DVDizzy Forum

yeah, but even so such changes were bound to be made in some version. it's a centuries old story.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie, Walt did move forward, but that is a very general statement. We could apply that to anything. We good say relaxing the morals of Disney films would be moving forward. So we have to think what he really meant. Because Disney was also very traditional. He did old, old stories in many of his films, and he did the fairy tale three times, only moving forward in animation style or ways of telling the story, for instance. But in all three fairy tales, the royalty never changed, and beings that were magical weren't changed to being un-magical.

I feel like a broken record here, but I'll say it again: changes don't matter, Walt made changes, and a lot of the movies with his changes were brilliant.

Disney Duster wrote:Now you say that all Disney's films were all so different and only similar in being great and being animated. However, there are lots more similarities, they all have to do with nature and organic subjects, all have animals, all have elements of fantasty like talking animals, all can somehow be said to feel magical. Even Sword in the Stone has similar elements of magic like in the fairy tales, Pinocchio, or Peter Pan, for instance.

Okay, whilst they had more similar elements than I mentioned, Tangled also had fantasy, animals, nature, etc.

Disney Duster wrote:You may not agree with those similarities, you may not count them. But that is only what you choose to count or not, while the fact those similarities are there is still a fact.

If you think that 'those similarities are there is still a fact', then why do you say 'you may not count them'?

Disney Duster wrote:I know that journeys and arcs can be done differently, I was just trying to guess why Walt may have intended he nobility of characters to stay the same. I think another reason Walt keeps it is for the idea of characters being truly high or low as written originally. There's a special feeling to being born royal, or a special feeling to love and marriage with a royal making you royal. Two different things, two different feelings. It just has a classic feel.

But anyone could just as easily argue that Tangled has that special feeling too, as Rapunzel was born a royal, and Flynn was made a royal by marrying her (well, he didn't do so in the movie, but he was going to).

Duster, this argument is tiring me, but just so it's clear: I'm not a huge fan of Tangled. I don't think it's perfect. Nonetheless, your criticisms of it make little to no sense.

ajmrowland, yes, but that's not what matters when it comes to the literature version of Rapunzel where the girl has the name Rapunzel. Walt always chose the well-known literature versions of fairy tales, and meant them to be based on those, instead of making them like just any countless other versions. That's why we have Cinderella and not Cenerentola, and a girl named Rapunzel instead of...whatever other names there have been.

Dr Frankenollie, yes, you will sound like a broken record because basically you say "Wa't made changes" and I say, "Look at the kind of changes he made" and you just say "he made changes!" right back, going nowhere.

Tangled does have a lot of Disney feeling stuff going for it, but not completely, so to me it feels like only a half-Disney film or an almost Disney film. And I'm trying to explain why I feel this way instead of people just saying they feel different and don't care about the film possibly being un-Disney to some of Disney's biggest fans and that's that. There are other big Disney fans here who feel the film should have been more faithful, too.

Flynn becoming royal is not the same feeling as the main character becoming royal, the feeling Walt may have liked. I am only wondering. And it's also about the correct, classic feelings. The feeling that the correct person has their correct birth status, according to how the classic tale goes.

My criticism of Tangled is not criticizing how good the movie is but just criticizing Disney keeping their identity by sticking to how Disney films are to be made. For instance they shouldn't make some Hayoi Miyazaki-style film and slap the Disney label on it, then it wouldn't really be Disney in, well, in essence, it would just be a Miyazaki film called a Disney film.

In the book "Animating Culture: Hollywood Cartoons from the Sound Era" by Eric Smoodin, he writes: "for his first two features and also for his fourth and fifth, Disney animated familiar fairy tales - Snow White and Pinocchio - and created new ones - Bambi and Dumbo. Live-action sound features had rarely been fairy tales before Snow White (Alice in Wonderland, from 1933, comes to mind as one of the few)..." So I was thinking about how this author also revealed that even Disney films that seem dissimilar have a Disney fairy tale essence that links them.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie, yes, you will sound like a broken record because basically you say "Wa't made changes" and I say, "Look at the kind of changes he made" and you just say "he made changes!" right back, going nowhere.

