Tangled Discussion - Part V

[phan258]

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh -_-

So animated films aren't "real" films? Just kiddie stuff, right? But Pixar films are animated.....mindscrew!

Sorry, but it makes me nuts when people imply that a movie is somehow lesser because it's animated/a cartoon/whatever. Judge it on the content, not the medium.

And Pixar is not the end-all be-all of animation. No, really.

You completely misread my tone. I am reflecting the film industry's attitude. Not my own.

I really, honestly do not see any clues in your post that would have lead me to think that was anything other than your thoughts, or I wouldn't have bothered commenting. I guess I'm just glad I was wrong, because there are many people out there who do think cartoons are for kids, or adults who don't want to grow up, and that attitude just....gah!

[Super Aurora]

Golden globe and all those awards flaunting shows are a piece of shit and mean nothing.

The common attitude in the "ghetto" medium of the film industry.

I can't tell by your comment the way you worded it, but are you implying that my comment was an example of "The common attitude in the "ghetto" medium of the film industry."?

If so, .... WTF? how?

Cause in all honestly those awards ceremonies mean nothing. The quality of a film is not determine by a award of a trophy but by the insight of the audience's perspective of how he or she perceive it as.

[estefan]

Seriously, it seems like every season, a latter-part-of-the-year live action movie that people barely pay attention to gets all the accolades for no reason.

Umm...The Social Network has been very successful and hugely critically acclaimed, ever since it was released. It's definitely not a film that "people barely pay attention to." If anything, a film about the creation of one of the most popular websites today is something everybody is talking about.

As for Toy Story 3 winning, I guess I'm the only here who completely supports that, as I found it to be a terrific film and my favourite of the year. But, I agree that Tangled losing to that Burlesque song was beyond stupid.

And there's a reason for Pixar's streak. It's because they do make the best animated films out there, in my opinion. I expect it to end next year with Cars 2, though. The first Cars didn't win the Oscar and unless it turns out to be completely amazing (and since this is Pixar, that actually wouldn't surprise me), it probably won't win. I think The Borrowers and Winnie the Pooh will probably be vying for the awards next year. Of course, at this point, who knows what animated films will be loved?

Everybody thought How to Train Your Dragon, Tangled and Despicable Me would stink a year ago and now, they're loved by a large group of people. I wouldn't be surprised if Gnomeo & Juliet, Rio, Cars 2 and other animated films people are doubting turn out to be widely liked or loved.

[Victurtle]

Why are people turning a Tangled vs TS3 argument into a Disney vs Pixar Argument? I think (and hope) the winner itself was judged on the film, not the company who produced it.


I hope at least Tangled gets recognition for it's technical merit. Finally Pixar has been beaten at it's own game (CG animation)

[Semaj]

The common attitude in the "ghetto" medium of the film industry.

I can't tell by your comment the way you worded it, but are you implying that my comment was an example of "The common attitude in the "ghetto" medium of the film industry."?

If so, .... WTF? how?

Cause in all honestly those awards ceremonies mean nothing. The quality of a film is not determine by a award of a trophy but by the insight of the audience's perspective of how he or she perceive it as.

If this were a perfect world, we wouldn't need award shows to determine the status of filmmakers and media of their choosing. Unfortunately in real-life Hollywood, movies are judged as such, and no matter what evidence exists to the contrary, the world of cartoons are always last in line.

A community that is used to disappointment will have a subset that have resigned to their lowly status, and even come to resent any attempt to break the barrier. Again, this is what happened when Barack Obama ran for President, because even long after civil rights reform, Black Americans still dealt with limited opportunities caused by the invisible layers of prejudice that prevails in the "land of the free". The dual audacity of running a nation that has beaten down the race of which he represents more than any other, and in the process not acting "Black" enough is still a whole new concept to the Black American community.

It's sort of the same challenge for animation. Disney faced it back in the 30's. UPA faced it back in the 50's. Now Pixar is facing it in the 2010's. It's a combination of several factors: The animation breadwinner attempting to break the glass ceiling set by the live action media; the animation competition scrambling to keep up with the breadwinner; the backlash from those in the animation industry who may feel that Disney's/UPA's/Pixar's product isn't "cartoony" enough, as well as backlash from the live action community who scoffs at the notion of cartoons ever being equal to live-action.

