Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
The gorgeous and often photo-realistic look has been much commented on, so I'll pass there.
But a thought has struck me. For all the hoopla about moving Disney back away from an exec-meddling studio to a director-driven studio, is it just me or does it seem to be that Disney is still a DreamWorks-esque "commercial" studio while Pixar gets to take the risks and make the arty films?
I know we're still kind of waiting for Lasseter's regime to make their mark on Disney Animation's films (apart from Princess/Frog and Pooh 2, the CG films released so far all had their roots in the pre-Pixar merger), but the evidence seen so far doesn't suggest he's managed to make Disney any less "market-led", as seen with the "Tangled" re-title while the rest of non-English speaking world will get the film as "Rapunzel". And don't forget that Menken's tunes are not "traditionally orchestrated" but more along the 1960s pop feel of Little Shop, Hercules and Sister Act...perfect for wide commercial crossover appeal.
Meanwhile, I guess Pixar is feeling it a bit too: Andrew Stanton's upcoming live-action film, after all, isn't being called "Princess Of Mars" after the book it is based upon, is it?
But a thought has struck me. For all the hoopla about moving Disney back away from an exec-meddling studio to a director-driven studio, is it just me or does it seem to be that Disney is still a DreamWorks-esque "commercial" studio while Pixar gets to take the risks and make the arty films?
I know we're still kind of waiting for Lasseter's regime to make their mark on Disney Animation's films (apart from Princess/Frog and Pooh 2, the CG films released so far all had their roots in the pre-Pixar merger), but the evidence seen so far doesn't suggest he's managed to make Disney any less "market-led", as seen with the "Tangled" re-title while the rest of non-English speaking world will get the film as "Rapunzel". And don't forget that Menken's tunes are not "traditionally orchestrated" but more along the 1960s pop feel of Little Shop, Hercules and Sister Act...perfect for wide commercial crossover appeal.
Meanwhile, I guess Pixar is feeling it a bit too: Andrew Stanton's upcoming live-action film, after all, isn't being called "Princess Of Mars" after the book it is based upon, is it?
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1347
- Joined: January 23rd, 2006
- Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Spaz, I take issue with the notion that only animators can write animation (it seems a bit snobbish and elitist). I've got some great ideas for animated films, but I can't draw and never could figure out Flash (or any other animation software).
One idea I've had is to do multiple films starring the same character, but have each be a different genre as if he were an actor playing different roles and keep the VA anonymous to preserve the illusion. I don't think anyone has ever tried that before and it would be a neat experiment to see if an audience would go for it.
One idea I've had is to do multiple films starring the same character, but have each be a different genre as if he were an actor playing different roles and keep the VA anonymous to preserve the illusion. I don't think anyone has ever tried that before and it would be a neat experiment to see if an audience would go for it.
The Official Lugofilm Ltd Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bartsimpson83
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 398
- Joined: May 28th, 2009
- Contact:
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
To add to that, why not experiment a bit and have, say, Pete Docter or Doug Sweetland direct a film over at Walt Disney Animation? They have already brought Brenda Chapman over to Pixar. Why not try it the other way around? Could having "from the director of Monsters Inc or Up help the box-office and acclaim of said film?Ben wrote: But a thought has struck me. For all the hoopla about moving Disney back away from an exec-meddling studio to a director-driven studio, is it just me or does it seem to be that Disney is still a DreamWorks-esque "commercial" studio while Pixar gets to take the risks and make the arty films?
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9094
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
I think something like that is really not likely. One of the stipulations of the original merger was that Pixar gets to stay Pixar and Disney Disney. Peter Doctor is in the Brain Trust of Pixar and very much part of their identity as a studio. Like Andrew Stanton, John Lassetter and Brad Bird he basically embodies Pixar "culture." If Pixar directors go over to WDAS there will be a crossover.
It's totally understandable that they want to preserve their identity and keep Pixar prestige going, but they really have to do more to keep WDAS afloat, because as said on the TAG blog months back it's a possibility that if more original and moneymaking films aren't churned out soon Iger might shutter them altogether...because Disney already has one great animated studio that makes stunning, wildly successful animated films, and another studio that makes cute, beautifully drawn but otherwise unremarkable (as a whole, NOT counting the individual moments of brilliance) films that are primarily marketed and targeted towards families and children. Not reviewers, teenagers, film fans and people who aren't even wild about animation in the first place.
