Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Dusterian]

What I meant was that I don't think what the Academy did was fair, as in I don't think their rules are fair. Overlooking possible Best Picture winners of really good movies just because "their weren't enough number of films released" just looks dumb and bad and makes me lose respect for their nominations and unable to them seriously.

As for Walt, from all his quotes, all the movies he made, from what we do know about him...no, I don't think he would have loved the whole movie. That's what I think, I think it's the truth, but some of you already disagree with me, so fine, you can, because I guess we can't know for sure, even when I feel sure of it.

[Bill1978]

Dusterian, I've been thinking about your comments for awhile and trying to think of something that could perhaps help you understand that current Disney isn't that different from classic Disney. And I think I may have found a example.

The crows in Dumbo.

The humour they present in Dumbo was very very modern for that era. If you imagine yourself as someone from that era watching Dumbo during its initial release. I'm sure you would find their humour very modern. But yet you as a person look back at that film as a classic Disney film with classic humour and a heart warming story.

Dumbo is a Walt Disney film and if he approved of the crow's humour, I would say he would approve of Tangled's humour. Walt knew he had to appeal to the wider public to ensure his films were viable finacially. Sure he misstepped somtimes (Fantasia's initial release), but he always had his finger on the pulse of what would help his company be viable.

What's to say that in 50 years time, that audience will view Tangled in the same light as you viewing Dumbo?

[Ben]

Was just about to make the exact same comparison, Bill!

Also, Jiminy Cricket in Pinocchio makes some very 1940s-era radio reference remarks in the film, which are totally inappropriate for when and where the story is set, but perfectly contemporary for the audience watching the film in its original first run.

Walt was ALL about staying contemporary and with the audience, hence why he made those live-action college comedies and why The Jungle Book is full of a swingning sixties vibe (explaining it's then-contemporary success) and is not a long and drawn out 1940s style drama, the way it was originally conceived.

Walt was all about the now. Back then.

[estefan]

And to use another example from Dumbo, I saw the film again recently and Timothy Mouse's style of speaking does bring to mind a pint-sized Humphery Bogart type.

And who do you think Timothy's referring to when he tells Dumbo that "lots of people with big ears are famous." Not to mention the obvious references to the animator's strike at the time.

[EricJ]

and why The Jungle Book is full of a swingning sixties vibe (explaining it's then-contemporary success) and is not a long and drawn out 1940s style drama, the way it was originally conceived.

And Walt had no problems with Beatles vultures, but drew the line at Frankie Fontaine rhinos...
(But then, who wouldn't?)

[Dusterian]

I'm glad everyone cares to help.

However, Dumbo was set in a fairly modern time (during the time it was made), while Tangled is set in a much older time.

For the other things, when watching Dumbo, Pinocchio, or any past Disney film, I do not catch that those things are from another time. That is how good they did it.

The genie from Aladdin, not only did I not get the references yet still understood them enough to enjoy them, but even though the film is set long ago, the genie is someone magical, weird, and who can see into other times, so his humor makes sense to me as well.

But I'll explain what it is about Tangled's humor I don't like. I don't like how quick cutting and cynical some of it is. The way Flynn talks nears on cynical, and it's different from Grumpy just not liking Snow White because she's girly. It's hard to explain.

But as for the quickness, that one's easy. Not only do I worry about humor (and films) going at such a quick pace to compete with each new generation's attention spans that it actually makes them even shorter, but Disney films had kind of a peaceful, flowy, dreamy, take-your-time way of doing things that seems to be lost more and more each time they make new films. There's a difference between Lucifer the cat's fast little actions and Maximus the horse's for instance.

And once again, things like that old viking thug floating over the happily ever after scene...not the kind of thing Walt would approve, as showcased by every happy ending he's ever done, if not at least for his fairy tales.

[Whippet Angel]

Guys... just give up. Seriously, there's no point in trying to reason with him.

[EricJ]

Seriously--Dusty, thank you, you're taking away my "Annoying kook" status.

(Now, let's be fair: "K00k" has a very specific meaning on the Internet--
It does not refer to just any old crank and cannot be tossed around lightly...For nearly twenty years, it has earned a highly technical definition as:
1) The poster who drags, clings, and sometimes steers discussions on/back to ONE fan-jihad point that has already been discussed, buried and exhausted at length, to the point that the group now ridicules the very act of re-discussing it, or
2) The poster who believes that the group wants to discuss his one arcanely off-topic hobby, and starts endless threads to that purpose.
And since you're not into DC Comics, let's just say there's still time to let it go, brush the dust of your heels, and walk away from the argument clean....It's your dignity to rescue, not ours.)

[ELIOLI]

I'm..just watching

[Randall]

I know, it's like.... you can't look away.

Seriously--Dusty, thank you, you're taking away my "Annoying kook" status.

[GeorgeC]

Rand, you wouldn't be implying a trainwreck or car accident, huh?

Anyhow, I want to add my thanks to Dusty, too...

I don't care if I'm called a curmudgeon or occasionally negative -- I call it being more "free-spirited" and "independent thinking"; hate the state of pop culture at large -- BUT even I don't care for being called a kook!

Crazy? Maybe.

Kook? NO!

[EricJ]

(obscure Flintstones reference) ....Not even a rich Kook?

[Whippet Angel]

I don't care if I'm called a curmudgeon or occasionally negative -- I call it being more "free-spirited" and "independent thinking"; hate the state of pop culture at large -- BUT even I don't care for being called a kook!

Crazy? Maybe.

Kook? NO!

Noooooo, you ARE a curmudgeon. But that's fine. Every well-rounded group needs one.

[Bill1978]

while Tangled is set in a much older time.

What gave you the impression Tangled was set in a much older time? It could have been set in any Eastern European country, who seem to be a step behind the Western notion of modern.

And even if it is old, there were still cynical people back then.

I'm amazed that you approve of Aladdin's humour. That's one Disney film that really highlights the time it was made. Comparing the two, I will say that Aladdin will be more time dated than Tangled. I didn't catch one single pop culture reference in Tangled that will highlight that in was made in 2010.

And I'm not sure if we watched the same movie. I felt that Tangled travelled along at a pleasant pace with many 'slow' moments. That whole lantern sequence was very slow compared to today's standards and included a soppy love song.

And compare the ending of this film with nearly every other recent animated film and it does not end with a high action chase sequence, in fact apart from Flynn's escape, it is a very slow and traditional conclusion to the film.

And the Cupid Thug at the end, how is that any different to the conclusion to Aladdin when the Genie pops up to say Gotcha!!?

[EricJ]

Noooooo, you ARE a curmudgeon. But that's fine. Every well-rounded group needs one.

(Well, was applying the standards of "At least he doesn't keep talking about John Seely music and encyclopedically reciting the IMDB filmographies of June Foray"....Although, seriously, the DC stuff does come close.)

What gave you the impression Tangled was set in a much older time? It could have been set in any Eastern European country, who seem to be a step behind the Western notion of modern.

Didn't get the sense of Eastern, but it did have some sense of its story's generic-fairytale place, which we haven't really had since Aladdin--
We've had place without story, as in Mulan and Princess/Frog, and we've had story without place, like Lion King and Brother Bear, but good Storytelling That Cares gives you the impression of being in both.