Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Macaluso]

I think you are waaaaaaaaay overreacting about the name change.

And Emperor's New Groove was successful. It wasn't too successful in theaters, but by the time it came out on DVD, word of mouth had caused it to be. Enchanted was successful, would you rather that have been called "The Princess in New York"?

[EricJ]

Still waiting for my op/ed piece, but it's not an overreaction if you look at history:
Why does "Tangled" sound like "Enchanted"?--Have to understand why "Enchanted came out in the first place.
Why did "Enchanted" come out in the first place?--Have to understand why Eisner shut down the 2-D studios.
Why did Eisner shut down the 2-D studios?--Had to understand Shrek's influence at the time...And so on.

Take it all the way back to '02-'03, and you'll see an almost abuse-survivor guilt complex where Disney now feels forced to apologize for themselves at almost ANY bit of criticism or low grosses. And we are who they think they have to apologize to.
And the cycle's going to keep happening, unless there's some kind of therapeutic intervention where we can slap them awake and say "Look, it's okay, we LIKE you now!" And forcing them to call themselves on something as simple yet condescending as a "marketable" title change would be small enough to start with.

[disneybelgium]

First post here...

But i had to react.

An animated feature called tangled? To me it must be a comedy, or even a parody. Probably something like hoodwinked. But never would i think about a beautiful animated movie with wonderfull songs and a love story.

So to me, it says they are going for the comedy, leaving all the drama out.

and they only have one change to make rapunzel.

If they wish to do a comedy a la Enchanted, they have to pick certain fairytale things and create a new story, but don't use a existing fairy tale and make a mockery out of it.

Okay, Hoodwinked was that way, but honestly, the true story could never have been a great animated classic, would it?

But Rapunzel can.

If they had to change the title, why not make it on of the other candidates?

The hidden tower: sounds like a good adventure filled movie with mistery
The thief and the tower: adventure, action
Tangled: screwball comedy

Last night i did a test and asked my friends if they would like to see a animated feature called Tangled. No one was intrested. When i asked them if they wanted to see Rapunzel, they were more enthousiastic.

[chernabog]

The title is indeed a betrayal of Disney's past. Name a film that is very Disney, and was successful, and had a name like that. The Emporer's New Groove is the closest, but that was more like Warner Bros. humour than Disney, and it was not successful. And no movie that makes people think of Disney, no very successful Disney movie, has a title like that.

Then by that rationale, The Princes and the Frog should have been a major hit right? How about Fantasia 2000? A title which is unmistakably a Disney film, yet didn't do too well at the box office did it. In fact the box office grosses for non Disney animated films have vastly outweighed those of The Hunhback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan et al... ALL very distinctly Disney stylised movies which were far more indebted to Walt's vision than anything in the past decade. So clearly the title is of no relevance.

It's also confusing the way in which you use the term betrayal. I'm not entirely sure whether this is merely just a debate about semantics, but how is a name change of a NEW film a betrayal of Disney? Surely Chicken Little, a film which virtually rejected every staple of the Disney style, was far more of a "betrayal" than a musical about a princess and a magical villain? Had the title been changed to "Disney makes bad films", then I concur, that would be a betrayal. But Tangled? Really?

And let's not be naive. The Emperor's New Groove has become a cult classic, arguably the funniest picture to have emerged from the mouse house. You truly believe people didn't turn up to see it because of the title? And not because of the fact that traditional animation looked comparably inferior to children when stacked up against CG features like Monsters, Inc? Consider that Chicken Little, a truly terrible film, actually had a higher opening weekend than The Lion King. Now, dos this have anything to do with quality or indeed something as irrelevant as a title?

I'd also like to point out that the change in title is not necessarily indicative of a change of style. Meet The Robinsons was notable for its lack of scenes featuring the eponymous family. It is entirely possible - and I'd argue even very probable - that Disney have changed the title, as they have themselves stated - to draw in a larger crowd without detriment to the quality of the story.

