DVDizzy Forum

^^ Thank you, Musical Master. I do like Tangled, I just don't think it's as good as most people believe it to be. It has some severe conceptual flaws that are far too great for me to overlook, and I always have to shut my brain off if I want to enjoy the film (sadly, some parts of Frozen seem to be in the same vein). There's also the fact that Rapunzel's quirkiness comes off as more annoying than cute, and the rest of the characters are even worse, especially the animals. Mother Gothel is the only character I really like.

Duster, I don't really want to argue about this further either. You have your opinions, and I have mine.

Mooky wrote:^^ Thank you, Musical Master. I do like Tangled, I just don't think it's as good as most people believe it to be. It has some severe conceptual flaws that are far too great for me to overlook, and I always have to shut my brain off if I want to enjoy the film (sadly, some parts of Frozen seem to be in the same vein). There's also the fact that Rapunzel's quirkiness comes off as more annoying than cute, and the rest of the characters are even worse, especially the animals. Mother Gothel is the only character I really like.

Duster, I don't really want to argue about this further either. You have your opinions, and I have mine.

You're very welcome Mooky. Don't worry about Frozen, from what I have heard from people who have seen a screening of the movie, they said that Frozen's road trip journey part is better thought out and Anna's "quirks" are actually natural for the character and it was cute.

I can't wait for the movie thats coming out in 18 days from now.

Big One wrote:The film would be pretty solid if the only frog was the prince and most of the central characters were humans. It would make the unique element of a talking animal mean a lot more than it does in this movie, where talking animals are the focus of what is advertised and built up as a princess film. People went in expecting Cinderella, but got The Jungle Book instead. This is all Disney's fault too as they could've easily made something as good as Tangled with black characters to make something like racial boundaries broken more legitimate

I've heard that complaint before, that people wanted a (human) "Disney Princess" film and got a movie about frogs. And I think that the title The PRINCESS and the Frog is misleading, since, human or not, she's only a princess for the last few minutes of the film...surely a better title could have been used.

And I mean, there was John Henry, and there have been minor African American characters in DACs (Dr. Sweet and Cobra Bubbles), and I'm sure that eventually more will be added.

I guess more people prefer Disney animated "human" movies than Disney animated "animal" movies? I love everything about TP&tF, so I love the human parts just as much as the animal parts. I think it's comic gold when Tiana turns into a frog.

Big One wrote:, but instead they shoe-horned breaking racial boundaries on a film where the black characters were frogs for the majority of the film. That's just awful writing.

Disney did make a big deal (not so much on actual marketing, like trailers or merchandise, but during interviews and what-not) about Tiana being the first African-American princess, so yeah, in some ways making a big brew-ha-ha about that and then having her be a frog for a lot of the film (has anyone ever timed the human vs. frog sections of the movie? 80%, really?) did tick a lot of people off, but I mean, whether or not she's a human (and she's a wonderful human), or a frog (and another side of Tiana came out when she was a frog- that's huge character development), she's a great character, regardless of her ethnicity or type of creature she is!

Musical Master wrote:Honestly Louis would've had a more stronger purpose to be in the story if he was cursed the same way Naveen did and turned back into a human to be a jazz legend.

That's probably extremely true. I guess they maybe didn't want to spend so much time on a secondary character, and while I like Louis and think he's adorable and funny, he would be even more purposeful to the film like you said...

Super Aurora wrote:In fact I think the story could of work even with out the princess/prince angle so it make it feel like that gimmick was even more contrived and pointless.

I think that a bunch of DACs, though, could work even without the princess/prince angle...people just love their royalty, I guess.

DisneyJedi wrote:Even with the backstory in there, I would like to prefer him living with his gator self to know that he doesn't need to be human.

That's actually a really, really good point...learn to be happy with who you are! Good lesson.

estefan wrote:I do tend to like slapstick cartoon violence, so I did laugh at parts that maybe weren't as popular with other viewers like the frog hunters, Louis's antics (I still laugh pretty damn hard at his flashback scene on the steamboat) and the running joke of Naveen being continually squished.

I can't say that I'm big on slapstick, I guess I don't have a preference as to what kind of humor I like, but I think this film has so many funny moments! And what you said about humor being subjective:

Mooky wrote:but some of the lines were just cringe-worthy: "Glad to see you're finally getting into the music. Do you get my joke? Because your head is, it's in the tuba", or the recurring "It's not slime, it's mucus" and "I am prince Naveen *squash* of Maldonia". *gags*

See, those are some of my favorite scenes. Everyone just likes different things- that's what makes the world go 'round!

