Tangled Discussion Part VI: Let the Drama continue...

[Disney's Divinity]

Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Princess and the Frog, its a really good movie and I love many of its characters (even the infamous Louis). It's just that people give it WAAAAAY too much credit for the sole fact that it is in 2D, rather than giving it credit for the things that matter like story and characters.

I'm not sure who you're talking to, because it could be about people not from this site ('cause I honestly can't think of anyone on this site with those views...--I know you mentioned davidkawena, but that's just one person?), but the reason I personally love TP&TF is for its story and characters. The 2D is an added bonus. If I felt less about Tangled, it's only because Rapunzel was the only character I honestly loved. I liked Gothel okay, and Maximus was hilarious, but besides that I wasn't crazy about the cast.

And I still don't get the claim that TP&TF relies on nostalgia and re-hash, but Tangled doesn't. Tangled is dripping with re-hash--all "princess" films are. Honestly, I'm sure I'm alone considering all the gushing here, but I found Tiana and Naveen's relationship much more sincere than Rapunzel and Flynn's--as sincere as any Disney couple gets really (which isn't saying much).

My only problem with the 3D is that there didn't seem any particular reason for doing it in 3D other than...to do a 3D film. Glen Keane managed to use the 3D to emphasize the hair and the lantern scene, but that's not the intention the movie began with it all. Still, I'm open to variety--I'm particularly looking forward to Reboot Ralph, which I've known from the beginning will be 3D. The difference is that the film's storyline seems to gel with 3D, but a musical fairy tale doesn't (and I still feel that way, even if I'm the minority, though the animation was well-done in Tangled; a lot of the theatrical side of the singing looked ridiculous in 3D whereas it would have been smoothed out in 2D).

[disneyprincess11]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ITD2aBuX9Us" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks 4 posting. I was wondering she'll ever make one for Rapunzel! I dont really like it. They did the flowers wrong at the bottom of the dress. It looks too crooked I like the top though.

[Scarred4life]

I just don't think Rapunzel would have worked in 2D. What with the hair and all... Can't see that animated by hand.

I don't know, I think it could have worked. I would have loved to see this in 2D (I'd love to see almost anything in 2D), but I don't think less of the film because it was in CGI. I have a few issues with this film, it being in CGI is not one of them. I actually think it worked really well, and the final product does look wonderful.

Oh, and that Baloo avatar..... what has been seen cannot be unseen.

[pap64]

Give up? He didn't want to draw Flynn because he was a CG character. Yes, he is one of those Disney fanatics that believes that the Disney Essence(c) only exists in the hand drawn animated features.

Really? He's done live-action Disney characters before in that series. Does this mean he thought the Disney "essence" applied to those movies AND 2-D, but not CGI? I'm confused, but at least he changed his mind.

I'm just as confused as you are. The only reason I can think of is that when Disney closed down the hand drawn animation unit in favor of CG, and Chicken Little, fans were left butt hurt by it (I should know, I was one of them at first).

But really, that's some sort of animation racism. I mean, Flynn is just as exploitative hot as the other Disney heroes. Why shouldn't he be given the chance of posing in his underwear like a juicy piece of beef at a butcher shop for the enjoyment of rabid fangirls?

I'm not sure who you're talking to, because it could be about people not from this site ('cause I honestly can't think of anyone on this site with those views...--I know you mentioned davidkawena, but that's just one person?), but the reason I personally love TP&TF is for its story and characters. The 2D is an added bonus. If I felt less about Tangled, it's only because Rapunzel was the only character I honestly loved. I liked Gothel okay, and Maximus was hilarious, but besides that I wasn't crazy about the cast.

Of course I'm not just talking about this site, and not everybody that didn't enjoy Tangled wasn't biased against the CG. But I HAVE seen people make outlandish claims that Tangled should have been 2D from the very beginning and that this is how Disney should ONLY be. Again, I agree that there should be more variety in animated films, but until then I want to focus on the quality of the film rather than the medium used.

There's nothing wrong in enjoying Princess and the Frog (like I said, I liked the film myself). I'm just saying that there are some silly die hard fanatics that give it too much credit while tearing Tangled apart without looking at Frog's own flaws.

Both films are great, and neither film is perfect, regardless of the medium being used.

