Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 13th, 2007, 5:12 pm

Well, I will say that one thing I found ridiculous on the JHM forum (IMHO) was that some people were saying how they're "tired" of the traditional fairy tale formula and that there are "too many princess films" out there in lieu of Rupunzal, Frog Princess and Enchanted. And that maybe it's better to just cancel this film for good, or at least make it over to be more "modern."

??????????????????????????????????????

How many traditional/romantic/epic animated princess films have been released in the last ten years?

Zero, zilch, nada. As Ursela would say: "Zip-pah."

Post by **Jeroen** » March 13th, 2007, 5:59 pm

I don't agree with them Vi but they do have a point ( sorta

)

We're gonna get a serious ammount of princess movies in the next following years.
(I include Tinkerbell movie in this as well, its not a princess movie persée but it has that vibe to it, "the classic disney once upon a time magic vibe")

I think it also has to do with the trend Shrek started.
Everybody started copying that so we've seen a lot of fairy tale oriented movies lately ( spoof or not ), After a time people get sick of it

Now this is not how I feel about it

, it's just how I see the general audience of today

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 13th, 2007, 9:24 pm

True, we've had lots of MODERN UPDATES of fairy tales, but that ain't the same as real traditional fairy tale films--not by a long shot!

I mean can you imagine if when they were pitching Beauty and the Beast, someone raised a hand and said: "Hey! Let's just make a modern update of the tale, set it in NYC, with lots of hip Madonna songs!" This was NOT what Disney did, nor is it what they really ever did.

What Glen is trying to do is totally different. The only thing in common Rupunzal has with Shrek or Hoodwinked is the word "fairy tale."

We're gonna get a serious ammount of princess movies in the next following years.

Well, serious amount? I count three so far, and Enchanted is mostly live action.

And that's all coming within the next, oh, four years?

There were about what, 20 animated films this year, almost all centered on anthropomorphizing smart-alecky, motor-mouthed (no pun intended!

) pixel-rendered creatures.

(And you can also make the argument that FG, Tink and E are both "modern updates" of fairy tales....so really that only leaves Glen Keane's film, which, by the looks of things, might or might not make it. (or at least not in any recognizable form.)

Everybody started copying that so we've seen a lot of fairy tale oriented movies lately ( spoof or not ), After a time people get sick of it

Now this is not how I feel about it Very Happy , it's just how I see the general audience of today

Exactly, and that's why their needs to be a change.

(In a sense, films like Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Madagascar, Ice Age and Finding Nemo are all updates of fairy tales, fables, stories, in a "hip" and "modern" setting, even if there's no love story.)

(FYI--I know you don't feel this way Z, I'm just responding to "their" arguments!

)

Post by **PatrickvD** » March 14th, 2007, 10:17 am

the last REAL fairy tale was Aladdin. Everything else has been a spoof, a twist or an original story.

I would like to see Rapunzel's story structure as traditional as possible. I'm sick of all kinds of twists and spoofs. Enchanted and Frog Princess sounds interesting, but all the Shreks, Hoodwinkeds and Happily Néver after stuff is what I am SO tired of.

Post by **Ben** » March 14th, 2007, 11:22 am

I would even say that Aladdin was somewhat of a pastiche, if not an out and out spoof, due to the Genie and Jafar. And Aladdin isn't really a fairytale like the Grimms/Perault/Andersen stories were.

Post by **Meg** » March 14th, 2007, 3:01 pm

While it's true that Disney has several fairy-tale films coming out soon, I think the themes are different enough to make them stand out from each other...

Enchanted - Fairy tale spoof
Frog Princess - Traditional fairy tale told in different time and setting
Rupunzel - Traditional fairy-tale

Post by **droosan** » March 14th, 2007, 3:27 pm

Ben wrote:I would even say that Aladdin was somewhat of a pastiche, if not an out and out spoof, due to the Genie and Jafar. And Aladdin isn't really a fairytale like the Grimms/Perault/Andersen stories were.

Heck, Aladdin wasn't even "Aladdin" .. at least, it wasn't the Aladdin from the 1001 Arabian Nights.

The love story plotline actually resembles the Perrault fairy tale Puss In Boots, right down to the Genie (Puss) passing off his master as 'royalty' ('Prince Ali', rather than the 'Marquis of Carabas').

Of course, the film had elements from the 'Aladdin' mythos (the flying carpet, three wishes), while having a uniquely 'fresh' (at the time) dosage of 'modern' jokes and references, and followed the 'Broadway' structure of that period, so a 'pastiche' is actually a good way of describing it.

Post by **Ben** » March 14th, 2007, 6:24 pm

Thanks. That's why I used that word.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 14th, 2007, 9:22 pm

Heck, Aladdin wasn't even "Aladdin" .. at least, it wasn't the Aladdin from the 1001 Arabian Nights.

