DVDizzy Forum

That tower...is perfect, and beautiful. They got creative with the design, and creative for how Rapunzel's life would be in it. And look at how Rapunzel got creative herself, look at how she stylized those trees! It feels pretty classic, and even artsy, like Sleeping Beauty...

But her costumes are terrible! They should have stuck with the ones from earlier concepts! And actually, her purple top reminds me of Ariel's, it looks like theres a bra with creases and folds like her shells in the bodice! That's Glen Keane's designing, I guess? At least the sleeves should look like how they did in the previous concepts...!

Maybe it just looks this bad on the dolls...

Oh, and I like that she has a chameleon friend! Pretty original, and I bet it connects to the fact that she paints and loves colors...

A Chameleon as a animal character in this movie??? I'm f-ing sold. I will definitely watch this movie. I don't care about the title any more.

So they're moving away from girly with the movie, but keeping it in the toy line?

We need those Disney Heroes figures!

Forgot to say, thank you robster19.

Two things:

If it's just the title as some of you say, and it's the movie that counts, that also means the title didn't need to change, and why not make it the best sensical one (Rapunzel)?

And, would you all agree that a little boy wouldn't know what the movie is about, and if he wants to see it, from either the title Tangled or the title Rapunzel?

But he will know what the movie's about and if he wants to see it from the trailers and commercials?

And if he knew what Rapunzel was about, and didn't like that story, wouldn't he figure it out from the trailers anyway, so the title couldn't fool him?

Why does everyone think that they're changing the movie to be less girly too. I think it's way too late in the game to change the actual story since animation already began. They never officially said that the story was going to change and that it would primarily focus on Flynn. They might be changing the name to be less girly and they might end up advertising it with Flynn in mind, but they never said that Rapunzel becomes a secondary character. I think we all need to wait to hear some official news about the story and movie in general first, then we could all complain all we want .

Disney Duster wrote:If it's just the title as some of you say, and it's the movie that counts, that also means the title didn't need to change, and why not make it the best sensical one (Rapunzel)?

And, would you all agree that a little boy wouldn't know what the movie is about, and if he wants to see it, from either the title Tangled or the title Rapunzel?

But he will know what the movie's about and if he wants to see it from the trailers and commercials?

And if he knew what Rapunzel was about, and didn't like that story, wouldn't he figure it out from the trailers anyway, so the title couldn't fool him?

I think Disney will end up basing a lot in commercials and advertisements on Flynn. That way Disney would be sort of tricking younger boys, whereas older audiences would know it was about Rapunzel. And I do think that many boys do know the story of the girl with long hair, and that "Rapunzel" as a title and would be much more recognizable to younger boys, resulting in them knowing that it was a princess movie. Kids are very easy to trick and fool. I don't think that many boys (I'm talking about younger ones again) would guess that Tangled is about Rapunzel. You have to remember younger kids don't watch commercials analytically but rather physically (don't know if this coming out the right way) meaning that they watch for jokes, and things like that, rather than story. Just a personal opinion.

PS I do wish that they kept Rapunzel as the title, so I'm not against anyone here.

I've been pretty quiet about this so I will speak my two cents now...

Consider me in the group that doesn't like the new title. But I'm not that upset that I want to burn down the Disney Studios and protest everything that they do because of that. Maybe it's because I've argued so many times before that I grew tired of it, but I rather wait till the film is released before I try to predict how successful it will be.

Coming up with a title is one of the hardest things when writing a story. Yes, sometimes you have enough to create a compelling title, but it's a challenge to come up with something that's easy to remember and be creative at the same time. I will bet anything that Disney had to burn the midnight oil just to come up with a title that is creative and doesn't target any specific audience.

"Secrets of the Tower" sounds good, but the thing is that while the tower is an important of the story it isn't a character. I am sure Disney tried hard to create a title that talks about the main character while still being vague enough that no one figures out its a fairy tale. "Tangled!" is the result of many desperate measures. It's the best title that could describe the story without giving away it's a princess story.

So yeah, call me being apologetic towards Disney but coming up with a title isn't as easy as you may think.

I'm disappointed in the title change but as long as the rest of the movie is enjoyable, I'm willing to let it pass. However, it's unfortunate because Rapunzel is a classy and memorable title.

toonaspie wrote:In terms of quantity TPatF got standard marketing: previews, theme park promotions, etc but I think the quality and the approach was very lacking.

