The Disney Essence Debate

[FigmentJedi]

I believe Walt Disney would use some CGI and some contemporary things, but along with the other things I mentioned to make it be Disney. For CGI, I think the ballroom in Beauty and the Beast, the carpet in Aladdin, or making the CGI look like a painting like Glen Keane wanted for Rapunzel sounds like exactly the kinds of things Walt would do with it. Or for contemporary settings, Lady and the Tramp was modern day, but it had this very traditonal, romantic, nostalgic feel, also with the fantasy of talking dogs falling in love.

Lady and the Tramp was a period piece. Same basic setting as Disneyland's Main Street: Early 20th century Midwestern town

[DisneyAnimation88]

But there is still hope, because even Glen Keane is still there and he wanted to make Rapunzel be a very traditional, very Disney type of fairy tale, and if people like him are still there in the future, there's still hope, unless people above them will always, always crush their ideas like they did with Rapunzel.

The same Glen Keane who endorsed the finished film and said that it turned out better than his own version?

it goes for all of Walt's films which were based on books or legends, too. He was slightly looser with very few of some films based on stories, but not nearly as loose as these two films were!

Have you not read Rudyard Kipling's the Jungle Book? Or Felix Salten's Bambi, A Life in the Woods? Or is there some technicality here that I have overlooked? Do they not count even though both were made by Walt and are very different from their source material?

The Princess and the Frog changed all this by being modern and twisting the story. It was set in a time and place much more modern than the long ago European kingdoms that the Frog Prince tale came from, it twisted the story so that the princess had to become a frog, et cetera

But the oversight you're missing here is that it was not only adapted from the fairy tale but also, more substantially, from E.D. Baker's novel, The Frog Princess. In the novel, the princess is turned into a frog after kissing the prince and they both have to find a witch (Mama Odie in the film) to return them to their human forms. The film changes the setting to New Orleans and changes the villain from a witch to a witch doctor but when you compare it The Jungle Book, the changes don't seem so drastic.

What I don't think you understand is the need for things to have their own identity. If Pixar had the same identity as Disney...wtf would be up with that?!

The point you're missing here is that Pixar have never tried to make Disney films. Pixar do have their own identity and that comes from creating original stories with an element of fantasy that in the most case, Disney would never do. Disney would never have made films like The Incredibles or Up or Ratatouille or WALL-E because while Pixar were making those films, Disney animation was governed by accountants and money men only interested in films that would sell cuddly toys and Happy Meals. Now I like all of those films that were produced in that time (excluding Dinosaur and Chicken Little), but the truly creative people at Disney were run out of the company and their product and reputation took a hit as a result. Films like Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo do, I personally think, have a very slight Disney charm, but they're still unquestionably Pixar films. Pixar have never aspired to make films like those that Disney make, their directors have always made films that they would want to see, regardless of whether the idea seems marketable or not.

[Disney Duster]

Lady and the Tramp was a period piece. Same basic setting as Disneyland's Main Street: Early 20th century Midwestern town

Well, I can see that and I can also see how it was modern, too, modern compared to all the previous films.

DisneyAnimation88, Glen Keane had to listen to Disney's demands. He was controlled by them. He first had to make it CGI, then he thought he could make it look like a hand-drawn painting so he endorsed the CGI. Bu we do not really know if he indiviually liked the changes of Rapunzel to peasant, the Prince to a thief, or the title to Tangled. Working there, he has to say he approves of the film and he probably did like a lot of things in the final film and praised it as a whole, but of course he would have loved if his original vision could have worked out, and probably would have loved it the most. If you honestly think a man wouldn't prefer his original own ideas to work out and become the final film instead, I have a hard time believing you'd really think that.

I do know of the changes done to The Jungle Book. The changes for Jungle Book made sense because all the stories in the book couldn't be adapted. The only change was we don't see Kaa become Mowgli's mentor, but actually that happens after the escape from the monkeys, so it really fits. As for Bambi, someday I'd like to read that, but the only big changes I know of are...adding new animals to it? The rest is pretty much just moving scenes around? It seems the changes for both books for the most part were cutting, adding, and moving around.

Bu the point is that The Princess and the Frog and Tangled did not do those kind of changes. Tangled changed characters' backgrounds and identities, basically changing who they were.

