DVDizzy Forum

Changing it back might actually hurt a bit now, to be honest. I mean, they're generating buzz for a movie called Tangled. If "Rapunzel" were to come out in three months (and there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that it will), the general public would probably be very, very confused.

But would it do anything to the movie? Nope. They could call it "Blondie and the Bandit" and it wouldn't do anything to the film. The film is what it is. Call it whatever, but if Disney's calling it Tangled, then so will I.

Here is an equation for you...

Stevenson classic novel "Treasure Island" + Disney twist with many cosmic changes = new Disney version = new title = "Treasure Planet"

Dickens classic novel "Oliver Twist" + Disney twist with many animal and modern changes = new Disney version = new title = "Oliver & Co"

Grimm classic tale "Rapunzel" + Disney twist with humor, 3D and more energetic adventure than just staying all along in the tower til the prince bring a rope to escape (yeah yeah ! that's the original story !!) = new Disney version = new title ="Tangled"

End of equation. Just be prepared to enjoy a wonderful Disney Movie and relax.

True that some Disney movies have title changes, but they do bear names based on familiar stories. For example:

1. Treasure Planet: It bears the word, "Treasure," from the novel, "Treasure Island."

2. Oliver[/i] and Company: It bears the word, "Oliver," from the novel, "Oliver Twist."

3. Meet the Robinsons: It bears the word, "Robinson," from the children's book, "A Day with Wilbur Robinson."

4. Tangled: It does not bear the name, "Rapunzel," because that name is a reference to Rapunzel's long golden hair, her love for Flynn Rider, and her adventures away from the tower in a new way. Even though the story is different like other Disney movies based on fairy tales, but it can still be called, "Rapunzel," even though Disney took the story in a new way.

I always found Rapunzel to be a VERY awkward princess name. Perhaps Disney had the right idea renaming it here.

Either way there will be enough other motives for people to want to see this film, so I dont think we should worry so much.

I'm echoing Margos' sentiments here: changing the film's name will have little bearing on the quality of the film itself, much less either save or doom an entire corporation.

And I love your suggestion of 'Blondie and the Bandit'. Wish they'd called it that!

MagicMirror wrote: And I love your suggestion of 'Blondie and the Bandit'. Wish they'd called it that!

Really? Thanks!
I was trying to come up with a name that would sound way worse than Tangled.... Guess I didn't do a very good job...

Well, maybe not strictly appropriate for Tangled but... it sounds fun and flows from the tongue so beautifully. It's got to be used somehow!

How about this, "Rapunzel and the Bandit?" Just a thought.

Film names are like band names: if the work is good and becomes popular, the lamest name is conferred coolness by success.

Margos wrote:

MagicMirror wrote: And I love your suggestion of 'Blondie and the Bandit'. Wish they'd called it that!

Really? Thanks!

Now I'm imagining Blondie Bumstead getting kidnapped by a bandit, but she drives him crazy so he takes her back to Dagwood.

albert

Hello margoes,
Great post about disney.I like disney.
Disney world resort in Florida was the second Disney park and sits in its own city and consists of 7 parks. Although it wasn't the first resort it is by far the most popular.
Walt Disney land in Paris is a complete financial flop and due to this fact the planned MGM studios Europe was canceled just 6 months before work was due to begin.
Walt Disney world in Florida has a massive network of underground tunnels that link all areas of the resort together. These tunnels allow staff and officials to travel the park quickly and without disturbing the guests.
Thanks.

I think the Golden years are over. I think Dick Cook was the last one keeping the good things we remember at Disney, and now that Iger has his stranglehold on the company the product will suffer. I mean, say whaty you will about PatF, but you must admit Oprah never should've been allowed 200 yards within the vicinity of that movie. Of course, i'm not saying that's Iger's fault, but that mentality does not bode well for Tangled.

Disneydood wrote:I think the Golden years are over. I think Dick Cook was the last one keeping the good things we remember at Disney, and now that Iger has his stranglehold on the company the product will suffer. I mean, say whaty you will about PatF, but you must admit Oprah never should've been allowed 200 yards within the vicinity of that movie. Of course, i'm not saying that's Iger's fault, but that mentality does not bode well for Tangled.

Iger made nice with Uncle Roy, brought Lasseter & Co. back into the fold, reacquired Oswald, and oversaw a return to traditional animation. Not to bag on Dick Cook, but it was during his tenure as studio chief that the Orlando & Paris animation wings were shut down and the company abandoned traditional animation.

Disneydood wrote:you must admit Oprah never should've been allowed 200 yards within the vicinity of that movie ... that mentality does not bode well for Tangled.

Why must someone admit that? And what's it got to do with Tangled?

Disneydood wrote:you must admit Oprah never should've been allowed 200 yards within the vicinity of that movie ... that mentality does not bode well for Tangled.

Are you saying it's Oprah's fault that the movie didn't do so hot? Because, for some reason, it seems that way.

I fail to see the logic of the quote "failure" of PATF being 100% Oprah's fault for voicing a minor character....or any percent of it....

disneyboy20022 wrote:I fail to see the logic of the quote "failure" of PATF being 100% Oprah's fault for voicing a minor character....or any percent of it....

Well, she could have helped a tad by devoting an entire episode (or at least a segment) of her show to The Princess and the Frog. This is the same person who can thousands of women to read a book just because she recommended it (e.g. Eat Prey Love, A Million Little Fibers).

I also think her endless promoting was one reason Crash won Best Picture some years back and she might have helped Obama gain a number of additional votes (okay, he would have won anyway, but she definitely got him a couple more voters ).

So, yeah, I have absolutely no idea why she never discussed the film on her show by inviting the cast and film makers on or something. Heck, I think Tyra Banks, Jimmy Kimmel and The View ladies were the only talk show hosts who actually advertised Frog on its release.

mawnck wrote:

Disneydood wrote:you must admit Oprah never should've been allowed 200 yards within the vicinity of that movie ... that mentality does not bode well for Tangled.

Why must someone admit that? And what's it got to do with Tangled?

Everything.

DisneyJedi wrote: Are you saying it's Oprah's fault that the movie didn't do so hot? Because, for some reason, it seems that way.

Yes it is. Don't you read the newspaper? Everything is Oprah's fault. Get on with the times.

Super Aurora wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: Are you saying it's Oprah's fault that the movie didn't do so hot? Because, for some reason, it seems that way.

Yes it is. Don't you read the newspaper? Everything is Oprah's fault. Get on with the times.

Oh, everything's her fault. And I suppose the Oil Spill in the Gulf and the 9/11 terrorist attacks are her fault too?!

estefan wrote:Well, she could have helped a tad by devoting an entire episode (or at least a segment) of her show to The Princess and the Frog.

So, yeah, I have absolutely no idea why she never discussed the film on her show [...]

She did.