Lady Cluck wrote:Dr. Facilier's lack of a personal connection with Tiana. There could have been higher stakes.

I agree with that...that's part of the mystery of Dr. Facilier...

Miss Manday wrote:Naveen is one of my favorite Disney princes, and Charlotte is one of the best female sidekicks (or characters in general) created recently, as she's very real.

I love Naveen, and I don't know how people don't love Lottie- she at first seems to be just a spoiled girl, but then we see when things hit the fan, she is such a genuine friend. Such a great (and so funny!) character!

Miss Manday wrote:I enjoy the soundtrack, though I do like the Steamboat soundtrack from WDW better because it has Tiana and Naveen singing more of the songs with their original voices. "Dig A Little Deeper" as sung by Tiana and Naveen is great!

Is there a physical CD for that??

Disney's Divinity wrote:I suppose frogs just aren't as glamorous as dalmatians.

I mean, some people don't like "slimy" creatures...they prefer mammals, so in a way, I can see people just not caring about frogs as much as they would other animals...?

Disney's Divinity wrote:I also wonder if the expectations of what a "princess film" should be affects the perception of the film. I'm not sure why it has to be like TLM, SW, SB, etc. in order to be considered good, all other issues aside.

People I guess want their princess films to have human princesses the whole time (since mermaids are like fish-people, I guess she doesn't count...). I don't get it, but I think that's the general consensus.

Lady Cluck wrote:Mandy Moore's mediocre talent.

I'm personally a huge fan of hers...in "I've Got a Dream," her voice does a weird cracking thing, but besides that, I think she was a perfect Rapunzel!!

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I don't think she is 'Barbie-ish' at all, just because she's blonde...I think the similarities end there.

I agree with what you said about Rapunzel being like a normal girl, and I think the Barbie references are because she's a blond CGI character...? Since Rapunzel was the first CGI Disney Princess...

Lady Cluck wrote:Someone had to be the first black princess but I'm sure if you had it your way, no one ever would have been And no it wasn't exclusively for tokenism and it's racist to be that dismissive of the entire story just because a black princess is attached and you roll your eyes at Disney doing that "just to have a black princess." I actually LOVE the New Orleans twist on the fairy tale, which would have been pretty boring as a straight up adaptation.

People complained about Jasmine and Pocahontas when those films came out, too. Granted, some people complain about the perceived passiveness of the white princesses, too, but any "POC" Princess is just going to get scrutinized for whatever reason. But you're completely right, someone did have to be the first...had Tiana been the same kind of character, just in human form 100% of the time, she probably wouldn't have been critized as much, right? It's okay if a white princess were to turn into an animal for a large part of a film, but just because Tiana is African-American, it gets flak? But people would complain about any "Princess" film not having a human princess the whole time...I just think people love their human princesses and that's that.

And I do also love the New Orleans setting and the jazz-influences in the movie, and the voodoo influences. It has a particular feel to it- it takes you back to 1920s New Orleans, and I think that that's a wonderful setting. It's a real setting, it's historical, and we can pinppoint when-and-where, vs. the generic (even though I do like them) 15th/16th/17th Century European locations of other Princess films.

I think that the Princess films just get rated more harshly than other Disney films. I think that Brother Bear is a wonderful movie, and while not as beloved generally as much as the Princess films, did it have people saying, I wish that Kenai had stayed a human in the whole film? Princess films just will always be critized more than other DACs, I think.

Big One wrote:There was nothing new with how Princess and the Frog was animated which makes the entire endevour to bring back 2D animation as a viable and popular medium a failed experiment.

I think just the fact that Disney produced another hand-drawn film after it had been said that Disney wasn't planning on making more hand-drawn films was a huge thing. And it's a beautiful-looking film. I don't know what technical advancements could really be made with hand-drawn films. Maybe using different kinds of paint or something (like watercolors in [i[Dumbo[/i] & Lilo & Stitch)... I mean, with CGI, there were new technical advancements with things like fur (Monsters, Inc.) and hair (Tangled), and with fabric and things. Hand-drawn and CGI animation are just very different, technologically-speaking.