As for The Princess and the Frog, you just helped me feel a little better in seeing that because it was partly based on a book, it makes it seem better. However, because the book is not nearly the kind of classic well-known story like Jungle Book, Bambi, or even Lady and the Tramp was (I'm sure that story was more known and popular, and more of a classic feel), but more importantly and what you might understand more, the fact that when Walt did fairy tales, they were always from the fairy tale and not some person's book that twists or spins the fairy tale.

I will admit that at least you made The Princess and the Frog seem less bad and more okay, so I am now more accepting, but it does not excuse Tangled, which is what made me the saddest, maddest, and least happy about Disney anymore since.

As for Pixar, yes, I wanted them to make their own kind of films! I want them to be their own thing, not Disney, because only Disney should be Disney of course. The only thing we disagree on is that you don't think Disney would make those kinds of Pixar films just because they weren't allowed to be creative. But Disney wouldn't have made them because they are simply not Disney. Remember, Glen Keane said Disney feels "Once upon a time..." and Pixar feels "What would happen if..." They have different types of fantasy, I wouldn't even say Pixar has fantasy but more down-to-earth, check out how cool this is, anything can happen. Fantasy has more of an elegant or magical feel to it, it's hard to explain. At least we agree they have their own identities and the way they make films is different.

[DisneyAnimation88]

If you honestly think a man wouldn't prefer his original own ideas to work out and become the final film instead, I have a hard time believing you'd really think that.

If the man himself said it, why is it so hard to believe? Glen Keane is not a prisoner of Disney, he can speak his mind; Andreas Deja has in the past when talking about his own career. The Nine Old Men were critical of some of the films they made with Walt so I don't see why it is so hard to believe that Glen Keane would have an opinion that is not forced upon him by Disney. His original idea was "Rapunzel Unbraided" which he says put a far more modern twist on the fairytale than Tangled did so you would have complained about that too most likely.

The changes for Jungle Book made sense because all the stories in the book couldn't be adapted. The only change was we don't see Kaa become Mowgli's mentor

The characters of Kaa, Shere Khan, Baloo and Colonel Hathi were radically different from the novel (they had their backgrounds changed just like the characters in Tangled ), King Louie and the vultures did not exist, the storyline in the novel was much darker...

As for Bambi, someday I'd like to read that, but the only big changes I know of are...adding new animals to it? The rest is pretty much just moving scenes around? It seems the changes for both books for the most part were cutting, adding, and moving around.

There was no Thumper or Flower, no "Twitterpated" storyline, Bambi and Faline do not end up together, more characters die, a hunter is killed and used to help Bamb understand the danger of man, Bambi ends up far more world-weary than in the Disney film...

Bu the point is that The Princess and the Frog and Tangled did not do those kind of changes. Tangled changed characters' backgrounds and identities, basically changing who they were.

The Jungle Book is my favourite Disney film but I really cannot see why it is any different to your description of Princess and the Frog and Tangled here.

The only thing we disagree on is that you don't think Disney would make those kinds of Pixar films just because they weren't allowed to be creative. But Disney wouldn't have made them because they are simply not Disney. Remember, Glen Keane said Disney feels "Once upon a time..." and Pixar feels "What would happen if..."

Perhaps but they also wouldn't have made them because Disney didn't really take risks in their films as Pixar did; now it's looking like they're going to do that more in upcoming films like Wreck-It Ralph. And read up on the last years of the Eisner-era at Disney and tell me that they were not creatively stifled. Look at the various projects cancelled and how films like Chicken Little were changed because of marketing decisions made by accountants in the animation studio that had no creative vision. Glen Keane is right but Disney isn't only "Once upon a time", they can do so much more than that.

[Sky Syndrome]

As for Bambi, someday I'd like to read that, but the only big changes I know of are...adding new animals to it? The rest is pretty much just moving scenes around? It seems the changes for both books for the most part were cutting, adding, and moving around.

There was no Thumper or Flower, no "Twitterpated" storyline, Bambi and Faline do not end up together, more characters die, a hunter is killed and used to help Bamb understand the danger of man, Bambi ends up far more world-weary than in the Disney film...

It's been a decade since I read the book Bambi and I remember Bambi's mother actually becoming impatient with Bambi's non-stop questioning.

[Disney Duster]

Well, what Glen Keane said was that the film turned out better than what he had been doing. When you told me that, I honestly understood as him meaning that he couldn't make his original vision work out, and so their version was better because it worked out. But any human being in the world would wish that their original version of something worked out.

