DVDizzy Forum

So. There will be slapstick? Good. I can live with that.

I love slapstick. WALL-E, Toy Story and Up are filled with slapstick jokes. No one complains about those.

If done right, it can be one of the best forms of comedy. It's universally funny.

I have spoken.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I hate Menken for making me want to sell-out and see this movie. Gothel sounds incredible. And I knew she would. Why couldn't this have been 2D? *sobs*

I honestly would like that this movie turned out to be 2D, too. But I'm still gonna see this movie no matter what.

The more I think about this movie, the more attractive the cg looks to me.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:I hate Menken for making me want to sell-out and see this movie. Gothel sounds incredible. And I knew she would. Why couldn't this have been 2D? *sobs*

I honestly would like that this movie turned out to be 2D, too. But I'm still gonna see this movie no matter what.

Well, unless I'm mistaken, this movie is gonna have that hand-drawn feel.

And toilet humor in The Princess and the Frog? I don't remember seeing any toilet humor in that one, unless Ray making mentions of his butt counts.

I saw the Addams Family musical last week and someone in the ensemble is credit as a voice talent (I'm thinking in a vocal choir?) for "Tangled"

DisneyJedi wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote: I honestly would like that this movie turned out to be 2D, too. But I'm still gonna see this movie no matter what.

Well, unless I'm mistaken, this movie is gonna have that hand-drawn feel.

And toilet humor in The Princess and the Frog? I don't remember seeing any toilet humor in that one, unless Ray making mentions of his butt counts.

There were some other bathroom humor, as a man taking away some horse poo. It's serious, if you don't believe me, just watch the movie again.

robster16 wrote:A dear friend told me that humor isn't à la Shrek or à la Princess and the Frog (for Princess, humor was too slapstick and there is too toilet humor) and in Tangled humor is intelligent... Do you agree?

Not exactly. There's a LOT of slapstick. Rapunzel herself swings a mean frying pan.

You can't generalize about the humor too much - there's a variety here. Nothing particularly scatological that I can recall. But there is a lot of slapstick. Very funny slapstick. I enjoyed it, and I'm not much of a Three Stooges or Tom and Jerry fan.

I failed to mention that R has a pet chameleon (non-talking). He's the source of a lot of the gentler humor, and is one of the least obnoxious Disney sidekicks ever (the non-talking thing has a lot to do with that IMHO). There's also this horse that I think is going to be a big hit.

There's a little bit of pop culturism related to the ruffians in the tavern - nothing too distracting IMHO. Certainly nothing Shrekkish. They play the fairy tale vibe pretty straight, although the plot bears only superficial resemblance to the original Rapunzel story.

Pop culturism with the ruffians in the tower?Maybe the ruffians are inspired by the rebellious schmucks of are time.
This has been done in Across the Universe and Marie Antoinette.Why can't it work in a Disney film?
examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSSEqnviSB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLJ1vuUWprA
I know that these are not the best movies,but the pop culture references are well-structured.

DisneyFan09 wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: Well, unless I'm mistaken, this movie is gonna have that hand-drawn feel.

And toilet humor in The Princess and the Frog? I don't remember seeing any toilet humor in that one, unless Ray making mentions of his butt counts.

There were some other bathroom humor, as a man taking away some horse poo. It's serious, if you don't believe me, just watch the movie again.

Well, I do recall that.

PatrickvD wrote:oh God not this 2d versus 3d debate again.

The films is CGI... CGI.... you see? CGI = Computer Generated Imagery

The only difference is that they've tried to make the animation lush and rich instead of cold and distant. It's never going to look like Snow White. That clip of the tower that we've seen is exactly what the entire movie will be like

Prince Kido wrote:Ahhhh!!! At least there are some smart people there!
Thanks Patrickvd, I couldn't say it better and I can tell you you are right.
Believe me....

People keep getting it wrong.

The animation will be CGI, but look like a painting, not necessarily 2D, though Disney's 2D films were also painted.

The 2D part mainly comes in how the characters are animated, animated more like and as well as Disney's 2D films have been. But also in design, and if CGI Rapunzel looks like 2D Ariel, well, there ya go.

The teaser trailer we have seen at least keeps the painted part. If it looks like that, ace.

DisneyFan09 wrote: There were some other bathroom humor, as a man taking away some horse poo. It's serious, if you don't believe me, just watch the movie again.

