DVDizzy Forum

JohnnyWeir wrote:I don't know if this has been discussed already, but am I the only one who notices the striking similarities between the character of Mother Gothel and the character of the Witch from Stephen Sondheims "Into The Woods"? It seems Disney took a lot of inspiration from Bernadette Peters and the character she originated. Even the songs they sing are so, so similar to one another. The song "Mother Knows Best" seems directly influenced (to say the least) from the song "Stay with me." Even their looks are similar.

I'm not very familiar with Into the Woods. I've only heard two songs from it. But I am kind of familiar with Sondheim in general; at least, I know what his songs sounds like. The first time I heard "Mother Knows Best," I thought they were trying to do a song in his style. I put that in my review when I posted it on here, but I don't think anyone bothered reading it. It was kind of long. So, I can't agree with you for sure (since I've never heard "Stay with Me" or seen the Witch), but it seems entirely possible if just a passing Sondheim fan could tell they were trying to channel him.

The songs of the Witch and Mother Gothel could not be more different from each other in tone, style, melody and meaning.

Here is her first song with Rapunzel (but this video cuts off the lyrics "children are a blessing...when you know where they are...nothing's so distressing, though, as when they keep you gessing, so...")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJmEbFz8OFI

Here is the famous and hauntingly beautiful "Stay With Me":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxg94OrOY9M

And here you can see what the witch looked like transformed...at least in the original cast. She's the one with red hair and a cape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2FVhr9 ... re=related

I got my copy of "The Art of Tangled" in the mail a few days ago.

I received the Blu-ray + DVD combo in the mail today. I have only seen the film once, but I don't really remember it all that well. Hopefully I'll be able to find some time this weekend to watch it (along with Winnie the Pooh, which I also received in the mail today).

Hey, I'm this guys friend, I tried signing up here, but it doesn't seem like i can so i'll just post my opinion on his:

Ok, first off let me start by saying how much I loved the horse from this movie. And how beautifully life like the animation was



Now, to try to untangle my hate for this movie:

Firstly, why does Rapunzel have similar mannerisms to a high school pre teen? shouldn't she be like Gothel, the only person shes been able to see/imitate. The person shes grown with for 18 years(even if shes only there for an hour a day)? Why does she act like shes been infected with the hyper from kids at highschool?

Next, this movie is too inconsistent/contradictory. Could someone tell how a girl who hasn't been out for 18 years suddenly knows how to swim, tame a horse etc? She acts like a girl whos been out before but was hit on the head in the past and is gradually regaining memory..Thats what the movie should of been about then...it would of made sense; Her experiencing things for the first time is suppose to be the drive for this movie..it seemed like they were trying too hard to be an empowerment for girls or trying too hard to make her not seem dependent(i got that vibe from start to finish). which inevitably caused problems..

Still on the subject of inconsistency. As I said earlier, I liked the animation, it was beautifully life like and fluid at times. However, there were times where you wonder if its really difficult for them to maintain the fluidity and look of the characters. And if so, then they should have just did it hand drawn; The characters at times move real and life like, with convincing facial expression. And looked really good. Then at other time they look disproportional. Mostly seen with Rapunzel. I mean is it really that hard to keep her looking like shes does at the beginning of the movie(in the Pop song montage and other scenes)? At times she looks like a chipmunk..and at others her eyes are just too big(her and gothel) and then at times she looks really good, like a hoty.. also at times they move awkward..

Extreme facial expressions, whats the deal here..why do they go to extreme lengths to make the main characters funny and neglect the supporting character/side kicks? Thats what the sidekicks are for...they provide the extremes for comedy not the human characters and especially not the main characters. examples of what I'm talking about;Flynn dropping of the tree branch(btw, how does a guy drop from that distance without any bruises?) ...Flynn and rapunzel hiding behind the table and the wierd expression rapunzel makes when she says don't freak out. I think thats all of them I thought were extreme..


Next the story, why does Flynn not have a sword? It felt weird and dumb he didn't have one. Isn't he suppose to be an adventure? Hes doing risky business with two big guys with swords and he doesnt have one, in case they turn on him. More over, he goes into a bar filled with thugs and ruffians acts all bold and nonchalant and doesn't have a weapon to defend himself? He then goes through a tunnel sees a sword but doesn't take it for defense, wtf kind of adventurer is that? And then he fights with a frying pan, it felt like they wanted really badly to make a joke about frying pans with the story behind it making no sense, sure its funny seeing a man swordfighting a horse wielding a blade with a frying pan, but the story just doesn't hold up because of it.

On the talk of swords, how the hell did the twins get back their blades? the guards took them, and we see them(the twins) going through the tunnel without them. So how the fuck did they get them back? the same exact swords too...

Gothel: How was an old woman able to take out two muscular dudes (who are suppose to be good with swords so their fighting instincts should be sharp) with a stick if it was one of them it would of have been understandable..but two!?

