Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

[Polizzi]

Disney wants their cake... and eat the crap out of it too.

They want to cash in on the blonde princess with the super long hair, which is bound to sell an INSANE amount of dolls, if only due to the fact that her hair is longer. And still make the money TPATF failed to make in theaters.

Meanwhile, they're calling it Tangled and make it look like some big adventure to appeal to boys. Is Disney really stupid enough to think boys aren't gonna notice the princess dolls in toy stores? They're smart enough to find out that Tangled is a fairytale.

Forgive me for sending you a curiosity question, it is optional. Would boys find the name, "Tangled," interesting or misleading? Just wondering. But I must agree, the boys will notice that it is based on a fairy tale. I bet if they saw Rapunzel and her long golden hair, along with Flynn Rider, I bet they would say this, "if this was supposed to be based on, 'Rapunzel,' why not just call it, 'Rapunzel,' besides, 'Tangled?'" To my belief, I bet boys would have no problem with the name, "Rapunzel," it is just that calling it, "Tangled," to get the boys to see it would probably sound kind of misleading, but they might understand the reference of Rapunzel's hair, her adventures with Flynn Rider, and her love with Flynn Rider. But I understand that Disney is trying to give Flynn Rider as much support as Rapunzel's. If Disney did change the name back to, "Rapunzel (which I understand that one of you Disney fans would doubt about it, because it already has officially changed (who knows, maybe they might change their mind...maybe))," they can still give Flynn Rider as much support as Rapunzel's. For example, "There's Something About Mary (warning: this movie is rated, "R")," that movie has a girl's name, and it tells a story about three men who fall in love with the same girl, until things are starting to get (according to Disney's new name for Rapunzel) tangled up to be. Some of you Disney fans would probably believe that the boys will get the joke about the name, because it is supposed to be funny. To my belief, if Disney keeps the name, "Rapunzel," it can still have funny scenes in the movie. For example, "The Little Mermaid," poor Sebastian has to escape from the (sorry to be a little bit of a racist) French chef while trying to make sure that Ariel is safe. But there is a good question to Disney's, "Tangled": How would the boys know that the movie is misleading based on the name, without seeing the movie? I say this, only time will tell, and subject may yet to change, even though changing the name is official. I could be right about the name misleading, or I could be wrong that it will attract boys...maybe.

[Polizzi]

Hey guys, I just have this crazy idea, but you guys may find it stupid, for what Disney should do. What if Disney unleashes their animated movie (same animation and same story) into two versions, but with different names? One for, "Rapunzel," and one for, "Tangled," ONLY on the limited release date before worldwide? So that Disney would know which suits for the audience. But I know what you guys are going to say, if the audience sees the movie titled, "Rapunzel," and the story told differently than what the original fairy tale tells, they would probably find a good reason to be called, "Tangled." If the audience sees the movie titled, "Tangled," and the story told differently than what the original fairy tale tells, then they have entered the right version to call it that. Unless if it is supposed to be based on a fairy tale called, "Rapunzel," even though the story is told differently, then it would, but not quite to you guys...maybe, be better to just call it, "Rapunzel." But I know, I know, Disney has already officially made the name change, and there is no changing back. Even though the merchandise says, "no logo finalized," there is still no changing back, especially when it says, behind the, "no logo finalized," font, "Tangled (I found one that says, "Rapunzel")." Who knows, they would probably change their minds anyway...maybe.

[KubrickFan]

Hey guys, I just have this crazy idea, but you guys may find it stupid, for what Disney should do. What if Disney unleashes their animated movie (same animation and same story) into two versions, but with different names? One for, "Rapunzel," and one for, "Tangled," ONLY on the limited release date before worldwide? So that Disney would know which suits for the audience. But I know what you guys are going to say, if the audience sees the movie titled, "Rapunzel," and the story told differently than what the original fairy tale tells, they would probably find a good reason to be called, "Tangled." If the audience sees the movie titled, "Tangled," and the story told differently than what the original fairy tale tells, then they have entered the right version to call it that. Unless if it is supposed to be based on a fairy tale called, "Rapunzel," even though the story is told differently, then it would, but not quite to you guys...maybe, be better to just call it, "Rapunzel." But I know, I know, Disney has already officially made the name change, and there is no changing back. Even though the merchandise says, "no logo finalized," there is still no changing back, especially when it says, behind the, "no logo finalized," font, "Tangled (I found one that says, "Rapunzel")." Who knows, they would probably change their minds anyway...maybe.