Wrong. Me and other members have been lengthily examining and detailing the changes you bring up (especially in the earliest posts for this thread and my posts in the Brave and Bold thread). This is actually how it goes:

Duster: "All the Disney films are the same and they have an identity! Tangled is so un-Disney!"
Frankenollie/Others: "Why is it so 'un-Disney'? It bears similarities to previous Disney features..."
Duster: "There were changes!"
Frankenollie/Others: "Yes, but Walt himself made changes..."
Duster: "But they weren't important! They were Disney Changes (trademark?)"
Frankenollie/Others: "But Tangled was changed less from its source material than the Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, and besides its source material was too brief for an adaptation to be completely faithful..."
Duster: "Tangled had changes!"
Frankenollie/Others: "Why did you ignore what we just said?"
Duster: "Tangled had changes!"
Frankenollie/Others: "...Yes it did, but so did the other Disney films!"
Duster: "Then let's examine those changes!"
Frankenollie/Others: "We have!"
Duster: "Tangled had changes!"



Duster, I'm not a huge fanboy of Tangled, and I don't deny its flaws. I'm just trying to point out that all your criticisms for it don't make any sense.

Disney Duster wrote:Tangled does have a lot of Disney feeling stuff going for it, but not completely, so to me it feels like only a half-Disney film or an almost Disney film. And I'm trying to explain why I feel this way instead of people just saying they feel different and don't care about the film possibly being un-Disney to some of Disney's biggest fans and that's that. There are other big Disney fans here who feel the film should have been more faithful, too.

An 'almost Disney film'? How many nonsensical Disney-related phrases have you created?

Disney Duster wrote:Flynn becoming royal is not the same feeling as the main character becoming royal, the feeling Walt may have liked. I am only wondering. And it's also about the correct, classic feelings. The feeling that the correct person has their correct birth status, according to how the classic tale goes.

Duster, Rapunzel didn't know she was royal, and Flynn didn't know she was royal either, which is rather similar to Aurora's predicament...speaking of which, neither Aurora or her love interest were commoners becoming royals. Very un-Disney, don't you think?

Disney Duster wrote:My criticism of Tangled is not criticizing how good the movie is but just criticizing Disney keeping their identity by sticking to how Disney films are to be made. For instance they shouldn't make some Hayoi Miyazaki-style film and slap the Disney label on it, then it wouldn't really be Disney in, well, in essence, it would just be a Miyazaki film called a Disney film.

As I and others have said over and over and over again, Fairytale+Magic+Talking animals does not equal Disney as an identity. As an identity, for me at least, Disney is something, similar to the Pixar films, which can appeal to both the young and young at heart (which Walt himself said, Duster, and I don't think he ever talked about a 'Disney Essence'). However, one of the few dissimilarities the identity of Disney has with Pixar (don't get excited, Duster, I said 'few') is that Pixar is sometimes nostalgic, while Disney films usually have the hero or heroine wanting something more, or 'adventure in the great wide somewhere.' However, not all the Disney films (even under Walt) have this distinction, so it doesn't entirely count.

Disney Duster wrote:In the book "Animating Culture: Hollywood Cartoons from the Sound Era" by Eric Smoodin, he writes: "for his first two features and also for his fourth and fifth, Disney animated familiar fairy tales - Snow White and Pinocchio - and created new ones - Bambi and Dumbo. Live-action sound features had rarely been fairy tales before Snow White (Alice in Wonderland, from 1933, comes to mind as one of the few)..." So I was thinking about how this author also revealed that even Disney films that seem dissimilar have a Disney fairy tale essence that links them.

I'm sure that author would also cite Tangled as being a Disney fairy tale, because, face it Duster, Disney is a brand that can be slapped onto anything upon the whim of Bob Iger, and Tangled is based on a fairy tale. Besides, it also sports all the elements of previous Disney films: sentient animals; Broadway-style music and songs; princesses; a protagonist wanting something more; and yes, even those horrifying changes, Duster, that all Disney fairy tales have.

But do you want to know something Duster? Those elements don't necessarily mean it's a good movie. A DAC could be released that is seemingly more "Disney" to you than anything made by Walt, yet even if it was bursting at the seams with Disney Essence, it still could be bad. This is why I don't have favourite genres: there can be good sci-fi movies, good romances and good comedies, yet there can also be bad sci-fi movies, bad romances and bad comedies. Likewise, there could be a good movie with all the elements that you believe make up the Disney Essence, but there could also be a bad movie with all the elements that you believe make up the Disney Essence.

