DVDizzy Forum

To heck with the title, it's a great film and the public actually embraced it. That's enough for me.

Anyway, I found this gorgeous photo taken from a festival in Thailand and it made me think of a certain movie, so I thought I'd share.



You can google "Yee Peng Festival" in order to see more amazing photos like this.

KubrickFan wrote:Then why did you comment in the first place? If you don't want to discuss it any further, then don't start discussing it. And if I come off as grumpy (which I'm not, but thanks anyway) could it be because the stupid discussion about the title has been going on for far too long? The name of the movie in English-speaking countries is Tangled, and there's nothing to change that.

I commented because I thought it would be a simple, "this is why people don't like it" at this point (because to me the reasons are pretty obvious), and then we'd move on.

For me, personally, I have no problem with "Tangled" at this point. But I also understand that there are those out there that do, and I understand why. You, on the other hand, have your own opinions, and you fail to see that other people's opinions differ, and that that's okay. It's happened in other threads recently as well. You think that because YOU have accepted the title change, everyone else HAS to. When the truth is, some people think the movie should be called Rapunzel (including, as I've stated before, many of the artists that WORKED on the film, which is reason enough for me). There's nothing wrong with that. Let them want that. Why argue with them? Goliath may be right that it seems a little over the top to actually go in and edit the film yourself, but who cares? Goliath doesn't, he just thinks they should get a life. But you feel the need to argue with them about it.

At this point, the reason that "the stupid discussion about the title has been going on for far too long" is because people like yourself keep making others defend their opinions about wanting it to be called Rapunzel. The original poster didn't come in here looking to discuss the matter further, they just wanted to know where they might find the clip with Rapunzel. That's it. And you attacked them for it. Thus, this whole discussion started again. So don't complain about it going on forever when you're the instigator.
_________________________

In other news, enigmawing, that's gorgeous. Thanks for posting. That must be a truly awesome experience to be at one of those festivals. I didn't realize the lanterns were so big in real life... are they all like that?

milojthatch wrote:Instead, has anyone seen this? If not, it's worth it and I want to know why it wasn't on the Blu Ray!

That's incredible! All those happy, singing people (many of which probably lost their job on completing Tangled *sigh*). I've never seen the inside of the legendary Hat Building, either. It looks nice. I though it'd be just corridors and corridors and desks and offices.

Glad to see it's not a boring workplace.

KubrickFan wrote:Well, only the Dutch spoken version .

I've seen the original English version in the theater and the on-screen title was 'Rapunzel'. On the Dutch dvd, it is 'Tangled'.

@ SWillie!: The reason I don't argue over the title is because it would be like arguing with a brick wall. If a person is so far gone that he actually goes through the trouble of making a new copy of the movie all for himself, just to edit the on-screen title, there's no hope anymore. But please don't use me as an example to put down somebody else.

Goliath wrote:@ SWillie!: The reason I don't argue over the title is because it would be like arguing with a brick wall. If a person is so far gone that he actually goes through the trouble of making a new copy of the movie all for himself, just to edit the on-screen title, there's no hope anymore. But please don't use me as an example to put down somebody else.

Fine, I won't. But I didn't really mean it the way you took it, I don't think. I agree with the way you handle it. Because you're right, it's not worth trying to discuss at this point.

Didn't know where to post this, but since Claire Keane worked on Rapunzel I thought I could share it here.. It's about a new movie she's doing for Disney!

Kirill: What’s next for Claire Keane? Anything exciting you can share with us?

Claire: I am hoping someday to find the time to work on my own personal project. As for right now though, I’m having a lot of fun working with some wonderful people: Chris Buck (director of Tarzan and Surf’s Up) and Mike Giaimo (art director of Pocahontas) on a really fun and whimsical film. Mike has such a bold personal style and I am so excited to help get that style onto the screen.

Source: http://www.pushing-pixels.org/2011/05/0 ... keane.html

Mmmadelon wrote:Source: http://www.pushing-pixels.org/2011/05/0 ... keane.html

Thanks for the link! That was a great interview!


<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/22432193? ... portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe>


Artwork by Claire Keane:



Artwork by Glen Keane:

Sotiris wrote:

Mmmadelon wrote:Source: http://www.pushing-pixels.org/2011/05/0 ... keane.html

Thanks for the link! That was a great interview!


<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/22432193? ... portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe>

No problem! I also thought it was a great interview, and I love Claire's beautiful drawings!

And thanks for posting that video of Glen Keane, it's amazing to see him work. It's unbelievable how he draws a character in less than a minute, while it takes me a few hours to draw something that isn't half as good

SWillie! wrote:Fine, I won't. But I didn't really mean it the way you took it, I don't think. I agree with the way you handle it. Because you're right, it's not worth trying to discuss at this point.

Oh, I get that we were on the same page. I just didn't like you used me to put down KubrickFan. No hard feelings, though.

