Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Macaluso]

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.

To piggyback this, there were several points in the movie where her face resembled Ariel A LOT. The one that immediately springs to mind is during her song at the beginning, and she opens up her paint box and you see her reflection in the mirror. If that isn't Ariel's face then I don't know what is!

Her face also resembled Violet from The Incredibles once or twice, specifically during the boat ride when she pulls out the satchel.

[Bill1978]

Much to my surprise this morning, I discovered that Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi are in Australia to promote Tangled's release in January. Wonderful to see it getting some promotion already. I don't think Princess and The Frog got this type of treatment.

They appeared on Australia's top rating morning show and will apparently be on another show tomorrow night that is aimed at the young and hip audience.

While this is really not that exciting news, I did like how the movie was being introduced by the hosts. Next up, we talk to the stars of the Disney movie that toppled Harry Potter at the US box office. I thought that was a good way to spark interest to casual Australian movie goers and, in hindsight, can see possible reasons Disney chose to open so close to Harry. That's a pretty good hyperbole to introduce the movie.

[Dusterian]

I think I'm starting a new conversation. If you feel I'm not, well, I guess you can just ignore it, but I think this is all new:

I'm so surprised that Disney and the investors wouldn't still consider the reviews and droves of peopele, and Harry Potter-toppling, to show that this film is a hit, no matter how much money it makes back.

If they really wouldn't notice it was a hit after that, no matter how expensive it was, I would think they were stupid, for not still seeing it was a hit!

I actually would rather have Disney stay the same it always has been (i.e. make their classics beautiful Disney classics) instead of change for modern audiences. What if modern audiences changed so much, they only liked bad, sad, unhappy endings, so Disney had to start having such unhappy endings in order to appeal to those audiences and survive? Would they still be Disney? That's the kind of thing I mean.

EricJ, she traded her rapunzel lettuce (or whatever those Grimm brother meant by "rapunzel") for their baby girl, and treated Rapunzel just as she would a plant in her garden. I'm pretty sure that was the idea, I mean, both her garden and Rapunzel were walled up, but men climbed those walls and took them. And she didn't take the baby out of revenge, it was a deal with the man to let him take her lettuce.

Bill do you really think Disney picked Harry Potter just to say they toppled it? How could any person ever figure out they would topple it? All the predictions said it would come second to Harry Potter, which it still did in the first week. It only toppled it later.

However, it seems that this film may be doing so well at least partially because they have promoted this film aloooooot more than The Princess and the Frog. It's sad that may be the only reason The Princess and the Frog didn't do as well.

[Bill1978]

Bill do you really think Disney picked Harry Potter just to say they toppled it? How could any person ever figure out they would topple it? All the predictions said it would come second to Harry Potter, which it still did in the first week. It only toppled it later.

As I said in my post, hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm certain the marketers had no plan to think about it toppling Harry Potter, let alone use it as a marketing tool. But I give them kudos for using the Harry Potter toppling to promote the movie in Australia. When it was said on the show, it had the awe of this movie must be good to knock Harry Potter from #1 in the US. Of course the drastic % tumbling at the box office for both films wasn't mentioned in the intro. But as a marketing tool in non-US markets, I think it was a good move on Disney Australia's behalf.

If they really wouldn't notice it was a hit after that, no matter how expensive it was, I would think they were stupid, for not still seeing it was a hit!

The problem is that to be a certified hit you need to make back money at the US box office. Take The Golden Compass for example - it failed at the US box office but was widely successful at the international box office. But it is still considered a flop. To be a breakout hit, you really do need to make a profit equal to your budget. Or have long legs at the box office. I would say at the moment, Tangled is heading towards being a hit in the vein of Enchanted. If Disney can continue to succeed with their films in this fashiopn, then perhaps the media will decide that Disney is back.

so Disney had to start having such unhappy endings in order to appeal to those audiences and survive?

Didn't you just love Pocahontas' upbeat happy ending?

[Ben]

Dusty...come out of the dark. You're starting to scare us. Well, that and the fact that you're not reading anything we say.

Tangled is a hit. Disney see it as a hit. Even with the money spent on it the good will it has been raising towards Disney in general is worth more than just money. When they take in international money and home video, Tangled is going to go down in history as one of the good ones.

BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SO IF THEY HAD SPENT SO MUCH MORE ON THE FILM BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER HAVE MADE THAT MONEY BACK! END. OF. STORY. END. OF. DISNEY. ANIMATION.