I understand that this is kind of a radical viewpoint but...in many ways I feel Disney is more corporate now than it was under Eisner. It's certainly likely that buying Marvel was a good decision economically (especially in the long run) but as far as preserving Disney culture, heritage and identity...totally not. Wolverine and Spider-Man are totally awesome but have absolutely nothing to do with Disney culture and in many ways are the antithesis of it. They may "make money"--but as said so many times years ago is making money everything? What about remembering what Disney is supposed to stand for?
Eisner would never have bought Marvel, and not just because he probably never cared much for reading comics but because as sometimes flawed as his reign was, he did recognize (not always, but most of the time, and especially in the first 15 years) what Disney culture was and how to preserve it. Even with all the mistakes he made with 2d animation, closing Florida, etc...at least Disney Feature Animation was front and center and there was some kind of vision of "Disney" and what people expect of it. There's so much extra baggage that comes with Disney now that Disney's meaning is totally becoming diluted and empty. WDAS not only lacks job stability but the vision of what a real Disney film is supposed to feel like. The closest they've come so far is Princess, but as nice as that was it didn't come close enough. At least Keane and Deja and Sanders and Baxter were seen as valuable and worth keeping. There might have been executive meddling but there was, at the very least, the pretense of respecting them.
Iger needs to finally take responsibility. Responsibility for WDAS and for the Disney name. For too many shows on the Disney channel, too many bad films, and a loss of focus.
Don Hahn would still be a great choice to guide FA. He just directed an award winning film that's all about how well he knows FA and how important he knows it is. Who better?
It's totally understandable that they want to preserve their identity and keep Pixar prestige going, but they really have to do more to keep WDAS afloat, because as said on the TAG blog months back it's a possibility that if more original and moneymaking films aren't churned out soon Iger might shutter them altogether...because Disney already has one great animated studio that makes stunning, wildly successful animated films, and another studio that makes cute, beautifully drawn but otherwise unremarkable (as a whole, NOT counting the individual moments of brilliance) films that are primarily marketed and targeted towards families and children. Not reviewers, teenagers, film fans and people who aren't even wild about animation in the first place.
I understand that this is kind of a radical viewpoint but...in many ways I feel Disney is more corporate now than it was under Eisner. It's certainly likely that buying Marvel was a good decision economically (especially in the long run) but as far as preserving Disney culture, heritage and identity...totally not. Wolverine and Spider-Man are totally awesome but have absolutely nothing to do with Disney culture and in many ways are the antithesis of it. They may "make money"--but as said so many times years ago is making money everything? What about remembering what Disney is supposed to stand for?
Eisner would never have bought Marvel, and not just because he probably never cared much for reading comics but because as sometimes flawed as his reign was, he did recognize (not always, but most of the time, and especially in the first 15 years) what Disney culture was and how to preserve it. Even with all the mistakes he made with 2d animation, closing Florida, etc...at least Disney Feature Animation was front and center and there was some kind of vision of "Disney" and what people expect of it. There's so much extra baggage that comes with Disney now that Disney's meaning is totally becoming diluted and empty. WDAS not only lacks job stability but the vision of what a real Disney film is supposed to feel like. The closest they've come so far is Princess, but as nice as that was it didn't come close enough. At least Keane and Deja and Sanders and Baxter were seen as valuable and worth keeping. There might have been executive meddling but there was, at the very least, the pretense of respecting them.
Iger needs to finally take responsibility. Responsibility for WDAS and for the Disney name. For too many shows on the Disney channel, too many bad films, and a loss of focus.
Don Hahn would still be a great choice to guide FA. He just directed an award winning film that's all about how well he knows FA and how important he knows it is. Who better?
I think she left DreamWorks to go to Pixar, although years back she was at FA before the formation of DreamWorks.They have already brought Brenda Chapman over to Pixar
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
Nahh, it would've been so much more expensive than spending fifteen years trying to buy the Muppets. Twice.ShyViolet wrote: Eisner would never have bought Marvel
(Yep, that one was Mike's, and they still don't know why.)
[/quote]WDAS not only lacks job stability but the vision of what a real Disney film is supposed to feel like. The closest they've come so far is Princess, but as nice as that was it didn't come close enough. At least Keane and Deja and Sanders and Baxter were seen as valuable and worth keeping. There might have been executive meddling but there was, at the very least, the pretense of respecting them.
Although, granted, most of those projects came from reclaiming dopey CGI ideas started under the Eisner administration. Back when he wanted to wipe ink-and-paint projects off the face of the studio.
(We're just NOW getting into sane projects that can leave past demons behind, and while that doesn't include Raptangled, it does include Pooh.)