Big One wrote: Imagine watching Beauty and the Beast, and Belle transforms into a Rabbit for 80% of the film and all the potential character development between her and Beast just goes down the drain.

But both Naveen & Tiana were humans-turned-into frogs...they went through that journey together. Maybe if Belle turned into a beast...why a rabbit? (or why a turkey or why a porcupine?) That wouldn't have a point in the story, but Tiana & Naveen turning into frogs and being on that journey together...I mean, they both changed so much (for the better!) through that experience. And I think being frogs, being such a small animal, brought more challenges, making survival all the more hard. Maybe having Louis be big...I mean, he was definitely protection...imagine the other swamp gators & the frogs without Louis being around, right?

Big One wrote:It should of been called New Orleans or something along those lines and feature Tiana and Naveen meeting and creating a restaurant together.

But that'd be a completely different movie. The movie is about being cursed (humans to frogs) and trying to survive to get to being human again, and becoming humble (Naveen) and learning to have fun (Tiana) and both realizing that true love is possible (Naveen: not needing to have 100 women in his life, that he can find true happiness with just one; Tiana: you can still work hard toward your goals, but you can have a place in your life for true love, too).

Big One wrote:But instead, Disney had to shill it out for a Princess line to appeal to black audiences which isn't a bad thing by any means, but makes the movie itself less organic than it needs to be.

If Tiana weren't marketed as a Princess, would there be as much issue with her/the film? And in reality, it's the marketing and the title, since she's only a princess for a few minutes!

Lady Cluck wrote:...except she learns to embrace having fun while also pursuing her dream. Naveen watching her let loose and dance is one of the most touching moments. And Naveen learns to take life a little more seriously while still maintaining his carefree spirit. They complement each other...that's kind of the point.

Absolutely! They needed this journey together- can you imagine either one's life without having gone on this journey together? All-work-and-no-play Tiana and totally-carefree-and-eventually-homeless! Naveen!

Lady Cluck wrote:Unlike Rapunzel and Flynn who couple up mainly because they were in close proximity and young and hot. Very old school Disney I guess

Well, one could argue that Tiana & Naveen "had" to fall in love because they were in close proximity (and maybe they were hot frogs... ). I don't agree with that. Rapunzel is such a unique person- obviously Flynn had never met anyone like her (with her breakdown over Gothel freaking out about her leaving the tower, to her glowing hair and singing, to her absolutely refreshing outlook on life, since everything was new)...and Rapunzel literally hadn't met anyone else...!

Mooky wrote:Why did it have to do anything new with hand-drawn animation to be considered a good film (and for the record, it did do something new -- it was animated on tablets, not on paper)? I'm baffled by the idea that technical advances in film-making should somehow make or break a film ("effects-driven cinema"), when there are much more important factors at play. It just says that audiences will eat up anything as long as it's "pretty".

I agree with that a lot. Sometimes a good film is just a good film.

Mooky wrote:her values and ethics are just far removed from the Disney's general concept of "wishing and hoping"

See, and that's part of the reason I adore Tiana so much. I love the other princesses- Jasmine has always been my favorite- but Tiana's work ethic, her absolute passion and drive to have her (and her father's) dream come true- it's not that far off from "wishing and hoping," but we learn from Tiana & her family that wishing & hoping isn't all there is- you actually have to do something about it, too. That's realistic and an important message to learn. Just wanting something in life isn't enough, you have to keep trying.

Disney Duster wrote:she made Naveen build with her at the end of the movie

She didn't "make" Naveen- he loved her, and he wanted to help make her dream come true, just like anyone who loves someone- they'll do what it takes to help that person! And I mean, Tiana did help to instill some kind of a work ethic in Naveen- they taught each other that there's room for work and play in life!

In a way I sorta agree with both, in that both films are rather safe and repetitive in some areas, but I still think, despite it all, that PATF took more risks. Now if those risks worked or not, I cannot say, since each person has a different reception (some people love Tiana, others find her dull...). But Tangled is much safer, at least from a marketing point of view: CGI comedy, generic princess design for Rapunzel, pop songs...

I will say, though, the stuff with them as frog is really dull in places. And considering that's where all the romance and character development for them comes from, it is a bit of a wasted opportunity.

The reason I dislike it, is because the story is a mess, the humor is childish, one main character is really obnoxious and the character animation is at times very stiff.