I'd like to illustrate Nintendo. The codename for the Wii was originally Revolution and while I and many other Nintendo devotees were initially horrified by the change, the reason behind the decision was clear: In order to appeal to the casual market of which they had long talked about as an important demographic, Revolution had to be scrapped. Why? Because it was not only discernible from rival consoles, it also suggested the type of console which the casual market had hitherto avoided. Wii was not only different, it implied something fun which the casual gamer could get to grips with.

This is not a literal comparison and in many ways it is perhaps the opposite of Disney; whereas Nintendo had to separate itself from the competition to gain support, Disney has become so neglcted by modern audiences that it needs to claw its way back into popular consciousness. So the name change does not necessarily mean Disney is going the "comedy" route - highly unlikely since the original premise of Rapunzel Unbraided was scrapped once Lasseter came onboard - but rather it is simply a means to draw in new audiences who may then be surprised by how much they enjoy something different to the CG features they've become accustomed to.

[James]

I think what a lot of the traditionalists are trying to say here is that a name like Tangled is not timeless. It will feel dated eventually. If this film were to be as popular as many of the other princess films, in 20 years will the name still be cool and hip sounding? When they build a land around the characters at a theme park will the name Tangled fit in with the atmosphere? In short, will pandering to a casual audience now hurt the film in the long run by making it less "classic" and timeless to future audiences than its predecessors?

[chernabog]

I understand that, but it seems to me a moot argument. If Tangled is a great film, people won't forget about in years to come because they didn't like the title. Lilo and Stitch hardly fits alongside the likes of Beauty and the Beast or The Little Mermaid, but it remains popular precisely because audiences related to those characters. It is entirely possible that if it achieves success, Tangled will be remembered precisely because of its name.

I'd also argue that pandering to a casual audience now is likely to have the opposite effect. The larger the audience Disney attracts, the more people will turn out to see the next film, and the next and so on. The longer Disney struggles to find an audience, the less willing people will be to watch their films in the future. As much as I want them to make a quality film, people have to understand that this is a business and right now the main concern not only for Bob Iger but Lasseter and Catmull and even the filmmakers themselves is to make a hit film. If this means perhaps causing discontent among the traditionalists then it is unfortunately a necessary evil.

[James]

If Tangled is a great film, people won't forget about in years to come because they didn't like the title

That cuts both ways. If Tangled is a great film, who cares if it's called Rapunzel?

[chernabog]

The studio does, if it means attracting a larger audience.

I've noticed that the official site for Walt Disney Animation Studios has yet to display the new title. As this was announced a week ago, I find it odd that they haven't been more forthright in implementing the changes. Perhaps they are reconsidering? Just a thought. It's interesting also that no attempt was made to display the new title during mattel's unveiling of the Rapunzel toy line. According to the article over at JimHillMedia, the executives found out far too late to change the displays. But to cover it up entirely without even a single sign of the new title? Seems odd to me.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... acter.aspx

Not a great deal of news but it does talk about some of the characters and shows off a toy version of the tower which looks pretty sweet.

Mod edit: merged post

[Ben]

Chern...your sig image is way too big...reduce please!

[Foxtale]

I've noticed that the official site for Walt Disney Animation Studios has yet to display the new title. As this was announced a week ago, I find it odd that they haven't been more forthright in implementing the changes. Perhaps they are reconsidering? Just a thought. It's interesting also that no attempt was made to display the new title during mattel's unveiling of the Rapunzel toy line. According to the article over at JimHillMedia, the executives found out far too late to change the displays. But to cover it up entirely without even a single sign of the new title? Seems odd to me.

I think Mattel is secretly in a state of panic over the name change. The toys look like they will be solid hits with little girls. A good glace of what the characters will look like. I'm pumped. I can't wait for an official trailer, come on people!

[Dusterian]

Thank you James, that helped a lot!

chernabog, you missed some points. For one, Lilo and Stitch is not meant to be a classic fairy tale, or a very Disney film (it was pretty much the brainchild of one Chris Sanders!), you can't compare it to the very Disney classic fairy tales. And t wasn't that big of a hit. Disney just whores it out because it's the most liked one out of a long line of underperformers!

