Perhaps people over ten years from now, the same going towards The Princess and the Frog?Sky Syndrome wrote:Members have been posting positive reviews they've found on the web for two months. What movie fan wouldn't know about Tangled?mariadny wrote:They have to give the Oscar to Menken.
Without Tangled in any other category, he has to win.
It's necesary, Tangled needs some recognition
Wait, wait, wait...PixarFan2006 wrote:Well, Tangled did not get nominated for best animated feature.
Or because the songs were incredibly weak. Man, this forum has GOT to get over itself! There is no big conspiracy just because a mediocre song doesn't win an award!atlanticaunderthesea wrote:And we all know it wont get Best Song, as the Acadamy seem to hate Menken now for some reason.
I agree! That's why I sometimes hate award shows so much. People think that only the critic's opinion matters. I still watch them, but I don't let someone else's opinion change my mind. I hate how people think just because Tangled didn't get a spot, it means that it's not an amazing movie.mariadny wrote:Tangled:
Best animated film of 2010
I ignore The Academy.
Disney used to make them feel like the real versions of the fairy tales. YES, they changed them a little bit, but they still were close enough to the originals to feel like they were the real versions of the fairy tales. And the title was an indication of that.Anyway, anyway..I took my 5 year old twins to Tangled today and they were both literally enchanted by it. They forgot all about the treats I brought for them to snack on and I had to (sternly) nudge them to tempt them with a jelly baby. When we left they were full of questions. They knew other versions of the fairytale and told me that this one was 'just a story, not the real Rapunzel', but that they liked it better anyway.
That is perhaps your opinion, but any studio can make a film that peopel like better. People liked Alvin and the Chipmunks and its sequel better than a lot of other, much better movies. So what really matters is Disney staying Disney, making what feel like the real versions of fairy tales.MutantEnemy wrote:This is the most important part.They knew other versions of the fairytale and told me that this one was 'just a story, not the real Rapunzel', but that they liked it better anyway.
I already explained that Disney's versions were close enough to the originals to feel like the real versions of the fairy tales. That can happen. A version of something can still feel like a "real" version. The fact that those little kids could tell a difference between this version of Rapunzel feeling not like the real one and past versions of Disney fairy tales being the real versions says it all.Victurtle wrote:Please justify yourself. What is a fake version of a classic? Version by definition means an adaptation, as of a book or play into a film, thus there cannot be a 'non-real' version.Disney Duster wrote:Oh Disney...Oh Disney. When you used to make what felt like 'the real' versions of the classics.
I don't see what is so Shrekish about Tangled at all. The movie shares much so elements with the original it's one of the more faithful adaptions in their canon.
I know, but there is also the opinion that Disney's versions are so good that they should be the definitive versions. This is how a lot of people feel, it's a testament to how good Disney's films are. I felt that way about all versions until The Princess and the Frog and now Tangled. But kids should pick up the books and read the real version anyway. I don't see how Tangled would make children want to read the original more than any other Disney film...?Wonderlicious wrote:Well, I suppose it could at least encourage children to read the originals, as opposed to just watching a film version and lazily taking that as the definitive version. Helps stop child illiteracy, methinks.
As I said already, any time you make a version or adaptation of something, it has to change a little. But even though they changed the stories a little, in the past, Disney still retained something that made them feel like the real versions. But that didn't happen with Tangled. Not for these kids. And not quite for me... Not for a lot of people, when Disney's past films felt like the real versions for everyone.DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Disney have changed every story they've adapted, as you know. What qualifies as a "real" version?
They'd have to be people that don't have Disney fanatics annoying the snot out of them by jabbering about Disney's filmography all the time.DisneyJedi wrote:Perhaps people over ten years from now, the same going towards The Princess and the Frog?Sky Syndrome wrote: Members have been posting positive reviews they've found on the web for two months. What movie fan wouldn't know about Tangled?
Yes, and your entire post is simply your opinion. Sometimes you really do come across as if your trying to educate the rest of us. So Disney changed the title and parts of the original story? Get over it, the film has been incredibly successful regardless of that. Have you not read the original versions of the The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty and The Jungle Book? They were changed just as much as Tangled, perhaps even more so, so what's the problem we're all supposed to have with Tangled?DisneyDuster wrote:That is perhaps your opinion, but any studio can make a film that peopel like better. People liked Alvin and the Chipmunks and its sequel better than a lot of other, much better movies. So what really matters is Disney staying Disney, making what feel like the real versions of fairy tales.
Again, you're making an assumption of what everyone thinks based off your own opinion, as well as two children who actually said that they preferred the film to the original version. As I said, Tangled has been extremely successful, regardless of whatever awards it receives, so what does it matter if the story was changed?DisneyDuster wrote:As I said already, any time you make a version or adaptation of something, it has to change a little. But even though they changed the stories a little, in the past, Disney still retained something that made them feel like the real versions. But that didn't happen with Tangled. Not for these kids. And not quite for me... Not for a lot of people, when Disney's past films felt like the real versions for everyone.