And if you think modern Disney keeping their identity and not moving forward like Walt would want them to (the executives repeatedly asking themselves in the 70's/80's what Walt would do nearly led to the studio's closure, and Roy E Disney saying that they keep looking back at Walt's work was partially for good publicity) is more important than modern Disney trying to make good movies, then...I'll have to kill myself.

Perhaps I can say something here? I believe it's fair to claim that the Disney Essence™ is a different experience for every Disney fan out there, based on their own taste, own perceptions, even their own memories. Most of those that work at the studio are well aware of Disney's history and legacy, which is probably why they were drawn to wanting to work there in the first place. And each of those employees have their own idea of what we're now referring to as the Disney Essence™ and hope to contribute to Disney's legacy in their own way.

Perhaps what isn't fair is to enforce one's own personal opinions on what Disney is or should be upon the company; even if there's something universally appealing about Disney it still means something a little different to everyone. Discussions are always welcome of course, but I'm not sure what good all the arguments are doing.

DisneyDuster wrote:There is actually no proof if Walt was joking or not, because a statement like not to read the book sounds like a joke to me. However, if he simply pitched his version of the story and really meant for no one to read it as some serious strict rule, then fine, he still read the book, so his version that he gave was still based on it.

I've been on holiday for a couple of weeks so I just want to clarify this disagreement I had been involved in before I went away.

There is plenty of proof that Walt Disney was entirely serious. He gathered the story team and key animators together and asked them whether they'd read the novel. When they all replied that they hadn't, Walt apparently said that that was a good thing and told all all of them not to read it as they were going to adapt the story in a different fashion.

Walt Disney did not create a film that sticks closely to the novel. If he had, he would have used the adaptation written and storyboarded by the legendary Bill Peet; when Walt felt that Peet's version was too dark as it resembled the novel too closely, the two fell out and Peet left the studio and never returned. You can't rewrite history here Disney Duster, the words of Walt Disney had disproved your argument. In regards to The Jungle Book, it was very much "Walt's way" rather than aiming to remain faithful to the original story. Otherwise Bill Peet would never have left Disney and we would have the version of the film that he had devised.

enigmawing wrote:I believe it's fair to claim that the Disney Essence™ is a different experience for every Disney fan out there, based on their own taste, own perceptions, even their own memories. Most of those that work at the studio are well aware of Disney's history and legacy, which is probably why they were drawn to wanting to work there in the first place. And each of those employees have their own idea of what we're now referring to as the Disney Essence™ and hope to contribute to Disney's legacy in their own way. Perhaps what isn't fair is to enforce one's own personal opinions on what Disney is or should be upon the company; even if there's something universally appealing about Disney it still means something a little different to everyone.

For me, that is a perfect conclusion and summary to this entire debate. You've said everything I would have wanted to say in a far more eloquent and sensible manner than I could have.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Duster: "All the Disney films are the same and they have an identity! Tangled is so un-Disney!"

No, I never said they were the same.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Dr Frankenollie/Others: "Yes, but Walt himself made changes..."
Duster: "But they weren't important! They were Disney Changes (trademark?)"

I never said that either. I said Walt made some changes (and yes, called them Disney changes just like the term Disney movie!) different from the changes Tangled had.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Frankenollie/Others: "But Tangled was changed less from its source material than the Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, and besides its source material was too brief for an adaptation to be completely faithful..."

And this isn't true. Tangled is changed more than either The Jungle Book or 101 Dalmatians.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Duster, Rapunzel didn't know she was royal, and Flynn didn't know she was royal either, which is rather similar to Aurora's predicament...speaking of which, neither Aurora or her love interest were commoners becoming royals. Very un-Disney, don't you think?

No, what I mean is that Walt Disney kept the original birth status of the original tales, which Sleeping Beauty did, but Tangled did not. Again, it is the feeling that the correct person has their correct birth status, according to how the classic tale goes.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:As I and others have said over and over and over again, Fairytale+Magic+Talking animals does not equal Disney as an identity. As an identity, for me at least, Disney is something, similar to the Pixar films, which can appeal to both the young and young at heart (which Walt himself said, Duster, and I don't think he ever talked about a 'Disney Essence'). However, one of the few dissimilarities the identity of Disney has with Pixar (don't get excited, Duster, I said 'few') is that Pixar is sometimes nostalgic, while Disney films usually have the hero or heroine wanting something more, or 'adventure in the great wide somewhere.' However, not all the Disney films (even under Walt) have this distinction, so it doesn't entirely count.