The Emporer's New Groove hardly felt Disney at all. As I said, it was more Warner Brothers-like humor. Again, you are comparing not very Disney feeling films to classic Disney fairy tales.

Finally, we have heard that Rapunzel, or rather Tangled, really will be a classic fairy tale, yea it's humorous and has a bandit, but it still also has the drama, emotion, magic, and classical feeling. To give it a title that is not that at all is a betrayal of not only Disney but what the film actually is, just to draw audiences. Tricking audiences, with horrible titles, that's what Disney should be doing?

They already made a classic fairy tale in this film. They can give their comic, crappy titles to comic, crappy films that they make for any casual audience, but not this one. It still sounds like you are saying Disney shouldn't be Disney anymore just to make money...

[chernabog]

It still sounds like you are saying Disney shouldn't be Disney anymore just to make money...

At no point have I ever said that. I talked about adapting, you're the one who keeps bringing up the issue of Disney abandoning it's traditions, not me.

Tricking audiences, with horrible titles, that's what Disney should be doing?

Horrible is an incredibly subjective comment. As a stand alone title I wouldn't say it's particularly good or bad, my feelings are largely indifferent. Calling it horrible is merely an over reaction to a name change which had you not known about beforehand, would have been of no concern to you in the slightest. As for tricking audiences, I think that's a bit naive. All marketing is trickery, it's an attempt to draw people in to purchase a product. I highly doubt the existence of an audience member who would exclaim "Damn you Disney, you attracted me to a film which I enjoyed immensely, but because the title was misleading, I hate you." Once again it highlights the reductio ad absurdum of placing so much emphasis on a title.

They can give their comic, crappy titles to comic, crappy films that they make for any casual audience, but not this one.

It seems you're equating comedy with being a lower art form? In fact by your rationale it would seem Disney has deliberately chosen (what you consider to be) poor titles for films which were mee comedies and thereofre unworthy of the same love and attention of the more important fairytales.

Lilo and Stitch is not meant to be a classic fairy tale, or a very Disney film (it was pretty much the brainchild of one Chris Sanders!), you can't compare it to the very Disney classic fairy tales. And t wasn't that big of a hit. Disney just whores it out because it's the most liked one out of a long line of underperformers!

Neither Robin Hood or The Jungle Book are fairytales, but they still incorporate classic Disney themes, just as Lilo and Stitch did. You insist on returning to this idea that Disney films which aren't fairytales underperform for that very reason and so cling to the idea that sticking to the past will make everything all right. There is a fine line between tradition and stubborness, and what you're supporting is the latter. I know about loyalty to Disney (I have a painful tattoo on my arm which is testimony of this), but I am also aware that Disney needs to adapt (NB: I used the word ADAPT, NOT abandon - just in case you felt the need to bring up this point once again). Until you have seen the film, the audiences reaction to it and how this plays out over the next few years, making a conclusion based on the transition from one title to another, just because it differs slightly from tradition, is frighteningly obsessive.

To give it a title that is not that at all is a betrayal of not only Disney but what the film actually is, just to draw audiences.

Additionally this is purely conjecture on your part. At no point has there been any announcement that the title change is to reflect the comedy style of the film and any interpretation to that effect has been entirely inferred by internet users such as you and I.

[Randall]

I've been afraid to wade in, but...

Boy, it's really not that big of a deal. (Basically agreeing with Chernabog a whole lot.) And, considering that no one's seen the film yet, it seems beyond silly to quibble whether the title is appropriate or not to its tone. "Tangled" is, to me, a relatively clever spin of a title for a movie loosely based on the Rapunzel story. (And I do mean loosely based. We all know that Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid were far from faithful adaptations, same as this will have to be... if for no other reason than to simply fill the 85 minute runtime.)

I understand the traditionalist viewpoint. Heck, I agree with it. I prefer "Rapunzel." But I don't have hundreds of millions riding on the film's acceptance. No one can ever say with certainty that a title change will or will not help its opening. But if it does help, it keeps classical animation on its respirator until the next movie. Besides, if it's a hit, it will still be forever known as "the Rapunzel movie" anyways. When you see her strolling through the parks, her name will still be "Rapunzel," not "the Tangled princess."