I agree. The trailers emphasize the comedic elements a tad too much while sacrificing the more emotional scenes that they could've used. The comedy emphasis on trailers has been going on for quite some time, and it's truly unfortunate because it paints a very different picture of the movie in question. To give an example from Kung Fu Panda, it was marketed in a very comedy-oriented, obnoxious way in trailers but the actual film turned out to be much more beautiful and touching. Thus the trailers of it were very misleading.

If Disney wishes to keep the comedic approach in trailers, so be it. But couldn't they make a compromise? For example, showing comedic trailers before kid-oriented films and then showing a little more adult trailers (e.g. concentrating on the emotional core of the story instead of relying on jokes) before teen/adult films. That way this two-way marketing approach would give kids the comedy they want to see and give a honest, touching look at the emotional core of the film for adults.

Candy-Bonita95 wrote:Alan Menken's music can attract hippies and fans.

Care to elaborate why Menken's music would attract hippies in particular?

That tower is so charming! I guess Rapunzel often gets Tangled climbing up and down those stairs...Kitchen, Dining Room, Drawing Room, Bedroom...am I wrong or a little space is missing??? :DDD...Ok, I guess there's enough playground for a playset, but I hope that the movie would solve the question...how about a loving tie to Snow White with Rapunzel yelling at Flynn to enter the bathroom and wash his hands before having dinner?? I would love it!....

http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/tangled.html#comments

A comment:

The Eighth Dwarf wrote:

Perspective from the inside:

We hate the new title. We love the film.

It IS the classic Rapunzel story (though not Glen’s dark version). The title is all marketing spin…

***

robster16 wrote:Disney’s Rapunzel Braiding Friends™ Hair Braider

Pocahontas had a similar-type doll, with Meeko braiding her hair, I believe.

robster16 wrote:recreate her magical hair scenes with a 30-inch hair extension that can clip onto any Rapunzel doll’s hair

I must say, I'm relieved by the available hair extension; obviously the dolls won't have 70 feet of hair, but seeing them made me wonder if Rapunzel will get her hair cut while frolicking with Flynn. (Hey, neat name for a sequel...) So I'm glad that a hair extention is available...so Rapunzel can have her really long hair...

Thanks for sharing all that, Rob!

blackcauldron85 wrote:http://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/tangled.html#comments

A comment:

The Eighth Dwarf wrote:

Perspective from the inside:

We hate the new title. We love the film.

It IS the classic Rapunzel story (though not Glen’s dark version). The title is all marketing spin…

So the artists hate the title, the fans hate the title, the general public seems to hate it.... remind me again, why was this movie given a new title???

robster16 wrote: remind me again, why was this movie given a new title???

So little boys won't know that it's a princess film...why name the film a girl's name when it can have an actiony-boyish name?!? Because Disney thinks that TP&tF did so poorly, they refuse to let their films be marketed as girly at all now.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

robster16 wrote: remind me again, why was this movie given a new title???

So little boys won't know that it's a princess film...why name the film a girl's name when it can have an actiony-boyish name?!? Because Disney thinks that TP&tF did so poorly, they refuse to let their films be marketed as girly at all now.

I'll put money on it that they'll try to censor and hide Rapunzel from the trailer. They'll bleep her name, and blur her everytime she enters the screen.

"No, seriously, this is not a girl character and her name is certainly not Rapunzel. Oh, look, here's an infamous bandit boys, his name is Flynn, oooooh, a bandit named Flynn don't you just love him. Look at how tough and manly he is... we've got action figures of him you know"

robster16 wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote: So little boys won't know that it's a princess film...why name the film a girl's name when it can have an actiony-boyish name?!? Because Disney thinks that TP&tF did so poorly, they refuse to let their films be marketed as girly at all now.

I'll put money on it that they'll try to censor and hide Rapunzel from the trailer. They'll bleep her name, and blur her everytime she enters the screen.

"No, seriously, this is not a girl character and her name is certainly not Rapunzel. Oh, look, here's an infamous bandit boys, his name is Flynn, oooooh, a bandit named Flynn don't you just love him. Look at how tough and manly he is... we've got action figures of him you know"

I also wanna bet that they will not let us hear anything of the music in the trailer. You know, try to hide the fact that it's a musical. Because TPATF has taught us that people hate musicals. That's of course why The Lion King and Mamma Mia tanked so hard at the Box Office.

Whoever is running things now is kind of mentally ill.

