Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: December 21st, 2007
Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
Well, you knew it was gonna happen...and if you didn't change your opinions, yet still voice them, then I can do the same, can't I? But you may be surprised how reasonable I am this time around, and how much we agree.
So I read the review, and the review didn't mention it, but did Tangled actually make second to The Lion King in box office, and with or without adjusting for inflation?
The review was a good one I would say, though I expected more mention of Flynn's character and perhaps certain emotional moments. But I think it got so much right, and there was actually very, very much I agreed on.
But of course, what was gonna happen, there's some things I don't think are right.
The first is, quite expectedly, the statement that Tangled is "the most classic, purest kind of Disney picture that anyone could hope for." But you may not have predicted why I have a problem with it. My problem is simply with the fact that not everyone hoped for what we got. I and at least some others that you know or at least heard of voiced our hopes for something more classic and more Disney.
The other thing is that even Glen Keane, himself, hoped for a more classic Disney picture! In fact, Ben, you yourself had a problem with the very un-classic opening and, of course, the title. Plus, we all know it was almost even more classic, because it was allowed to be Glen Keane's very classic version until an unfortunate incident, and then, it was still fairly classic until a few months before realease, with the title change. So hoping for it was very possible; what we "could hope for" was more, and it almost made it.
So I would love if you would reconsider the statement you made, but at least we both agree that the second storybook opening would have been the best one for the film (even if narrated by Flynn's "serious" voice, and keeping the flower in Mother Gothel's garden and having the King steal it, as closer to the original story).
We also agree Tangled should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature, too.
There was a part that I either read wrong or it actually does need fixing, when you said, "As a non-fan of 3D that’s really saying something, but it was likewise a great feeling to again marvel at new animated sights; not once did I literally mumble “Wow!” to myself throughout Tangled’s unspooling, although these weren’t just confined to the extra-dimension."
Don't you mean something different, that you actually did mumble "Wow" a bunch of times? And by the way, I probably at leats thought "Wow" during a bunch of times viewing the film!
Now, while I agree with you that the characters that wouldn't seem to sing suddenly starting to sing is cliché, I know that the point of the thugs was specifically to show that those kinds of guys can be through and through sweet, they aren't hiding it, they just act rough because of Flynn's attitude and his warrant for arrest.
If Rapunzel did start singing the song, they wouldn't sing along only because it was a distraction. They would sing because they genuinely have dreams and want to finally let it out. So Rapunzel asking if they have a dream is enough invite for that, even though the way hookhand started the song was terribly cliché, looking like her would hurt her and then suddenly turning his head thoughtfully. But these characters emerged from learning bikers had poetry readings and could be soft, so even if it's cliché it's drawn from real life. But of course they were still pretty much incidental characters that were thrown in for padding and perhaps attracting boys.
Is it really true Walt Disney's known for his nose?! I don't really think so, and I don't really think the King is meant to look like him, but hey I see it is possible!
Finally, I don't understand how you still think the story is equally about Flynn and Rapunzel when Flynn himself says "This isn't my story anyway", and that by that logic it should be called Rapunzel. I just don't get why you are ignoring that. The only thing I can think of is that you'd hate to admit that the film is still wrongly titled and that the Disney magic is not fully back. I hate to think of that too, but I won't ignore it.
But at least we can agree...it's mostly back.
So I read the review, and the review didn't mention it, but did Tangled actually make second to The Lion King in box office, and with or without adjusting for inflation?
The review was a good one I would say, though I expected more mention of Flynn's character and perhaps certain emotional moments. But I think it got so much right, and there was actually very, very much I agreed on.
But of course, what was gonna happen, there's some things I don't think are right.
The first is, quite expectedly, the statement that Tangled is "the most classic, purest kind of Disney picture that anyone could hope for." But you may not have predicted why I have a problem with it. My problem is simply with the fact that not everyone hoped for what we got. I and at least some others that you know or at least heard of voiced our hopes for something more classic and more Disney.
The other thing is that even Glen Keane, himself, hoped for a more classic Disney picture! In fact, Ben, you yourself had a problem with the very un-classic opening and, of course, the title. Plus, we all know it was almost even more classic, because it was allowed to be Glen Keane's very classic version until an unfortunate incident, and then, it was still fairly classic until a few months before realease, with the title change. So hoping for it was very possible; what we "could hope for" was more, and it almost made it.
