Tangled Discussion - Part V
Wow, some of the clips used for the When Will My Life Begin montage are extended here! Only by a seconds, but its great to see them in detail. Thanks dear!mokka456 wrote:Some new Tangled vids:
This is an amazing clip from someone who worked on tangled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZv7VBPph5c&hd=1
I found a 98% real english Tangled dvdrip (its a torrent)!! Who wants the link?
here's a preview:
http://www.imgcafe.com/view/uploads/tanglebrb.jpg
here's a preview:
http://www.imgcafe.com/view/uploads/tanglebrb.jpg
I went to see Tangled yesterday and having mulled over my feelings for 24 hours I've came to a conclusion. I think this is the best Disney film in 16 years if you exclude Lilo & Stitch. The songs were amazing, the characters were amazing and it was beautiful. I went in with really low expectations after the disappointments over the past 8-9 years and maybe that contributed to how much I enjoyed it. The only complaint I have is with the price of cinema tickets nowadays, a family ticket (2 adults, 2 children) is £30/$47.60. Even for a 3D film that price seems grossly inflated to me.
- Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14017
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
DisneyAnimation, first of all, there is opinion, and then there is what's right. Disney should stay Disney and be as faithful as they can to Walt's dream/essence. You agree with that, right? Right, so that is right.
Next, Disney changed this one more than they changed any movie in the past. I have explained it countless times. Countless. I don't want to have to explain it again, but basically, Disney changed all the main character's backgrounds, among other things. If you need me to, I could go into a very, very, very long going over of all their adaptions from previous works and explain why Tangled is the one that deviates the most from the original. But I'm not about to do that here and now unless you really want me to, and even then, I don't know if I have the time right now. But I know that Tangled is the most changed. You really just have to think more about it if you don't already realize it. I think very detailed and maybe you're just skimming over it, I don't know, but that's that.
Finally, to you and pinkrenata, I know that fairy tales have been passed down and changed over generations. But Disney always drew their sources from the well-known, what-is-considered-definitive versions of the fairy tales, at least in Amercia, which are pretty much the French and German versions, or whatever best-known versions their are. Then, Disney made what felt like the definitive versions of those.
What Disney made felt like the real versions. That's the key word there. They felt like them.
There's opinion, and then there's fact, and here's the fact: The past Disney fairy tales felt like the real, definitive versions. Usually to everyone of every age, but, if not to all adults, at least to all kids or also those who didn't know other versions. However, with this version, even kids and people unfamiliar with other versions can tell it isn't/doesn't feel like the real, original or definitive version.
The fact is, Disney used to make them feel like the real versions, one big part of it being the title, but also the rest, too.
You can tell me it doesn't matter because the film is good, but a point is still a point, I'm making it, and I'm actually going to say Disney being true to itself is more important than being good. Because Disney could make movies that are good, but are un-Disney, like some R-rated film about drugs or something. Yea, the movie might be good, but Disney wouldn't be Disney anymore, Disney would be dead. I don't want that to happen.
Next, Disney changed this one more than they changed any movie in the past. I have explained it countless times. Countless. I don't want to have to explain it again, but basically, Disney changed all the main character's backgrounds, among other things. If you need me to, I could go into a very, very, very long going over of all their adaptions from previous works and explain why Tangled is the one that deviates the most from the original. But I'm not about to do that here and now unless you really want me to, and even then, I don't know if I have the time right now. But I know that Tangled is the most changed. You really just have to think more about it if you don't already realize it. I think very detailed and maybe you're just skimming over it, I don't know, but that's that.
Finally, to you and pinkrenata, I know that fairy tales have been passed down and changed over generations. But Disney always drew their sources from the well-known, what-is-considered-definitive versions of the fairy tales, at least in Amercia, which are pretty much the French and German versions, or whatever best-known versions their are. Then, Disney made what felt like the definitive versions of those.
What Disney made felt like the real versions. That's the key word there. They felt like them.
There's opinion, and then there's fact, and here's the fact: The past Disney fairy tales felt like the real, definitive versions. Usually to everyone of every age, but, if not to all adults, at least to all kids or also those who didn't know other versions. However, with this version, even kids and people unfamiliar with other versions can tell it isn't/doesn't feel like the real, original or definitive version.
The fact is, Disney used to make them feel like the real versions, one big part of it being the title, but also the rest, too.
You can tell me it doesn't matter because the film is good, but a point is still a point, I'm making it, and I'm actually going to say Disney being true to itself is more important than being good. Because Disney could make movies that are good, but are un-Disney, like some R-rated film about drugs or something. Yea, the movie might be good, but Disney wouldn't be Disney anymore, Disney would be dead. I don't want that to happen.

