Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)

[robster16]

Let's all be patient and see how things turn out. Same goes for Mandy Moore. From what I've heard she has a great voice and I greatly prefer her realistic voice to the great singing voice but also dramatically cartoony voice of Kristin Chenoweth.

And, from what I've seen, she has a bad one. Which is why I wrote my opinion and you wrote yours. Not to be a spoil sport, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say "this is probably going to bad" if everyone else can say "this looks like animation gold."

On another note, I'm not anti-Moore just in light of the fact that Kristen Chenowith lost out on the role; I was rather ambivalent towards a Chenowith Rapunzel. And I've actually listed reasons for why I feel such a way about Moore. It wasn't just a random "Mandy Moore sucks!" drive-by post.

My reply wasn't necesarrily directed towards you. If you don't like her voice, that's fine, to each his own (I have the reaction you are having to Lady Gaga myself, can't stand that wretched waste of molecules). I was just trying to express my point that I could see why, after the story-changes and change in style of the movie, they went from a slightly cartoony Chenoweth to a realistic, young adult female voice like Moore's which is more fitting to the new tone of the movie. The fact that Moore can also sing her own parts must have worked to her advantage. As of now I still need to hear any of the voicework/character design etc for Rapunzel, so I'll wait for that untill I pass further judgement...

[KubrickFan]

And, from what I've seen, she has a bad one. Which is why I wrote my opinion and you wrote yours. Not to be a spoil sport, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say "this is probably going to bad" if everyone else can say "this looks like animation gold."

I think they're both unreasonable. There's hardly any footage revealed (if there was any at all) so you can't even say it will turn out to be this or that, because there simply is no information.

[estefan]

I'm saying Disney has never strayed so far from the source material until this time around. And Treasure Planet was Treasure Planet not Treasure Island. And indeed movies can be made that stay 100% faithful to what a book says. You still come up with designs, dialogue, the ways the moments happen in a visual beauty that you imagine that no one else does...

Well, The Jungle Book definitely strayed a lot from the book. Walt Disney even adviced the story people to not read Kipling's book, because he wanted the film to be his own rather than an adaptation of the book.

[Super Aurora]

Once again, I don't know if people aren't reading carefully or what I'm saying is just not being understood, even though I try in length to explain what I mean.

I'm saying Disney has never strayed so far from the source material until this time around. And Treasure Planet was Treasure Planet not Treasure Island. And indeed movies can be made that stay 100% faithful to what a book says. You still come up with designs, dialogue, the ways the moments happen in a visual beauty that you imagine that no one else does...

Rapunzal's story we have so far isn't that strayed to begin with. It actually pales in comparison to the others the UD members gave.

It's just...it sounds like it's barely Rapunzel anymore...Disney never changed characters or story this far, they used to be much more faithful, what happened to tradition?

I still don't understand how you think it strays so badly from original when there really wasn't much from the original begin with. Changing A prince to a bandit and peasent family to royalty is no different in changing measure as changing setting from China to Arabia in Aladdin. Hell, The Princess and the Frog is a complete change over. I don't hear you complaining about that.[/b]

[robster16]

Jeff Kurtti, writer of a lot of Disney art of books, in a recent interview awnsering a question about what he's working on right now:

"Finally, right now I am working on The Art of Rapunzel for Chronicle Books for release concurrent with the all-new animated feature next December."

source: click here

[Disney Duster]

Changing A prince to a bandit and peasent family to royalty is no different in changing measure as changing setting from China to Arabia in Aladdin. Hell, The Princess and the Frog is a complete change over. I don't hear you complaining about that.

Actually I did have a problem with that for Aladdin, but that was a comedy more than a traditional fairy tale, something I also dislike, but it was still not as far as what they have done with Rapunzel. Action princess, king and queen parents, bandit, who knows what else since the big second half of the film is her adventures out of the tower with the bandit instead of her being in the desert with twins (or alone) or wherever it was the original tale had her.

Oh, and you must have missed when I said I wished The Princess and the Frog had not ever been, and instead they just did The Frog Prince, traditionally, with just some comedy, and maybe have a Germanic King and Queen adopt an African girl. Yes, quite different and unusual, but kind of cool and new, it is supposed to be a fairy tale which have unusual elements like that, and still not nearly as different as they made the whole thing...

[PatrickvD]

Rapunzel looks fairly traditional to me. Even with all the changes.

[robster16]

Rapunzel looks fairly traditional to me. Even with all the changes.