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 398
- Joined: May 28th, 2009
- Contact:
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
And yet Bird is directing the latest in Tom Cruise's franchse (and who knows how much control he will have) and Stanton is over at Disney directing a live-action feature? Never mind Docter and Peter Sohn directing the English dubs for the Ghibli productions. They don't seem like they're against the idea of sharing their own film makers. The public and critics feel these folks are "better" story-tellers than Clements and Musker and Anderson and that lot, so I don't think loaning even one of the people behind the shorts (Sweetland or Sohn or take your pick) would harm anybody. Plus, it can show that it's not whether a hopping lamp opening the film produces something good, but rather the people.ShyViolet wrote:I think something like that is really not likely. One of the stipulations of the original merger was that Pixar gets to stay Pixar and Disney Disney. Peter Doctor is in the Brain Trust of Pixar and very much part of their identity as a studio. Like Andrew Stanton, John Lassetter and Brad Bird he basically embodies Pixar "culture." If Pixar directors go over to WDAS there will be a crossover.
And I would agree that Don Hahn is an exceptional choice to help over at Disney Animation.
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: December 21st, 2007
Tangled
No, Disney and Pixar must keep seperate identities. Disney isn't people. It's something people can embody or channel into, but Disney is bigger than any one person, as Walt himself understood and even said.
Disney is something that is slowly losing it's identity each day. I feel it lost quite a bit of it as soon as Disney was doing those science-fiction films, but at least then their fantasticness was still kind of the fantasy Walt would have liked, not aliens destroying everything which came later from Chris Sanders...
But when they do their fairy tales, the subject that the company's greatness in animation and film started with, they shouldn't lose their identity on that. That lost quite a bit with The Princess and the Frog, but I can let that slide. The worst offender by far is now is Tangled...it was once Glen Keane's vision of the traditional fairy tale Rapunzel, in CGI that looks like a painting. Now it's an adventure comedy that's all hip, the CGI looks only a little like a painting, and yet no one's really excited for it.
Disney is something that is slowly losing it's identity each day. I feel it lost quite a bit of it as soon as Disney was doing those science-fiction films, but at least then their fantasticness was still kind of the fantasy Walt would have liked, not aliens destroying everything which came later from Chris Sanders...
But when they do their fairy tales, the subject that the company's greatness in animation and film started with, they shouldn't lose their identity on that. That lost quite a bit with The Princess and the Frog, but I can let that slide. The worst offender by far is now is Tangled...it was once Glen Keane's vision of the traditional fairy tale Rapunzel, in CGI that looks like a painting. Now it's an adventure comedy that's all hip, the CGI looks only a little like a painting, and yet no one's really excited for it.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Re: Tangled
Until it took too long, ran months over budget, and even a co-director couldn't speed Keane's progress along before he was moved to other projects for "health concerns".Dusterian wrote:The worst offender by far is now is Tangled...it was once Glen Keane's vision of the traditional fairy tale Rapunzel, in CGI that looks like a painting.
(Which is entirely plausible, as that's the given excuse why Jan Pinkava was taken off of "Ratatouille".)
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 9094
- Joined: October 25th, 2004
- Location: Binghamton, NY
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
Right, I understand, but what I meant was not regular live-action Disney films and related Anime franchises, but actual WDAS movies: all-animated, Disney proper animated films. I would totally support a crossover, just meant that I don't think Pixar is looking for something like this, judging by their obvious need to separate the studios both physically and as brands. I should have said Disney animation culture and Pixar animation culture.estefan wrote: And yet Bird is directing the latest in Tom Cruise's franchse (and who knows how much control he will have) and Stanton is over at Disney directing a live-action feature? Never mind Docter and Peter Sohn directing the English dubs for the Ghibli productions. They don't seem like they're against the idea of sharing their own film makers.
But those problems were not his fault. The film went through three different versions (2d/epic, Shrek-comedy, and the cute comedy that it is now) for reasons beyond his control. The film would probably have taken at the most four years if he'd been allowed to do it the way he wanted in the late 90s.EricJ wrote:Until it took too long, ran months over budget, and even a co-director couldn't speed Keane's progress along before he was moved to other projects for "health concerns".Dusterian wrote:The worst offender by far is now is Tangled...it was once Glen Keane's vision of the traditional fairy tale Rapunzel, in CGI that looks like a painting.
You can’t just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me feel angry!
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1960
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
Putting 'A-List' Pixar directors in charge of WDAS projects would severely impact morale and 'politics' at both studios.
But I see no reason why 'cross-pollination' on lower creative tiers shouldn't be encouraged.