As for Rapunzel Unbraided, calling it Glen Keane's original vision is rather a huge stretch. It is what Glen Keane came up with along with Eisner when Eisner was telling him he couldn't do a traditonal fairy tale but something more along the modern twisted films like Shrek. When Eisner left and Glen Keane had a chance, he changed it to a more traditional tale as quickly as he could!

I already told you that I knew about Kaa being a mentor but that was later, he still tried to eat Mowgli sometimes just like in the movie before the monkey scene, since we don't see anything with Kaa after the monkey scene in the movie, technically they didn't change him. I looked up about Shere Khan, and the only difference between him and the Disney version is he doesn't have a bum leg. If I were to compare that to Tangled, I would say it would be like not giving the Prince a horse if he had one in the original story. For Baloo, he always wanted to rest in the movie, and that matches the sleepy sloth bear he was in the book, and he teaches Mowgli things like the Bear Necessities just like Baloo in the book taught him, just more serious things. And Colonel Hathi was just made more comical, but he actually still tried to act serious and was the leader like in the book. None of this is the same as Tangled making a peasant, the lowest thing, to a princess, the highest thing, or making a prince, the highest thing, to a thief, the lowest and a very bad thing!

As for Bambi, I already told you it's mainly adding or subtracting characters or events, and Bambi does end up Faline, the only difference is he ends up being around her less later just like all the princes and just like in the end of the movie when he's on the cliff like his dad, away from Faline and his child. None of this is the same as changing a peasant to a princess or a prince to a thief. I also still think Gothel should have been a witch, but I'm less mad about that cause she was kinda sorta a witch not quite.

And I think you can see how The Princess and the Frog was way, way, way more different than either of these with a princess becoming a poor girl chef living in not a long ago German kingdom but 1920's New Orleans and everything else! But like I said, maybe it's okay just because it's not supposed to be the original fairy tale even though I don't think that's Disney enough either but it upsets me less.

Please try to see what I mean. Please, please. I'm not trying to cause trouble I genuinely mean all I say. If I can explain it...changing some of the seriousness, tiny details, or even a little of the personalities of the characters is not the same as changing backgrounds. Backgrounds of characters means like where they come from, for instance a sloth bear staying a sloth bear or a peasant staying a peasant.

Something we agree on is that Disney should do more than fairy tales, and take risks, but I think by "Once upon a time..." didn't just mean fairy tales, I think it means that kind of magical elegant feeling or a classical feeling, which me and Glen Keane seem to think all Disney films have, and should continue to have, that is different from Pixar and other studios.

[DisneyAnimation88]

You can't just gloss over the facts that the backgrounds of the characters in The Jungle Book were changed. Shere Khan, for example, was not only changed from being lame as in the novel; in the Disney film, he is feared by all other animals, he's powerful, intimidating, a brutal killer. In the novel, he isn't feared, the only animal that shows him any respect is a jackal. He's not as fearsome at all, he doesn't simply hunt Mowgli down, he infiltates the wolf pack to and tricks them into becoming a part of his scheme. This character is very, very different from suave, sophisticated Disney villain in the film.

As for Rapunzel Unbraided, calling it Glen Keane's original vision is rather a huge stretch. It is what Glen Keane came up with along with Eisner when Eisner was telling him he couldn't do a traditonal fairy tale but something more along the modern twisted films like Shrek. When Eisner left and Glen Keane had a chance, he changed it to a more traditional tale as quickly as he could!

As Glen said:

"And when Michael Eisner challenged me to do this film in CG, I showed him the drawings and said “Michael, do you like these drawings?” He said “Oh, I love those drawings” so I said “You can’t do that in CG!” And he said “But Glen, there’s got to be a way to take what you love in hand drawn and bring it into CG”."

Eisner wanted a CG film but as far as I'm aware, never said he wanted a film like Shrek (given his animosity towards Katzenberg, I find it highly unlikely he would want to be seen as mimicking anything that Katzenberg had done). "Rapunzel Unbraided" was Glen's original idea, that was the film's title before it became Rapunzel and then Tangled.

As for Bambi, I already told you it's mainly adding or subtracting characters or events, and Bambi does end up Faline, the only difference is he ends up being around her less later just like all the princes and just like in the end of the movie when he's on the cliff like his dad, away from Faline and his child.