So I would love if you would reconsider the statement you made, but at least we both agree that the second storybook opening would have been the best one for the film (even if narrated by Flynn's "serious" voice, and keeping the flower in Mother Gothel's garden and having the King steal it, as closer to the original story).
We also agree Tangled should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature, too.
There was a part that I either read wrong or it actually does need fixing, when you said, "As a non-fan of 3D that’s really saying something, but it was likewise a great feeling to again marvel at new animated sights; not once did I literally mumble “Wow!” to myself throughout Tangled’s unspooling, although these weren’t just confined to the extra-dimension."
Don't you mean something different, that you actually did mumble "Wow" a bunch of times? And by the way, I probably at leats thought "Wow" during a bunch of times viewing the film!
Now, while I agree with you that the characters that wouldn't seem to sing suddenly starting to sing is cliché, I know that the point of the thugs was specifically to show that those kinds of guys can be through and through sweet, they aren't hiding it, they just act rough because of Flynn's attitude and his warrant for arrest.
If Rapunzel did start singing the song, they wouldn't sing along only because it was a distraction. They would sing because they genuinely have dreams and want to finally let it out. So Rapunzel asking if they have a dream is enough invite for that, even though the way hookhand started the song was terribly cliché, looking like her would hurt her and then suddenly turning his head thoughtfully. But these characters emerged from learning bikers had poetry readings and could be soft, so even if it's cliché it's drawn from real life. But of course they were still pretty much incidental characters that were thrown in for padding and perhaps attracting boys.
Is it really true Walt Disney's known for his nose?! I don't really think so, and I don't really think the King is meant to look like him, but hey I see it is possible!
Finally, I don't understand how you still think the story is equally about Flynn and Rapunzel when Flynn himself says "This isn't my story anyway", and that by that logic it should be called Rapunzel. I just don't get why you are ignoring that. The only thing I can think of is that you'd hate to admit that the film is still wrongly titled and that the Disney magic is not fully back. I hate to think of that too, but I won't ignore it.
But at least we can agree...it's mostly back.
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6709
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
UGH!
Dust, for the love of everything Disney, this is getting really annoying. Did you even proof read this post? Did it offer anything that you haven't addressed endlessly in other posts?
Again, you don't seem to understand the concept of opinion. You can't seem to grasp that everyone is entitled to their own, and the fact that you felt the need to post this long rant would seem to indicate that you don't seem to handle people feeling differently than you do about something. Especially since you seem to take extreme offense whenever someone dares to defend the new title.
As I've said before, I really don't hate you. And I don't want you to go away. If I came across as "too harsh" here for anyone, I appologize. But really, as has been said over and over again here, this is getting so old!
Dust, for the love of everything Disney, this is getting really annoying. Did you even proof read this post? Did it offer anything that you haven't addressed endlessly in other posts?
Again, you don't seem to understand the concept of opinion. You can't seem to grasp that everyone is entitled to their own, and the fact that you felt the need to post this long rant would seem to indicate that you don't seem to handle people feeling differently than you do about something. Especially since you seem to take extreme offense whenever someone dares to defend the new title.
As I've said before, I really don't hate you. And I don't want you to go away. If I came across as "too harsh" here for anyone, I appologize. But really, as has been said over and over again here, this is getting so old!
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
"Not just once did I literally mumble “Wow!” to myself" - I've changed it to be a little more clear.
The thing is, I do actually think Tangled is as "more classic and more Disney" as we could hope for given today's audience reactions. These kinds of films are dying out in favor of brash, streetwise comedies. It was actually pretty brave of Disney to put such a movie out there, harking back as much as it does to the classics. Walt wouldn't have released Tangled as it is back in 1937, and Disney wouldn't have made Snow White as it was and released it in 2010.
As for the song, as I said, "this is a small gripe", and I'm really not that bothered. The sequence works.
Walt wasn't "known" for his nose, but it was famously lampooned in joke Studio sketches. Yensid's nose was based on Walt's. I wasn't looking for a comparison, but when I saw the king, I thought "hey, that's Walt's nose!", which as I say (sigh) may have been intentional or not, but I like to think they put that in as a nice reference for the 50th film.
