Disney, DVD, and Beyond Forums
https://dvdizzy.com/forum/
The Japanese One Sheet can be found with text and with just the keyartRodryCroft wrote:Best Tangled trailer EVER!!!
In this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRafzLhJ ... re=related ) appears another Japanese poster. A GREAT POSTER! I want it!!!!! Could someone find it??? Mobje maybe? xD
So are you saying Gothel speaks like a 2010 teenager? Because the slang Gothel uses doesn't sound like the teenage talk Rapunzel is using.phan258 wrote:
You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree I guess, because she IS being in character. Gothel is not exactly the most "proper" speaker in the world-- "Mumsy?" "Dummy?" etc. I'm sure she's given Rapunzel plenty of examples of slang, aside from allllll those books the girl reads....and like I said before, since the target audience for this movie is children, Rapunzel needs to be a girl little kids, especially little girls, can relate to.
You misunderstood me. The more lifelike she is, the better. The more realistic and believable as a character she is, the better. But when you make her a modern teen and then put her in the setting of this movie it actually makes her less real because it doesn't fit right.phan258 wrote:
You said something before about her being "too real"---that has to be the first time I have ever heard someone complain that a fictional character is too realistic. That sense of "she could be an actual person you could meet in real life" is what EVERY storyteller strives for! Whether or not you like that person is up to you, but I'll never understand how making a character too lifelike and easy to relate to could ever be less than amazing.
Marisol wrote:So are you saying Gothel speaks like a 2010 teenager? Because the slang Gothel uses doesn't sound like the teenage talk Rapunzel is using.phan258 wrote:
You and I are just going to have to agree to disagree I guess, because she IS being in character. Gothel is not exactly the most "proper" speaker in the world-- "Mumsy?" "Dummy?" etc. I'm sure she's given Rapunzel plenty of examples of slang, aside from allllll those books the girl reads....and like I said before, since the target audience for this movie is children, Rapunzel needs to be a girl little kids, especially little girls, can relate to.
You misunderstood me. The more lifelike she is, the better. The more realistic and believable as a character she is, the better. But when you make her a modern teen and then put her in the setting of this movie it actually makes her less real because it doesn't fit right.phan258 wrote:
You said something before about her being "too real"---that has to be the first time I have ever heard someone complain that a fictional character is too realistic. That sense of "she could be an actual person you could meet in real life" is what EVERY storyteller strives for! Whether or not you like that person is up to you, but I'll never understand how making a character too lifelike and easy to relate to could ever be less than amazing.
Also, I did not say she was "too real". I said they did not have to make her a real girl from 2010 that you would meet at the mall.
Yep, instead people are quickly categorising it as a Shrek-type flick. He also refers to Tangled having the "Disney essence." Somebody has been reading Duster's posts, me thinks.The name change seemed to reek of corporate interference — exactly what Mr. Lasseter had promised to banish. Then trailers for the movie played down the musical elements, prompting fresh complaints. Mr. Lasseter said he was confident in the marketing decisions, particularly the call about music. “I didn’t want people to rush to categorize it — ‘Oh, that’s one of those Disney musicals,’ ” he said.
Like it or not, Shrek-type films make serious $$. Traditionally animated Disney musicals haven't proved that recently, regardless of quality. The first trailer that people hated is not the tone of the film, but rather the tone of what Disney Marketing wants the general public to think it is. Which happens in cinema quite often.estefan wrote:Interesting article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/movie ... .html?_r=1
This quote is particular "hmm...":
Yep, instead people are quickly categorising it as a Shrek-type flick. He also refers to Tangled having the "Disney essence." Somebody has been reading Duster's posts, me thinks.The name change seemed to reek of corporate interference — exactly what Mr. Lasseter had promised to banish. Then trailers for the movie played down the musical elements, prompting fresh complaints. Mr. Lasseter said he was confident in the marketing decisions, particularly the call about music. “I didn’t want people to rush to categorize it — ‘Oh, that’s one of those Disney musicals,’ ” he said.
Rapunzel pretty much blurts it out in the movie after Flynn says something more revealing. Flynn, of course, looks at her like she's crazy.Gandalf wrote:The only thing about this trailer: When Rapunzel says, "I have magic hair that glows", I couldn't keep from laughing. AT the line, not because of it. Does it really come off that cheezy in the film?
Wow. It's beautiful. They really have good taste for marketing movies in Japan. And BTW, it does look sort of like a painting in my opinion.
Ha! I live in mining country, and everybody sort of has their own style; the grand irony is, of course, that most of the much older miners from this area ARE the clean-shaven types.
bradhig wrote:Another conman type hero. He looks like a near copy of Dimitri from Anastasia. Exterminate.
estefan wrote: Yep, instead people are quickly categorising it as a Shrek-type flick. He also refers to Tangled having the "Disney essence." Somebody has been reading Duster's posts, me thinks.
that's a difference enough. 