I am not saying those things are the Disney Essence. I am saying they come from it. I am saying the Disney Essence is something that those kinds of things fit into. They are of a similar ilk.

If the Disney Essence was really just making films for adults and kids, that would mean every studio has the Disney Essence and Disney has no identity because other studios try and sometimes achieve that too.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Roy E Disney saying that they keep looking back at Walt's work was partially for good publicity

You don't know this.

And Walt moved forward but he did it while still doing many stories with talking animals or many stories with magic, so he moved forward but kept some things the same, which is exactly the same as what I am trying to tell you they need to do.

And if Disney's identity actually is more important than making good movies. Because anyone can make a good movie. Only one studio can make a Disney movie. A movie that uniquely sticks to what only Disney has and is about. Otherwise it could be any studio's movie.

Enigmawing, I get what you are saying, but please also get mine. I am telling people what I think the Disney Essence is. I am discussing it, and people are telling me if they think it's wrong or not. So that we can then maybe come down to an idea of what the Disney Essence truly is. Because a real thing, like a movie or painting, can mean different things to people, but what is important is to know what the movie or whatever really means, intended by its makers.

Something to also think about is this: If the Disney Essence means different things to different people, then why not try to please all those people. Me getting what I think fits the Disney Essence, correct character backgrounds and a correct title, can be in the film along with the things other people want. And anyway, almost all of us agreed on the title, so that's not the Disney Essence meaning different things there in that case!

DisneyAnimation, well, what I meant was if Walt was kidding about forbidding people to ever read the novel. I know he wasn't kidding about making it a looser adaptation, I just am wondering if h ewas kidding about people never ever being able to read the actual book.

I personally loved Tangled! Thought it was a gem.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: For me, that is a perfect conclusion and summary to this entire debate. You've said everything I would have wanted to say in a far more eloquent and sensible manner than I could have.

Thanks! I've actually given a lot of thought recently as to what Disney has meant to me over the years and how it's simply going to be different for every other fan out there.

Disney Duster wrote:Enigmawing, I get what you are saying, but please also get mine. I am telling people what I think the Disney Essence is. I am discussing it, and people are telling me if they think it's wrong or not. So that we can then maybe come down to an idea of what the Disney Essence truly is. Because a real thing, like a movie or painting, can mean different things to people, but what is important is to know what the movie or whatever really means, intended by its makers.

Duster, I hope you don't think I was trying to talk down to you with my reply. I actually do believe I get what you're trying to say in that you're telling people what you believe the Disney Essence is. And you have every right to discuss your point of view. Everyone does! You even make a lot of great points. However, you often use the term "Disney changes," but that's still going to mean something different to everyone; your particular rules on that seem have no perceptible consistency to anyone but yourself and have left many quite baffled. I think the arguments might settle back into more productive discussions if you didn't appear to dictate that the changes you are in favor of are the only ones capable of being true to what Disney stands for.

The major thing is that this debate has gotten old and nasty over time, and some of the arguments have gotten over-the-top ridiculous. And I'm not pointing any fingers; I just think certain people simply need to back off since it takes at least two to argue. It doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong, if people can't communicate with each other without getting angry (as some are obviously doing), they just need to let things go and find something better to do instead of blaming their aggressiveness on you while turning this forum into a hostile battleground.

Disney Duster wrote:Something to also think about is this: If the Disney Essence means different things to different people, then why not try to please all those people. Me getting what I think fits the Disney Essence, correct character backgrounds and a correct title, can be in the film along with the things other people want. And anyway, almost all of us agreed on the title, so that's not the Disney Essence meaning different things there in that case!