And I still don't get the claim that TP&TF relies on nostalgia and re-hash, but Tangled doesn't. Tangled is dripping with re-hash--all "princess" films are. Honestly, I'm sure I'm alone considering all the gushing here, but I found Tiana and Naveen's relationship much more sincere than Rapunzel and Flynn's--as sincere as any Disney couple gets really (which isn't saying much).

First, watch this trailer for Princess and the Frog:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XmlZhrmMAhc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now look at the teaser trailer for Tangled:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pyOyBVXDJ9Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Watch this Princess and the Frog featurette on Facilier:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Tgz1l-k-FG0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Now look at this featurette for Mother Gothel:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1-QpUKOjTTc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Noticed the differences yet?

In both videos for Princess and the Frog, they talk about Disney's legacy in animation, how the movie would fit perfectly along the Disney classics of the 80s and 90s, that Facilier is a wonderful villain in the same vein as the classic villains.

But for Tangled, all they did was sell it as a silly comedy, even though Tangled is just as much of a modern Disney classic as Princess and the Frog is.

Why is that? Because Disney did their darnedest to sell the movie based on the nostalgia the Disney Essence(c) has created in audiences, most notably in us older Disney fans who grew up with the fab four movies (again, in the first trailer we see clips of The Little Mermaid, Lion King and Aladdin, then it cuts to Tiana, implying that the movie is just as great as they are).

Tangled was just a comedy, and sold only as a comedy. Yes, I understand that this is a trend in marketing in order to convince people to go pay to see the movie (The Nostalgia Chick explained it better here: http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... he-eyebrow). But still, Disney did NOT give the movie enough credit as its own entity, even though its just as classic as the other movies.

And yes, Tangled did have many of the tropes you mentioned. But AGAIN, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS SOLD. Hence why people, myself included, believe that Princess and the Frog tried too hard to use nostalgia in order to attract people to theaters. In other words, Princess and the Frog was coated in all things Disney Essence(c).

My only problem with the 3D is that there didn't seem any particular reason for doing it in 3D other than...to do a 3D film. Glen Keane managed to use the 3D to emphasize the hair and the lantern scene, but that's not the intention the movie began with it all. Still, I'm open to variety--I'm particularly looking forward to Reboot Ralph, which I've known from the beginning will be 3D. The difference is that the film's storyline seems to gel with 3D, but a musical fairy tale doesn't (and I still feel that way, even if I'm the minority, though the animation was well-done in Tangled; a lot of the theatrical side of the singing looked ridiculous in 3D whereas it would have been smoothed out in 2D).

So basically what you are saying that directors, producers and artists should ignore what medium THEY want to use because a few Disney fanboys want THEIR vision to be made a reality, never mind the fact that the artists have to deal with executive meddling and the company constantly pressuring them to make a profitable product or else they are fired?

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Glen Keane envisioned the movie as a CG film from the very beginning. He had many ideas for it. Did all of them become a reality? No, but he used the technology he had to his advantage. While is indeed subjective, I think Tangled had the best CG animation out of the animated films released in 2010 (yes, above Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragons, very pretty films in their own rights).

Your argument could be used against Princess and the Frog. Was there ANYTHING that benefited from being in 2D? From where I am standing, everything done in the movie could have been done in 3D just fine (SHOCK AND HORROR!).

But they went with 2D instead, and they did a good job with it. Yes, I know I just accused them on relying on nostalgia to sell the film, but they did put a lot of work into the animation. The characters animated really well, the backgrounds are beautiful and it looks like on an HD set.

And personally, I don't see why a 3D animated film can't be a musical. I think the reason you think that way is because we have been raised on so many 2D animated musicals that when Pixar did the whole "no singing" thing with Toy Story, we accepted CG films as not being musicals at all. Maybe that's why people find it weird that Tangled as 3D musical, it may have been the first of its kind.

I don't have an issue with a 3D musical. Once more, it is not the MEDIUM, its how it is staged, presented and shown.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I'm just as confused as you are. The only reason I can think of is that when Disney closed down the hand drawn animation unit in favor of CG, and Chicken Little, fans were left butt hurt by it (I should know, I was one of them at first).

But really, that's some sort of animation racism. I mean, Flynn is just as exploitative hot as the other Disney heroes. Why shouldn't he be given the chance of posing in his underwear like a juicy piece of beef at a butcher shop for the enjoyment of rabid fangirls?

