Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[EricJ]

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..

Hercules wasn't one danged foggy blue-eyed grade-A royal flying US-inspected BIT "faithful" to its story, and that was one major reason it was a biblical studio disaster in the theaters. (I remember hating the movie with a murderous passion at the time, but even the worst Musker/Clements musical can grow on you over time on video--Maybe in another ten years I'll like Princess&Frog better, but that one didn't have "Zero to Hero".)
If anything, the audience was enraged that the movie seemed to project Eisner's arrogance that mythology was too "boring" (as in the Charlten Heston intro), and needed to be gagged-up and kitsch-deconstructed so audiences would "like" it....Them's fightin' words to Harryhausen Clash&Jason fans, and the gags we got seemed like the Disney Afternoon ones Eisner would like. Reportedly, even M&C hated working on it. Parents taking their kids to see their first Greek-myth story were appalled, and I remember a few chats on the parent sites asking "Well, that didn't work--What Greek movies can I show my kids? " (At which point, the Harryhausen fans all recommended renting Clash and Jason.)

Tangled, ironically, was the opposite: We went in with memories of the hideous first teaser, and fans still had "Rapunzel Unbraided" lurking at the back of their minds and a chip on their shoulder to lynch Chicken Little, just for the crimes of the last eight years...And what we got was the first "real" story-faithful cuddly 90's Disney musical we got since, well, "Hercules". Okay, "Mulan". (Unless you count Treasure Planet and Tarzan, which only had soundtrack songs.)
If Hercules was demonized for "hating" its source story, Tangled won our respect for respecting its source story, and making it even better. Although, granted, much of the passion against Hercules was our growing weary of the Katzenberg Formula shticks after Pocahontas and Hunchback, and by the time Tangled came along it was...just what we thought we'd been missing all this time.

To play your lil' stubborn game, which one "would Walt have done"? C'mon. The rest of us are already way ahead of you on the answer.

[estefan]

The random Eisner bashing aside (and let's be honest here, Katzenberg is at fault for greenlighting Hercules since that was the only way Clements and Musker could finally make Treasure Planet), I agree with Eric on this one.

The Disney version of Hercules is absolutely nothing like the original myth whatsoever. Aside from taking place in ancient Greece, throwing a couple of little nods to the Twelve Labours and the character names, it has very little in common with the mythology. In fact, there is no way they could have done a faithful version of the Hercules myth while still making it family friendly, which makes me surprised they even decided to do the story in the first place. Disney's Hercules is simply Superman.

Tangled, on the other hand, incorporates a lot of the story from the Brothers Grimm story. From the necessary odes like "Let down your hair" and the tower, we also get the magical flower that starts the entire story, the couple who loses their baby to Gothel because they stole said flower, the own dude who finds the hidden tower, the way Rapunzel "lets down her hair" as well as the ending where

Gothel tricks the prince/bandit by letting down Rapunzel's hair and then harming him when he reaches the top. Then, followed by Rapunzel getting her hair cut and then her tears curing the prince/bandit. The tears seem to be the biggest criticism leveled at Tangled to the point where I have to remind people that the original fairy tale ended the same way.

Obviously, Tangled is not 100% faithful to the original story, but no Disney film ever is. But, to say Hercules is more faithful is pure balderdash right there. Plus, sometimes being extremely close to the source material is not necessarily a good thing. Don Bluth's Thumbelina was quite close to the Hans Cristian Anderson story, but had they deviated some more, then maybe Thumbelina and Cornelious would not have been such dull and one-dimensional characters, not to mention all of those frogs and beetles chasing after Thumbelina just to get into her skirt would not have come off quite as creepy.

[droosan]

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.

It's not that I think Tangled is the film "Walt would have made."

In fact, I'm sure that if Walt had ever tackled the Rapunzel story as an animated feature (pre-1966), it would have been a very different movie. And it certainly would have been titled Rapunzel.


But it doesn't much matter NOW how Walt would've done it, back in 19xx.


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

The studio which bears his name hasn't had the benefit of his personal guidance for over forty years. And during those decades, changes have taken place -- in audience tastes, sophistication of story-telling, and even the nature of the film business within the entertainment industry as a whole -- which have made the films Walt did make seem (just slightly) 'out-of-fashion'.

