Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.

Do you like the new title change?

Yes
4
3%
No
50
34%
It's not that bad/I'm used to it by now
45
31%
I hate it with a passion
28
19%
I love it
1
1%
I don't care either way
18
12%
 
Total votes: 146

User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 14017
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Tangled

Post by Disney Duster »

WHAT WALT WOULD WANT: About this, it's true we can't know for sure, but we can feel pretty sure that Walt wouldn't have done a lot of the low-quality and crap they have done, and the changing of something for stupid reasons, such as Tangled's name, and other decisions, which was mostly what Polizzi was saying we could know he wouldn't do. The past three fairy tales he did just give us a very good idea of what he would want for this film.

Remember, everyone working at the studio is there because they want to do what Walt would want, they want to do what Disney would want, what Disney stands for. Otherwise they'd be just any studio.
estefan wrote:It should also be noted that during after Walt's death and before Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg entered the scene and shook things up, the animators went by the mantra of "doing what Walt would have done." The result was (in my opinion) under-whelming films like Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Aristocats, Rascal, Robin Hood and The Rescuers, that while all decent films, aren't quite on-par with a lot of the productions from Walt's lifetime.
Yes, and then they did The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, three fairy tales just like Walt did...and The Lion King was like Bambi...and..they were huge hits among the best the studio has done!

Also Walt said if he ever went back to animation, he wanted to do two projects, two fairy tales, Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid.
Image
User avatar
amazon980
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:19 pm

Post by amazon980 »

I wonder if walt wanted to do Rapunzel? What did he want in it?
User avatar
Polizzi
Special Edition
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:42 pm

Post by Polizzi »

If Walt Disney was still alive, and wanted to do, "Rapunzel," based on a Grimm fairy tale, the first thing to do is arrange the story based on, "Rapunzel," but tell it in a similar and different way, than straight forward, in order to make the fairy tale more interesting than typical. Next, create animated characters that fit for the story. Walt Disney can either create animated characters first, arrange the story first, or do both at the same time (which would probably be the most bet) to put on a good production. Walt Disney is well known for arranging stories based on fairy tales to make fairy tales more interesting than typical.
User avatar
jpanimation
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1841
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am

Re: Tangled

Post by jpanimation »

Disney Duster wrote:
estefan wrote:It should also be noted that during after Walt's death and before Eisner, Wells and Katzenberg entered the scene and shook things up, the animators went by the mantra of "doing what Walt would have done." The result was (in my opinion) under-whelming films like Bedknobs and Broomsticks, The Aristocats, Rascal, Robin Hood and The Rescuers, that while all decent films, aren't quite on-par with a lot of the productions from Walt's lifetime.
Yes, and then they did The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, three fairy tales just like Walt did...and The Lion King was like Bambi...and..they were huge hits among the best the studio has done!

Also Walt said if he ever went back to animation, he wanted to do two projects, two fairy tales, Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tgaH9lLGm3A&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tgaH9lLGm3A&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Notice the "colorful fantasies" that Walt refers to during his 1954 intro to Alice in Wonderland.
Image
User avatar
mawnck
Limited Issue
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:35 pm

A preach, my dear friends .....

Post by mawnck »

Some fans have this simplistic image of a kindly benevolent storyteller who would make exactly the kind of movie they (the fan) wants to see. Walt was far more complex than that, as all humans are.

For one thing, Walt in his final years was all about EPCOT. He had all but lost interest in the motion picture side of the business, and the studio's output at the time made this abundantly clear. In all likelihood his luck finally would've run out, and his EPCOT project, or whatever he followed it up with, would've finally driven the company into bankruptcy, just as he'd come so close to doing so many times before.

But anybody who thinks they have the slightest inkling what Walt would really be doing were he alive today is delusional. His scripted TV speeches and ghostwritten "quotes" are evidence of absolutely nothing but how easily the public can be manipulated by a well-focused, long running ad campaign.