That would be the most terrible idea, marketing wise. You want your audiences to remember the title, and that's not happening when you let the same movie be in theaters under two different titles. People just need to get over this title change, and start focusing on the information on the movie itself, no matter how little there is.

[Sotiris]

I think I'm used to the name change.

[robster16]

People, please!

I am the guy who started a damn petition against this title change, so I know what you feel and how you can hate and dislike the title!

But PLEASE! The title is not going to change, and you can keep complaining about it, and start new theories or tactics, but it's just NOT happening. I have grown accustomed to the idea and moved on. In the end, the movie hasn't changed, it's just a name. So if you don't like the title, then just print your own dvd cover and let it go already. It's slightly scary at first, but in the end you'll only be able to enjoy the movie instead of focusing too much on it's title alone. There's so much to look forward to, so please...

let's move on already!!! PLEASE!

THANX!

[SWillie!]

For example, "The Little Mermaid," poor Sebastian has to escape from the (sorry to be a little bit of a racist) French chef while trying to make sure that Ariel is safe.

Hahahahahahah that was my favorite part. You better apologize for being racist. Because that is being very, very racist. And all French people ever are now offended by your post. Way to go.

I wish a certain someone would stop polluting perfectly good threads with rumbling nonsense. I've tried to ignore it but it doesn't work. Ahh, it's so frustrating. I've had enough!!!

AKA...


POLIZZI. STOP. NOBODY CARES ANYMORE.

[Kyle]

I know, lets create a petition to get Polizzi banned.

[Sotiris]

Does anyone know when will the trailer be released?

[Elladorine]

It's probably best to skip over the posts you just know are going to rub you the wrong way. Either that or ask Luke if there's any possibility of adding an ignore function* to the forum. I'd totally be in favor of it as I know it's saved my sanity at certain other forums, but of course it really depends on the personal preference of the site owner (I've been to a handful of sites that don't feel the function should be allowed).

*The link is just an example, I don't know what version of phpBB is being run here

[UmbrellaFish]

^

In response to the last page or so of this thread.

[Disney Duster]

I wish a certain someone named sotiris would stop being so mean.

Polizzi there's nothing wrong with your posts, you suggest new ideas and reasons to change the name back, and they're great. Maybe you do need to keep your sadness over the name change in more as I and I'm sure others have done, but if you really feel you have come up with something new about the name change, or you just want to post about your feelings, you have every right to.

In response to the recent Rapunzel images, I love the painted look of the images. It seems to be 2-D painted images but maybe the actual film will look just as painted, I would love that. I do hope she looks better in the film though, in design of her and of her clothes.

[Margos]

I agree... I think people are being a bit hard on Polizzi. Can I honestly say he's not a little annoying..... No. No, I can't. But he still has his freedom to speech. Heck, I don't even remember anyone mentioning starting a petition to ban Marky and he is 10x worse. So, really.... Maybe it's better to lay off a little.

[Disney's Divinity]

This is the type of "clip art" I was talking about:



While these are obviously based on the CG designs, they are clearly not production stills. They're completely original 2D renderings (like we've seen from Pixar and the Little Golden Books, just less stylized). Just how well do these represent the look of their respective films? Maybe as well as these new Rapunzel pics?

And now that enigmawing posted those pics of Disney's other 2D clip art from CG movies, what do you think now that you've seen what we're talking about? The Chicken Little one isn't bad (or at least as "not bad" as anything related to that movie can get ), but imagine if we had seen that Meet the Robinsons image before the movie came out. "OMG! They look so bland and lame!" Or the Bolt one... "Penny's hair looks like a teenage punk boy's! And Bolt's eyes are really strange!!!"

I'm honestly wondering if the two of you even read what I said:

I'm just being honest that I've never seen 3D clip art on merchandise for 3D films that didn't look like it came directly from the film, or the filmmakers. So I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

As in, I am talking about 3-DIMENSIONAL clip art. Which these are.