The thing is that you can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try. All I'm saying is that no one person can dictate what is and what isn't Disney anymore; only one person was ever entitled to do that and he passed away decades ago. And even Walt wasn't able to do exactly what he wanted; he was held back by financial restrictions, the capabilities of his employees, and even what his audiences expected of him. Styles, tastes, and expectations change over the years, they did even within Walt's own lifetime and it's reflected in the films he personally produced. And if you think about it, that's really not far off from what's happening at Disney today. You can argue all you want that changing the name from Rapunzel to Tangled is un-Disney, but I doubt it was ever anyone's intentions to stray from the company's legacy or betray Disney's "essence," it was simply a marketing move made in an attempt to propel the film's potential success. Walt had a natural ability to understand what was universally appealing for the audience of the time, and it's something the company has to continue doing without him (they hoped that "Tangled" was more universally appealing than a fairy-tale title that might appear to sound old-fashioned). I'm glad Tangled has found an audience and I'm glad it's helped ensure that we'll have more DAC's in the future. Yes, many of us more hardcore Disney fans agreed that we disliked the change long before we even had a chance to see the final film, but the average audience members that contributed the most to ticket, home video, and merchandise sales simply don't give a damn. They like the film for what it is, and even it only looks like a desperate marketing move to us it's possible that the title change was actually a contributing factor to its success. And to them, it's 100% Disney.

Something I want to make clear Duster is that I've always considered you a friend. Even if I've disagreed with you, even if your opinions have frustrated the heck out of me, I don't believe I've ever seen you lose your temper on anyone and I honestly feel you've always had good intentions. But perhaps it would do all of us some good to take a break from countering everyone and just take a moment to enjoy the things you do like about Disney.

Great post enigmawing as always. I personally got over arguing with Duster long time ago as it's gets boring and tiring. And when I did, I still knew most of core contents of what Duster trying to say and address his concern on. That is actually very logical and make sense. He just sucks at making the address very clearly to us. Despite all that, He and I are still good friends despite our total opposite taste.


Like the great <strike>Kubo</strike> Renji said: Just chill, Relax, and enjoy yourself.

Wow enigmawing. You've said that all so sensitively that it moved me more than it normally would. I have considered you like a friend, too, except for one time a little bit I thought you really didn't like me, but I guess I knew I can anger some people : / You make a very good point that may indeed be right, but then, my main objective is to say what I feel is wrong or un-Disney Essence about something, and I think it's right, and hopefully people agree, but I'm open to it not. If they don't, and talk to me about it, I will talk with them, and try to explain why I still feel the way I do or think it's right, and hopefully somehow (someday...lol) we come to an agreement, whether we agree it's the Disney Essence or that the film or ride or whatever should just be fixed. My biggest hope is Disney fans can come together and get Disney to fix things, when so many happily agree.

I will often speak like what I'm saying is right and something should be done, but I can't help when I truly feel that way. I feel that Tangled's title for instance is a great slap in the face of Walt since he never did anything to the titles like that. Walt Disney did do things for marketing, but all we have to do is look at what specifically he did, and he didn't do that title changing! And you know, even if people saw fairy tales as old-fashioned today, they may have back in Walt's time, too, but one of his quotes was "I think we made the fairy tale fashionable again." So, by that quote at least, it gives us an indication of what Disney should be doing if they want to respect what made Disney what it is in the first place!

Thank you for kind words and the way you spoke, enigmawing. : ) But this thread is (just about) the only place I talk about this essence (at least in such length), so I feel it's okay to keep talking about it, if people keep coming in here to talk about it. It's all up to everyone, really. And I try to say what things I enjoy about Disney, but these days Disney doesn't make too much of that for me anymore...sadly...but there's always hope.

Super Aurora, thank you. Thanks for saying you do get my points, too. And yea, we'll always be buds even though we're different. We can tough it. : )

Disney Duster wrote:I have considered you like a friend, too, except for one time a little bit I thought you really didn't like me, but I guess I knew I can anger some people.

I'm sorry that I ever made you feel that way, it probably hasn't helped that I've been under a lot of stress for ages and ages.

Anyway, carry on.

Off-topic, but I really hope there are checks like that out there. The Cinderella picture looks really nice on it.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Off-topic, but I really hope there are checks like that out there. The Cinderella picture looks really nice on it.

http://www.disneychecksdirect.com/cinde ... hecks.html

Oh it's okay enigmawing, I think I just made you mad, as I am able to do with anybody lol. Thanks for the words...and the info on those cool checks! I love the transformation one, of course!