If it adds and subtracts different characters and events, how is it a faithful adaptation? The novel is dark, that was substituted with the love story between Bambi and Faline in the Disney film and subsided by the introduction of characters like Thumper and Flower. In the novel he abandons Faline and while he loves her, completely avoids her, in short Bambi is a very different character in the Disney film.

Backgrounds of characters means like where they come from, for instance a sloth bear staying a sloth bear or a peasant staying a peasant.

Again, look at Shere Khan. In the Disney film, he is feared above all other animals, powerful, a killer. In the novel he is lame, derided by the other animals and a schemer who tries to manipulate his way to killing Mowgli rather than hunting him. Those are not tiny details, the character, his background and personality, was changed to make him a fearful Disney villain. Like Flynn Rider, he is simply not the character that he is in the original story.

This debate is turning into a never-ending one so let's just agree to disagree.

[Disney Duster]

I have heard from everyone everwhere that Eisner influenced Glen Keane to make the film be Rapunzel Unbraided when he really wanted it to be traditonal.

Riddle me this then, why did Glen Keane change Rapunzel Unbraided to just Rapunzel as soon as Eisner left?

Shere Khan, from what I read, takes himself seriously and thinks himself sophisticated, powerful, and feared. He also does try to be clever to hunt down Mowglin the film, clever like you said he is in the book, he takes his time and plans. So the only thing that changed is how the people react. And the leg detail which I said would be like saying the Prince didn't have a horse if in the book he actually did have a horse.

A background is something like a tiger villain stays a tiger villain or a prince stays a prince! You are the one who is glossing now, because you are glossing over what a background is. Personality, details on body parts, and how other characters react to them is not the same as background.

Answer me this, too: Why are you choosing to argue this with me? I have a reason why I am arguing, it is because I think Walt would have wanted it another way and I think that way can be found out if you look hard enough. But your reason for arguing with me seems very much the way of the devil's advocate, you are just saying it cause you want to argue back, because you want to combat me, because you don't want to think maybe there could be something wrong at Disney.

[SWillie!]

You guys are talking about two different periods in the film's history.

Glen's first, original version was a very dark, very traditional fairy tale version, called Rapunzel. Eisner challenged Glen to do it in CG. After developing this version for a while, and not being able to crack some story problems, it was decided that a more modern comedy with fairy tale influences would be best - bouncing off the success of the likes of Shrek or Enchanted. This version, it is my understanding, was developed as Rapunzel Unbraided until Glen had to leave due to his health issues. At this point, Lasseter had come on and asked Nathan and Byron to direct the film, now that Glen would no longer be able to do so. So Nathan and Byron started basically from scratch, according to many interviews, again developing a traditional fairy tale called Rapunzel. This is the version that eventually had a name change toward the end of production, and we now know it as Tangled. The end.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Riddle me this then, why did Glen Keane change Rapunzel Unbraided to just Rapunzel as soon as Eisner left?

Riddle me this? Film titles change during production, like The Emperor's New Groove was once know as Kingdom of the Sun and Home on the Range was Sweatin' Bullets.

You are the one who is glossing now, because you are glossing over what a background is. Personality, details on body parts, and how other characters react to them is not the same as background.

That's right, I forgot that you know everything Like I said, let's agree to disagree, debating with you is like arguing with a petulant child at times, you simply refuse to acknowlege an opinion that does match your own.

Answer me this, too: Why are you choosing to argue this with me? I have a reason why I am arguing, it is because I think Walt would have wanted it another way and I think that way can be found out if you look hard enough.

Why do the majority of people on this forum debate with you? Perhaps it's because they disagree with you?

But your reason for arguing with me seems very much the way of the devil's advocate, you are just saying it cause you want to argue back, because you want to combat me, because you don't want to think maybe there could be something wrong at Disney.

I have no interest in "combatting" you, how foolish of me to think that this was a forum where opinions can be expressed. You're right, my sole purpose for posting on this forum is to antagonise you, not because I'm a Disney fan who wanted to debate with other Disney fans.

And, as I've said many times before, I don't think there is anything wrong at Disney. I think John Lasseter is the perfect man to lead Disney animation right now and I'm looking forward to the new and original projects in development. That's my opinion which I am perfectly entitled to, I don't wish to debate it any further.