These two in particular are exactly my point:

They are completely alike, only the lighting is different.

If I were talking about 2D clipart, you would be right. But I am talking specifically about 3D clipart. And all the "clipart" on these coloring books are 3D. They are not 2D. So I don't no why you keep responding to me about 2D artwork, when these are not 2D.

Just to explain, since you don't get what I'm talking about:

]

She obviously has dimension in this picture. Look at her arms, and her head, and her waist. Look at her plastic-like eyes. None of these:


look like that. Because these are 2D, and those are 3D.

And, now, to reiterate what I was saying before (that you've apparently mistepped): I have never seen 3D clip art from a 3D film that did not look like it was taken directly from the film. I'm thinking of every piece of merchandise I've seen of Monsters, INC., Cars, Toy Story, Shrek, Shark Tale, Bolt, Meet The Robinsons, and I honestly have never seen 3D clipart that was not representative of how the character looks--when it is 3-DIMENSIONAL. Except for video games. And coloring books are not video games.

Jesus.

[Elladorine]

Jesus.

No need for the exasperation. I'm still of the opinion that all this Rapunzel clip art is not CG.

[Disney's Divinity]

Well then, I'll end all this with: I've never seen anything 2-Dimensional that ever looked liked that before. (Maybe...because it's not)

[Kyle]

None of those are are 3D renders though, their shaded to add a sense of demension, but they do that all the time to 2d images, their not polygonal at all.

[Disney Duster]

That's what I thought. It looked like they painted these 2D images to look like the film. But if the film looked that painted, well, I'd be quite glad!

I'm going to lay on something else, how this is such a return for Disney, Alan Menken, and Glen Keane:

It's another European traditional fairy tale.

It's made to look painted and like from the times the fairy tale would have been made.

Alan Menken's tunes are 60's rock, like the music he made for "Little Shop of Horrors" which he did just before "The Little Mermaid".

Glen Keane is making Rapunzel look a lot like Ariel, the greenish big eyes, the big head, the hair, even her purple bodice evokes Ariel's purple shells.

Glean Keane may love that them of parents learning to let children go. It is suggested from what we know so far that Mother Gothel will have to learn to let Rapunzel go, as Triton did of Ariel.

Glen Keane's daughter has been let go to contribute her art to this film!

[Disney's Divinity]

None of those are are 3D renders though, their shaded to add a sense of demension, but they do that all the time to 2d images, their not polygonal at all.

The first Chicken Little image is also heavily shaded. Still nothing like the Rapunzel image.

But there’s no real need to reply to me, I guess. Can’t change what my eyes see.

(Also, just wanted to apologize if anyone found the “Jesus” exasperation thing offensive. I did censor myself, though. In real life, I usually say, “For God’s sake,” or “Damn.” Dunno, sounds better than “Ai Chihuahua”)

[SWillie!]

None of those are are 3D renders though, their shaded to add a sense of demension, but they do that all the time to 2d images, their not polygonal at all.

The first Chicken Little image is also heavily shaded. Still nothing like the Rapunzel image.

But there’s no real need to reply to me, I guess. Can’t change what my eyes see.

(Also, just wanted to apologize if anyone found the “Jesus” exasperation thing offensive. I did censor myself, though. In real life, I usually say, “For God’s sake,” or “Damn.” Dunno, sounds better than “Ai Chihuahua”)

Hahah don't worry, I don't think anyone is going to start a riot over it.

But anyways. I understand what you mean about the 3D deal. Like how Mike and Sulley never ever look even remotely different from the movie. And that's because for those, they literally took stills from the movie. Those are rendered CG characters. On the other hand... I mean, I suppose we'll never know for sure... but I really don't think that these images of Rapunzel are actually 3D. They definitely look more dimensional than the other examples we saw, but she isn't quite CG. At least I don't think so.

[Dragonlion]

The first Chicken Little image is also heavily shaded. Still nothing like the Rapunzel image.

Do you think that could be because unlike the Chicken Little cover, the drawing might have been shaded on the computer using the same tech for the film? I don't know just a thought.

These two in particular are exactly my point:<snip>
They are completely alike, only the lighting is different.

There are some differences, although minor, like her figure, head size, hair, etc., so not exactly the same only the basic pose.