DVDizzy Forum

Not liking all the Mandy disapproval.

I was going to post examples of her newer music for all of you who only know her from "Candy"...

But, the music will be Disney...so kind of like what Poody said, something similar to "Only Hope". Here she is performing "Suddenly Seymour" with Adam Pascal (she seemed nervous, especially at the beginning, but remember, Rapunzel will not be live. But she is amazing live.):
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TxiJlyF4G5M&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TxiJlyF4G5M&hl ... a&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

I mean, Broadway music is closer to Disney music than most of her other music.

And not like this song is Broadwayish, it seemed more Disneyish than other songs? I don't know- it popped into my head:

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oe4s_YTUoJw&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oe4s_YTUoJw&hl ... a&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

She's come a loooong way from "Candy". Educate yourself on her music before judging her!

And this song, too:

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEQf9_Xb9cw&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZEQf9_Xb9cw&hl ... a&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

Just to give you a feel. Both of those are from her 2003 cover album, Coverage.

Oh, and LEAVE MANDY ALONE!

Please don't think my bashing of Moore for this film is entirely shallow--I saw her on Ellen once talking about Candy and how she didn't even particularly like it, and then she sang some of her new stuff (didn't care for it either, sorry).

But to be honest, this isn't even really about her singing talent (or lack thereof), it's just that I don't like her voice. It's irritating. There's a reason she's best known for playing spoiled, annoying girls (The Princess Diaries, Saved!, some movie on ABCFamily where she was the president's selfish runaway daughter, etc.). I think she's a so-so actress, but there's no changing her voice.

And even if I were talking about her singing ability, she's no Lea Salonga, Jodi Benson, Judy Kuhn or Anika Noni Rose. She isn't even a Paige O'Hara! So, no, I won't be taking this criticism back. I'm not attacking her, I'm attacking her placement in this movie.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And even if I were talking about her singing ability, she's no Lea Salonga, Jodi Benson, Judy Kuhn or Anika Noni Rose. She isn't even a Paige O'Hara!

not even a Paige O'Hara? what are you implying here?

as for her voice, not I don't think it's particularly strong either. But neither was Amy Adams (as proven by her nerve wrecking Oscar performance) and Menken made that work. I'm sure he can work with Mandy. She does have a nice voice. Just because it's not a Broadway voice doesn't mean they can't make her sound like that.

Overall though, aside from Mandy, there's been a major increase in Broadway actors in Disney films. Jennifer Lewis, Anika Noni Rose, Michael Leon-Wooley and Donna Murphy are probably a sign of things to come. The Snow Queen will probably continue this trend.

A good thing in my opinion.

Disney Duster wrote:I thought I'd come in and voice my dissapointment in Disney re-doing this tale so much

Disney Duster wrote:But completely changing who Rapunzel was, from a peasant to a princess, her parents to monarchs,

She becomes a princess in the original tale anyway so who gives a shit.

besides we had Belle, Tiana, Cinderella as rag to riches princess.

Disney Duster wrote:and the prince to a bandit?!

That's gotta be the most awesome change ever. A princess and a bandit? Awesome combo.

Disney Duster wrote:Why would the king need to steal Rapunzel lettuce from a witch's garden if he's, well, a king?! He was a peasant originally...

Cause the lettue is shiny and magical.[/code]

You know, I have to admit that I really like the whole bandit angle myself. Instead of the same thing as Cinderella, Belle, and Tiana (normal girl marrying prince), it's kind of like a Lady and the Tramp kind of thing happening, and I gotta say I like it. And I wouldn't really call Aladdin a "bandit" per se, since he only stole to live..... So this is sort of something new, and it sounds very interesting.

Disney's Divinity wrote:She isn't even a Paige O'Hara!

What's wrong with Paige O'Hara?

rj.disney wrote:What's wrong with Paige O'Hara?

Nothing. It's just now that she is older her voice has become more hoarse.

Disney's Divinity wrote:So, no, I won't be taking this criticism back. I'm not attacking her, I'm attacking her placement in this movie.

Understood- I didn't mean to come off as criticizing- as a fan, I know that a lot of people write her off, thinking that she's still a 15 year old teenybop pop singer, and that gets frustrating! I think that the naysayers just need to give her a chance and hold judgment until the movie comes out- people may just be impressed with her.

***

Info on how production is going on Rapunzel:

At the Diz
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... t-diz.html

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:So, no, I won't be taking this criticism back. I'm not attacking her, I'm attacking her placement in this movie.

Understood- I didn't mean to come off as criticizing- as a fan, I know that a lot of people write her off, thinking that she's still a 15 year old teenybop pop singer, and that gets frustrating! I think that the naysayers just need to give her a chance and hold judgment until the movie comes out- people may just be impressed with her.