After all, Disney lent several prominent story artists and consultants to Pixar for development on Toy Story and A Bug's Life, 'way back when (in exchange for Pixar's technical expertise, in developing CAPS and other production software).
I had hoped similar cooperation would develop under Mr. Lasseter .. but it (seemingly) has yet to be.
But I see no reason why 'cross-pollination' on lower creative tiers shouldn't be encouraged.
After all, Disney lent several prominent story artists and consultants to Pixar for development on Toy Story and A Bug's Life, 'way back when (in exchange for Pixar's technical expertise, in developing CAPS and other production software).
I had hoped similar cooperation would develop under Mr. Lasseter .. but it (seemingly) has yet to be.
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 398
- Joined: May 28th, 2009
- Contact:
Re:
Come on, we all know that those films are made by magical pixies inside computers.Ben wrote: What was the essence of Pixar borne from?
To add to my points, look at what happened when Sanders and DeBlois went over to DreamWorks? They created their most acclaimed film in a long time. And yet, most people I talked to didn't know or care that it was the Lilo & Stitch who made Dragon.
So, switching directors up a bit shouldn't hurt a bit. To the general public, they're made by magical pixies, anyway. I've noticed that unless you're a Don Bluth or a Hayao Miyazaki, most people don't really care who directs an animated film, unfortunately. Though, frankly, I think deserve more credit. Let Docter direct something over at Disney and since Lasseter seems taken with his work, bring Byron Howard to Pixar.
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: December 21st, 2007
Pixar was born from people who loved Disney. So have lots of animation studios been made by people who love Disney. Pixar is it's own thing, and they want to be that way. Let them. When I watch a Pixar film, it doesn't feel Disney. It really is different, and everyone knows that, as the critics constantly point out.
As for letting directors switch over because they might make a good movie...so? It's not about the end result, a good product, or the ends justifying the means.
It's about identity and the principles. If a director from Pixar feels they can tap into the Disney magic and direct a feature only Disney could/should produce, okay, and I guess a Disney peson could maybe want to direct a Pixar film, but they have to think "Do I want to direct any feature, or a feature only Disney/only Pixar could do?"
But that is hard to figure out. Like you said the public doesn't matter but I didn't like how Chris Sanders pretty much pitched and developed an entire concept of a film that was so un-Disney...and he got them to make it.
Like I said, Disney is losing it's identity more and more. People say things need to change. Yea. But not the core of what Disney is. It isn't just family entertainment, lots of things are that.
And at least keeping the people at Disney being Disney's people, then so be it. It's not what the public thinks, because a little too much of the public doesn't know Don Bluth stuff from Disney stuff anyway. It's about the principle, it's about trying to keep identity.
As for letting directors switch over because they might make a good movie...so? It's not about the end result, a good product, or the ends justifying the means.
It's about identity and the principles. If a director from Pixar feels they can tap into the Disney magic and direct a feature only Disney could/should produce, okay, and I guess a Disney peson could maybe want to direct a Pixar film, but they have to think "Do I want to direct any feature, or a feature only Disney/only Pixar could do?"
But that is hard to figure out. Like you said the public doesn't matter but I didn't like how Chris Sanders pretty much pitched and developed an entire concept of a film that was so un-Disney...and he got them to make it.
Like I said, Disney is losing it's identity more and more. People say things need to change. Yea. But not the core of what Disney is. It isn't just family entertainment, lots of things are that.
And at least keeping the people at Disney being Disney's people, then so be it. It's not what the public thinks, because a little too much of the public doesn't know Don Bluth stuff from Disney stuff anyway. It's about the principle, it's about trying to keep identity.
- AV Team
- Posts: 6708
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
After all, we all know that Walt never would've approved of making a movie that was "different." And last I checked, almost everyone seemed to hate that "un-Disney" film that Chris made for the studio.But that is hard to figure out. Like you said the public doesn't matter but I didn't like how Chris Sanders pretty much pitched and developed an entire concept of a film that was so un-Disney...and he got them to make it.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Re: Tangled (Formerly Rapunzel)
Although, granted, that was back in the David Stainton era, when an animator could pitch a project about his pet chihuahua belching and it would get a reserved summer slot...Dacey wrote:But that is hard to figure out. Like you said the public doesn't matter but I didn't like how Chris Sanders pretty much pitched and developed an entire concept of a film that was so un-Disney...and he got them to make it.
What, y'mean, "American Dog"? Ohh, yeah--They're still kicking his empty desk for that one.After all, we all know that Walt never would've approved of making a movie that was "different." And last I checked, almost everyone seemed to hate that "un-Disney" film that Chris made for the studio.