They should have just made her a witch or gave her a partner, someone loyal.. maybe a love interest( where they both would take out the twins with it making sense )

Continuing: the comedy element in this film was a little too strong.so much that at certain scenes which sticks completely to emotional appeal it made you want to cringe (when will my life begin reprise). I mean everything before that scene was comedy after comedy, even in the songs before it, and then we get to this scene..sigh(I can just imagine people cringing in the theaters during that scene ) what I'm saying here is they should have killed the comedy a bit before that scene or have something funny happen in it, like make the chameleon do something silly..anything!..

The other problem I had, which is no way a big one, because its in pretty much a lot of previous Disney movies. nonetheless the problem was the modernize language like ''ouch'' ''literally'' ''dont freak out'' ''Its complicated'' these were a pain to listen to..sigh..

This is partly why I liked the kingdom dance scene...


This movie also needed a 5star song. It lacked that it quality..

also, the ending was poorly done. From the right before flynn saw the unicorn(well the old guy was funny) to before he dies..felt rushed..and unsatisfying..

Now, conversely, apart from the horse, the charmealon, the old guy in the diaper and the animation. I also liked the romance. Its not perfect but its so natural, organic and believable you can't help but like it. Its more convincing than alot of romantic comedy movies I've seen (ive seen a good amount too) with actual humans, and thats very sad...

that is all..

5star wrote: Gothel: How was an old woman able to take out two muscular dudes (who are suppose to be good with swords so their fighting instincts should be sharp) with a stick if it was one of them it would of have been understandable..but two!?

They should have just made her a witch or gave her a partner, someone loyal.. maybe a love interest( where they both would take out the twins with it making sense )

Remember there was a scene where Gothel made a deal with the brothers? That whole scene was staged so Gothel could persuade Rapunzel to come back with her.

LySs wrote:
Remember there was a scene where Gothel made a deal with the brothers? That whole scene was staged so Gothel could persuade Rapunzel to come back with her.

Then how in hells name did they end up in prison? and why would they not catch the girl and kill gothel. Seeing as how valuable she was. ''how much do you think someone would pay to stay young and healthy forever''

What? Is it something the movie failed to mention or hint at the beginning.. are they suppose to be mentally challenged?

5star wrote:Firstly, why does Rapunzel have similar mannerisms to a high school pre teen? shouldn't she be like Gothel, the only person shes been able to see/imitate. The person shes grown with for 18 years(even if shes only there for an hour a day)? Why does she act like shes been infected with the hyper from kids at highschool?

Whereas I understand what you're getting at and it is completely plausible that Rapunzel would pick up habits from Gothel, you also have to take into account that she has always been treated as a child. Rapunzel has no true sense of responsibility, probably only an inkling of cause and effect and no knowledge of anything outside the bubble she lives in. The only thing Rapunzel knows of the world is what she reads, which is probably limited, and what Gothel tells her. Because of these reasons, there is no real chance for her to mature. Also... she's 18. When was the last time you spoke with an 18 year old girl? Or watched any reality TV? Despite all I wrote, and even if she were in a different situation, her personality isn't a stretch. She's just a happy girl on an adventure.

Next, this movie is too inconsistent/contradictory. Could someone tell how a girl who hasn't been out for 18 years suddenly knows how to swim, tame a horse etc? She acts like a girl whos been out before but was hit on the head in the past and is gradually regaining memory..Thats what the movie should of been about then...it would of made sense; Her experiencing things for the first time is suppose to be the drive for this movie..it seemed like they were trying too hard to be an empowerment for girls or trying too hard to make her not seem dependent(i got that vibe from start to finish). which inevitably caused problems..

I wouldn't really say Rapunzel swam.. I'd say she sank and then burst out of the rock wall. Aside from the somewhat explainable "swimming," Rapunzel approaches everything as if she's learning something new. I think we can both agree that Maximus is not a horse and the way she "trained" him was not proper. She spoke to him like a child and he responded as if he understood. She was afraid of the thugs at the bar and naturally warmed up once she realized there was nothing to be scared of. Getting back to the lack of understanding in cause and effect, Rapunzel approached most things without fear, just like a child, because she doesn't know she should fear it.

Still on the subject of inconsistency. As I said earlier, I liked the animation, it was beautifully life like and fluid at times. However, there were times where you wonder if its really difficult for them to maintain the fluidity and look of the characters. And if so, then they should have just did it hand drawn; The characters at times move real and life like, with convincing facial expression. And looked really good. Then at other time they look disproportional. Mostly seen with Rapunzel. I mean is it really that hard to keep her looking like shes does at the beginning of the movie(in the Pop song montage and other scenes)? At times she looks like a chipmunk..and at others her eyes are just too big(her and gothel) and then at times she looks really good, like a hoty.. also at times they move awkward..