Sotiris wrote: And thanks for posting that video of Glen Keane, it's amazing to see him work. It's unbelievable how he draws a character in less than a minute, while it takes me a few hours to draw something that isn't half as good

Yeah reason, other than years of drawing experience, he able quickly draw fast and good like that is because he knows the form of the object or character already well enough that he doesn't have to do the long step to drawing something and can quickly draw out something with basic lines and shape structure easily. This why when you saw the video he was easily able start drawing off with the eyes rather than the head.

I've been learning and getting good with that too lately.

One of the Disney books that discussed the Beast's design mention something of how Glen Keane focuses on getting the eyes right, even in a weak drawing.

In many ways, he's right.

That shouldn't be some huge discovery, every artist knows eyes are important. However beginners (and even intermediates) should never "start" anywhere. And what I mean by that is basic structure is where you should begin before details like eyes, hair etc. Too often people like to skip to the final stages. Glen has been drawing long enough that can cheat and skip to fun stuff but most people should start with overall shapes, lightly defining a characters pose, then gradually build up to final linework.

Kyle wrote:That shouldn't be some huge discovery, every artist knows eyes are important. However beginners (and even intermediates) should never "start" anywhere. And what I mean by that is basic structure is where you should begin before details like eyes, hair etc. Too often people like to skip to the final stages. Glen has been drawing long enough that can cheat and skip to fun stuff but most people should start with overall shapes, lightly defining a characters pose, then gradually build up to final linework.

I learn that in artschool too, you should never begin with the eyes, that's the last part.

Kyle wrote:That shouldn't be some huge discovery, every artist knows eyes are important. However beginners (and even intermediates) should never "start" anywhere. And what I mean by that is basic structure is where you should begin before details like eyes, hair etc. Too often people like to skip to the final stages. Glen has been drawing long enough that can cheat and skip to fun stuff but most people should start with overall shapes, lightly defining a characters pose, then gradually build up to final linework.

exactly.

Julian Carter wrote:

milojthatch wrote:Instead, has anyone seen this? If not, it's worth it and I want to know why it wasn't on the Blu Ray!

That's incredible! All those happy, singing people (many of which probably lost their job on completing Tangled *sigh*). I've never seen the inside of the legendary Hat Building, either. It looks nice. I though it'd be just corridors and corridors and desks and offices.

Glad to see it's not a boring workplace.

I know, huh? It was cool just seeing inside the building!

congratulations tangled/rapunzel on crossing the 200 million mark!

source boxofficeguru.com

Weekend Box Office (May 20 - 22, 2011)

# Title May 20 - 22 May 13 - 15 % Chg. Theaters Weeks AVG Cumulative Distributor

1 Pirates of the Caribbean: OST $ 90,151,958 4,155 1 $ 21,697 $ 90,151,958 Disney
2 Bridesmaids 20,882,070 26,247,410 -20.4 2,937 2 7,110 59,341,310 Universal
3 Thor 15,455,304 34,703,035 -55.5 3,924 3 3,939 145,361,459 Paramount 4 Fast Five 10,576,865 20,444,270 -48.3 3,622 4 2,920 186,165,450 Universal
5 Priest 4,750,041 14,953,664 -68.2 2,864 2 1,659 23,833,169 Sony
6 Rio 4,687,714 8,275,058 -43.4 2,593 6 1,808 131,684,365 Fox
7 Jumping the Broom 3,703,010 7,066,190 -47.6 1,472 3 2,516 31,320,562 Sony
8 Something Borrowed 3,516,387 6,872,221 -48.8 2,606 3 1,349 31,519,452 Warner Bros.
9 Water for Elephants 2,179,046 4,203,095 -48.2 1,894 5 1,150 52,456,620 Fox
10 Madea's Big Happy Family 956,589 2,214,033 -56.8 912 5 1,049 51,723,579 Lionsgate

11 Soul Surfer 930,008 1,826,788 -49.1 984 7 945 40,610,678 Sony
12 Tangled 910,502 6,351 191 26 4,767 200,627,301 Disney 13 Midnight in Paris 599,003 6 1 99,834 599,003 Sony Classics
14 Everything Must Go 529,037 791,677 -33.2 245 2 2,159 1,628,657 Roadside Attr.
15 Prom 504,155 939,043 -46.3 374 4 1,348 9,678,881 Disney 16 Insidious 474,247 958,323 -50.5 501 8 947 52,432,623 FilmDistrict
17 Cave of Forgotten Dreams 415,310 471,933 -12.0 106 4 3,918 1,973,239 IFC Films
18 Source Code 412,336 837,279 -50.8 377 8 1,094 52,956,170 Summit
19 Rango 395,085 258,083 53.1 302 12 1,308 121,211,948 Paramount
20 Hoodwinked Too! 371,335 1,151,268 -67.7 642 4 578 9,199,021 Weinstein Co.

Why is Rapunzel holding Thumper?

the second image has Rapunzel making a creepy rape face.

Who wouldn't want to be raped by her?

Semaj wrote:Who wouldn't want to be raped by her?

Gays.