DVDizzy Forum

Super Aurora wrote:

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.

3 words: Mulan and Mushu

(although I guess Mulan wouldn't fit under the official disney Princess to some people...)

BREAKING NEWS!!!

Here are the first images of the re-imagined Rapunzel TANGLED!

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

You're right. And Sebastian was such a huge departure from the past, too.

Anyway, I don't mind the use of animal side characters, but the film is looking a lot like Sleeping Beauty to me--except without the aesthetic appeal and a leading actress with singing talent (yes, now I'm just becoming mean-spirited; it's too fun. ). The princess and the prince are both generic, and the witch is the only interesting part. Maleficent? But, to be fair, that could be said about most Disney fairy tales, to varying degrees.

Actually, I do like the really long hair for her (I think most of it's going to have to be cut off by the end--maybe as a sign that she isn't going to help her 'mother' with her beauty complex anymore) and it's interesting that they've never had a princess with braids before.

And, honestly, the prince looks as if he could be the lovechild of Prince Phillip and Prince Eric (with maybe a dash of Prince Charming thrown in for good measure)--Eric with darker skin. He doesn't appear to have facial hair on the doll, so maybe the products aren't to be trusted. This character has been done before, in design and characteristics.

All I can say is that witch better be damn awesome.

pap64 wrote:

That's awesome!

***

SPOILERS about someone else's comment:

robster16 wrote:As it was already revealed, Rapunzel's hair is magical and the witch uses it to keep her youthfull looks.

Are we sure that that's in this version of the story?

END of SPOILERS

***

Disney's Divinity wrote: and a leading actress with singing talent

She sings wonderfully. I don't see you with a record deal.

Disney's Divinity wrote:The princess and the prince are both generic

Do you mean generic-looking? Because, since the movie isn't out yet, we can't know their personalities for sure.

Disney's Divinity wrote:He doesn't appear to have facial hair on the doll, so maybe the products aren't to be trusted.

Maybe he shaves at some point(s) in the movie...he is a guy, after all.

I bet the witch won't disappoint. She'll probably be darker looking like most villains, but if her character description from long ago will play a part, she might not have the "she sure is the villain" look that a lot of typical black and white villains have.

Super Aurora wrote:

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.

Unless you count Louis the Alligator.

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

You're right. And Sebastian was such a huge departure from the past, too. [/quote]
I always thought Sebastian as King Triton's companion not Ariel's. Sebastian isn't a reptile either like I was saying.

Disney's Divinity wrote: The princess and the prince are both generic, and the witch is the only interesting part.

Huh? How are they generic? They look far from generic too me. Especially Flynn. And the witch we have not even seen a picture of yet.
.

Disney's Divinity wrote:He doesn't appear to have facial hair on the doll, so maybe the products aren't to be trusted.

yes he does. Look closer at his chin. it's small but it's there. It's just very very low on the chin and small.

DisneyJedi wrote: Unless you count Louis the Alligator.

Point taken, but Lois wasn't like how Cinderella had bunch of mice at her disposal or Aurora with her merry band of forest creatures(as well with Snow White). As for later princesses, Belle had a horse(non talking), Jasmine had a Tiger (non talking). Only one with talking animal companions is Ariel.

blackcauldron85 wrote: ***

SPOILERS about someone else's comment:

robster16 wrote:As it was already revealed, Rapunzel's hair is magical and the witch uses it to keep her youthfull looks.

Are we sure that that's in this version of the story?

END of SPOILERS

***

Well according to the official character synopsis from that casting call released not too long ago it is. And the other character descriptions of the other character still fit, so why would hers be any different:

SPOILERS

Mother Gothel

Female 40-65, funny but controlling, manipulative, and over-protective with a great singing voice. She's all of our mothers - but worse. Backstory: Mother Gothel stole Rapunzel from her rightful parents eighteen years ago, and has kept her locked in a tower ever since so that the world won't steal the power from her magical hair. As for the power of that hair,Mother Gothel keeps herself young and ageless. While it's easy to see Mother Gothel as a Mommy Dearest villain (and she is), she's more complex than that. She really does LOVE Rapunzel, or at least thinks she does. She sees herself as Rapunzel's protector and believes, that she has to live forever because no one will ever be able to protect or love Rapunzel the way that she can. Thus, we have the most co-dependent mother-daughter relationship in history. And when the teenage girl begins to separate herself, Mother Gothel slowly descends into madness... and will stop at nothing to get her little girl back in her tower.

END SPOILERS

I was actually hoping they wouldn't use animal sidekicks at least this once, and focus entirely on Rapunzel and Flynn, wishful thinking. The dolls are cute, but now Flynn definitely looks like Tulio's chubbier brother.

From the cartoonbrew comments section:

Robster says:

@ The Eighth Dwarf:
So, the artists hate the title, the fans despise it, the general public seems to hate it (after reading responses on movie related forums, etc)… Remind me again, why was this movie given a new, horrendous title?!?