And Walt had to deal with that within his own lifetime, too. Look at The Jungle Book versus Alice In Wonderland versus Pinocchio. It's very obvious which was made in the 1960's, which was made in the 1950's, and which in the 1940's. Audience tastes and music styles had changed, and Walt had to evolve his films with the times.

Had Walt made The Jungle Book in the 1940's, or Pinocchio in the 1960's .. they would very likely be different movies than we now know them.

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

Disney Animation Studios has made a Rapunzel feature for the movie-going audience of 2010 .. and from the reaction it's been getting, it seems to have 'clicked' with that audience.

It is quite obviously a different movie than Walt Disney would have made in 19xx.

And that is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.

[James]

droosan FTW!

[EricJ]

The random Eisner bashing aside (and let's be honest here, Katzenberg is at fault for greenlighting Hercules since that was the only way Clements and Musker could finally make Treasure Planet), I agree with Eric on this one.
The Disney version of Hercules is absolutely nothing like the original myth whatsoever. Aside from taking place in ancient Greece, throwing a couple of little nods to the Twelve Labours and the character names, it has very little in common with the mythology. In fact, there is no way they could have done a faithful version of the Hercules myth while still making it family friendly, which makes me surprised they even decided to do the story in the first place. Disney's Hercules is simply Superman.

Not just the Disney-izing of the source, more the constant non-stop "ba-dum ching" in the script--Which, granted, was the concept, but just sounded hyper and forced:
There were a few chuckles at Hermes looking and sounding like Paul Shaffer and handing out bouquets of flowers to every one (get it? )...But there were audible groans in the theater when the Fates said "We know the future...By the way (nudge): Plastics." (It's the Graduate line, get it? )

Until Chicken Little came along and showed us what hyper and desperate REALLY looked like, Hercules was considered the edge of the cliff for the 90's on how obnoxiously to gag-up a story and treat the audience like idiots--Which, again, we were afraid Tangled was going to do for the same reason.
If Hercules is remembered today, it's remembered for M&C finding the appeal of the characters--yes, we even end up caring about Megara, impossible as that seems--unifying the motivation thread in the story, and providing the emotional involvement for a few tidy action scenes in the climax. I never realized they'd made it just to get Planet made, but just shows what a little sincerity can do even when you're forced to show it.

Had Walt made The Jungle Book in the 1940's, or Pinocchio in the 1960's .. they would very likely be different movies than we now know them.

Walt reportedly tried to make Jungle Book in the 40's as a much more serious story--And apparently must've been that bad an experience, the way Walt personally insisted on throwing out any A-B storyline for the 60's movie and staying as far from a direct translation of the book as possible. At that point Walt was already wandering off from animation, but definitely seemed like "Not that again."

but had they deviated some more, then maybe Thumbelina and Cornelious would not have been such dull and one-dimensional characters, not to mention all of those frogs and beetles chasing after Thumbelina just to get into her skirt would not have come off quite as creepy.

(Don Bluth films will always be Creepy. It just comes with the territory.)

[Dusterian]

I think we've actually all come to an agreement.

Ben, okay, it's in my head. They would not consider it a hit, and it would end Disneyanimation. I understand and believe that. It just makes me so sad that they only look at it making it's money back to be a hit, when it can still be a hit because of lots of audience, lots of praise, and topping the charts, in those senses. So even if it didn't make it's money back, I, and I think others, would still call it a hit in those senses.

As for the Hercules subject...is it true, Ron and Jon didn't want to work on it, and it was testing ground for Treasure Planet?

My one friend is a mythology lover, and he loves Hercules, as do I. He never brought up big problems he had with the story. I'd have to really read all of Hercules (a rather BIG task) to figure out how different it really is, to agree with everyone, so I'm not sure.

But one reason I'd be okay with Hercules' changes is because of that reason someone said that it had to change in order to be audience and family friendly, but another reason is because the original source is so big, such a big collection of stories. It's very much like The Jungle Book, which also had to change more than many other Disney films because it was such a big collection of stories. They had to turn both into one single narrative, and that's why I think the changes are okay.

But that's not the case with Rapunzel, where it is one shorter single narrative, and I already explained why I found it unnecessary to make the changes they did. But I already talked about that, so just go back some pages if you want to see what I mean.

droosan I have to admit, you're really right about most of that. I don't however think that the 1950's movies are different from the 1940's mostly because of the times, but rather, because of the subject material. I consider the original stories of Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and Lady and the Tramp to be on the lighter brighter side (Cinderella was based on the lighter Perrault version, not the Grimm's). Sleeping Beauty kept some of the 1940's Grimm darkness, however, so it was like the past films in ways.

