Page 90 of 90
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:13 am
by blackcauldron85
sotiris2006 wrote:@everyone who hasn't watched the trailer yet
Here is a link where you can download it:
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!
I laughed a lot during the trailer...a lot. I can't wait. It's not like there were pop culture references or anything. And, it's interesting- no one here had mentioned that they used Miley's version of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun". It's on her Breakout album, and while it might not factor into the movie at all except for the trailer, it *could*, since she's a Disney artist.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:43 am
by robster16
blackcauldron85 wrote:sotiris2006 wrote:@everyone who hasn't watched the trailer yet
Here is a link where you can download it:
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!
I laughed a lot during the trailer...a lot. I can't wait. It's not like there were pop culture references or anything. And, it's interesting- no one here had mentioned that they used Miley's version of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun". It's on her Breakout album, and while it might not factor into the movie at all except for the trailer, it *could*, since she's a Disney artist.
Nah, with all due respect, if you have original songs by Alan Menken who needs Miley Cyrus covering a Cindy Lauper classic... I'm sure this is trailer only. 100% sure!
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:37 am
by Sotiris
I think it might be time for a new thread.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:05 pm
by WDWLocal
Wonderlicious wrote:Shame on you, Disney. Shame on you.
NOT! They have nothing to be ashamed of here.
Time to follow suit with the rest of us and come to accept the title change and that we DO have a new classic on our hands indeed.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:24 pm
by Sotiris
WDWLocal wrote:Time to follow suit with the rest of us and come to accept the title change and that we DO have a new classic on our hands indeed.
Please post in the new
thread.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:34 pm
by Wonderlicious
WDWLocal wrote:Wonderlicious wrote:Shame on you, Disney. Shame on you.
NOT! They have nothing to be ashamed of here.
Yes, they bloody well do.
I am sick of them "branding" everything like shameless capitalists, perhaps more so than in the days of Michael Eisner. There may still be good films, but the promotion teams are just let loose and essentially have come to call the shots, regardless of quality; yes, we can get gems like
The Princess and the Frog, but does anybody who isn't a teenage girl under the age of fourteen really want
High School Musical 5000? I doubt it and hope that I am right. And the very idea that a misogynistic "Princess" merchandise line, which quite frankly just pisses on some of the best animated films ever made, can still exist is horrifying.
By trying to be blind to the problems in question, you are ultimately allowing this sort of soulless behaviour practised by Disney nowadays.
Time to follow suit with the rest of us and come to accept the title change and that we DO have a new classic on our hands indeed.
Do hear me out here, though: as much as I hate the title change, however, I still do want to see this film and am open-minded towards it. I just don't like the title and the superficial reasons for its change.
The Little Mermaid wasn't predicted to be a huge success due to it being a potentially girly movie, but did anybody think of changing the title to a more exciting title such as
Legend of the Oceans? I doubt it. And did Walt change the title of
Cinderella and
Sleeping Beauty despite the fact that they could equally alienate male movie-goers due to their feminine nature? I think not.
EDIT: I do agree that we should move on to the new post. I just wanted to reply to the aggravating and aimless (by that, I mean that it was not posted in the second thread despite it already being created) post in its original context
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:44 pm
by KennethE
The trailer is still available at latinoreview.com. Get it while it lasts!
I have been waiting for this moment, literally, since the early 2000s, and my first reaction is..... Oh my god! ARE YOU SERIOUS??? THEY DESTROYED A COMPLETELY GOOD FAIRY TALE!!!!!
After 6 or 7 views, I got used to the silly slapstick and the ridiculous Flynn character. But my faith in this film still takes another huge plunge. And here's why:
1. Flynn. He is, without a doubt, a carbon copy of Tulio from "Road to Eldorado." He hogs up the entire first half of the trailer, and his tough-guy jail break scene looked and sounded like a mixture between The Princess Bride, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Shrek. The words "Dangerous" "Fearless.." plastered across the screen really show that Disney is desperate to draw in the boys. To me, it detracts from the overall fairy tale "feel," if you know what I mean. From the start, I got a sense that Disney is confused as to which audiences this film should be for.
2. I know the CG is only in its rough form, far from completion, but my initial impression is that it still feels too "stiff," too Rankin-Bass'ish, without the squash-and-stretch of traditional animation, (or even Madagascar.) The scenes with Rapunzel's hair did impress me. And take a second look again at that one completed scene where Rapunzel is running across the tower, her hair dragging by in the air in a big, wavy streak--- GORGEOUS! GORGEOUS! GORGEOUS! If the completed footage is like this one scene, than I take back all the negative comments here.
3. Where's the Alan Menkin music??? What could have been a lush fairy tale reminds me of one of those countless pop-culture-laden things common this decade (or, technically, last decade.) Can't Disney make a really sincere fairy tale anymore?? I long for another Little Mermaid or Sleeping Beauty. These were films that wasn't scared to appeal to the female gender. These were films that weren't scared to have beautiful music for the sake of creating a beautiful film.... The pop song was nice, but out of place, especially when the first half of the trailer was "dangerous" and "fearless." Perhaps the trailer is misleading us all, but my first impression is not good.