I've more or less given up on winning this argument, Duster, but nonetheless I shall try to carry on.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Duster: "All the Disney films are the same and they have an identity! Tangled is so un-Disney!"

No, I never said they were the same.

But you heavily imply all the time that they all have similarities and all have an 'essence' running through them; I was clearly exaggerating this.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Dr Frankenollie/Others: "Yes, but Walt himself made changes..."
Duster: "But they weren't important! They were Disney Changes (trademark?)"

I never said that either. I said Walt made some changes (and yes, called them Disney changes just like the term Disney movie!) different from the changes Tangled had.

Again, it was an exaggeration/parody of you. And no matter how many times you say it Duster, story-wise, Tangled had less changes than the likes of 101 Dalmatians and The Jungle Book. I'm sorry, Duster, but you can't argue with this; this is FACT.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Frankenollie/Others: "But Tangled was changed less from its source material than the Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians, and besides its source material was too brief for an adaptation to be completely faithful..."

And this isn't true. Tangled is changed more than either The Jungle Book or 101 Dalmatians.

This is a blatant lie; either that or a remarkable case of wilful ignorance. Admit it.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Duster, Rapunzel didn't know she was royal, and Flynn didn't know she was royal either, which is rather similar to Aurora's predicament...speaking of which, neither Aurora or her love interest were commoners becoming royals. Very un-Disney, don't you think?

No, what I mean is that Walt Disney kept the original birth status of the original tales, which Sleeping Beauty did, but Tangled did not. Again, it is the feeling that the correct person has their correct birth status, according to how the classic tale goes.

Why does the 'correct birth status' matter? Why does staying completely faithful to the source material (which WALT NEVER DID) result in a good movie, or a 'Disney' movie? You're making up all these nonsensical rules as you go along.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:As I and others have said over and over and over again, Fairytale+Magic+Talking animals does not equal Disney as an identity. As an identity, for me at least, Disney is something, similar to the Pixar films, which can appeal to both the young and young at heart (which Walt himself said, Duster, and I don't think he ever talked about a 'Disney Essence'). However, one of the few dissimilarities the identity of Disney has with Pixar (don't get excited, Duster, I said 'few') is that Pixar is sometimes nostalgic, while Disney films usually have the hero or heroine wanting something more, or 'adventure in the great wide somewhere.' However, not all the Disney films (even under Walt) have this distinction, so it doesn't entirely count.

I am not saying those things are the Disney Essence. I am saying they come from it. I am saying the Disney Essence is something that those kinds of things fit into. They are of a similar ilk.

Stop bringing up silly technicalities. Fine, singing animals, princesses and magic may not BE the Disney Essence, but you believe they're LINKED to it, right? Well if they're only of a 'similar ilk', why do you keep referring to them when you refer to the Disney Essence? They're the only things you've mentioned linked to the Disney Essence (well, that and incoherent nostalgic nonsense which I quite frankly can't understand a word of).

Disney Duster wrote:If the Disney Essence was really just making films for adults and kids, that would mean every studio has the Disney Essence and Disney has no identity because other studios try and sometimes achieve that too.

I'm saying that's the main thing Walt aimed to do, and the only thing a 'Disney Essence' can be. Disney does have an identity, but is still a company which implies it's most recognisable images and symbols make up the identity, when they don't. Walt tried all sorts of things both in and outside the animated feature film medium, and the only consistent thing about them is what I've been saying all along: 'magic' that can appeal to both adults and children.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Roy E Disney saying that they keep looking back at Walt's work was partially for good publicity

You don't know this.

...But it's obvious that's (partially) what it was for.

Disney Duster wrote:And Walt moved forward but he did it while still doing many stories with talking animals or many stories with magic, so he moved forward but kept some things the same, which is exactly the same as what I am trying to tell you they need to do.

But Walt abandoned the traditional 'fairy tale' Disney movie after Sleeping Beauty and adopted a whole new style with 101 Dalmatians (thematically, animation-wise, setting-wise and story-wise).

Disney Duster wrote:And if Disney's identity actually is more important than making good movies. Because anyone can make a good movie. Only one studio can make a Disney movie. A movie that uniquely sticks to what only Disney has and is about. Otherwise it could be any studio's movie.