-
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am
One again, STOP trying to educate people. I don't want you to explain it again because, for me personally, it doesn't adequately back up your points. You speak as if your the all-knowing guardian of Disney tradition when you are not.DisneyDuster wrote:I have explained it countless times. Countless. I don't want to have to explain it again, but basically, Disney changed all the main character's backgrounds, among other things.
I'm not skimming over anything. Once again, you dismiss someone's opinion as less informed than your own and impose your's as if it's god-given fact.DisneyDuster wrote:I think very detailed and maybe you're just skimming over it, I don't know, but that's that.
Who says that's fact? You might think that but that doesn't make it so. I was simply stating my opinion that Disney make significant changes to the stories they adapt. You don't like it, fine, but don't cast it aside and try to preach your views of Disney to me as if you know everything there is to know. Perhaps other people will agree with you, I don't, but I also don't want to be spoken to as if your lecturing me.DisneyDuster wrote:There's opinion, and then there's fact, and here's the fact: The past Disney fairy tales felt like the real, definitive versions.
We're not going to Guam, are we?
- Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14017
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
I just have to say that I'm not trying to make you feel bad DisneyAnimation, or anyone else. Tangled is pretty good, and some of it feels very Disney. That doesn't mean that it didn't do things that might be un-Disney. I am letting everyone know what I feel, and defending what I think is right. I don't want to see Disney, their traditions and who they are, just die, okay? Please. That's all I'm trying to do. You are reading my posts as something I'm not trying to do. I am not angry with you or anyone and I don't think anyone's not educated about it. I think that people are just not realizing that if Disney keeps changing, they won't be Disney anymore. I don't think anyone's stupid for it, I think I just notice and care about things other people don't, so I'm telling you about it. This is really important to me. Please let me talk about what is important to me. I'm not trying to be mean or condescending in any way to you or anyone.

-
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:00 am
Looking back at my last post, I sound a lot more aggressive than I intended to be. As I've said before, I share your passion for Disney but we differ on how we express that. I agree with many of your points on here and you haven't made me feel bad, I shouldn't have reacted as strongly as I did.
We're not going to Guam, are we?
- Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14017
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Thanks. And you know, I think I can see how the way I wrote that wasn't nice. Actually, in general, whenever I criticize the Disney company, Iguess there's always the chance I won't sound nice. I'm quite mad at a lot of things they've been doing these days. Anyway, I'm glad you don't feel bad and you made me feel better, I'm glad we're cool now. Your points and opinions are always valid, too, I should say. We debate, and sometimes think something is right/important beyond opinion, but everyone's point of view is still valid in it all.

- Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
Duster, I think you need to re-read over what you say when trying to make a discussion to make sure other posts understand what you're trying to say. That previous post you made that anger Disneyanimation-random numbers did give the impression that you were acting as if your opinion was definite and true compared others. It even almost gave me that impression, and I know you're not like that in reality.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
Oh, give up already! You'd sooner convert the Pope to atheïsm than you'd convince Duster of... well, any stone-cold, hard fact that doesn't fit his grossly distorted vision of Walt's films.DisneyAnimation88 wrote:One again, STOP trying to educate people. I don't want you to explain it again because, for me personally, it doesn't adequately back up your points. You speak as if your the all-knowing guardian of Disney tradition when you are not.
Disney Duster,
While I don't disagree that Disney needs to stay true to itself, if you read your Disney history, you would know that the company already went thru a phase, in the first 18 years after Walt died, where they had become so bent on doing everything the way "Walt would've wanted", that any bold decisionmaking was deemed "unDisneylike", which paradoxically caused them to fall behind in the entertainment industry.
Sometimes, Disney needs to do things differently in order to keep their products from becoming repetitive. That's I think Bolt should have done. Lasseter may not have liked the original American Dog version, but he should've given Chris Sanders the benefit since Lilo & Stitch is still the studio's last major triumph with hand-drawn animation.
Tangled could easily have done without the demographic pandering in its title change, but some of the story's basic remixing was to give the film a fresh feel, and provide a ninety-minute presentation. If you can believe it, the film still gets heat in some circles just for being Disney's umpteenth princess story.
The company today needs to find a balance between "respecting the Disney legacy" and "taking bold steps forward". They still seem to be recovering from an overshot of the latter.
While I don't disagree that Disney needs to stay true to itself, if you read your Disney history, you would know that the company already went thru a phase, in the first 18 years after Walt died, where they had become so bent on doing everything the way "Walt would've wanted", that any bold decisionmaking was deemed "unDisneylike", which paradoxically caused them to fall behind in the entertainment industry.
Sometimes, Disney needs to do things differently in order to keep their products from becoming repetitive. That's I think Bolt should have done. Lasseter may not have liked the original American Dog version, but he should've given Chris Sanders the benefit since Lilo & Stitch is still the studio's last major triumph with hand-drawn animation.
Tangled could easily have done without the demographic pandering in its title change, but some of the story's basic remixing was to give the film a fresh feel, and provide a ninety-minute presentation. If you can believe it, the film still gets heat in some circles just for being Disney's umpteenth princess story.
The company today needs to find a balance between "respecting the Disney legacy" and "taking bold steps forward". They still seem to be recovering from an overshot of the latter.
^^^ This.
And, for the one millionth time: no matter how many times you deny it by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "I can't hear you, lalalalala" ... Walt Disney, yes, THE Walt Disney, his Holyness, indeed DID change original stories A LOT when adapting them to the big screen. And no, there are no 'true' versions of age old fairy tales.
You can stamp your feet and hold your breath as long as you want, but you're not gonna change that fact. Deal with it.
And, for the one millionth time: no matter how many times you deny it by putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "I can't hear you, lalalalala" ... Walt Disney, yes, THE Walt Disney, his Holyness, indeed DID change original stories A LOT when adapting them to the big screen. And no, there are no 'true' versions of age old fairy tales.
You can stamp your feet and hold your breath as long as you want, but you're not gonna change that fact. Deal with it.
-
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:52 am
"Official" When Will My Life Begin Instrumental version =D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2oa5C2Iyrk
Could someone upload it in mp3????????? =DD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2oa5C2Iyrk
Could someone upload it in mp3????????? =DD
- Disney's Divinity
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16239
- Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:26 am
- Gender: Male
I think the problem here is that there is no way to do what Disney did or would do, because he’s not here to do it himself anymore. Of course, I don’t mean this as a “no holds barred” approach, where they just do whatever they want. But to ask them to constantly question themselves like that--and, worse, treating Disney like he was perfect when he was a person just like anyone else--is unrealistic. Not only would it not work from a business perspective because it would take way too much time for everyone involved to come to an agreement on what's most "Disney," but, again, because it’s impossible to do what Disney would’ve done.
To make this post more on-topic to Tangled, I personally feel that Tangled is very Disney--only, more “new Disney” than “old Disney.” The Broadway-esque revival of the ‘90s isn’t dead yet. And, to be honest, we won’t see a “new” golden age until it is. This would be more of a silver age really. In Disney’s time, there were two ages (with SW and Cinderella), which were both under seen by the same creative people. The ‘90s renaissance came from a whole new group of creators finally getting their chance without the old in their way, constantly telling them it has to be this way. Which is the same as it is now. Even if Tangled is the beginning of a new age of success for Disney (and I believe and hope it is), it will be similar to the ’90s. Because the same people who worked on those are still the ones (for the most charge) in-charge of things now. That isn’t to put down Tangled (any more than it’s to put down Cinderella), but there isn’t anything that new in Tangled. It’s a well-made, entertaining film, but it’s not a huge change either. The designs, the songs, the feel of the movie all scream “1990s.” Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing--I honestly enjoyed the ‘90s (except the sidekicks from Poca onwards). Plus, I'm thinking the audiences remember parts of the '90s fondly, too, even if they got sick of it because of the excess.
Moreover, that quote from the girls about Tangled being--to them--just “another version” but not the “real version” is kind of pointless to me. The public are a bunch of sheep. The only reason anyone would think this now is because of the Tangled title. If it had been called Rapunzel and the exact same movie, they’d say it felt like the “definitive version," whether or not that's true.
To make this post more on-topic to Tangled, I personally feel that Tangled is very Disney--only, more “new Disney” than “old Disney.” The Broadway-esque revival of the ‘90s isn’t dead yet. And, to be honest, we won’t see a “new” golden age until it is. This would be more of a silver age really. In Disney’s time, there were two ages (with SW and Cinderella), which were both under seen by the same creative people. The ‘90s renaissance came from a whole new group of creators finally getting their chance without the old in their way, constantly telling them it has to be this way. Which is the same as it is now. Even if Tangled is the beginning of a new age of success for Disney (and I believe and hope it is), it will be similar to the ’90s. Because the same people who worked on those are still the ones (for the most charge) in-charge of things now. That isn’t to put down Tangled (any more than it’s to put down Cinderella), but there isn’t anything that new in Tangled. It’s a well-made, entertaining film, but it’s not a huge change either. The designs, the songs, the feel of the movie all scream “1990s.” Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing--I honestly enjoyed the ‘90s (except the sidekicks from Poca onwards). Plus, I'm thinking the audiences remember parts of the '90s fondly, too, even if they got sick of it because of the excess.
Moreover, that quote from the girls about Tangled being--to them--just “another version” but not the “real version” is kind of pointless to me. The public are a bunch of sheep. The only reason anyone would think this now is because of the Tangled title. If it had been called Rapunzel and the exact same movie, they’d say it felt like the “definitive version," whether or not that's true.