Oh come on!!!I rather be in a theater filled with stoned hippies,teens that are making out,people who enjoyed the fairy-tale,Disney fans,and old grannies than a theater filled with whiny kids.
The only reason why Alvin 2 was a success because of the pop culture references.Besides, Alvin 2 was even MORE girlier than TPATF.
factors:
1.puppy love comes true

2."Single Ladies"by the Chippettes

3.The Chipmunks were literally flirting with all the chicks in they're school(human girls.ew!)

PatrickvD wrote: I also wanna bet that they will not let us hear anything of the music in the trailer. You know, try to hide the fact that it's a musical. Because TPATF has taught us that people hate musicals. That's of course why The Lion King and Mamma Mia tanked so hard at the Box Office.

Whoever is running things now is kind of mentally ill.

That's a bit simplistic. Firstly The Lion King was 15 odd years ago. A lot changes. Secondly, I doubt most of the Mamma Mia! audience is what Disney is aiming for. In the UK at least, Mamma Mia! played mostly to housewives, not young children or families (indeed, it could be argued that the subject of the film wasn't exactly family friendly). You'd have been better off choosing - say - Hairspray for example. But while that was successful for a musical it wasn't exactly successful for a teen-oriented family film - it just did better than most people expected so was seen as a huge success.

Even High School Musical 3 (appox $90m) wasn't the success I suspect most people at Disney were expecting given the unprecedented success the franchise had attained on TV. Likewise Hannah Montana (approx $80m). Considering the ubiquity of the TV showings and hype for both, I think we can conclude that the films underperformed (but at the same time will have been incredibly profitable for Disney still).

I'm not going to make a sweeping statement that musicals aren't appealing - they obviously are or else HSM wouldn't have generated the following it has - but I don't think musicals and having to pay for your entertainment are a sure-fire success. Look at all the successful musicals in theatres from the past decade or so - they're all based on existing properties or songs. Nobody has had the confidence to launch a major new musical on Broadway or London's West End for ages - even Andrew Lloyd Webber is resorting to a sequel for The Phantom of the Opera!

Its probably a marketing thing, but musicals today rely on people knowing the music before they see the film (even HSM3 and Hannah Montana which had lots of pre-release publicity for the music, video games etc). Mamma Mia had the advantage of well known ABBA tunes (well, perhaps bar 1 or 2 of the lesser tracks which slipped in).

Musicals today are more about a shared, communal, interactive experience. The "rebirth" of the musical with Moulin Rouge and even Chicago (Chicago is best known for All That Jazz) set the tone.

After seeing those toys I find it a little disturbing, perhaps annoying, that we're getting another fairy tale princess with cutesy animal friends.

Yes it's been done almost every single time by Disney but the post Walt-era was able to do more unique things with it with each film hasnt it?

These animal friends almost feel like something straight out Sleeping Beauty where they have no personalities or importance to the plot whatsoever.

It's weirding me out.

toonaspie wrote:After seeing those toys I find it a little disturbing, perhaps annoying, that we're getting another fairy tale princess with cutesy animal friends.

Well, these are just the toys. I mean, they might even be part of the Princess Collection, and we all know that that isn't necessarily representative of the films that the toys are based on...Rapunzel is supposed to be all about girl power and whipping people with her hair, so I mean, she might not be as sticky sweet as her toys make her out to be...

Ok, I love the dolls. I just wish that her face looked more "Disney animated" like. I agree she looks too much like a Barbie. Flynn looks hot though.

Btw, back to the movie after all this title debate.

I hope this movie also features seasons and most of all winter scenes with lots of snow. Thematically it would certainly fit the story.

*spoilers*

As it was already revealed, Rapunzel's hair is magical and the witch uses it to keep her youthfull looks. So the theme of transformation and growing older could be reflected well in seasons, with fall and falling leaves and wintery cold representing growing older and spring and summer symbolising rejuvination. I also think the character of a chameleon was chosen to sort of represent the idea of change and transformation. Lots of metaphors.

*end of spoilers*

The last Disney animated movie featuring actual seasonal changes and winter scenes was "Brother Bear". But I always found the seasonal changes that were partof Beauty and the Beast were a huge part of it's charm, and also contributed to it's metaphorical meaning.

toonaspie wrote:After seeing those toys I find it a little disturbing, perhaps annoying, that we're getting another fairy tale princess with cutesy animal friends.

Yes it's been done almost every single time by Disney but the post Walt-era was able to do more unique things with it with each film hasnt it?

These animal friends almost feel like something straight out Sleeping Beauty where they have no personalities or importance to the plot whatsoever.

It's weirding me out.

She has a horse(which has been done before) and a chameleon. I don't recall any princess having a reptile as animal partner.