As I said in my last post, let's agree to disagree here, this particular debate is not going anywhere and I don't have any more interest in continuing it further.

[Wonderlicious]

You guys are talking about two different periods in the film's history.

Glen's first, original version was a very dark, very traditional fairy tale version, called Rapunzel. Eisner challenged Glen to do it in CG. After developing this version for a while, and not being able to crack some story problems, it was decided that a more modern comedy with fairy tale influences would be best - bouncing off the success of the likes of Shrek or Enchanted. This version, it is my understanding, was developed as Rapunzel Unbraided until Glen had to leave due to his health issues. At this point, Lasseter had come on and asked Nathan and Byron to direct the film, now that Glen would no longer be able to do so. So Nathan and Byron started basically from scratch, according to many interviews, again developing a traditional fairy tale called Rapunzel. This is the version that eventually had a name change toward the end of production, and we now know it as Tangled. The end.

I'm not taking any sides, but I believe that the film began as quite serious, then got forced into becoming the infamous Rapunzel Unbraided, then reverted back to its serious, rather dark former self once Lasseter took control, and then finally became a lightened-up version that ultimately still took itself seriously.

But one's thing for certain, judging from what I've deduced from various sources; at least in the post-Unbraided pre-Tangled state, I'm under the impression that Rapunzel would have still been a birth princess and fallen in love with a commoner.

[Goliath]

As I said in my last post, let's agree to disagree here, this particular debate is not going anywhere and I don't have any more interest in continuing it further.

Disney Duster has made another victim!

His tactic is to wear the other person out until he/she gives up.

[Super Aurora]

As I said in my last post, let's agree to disagree here, this particular debate is not going anywhere and I don't have any more interest in continuing it further.

Disney Duster has made another victim!

His tactic is to wear the other person out until he/she gives up.

It's funny, since irl he's not persistent at all.

[Goliath]

It's funny, since irl he's not persistent at all.

So he's an internet tough guy.

[Disney Duster]

Riddle me this then, why did Glen Keane change Rapunzel Unbraided to just Rapunzel as soon as Eisner left?

Riddle me this? Film titles change during production, like The Emperor's New Groove was once know as Kingdom of the Sun and Home on the Range was Sweatin' Bullets.

I meant how everything, the title and plot of Rapunzel Unbraided, turned to the title and plot of Rapunzel. But you gotta admit that since he did it as soon as Eisner left it shows he wanted it to be the Rapunzel way, and even if you don't believe that, it is true what Wonderlicious said, that Lasseter started it as a traditional and dark fairy tale, then when he had control again and made his first half (which Lasseter said was the best openining for an animated movie he'd ever seen! Wonder what it was...! That should be on the home video release), it was of the traditional dark version. It was only when Nathan and Byron came in it changed to more of the comedy with a thief instead of a prince.

Wonderlicious, actually, when Nathan and Byron were on the scene, in a D23 magazine interview, they revealed that Alan Menken was writing a song the witch sings to Rapunzel, and that later, a very similar version of the song is song from the prince to Rapunzel. It sounded traditional, magical, very Disney, very beautiful, very amazing...and then it got Tangled.

DisneyAnimation88, okay, but I looked up the definition of background and it was not my opinion, it means origin, education, and experience, which means not personality or how other react to you. Like I said, a teacher sloth bear being a teacher sloth bear and a prince staying a prince.

I was only asking you why you were arguing with me because, if it turned out I was right, you and I would both be happy. Because Disney could still have the very different movies, but they would be a little more Disney like have princes stay princes. he would still be funny, he would still have a funny horse. That's just one example. You never know if it could work out.

[DisneyAnimation88]

It sounded traditional, magical, very Disney, very beautiful, very amazing...and then it got Tangled.

I have that magazine and they also say that their version of the fairytale is very different from the original, which was true. Look, the nature of the film industry is things change during production, that's a given. If you believe everything a director says during production, you're going to be disappointed with the finished film. Case in point, The Emperor's New Groove where all of the songs Sting had written for the film were cut with the exception of "My Funny Friend and Me" that only played in the credits. Or the original version of the Beauty and the Beast that was basically thrown away when Howard Ashman and Wise & Trousdale were brought in. Or the Black Cauldron that was marketed as the first adult animated film but that adult content was cut out by Katzenberg as it was too scary. If you wanted to see a traditional adaptation of the Rapunzel fairytale, I'm sure there are films out there that are faithful to the fairytale but Disney's only obligation is to make a film they believe in and think will be entertaining and successful.