The main part of the film, the characters are wading around in the swamp... to do what, exactly? First they get lost, then they have to find the right way to Mama Odie, they sing a bunch of songs, they meet some hillbillies who want to catch them... It's nothing but filler that doesn't move the story forward and it hardly does anything to develop the characters. Then there's Louis the alligator, which is tied with the childish gags. This is a loudmouth character, which is supposed to be funny when it's actually not. Just being loud doesn't automatically generate laughter, just like seeing a redneck getting hit on the head is not my idea of clever humor. One of the few decent things in the movie, the character of Dr. Facilier, was unfortunately not featured enough. The scenes with him in it are easily the best of the movie.

It's a shame, since this movie had so much potential, but ultimately not much of it was realized in the final product.

in b4 DisneyJedi gets all White Knight about Lois.

Lady Cluck wrote:I can't believe what I'm reading. At least you're open with your racism!

How was anything he said racist? That's a baseless and extremely rude accusation. You owe him an apology.

Disney Duster wrote:The Princess and the Frog was more commercial and calculated as it was all about making the first black princess and returning to the 90's type films. Tangled I suppose was also trying to be like the 90's films but it felt like it was going in a new direction instead of "the old thing again - but black!". Also Tangled had a better story. It was less back and forth and convoluted. Everything in Tangled felt like it was following an arc and needed to happen. It went smoothly. And the music in Tangled was better and more memorable. It felt grander and like it had good, followable melodies. And it had more heart, or at least more emotion in it. Rapunzel's passion is burning and her cries at being "left" by Flynn and later at Flynn's dying were deep and real and powerful.

I agree with everything you said, especially the bolded part. I was thinking the exact same thing. Very well put, Disney Duster!

Disney Duster wrote:Tangled went in new directions with the leads. Rapunzel was trapped in a tower for all of her life and just wanted to get out. That's not very relatable to anyone! And instead of having the usual prince they had a thieving, smug, debonair, orphaned man who grew to be a better person with Rapunzel. And Mother Gothel was a complex villain who took care of Rapunzel and we couldn't tell if she loved Rapunzel or not (it is heavily debated). And Rapunzel looked beuatiful, not at all like a Muppet. Maybe her and other characters' eyes were too big, but that was it. And the kingdom did have a culture, they made their own up.

So I take it you have finally gotten over the whole 'Rapunzel has to be a peasant and Flynn a prince, like in the original fairytale' complaint that you used to have and have grown to like the film?

When I saw PatF in the theater, I was mostly bored and annoyed for the biggest part of the movie. I was excited (although a bit thrown off by the stiff character animation) up until the point that they turned into frogs and got dumped in the swamp. I wanted to like it so badly, but I just couldn't. Then when I saw 'Rapunzel' (as it's called in Dutch and I stubbornly stick to it), I was drawn-in at the first minutes and never got out of it until the end credits rolled. It was a truly exciting movie and I laughed out loud a lot, and I really cared about the characters this time around. Even up to the point that I forgot it was a Disney-movie and actually feared everything might not turn out allright in the end when Flynn was stabbed by Gothel. That's how invested I was in the film, compared to the indifference I felt toward Tiana and Naveen in PatF.

Mooky wrote:Why did it have to do anything new with hand-drawn animation to be considered a good film (and for the record, it did do something new -- it was animated on tablets, not on paper)? I'm baffled by the idea that technical advances in film-making should somehow make or break a film ("effects-driven cinema"), when there are much more important factors at play. It just says that audiences will eat up anything as long as it's "pretty".

Cause according to you, that fact that Tangled didn't do anythjing new for it's story means it wasn't as good as Princess and the Frog which took some more risky directions for a Disney film. I'm only using that argument, for the animation of the two films. Why is Princess and the Frog the exception here?

Mooky wrote:When was the last time Disney had a success with a romance story prior to PatF? 1995? Movie-going audiences in 2009 were VERY much different from those in the 1990s. In general, box-office is dominated by 'male' films. Films with women featuring any topic perceived as exclusively female (romance, pregnancy, etc.) usually flop, unless the cast featured defies gender norms and starts behaving like stereotypical men (Bridesmaids comes to mind).

Umm the box office has been male centric since film was a medium. And the last time Disney had success with a Romance story was Tarzan and after that, romance stories just stopped happening outside of Atlantis which was also a flop. Romance stories have always been what Disney made money off of since it's so relatable with the mass audiences.