[Dusterian]

This would have concerned me even if I didn't know it once had a different title that was more faithful and, you know, what the film was, beforehand. If I heard they were working on adapting Rapunzel and called it Tangled from the beginning, yea, I'd still be concerned.

Tricking audiences with marketing in general is far different from tricking audiences with a title that doesn't fit the movie. You are right in that I don't know for sure how the movie will be. All I have is what they have officially said about the movie and what insiders have said! It's a little more humorous, adventurous, and the prince is now a bandit. Sounds like Aladdin. But that was still called Aladdin and rightfully so, because that's what it was, still enough of the classic fairy tale Aladdin, so calling it that fit. So, it should also fit to do the same for Rapunzel.

So they are actually tricking audiences not with "oh, I saw a good movie" but "oh, I saw a princess movie, the story of Rapunzel. Why was it called something different? I was expecting a totally new, twisted, something else!"

Speaking of tricking in marketing, that is exactly why the title change is not a good option. A better option is to show in the trailers, TV spots, and all other marketing except the title and film itself, the things that will make people want to see the movie. Because that's how you sell your movie to audiences. No one's going to know what the hell Tangled is just from that title!

I love comic films, because guess what, I loved The Emporer's New Groove! But was it very Disney in it's humor? No. It really didn't feel like a Disney classic at all. Maybe a comedy classic, (maybe), but not a Disney classic. It was great, but not very Disney. And Tangled just happens to be a really bad title. Because actually, it's funny, The Emporer's New Groove actually fit what they did. It's kind of (kind of) like the tale of The Emporer's New Clothes, but it's really something different, groovy and wacky, so they made the title reflect that.

I don't know about Lilo and Stitch having classic Disney themes. It certainly didn't feel Disney to me. I don't know if Walt would have approved of aliens. He liked fantasy, but not so much sci-fi fantasy, and even then, there's sci-fi and then there's aliens. But it was so much Chris Sanders weird work, I just don't know how that film could be considered very Disney. I may be okay wuth it, though, because that's a weird film meant to be a weird film, it's not Disney changing how they do fairy tales.

Robin Hood is almost like a classic fairy tale, but it is a piece of classic literature, as is The Jungle Book. Disney's classics are usually based on classic pieces of literature. AND KEEP THOSE CLASSICS' NAMES. Of course, I'm not sure if Walt would have approved of Robin Hood being more comical animals instead of more dramatic humans, and I don't know how much say he had in The Jungle Book's more loose, comic nature as he was, well, dying, but Robin Hood didn't do so good...and The Jungle Book was known to audiences as Walt's last picture, who wouldn't jump to see that?... But they were still very Disney in their humor and their animals, and had at least some serious and dramatic moments that were also very Disney, but of course they were made with Walt's input, so of course they would feel very Disney. But as I said, they were classic pieces of literature that kept their classic titles, because that's what they were, the titles told us we were seeing those classic tales because that's what they were.

I'll say again, why can't they let a classic fary tale be a classic fairy tale, because when doing a fairy tale, that is what Disney, at it's most like itself, does. Then they can make some new kind of film for audiences and call that whatever they want that fits that kind of film. Because what they really need to do to sell this picture is not change the title to something worse that probably will put off audiences, but make it look good (to girls and to boys) in their previews.

Randall, also read what you said, I think I agreed with some but what I wrote applies to both of you I think.

[Randall]

With respect, I'm just not clear on how Disney is "tricking" the audience with a title change. The advertising will, I suspect, still strongly identify this as a Rapunzel story. If you refer to expectation of tone--- well, again, none of us have actually seen the movie in order to know what the tone will be for sure. The film's been through a whole lot of develpment already, and it will go through a little more yet.

And here's something to think about... I would even argue (in a friendly way ) that Aladdin could have had a much different title. It was way jokier and less traditional than previous films, and has some sadly dated humor in it. (There's more "Aladdin" in today's DreamWorks films than we might like to admit.) Maybe it should have been called "Aladdin's New Rug."

I have a feeling I may have opened a whole new can of worms...