I don't consider that potty humor... I've always considered potty humor stuff played for a gross effect, and that's not what that scene was...

UmbrellaFish wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote: There were some other bathroom humor, as a man taking away some horse poo. It's serious, if you don't believe me, just watch the movie again.

I don't consider that potty humor... I've always considered potty humor stuff played for a gross effect, and that's not what that scene was...

Oh... I consider that as bahtroom humor, since it was poo included. Sorry.

UmbrellaFish wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote: There were some other bathroom humor, as a man taking away some horse poo. It's serious, if you don't believe me, just watch the movie again.

I don't consider that potty humor... I've always considered potty humor stuff played for a gross effect

Like the guards in Aladdin landing in a manure wagon. I think that's the worst case of toilet humor a Disney film has ever had.

^you forgot Ray farting.

oh how horrible. The Lion King had quite a few nasty fart and burp jokes and that somehow ended up in many All Time Greatest Movies lists. Who gives a crap.

It's Shrek and Dreamworks that ruined things for all eternity because they've turned people allergic to fart jokes with their overexposure.

even more info from the original poster:

>>would you say the overall storyline follows the fractured fairy tale idea, or is it more like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, which takes existing characters and creates a new (albeit entirely appropriate for the characters and situations) story around them, much like a sequel might?<<

I'd say it's a whole new story that uses elements from the Rapunzel fairy tale as a jumping off point. It's a straight fairytale-style adventure - not a satire.

>>And is there a reason (other than marketing) that they changed the name to Tangled?<<

I don't care for the title. But honestly, the story differs from the traditional Rapunzel enough that I think a different title is appropriate. I wasn't asked about the title on the survey, and didn't write anything in.

>>I just can't believe that 90% of the work on an animated film take place in less than 6 months.<<

11% was **finished animation**, IE in color, fully lit and detailed, with all the extra hair included in the shot (which apparently is one of the last steps).

There was quite a bit of it that was not finished, but still well along the production path.

Also keep in mind that most of the work for CG animated productions is done in advance of the actual animation. The story, the voices, the score, the character design, the rigs, the backgrounds ... all of that is pretty much set before they start makin' 'em move.

The movie is WAY past 11% finished, and I'm not *too* worried about them finishing it in plenty of time (he says from his nice safe seat 50 miles from Burbank).

>>Despite all the action and humor factors, can you tell us please if there are Heart and Emotion in the movie? And are Rapunzel and Flynn are loveable characters that audience will care about?<<

Yes, and yes.

My only concern is that some of the more cynical fans will find them too derivative of Disney characters that preceded them.

>>what was the vibe when the lights came up? Was the crowd happy? Ecstatic? Whatever? How would you read the crowd?<<

I'd say somewhere between happy and ecstatic. Crowds at these things (at least the few I've been to) are always pretty enthusiastic, but this bunch was clearly into the movie. Lots of BIG laughs, and I heard crying at the right times too. Which was especially impressive considering how incomplete the sad part was.

They sort of spoiled it by bringing up some pretty high-powered lights in the house in the middle of this section. It wasn't until the next day that I realized they must've been taping the audience reaction. You might see me on a DVD extra someday.

>>What sort of pop culturism is there? Could you tell me more?<<

Not without a spoiler. Let's just say they've used a few "slightly anachronistic elements for humorous purposes." There's nothing nearly as extreme as Nazi Hyenas of the Serengeti. Seriously, don't worry about it.

I'm getting more and more excited for this.

Hahahah. What if this guy is just totally bs'ing. That'd be funny.

ajmrowland wrote:^you forgot Ray farting.

Well, it was Ray 'buzzing,' but it kind of insinuates flatulence. Yes, there were several 'toilet humor' moments to TP&TF (the hillbilly scene comes to mind the most for me), but I think for the most part they were tastefully done. That's never something that's really turned me off from a film unless it's overdone.

And, SWillie!, I was thinking the same thing that this person may be BSing, because it doesn't seem like he knows very much about the film other than things we already know. But I'm not sure why they would want to lie, so I'm taking it at least half-serious.

SWillie! wrote:I'm getting more and more excited for this.

Hahahah. What if this guy is just totally bs'ing. That'd be funny.

That would be f-ing hilarious.