Mooky wrote:Disney fans are very well-aware of who both of these people are and it's -- as you said -- stupid to suggest or downright insist otherwise. It may not have played a large factor in the film's success but it sure did make a dent.

Randy Newman's involvement probably sold more tickets than lost it. The hardcore Disney fans don't give a shit cause they're going to buy the product even if the movie was called "The Talking Turd" because as long as it's a canon animated Disney film, the hardcore fan will buy it.

Mooky wrote:Then you shouldn't assume so much about the film. Try these:
http://jezebel.com/5026242/why-is-disne ... -challenge

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 69725.html

http://www.blackandmarriedwithkids.com/ ... ean-tiana/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1832742/posts

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/t ... ocence.php

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/2132/

http://www.racialicious.com/2009/05/13/ ... aze-essay/

http://www.essence.com/2009/11/30/criti ... -the-frog/

Okay I'll give you this one, you're right.

Mooky wrote:You may not have liked it, but please stop talking for others. I mean, seriously, "no one came to see came to see Princess and the Frog in theaters for there to be an animal comedy on the screen"? Talking frogs, alligator and firefly in the trailers weren't signs enough? And it wasn't exclusively comedy, it had powerful dramatic moments as well, like most Disney films.

I'm not talking for others, the numbers don't lie. After the movie was exposed for being a talking animal film in advertisements a lot of hype was deflated as it was depicted as a funny animal movie. With Tangled it was advertised as a princess movie with funny animals in it, and that's a key difference to marketing here as if people know Rapunzel is going to be pretty and attractive for the entire movie they're going to go in to see the movie for her alone.

Mooky wrote:It's not stupid, Duster's comment above proves exactly what I wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I don't like Tiana based on her character alone. I hate how she works too much to have fun and her attitude.

It says it all right there. Now imagine thousands of kids and adults with opinion like Duster's. There's a reason (besides the most obvious one) why Tiana never wins first place in Disney Princess polls, her values and ethics are just far removed from the Disney's general concept of "wishing and hoping" (and I'm saying this as someone whose favorite Disney princesses are Belle, Jasmine and Ariel).

I think Duster's comment for Tiana is stupid. I doubt most people think she isn't any good cause she only cares about work. The issue with Tiana is that people haven't seen her movie enough, she hasn't been marketed as long as the other princesses to gain a following, and yeah race does factor in terms of favortism as even girls who aren't even remotely racist might relate to someone like Ariel cause they're white and red-headed. I doubt people who buy products with Tiana even understand her values and ethics as most parents don't even really watch these movies, just stick them into a DVD player for their kids to watch it.

Mooky wrote:Your Beauty and the Beast comparison on the other hand is silly, because the film is based on a fairytale titled Beauty and the Beast that doesn't feature anyone turning into a rabbit. PatF is based both on The Frog Prince and a revisionist-fairytale novel called The Frog Princess, that -- what a coincidence -- feature royal people turning into frogs. Having the princess be black is an afterthought, I'll give you that, but it only came after they decided to have the film be set in New Orleans. Like Lady Cluck said, someone had to be the first black princess and the opportunity just presented itself.

You act like Disney has to be accurate to it's adaptation. And keep in mind when people think of the Frog Prince story, they think of a pretty girl kissing a frog so the frog can become a beautiful prince. That's all that ever should've happened in the movie and could've went towards a very awesome character arc with Tiana if written correctly. Instead we got comedy for 80% of the movie.

Mooky wrote:Playing it safe does matter and is inherently weaved into the very fabric of any film. We wouldn't be having this discussion if circumstances surrounding the making of Tangled and PatF were the same or at least similar. There are genuine story and characterization problems in PatF, true, but didn't it occur to you they might have had something to do with all the obstacles the film faced going from its planning stage to the big screen? And at each of those issues, the film wasn't suddenly shelved only to never return from the Disney Archives' vault, or re-imagined as something different (like how the hand-drawn Snow Queen was scrapped due to "story problems" only to re-emerge mere months later as the CG Frozen), but it was released to a near-universal acclaim. It's a true underdog story and even if it's for that reason only, PatF will always triumph over Tangled for me.

