Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

[BelleGirl]

I just don't get this 'marketing to boys' argument. I think the new title will only lead to confusion: "So what's this "Tangles" about, what do they mean with that? well, it's based on the familiar fairy-tale 'Rapunzel', Well why don't they just call it 'Rapunzel' then?"

I don't like the underlying sexims either. The reasoning is that boys don't want to see movies with a woman's name in the title, because they think it must be 'too girly', so let's change it. Would Disney ever consider changing a movie title with a man's name in it so that girls won't think 'Hey this movie is only for boys, I don't want to see this?"
So, just as a thought-experiment, instead of reference to a man in the title,let's make it refer to the girl or 'gender-neutral' and confusing at the same time:

Aladdin : Princess Yasmin and the streetboy/The (mystery of the magic) lamp
Hercules: Meg's sacrifice/Gods and mortals
Tarzan: Jane and the jungle prince/ The Gorilla kingdom

[Someday...]

Well there is a lot more of a stigma on a boy doing something girly, than a girl for doing something boyish- sissy is negative, tomboy is positive.

[BelleGirl]

Well there is a lot more of a stigma on a boy doing something girly, than a girl for doing something boyish- sissy is negative, tomboy is positive.

Yes, I know. But isn't this the entire problem? 'feminine' is negative, 'masculine' is positive. But hasnt' it been that way for ages? Why hasn't that been a concern to Disney so far, and now all of a sudden they think they have to go along with the prejudice?

Still, the 'girly' things do not apply to Disney cartoon features, merely to the toy merchandise.

[tsom]

I still don't know what to think of the title. At least with "The Princess and the Frog," you know it probably has to do with "The Frog Prince". With "Tangled," it's a different story. On Monday, I told two of my friends (who are Disney fans) "Hey guys, in November, we're going to see 'Tangled'!" My friends said "what?" I had to explain that it's the new title for "Rapunzel". This made me realize every time I mention the movie, I have to add that it's based on Rapunzel.

This is not good.

[toonaspie]

I'm surprised that Disney is making this a concern, especially since they had various marketing failures in the past targeting boys you would think that now Disney has given up.

Of course some boy-targeted films were major hits: Aladdin, Peter Pan, Hercules, Tarzan because of their source material.

Which makes Tangled all the more challenging cause the source material is a Princess Fairytale. I'm wondering if Disney is just trying to mess around and experiment or what. There's lots of boy-centric fairytales still out there that Disney couldve done in place of this if they wanted to take that route.

[BelleGirl]

I still don't know what to think of the title. At least with "The Princess and the Frog," you know it probably has to do with "The Frog Prince". With "Tangled," it's a different story. On Monday, I told two of my friends (who are Disney fans) "Hey guys, in November, we're going to see 'Tangled'!" My friends said "what?" I had to explain that it's the new title for "Rapunzel". This made me realize every time I mention the movie, I have to add that it's based on Rapunzel.

This is not good.

Exactly the point I made before: confusion!

[tsom]

Honestly, I thought Disney was all about "Family Films"!

The Disney princess franchise shares part of the blame.

People need to realize that these fairy tales (except Beauty and the Beast) were written by males (Perrault, Grimm, Andersen). Then Walt Disney, a male, with a staff full of males, made these movies. The writers, directors, and even song writers were all males. It's just today's society that automatically thinks "Oh, Cinderella is a girl's movie because there's a ball and all that. Lion King is a boy's movie because it has scary animals".

Sigh

[ajmrowland]

Beauty and the Beast also had the benefit of a completely gender-neutral title. It didn't focus on one character. It mentioned two. Girls would be interested in the Beauty, and boys in the Beast. It might not work as well with the Rapunzel story, but it worked for that film. they were truly marketing to both sexes. They should just do that.

[BelleGirl]

"Rapunzel & Flynn"?

[Flanger-Hanger]

When I worked at the Disney Store I distinctly remember the issues we had with selling Sleeping Beauty to families with boys. We'd ask if parents would like to pre-order the film and they'd say that their son or sons wouldn't be interested in a "girls movie". We discussed ways to sell this movie to the male gender through pointing out the adventure aspects of the film, but it really annoyed me that we had to take that effort to change the public perception of the movie one person at a time. We even had cool merch geared towards boys based on the movie!