Please try to get this through your heads: Walt's marketing people wrote that stuff for him. His homespun quotes often contradicted his own working practices, the historic record, and each other. He said what his staff told him he should say to promote the latest project, just like every other good public figure does. It was all marketing, not a basis for operating a real-life movie studio.

And a look back at the off-model merchandise, the insipid no-budget live-action comedies, the relentless corporate advertising at the theme parks, the Disneyland record "albums" that ran less than 12 minutes, shows that the Disney brand was being traded on long before the cheapquels ever got rolling.

I'm not in any way denigrating Walt Disney's achievements. I truly do think the man was a storytelling genius. But I don't think you can have a serious discussion of his work or his legacy if you insist on deifying the guy.

And personally, I'm not even interested in what he would've done with Rapunzel. He had plenty of time to make Rapunzel, The Little Mermaid, etc. while he was in charge of the studio. But he didn't.

Besides, he was born in 1901. If he were alive today, he'd still be dead.

We have new filmmakers now, who are doing some fabulous work. How about let's talk about them.

(/rant)
User avatar
Polizzi
Special Edition
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:42 pm

Post by Polizzi »

Image

Found this on Deviant-art. It is created by Cory Jensen based on Disney's, "Rapunzel (Tangled)," merchandise. Here is the site to the image:

http://cor104.deviantart.com/art/Tangle ... zel&qo=397
robster16
Special Edition
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Post by robster16 »

New on the Disney related Facebook pages:

On the first stop of our Tangled tour, we visit the Kingdom. Surrounded by water, this quaint hillside sanctuary boasts street markets and offers styling for any type of hair...even ridiculously long.

Image
Image
User avatar
Polizzi
Special Edition
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:42 pm

Post by Polizzi »

I wonder if that tour is going to reveal the full art of the kingdom, besides the still art which is showing right now. That would be something to get a tour on.
User avatar
DisneyJedi
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3737
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Gender: Male

Post by DisneyJedi »

I don't know if anyone thinks so already, but I think that castle in the picture looks like the one from Sleeping Beauty, or that one castle in Germany that was used in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/sle ... y_0604.jpg
User avatar
PrincePhillipFan
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1099
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:32 pm

Post by PrincePhillipFan »

I always love that piece of concept art. I hope it looks just as beautiful in the film.
DisneyJedi wrote:I don't know if anyone thinks so already, but I think that castle in the picture looks like the one from Sleeping Beauty, or that one castle in Germany that was used in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

http://magicalscreencaps.com/images/sle ... y_0604.jpg
That wouldn't be too much of a stretch, since they used the famous Neuschwantstein Castle as the Baron's Castle in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and the look of both King Stefan's castle in the film and Sleeping Beauty Castle at Disneyland were both based on the design of Neuschwanstein. :p
-Tim
Image
robster16
Special Edition
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Post by robster16 »

It's more then likely based on the french castle Mont Saint Michel which is also at the sea shore of the french atlantic coastline.

Image

Image

Image
Image
User avatar
SWillie!
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2564
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:28 am

Post by SWillie! »

Woah. That's a freakin gorgeous castle. I'm really excited to see what this place will look like in the film.
User avatar
disneystarsfan
Gold Classic Collection
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:04 am
Location: Genie's Lamp
Contact:

Post by disneystarsfan »

robster16 wrote:It's more then likely based on the french castle Mont Saint Michel which is also at the sea shore of the french atlantic coastline.

Image
Cool! I always wondered what Mont St. Michel would look like animated even if all we're getting is just concept art, it's still a nice representation of it. I can't wait now for the fully rendered images. :D
Disney Animation is the Best!
Image
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Tangled

Post by Goliath »

Disney Duster wrote:Yes, and then they did The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin, three fairy tales just like Walt did...and The Lion King was like Bambi...and..they were huge hits among the best the studio has done!
You do realize that Walt Disney, in his days, would never have executed those films the way Disney did in the 1990's? Having a main character making references to Taxi Driver, Jack Nicholson, Thanksgiving parades etc.? I don't think so.