So you're saying that a BAD Disney film which has the warped 'Disney Essence' that you believe in would be better than a GOOD Disney film without your 'Disney Essence'?! Please, you can't be saying that. You just can't be. You can't be that insane. Please.

And by the way, something you mentioned a little later in your post was that we all agree on the title being bad. I (and I assume many others) dislike it because it is modern-ish, seems too cowardly to admit to being a 'princess' movie, and furthermore, it's simply a crappy title. But if I'm completely honest, I also believe that Walt would be rolling in his grave if he ever heard that.

So yes, in some ways I do think Disney should uphold what Walt believed in, but he didn't believe in your 'Disney Essence.' He moved with the times, and simply wanted to create entertainment that both the young and old could enjoy and arguably give hope to those in need of it.

There *is* a point to be made that a 'Disney Essence' exists --as I have admitted a few years ago in an earlier thread on the same topic. Not in the narrow-minded, nostalgia-driven, facts-denying form of Disney Duster, but nonetheless typically, Disney's movies in all their shapes and forms tend to have a certain 'touch' that seperates them from other studios' works. But that doesn't mean that any Disney movie made after 2000 doesn't posses that touch, as Disney Duster believes. But I'll cite one example of a Disney movie with no Disney Essence whatsoever: Bolt. I just watched it the other day for the first time. If it had had the DreamWorks- or Sony Pictures-logo at the beginning, I wouldn't have noticed the difference. Never have I seen a Disney-film so devoid of anything characteristically 'Disney'. Even the dreadful Home on the Range at least had the good opening song 'Little Patch of Heaven' as a redeeming feature. Bolt has nothing.

Dr. Frankenollie, as far as I am aware, 101 Dalmatian's plot was very much the same. The most changed thing was what characters did and how much money they had? For The Jungle Book, all I know of changing is some characters' traits/reputations, and because the book covered many different stories, they made one cohesive story.

With Tangled, not only were the main character's backgrounds changed, but the plot. Not only set upon a completely different idea (instead of a witch exchanging lettuce for a child of her own, an ordinary woman steals a baby for magic hair to stay young?!), but in the middle the film completely diverges with no loving visiting prince but a thief taking the main character on an adventure, and then the only thing the ending has in common with the original is cut hair and a wound healed by tears. :/

So yea Tangled is more changed than the other two!

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Why does the 'correct birth status' matter? Why does staying completely faithful to the source material (which WALT NEVER DID) result in a good movie, or a 'Disney' movie? You're making up all these nonsensical rules as you go along.

No, I never said he had to be completely faithful to the source material. But it is a fact he was always faithful to their birth status and royalty.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:I'm saying that's the main thing Walt aimed to do, and the only thing a 'Disney Essence' can be. Disney does have an identity, but is still a company which implies it's most recognisable images and symbols make up the identity, when they don't. Walt tried all sorts of things both in and outside the animated feature film medium, and the only consistent thing about them is what I've been saying all along: 'magic' that can appeal to both adults and children.

Well, we should actually look more at what was concentrated as the Disney Essence. For instance, Walt himself had a castle, fireworks, and Tinker Bell stand for his company on television. Symbols meant to represent what Disney may be. Walt tried many things, and one wonders what things he would want remembered as Disney and what things maybe were just for experiments or money. Do his worst live-action films really represent what Disney is even to himself? However, I am fine with the discarding this notion and going with the idea that everything he made has the Disney Essence. But his animated features at least had more similarities and you can more tell what he wanted for them, and they are the heart of the company and of what Disney is.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:But Walt abandoned the traditional 'fairy tale' Disney movie after Sleeping Beauty and adopted a whole new style with 101 Dalmatians (thematically, animation-wise, setting-wise and story-wise).

Walt did things in certain parts forward and certain parts past. Sleeping Beauty was new animation-wise, too. And the Sword in the Stone was in some ways a mix of 101 Dalmatians' and Sleeping Beauty's looks. And it had medieval setting and royalty and magic. Similarities. It just means Disney should always be some parts future and some parts past. Some parts tradtion and some parts new boundary-breaking. All at the same time.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:So you're saying that a BAD Disney film which has the warped 'Disney Essence' that you believe in would be better than a GOOD Disney film without your 'Disney Essence'?! Please, you can't be saying that. You just can't be. You can't be that insane. Please.