The love story plotline actually resembles the Perrault fairy tale Puss In Boots, right down to the Genie (Puss) passing off his master as 'royalty' ('Prince Ali', rather than the 'Marquis of Carabas').

Of course, the film had elements from the 'Aladdin' mythos (the flying carpet, three wishes), while having a uniquely 'fresh' (at the time) dosage of 'modern' jokes and references, and followed the 'Broadway' structure of that period, so a 'pastiche' is actually a good way of describing it.

Actually, much as a I love it, almost the entire plot of Aladdin, including the toy-loving Sultan and evil sinister guy named "Jafar" was lifted from the 1940 live-action adventure film The Thief of Baghdad. Classic film!!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033152/

(Of course, I won't even mention that other "Thief" film.....

)

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 14th, 2007, 9:35 pm

I really like what askmike said on the JHM forum. (Hope it's OK if I post this askmike!

)

askmike1 said:

"You really think that's the whole truth? Of course he isn't going to crack down on his BOSS!"

Exactly. You don't see people going around in public telling everyone what a pain it is to work with your boss. They'd get fired.

As for suggestions from Lasseter, sure, he makes some suggestions. I'm sure one of them went something like, "Chris Sanders, I suggest you get off this film." I don't know about anyone else, but from everything I've seen so far, he doesn't want WDFA back, he wants Pixar: Traditional Unit. What else could explain not putting Alan Menken on FP? And isn't Lasseter the one always saying 'let the movie decide how to make it' (in terms of CGI/traditional)? Then why is he so keen on making WDFA purely traditional?

askmike1 said:

"I can't possibly fathom how you can call WDFA superior to Pixar when not one of their films outside of Lilo and Stitch has made a dime."

I'm speaking movie wise, not box office wise. And while I like Pixar movies, to me (ie, this is an OPINION), the best Pixar film couldn't stand up to any of WDFA's films from '89-'99 (or even 02-03)

"this is about making the best product for the company."

Is it? Or could this possibly be just a way to shoo off WDFA CGI animation so that they can only keep Pixar as CGI? Or perhaps would this just be an excuse to give Glen Keane the Chris Sander's treatment?

"Mr Keane obviously needs a hand in making this great project come to fruition and shouldn't be afraid to let others come on board to help him."

So Rapunzel needs help just because Lasseter doesn't like it? Of the 3 original films he directed, only one was universally praised (ABL was liked but mostly forgotten & Cars wasn't nearly as universally praised). So just because Lasseter 'supposedly' said there are story problem means there 'are' story problems?

"-I heard that "

CL didn't contain nearly the amount of pop-jokes people would make you believe. Cars had more pop-jokes in it that CL.
March 13, 2007 8:07 PM

Post by **Kinoo** » March 15th, 2007, 5:40 am

asmike1? Why are you quoting a*****es to make your point?

Here's two intelligent posts on Jimhill Rapunzel topics:

Rhett Whickman (interviewed Glen Keane in 2006)
Dear Jim

In your report you state "Mind you, back in the late summer of 2006, Keane reportedly showed Lasseter the first 20 minutes of the most recent version of "Rapunzel." And John was allegedly very lavish in his praise, saying that it was the strongest opening of a Disney fairy tale film that he'd ever seen. "

As this information comes from a personal interview I conducted with Glen I'd like to clarify. I reviewed my log of this interview - a transcript of an audio recording, as I record every interview I conduct, for accuracy. I can state as fact that Glen did indeed show Lasseter the opening and did state as fact that John said it was the strongest opening of a Disney fairy tale film he'd seen. As I have known Glen for some time, and I will stake my professional and personal reputation on his reliability as I know him to be neither a liar no someone prone to hyperbole or exaggeration, I do not consider Glen's report as alleged, but as factual. There are a lot of people caught up in the show of Show Business, but Glen is not one of them, and he is among the most level, reliable, even keeled people I know in the industry.

You then go on to state "that (According to the scuttlebutt that's now making the rounds at WDFA) it's the co-director idea that Glen is apparently most resistant to. The rumor is -- that if Lasseter & Catmull force Keane to start sharing directorial duties on "Rapunzel" -- that this animation master may then pull a Chris Sanders and quit Walt Disney Studios rather than continue to work on a severely compromised version of the film that he originally developed"

This statement surprised me, and I'm confused and puzzled as to how you heard this because I understand nothing of the sort from the people at WDFA to whom I've spoken. According to my sources the screening was a routine screening scheduled some time back. It was followed by notes, and the next screening was then scheduled for June. The June date is not set as a deadline to fix anything, per se, no more so than any other subsequent screening of projects in development are deadlines for anything other than the expected progress and attention to the notes delivered by management and colleagues.