All those aspects are only the fault of the creative team at Disney animation. If they aren't competent enough to make a satisfying final product, they don't need to be in that position in the first place. Tangled was able to wrap up it's production mess quite well, and Princess and the Frog should've been treated the same way when it wasn't.

blackcauldron85 wrote:And I do also love the New Orleans setting and the jazz-influences in the movie, and the voodoo influences. It has a particular feel to it- it takes you back to 1920s New Orleans, and I think that that's a wonderful setting. It's a real setting, it's historical, and we can pinppoint when-and-where, vs. the generic (even though I do like them) 15th/16th/17th Century European locations of other Princess films.

Generic?! Each one is unique and beautiful! And one was Germanic, two were French, one was Danish or Meditteranean or both, and one was Middle Eastern!

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:she made Naveen build with her at the end of the movie

She didn't "make" Naveen- he loved her, and he wanted to help make her dream come true, just like anyone who loves someone- they'll do what it takes to help that person! And I mean, Tiana did help to instill some kind of a work ethic in Naveen- they taught each other that there's room for work and play in life!

Well at first Naveen was excited for the restaraunt to happen and then Tiana smugly with attitude hands him a hammer and he frowns. Poor guy!

Big One wrote:I think Duster's comment for Tiana is stupid. I doubt most people think she isn't any good cause she only cares about work.

But she worked too hard. Remember she worked too much to even have more than two minutes of sleep? That's unhealthy and isn't a good role model! And also, like I said, her attitude.

Goliath wrote:The reason I dislike it, is because the story is a mess, the humor is childish, one main character is really obnoxious and the character animation is at times very stiff.

The main part of the film, the characters are wading around in the swamp... to do what, exactly? First they get lost, then they have to find the right way to Mama Odie, they sing a bunch of songs, they meet some hillbillies who want to catch them... It's nothing but filler that doesn't move the story forward and it hardly does anything to develop the characters. Then there's Louis the alligator, which is tied with the childish gags. This is a loudmouth character, which is supposed to be funny when it's actually not. Just being loud doesn't automatically generate laughter, just like seeing a redneck getting hit on the head is not my idea of clever humor. One of the few decent things in the movie, the character of Dr. Facilier, was unfortunately not featured enough. The scenes with him in it are easily the best of the movie.

It's a shame, since this movie had so much potential, but ultimately not much of it was realized in the final product.

That was very good. One of the best arguments for this. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Goliath wrote:So I take it you have finally gotten over the whole 'Rapunzel has to be a peasant and Flynn a prince, like in the original fairytale' complaint that you used to have and have grown to like the film?

That switched element still doesn't feel "as Disney as it could be" because Disney never changed character backgrounds like that before but the backgrounds still feel classic so it's okay with me now. It's mainly the title that is still my concern.

And thanks for defending me. And I'm sorry before when I said what Flynn did for Rapunzel was stupid (when he chose not to get healed first). It wasn't stupid, he wanted to make sure he freed her above all. Or it was myopic, by both him and the directors, but that's okay.

Big One, it appears to me that we actually agree on most of the points, it's just that we use them to support two opposing arguments. So let's just agree to disagree -- except for this:

Big One wrote:

Mooky wrote:Why did it have to do anything new with hand-drawn animation to be considered a good film (and for the record, it did do something new -- it was animated on tablets, not on paper)? I'm baffled by the idea that technical advances in film-making should somehow make or break a film ("effects-driven cinema"), when there are much more important factors at play. It just says that audiences will eat up anything as long as it's "pretty".

Cause according to you, that fact that Tangled didn't do anythjing new for it's story means it wasn't as good as Princess and the Frog which took some more risky directions for a Disney film. I'm only using that argument, for the animation of the two films. Why is Princess and the Frog the exception here?

Because animation by default is a different thing from story; it's incomparable.

What bugs me the most about Louis and why he should've been kept with the original intention of him as a human is because atleast we could care about him as a character and for all that he went through, he should be rewarded to not only being turned back into a human, but also to be loved as the best trumpet player in all of New Orleans. I know the point to him (as he is in the final version) is that he should be who he and what he looks like, but for some reason that is something that's been done to death in not only Disney films, but other films in general that I really could care less about him (also every "humor" scene he's in makes me cringe) and why I love Ray a lot more and has a stronger purpose in the movie.

Oh, come on. Most every other Disney film takes place somewhere fictional whereas Princess and the Frog took place somewhere legit. Not that it's a true problem, but the whole fictional setting thing has been done almost literally to death for a lot of their films.

And don't get me wrong, I really love Alan Menken's music. But I don't necessarily think his work on Tangled really surpasses Randy's work on TPatF. Besides, at least Randy's music/score fits the era PatF's set in.