***

Info on how production is going on Rapunzel:

At the Diz
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... t-diz.html

"Half of Rapunzel's story has been approved and we don't have a problem with stockpiling footage anymore. Ninety-one feet has been animated, mainly teaser stuff going onto The Princess and the Frog's DVD, and most of the animators for the show have been hired. We're going to be pushing the pedal to the metal for the next nine months ..."

interesting, so that means a teaser, if indeed first attached to TPATF dvd won't be released untill somewhere in May, which is also the time Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is released! I hope we get some sort of artwork, character design updates before that time though! At least we know they are animating already, which means that characters must have been finalized and modelled, unless they are only doing surroundings shots first, which I don't think they would...

Keeping Rapunzel, her parents, and the prince who they were is not about how the story was better originally, it's about keeping the story as, well, the story. Keeping true to the original.

The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and even Aladdin changed a lot, but never who the characters were, peasants to royalty and princes to bandits. And I didn't have a problem with Rapunzel being more active...but how much can you change a character before it's no longer the same character...?

It's just that we could have gotten Disney's version of Rapunzel as a traditional fairy tale...but it's more like Disney's new story that is sorta like Rapunzel but barely...

I mean, the prince could be more swashbuckling and adventurous, like a bandit, but still be a prince!

Changing a character's station in life is nowhere near the same thing as changing the actual character. It may change the overall situation that the character is in, but sometimes it's for the better. Would "Treasure Planet" have been the same if Jim Hawkins was just a typical happy-go-lucky boy with no daddy issues? No. There are other examples, but that was the one that immediately sprang to mine. It's their movie, and they can do as they like with it. If it was going to be exactly the same as the fairy tale, there would be no reason to bother making a movie at all.

Margos wrote:Changing a character's station in life is nowhere near the same thing as changing the actual character. It may change the overall situation that the character is in, but sometimes it's for the better. Would "Treasure Planet" have been the same if Jim Hawkins was just a typical happy-go-lucky boy with no daddy issues? No. There are other examples, but that was the one that immediately sprang to mine. It's their movie, and they can do as they like with it. If it was going to be exactly the same as the fairy tale, there would be no reason to bother making a movie at all.

Agreed. Disney changes characters all the time to suit the story *they* want to tell. They're not making 100% faithful adaptations of the source material (be it a fairy tale, a literary classic, etc.). Would The Little Mermaid be better if Ariel became sea foam? Would 101 Dalmatians be worse if they kept the name Missus instead of Perdita (who's another character in the original story and not Pongo's wife)? I wonder what parents would think of the Disney-portrayed romance between 12-year-old Pocahontas and the 27-year-old John Smith. And of course, there's the most obvious example of all. Animals don't talk. Yet in Disney films, they do.

albert

[quote="Escapay"][quote="Margos"]Changing a character's station in life is nowhere near the same thing as changing the actual character. It may change the overall situation that the character is in, but sometimes it's for the better. Would "Treasure Planet" have been the same if Jim Hawkins was just a typical happy-go-lucky boy with no daddy issues? No. There are other examples, but that was the one that immediately sprang to mine. It's their movie, and they can do as they like with it. If it was going to be exactly the same as the fairy tale, there would be no reason to bother making a movie at all.[/quote]
Agreed. Disney changes characters all the time to suit the story *they* want to tell. They're not making 100% faithful adaptations of the source material (be it a fairy tale, a literary classic, etc.). Would [i]The Little Mermaid[/i] be better if Ariel became sea foam? Would [i]101 Dalmatians[/i] be worse if they kept the name Missus instead of Perdita (who's another character in the original story and not Pongo's wife)? I wonder what parents would think of the Disney-portrayed romance between 12-year-old Pocahontas and the 27-year-old John Smith. And of course, there's the most obvious example of all. Animals don't talk. Yet in Disney films, they do.

albert[/quote]

It's true what you say. Disney has always been known for change and "Disneyfying" their films, but let's face it; It is to suit their movies and make safe family entertainment. I do understand the controversies about "Pocahontas", cause that was based on facts and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" for being a mature litteral classic, although the latter film is one of the most mature and complex Disney films ever made.

Anyway. Although Disney is known for taking drastic changes, they're not the only studio who adapts stories and changes them. Let's take some examples; 20th Centruy Fox with "Anastasia" and Dreamworks' "The Prince of Egypt" (since we're talking about animated feature films). Sure, many people of their crews came from Disney, but they were non-Disney cartoons and still were changed from their original source, especially "Anastasia", which also was a fact-based film, like "Pocahontas". Although "Prince of Egypt" are still true to the integrity of the Bible, many things were changed. And also live-action adaptations of stories get changed now and then.