The problem I see is that it's only ever marketed to boys when the movie gets released from the Vault, which is like once every 7 years. The 6 years it's OOP the only image of the movie out there for the general public to see is the Disney Princess merch. When Aurora looks like this:



How to you convince a boy to like it?

The Princess line makes billions for Disney on an annual basis, but what is the cost in having this brand image of these collections of films? Even people (usually young adults) who like Aladdin, notice and dislike how the title character of that movie has taken a back-seat to his love interest and how the film has become a "girl-movie" too to Disney's marketing department.

Disney needs to go back and re-think how it's Princess centric practices might be hindering it's chances to make addition money from these films (I guarantee you that if SB were marketed more often to boys the girls' stuff would still sell). It's this brand that needs a new outlook before any new properties are closely associated with it.

I wish they'd have pushed the "Disney Heroes" line beyond The Disney Store like the Princess brand is.

[Disney Duster]

I just wanted to say that Wondy, I think your idea of calling the film "Rapunzel and the Thief" is a brilliant one.

Walt did change the title of his first fairy tale from Snow White to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which is something I did not like when I found out about it, and I still don't like it, but it's not that much difference, it still sounds like the story, like the fairy tale.

It would also sound like Beauty and the Beast.

So if they called it "Rapunzel and the Thief" or "Rapunzel and the Bandit", I would be A-Okay with that. It would still sound like a Disney classic fairy tale, but also appeal more to boys.

[IagoZazu]

I wish they'd have pushed the "Disney Heroes" line beyond The Disney Store like the Princess brand is.

That would be a great idea. I don't see why it wouldn't be. Boys can be just as big profit getters as girls.

[Margos]

You know something? I was excited for Disney's "Rapunzel." And I still am. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." We're getting the same rose, they're just calling it by another name. And maybe it's for a stupid reason. But who cares? It's the same movie, even if they called it "The Chick with the Hair and Her Most Excellent Adventures." If you think about it, if they had to change the name, "Tangled" is much better than alot of the other alternatives they could have gone with....

[Sotiris]

Beauty and the Beast also had the benefit of a completely gender-neutral title. It didn't focus on one character. It mentioned two. Girls would be interested in the Beauty, and boys in the Beast.

Actually that was the way the merchandise was marketed. Belle was for girls while Beast was for boys.

[PatrickvD]

WILDTHING????

man, where are the guys that marketed those movies? That is just awesome.

[ajmrowland]

They're off on their lunch break................since '97.


I'll give it five more minutes, or they're fired.

[Super Aurora]

that beast game was horrible. i've played it. controls sucks

[PatrickvD]

that beast game was horrible. i've played it. controls sucks

but it looks so tough and manly

[Aqua]

I don't blame the Disney Princesses in any way, shape, or form. You can blame the company for essentially destroying their personalities/uniqueness/individuality and making them all...Well, the same. I'm a gay male and I really don't like the pink. AURORA LOOKS BETTER IN THE BLUE DRESS!!!!

It's very upseting that it's almost as if they INTENTIONALLY exclude boys in general. BATB is my favorite Disney animated feature and it makes me sad that my girl Belle has been watered down to be exclusively for little girls and that she, along with the other Princesses, are now being berated and scapegoated by fans, despite the perception Disney is for little girls/kids is enforced by people who hate them or don't know any better, not them. Between Neo-Nazi feminists, the anti-Disney crowd, the Christian fundies and hyper-masculine men, boys who like/take interest in the Disney Princesses are berated and scrutinized. Pushing for a Disney Prince line over the Disney Princess one sounds eh to me just because we're to get rid of one merchandise line to appease one demographic?

I agree with what somebody mentioned. There's no problem if a girl hates the Disney Princesses and likes more "boyish/masculine" stuff but people like me and my friend (he adores Cinderella) who take interest in what's suppose to be for girls...Quick, call the police!!!!!


BTW, sorry for going off-topic it's just sad that Disney has been so watered down and has been very '"discriminatory " towards gender. But whatever floats Disney's boat.

[pap64]

So in that Beauty and the Beast game, girls could be the strong, smart, creative and inventive Belle while boys would be the angry, hairy, smelly, ugly, bad tempered, rude, lacking manners Beast?

Am I the only one detecting a hint of sexism here?