DisneyAnimation88, okay, but I looked up the definition of background and it was not my opinion, it means origin, education, and experience, which means not personality or how other react to you. Like I said, a teacher sloth bear being a teacher sloth bear and a prince staying a prince.

I know what background is and I think it applies to character's like Shere Khan, as well as Flynn Rider. Shere Khan is not the feared king of the jungle he is in the Disney film, he is a lame coward, derided by his family and all the other animals. Who Shere Khan is not only changed, what he is is also changed. That's not a bad thing at all, sometimes it's done purely to serve the needs of the story; Disney's The Jungle Book needed a villain that justified the fear of the other animals so Shere Khan's very character was changed to fit those needs. The same goes for Flynn Rider, a character was needed that would highlight the innocence and naivety of Rapunzel and a traditional Disney prince wouldn't have done that. Regardless of the change, the character is still extremely popular as evidenced by the anger the was caused when he was removed from the Tangled M&G at MK.

I was only asking you why you were arguing with me because, if it turned out I was right, you and I would both be happy. Because Disney could still have the very different movies, but they would be a little more Disney like have princes stay princes. he would still be funny, he would still have a funny horse. That's just one example. You never know if it could work out.

But if the changes are not detrimental to the film, I don't see the issue. Did changing Flynn make Tangled a worse film? I don't think so, in fact he was one of the highlights for me. Just because you don't like something, you can't keep saying it's wrong, there has to be a little concession that Disney will make changes in the hope of making a better film..

[Disney Duster]

Disney also has the obligation to make films be "Disney", fit alongside those films of their past, not be like "Jeeze these don't fit well with those. How are they made by the same studio...?"

As for Shere Khan...well, the thing his, how Shere Khan was treated was the real difference of the film. Originally, he thought of himself and acted just the same as the book. Wouldn't you admit how a character thinks and acts is mainly what the character is?

I also still stand by how I said a bum leg doesn't come from origin or background, it has nothing to do with, say, whether he was a tiger vs. a monkey. If none of this you can agree on, then at least I know one thing: Walt never changed if a person was royal or peasant-born!

The same goes for Flynn Rider, a character was needed that would highlight the innocence and naivety of Rapunzel and a traditional Disney prince wouldn't have done that.

What? But a prince would still know more than Rapunzel. How do you know it wouldn't have worked?

I actually wrote out a version of Rapunzel with a prince and that I feel is more Disney. I'm posting it in the "What Would Your Version of Rapunzel Be Like?" thread.

[DisneyAnimation88]

As for Shere Khan...well, the thing his, how Shere Khan was treated was the real difference of the film. Originally, he thought of himself and acted just the same as the book. Wouldn't you admit how a character thinks and acts is mainly what the character is?

He does act differently in the film. Out of curiosity,have you read The Jungle Book?

What? But a prince would still know more than Rapunzel. How do you know it wouldn't have worked?

They wanted a streetsmart character, one that was entirely different from Rapunzel; considering she's a princess, a prince didn't fit that criteria. I didn't say it wouldn't have worked but I don't think it was such a scandalous thing as you seem to think it is. Flynn's a good character, he's funny, full of personality and is very, very popular; look at the fuss that was caused when Disney removed Flynn from meet-and-greets recently.

I actually wrote out a version of Rapunzel with a prince and that I feel is more Disney.

More "Disney" to you maybe but Tangled is very much a Disney film. Sometimes you do give the impression that you believe Disney should only make films in a way that suits your own ideas of what a Disney film should be.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Disney Duster, I've been looking through your argument with DisneyAnimation88, and I'm quite confused by your argument/s; in fact, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you dislike changes to the source material, despite the fact that Walt made countless changes, or do you just like the changes that Walt did and for some reason dislike the minor changes to the source material in Tangled?

[Super Aurora]

Disney Duster, I've been looking through your argument with DisneyAnimation88, and I'm quite confused by your argument/s; in fact, I don't understand what you're saying. Do you dislike changes to the source material, despite the fact that Walt made countless changes, or do you just like the changes that Walt did and for some reason dislike the minor changes to the source material in Tangled?

The latter.