I didn't put it in the review (hey, so many notes and, unlike you, I can't remember every single little point) but I did actually think that about Flynn's "this isn't my story" line, which I wish they'd have just cut out and only added to the unbalanced opening prologue. I don't "hate to admit that the film is still wrongly titled" and do actually say (again, sigh), that "sure, the film could have been called Rapunzel" and that the title change "may well have been a marketing ploy to pull in teenagers and not put off young boys being drawn to a 'girls’ picture', but it’s one that, in retrospect, worked anyway".
And I do think the Disney magic is fully back (as I said, and said, and said, etc). And just as Walt would have done, the Disney magic has adapted for the times, just as Cinderella was a very 1950s romantic picture, Sleeping Beauty was a very stylized wide-format spectacle, One Hundred And One Dalmatians and The Jungle Book were fun 1960s romps, and so on.
Here's a thought: back in the 1930s when Walt wanted to make Mary Poppins, he couldn't get the rights. By the time Travers allowed him to make it, animation had switched to the Xerox process. It kills me that the animated sequences in Poppins are not the lush animation of Disney's in the 1930s and 40s. The scratchy Xerox process only kind of works because they set it up that they're chalk drawings come to life, but to me and as much as I love the film, the animation just isn't a lush as I wish (or even as nice as the backgrounds). But I don't start going on that Mary Poppins missed out on the genuine Disney magic, or that not every film in the fully animated 50 is a great one.
Simply put, people react differently to different stories and films. I actually like the Package Features of the 1940s more than some of the more celebrated films: I think there's real magic and interesting things being tried out in Make Mine Music and Fun And Fancy Free than there is in Cinderella, which at times seems like a more calculated attempt to pull off another Snow White. The Lion King is still Disney's biggest animated film, which means a lot of people loved it, but to me I have to be in the right mood to watch it: it doesn't always win me over (mostly because of the hyenas), but it's still a popular film. So for you Tangled isn't one of the greats. Fair enough...but for a lot of other people, we loved it and thought it was much more Disney than The Princess And The Frog.
At the end of the day, a title is just a title. I don't think The Emperor's New Groove is very good at all, but I think the film is great fun. But I don't harp on and on about how it should have been a much more serious film and been called Kingdom Of The Sun, do I? If a film called Rapunzel had come out and flopped, that would have been the end of Disney fairytales. That a film called Tangled came out and proved a hit means there's a better chance of more to come sometime in the future. And if I were you, I'd be hoping that the next built on Princess And The Frog and Tangled to be the kind of film you are looking for.
AND THIS, NOW, IS THE FINAL WORD ON THIS SUBJECT. FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT TANGLED, BUT YOUR THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN MADE CLEAR ENOUGH OVER AND OVER. JUST ACCEPT THAT OTHERS REACTED TO THE FILM DIFFERENTLY AND - GASP! - DO NOT AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAID.
SINCE I'M IN A "TRON" MOOD: END OF LINE.
The thing is, I do actually think Tangled is as "more classic and more Disney" as we could hope for given today's audience reactions. These kinds of films are dying out in favor of brash, streetwise comedies. It was actually pretty brave of Disney to put such a movie out there, harking back as much as it does to the classics. Walt wouldn't have released Tangled as it is back in 1937, and Disney wouldn't have made Snow White as it was and released it in 2010.
As for the song, as I said, "this is a small gripe", and I'm really not that bothered. The sequence works.
Walt wasn't "known" for his nose, but it was famously lampooned in joke Studio sketches. Yensid's nose was based on Walt's. I wasn't looking for a comparison, but when I saw the king, I thought "hey, that's Walt's nose!", which as I say (sigh) may have been intentional or not, but I like to think they put that in as a nice reference for the 50th film.
I didn't put it in the review (hey, so many notes and, unlike you, I can't remember every single little point) but I did actually think that about Flynn's "this isn't my story" line, which I wish they'd have just cut out and only added to the unbalanced opening prologue. I don't "hate to admit that the film is still wrongly titled" and do actually say (again, sigh), that "sure, the film could have been called Rapunzel" and that the title change "may well have been a marketing ploy to pull in teenagers and not put off young boys being drawn to a 'girls’ picture', but it’s one that, in retrospect, worked anyway".