Besides, I'm convinced that The Rescuers was *a lot* closer to what 'Walt would have done' than the 1990's films. That's why Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston called it "the best film we made without Walt" on their website. And, contrary to what Rudy Matt said, it was a very popular film, the highest grossing Disney film at that time. Disney even thought it was good enough to use it for their first sequel.
mawnck wrote:[...] His scripted TV speeches and ghostwritten "quotes" are evidence of absolutely nothing but how easily the public can be manipulated by a well-focused, long running ad campaign.

Please try to get this through your heads: Walt's marketing people wrote that stuff for him. His homespun quotes often contradicted his own working practices, the historic record, and each other. He said what his staff told him he should say to promote the latest project, just like every other good public figure does. It was all marketing, not a basis for operating a real-life movie studio. [...]

I'm not in any way denigrating Walt Disney's achievements. I truly do think the man was a storytelling genius. But I don't think you can have a serious discussion of his work or his legacy if you insist on deifying the guy.
Game, set, and match!!! THANK YOU!

Prepare to be flamed into pieces, though, because a lot of people wearing pink glasses, living on clouds, will feel offended. Reality-based posts are often tricky when it comes to these subjects. To not deïfy Walt Disney is considered a serious crime on UD. But nonetheless, you're dead on about the marketing. I'm still surprised that even more than 40 years after his death, people *still* think the carefully created and marketed image of 'Uncle Walt' is 100% authentic. People who don't see that, like you said, his tv appearances were all scripted by others. Those people must think the president writes his speeches himself, too! They must've read a hundred biographies on Walt Disney, but don't realize most of them are for 90% not true (or at least not complete). There's so much false information out there about Walt, and that's because the Disney wants to carefully sustain the 'kind Uncle Walt' image.
mawnck wrote:Besides, he was born in 1901. If he were alive today, he'd still be dead.
:lol:
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Image


For some reason, when I see this image, it makes me think this belong in a Disney theme park resort. I dunno why though...
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
Polizzi
Special Edition
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:42 pm

Post by Polizzi »

A frying pan to the head is the best way to welcome your first houseguest in 18 years. . . .
Image
A new message from Disney's, "Rapunzel (Tangled)," on Facebook.
robster16
Special Edition
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Post by robster16 »

Comic Con presentation on July 22nd! For anyone in the San Diego neighbourhood. Go and report live for all the unfortunate ones who can't go!

22nd of July - 2:00-3:00 Walt Disney Animation Studios: Character Creation!

Throughout the years, Walt Disney Animation Studios has brought us some of the most memorable, unique, and appealing onscreen characters. Disney Animation’s upcoming releaseTangled introduces a fresh and irresistible new bunch. Nathan Greno and Byron Howard(directors), Glen Keane (animation supervisor), and other artists from Tangled discuss the creation of their unforgettable characters. Room 5AB

Categories: Animation | Art and Illustration | Movies | Seminars & Workshops
Image
User avatar
Margos
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: A small suburban/rural town in PA

Post by Margos »

18 years? I thought something earlier said 16 years. Which is it?
http://dragonsbane.webs.com
http://childrenofnight.webs.com

^My websites promoting my two WIP novels! Check them out for exclusive content!
User avatar
mawnck
Limited Issue
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:35 pm

Post by mawnck »

Polizzi wrote:I wonder if that tour is going to reveal the full art of the kingdom, besides the still art which is showing right now. That would be something to get a tour on.
Am I the only one perplexed about the dearth of images coming from this thing? It's the same pieces of concept art over and over and over and over ....
Margos wrote:18 years? I thought something earlier said 16 years. Which is it?
I'm sure it's changed several times just like everything else connected with this movie. She comes across as being at the younger end of that scale. But they let her in the tavern so she must be at least 17. :wink:

It's hard to judge a Princess's age anyway. I've always found it hard to believe that Aurora is just turning 16. They grow up so fast ...
Post Reply