DVDizzy Forum

SpringHeelJack wrote:Mmmno, I'm pretty sure there was a mass public outcry when people found out that Rapunzel wasn't a princess by birth and that Flynn was a thief and that Gothel wasn't a witch. And then it flopped horribly because of that.

I remember when the riot police converged on Fantasyland; even some cast members had joined the hordes of disgruntled 'Pro-Rapunzel, Anti-Tangled' mobs. We will never forget the day Obama promised to fight against the Disney Essence terrorists in a way reminiscent to how Bush promised vengeance for 9/11.

After all, keeping Flynn Rider a prince and the title Rapunzel are much more important than stuff like global warming, poverty, pollution and irrelevant little things like that. I'm sure we will all be supporting 'Duster 2012.'

DisneyJedi wrote:
But.... isn't Frollo a man of the church again in the show?

no he's still a judge, except he mention at one point in the show he used to be a priest. Other than that, that back-story never continue any more further details.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:Mmmno, I'm pretty sure there was a mass public outcry when people found out that Rapunzel wasn't a princess by birth and that Flynn was a thief and that Gothel wasn't a witch. And then it flopped horribly because of that.

I remember when the riot police converged on Fantasyland; even some cast members had joined the hordes of disgruntled 'Pro-Rapunzel, Anti-Tangled' mobs. We will never forget the day Obama promised to fight against the Disney Essence terrorists in a way reminiscent to how Bush promised vengeance for 9/11.

After all, keeping Flynn Rider a prince and the title Rapunzel are much more important than stuff like global warming, poverty, pollution and irrelevant little things like that. I'm sure we will all be supporting 'Duster 2012.'

So much unnecessary bloodshed that day.

I was going to say that's too unnecessarily mean, but the idea of Duster 2012 made me

Okay, you guys are so rude! I did not say it will happen, this is a survey. If you guys don't agree to this, do say so without any rude comments. Thank you.

Wasn't the music in Tangled the one aspect in which it was routinely criticized? Don't see why they would want to make it into a musical.

TsWade2 wrote:Okay, you guys are so rude! I did not say it will happen, this is a survey. If you guys don't agree to this, do say so without any rude comments. Thank you.

I'm not being 'rude' because I don't want Tangled to become a Broadway musical; I'm mocking Duster and DisneyJedi, like SpringHeelJack did hilariously.

qindarka wrote:Wasn't the music in Tangled the one aspect in which it was routinely criticized?

Yep. It was considered to not have enough pizzazz.

It's quite possible. I don't see it becoming any time soon, though. Perhaps, in 5 years or so?

Tangled was a financial success both in terms of box office and merchandise sales. It has also developed a large fanbase in a surprisingly short amount of time. Also, the movie's concept can be easily adapted for the stage.

If Disney Theatrical is willing to adapt Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland into a musical only because of the movie's financial success (it was panned by critics) then a potential stage adaptation of Tangled does not seem such a big of a stretch.

If they DO put Tangled onstage, obviously a few more songs will probably need to be added. Plus, a motivation for Gothel's necessity to keep herself young wouldn't hurt. Also, they don't need to literally make Rapunzel's hair 70-feet long. At least, they should make the illusion that her hair's that long, kind of like what they did in one of their recent Disney on Ice shows.

I don't really see this movie heading to Broadway. While I enjoyed it a lot, there's something about it that to me just wouldn't work on stage without the story being significantly reworked. The plot of the film was perhaps a little thin and felt as though it was made for a slightly less sophisticated audience than Disney's previous fairytale movies.

However, I think issues like the length of Rapunzel's hair are things which can be dealt with relatively easily. Disney has put musicals on stage with characters who were objects, beasts, animals and mermaids, I'm sure they'd think of something.

As for calling it "Rapunzel" and making the story a little closer to the fairytale, yes I think both things could be done. Remember, you're adapting the film for stage, not translating it directly. The Little Mermaid changed the backgrounds of several of its characters, Ursula in particular, and Mary Poppins was changed significantly when transferred to the stage to the point that whole new plot points and characters were added such as Miss Andrew the evil Nanny. On top of that a lot of its songs were rewritten for the stage and are rather different from their on screen counterparts.
Also, films have been adapted into musicals before and changed the name as well as reworking the plot a little. It was fairly common back in the 60s and 70s to completely change the name whe a film was adapted to the stage. Two examples which spring to mind are "Applause", a musical version of "All About Eve" with a slightly more contemporary setting, and "Promises Promises", a musical based on "The Apartment".

Disney Duster wrote:Hey mister, first, it's to make it more like how Disney used to do their classics, not just my personal taste

Okay but then you're making a musical based on the actual fairytale of Rapunzel, not the WDAS film Tangled. If you change the title and the characters, in my opinion, it's not Tangled anymore; you're removing the things that Disney added to it in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm not saying that it has to be directly lifted from film to stage and there is room for changes, but it would just make more sense to me to create a musical based on the Rapunzel fairy tale than to adapt Tangled if you changed the title and the main characters from the film. But given how successful Tangled has been and how much money it has made Disney, I doubt they would want to alter too much from the film. And please don't call me mister .

