and takes the chance of more films with it?

With the possible exception of Snow White, Dumbo and Cinderella, EVERY old-school Disney classic "failed" expectations in some way at the box office:
PInocchio. Fantasia. Alice. Peter Pan. Three Caballeros. Sleeping Beauty.
Half the "flop" classics we don't even today KNOW were "flops", in the same way I've seen second-generation fans look surprised when you tell them "Hercules" was considered a disaster in theaters.

Apart from a few knee-jerk Dreamworks fans on the TAG board, I don't hear anyone discussing Tangled as a "failure"; in fact, seems to be one of the few all-out word-of-mouth hits we've had, period, since Despicable Me or Iron Man 2. But point is, whether it makes its budget back or not, history is written by the winners, and whatever money Tangled or Pooh make back, they'll be remembered for getting the studio back on the horse, even if Frog might sink into the background.
(Not to mention for studio-historically throwing another shovelful of dirt upon Chicken Little, while singing "Don't Go Breakin' My Heart" for spite.)

Um...a LOT of people have been disturbed by that song, mainly because Gothel is acting so sweet and "motherly" when she isn't in reality her mother.

Technically, that's one of the few aspects of storytelling the original tale, where we were originally afraid the movie wouldn't:
In the tale, Goethel steals Rapunzel in revenge for having her radishes (or salad greens) stolen--Which made it a unique twist on the usual tale, in that in most other stories, we never find out what the witch, fairy, gypsy or Rumplestiltskin imp ever actually intends to do with the child for the next twenty years after they steal it.
In Rapunzel, the witch just settled into the new surrogate-parent role, which has left the tale up to multiple allegorical interpretations, but the movie came up with an imaginative explanation as to why she was so guarded about it.

[American_dog_2008]

Tangled is nominated for the Washington DC award.