And I do think the Disney magic is fully back (as I said, and said, and said, etc). And just as Walt would have done, the Disney magic has adapted for the times, just as Cinderella was a very 1950s romantic picture, Sleeping Beauty was a very stylized wide-format spectacle, One Hundred And One Dalmatians and The Jungle Book were fun 1960s romps, and so on.
Here's a thought: back in the 1930s when Walt wanted to make Mary Poppins, he couldn't get the rights. By the time Travers allowed him to make it, animation had switched to the Xerox process. It kills me that the animated sequences in Poppins are not the lush animation of Disney's in the 1930s and 40s. The scratchy Xerox process only kind of works because they set it up that they're chalk drawings come to life, but to me and as much as I love the film, the animation just isn't a lush as I wish (or even as nice as the backgrounds). But I don't start going on that Mary Poppins missed out on the genuine Disney magic, or that not every film in the fully animated 50 is a great one.
Simply put, people react differently to different stories and films. I actually like the Package Features of the 1940s more than some of the more celebrated films: I think there's real magic and interesting things being tried out in Make Mine Music and Fun And Fancy Free than there is in Cinderella, which at times seems like a more calculated attempt to pull off another Snow White. The Lion King is still Disney's biggest animated film, which means a lot of people loved it, but to me I have to be in the right mood to watch it: it doesn't always win me over (mostly because of the hyenas), but it's still a popular film. So for you Tangled isn't one of the greats. Fair enough...but for a lot of other people, we loved it and thought it was much more Disney than The Princess And The Frog.
At the end of the day, a title is just a title. I don't think The Emperor's New Groove is very good at all, but I think the film is great fun. But I don't harp on and on about how it should have been a much more serious film and been called Kingdom Of The Sun, do I? If a film called Rapunzel had come out and flopped, that would have been the end of Disney fairytales. That a film called Tangled came out and proved a hit means there's a better chance of more to come sometime in the future. And if I were you, I'd be hoping that the next built on Princess And The Frog and Tangled to be the kind of film you are looking for.
AND THIS, NOW, IS THE FINAL WORD ON THIS SUBJECT. FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT TANGLED, BUT YOUR THOUGHTS HAVE BEEN MADE CLEAR ENOUGH OVER AND OVER. JUST ACCEPT THAT OTHERS REACTED TO THE FILM DIFFERENTLY AND - GASP! - DO NOT AGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU SAID.
SINCE I'M IN A "TRON" MOOD: END OF LINE.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: January 22nd, 2007
Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
I wish we had a "like" button.SINCE I'M IN A "TRON" MOOD: END OF LINE.
The Emperor's New Groove ---
--- the film the Florida animators dubbed, "Throw Llama From the Train!"
aka as the last film David Spade would ever headline....
Some nice mileage was gotten out of it even if it was one of those franchises that's helped dim Disney's prestige in the long run.
Never knew you could get 5 years of reruns of a TV spin-off that was in production for maybe 2 years!
--- the film the Florida animators dubbed, "Throw Llama From the Train!"
aka as the last film David Spade would ever headline....
Some nice mileage was gotten out of it even if it was one of those franchises that's helped dim Disney's prestige in the long run.
Never knew you could get 5 years of reruns of a TV spin-off that was in production for maybe 2 years!
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25715
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
They're right, Mac...I was talking about the Emperor's New Groove title only, struggling to think up another Disney film where the title wasn't quite right. But I love the movie and think Eartha Kitt is stupendous in it, so I'm glad we're buddies again. 
I'd have been interested to see what Kingdom Of The Sun would have been like (and still wish they'd tried to work a way to get "Snuff Out The Light" into TENG's score), but have no fears: a lot of love for the resulting movie here, and it gets endlessly quoted around my place.
So I bet you weren't expecting...THIS!?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
I'd have been interested to see what Kingdom Of The Sun would have been like (and still wish they'd tried to work a way to get "Snuff Out The Light" into TENG's score), but have no fears: a lot of love for the resulting movie here, and it gets endlessly quoted around my place.
So I bet you weren't expecting...THIS!?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
Ben wrote: still wish they'd tried to work a way to get "Snuff Out The Light" into TENG's score),...
Personal experience...
I took a figure-drawing class taught by an ex-Disney animator so I got to hear a bit of the Studio politics going on...