I think Walt would be more upset if the studio made a Disney film that was good but was rated R and ended with the main characters turning evil and shooting everyone, than if Disney made a bad film that was rated G and had the main characters staying good and living happily ever after. This explains what I mean.

Goliath wrote:Not in the narrow-minded, nostalgia-driven, facts-denying form of Disney Duster

This is bordering on getting personal. You can't say another member is things like that if they tell you they aren't. I have not denied any Disney facts that I know of, and I am not nostalgia driven for this subject. I will only give you that my view is more narrow in comparison to other views.

Goliath wrote:But that doesn't mean that any Disney movie made after 2000 doesn't posses that touch, as Disney Duster believes.

This is not what I believe. I believe many films after the 2000s have some touches of Disney, like your "Little Patch of Heaven" example. I just do not feel they have enough of the Disney Essence.

DisneyDuster wrote:For The Jungle Book, all I know of changing is some characters' traits/reputations, and because the book covered many different stories, they made one cohesive story.

You only know that because you haven't actually read the book. Read it and you will recognise the differences, which there are quite a few of.

DisneyDuster wrote:With Tangled, not only were the main character's backgrounds changed, but the plot. Not only set upon a completely different idea (instead of a witch exchanging lettuce for a child of her own, an ordinary woman steals a baby for magic hair to stay young?!), but in the middle the film completely diverges with no loving visiting prince but a thief taking the main character on an adventure, and then the only thing the ending has in common with the original is cut hair and a wound healed by tears. :/

So you would have liked to have seen a ninety-minute film that consisted mainly of Rapunzel and the prince sitting in a tower and talking with perhaps a song or two thrown in? Somehow that doesn't sound like a very interesting or entertaining film to me. As has been said to you many, many, many times, the filmmakers changed the plot line to make a short, conventional fairy tale in which very little action happens into a compelling and entertaining film. Every major film adaptation does it; how much of the Harry Potter novels were wiped from the film adaptations? Same goes for The Lord of the Rings. Even Walt Disney himself did it so you have still yet to convince me that the changes in Tangled are as scandalous and blasphemous as you seem to believe.

DisneyDuster wrote:For instance, Walt himself had a castle, fireworks, and Tinker Bell stand for his company on television. Symbols meant to represent what Disney may be.

Mainly they were used as the symbols of Disneyland, the main reason Walt got involved in television; he needed a vehicle with which to sell his theme park to the general public.

DisneyDuster wrote:But his animated features at least had more similarities and you can more tell what he wanted for them, and they are the heart of the company and of what Disney is.

And yet some of those animators closest to Walt, including some of the Nine Old Men, have voiced their thoughts that Walt might have closed down animation eventually, given that he was losing interest in it due to the new opportunities offered to him by live-action films, television and Disneyland. I personally don't think Walt have done that and there is no evidence of him saying he would have, but at the end of his life I don't think he saw animated features as the heart of his company any longer.

DisneyDuster wrote:Some parts tradtion and some parts new boundary-breaking. All at the same time.

You mean like Tangled is boundary-breaking in that it is the first traditional Disney fairy tale to be animated in CG?

DisneyDuster wrote:This is bordering on getting personal. You can't say another member is things like that if they tell you they aren't. I have not denied any Disney facts that I know of, and I am not nostalgia driven for this subject. I will only give you that my view is more narrow in comparison to other views.

I fail to see anything there bordering on personal; you have displayed some narrow-mindedness several times in your refusal to accept reasonable points against your argument (your opinion about the changes to films like The Jungle Book and The Little Mermaid spring to mind). Those are facts that you've denied right there so you have shown a tendency to do that. You are nostalgia-driven but so am I so I don't see that as a negative thing.

Duster, we even talked about Jungle Book at my house the other day. I explained to you how they omitted importance plot piece and characters such as the discovery of the treasure in abandon city, the character Blueno, etc. All of that, was in Bill Peet's version (which was a much more faithful adaption to the book than actual movie is) when intending to make the Jungle Book before Walt came in and scrapped his version and restarted.


In Tangled's case, even if the points you brought up, it's still movie that did retain essential core elements from the fable that make you recognize it is a Rapunzal adaption.

You even admitted at my house that Tim and I had a point.