The nature of fairy tales in and of themselves is that there is no "real" version. These are stories that have been passed down and changed over the course of hundreds (in many cases, thousands) of years. Some versions were written down -- does that make them more real than the others? In fact, the Grimms Bros. cleaned up the stories a bit and decided which aspects of a story to keep, and which parts to discard. But you like fairy tales, so I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.Disney Duster wrote:Disney used to make them feel like the real versions of the fairy tales. YES, they changed them a little bit, but they still were close enough to the originals to feel like they were the real versions of the fairy tales. And the title was an indication of that.
Thanks. Do you also have the cover story about 'Tangled' inside the magazine to post it for us?mariadny wrote:Tangled special in a Spanish magazine
I will post itSotiris wrote:Thanks. Do you also have the cover story about 'Tangled' inside the magazine to post it for us?mariadny wrote:Tangled special in a Spanish magazine
Thanks. I'm looking forward to it!mariadny wrote:I will post it
It's a special about the 50 Disney Classics, too.
It seems very interesting.
But... *who* thinks that way? I'm pretty sure most people couldn't care less about awards. I mean, the movie has a 8.1 rating on IMDb and a 89% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes, with 129 positive reviews and only 16 negative ones. The only ones who scream bloody murder over the Oscar nominations, are the people on UD. Yes, it would've been nice if Rapunzel had gotten at least a nomination, but no people will think less of it because it didn't.Tangled wrote:I agree! That's why I sometimes hate award shows so much. People think that only the critic's opinion matters. I still watch them, but I don't let someone else's opinion change my mind. I hate how people think just because Tangled didn't get a spot, it means that it's not an amazing movie.
Disney Duster wrote:But Tangled is different from what Disney is known for, they twisted what they are known for.
Disney used to make them feel like the real versions of the fairy tales. YES, they changed them a little bit, but they still were close enough to the originals to feel like they were the real versions of the fairy tales. And the title was an indication of that.
So what really matters is Disney staying Disney, making what feel like the real versions of fairy tales.
I already explained that Disney's versions were close enough to the originals to feel like the real versions of the fairy tales. That can happen. A version of something can still feel like a "real" version. The fact that those little kids could tell a difference between this version of Rapunzel feeling not like the real one and past versions of Disney fairy tales being the real versions says it all.
As I said already, any time you make a version or adaptation of something, it has to change a little. But even though they changed the stories a little, in the past, Disney still retained something that made them feel like the real versions. But that didn't happen with Tangled. Not for these kids. And not quite for me... Not for a lot of people, when Disney's past films felt like the real versions for everyone.
You completely negated Woody's plight in TS2. That was that Toys 8dont* last forever. How many playthings from the 1800s are still around today without any refurbishing?Disney Duster wrote:Wait...Tangled...didn't even get nominated...for Best Animated Feature...when there aren't that many animated features?
Wow.
And Toy Story 3 got nominated for Best Picture.
Huh.
Maybe it's because Disney used to make movies like Beauty and the Beast that got nominated for Best Picture. Beauty and the Beast, with a title and story befitting the real feel of the real fairy tale. The Disney tradition.
I don't think Toy Story 3 is better than Tangled, Tangled had me do the rare thing for me of shedding tears in the end as Rapunzel tries desperately to save her love when it seems hopeless. In Toy Story 3, the toys assign their fate to death and look sadly into a fire for a very very long time and then get rescued and then we're supposed to just accept toys go on to new owners and live forever as their past owners die and what do they do, forget their owners, do they have favorite owners? What?! That's bad, and not as good as Tangled's sense-making, non-disturbing drama.
But nominated songs couldn't be sung live at this thing last year. I still would have liked to have seen Anika sing "Almost There" from The Princess and the Frog.robster16 wrote:Apparently Zach and Mandy will be performing "I See The Light" live at this years Academy Award show!!!
source: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnoth ... 42484.html
Apparently it's been confirmed by Zach's publicist, so it's not just a rumor, it's actually happening!Sky Syndrome wrote:But nominated songs couldn't be sung live at this thing last year. I still would have liked to have seen Anika sing "Almost There" from The Princess and the Frog.robster16 wrote:Apparently Zach and Mandy will be performing "I See The Light" live at this years Academy Award show!!!
source: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnoth ... 42484.html
Mainly because Adam Shankman is a terrible producer and shouldn't be allowed near the Oscars again. When the material you give to Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin to perform isn't funny, you know you're in trouble.Sky Syndrome wrote: But nominated songs couldn't be sung live at this thing last year.