The point I'm making is that the push to get Toy Story 3 that Best Picture Oscar nom is necessary for breaking the glass ceiling that prevails in the cartoon industry. The odds are against them that they will actually win it, and even as I type this, a nom is looking iffy. But just as Obama's presidency is a step forward in achieving true civil equality, if the odds are in Pixar's favor, it will be a small but significant step towards achieving a level of equality in the Hollywood culture.

[PatrickvD]

Again, this is what happened when Barack Obama ran for President, because even long after civil rights reform, Black Americans still dealt with limited opportunities caused by the invisible layers of prejudice that prevails in the "land of the free". The dual audacity of running a nation that has beaten down the race of which he represents more than any other, and in the process not acting "Black" enough is still a whole new concept to the Black American community.

how in the heck did we go from the Golden Globes to this?

[PheR]

As beautiful as 'I see the light' is, Disney deserved to loose that best song award, they wanted to hide the songs in the first place, so...

[Fairytales]

As beautiful as 'I see the light' is, Disney deserved to loose that best song award, they wanted to hide the songs in the first place, so...

I disagree. They may have intended not to put the songs in but they did put them in, and that's what matters. i see the light should've won

[Disney's Divinity]

I hate to play devil's advocate, but the reality of the situation is that for Disney to win an award and beat Pixar is to step it up in the story department. I LOVED Princess and the Frog (despite how much I criticized it) and Tangled, don't get me wrong. But those stories were fairly simple and straightforward. Pixar movies, on the other hand, are brimming with character depth and evolution, complex themes of life, dreams and such, and the one key component in winning an award... IT MAKES PEOPLE CRY.

I disagree. I find most the early Pixar films' stories to be very simplistic. The reason they work, like the greatest Disney films (Dumbo, Bambi, Dalmatians, even up to Mermaid and Lion King), is that basic stories touch on much more raw emotion and meaning than other films. A story setup for Toy Story is very simple--it ends up being more complex because of it, not in spite of it.

This new idea of "complex" that people have is bizarre. What happened to metaphor and allegory? No, "complex" has to mean dealing with some "special" taboo topic or having a convoluted storyline. This movie's about global warming. This movie's about old people problems. And so on. If anything, they are treating their animated films like live-action films. Which isn't a problem except, when compared to live-action films with the same topics, what have they done better? I find Pixar's earliest films (before they attempted to become "complex") to be far and away better than the past 5 or so. They're animation is always top-notch, there's no doubt, but I think the quality has dropped (personally).

And even though I've been very critical of Tangled in the past, I believe it does have a huge load of character depth, especially with Rapunzel (though Flynn and Gothel are there, too), and it has made many of its viewers cry. TP&TF, for its flaws, also says a lot about the black struggle in America.

The truth is that there is a current anti-Disney bias in place (that might already be changing with Tangled's success), whether or not they did that to themselves, and they'll have to try much harder because of it. I have no doubt that if B&tB or TLK were released today, they'd still lose out to the latest Pixar film at the awards. It all has to do with timing. The awards feed off public perception more than anything.

[pap64]

I hate to play devil's advocate, but the reality of the situation is that for Disney to win an award and beat Pixar is to step it up in the story department. I LOVED Princess and the Frog (despite how much I criticized it) and Tangled, don't get me wrong. But those stories were fairly simple and straightforward. Pixar movies, on the other hand, are brimming with character depth and evolution, complex themes of life, dreams and such, and the one key component in winning an award... IT MAKES PEOPLE CRY.

I disagree. I find most the early Pixar films' stories to be very simplistic. The reason they work, like the greatest Disney films (Dumbo, Bambi, Dalmatians, even up to Mermaid and Lion King), is that basic stories touch on much more raw emotion and meaning than other films. A story setup for Toy Story is very simple--it ends up being more complex because of it, not in spite of it.