DisneyJedi wrote:Plus, a motivation for Gothel's necessity to keep herself young wouldn't hurt.

Isn't that just put down to vanity? Or have I forgotten something from the film that suggests otherwise?

Sotiris wrote:If Disney Theatrical is willing to adapt Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland into a musical only because of the movie's financial success (it was panned by critics) then a potential stage adaptation of Tangled does not seem such a big of a stretch.

Agreed. I can't really think of another recent Disney film that might translate well to Broadway. I thought Tarzan would have been more successful than it was, otherwise I might say Pocahontas is the other one that comes to mind.

Well, I think they could have at least given us a reason WHY Gothel wanted to keep herself young, besides vanity.

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, I think they could have at least given us a reason WHY Gothel wanted to keep herself young, besides vanity.

It's not just vanity. I always got the impression that she's afraid of dying. When we first see her use the magic of the golden flower, she's incredibly old - perhaps on the edge of death. Her presumable fear of death is never explicitly shown, but it would make perfect sense.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, I think they could have at least given us a reason WHY Gothel wanted to keep herself young, besides vanity.

It's not just vanity. I always got the impression that she's afraid of dying. When we first see her use the magic of the golden flower, she's incredibly old - perhaps on the edge of death. Her presumable fear of death is never explicitly shown, but it would make perfect sense.

I more or less assumed this too. Even if it weren't the case, vanity can be a pretty big motivating factor for some people. It's the same reason why some people essentially disfigure themselves via plastic surgery to try and maintain some semblance of youth.

Yea the reason Mother Gothel wanted not to age is because almost everyone in the world would want not to age. However I think I see that DisneyJedi is getting at that she needs more of a life and story for herself than just living with her private fountain of youth who she kinda sorta loves but not all that much. Maybe if she really did enjoy Rapunzel's company more, if she said she always wanted to be a mother or something. Heck, if she had a hobby like Rapunzel's painting. When Mother Gothel flirts with the old man there's a hint of more for her, though she was probably just doing that to get to Rapunzel.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Okay but then you're making a musical based on the actual fairytale of Rapunzel, not the WDAS film Tangled. If you change the title and the characters, in my opinion, it's not Tangled anymore; you're removing the things that Disney added to it in the first place. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm not saying that it has to be directly lifted from film to stage and there is room for changes, but it would just make more sense to me to create a musical based on the Rapunzel fairy tale than to adapt Tangled if you changed the title and the main characters from the film. But given how successful Tangled has been and how much money it has made Disney, I doubt they would want to alter too much from the film. And please don't call me mister .

I called you mister because of what you were saying about me, so , but anyway, I'm actually going to agree with you that it is changing from the original film a lot, but it would still have a lot of other things people loved about Tangled - a prince who becomes a thief, the Snuggly Duckling, the floating lanterns, the songs, the designs, all the personalities...so...and it would be more exciting than just a straight up version of the original tale. I don't think there's a definate answer to if it's good or bad in this case, it's simply possible and it might work out and people might love it.

Disney Duster wrote: a prince who becomes a thief

Omg! Please stop with this IDEA. It will never happen and it doesn't need to either. That's not Flynn Rider. Flynn wanted riches so why on earth would he want to stop being a prince? And a prince stealing the tiara - surely he wouldn't return to the Kingdom!

I do think Flynn's back story from the orphanage would need a bit more development. And I do agree also that Gothel needs some kind of explanation for her "youth addiction" Some thing simple like her heart being broken by a man for a more younger/attractive lady.

DisneyDude2010 wrote:Omg! Please stop with this IDEA. It will never happen and it doesn't need to either. That's not Flynn Rider. Flynn wanted riches so why on earth would he want to stop being a prince? And a prince stealing the tiara - surely he wouldn't return to the Kingdom!

You didn't read what else I wrote. He becomes a thief for adventure, to explore, and to not be tied down, and to be able to be rogeish and not have to be noble and ethical. And he doesn't have to steal the crown.

If they were to ever make a Broadway musical based on Tangled, I don't think they would change the characters of Rapunzel and Flynn Rider at all, purely because they've become so popular with audiences. Why would would they try to fix something that isn't in the slightest broken? I agree there's room to expand on the character of Mother Gothel but apart from that I think the characters are fine as they are.

Disney should bring other Alan Menken musicals to the stage before making Tangled a Broadway show. Aladdin and The Hunchback of Notre Dame would be great stage shows, and I also believe that Pocahontas and Hercules could be good. Pocahontas would be serious and more adult, like The Hunchback of Notre Dame German stage adaption and Hercules could be more fun and lighthearted, like Aladdin. The music of Aladdin, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Pocahontas and Hercules is perfect for Broadway!