I read through his post on DA and from reading it I think he just disliked the design of the characters because he felt they were CG generic. You could say the same about some of Disney's 2-D work, but his comments didn't fully suggest rage based "NO ESSENCE, NO PICTURE".

At least he's drawn now and the butcher's customers can drool.

I also am glad in the end Tangled's marketing sold the movie on its own terms and not part of a "legacy puzzle" that would make it seem like an odd fit if it wasn't percieved as good as the others.

[disneyprincess11]

So basically what you are saying that directors, producers and artists should ignore what medium THEY want to use because a few Disney fanboys want THEIR vision to be made a reality, never mind the fact that the artists have to deal with executive meddling and the company constantly pressuring them to make a profitable product or else they are fired?

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Glen Keane envisioned the movie as a CG film from the very beginning. He had many ideas for it. Did all of them become a reality? No, but he used the technology he had to his advantage. While is indeed subjective, I think Tangled had the best CG animation out of the animated films released in 2010 (yes, above Toy Story 3 and How to Train Your Dragons, very pretty films in their own rights).

Your argument could be used against Princess and the Frog. Was there ANYTHING that benefited from being in 2D? From where I am standing, everything done in the movie could have been done in 3D just fine (SHOCK AND HORROR!).

But they went with 2D instead, and they did a good job with it. Yes, I know I just accused them on relying on nostalgia to sell the film, but they did put a lot of work into the animation. The characters animated really well, the backgrounds are beautiful and it looks like on an HD set.

And personally, I don't see why a 3D animated film can't be a musical. I think the reason you think that way is because we have been raised on so many 2D animated musicals that when Pixar did the whole "no singing" thing with Toy Story, we accepted CG films as not being musicals at all. Maybe that's why people find it weird that Tangled as 3D musical, it may have been the first of its kind.

I don't have an issue with a 3D musical. Once more, it is not the MEDIUM, its how it is staged, presented and shown.

AMEN! I couldn't agree more myself! I mean, look at it: the PATF trailer screams "DISNEY CLASSIC!" The Tangled one screams, "SHREK RIP-OFF"! Guess which one conviced me to go see the movie, guess which one made me do a "WHY, DISNEY, WHY?!?! " facepalm.

*Moderator's note: post was edited to remove the excessive quoting. Please see the quoting guidelines in the "Rules and Guidelines thread".

[Scarred4life]

Why am I seeing a double of pap64's [wonderful] but super long post? Is it really necessary to quote the whole thing?

Pap64, you certainly have some great views on this subject, and I couldn't agree with you more.

[Disney's Divinity]

And yes, Tangled did have many of the tropes you mentioned. But AGAIN, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS SOLD. Hence why people, myself included, believe that Princess and the Frog tried too hard to use nostalgia in order to attract people to theaters. In other words, Princess and the Frog was coated in all things Disney Essence(c).

Yes, in the marketing. But the marketing is not representative of the film, as we've seen with Tangled. Which is what my point was about. Too often people associate the marketing with the film, and then pretend that Tangled is above this. It's not, it just wasn't marketed the same way. From your first post, I thought you were talking about the actual content of the film, not specifically the marketing.

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Glen Keane envisioned the movie as a CG film from the very beginning.

Not true. Michael Eisner told him the movie would have to be in 3D, after he pitched it as 2D.

He had many ideas for it. Did all of them become a reality? No, but he used the technology he had to his advantage.

Yes, he made the best of a bad situation, by incorporating what works best in 2D into 3D rather than working on 3D's own capabilities (what I mean is that 3D has aspects that 2D can't re-create and 2D has aspects that 3D can't re-create).

Your argument could be used against Princess and the Frog. Was there ANYTHING that benefited from being in 2D? From where I am standing, everything done in the movie could have been done in 3D just fine (SHOCK AND HORROR!).

I disagree. Most of the backgrounds, designs, and especially the "Almost There" sequence lend a lot of itself to art from the African American renaissance in the 1920s. They didn't do those paintings in 3D.

I'm not sure why you're being overdramatic with the capslock?

And personally, I don't see why a 3D animated film can't be a musical. I think the reason you think that way is because we have been raised on so many 2D animated musicals that when Pixar did the whole "no singing" thing with Toy Story, we accepted CG films as not being musicals at all.

