Post
by Dusterian » February 20th, 2010, 11:51 pm
Maybe, maybe it could have had another title, not wacky and comic enough to not be Aladdin, either, and what's important is they were able to, and did, keep that title. By the way, the wacky humor and pop culture references was more derived from the genie, who knew things from every time and place. It made sense, it fit within the story, it's just whoever wrote Aladdin couldn't know what kind of things would happen in the cultures of the future that the genie would know about.
And if Dsiney is going to let people know the film is the stoyr of Rapunzel...then why change the name in the first place? They're tricking them. Because otherwise if the story is "Rapunzel"...shouldn't it then be called, "Rapunzel"?
Droosan, good find, but the genie didn't trick Jafar, Aladdin did, and Jafar did not turn into something easily defeatable, but recieved the same power as the genie, complete with the imprisonment. That's not getting defeated the same way. Appreciate originality, especially when it does come from the story itself (a wish, turning into another genie, all related to and from the original Aladdin, etc.)
Chernabog, woah, The Great Mouse Detective is not based on any particular story of Sherlock Holmes, just the general idea of him, with some clever character references for humour. The Princess and the Frog was a whacked out, totally different take on The Frog Prince, it was not that story very much at all, so it rightfully had a different title! I very much like license in adaptations, but any story, especially one as bare as a fairy tale, can be faithful to the source and still have lots of creativity, because there's so much room to get creative aside from what is described. Stories can only describe up to a point, the rest is up to your imagination. So movies show what someone imagined, from reading a book, or from real life, or a completely original idea, etc. Which means that I'm a little mad at the Prince being a bandit in this version, but I got over it, and that has nothing to do with a title like Tangled. It's still enough of the story of Rapunzel to be called Rapunzel.
Disney trying something new? I already told you that they can make a new kind of movie if they want, but when they make a fairy tale, do it right (am I mad at the way they did Princess and the Frog, yup, but that's not the issue here. Also, I wouldn't mind if they made their own original fairy tale and did whatever they want to that, it's the classics that need to stay classic). And they already made this film the classic story of Rapunzel so that the title "Rapunzel" fits, so it's too late to change it and do something new! Like change the title for no good reason accept lamely try to get more people to see it by calling it what it's not!
And no one here is acknowledging that it is still only the previews, the trailers and commercials and other marketing that they need to sell the film, and that will sell the film, not the title?
I'm pretty sure Walt would not have approved of Stitch's wackiness and behavior. He was behaving in a way Walt would never have in his films. Yea, he turned good later, that's not the point, I'm talking about the exact way he was, how weird and rude and violent and destructive and one could say sick. And I think you and I both know he probably wouldn't have ever done anything with aliens in his films. Those aren't the kinds of stories he wanted to tell. Yea, we don't know for absolutely certain...but come on, that doesn't seem like anything he would ever do, you know that. It was Chris Sanders mainly, not two directors working together to keep Walt's kind of stories...it was Chris Sanders' wacky story he just had to make into a movie somehow.
, I sincerely doubt they'd change it back for anybody, or anything. Disney Marketing is in 'full-steam-ahead mode', now. 
Deals are being made, and serious money is being spent .. all of it with the Tangled title attached.
)