This new idea of "complex" that people have is bizarre. What happened to metaphor and allegory? No, "complex" has to mean dealing with some "special" taboo topic or having a convoluted storyline. This movie's about global warming. This movie's about old people problems. And so on. If anything, they are treating their animated films like live-action films. Which isn't a problem except, when compared to live-action films with the same topics, what have they done better? I find Pixar's earliest films (before they attempted to become "complex") to be far and away better than the past 5 or so. They're animation is always top-notch, there's no doubt, but I think the quality has dropped (personally).

And even though I've been very critical of Tangled in the past, I believe it does have a huge load of character depth, especially with Rapunzel (though Flynn and Gothel are there, too), and it has made many of its viewers cry. TP&TF, for its flaws, also says a lot about the black struggle in America.

The truth is that there is a current anti-Disney bias in place (that might already be changing with Tangled's success), whether or not they did that to themselves, and they'll have to try much harder because of it. I have no doubt that if B&tB or TLK were released today, they'd still lose out to the latest Pixar film at the awards. It all has to do with timing. The awards feed off public perception more than anything.

Note I am talking based on what the usual FILM CRITIC thinks. Hence why I said I was being the devil's advocate. For some reason, Pixar drives the critics's nuts. They are the critical darling of the film world.

Just check out this review of Toy Story 3:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ ... oy-Story-3

Note how the guy talks and talks and talks and TAAAAAAAAALKS about Toy Story 3's emotional depth and complexities. Many critics do that with Pixar's films, and if the critics act like that, then the people at the award shows will pay attention and nominate and award that movie.

If Disney wants to get the same kind of reaction then they will have to push their own boundaries and try to be even more daring than Pixar.

Now, in MY own honest opinion, I am surprised people put so, so, so, SO much worth into these awards. Yes, having an animated movie win an award is great. But people are talking as if Disney deserves an award for every movie that comes out, and that Pixar should be snubbed. Really? If a movie deserves an award it should win it, regardless of who did it, which studio marketed or even what the audience thought of it. I know there will always be BS decisions that we disagree on, but in the end it means nothing, because if the movie is great it will have a legacy.

Neither Aladdin or Lion King were nominated for best picture at the Oscars. They won Oscars for songs, sure, but nothing else was given to those films. And yet, has it stopped them for being very popular among fans? No. The movies are good, therefore it will live on, regardless if the movie was a critical and award sweetheart, or only a few appreciated it.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

This new idea of "complex" that people have is bizarre. What happened to metaphor and allegory? No, "complex" has to mean dealing with some "special" taboo topic or having a convoluted storyline. This movie's about global warming. This movie's about old people problems. And so on. If anything, they are treating their animated films like live-action films. Which isn't a problem except, when compared to live-action films with the same topics, what have they done better? I find Pixar's earliest films (before they attempted to become "complex") to be far and away better than the past 5 or so. They're animation is always top-notch, there's no doubt, but I think the quality has dropped (personally).

To put it short; you don't like it when a movie use a speisfic theme or moral as part of the main plot. That I can agree. Movies are meant to be escapism, and when you suddenly are reminded about the real world and pollution and so on, the spell is broken to some degree. Not that there is anything wrong with movies with old people as main characters, or life on a postapocalyptic earth, but it is important that the message is not too obvious.
The problem with films who has an important lesson to tell the audience, is that it is usually something they have been reminded about a million times before already.

Then the is the demand that it is extremely important with characters with depth and dimensions. For me it looks like an internet meme that has become a serious infection. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it looks naturally, but there is absolutely no demand that it should feel like you are staring into an abyss when you get to know a character.
But if there is anybody who knows how to add personality and life to the characters, it is the animators at Disney. An important part of their education is all about being able to show the audience what is going on inside the head of the characters in any given situation.

Something Walt Disney said that is often quoted is "for every laughter, there should be a tear". Personally, I don't think that's a good formula. If a scene is meant to be sad or funny, it should be so because the situation makes it feel like a natural element in it. It shouldn't be an attempt to find some kind of balance.

[pap64]

This new idea of "complex" that people have is bizarre. What happened to metaphor and allegory? No, "complex" has to mean dealing with some "special" taboo topic or having a convoluted storyline. This movie's about global warming. This movie's about old people problems. And so on. If anything, they are treating their animated films like live-action films. Which isn't a problem except, when compared to live-action films with the same topics, what have they done better? I find Pixar's earliest films (before they attempted to become "complex") to be far and away better than the past 5 or so. They're animation is always top-notch, there's no doubt, but I think the quality has dropped (personally).