Listening to most often lately:
Taylor Swift ~ ~ "The Fate of Ophelia"
Taylor Swift ~ "Eldest Daughter"
Taylor Swift ~ "CANCELLED!"
- pinkrenata
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: Mini Van Highway
- Contact:
Yes, dear Disney Duster. I understand what you're trying to say, so I'm really just looking for an argument here, <i>however</i> I will continue to aver that there is so such thing as a "true" or "definitive" fairy tale because there is, in my opinion, no such thing,Disney Duster wrote:Finally, to you and pinkrenata, I know that fairy tales have been passed down and changed over generations. But Disney always drew their sources from the well-known, what-is-considered-definitive versions of the fairy tales, at least in Amercia, which are pretty much the French and German versions, or whatever best-known versions their are. Then, Disney made what felt like the definitive versions of those.
But, that's just my way of thinking, anyway.

WIST #1 (The pinkrenata Edition) -- Kram Nebuer: *mouth full of Oreos* Why do you have a picture of Bobby Driscoll?
"I'm a nudist!" - Tommy Kirk
"I'm a nudist!" - Tommy Kirk
Yeah the quality is pretty decent!mokka456 wrote:I found a 98% real english Tangled dvdrip (its a torrent)!! Who wants the link?
here's a preview:
http://www.imgcafe.com/view/uploads/tanglebrb.jpg
It's a PPV Rip.






Here are some kinda random screencaps in a rar file (spoilers for some): http://www.sendspace.com/file/s01d7u
Sure, here you go!RodryCroft wrote:"Official" When Will My Life Begin Instrumental version =D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2oa5C2Iyrk
Could someone upload it in mp3????????? =DD

http://www.sendspace.com/file/yxbjq7
-
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
THANK YOU.Disney's Divinity wrote:Moreover, that quote from the girls about Tangled being--to them--just “another version” but not the “real version” is kind of pointless to me. The public are a bunch of sheep. The only reason anyone would think this now is because of the Tangled title. If it had been called Rapunzel and the exact same movie, they’d say it felt like the “definitive version," whether or not that's true.
If Snow White had been called Dwarfed then well, you get the point. Who says Disney needs to make the definitive version of these stories anyway? Isn't it their job to make Disneyfied versions of these tales? Who honestly cares about what the general public considers to be the definitive Rapunzel. Is anyone seriously scared someone will make another Rapunzel film anytime soon and top Tangled??
There aren't even that many adaptations to begin with and with Tangled being so damn good, I doubt anyone would try their hand at another adaptation.
This whole argument is beyond stupid and I seriously wonder if Disney Duster ever gets tired of it.... I mean, what is the point and who cares?