A couple of things about me and this situation --
a) I NEVER asked straight out about the Studio; the instructor and his protege leaked all the stories out;
b) I got the sense that there was a lot of resentment and people felt taken advantage of by the Studio; there were definitely some things going on that were not kosher;
and c) For all I heard, I'm sure there was a lot more going on...
The Disney guys were NOT thrilled with all the films made in the 1990s starting from The Lion King onward. Due to all the production problems and restarts forced by meddling management and producers/directors who should not have been supervising movies, it's probably a minor miracle money was made on most of those films in-theater.
The situation with DreamWorks and Katzenberg exacerbated things no doubt but there was plenty of blame and greed to spread around because if you're aware of the history of film feature animation was NEVER as profitable as it was before the early 1990s!
The last few films finished before the Florida studio was closed for good were not a happy experience. Between people worrying about their jobs and supporting their families, they had story problems on everything they worked on since films were being rushed into production before they had finished storyboards and at least temp voicing scripts. TENG is only the tip of the iceberg.
I know my instructor was NOT a fan of David Spade or Adam Sandler. (He's the one I heard "Throw Llama From The Train From". I think the song title Ben mentioned would have been changed to "Snuff Out The Llama." That's how much Spade was liked by the animators.)
My instructor had an opportunity to work on Sandler's Eight Crazy Nights but didn't care for the humor. The other guys jumped on the work just to earn money because between pictures these guys were basically not working unless they picked up outside jobs, and there were never that many outside jobs in Florida to begin with.
A lot of the Florida crew left animation for good after the Florida studio closure, some went into teaching, others moved to other States where the cost of living was more favorable, and a few are still making a go of it in Florida with smaller production companies. I don't think many people left to go to California for work because they wouldn't have been in Florida in the first place if they had liked the conditions out West...
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 459
- Joined: December 21st, 2007
Dacey, did you actually read all I wrote? If you did, okay, but this is the first time I have posted in like three weeks! And the reason I posted is because of the review! Ben posted his thoughts, which were relatively the same as he said before, so that means I should get to give my opinion, about the length of a review, even if it sounds about the same as before. It's still in direct response to what he said, so it's as much new as that.
Ben, no word on if Tangled is truly second to Lion King now?
Okay, then I guess the real problem I had was that you said the film was as Disney as "anyone" could hope for, the word "anyone", when so many others hoped for more.
I wish we could find out if that's Walt's nose.
So you still think the film is about both Flynn and Rapunzel, but with this evidence: The "not my story anyway" line is in it, a line which was probably in there before the title change, and the title change was only done because they were forced to - it points to Rapunzel still being the more correct title, that's a lot of evidence.
The way that I think Tangled could have been more traditional, I think audiences still would have seen it. If called Rapunzel, with the original backgrounds the same (i.e. Rapunzel a peasant, Gothel a witch with garden) and a little more familiar gentle Disneyness, I think audiences still would have seen it, because it had a funny Prince, horse, chameleon, frying-pan-weilding heroine, CGI, and all the other stuff.
Mary Poppins...yea, you're talking about the animation, the only problem is that it's not as fully lush as it could be. You're saying you won't complain about that issue as much as I'm complaining about mine, but my issues are bigger issues, not the least of which because Mary Poppins still had great classic Disney animation, it was just kind of sketchy!
You said that I shouldn't complain about Tangled because lots of other movies have problems. Shouldn't you be happy I'm not complaining about any other films? There are reasons why I'm complaining about this particular film.
Here's why I'm so mad about Tangled:
It was almost a very traditional Disney film called Rapunzel. Only a new team taking over and the marketing department changed all that. The main final issue is that Tangled is obviously supposed to be the story of Rapunzel, so I can't explain it's problems away like I can The Emporer's New Groove or The Princess and the Frog, which were like new stories simply inspired by the familiar ones. But Tangled is the familiar story, except now not done the proper Disney way!
Because of what happened, I don't understand how Disney will be able to keep doing more traditional, "Disney" movies. Since the heads will think the modern title, modern CGI, and modern humor and marketing are what made the movie successful, the chances of having a hand-drawn traditional Disney-type film all the way down to the title are very slim.
This is why I'm so mad, which is covering up the fact I'm really sad.
George C, I thought Eight Crazy Nights had too good animation for something as crappy looking as what it was about! So some Disney animators were on it?!
Ben, no word on if Tangled is truly second to Lion King now?