Actually, no. The reason I don't think this 3D film worked as a musical is because many of the mannerisms, particularly by Gothel, looked ridiculous in the 3D, imo. A character like Genie or Ursula, who is so over-the-top, doesn't work as well in 3D because the model can't shift itself--it stays the same, just like a real body. That's why some of the over-the-top antics of Gothel didn't work as well for me (usually in the songs--which is why I said I don't think the musical aspect worked in 3D; of course, it could just be because Gothel's hands aren't that great).

Once more, it is not the MEDIUM, its how it is staged, presented and shown.

Exactly. Which is why I'm offering criticism of this 3D musical, and not every 3D film or 3D musical that exists (or will exist).

I'm not sure why every criticism has to be pinned on nostalgia or anti-3D bias. Maybe there are actually legitimate reasons behind some dissenting opinions? It doesn't always have to be us vs. them/right vs. wrong. Maybe there are just different opinions.

[ajmrowland]

Actually, no. The reason I don't think this 3D film worked as a musical is because many of the mannerisms, particularly by Gothel, looked ridiculous in the 3D, imo. A character like Genie or Ursula, who is so over-the-top, doesn't work as well in 3D because the model can't shift itself--it stays the same, just like a real body. That's why some of the over-the-top antics of Gothel didn't work as well for me (usually in the songs--which is why I said I don't think the musical aspect worked in 3D; of course, it could just be because Gothel's hands aren't that great).

I disagree. I found Gothel's mannerisms-even in the songs-to work quite well, and there were many moments for any character beautifully animated(Rapunzel trying to find for a spot to paint during WWMLB). I do agree on the Genie and Ursula(seeing as they both have videogame counterparts and the former especially suffers from it), but Gothel's no shape-shifter at all. she ages. She remains on-model the whole time.

[SWillie!]

I've heard Glen Keane himself, in person during a lecture, say that he's glad they did the movie in CG, because he doesn't think it could have worked as well in 2D.

That's reason enough for me.

[phan258]

Ugh, why won't the CG vs. Hand-drawn argument just die? It's here, it's computer generated, deal with it. The implication that 2D is somehow more artistic/heartfelt/whatever is pretty ridiculous, since somebody drew something at some point....and then translated it into a digital format.

And as a fangirl, I prefer the term 'enthusiastic' over 'rabid,' thanks very much.

[Mmmadelon]

I've heard Glen Keane himself, in person during a lecture, say that he's glad they did the movie in CG, because he doesn't think it could have worked as well in 2D.

That's reason enough for me.

Agree. He also said that in an interview, that he had the choice to create Tangled in 2D or CGI, and he choose CGI.

[disneyprincess11]

I know this is in Asia, but couldn't resist! So cute!

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IiOLxeOgZJY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cB-DKFPt5LY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Goliath]

@ disneyprincess11: I don't want to be rude and I'm not a moderator, but... Jesus Christ! Couldn't you just erase pap64's long-ass quote from your post, if you're only going to add 2 lines in response? I don't understand why people can't type "@ this-and-this person"...

And I still don't get the claim that TP&TF relies on nostalgia and re-hash, but Tangled doesn't. Tangled is dripping with re-hash--all "princess" films are.

I think it's true that both films borrow a lot of elements from Disney movies of the past. I just think PatF was a lot more 'in your face' about it. It felt louder, it felt like it was screaming to the audience: "this is a 1990's musical!". It's hard to put my finger on exactly why that is, but I cannot explain it any other way.

Honestly, I'm sure I'm alone considering all the gushing here, but I found Tiana and Naveen's relationship much more sincere than Rapunzel and Flynn's--as sincere as any Disney couple gets really (which isn't saying much).

Really?! I like how the relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn develops slowly and naturally, while Naveen (and thus the audience!) gets beaten over the head with the message that he has to "grow up" to be able to match Tiana. He gets lectured and 'educated' by Tiana time after time. That felt very forced. Flynn didn't need that. He was strong enough a character to develop himself. Maybe it also helps that Rapunzel was a much more likable character than Tiana. I have often praised Tiana for being a true feminist, independent character, but her preachy and serious side was often too much. Rapunzel simply had more charm than Tiana; and Flynn has more appeal than Naveen. Basically, Flynn has more backstory than Naveen (who is very one-dimensional) and Rapunzel has a much more emotional quest than Tiana (who is only after her restaurant). That combination makes their relationship a thousand times better than Tiana and Naveen's. IMHO of course.