4. Finally, the title's catch phrase: "Rinse. Rescue. Repeat." If Disney was trying to get young boys into the theatre, WHY would they make a reference to hair and shampoo products?!?!?!? It also makes the film seem too modern, too Shrek-ish. This whole thing reminds me strongly of Rapunzel Unbraided, where (as you all know) the premise was: "two teenagers from modern times, thrown back into the old fairy tale days, and they must learn to cope with each other.."
Hopefully, this is all marketing. Hopefully, the actual movie will be the classic we are craving. I remember back in '06, I was banging my head on the keyboard over the first 'Meet the Robinsons" trailer, and the actual film ended up being one of my favorite toons of the 00's. So you never know.....
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 4:32 pm
by toonaspie
robster16 wrote:blackcauldron85 wrote:
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!
I laughed a lot during the trailer...a lot. I can't wait. It's not like there were pop culture references or anything. And, it's interesting- no one here had mentioned that they used Miley's version of "Girls Just Want to Have Fun". It's on her Breakout album, and while it might not factor into the movie at all except for the trailer, it *could*, since she's a Disney artist.
Nah, with all due respect, if you have original songs by Alan Menken who needs Miley Cyrus covering a Cindy Lauper classic... I'm sure this is trailer only. 100% sure!
I find it a bit worrisome though. Remember back in the 90s when the Fab Four films would have early versions of their songs in their trailers? If theyre looking for a Disney Renaissance, theyre already making bad marketing mistakes here!
The idea that Disney thinks that Miley Cyrus sells more than Alan Menken scares me.
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 6:29 pm
by robster16
aaah... the good old days:
Rapunzel: Stick To Your Dreams: A Sticker-Activity Storybook
http://www.amazon.com/Rapunzel-Stick-Dr ... 815&sr=1-8
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:17 pm
by Marce82
Just saw that trailer. God it looks tacky!
Remember back in the day when Howard Ashman said they aimed to create something that would sit comfortably on the shelf w all the other classics? (back when they were creating the Lil Mermaid...)
Hint hint?
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:40 pm
by singerguy04
Hey, I have an idea... even though this isn't blocked yet, lets move this conversation over to the new topic thread! Afterall, it was created for that purpose.
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:29 am
by supertalies
Well, why don't they close this then?
Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:02 pm
by PatrickvD
I'd like to take a moment to say goodbye to my thread.
Rapunzel, it's been a crazy ride, see ya in theaters. Tangled or not, I'm there
Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:25 pm
by DisneyFan09
KennethE wrote:
2. I know the CG is only in its rough form, far from completion, but my initial impression is that it still feels too "stiff," too Rankin-Bass'ish, without the squash-and-stretch of traditional animation, (or even Madagascar.) The scenes with Rapunzel's hair did impress me. And take a second look again at that one completed scene where Rapunzel is running across the tower, her hair dragging by in the air in a big, wavy streak--- GORGEOUS! GORGEOUS! GORGEOUS! If the completed footage is like this one scene, than I take back all the negative comments here.
3. Where's the Alan Menkin music??? What could have been a lush fairy tale reminds me of one of those countless pop-culture-laden things common this decade (or, technically, last decade.) Can't Disney make a really sincere fairy tale anymore?? I long for another Little Mermaid or Sleeping Beauty. These were films that wasn't scared to appeal to the female gender. These were films that weren't scared to have beautiful music for the sake of creating a beautiful film.... The pop song was nice, but out of place, especially when the first half of the trailer was "dangerous" and "fearless." Perhaps the trailer is misleading us all, but my first impression is not good.
4. Finally, the title's catch phrase: "Rinse. Rescue. Repeat." If Disney was trying to get young boys into the theatre, WHY would they make a reference to hair and shampoo products?!?!?!? It also makes the film seem too modern, too Shrek-ish. This whole thing reminds me strongly of Rapunzel Unbraided, where (as you all know) the premise was: "two teenagers from modern times, thrown back into the old fairy tale days, and they must learn to cope with each other.."
Hopefully, this is all marketing. Hopefully, the actual movie will be the classic we are craving. I remember back in '06, I was banging my head on the keyboard over the first 'Meet the Robinsons" trailer, and the actual film ended up being one of my favorite toons of the 00's. So you never know.....
I wasn't impressed by the "Tangled" trailer, neither of it's comedy aspect nor the few shots it's animation, which seemed too stiff and "Shrek"-ish, as you said (although I did find Flynt sexy). But trailers usually lies/gives the wrong impression of the movie, so I really hope that this flick is gonna be good.
Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:39 am
by Luke
Please continue Rapunzel/Tangled discussions here in Part 2:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=26332