To put it short; you don't like it when a movie use a speisfic theme or moral as part of the main plot. That I can agree. Movies are meant to be escapism, and when you suddenly are reminded about the real world and pollution and so on, the spell is broken to some degree. Not that there is anything wrong with movies with old people as main characters, or life on a postapocalyptic earth, but it is important that the message is not too obvious.
The problem with films who has an important lesson to tell the audience, is that it is usually something they have been reminded about a million times before already.

Then the is the demand that it is extremely important with characters with depth and dimensions. For me it looks like an internet meme that has become a serious infection. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it looks naturally, but there is absolutely no demand that it should feel like you are staring into an abyss when you get to know a character.
But if there is anybody who knows how to add personality and life to the characters, it is the animators at Disney. An important part of their education is all about being able to show the audience what is going on inside the head of the characters in any given situation.

Something Walt Disney said that is often quoted is "for every laughter, there should be a tear". Personally, I don't think that's a good formula. If a scene is meant to be sad or funny, it should be so because the situation makes it feel like a natural element in it. It shouldn't be an attempt to find some kind of balance.

I partially agree and disagree with this. On one hand, I agree that movies are mainly entertainment, and when people try to make them TOO serious then the charm is lost.

...BUT on the other hand, the best movies are often those that have some familiar element in their narrative or their characters. Movie goers often see themselves reflected in the characters, or part of their lives are presented in the story. Even if the character is NOTHING like them they will see aspects.

When I read the comment "for every laugh there should be a tear" I don't see it as you do. The way I interpret it is that if you want to tell a multifaceted story with decent character development you HAVE to create scenes of both utter joy and devastating defeat. Why? Because it makes the character stronger.

Take Cinderella for example...

Imagine if all of the dark elements were stripped out of it. The story would go like this...

"Once upon a time there was a beautiful girl named Cinderella. She had a wonderful stepmother and two great stepsisters. She lived every day with a song in her heart and a spring in her step. One day she went to the ball where the Prince fell madly in love with her. With her stepmother's blessing she married the prince and they all lived happily ever after".

That's a pretty boring story. The key element here is CONFLICT. The best stories ever told (whether by film or written word) have a great conflict that defines the character. The reason the scene when the slipper fits Cinderella is so great is because before we saw her being abused by her family and having her dreams crushed and destroyed time and time again. It is a triumphant moment that makes people happy when they leave the theater.

So when Walt says that for every laugh there should be a tear it means that the story must touch on all of life's aspects if it hopes to be an endearing and memorable story that everyone enjoys.

I agree that filmmakers shouldn't tack in a sad or funny scene for the sake of balance, but if you want to create a great story you have to put some conflict and sadness so the good elements stand out more.

[Super Aurora]

Imagine if all of the dark elements were stripped out of it. The story would go like this...

"Once upon a time there was a beautiful girl named Cinderella. She had a wonderful stepmother and two great stepsisters. She lived every day with a song in her heart and a spring in her step. One day she went to the ball where the Prince fell madly in love with her. With her stepmother's blessing she married the prince and they all lived happily ever after".

Sounds like something from a Mary-sue fan-fiction. lol

[Marianne81]

Dear Marianne81,

I just finished reading your article, and I must say that I enjoyed it! I like your use of both interesting words and grammar, and I think that the article is a pleasant read.

I hope that your writing future is bright and successful.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Thanks so much. No one has ever complemted my grammar. Thanks for the sweet comments.

Fantastic article, Marianne, and very interesting. I didn't know Glen Keane was a Christian. It must have been awesome getting to talk to Mandy, Zach, and Glen!

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, interviewing all three of them was wonderful. Like, I said it felt like a dream come true.

I hope those of you who have read it as well enjoyed it. And if you haven't please do. Thanks


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1449
http://my-castles-in-the-air.blogspot.c ... sneys.html

[Tangled]

Why are people turning a Tangled vs TS3 argument into a Disney vs Pixar Argument? I think (and hope) the winner itself was judged on the film, not the company who produced it.