DisneyJedi wrote:Oh, come on. Most every other Disney film takes place somewhere fictional whereas Princess and the Frog took place somewhere legit. Not that it's a true problem, but the whole fictional setting thing has been done almost literally to death for a lot of their films.

And don't get me wrong, I really love Alan Menken's music. But I don't necessarily think his work on Tangled really surpasses Randy's work on TPatF. Besides, at least Randy's music/score fits the era PatF's set in.

Well to me, Randy is kind of blah at using songs as a means of storytelling (with a few exceptions in not only this movie but others as well) and not using his songs into the score is kind of off putting a little, but hey I agree that the style of the songs are based on the music of New Orleans but that doesn't mean they are the best written songs out there. But hey, if you disagree then I can't fight that.

I didn't say they were the best songs out there. But I do think they're more Disney-esque than the first rendition of 'When Will My Life Begin'. I mean, seriously. It sounds more like a Taylor Swift song than a Disney one.

DisneyJedi wrote:I didn't say they were the best songs out there. But I do think they're more Disney-esque than the first rendition of 'When Will My Life Begin'. I mean, seriously. It sounds more like a Taylor Swift song than a Disney one.

Yeah, WWMLB does stink as a "I Want" song but on the other hand, the rest of the songs in Tangled DO have the "Disney-esque" feeling to them especially the wonderful reprises of both Rapunzel and Gothel's songs. Randy's work never screams "Disney" but hey, to each their own.

I love "When Will My Life Begin" and find it Disneyesque! It doesn't stink at all! I wonder why people don't like it.

Disney Duster wrote:I love "When Will My Life Begin" and find it Disneyesque! It doesn't stink at all! I wonder why people don't like it.

Because it sounds more pop/rock-ish.

Disney Duster wrote:I love "When Will My Life Begin" and find it Disneyesque! It doesn't stink at all! I wonder why people don't like it.

I think it stinks because some of the lyrics by Glenn Slater could've been better and the song could've gone somewhere grand and beautiful like how Part of that World, Belle reprise, and Just Around the Riverbend. But the pop/gituar sound kind of feels like it's missing that touch that Alan was so great with in the past.

Mooky wrote:^^ Thank you, Musical Master. I do like Tangled, I just don't think it's as good as most people believe it to be. It has some severe conceptual flaws that are far too great for me to overlook, and I always have to shut my brain off if I want to enjoy the film (sadly, some parts of Frozen seem to be in the same vein). There's also the fact that Rapunzel's quirkiness comes off as more annoying than cute, and the rest of the characters are even worse, especially the animals. Mother Gothel is the only character I really like.

Same here. Imo Tangled is in the same vein as the Lion King, good but extremely overrated. While Princess & Frog wasn't a perfect gem either it had Tiana, Charlottle and Naveen and Rapunzel's persona just felt so 90's " Best day EVAR, like totally " ! To be really enjoyable.

* Frozen Spoilers *
Frozen seems to be doing this too with Anna and Hans relationship and Love Is A Open Door song. For crying out loud, we want the style and heart of the 90's movie back, not the attitude. :/

Tiana was more human like, because she had a passion and desire like most Disney characters but more today without the" trying to be cool-ness " that Tangled adores so damn much. Rapunzel had dreams as well, but her 90's ruins it for me personally, like Mooky says, she was more annoying than cute. The music of both movies could of been so much better and same with the storylines, to be honest I don't understand this Tangled VS POTF thing, because both of the movies are rough and awkward.

It's like grabbing two oranges and fighting over what one is better.

Another thing I love about TPATF is the artistic and creative visuals they produced. This is kind of a hand drawn vs CGI thing though since there's so much pressure to make things appear realistic with CGI :/ I hope they can get over that eventually and go back to creating original, creative art. I'm sure it can translate to CGI.

This is especially evident in the musical numbers though. While they're not the greatest of all time, they're still very beautiful. Almost There and Friends on the Other Side are especially gorgeous and unique, but the other songs have fun, engaging visuals as well. They really enhance the soundtrack for me.








Of course the lanterns were beautiful in Tangled, but I just feel CGI restricts the artists to the "real" world. Imagine "Colors of the Wind" if Pocahontas was CGI. Wouldn't have been nearly as beautiful. Again, I hope they can improve on this because CGI is definitely the norm now.