Otherwise, I look forward to "Rapunzel" and I really hope it's gonna be good. To quote the interview of Zachary Levi (who voices Flynn); "Telling a fairy tale is not an easy thing to do. In the ’50s and ’60s, when animation was still a new thing, people would just be amazed by the animation, so you could tell it in a more classic, slower way. But, we live in the YouTube generation, so if you don’t keep it interesting and moving, than you’re going to lose the audience anyway".

I don't understand the dissaproval of Mandy Moore, though. I will rather see the movie itself before I judge her performance.

DisneyFan09 wrote: I don't understand the dissaproval of Mandy Moore, though. I will rather see the movie itself before I judge her performance.

Thank you- that's what I like to hear!

You're welcome Have a nice day.

Personally I don't see the problem in the story changes being made in Rapunzel. In a way it's refreshing to see things being turned around and not have this passive, dreamy girl wait for this charming prince to sweep her off her feet and save the day. Yes, she is a princess, yes she is a victim of situations out of her control, but from what we've heard so far it is her who decides to change this, escape the tower and follow the bandit. We don't even have a full story synopsis but I have faith in what they are doing. I don't have anything to base any doubt on yet anyway...

Let's all be patient and see how things turn out. Same goes for Mandy Moore. From what I've heard she has a great voice and I greatly prefer her realistic voice to the great singing voice but also dramatically cartoony voice of Kristin Chenoweth. In the end it's all about personal taste I guess. The casting so far has been spot on, with Mandy as a princess, Zachary Levi as the bandit and Donna Murphy as the regal, old fashioned villainess. In my mind this will be animation gold! The things that interests me most now is the movie's visual style and character designs. So let's bring on some pictures of Rapunzel, Flynn and Mother Gothel!

robster16 wrote:Personally I don't see the problem in the story changes being made in Rapunzel. In a way it's refreshing to see things being turned around and not have this passive, dreamy girl wait for this charming prince to sweep her off her feet and save the day. Yes, she is a princess, yes she is a victim of situations out of her control, but from what we've heard so far it is her who decides to change this, escape the tower and follow the bandit. We don't even have a full story synopsis but I have faith in what they are doing. I don't have anything to base any doubt on yet anyway...

Let's all be patient and see how things turn out. Same goes for Mandy Moore. From what I've heard she has a great voice and I greatly prefer her realistic voice to the great singing voice but also dramatically cartoony voice of Kristin Chenoweth. In the end it's all about personal taste I guess. The casting so far has been spot on, with Mandy as a princess, Zachary Levi as the bandit and Donna Murphy as the regal, old fashioned villainess. In my mind this will be animation gold! The things that interests me most now is the movie's visual style and character designs. So let's bring on some pictures of Rapunzel, Flynn and Mother Gothel!

I couldn't said it better myself. Let's face it, we're soon in 2010, no'one wants to see a passive Princess waiting for her Prince in a tower and the audience wants to see a entertaining story with new twists and turns.

I'm also curious about the visual style and character designs. I want to see it right now! If it were possible

robster16 wrote:Let's all be patient and see how things turn out. Same goes for Mandy Moore. From what I've heard she has a great voice and I greatly prefer her realistic voice to the great singing voice but also dramatically cartoony voice of Kristin Chenoweth.

And, from what I've seen, she has a bad one. Which is why I wrote my opinion and you wrote yours. Not to be a spoil sport, but I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to say "this is probably going to bad" if everyone else can say "this looks like animation gold."

On another note, I'm not anti-Moore just in light of the fact that Kristen Chenowith lost out on the role; I was rather ambivalent towards a Chenowith Rapunzel. And I've actually listed reasons for why I feel such a way about Moore. It wasn't just a random "Mandy Moore sucks!" drive-by post.

I don't know... I like Cheno, but I don't know how suited her voice (speaking voice, anyway) is for the Rapunzel character. I heard her talk in that Disney special, and really, her voice was made for Rosetta from the Tinker Bell series: small, pretty, delicate, sort of a Southern belle. Just not necessarily the kick-ass heroine type. I'm not that familiar with Mandi Moore, so I really don't know how I feel about her.

Once again, I don't know if people aren't reading carefully or what I'm saying is just not being understood, even though I try in length to explain what I mean.

I'm saying Disney has never strayed so far from the source material until this time around. And Treasure Planet was Treasure Planet not Treasure Island. And indeed movies can be made that stay 100% faithful to what a book says. You still come up with designs, dialogue, the ways the moments happen in a visual beauty that you imagine that no one else does...

It's just...it sounds like it's barely Rapunzel anymore...Disney never changed characters or story this far, they used to be much more faithful, what happened to tradition?

Oh, and you know that guy playing the prince? He SAID that animation was still pretty new at the time, STILL pretty new, it is most likely he meant that Rapunzel is looked at as like the 50's 60's features, when there still wasn't much else out there in terms of animation other than what Disney came up with.