So I guess all I can do is be sad about the title and loss of what could have been (Glen Keane's original more faithful, more beautifully animated, more classic Disney version) while also trying to be happy with the good the film does have, and celebrate whatever classicness it has in it.

estefan, you can put it in white, but

did people really have a problem with the tears? How so?

[Dacey]

I don't think I've said anything about that, Dust.

[estefan]

estefan, you can put it in white, but did people really have a problem with the tears? How so?

Mainly due to how they considered it to be way too much of a deus-ex-machina. Not to mention bringing back memories of the ending to that dreadful Pokemon movie where the pocket monster's tears bring Ash back to life.

Tangled handled it much, much, much better than Pokemon did. I can't believe I'm even mentioning the two in the same sentence.

[Macaluso]

I like the Pokemon movie and all but why is that even being discussed here? I can't figure out how that even came up.

On the subject of Tangled handling things better, I think Tangled handled a lot of things better than most Disney movies do. The biggest thing of course is:

Rapunzel and Eugene never said "I love you". While I do love Beauty and the Beast and Princess and the Frog and such, it feels like they say "I love you" way too fast (I understand they have to, since the movies are only an hour and a half). But I liked how it was handled in this. Yes they do eventually get married, but I liked that instead of the usual "I love you" line, they went with the really cute "You were my dream. And you were mine" lines. It made the whole thing feel more natural. You know what I mean?

[GeorgeC]

Mac,

You're a nut but occasionally do make sense. ( ==> Takes one to know one!)

Totally agree with your analysis of love confession scene in Tangled.

That issue is a BIG problem with many films that have scenes like that.
It's not just a Disney thing. I'd say it's the majority of films, period.

[Dusterian]

Dacey, sorry, my mistake.

estefan, yea, I figured, and I agree, and also

they made it much less of a deux-ex-machina than the original story, by having her tears be magic because of the flower. It was the same thing her hair would have been able to do. It's one of the few things I think this movie did right. The people complaining about that were just not right, I mean, this movie had magic hair healing people and they ddn't complain about that! They need to get a grip.

Dracaluso and GeorgeC, I don't think this is a spoiler, but I'll hide it for now anyway

I thought they did say "I love you", and I know that because I was waiting for it. Didn't they say it after the "dream" lines, didn't they say it real quick before they went back to her parents? In real life, if you don't tell someone you love them...that's not good. Somewhere along the line you actually do have to say those words for people to fully feel that, well, you love them. And how was "I love you" said too fast in Beauty and the Beast? They spent like how many months together? And she said it just before he was gonna die!

[Macaluso]

No, they do not say it, at any point in the movie. I know that because I have watched it several times. The only thing said before they go back to her parents is her saying "Eugene?", him going "Did I ever tell you I've got a thing for brunettes?" and her saying again "EUGENE!" and then hugs him and they kiss. Yes, obviously it's implied they do say "I love you" at some point seeing as how they do get married. But even with that it's also implied that they let the relationship build before marriage as Flynn says how after asking and asking and asking and asking Rapunzel finally says yes.

Beauty and the Beast was just an example (though it still felt fast). Princess and the frog was a much better example as it's literally about a day or two from meeting Naveen to them saying they love each other. I like the movie, but I didn't fully buy that.

Saying you love someone shouldn't be something you just throw around, and I appreciated that Tangled didn't use it at all, just simply implied the love was there

[James]

I agree for the most part, except on BatB. Maybe they didn't do a good job of it but I think it was supposed to be implied that time was passing.

Also, due to the unique magic in the film (he has to get a girl to fall in love with him) they have to literally have her say it. It's be like saying only a kiss could wake Sleeping Beauty and then not show the kiss!

[Ben]

"Dracaluso"...!?


I would second that argument for B&TB...there's almost a year that passes while Belle is in the castle, more than evough time for deep feelings to develop.

And she doesn't exactly throw out "I love you" for any random reason: the Beast has just died as far as she knows!

[Macaluso]

I admit Beauty and the Beast wasn't a good example. Pretend I only said Princess and the Frog you big jerks >:O