I hope at least Tangled gets recognition for it's technical merit. Finally Pixar has been beaten at it's own game (CG animation)

Yeah. Tangled was prettier animation-wise compared to TS3 IMHO. I think it's because most of the characters in TS3 were originally first animated in the 1990s.


Anyways, if Cars 2 wins next year and the movie itself looks as mediocre as the trailers, it's going to start a forum war abd be compared to Winnie the Pooh and Kung Fo Panda all the time

[Goliath]

Movies are meant to be escapism,[...]

Yeah, up until the 1930's, in Hollywood, they were meant to be only escapism, but the film industry has moved beyond that. It has progressed beyond the cinema of attractions. I find it a bit silly to say movies are "meant" to be something, anything. You meant to say: "to ME, movies SHOULD be..." That's something different entirely.

[ajmrowland]

I think it's incredibly complicated.

Movies can be anything. the good ones either succesfully break the mold(Toy Story 1, Scott Pilgrim vs The World) and give us something different to chew on or they invoke powerful emotion(Lord of the Rings, Rocky, Snow White). Some aim to intellectually engage the audience(Inception), while others acknowledge and revel in their own simplicity(Ponyo), merely teasing us about any real life issues. And still others aim to be art(Fantasia).

I guess quality comes down, not to what cinema was meant to be, but to what each individual film achieves versus what it aims to achieve.

[David_Mcnab]

Hello! Been lurking for a long time now (over a week at least), and this is my first post! (just got accepted today - thanks guys!)

Just had to get this out of the way first: I have read ALL parts of this thread, from way back in 2005, and that means I have spent a long
time reading people's comments on how they have watched the overall development of this movie from start to finish. All I can say is
wow - you really have been closely following this, and I barely knew about the project even two months ago!

I've watched Disney movies all my life and at 34 I have become somewhat jaded about the company's dealings behind the scenes,
but this has thankfully not crept into their works, and for the majority they all work for me. I love this movie especially,
and got to see it in the theater last week!

Rapunzel is my most favourite character out of every Disney movie or cartoon so far, and I love her to bits. She's easily my most favourite
Disney Princess, bumping Ariel off the top spot she has occupied for twenty years. I was expecting a lot from the movie, due to having seen
so many pictures, reviews, ads and reading about the ending (I don't care about being spoiled anymore - it's the viewing that matters to me),
but I was pleasantly thrilled and thoroughly entertained every second of that lush and spectacular film.

As for awards, the film has won my awards, and that is enough for me. I am an animator (self-taught and not employed) myself, and love movies
most for the technical parts of it, but of course for the other, inorganic or the more emotional aspect of the films. So, I enjoy Dreamworks or Sony
Pictures' 3D attempts if done right, and I am not ever about to bag out any company's works if the movie entertains me. I love Cloudy With a
Chance of Meatballs as much as How to Train Your Dragon or Tangled, but I hated Toy Story 3. I loved Toy Story 1 & 2 though. I won't get too
deep into that, as I wanted mainly to mention Tangled, since this is the thread to do so.

So, I love Rapunzel - her 3D design is the best, but the 2D designs by the official guys are great too. But I fell in love with the 3D CG version of
Rapunzel first, and that is what made me want to see her in action. I also know how to make 3D models, and so her design intrigued me in that
regard. Anyway, there you have it. This is what I have wanted to say for the last week of reading the entire five parts of the thread!

And I hope you guys enjoy my contributions as I go along! ^_^
D_M

[megustajake]

I personally thought How To Train Your Dragon was the strongest animated movie of the year. There is something about most Pixar films in that I only need to see them once; I saw HTTYD 6 times in the theatre and Tangled 4 (so far). I'm not surprised Toy Story 3 won. While the movie is good, I think the overwhelming praise and award attention is to ensure credit is given to the entire trilogy. Much like when Return of the King from the Lord of the Rings trilogy won Best Picture.

[RodryCroft]

http://i53.tinypic.com/wlds35.jpg

New French Poster with New Promotional image of Rapunzel and Flynn!!
Can someone find it in HQ?????!!!! =)