Rapunzel comes across as the most traditional movie they have done since Beauty and the Beast, with it being set in German styled forests, evil queens, goodlooking princess and bandits. I hope mother Gothel has some minions or a dark animal at her side like Maleficant's raven...

[Disney Duster]

Oh, I forgot, Aladdin came from A Thousand and One Arabian Nights, so the setting of Arabia is really not too much of a change.

But anyway, this may be the most traditional thing in a while, but we've never had the original setup or premise of the story so changed, the very positions of the characters. It's more traditional when things are more faithful.

If this really is set in a German-like setting, however, then that is better, and makes me more hopeful! It just seems wrong that people will think, after seeing the film and not knowing the original beyond long hair and a tower, that Rapunzel always was a born princess and her hero was a bandit...

[Super Aurora]

Oh, I forgot, Aladdin came from A Thousand and One Arabian Nights, so the setting of Arabia is really not too much of a change.

Technically incorrect. It wasn't one of the original Arabian Nights tales told by Queen Scheherazade. It was actually added to the collection by Antoine Galland.

But anyway, this may be the most traditional thing in a while, but we've never had the original setup or premise of the story so changed, the very positions of the characters. It's more traditional when things are more faithful.

What is it with you on "traditional" and "faithfulness"? Non of the disney films are 100% faithful to the original tale. We hardly have much news on this movie and you're already declaring it such drastic unfaithfulness?

If this really is set in a German-like setting, however, then that is better, and makes me more hopeful! It just seems wrong that people will think, after seeing the film and not knowing the original beyond long hair and a tower, that Rapunzel always was a born princess and her hero was a bandit...

Judging from your previous post on Princess and Frog and this quote, it seems like you're only into traditional European fairy tales.

Also, I hear from many people before mistaking changes done by Disney previous films like thinking Pinocchio was actually a friendly character, or that Ariel really did live happy ever after. Rapunzel won't be any different.

[PatrickvD]

yeah, Disney's films nowadays are just as faithful to the source material as they were way back. Or not at all.

I mean, don't count on the whole prince going blind thing. We didn't see Cinderella's stepsisters cut their toes off did we? And we haven't seen a single frame of animation, maybe we should wait.

[Disney Duster]

I am only saying they have gone the farthest from the original source this time around. I'm just saying that from the get go, the main characters are very changed, in position, background, and even how they act (kick-butt princess, stealing bandit, etc.).

And no, the original Walt films were not as unfaithful as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin were. And the cutting off of toes was not in the Perrault version of the story that Disney's Cinderella is based on (though they did still base some of it on the Grimm version).

[robster16]

I am only saying they have gone the farthest from the original source this time around. I'm just saying that from the get go, the main characters are very changed, in position, background, and even how they act (kick-butt princess, stealing bandit, etc.).

And no, the original Walt films were not as unfaithful as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin were. And the cutting off of toes was not in the Perrault version of the story that Disney's Cinderella is based on (though they did still base some of it on the Grimm version).

Don't you think they are making those changes because they want to make a 1,5 hour movie? I mean, there's a difference between a fairytale in bookform and having an animated feature film that needs to have story arcs for all of it's characters. I'm sure that the changes made to the story are made with the best interest to the original but also because they are VERY necesarry. They have struggled with this fairytale for years, and I'd rather have them mix it up so it's turned into a story that fits then not have the story turned into a movie at all...

[Margos]

Disney Duster, why don't you just make your own animated movies then? Make them exactly like the story or book or whatever. Don't use your imagination in any way, shape, or form, and make the characters look exactly like whatever illustrations originally existed of them. Use the exact same dialogue, and don't you dare put any trees in the background that aren't specifically mentioned in the text!
Who knows? Maybe you'll make millions and millions of dollars and become the greatest animation studio of all time, and your name will be forever known...
Wait... that already happened to someone!? Who did change stories a bit!? Who would have thought it! I mean, the dwarfs in "Snow White" didn't have names! And Jiminy Cricket was squashed by Pinocchio in Collodi's legendary masterpiece! And since when is Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" about freaking DINOSAURS!? What a travesty!

[Super Aurora]

I am only saying they have gone the farthest from the original source this time around. I'm just saying that from the get go, the main characters are very changed, in position, background, and even how they act (kick-butt princess, stealing bandit, etc.).

And no, the original Walt films were not as unfaithful as The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin were. And the cutting off of toes was not in the Perrault version of the story that Disney's Cinderella is based on (though they did still base some of it on the Grimm version).