Okay, then I guess the real problem I had was that you said the film was as Disney as "anyone" could hope for, the word "anyone", when so many others hoped for more.
I wish we could find out if that's Walt's nose.
So you still think the film is about both Flynn and Rapunzel, but with this evidence: The "not my story anyway" line is in it, a line which was probably in there before the title change, and the title change was only done because they were forced to - it points to Rapunzel still being the more correct title, that's a lot of evidence.
The way that I think Tangled could have been more traditional, I think audiences still would have seen it. If called Rapunzel, with the original backgrounds the same (i.e. Rapunzel a peasant, Gothel a witch with garden) and a little more familiar gentle Disneyness, I think audiences still would have seen it, because it had a funny Prince, horse, chameleon, frying-pan-weilding heroine, CGI, and all the other stuff.
Mary Poppins...yea, you're talking about the animation, the only problem is that it's not as fully lush as it could be. You're saying you won't complain about that issue as much as I'm complaining about mine, but my issues are bigger issues, not the least of which because Mary Poppins still had great classic Disney animation, it was just kind of sketchy!
You said that I shouldn't complain about Tangled because lots of other movies have problems. Shouldn't you be happy I'm not complaining about any other films? There are reasons why I'm complaining about this particular film.
Here's why I'm so mad about Tangled:
It was almost a very traditional Disney film called Rapunzel. Only a new team taking over and the marketing department changed all that. The main final issue is that Tangled is obviously supposed to be the story of Rapunzel, so I can't explain it's problems away like I can The Emporer's New Groove or The Princess and the Frog, which were like new stories simply inspired by the familiar ones. But Tangled is the familiar story, except now not done the proper Disney way!
Because of what happened, I don't understand how Disney will be able to keep doing more traditional, "Disney" movies. Since the heads will think the modern title, modern CGI, and modern humor and marketing are what made the movie successful, the chances of having a hand-drawn traditional Disney-type film all the way down to the title are very slim.
This is why I'm so mad, which is covering up the fact I'm really sad.
George C, I thought Eight Crazy Nights had too good animation for something as crappy looking as what it was about! So some Disney animators were on it?!
-
- AV Team
- Posts: 6709
- Joined: February 8th, 2005
- Location: The US of A
Re: Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)
In the article, I said biggest since "The Lion King." Up until now, "Tarzan" was the only film after that to even approach that ammount with around $176 million or so. "Tangled" has made almost $200 million, and would've surpassed that number by now if Christmas break had just lasted one day longer for the kids last year.no word on if Tangled is truly second to Lion King now?
But it's not "second" to TLK. That title goes to "Aladdin," which was the first animated movie to ever surpass the $200 million mark. Even so, "Tangled" (yes, that is the title. Time to move on. Really.) is still strong in third place.
And making Flynn a prince would've been a less entertaining choice, especially since they just had a "classical" prince character in "Enchanted." But if you'd rather continue to wish that Disney had done the film "your way," go right ahead. After all, it only would've bombed then, probably would've stopped Disney from attempting any movies of this sort in the near future, and certainly would've put an end to songs in Mouse House movies for a while. Disney's "Tangled" was fresh yet familier. Your version would've been seen as "more of the same."
But really, I should just stop before I really do start sounding rude with you. But to answer your question, I read all of your post. And, three weeks away from this thread or not (why is this the only topic you ever seem to post in?), repeating yourself is still repeating yourself. And I have a strange feeling you won't stop until we say that we agree with you.
(Oh, and by "modern humor," I'm assuming you're referring to the slapstick...no, wait, that was in several of Walt's films. Maybe the pop culture references? Oh, right, there weren't any of those in the film. The flatulance humor? Nope, none of that either...)
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7389
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
Re:
And you know what? Those assumptions might actually be correct.Dusterian wrote:Here's why I'm so mad about Tangled:
...I don't understand how Disney will be able to keep doing more traditional, "Disney" movies. Since the heads will think the modern title, modern CGI, and modern humor and marketing are what made the movie successful, the chances of having a hand-drawn traditional Disney-type film all the way down to the title are very slim.
Yeah, I know. It's awful to think, but the title change, CGI, and modern humor probably actually DID help the film's success. We'll never know if a more "traditional" Disney approach might have been as (or more) successful, but Tangled is a success because of what it IS, not because of what you wanted it to be.