My only problem with the 3D is that there didn't seem any particular reason for doing it in 3D other than...to do a 3D film. [...]

Oh come on, you're just showing your prejudice here! No way the hair and the lantern scene and the sequences with the escape from the guards and bandits (before they almost drown) could have been done in 2D and still have that spectacular effect. I would say this is your 2D-bias speaking. And I believe pap64 was referring to these kinds of reasonings.

Glen Keane managed to use the 3D to emphasize the hair and the lantern scene, but that's not the intention the movie began with it all. Still, I'm open to variety--I'm particularly looking forward to Reboot Ralph, which I've known from the beginning will be 3D. The difference is that the film's storyline seems to gel with 3D, but a musical fairy tale doesn't (and I still feel that way, even if I'm the minority, though the animation was well-done in Tangled; a lot of the theatrical side of the singing looked ridiculous in 3D whereas it would have been smoothed out in 2D).

That's only your opinion (I know, that's why this is a discussion forum!). Why does the singing look ridiculous in 3D? Because you have an unsupported bias against 3D. Maybe it's subconscious and you don't know about it. But that's what I get from your post. Because in *no way* does 3D limit itself to specific genres. If you want to animated a fairytale in 3D, why shouldn't that medium work? There's no argument behind your statement.

OMG, it does show now!

I always thought that part with Baloo was signaling something else entirely! Guess I was right after all!

[ajmrowland]

*looks at Kubrics Avatar*

[Scarred4life]

Somehow, I can't quite stop looking at it.

[disneyprincess11]

@ disneyprincess11: I don't want to be rude and I'm not a moderator, but... Jesus Christ! Couldn't you just erase pap64's long-ass quote from your post, if you're only going to add 2 lines in response? I don't understand why people can't type "@ this-and-this person"...

Ok, sorry.

[Tascar]

I think it's true that both films borrow a lot of elements from Disney movies of the past. I just think PatF was a lot more 'in your face' about it. It felt louder, it felt like it was screaming to the audience: "this is a 1990's musical!". It's hard to put my finger on exactly why that is, but I cannot explain it any other way.

I agree with everything Goliath said in this post but I want to offer an explanation for this.

I think that the difference between "The Princess and the Frog" and "Tangled" is that while both movies call back to Disney tradition, "The Princess and the Frog" is a little too obvious in its "callbacks" to Disney history.

When I see Rapunzel I feel like I've seen that character before but I can't put my finger down on a specific Disney character and say "THAT'S HER!" I feel a bit of Aladdin in Flynn but I can't say that the two characters are very similar. I see bits and pieces of Lady Tremaine and Frollo in Mother Gothel but I do feel that Mother Gothel is a new Disney villain I haven't seen before.

In contrast, in "The Princess and the Frog," I am thinking about the wishing star in "Pinocchio" whenever the star is shone or characters talk about the star. It certainly doesn't help that the evening star is positioned in the sky in shots that look very similar to the way the wishing star in "Pinocchio" looked. It doesn't help that when Tiana and her father talk about the star, the words out of Tiana's mouth seem a bit too close to the descriptions of the wishing star in "Pinocchio" with only the last bit about the star only getting you halfway there to set itself apart.

When the film introduces Prince Naveen as running off to do his own things leaving Lawrence to pick up after him, I started immediately thinking of Prince Edward and Nathaniel from "Enchanted." It doesn't help that they share the same prince as hero with servant as comic antagonist relationship. It doesn't help either that both Lawrence and Nathaniel have a similar sounding British accent.

So in summary, when I watch "Tangled" I feel like I am seeing something familiar whereas with "The Princess and the Frog" I feel like I am seeing Disney showing off what they can dredge up from their past.

[Semaj]

Spider-Girl, Spider-Girl
Does whatever a Spider-Girl does...

[TheValentineBros]

*picture removed*


Spider-Girl, Spider-Girl
Does whatever a Spider-Girl does...

*Moderator's note: post was edited according to the quoting guidelines. Please see the quoting guidelines in the "Rules and Guidelines thread".