Jungle Book

[Disney Duster]

Oh Super Aurora, you're right about that, I should have specified the fairy tales were not so changed. Usually fairy tales are treated more reverently, delicately, and traditionally because of their nature. Well, at least Walt did.

Margos, you seem to think it is impossible to make a film be 100% accurate to the text and yet use imagination and creativity? Well, first, nothing is impossible! But really, please, think about it. You have the text, but they cannot describe every single detail, that would get boring, and don't they tell you that reading books is good because you get to use your own imagination? Yes, they do! You picture everything and think of how everything sounds and moves and plays out in your mind, and movies are a way to show what you imagined to everyone!

And I was just voicing how I felt, jeeze. I would love for Disney to be more faithful and make Rapunzel the original Rapunzel, and I think that's how it should be, that is how it used to be, I want to express how I feel, and I was hoping others would feel the same or similar...

[robster16]

Oh Super Aurora, you're right about that, I should have specified the fairy tales were not so changed. Usually fairy tales are treated more reverently, delicately, and traditionally because of their nature. Well, at least Walt did.

Margos, you seem to think it is impossible to make a film be 100% accurate to the text and yet use imagination and creativity? Well, first, nothing is impossible! But really, please, think about it. You have the text, but they cannot describe every single detail, that would get boring, and don't they tell you that reading books is good because you get to use your own imagination? Yes, they do! You picture everything and think of how everything sounds and moves and plays out in your mind, and movies are a way to show what you imagined to everyone!

And I was just voicing how I felt, jeeze. I would love for Disney to be more faithful and make Rapunzel the original Rapunzel, and I think that's how it should be, that is how it used to be, I want to express how I feel, and I was hoping others would feel the same or similar...

I find your worries REALLY premature! We have yet to read a detailed synopsis, see the movie in full, we don't even have character designs yet. Let's be very carefull to condemn this movie, based on nothing!

[Super Aurora]

I find your worries REALLY premature! We have yet to read a detailed synopsis, see the movie in full, we don't even have character designs yet. Let's be very carefull to condemn this movie, based on nothing!

THIS.

[Disney's Divinity]

I agree that your worries seem a little premature, but I don't think they're completely unfounded. Considering Rapunzel (the movie)'s background, one can't help but wonder how far this'll end up straying from the source. Though Unbraided was scrapped, I'm sure traces of it remain. And, honestly, this film does seem sort of like an Aladdin to me in ways, with a bandit-hero and a princess locked away from real life in a tower (Jasmine and Aurora are the only ones who really kind of have that going on to me).

However, I do think the film will retain some level of seriousness, if Mother Gothel is any indication. I don't really mind the story being changed personally, because I always found it one of the most boring tales. I mean, what is the story really famous for? A girl with a lot of hair. Noone remembers anything else about it, usually.

Rapunzel becoming a natural-born princess seems like an unnecessary change though. They could've just had the witch treat her like a princess in the tower. Or maybe they're taking a thought from Sleeping Beauty and have the prince hear about a "princess in a tower with a lot of hair" that he can go seek in the wood. Although I guess having to go through the trouble of explaining "the poor mother was hungry, her husband stole from the witch's garden, and the witch took the baby" might be something they felt pointless to the rest of the story, thus making her a princess probably appealed to them over having to give a bunch of irrelevant backstory. Of course, they could've done something similar to B&tB's opening (not saying they should copy and do stain-glass windows, too, but give a similar bg info. scene).

The prince-bandit thing, however, feels a little random. And I'm worried this might turn into a trend for their guys following Naveen (who was a spoiled philanderer with little morality/responsibility, too). Sort of like how Ariel, Belle and Jasmine all have that similar kind of "Just because I'm a girl, don't think you can push me around!" thing going on.

[Disney Duster]

I'm not condemning the whole film, just something that we do know about it so far, that does indeed effect the whole film in it's traditional, faithful sense. It can still be traditional in other ways, I know it seems to, but in major, major ways, it is not already.

Thank you Divinity. I do worry about any Unbraided getting in, but if it's the art of that version that gets in, that's fine!

I don't understand why people think the story was too thin to make into a film. Many people say Walt's films had stories a little too slight, but have still become beloved classics.

Also, Rapunzel's parents stealing Rapunzel lettuce from the witch and promising her their baby was never background information in the story, but dramatic action. Think about it, the husband getting caught by the witch, that's rather scary. The baby being taken away, scarier. This being kept in the film would also help lengthen the plot, which since everyone thinks is so thin already, would be good to keep in, no?