Furthermore, as I have been told there is no consideration on Glen's part to leave the studio "if" that screening goes poorly or if a co-director is assigned to the project. Nor, as you state "to now wind up one of John's subordinates, a guy that Glen started out with ... That's kind of a bitter pill to swallow" is there any bitter feeling on Glen's part toward John being his new boss. Glen never to my knowledge wanted to helm Feature Animation, never wanted a management leadership position similar to that of John or Ed (or Tom or Peter or David for that matter) and respects both John and Ed's leadership and counsel. So to clarify, Glen is not bitter, and working for John is not something he has had to swallow. Yes, it could be for some, but - an maybe it's just me - your article implies this is how Glen feels. I understand it differently, and just wanted to state that.

You write better than anyone on the web about the myriad of possible outcomes with projects at Disney. You are accurate in stating that the film is in development and struggling to find the best story, but this is not a unique struggle, nor is it the same kind of struggle as a project about to sink. Would it not also be worth emphasizing that a nice long look at the history of every Disney film from Snow White onward will show just as much delay, re-writing and development? Some even longer than five years.

You are an exceptional reporter, Jim, so I have to ask why you chose to report this story in the fashion in which you did, and color it with a speculative tone that implies such pending trouble for this project? Why did you put the spin on this report that emphasizes "rumor"? Did you speak to Glen or his office? They're highly accessible for a story like this. There is no unusual or particular sword hanging over Rapunzel and Glen Keane and his creative colleagues working on this film. There was not anor else delivered following the screening. It makes for thrilling reading to hear what the rumor and scuttlebutt is, but it's just that - rumor and scuttlebutt, and I think of you as being far, far above either, and sad to see you spin it this way.

All things are possible. Glen may not solve the story. Glen may solve it beautifully. Glen may stay the solo director. Glen may co-direct. Glen my leave the project and turn it over to another director while he goes back to 2-D animation. Glen may prove to be a director with great vision who sticks with CG. But I wouldn't bet on any one of these above all the others because as of right now, the project is going through the typical struggles of every animated feature, even the Pixar films.

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to comment, and keep up the good work.

Your Friend and Colleague,

Rhett Wickham

CalArts student:

The students here at Calarts were lucky enough to have Glen over for a lecture about a week and a half ago. The way he talked about animation floored everyone in the audience. Incredibly insightful.

He also spoke a little about Rapunzel. The way he described it is that things were going pretty smoothly (well as smooth as a high profile production can go), and that the project is quite different from previous fairy tales because of the goal to make Rapunzel a complex character rather than a relatively generic princess which Disney is renowned for. Since the original Rapunzel story is fairly bare bones when compared to other fairy tales tackled by Disney, one can see the difficulty of forming an excellent story to engage todays audiences, but still keep the spirit of the original. According to Mr. Keane, Rapunzel is a much more internal character than others in the Disney pantheon, which seems to me would make her more difficult to write for.

I agree with rwickham when he basically says that the concerns that are raised here are perhaps overblown. Mr. Keane stated that his relationship with John Lasseter is very good, and both respect and admire each other. While John has the upper hand in terms of politics within the company, I believe for this project they communicate on an equal artistic level. And if Cars is any indication of projects being delayed because of story problems, then Lasseter himself isn't blameless.

It's the nature of the beast, particularly for a film of this quality.

Also, if things really start turning sour, it may be time for the "brain trust" to come down and discuss things with the director as they did with Meet the Robinsons. However difficult brain trust meetings may be, they exist only to make a film better by asking hard questions. I don't think this a poor reflection on the director's skill as much as discussion of what other decisions could be made in order to make a project work.

While I have complete faith in Glen Keane's work, he himself told the students here that he prefers animating to directing. So I think it's unlikely to see further films directed by him.

So don't try to diabolize Lasseter, it's just the natural process of (animated) filmmaking.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 15th, 2007, 6:31 am

Um....AskMike1 is a member of this forum as well, you know.

Like you, and like me, he has every right to an opinion.

I quoted him because I thought he summarized certain points eloquently and well.

Post by **Jeroen** » March 15th, 2007, 6:59 am

Indeed Vi,
Besides nobody considers lasseter to be "evil", some of us just don't agree with every desicion he makes.
Do we have to? I think not
That's what makes us individuals!! It is our right as human beings!!
That my friend, is what makes us who we are!!
(proud flag waving behind me

)

Post by **Ben** » March 15th, 2007, 7:33 am

Okay, play nice...or the thread gets it.

Personally, I think the traditional/CG debate is bull...any CG film could have been made with classical animation and probably come over as being "better" because we weren't also being bombarded with fancy-smancy images too.

Post by **ShyViolet** » March 15th, 2007, 8:13 am

I'm sorry....like I said earlier I didn't mean any harm.

I just think we should all try and respect each other.

Like Ben said, let's just try and play nice.