Putting it next to Harry Potter was a calculated move: it's the classic Disney holiday spot so they had that in their favor but if it didn't work, they could always say that nothing could beat HP and not have egg on their faces. BUT...whaddayaknow...it opened with a take that was VERY close to Potter's pull of that week, and THEN climbed UP a spot to take #1 the following week. Hardly any films manage to do that!

So...seriously, Tangled is a hit. It's restored audience confidence in Disney. If you didn't like certain aspects, that's your opinion. But you've made your point clear (very clear) by now and, unless you want this thread locked, it's time to steer away from your very repetitive remarks. Move on...there's nothing more to talk about other than you just repeating the same old things, which we have addressed and don't want to hear any more.


Bill...just a quick note that Golden Compass' problem was that as with many of their films, New Line just had US distribution, with Entertainment and other companies taking on international. Usually, if a movie underperforms in one territory or the other, that other territory can still save it from flopdom. But in this case, after shelling out for the film, New Line didn't make enough back in the US and wasn't bringing in the money from international. Since they were the producing studio, they saw it as a flop, so no sequels.

[GeorgeC]

One thing's for sure...

Tangled will definitely be profitable on home video even if it doesn't quite break even for the US. I think it'll do well enough overseas to counter-balance the US if it doesn't quite reach break-even.

I think as far as the Narnia films are concerned, they won't adapt any more of the books unless Dawn Treader is a huge hit overseas. It bombed in the US just like Prince Caspian. I think the Narnia films are finished, quite frankly...

If you had asked me a few years ago, I would never have believed the Chronicles of Narnia would make it as a film series.
1) It has nowhere near the appeal of The Lord of the Rings; having read both series long ago as a teenager, I can honestly say LOTR made a better impression on me even if J.R. Tolkien could have cut 33% of the words out of the saga and told the same story! Narnia, in spite of being much shorter in the average book, was actually a bigger chore to read. I seriously got bored by it!
2) It's a longer series of books that had its heyday many years ago IMHO. The Lord of the Rings is still very popular with a cult audience and is studied by many literature and pop culture students at universities across the world. I just don't think LOTR will die or become a lot less relevant even if the films die down in popularity;
3) Say what you will, but I honestly don't think the kids in the Narnia series are compelling as the LOTR characters. Also, the main characters in LOTR are a mix of mythological races and humans. In Narnia, the mythological are mostly side-characters and not in the main spotlight. DUDES, people like elves and little people and LOTR delivers on them!

[Ben]

They're still talking about a #4 but it's a possibility...they haven't ruled it out yet. But I didn't think (and said so way back when) that I didn't think they'd make it past four films at the most, mainly for the many reasons you pointed out.

But this is the Tangled thread, George...

[Bill1978]

Bill...just a quick note that Golden Compass' problem was that as with many of their films, New Line just had US distribution, with Entertainment and other companies taking on international. Usually, if a movie underperforms in one territory or the other, that other territory can still save it from flopdom. But in this case, after shelling out for the film, New Line didn't make enough back in the US and wasn't bringing in the money from international. Since they were the producing studio, they saw it as a flop, so no sequels.

Yes I know, I'm just still bitter that I can't fully enjoy the movie knowing that there is no way for me to watch the conclusion of that ridiculous non-ending. While something like Fellowship had an open ending, at least I can watch that by itself and feel satsified. Oh well, at least it helped me discover the awesomeness of the book series.

Back to the topic: Congratulations to Tangled getting a nom in Best Animated Feature at the Golden Globes. Looks like that is a very strong field this year. And also congrats to I See The Light getting a nom in Best Original Song. Good to see Menken back in the awards hunt. Not too sure what his chances are since I'm very bias towards wanting to see Menken win. My money is on the song I haven't heard of and which I assume is the Gwyneth Paltrow country song.

[EricJ]

Putting it next to Harry Potter was a calculated move: it's the classic Disney holiday spot so they had that in their favor but if it didn't work, they could always say that nothing could beat HP and not have egg on their faces. BUT...whaddayaknow...it opened with a take that was VERY close to Potter's pull of that week, and THEN climbed UP a spot to take #1 the following week. Hardly any films manage to do that!

Well, Nemo did that, but only after a would-be "blockbuster" self-destructed upon opening, and the word-of-mouth favorite settled back into its rightful place...You should've seen both studios' faces.
Pretty much like Tangled did, after the two weeks of Harry Potter sellouts settled back down to normal, but both studios and audiences expected there to be an artificially high "surge" blitz for Harry before just good season business.