The Eighth Dwarf says:
@Robster
Because the leadership are scared that Disney has been pigeon-holed as “movies for girls.” They feel “Rapunzel” has a stigma which instantly alienates boys, teen boys, and young adults (both male and female).
We’ve stated our case. We feel this film is worthy of the name “Rapunzel.” They still chose “Tangled.”
From what I’ve heard, Glen also opposes the title change. This is a John, Ed, and Roy decision.
As a side note, I feel they are dwelling on a title problem, when they should be dwelling on a release date problem.

This is a good point, they're dwelling way too much on the title when there are are other marketing aspects they should be dealing with, like the fact that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" opens a week later, are they seriously not paying attentiont to that? Because if they don't it's gonna the third in a row, after releasing "Bolt" next to "Twilight", and "The Princess and the Frog" next to "Avatar".

Again, what is wrong with marketing this particular film to girls? This is pretty much the audience that's making all their money right now (Hannah Montana, Disney Princesses). And if anything they should try to come with two marketing campaigns: One for children who are still discovering Disney movies, and one for young adults who grew up watching Disney movies, and with that I don't mean the one they used for PATF, since all they did was reference the big four and say "Hey! Remember when we made this four movies? Weren't they awesome? This one is awesome too! We're not gonna tell you why, but look! We made awesome movies like 15 years ago! Please watch this movie". I mean, wasn't that the whole point of creating things like D23, appeal to the nostalgia factor? Am I missing something here? Did they forget this is their 50th film?

At least is good to know that this isn't going unnoticed to the people inside, well, to the animators and writers at least. Also I would like to say goodbye to Mr. Lasseter, enjoy your stay with the empire.


---
Edit
Just something else from the cartoonbrew comments section:

Floyd Norman says:
Disney. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

A John, Ed, and Roy decision? which Roy are we talking about? not Roy Disney, right? (I'm aware he died, but but this could have been decided before then) I assume its a different Roy, right?
if it was Roy Disney I'd feel kinda akward critisizng one of his last decisions...


And yeah, John, a much of a fanboy as I am, I cannot defend this decision anymore than I could when you killed American Dog.

I do think they need to target boys more, but changing the titles isn't the way to do this. There are so many more things that factor in here. Its possible this was never directed/written to be a boys movie. And regardless of weather it was or wasn't, a name change isn't going to solve a thing.

If you want it to appeal to guys and it doesn't, you'd need to change large portions of the movie and characters. If that was the case, a name change wouldn't be needed. and if it was already meant to appeal to guys, again, name change unnecessary.

I've kinda stopped caring what they call it, honestly. "Tangled" is sort of a lame title, but it'll still be the same movie it would have been without that change, no matter how it's marketed.

Seeing the toys gives me hope, honestly. I must say, I'm glad for the return to cute animal friends, and the idea of a chameleon and a horse as companions is wonderful! It'll be great so see how the chameleon especially may come in handy in the plot, with the color changing ability, and all.... And I also like that we're finally getting a princess with a purple color theme. Hooray!

Honestly, it's an animated princess tale made by Disney with Menken doing the music. I think I'd be thrilled to see it even if they called it "Flynn and the Long-Haired Chick Go For a Lovely Stroll in the Countryside and Flee From a Psycho Bitch."

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: He doesn't appear to have facial hair on the doll

In the picture posted, he does have facial hair. You might have mistook it for a shadow.

So it's "Tangled" now? Whata dorky title...either or lets hope this is a good one!

Okay, now I'm starting to feel extremely worried. The last thing I want Disney to do is close its animation department forever because that's the reason why they're so great!

Dream Huntress wrote:like the fact that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" opens a week later, are they seriously not paying attentiont to that? Because if they don't it's gonna the third in a row, after releasing "Bolt" next to "Twilight", and "The Princess and the Frog" next to "Avatar".

Who exactly is in charge of when to release movies? If we wanted to, who would we complain to? Because, as I've said before, the conspiracy theorist in me just can't help but think that someone wants the WDFA movies to fail at the box office...

I think we'd have a better chance at getting Iger's email address.

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Dream Huntress wrote:like the fact that "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" opens a week later, are they seriously not paying attentiont to that? Because if they don't it's gonna the third in a row, after releasing "Bolt" next to "Twilight", and "The Princess and the Frog" next to "Avatar".

Who exactly is in charge of when to release movies? If we wanted to, who would we complain to? Because, as I've said before, the conspiracy theorist in me just can't help but think that someone wants the WDFA movies to fail at the box office...

Perhaps Jesse Ventura can get to the bottom of it?

*first post*

Should we be surprised Flynn has facial hair? Zachary Levi does.
Now that I compare both more closely Flynn really does look like him: wavy hair, scruffy chin, he even has Zach's smile!
The looks aren't the problem for me. I'm still wondering about this "star character's" personality. I mean, I really can't picture Flynn as a tough guy. All I see is Chuck Bartowski making a fool of himself. Maybe that's how Flynn will be? He may seem tough and have an infamous record, but is he a real spy - i mean bandit?

More doll pics:

http://toyfair10.asmzine.com/gallery/ma ... _4887.html

Her horse is cute LOL

Okay, now that I think about it, Tangled- or the dolls- do(es) seem to look somewhat hand-drawn, despite being CGI. Though I'm not sure if it will still have that hand-drawn feel.