And it wasn't "strategic" to go up against Harry Potter, it was just the ritual of November:
Dreamworks had the First Week Cartoon, nothing the second, the Older-Audience Studio Tentpole on the third, and the Disney Seasonal Blockbuster on the fourth, aka Thanksgiving.
Didn't work out so well for Treasure Planet the last time, but seems things have changed a bit for Thanksgiving openings since "Enchanted". (Which seems to be the only reason, for the life of me to figure out, why people keep associating Tangled with Enchanted, other than they both have a cute princess audiences liked.)

[Dusterian]

Well I could say it sounds like no one is reading or understanding what I am saying either.

I thought no matter how much money a film made back, being number one and making so much money for a long time still counted as a hit. People are obviously seeing the movie is the point of a hit I thought. Which why I know it's a hit now and I would think would still be seen as a hit no matter what it made back.

But I won't talk about it anymore, even though the only reason I keep talking about it and asking questions is because I don't understand, and I don't think other people here understand me.

[droosan]

I think many of us understand all-too-well ..

Disney Animation Studios didn't make the Rapunzel movie that YOU think Walt Disney would have made.

Thus, rather than appreciate and enjoy the entertaining film which they did make .. you apparently insist upon judging it using a metric which hasn't been 'provable' for over 44 years.


I don't doubt that your misgivings with the movie are sincere .. but in the end, they're just your opinions; you are no more 'right' than you are 'wrong'.

[Ben]

Why I know it's a hit now and I would think would still be seen as a hit no matter what it made back.

We are understanding, but the fundamental thing is that you are not reading us: a movie can be #1 and take a lot of money, but it's not a hit unless that translates into PROFITS. If they made the movie you wanted them to make, that release would have to make back $100m MORE than Tangled is doing right now. IT WOULD NOT BE SEEN AS A HIT!!!!!!!. And, as we've said...end of Disney Animation.

That. Really. Is. As. Far. As. It. Goes. End. Of. Story.

If Tangled had come out in 1997 as the exact same film it is now, I don't think even you would be thinking anything like this at all. I think you'd be saying, "wow, Herclues and Tangled both came out and had really good fun with their sources this year".

Please...move on. Or I'm going to start believing that you're intentionally trying to wind us up!

[Darkblade]

I'm actually quite surprised that Tangled manages to beat Harry potter, I'd thought it would have been creamed by him. But then again, a lot of people must love Disney's musicals. You know. I've often questioned why Walt Disney never bothered to do Rapunzel, I guess he might have thought about it but wasnt interested in doing so. It probably would have ended up like how Beauty and the beast and the little mermaid turned out when he was trying to make those into films. If I recall, Walt had troubles with the second act of beauty and the beast because he couldnt figure out how to plan it out well.

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.

Thank you Dacey for explaining why it was disturbing.

[Dusterian]

Unsure of how safe it is to even do this, I'm just replying to what has been said to me.

The first one is that I do not understand how no one else thinks it is very obvious that Walt wouldn't have made Rapunzel this way. I do not understand how none of you are admitting at least some things about it feel quite obviously different, and that it's right to feel that way. At least that title.

The final one is that Hercules is different. It was more of a comedy and changed a lot of things, but it still was more faithful to the story than Rapunzel. If you wonder how it was more faithful, just re-read what I already said about the story and background changes Rapunzel had. So I wouldn't have felt differently had they both come out around the same time. I liked Hercules. But I was dissapointed in Tangled.

Finally...please don't get mad, I just want to know this. If a movie was still number one or on the charts for a while and a lot of people obviously went to see it, wouldn't you, yourselves, at least see it as a hit even if it didn't make all it's money back, only because it was too expensive? Because I would. And I don't see how you wouldn't.

Now to avoid you getting wound up, I'm just gonna leave it at that, and hope, just hope, I'm understood.

[Ben]

Point blank statement, not from me, but how Hollywood works.

If a film doesn't make back its entire budget, marketing costs and at least a third of that figure combined, it is not a hit. That is the ONLY way a hit film is counted in the movie business, whether you like it or not.

Get that into your head and repeat: if a film doesn't make back its entire budget, marketing costs and at least a third of that figure combined, it is not a hit. That is the ONLY way a hit film is counted in the movie business, whether you like it or not.

Money...it is ALL about money. The. End.