I'm not sure how much you know of CG animation, and I don't mean that in a condescending way, but all of the characters are models. The models of each character do not change during the movie and the only thing that could effect their look is an odd camera angle or lighting, just like in life. So I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly but the characters never change in look or shape. If anything, hand drawn animation is much more inconsistent. Watch The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast. Belle and Ariel each have about six different faces.

Extreme facial expressions, whats the deal here..why do they go to extreme lengths to make the main characters funny and neglect the supporting character/side kicks? Thats what the sidekicks are for...they provide the extremes for comedy not the human characters and especially not the main characters. examples of what I'm talking about;Flynn dropping of the tree branch(btw, how does a guy drop from that distance without any bruises?) ...Flynn and rapunzel hiding behind the table and the wierd expression rapunzel makes when she says don't freak out. I think thats all of them I thought were extreme..

The side kicks are only comedic relief. Pascal and Maximus contribute nothing at all to the story and could easily have been taken out. Rapunzel does have a bond with Pascal and confides in him but aside from that he does nothing. Maximus could just be a horse. I understand you like him but his character does nothing for the story aside from finding Flynn for the guards once. And in terms of the facial expressions.. Squash and stretch has always been a part of Disney animation and probably always will be. Exaggerating characters a bit more than humanly possibly contributes to the fluidity of the animation and oddly makes it more believable.

Next the story, why does Flynn not have a sword? It felt weird and dumb he didn't have one. Isn't he suppose to be an adventure? Hes doing risky business with two big guys with swords and he doesnt have one, in case they turn on him. More over, he goes into a bar filled with thugs and ruffians acts all bold and nonchalant and doesn't have a weapon to defend himself? He then goes through a tunnel sees a sword but doesn't take it for defense, wtf kind of adventurer is that? And then he fights with a frying pan, it felt like they wanted really badly to make a joke about frying pans with the story behind it making no sense, sure its funny seeing a man swordfighting a horse wielding a blade with a frying pan, but the story just doesn't hold up because of it.

In this film, the only characters seen with swords are the guards and Gothel, both who are preventing the main characters from succeeding (aka "bad guys"). As it is made for children, maybe Disney did this consciously to keep Flynn on the good side despite him already being a thief.

On the talk of swords, how the hell did the twins get back their blades? the guards took them, and we see them(the twins) going through the tunnel without them. So how the fuck did they get them back? the same exact swords too...

This isn't something I noticed but I believe you. This is similar to my question as to how Rapunzel kept that satchel hidden for so long and where exactly she put it.

Gothel: How was an old woman able to take out two muscular dudes (who are suppose to be good with swords so their fighting instincts should be sharp) with a stick if it was one of them it would of have been understandable..but two!?

If she were behind them and hit them hard enough over the head one after another, this is believable? This part didn't bother me personally, I just assumed she used the element of surprise really well.

The other problem I had, which is no way a big one, because its in pretty much a lot of previous Disney movies. nonetheless the problem was the modernize language like ''ouch'' ''literally'' ''dont freak out'' ''Its complicated'' these were a pain to listen to..sigh..

Yeah but name one Disney film that has been periodically correct?

Just a question.:

Was tangled ever released with a sleeve/slipcover on dvd in the us?

I see plenty of PATF dvds with sleeve, but no tangled...I'm beginning to wonder if it even exists

Khonnor wrote:Just a question.:

Was tangled ever released with a sleeve/slipcover on dvd in the us?

I see plenty of PATF dvds with sleeve, but no tangled...I'm beginning to wonder if it even exists

The Tangled DVD doesn't come with a slipcover.. Many DVDs Disney has put out for the past year or so haven't been with a slipcover.

Patrick wrote: Whereas I understand what you're getting at and it is completely plausible that Rapunzel would pick up habits from Gothel, you also have to take into account that she has always been treated as a child. Rapunzel has no true sense of responsibility, probably only an inkling of cause and effect and no knowledge of anything outside the bubble she lives in. The only thing Rapunzel knows of the world is what she reads, which is probably limited, and what Gothel tells her. Because of these reasons, there is no real chance for her to mature. Also... she's 18. When was the last time you spoke with an 18 year old girl? Or watched any reality TV? Despite all I wrote, and even if she were in a different situation, her personality isn't a stretch. She's just a happy girl on an adventure.

Huh but no ones with her for her to act the way she does, like mumbling, the hype up etc. Unless shes been exposed to the sort or unless gothel sometimes behaves that way around her; when a child reaches a certain age she or he will imitate the more experience person around them and take some of their traits, its only natural.

I wouldn't really say Rapunzel swam.. I'd say she sank and then burst out of the rock wall. Aside from the somewhat explainable "swimming," Rapunzel approaches everything as if she's learning something new. I think we can both agree that Maximus is not a horse and the way she "trained" him was not proper. She spoke to him like a child and he responded as if he understood. She was afraid of the thugs at the bar and naturally warmed up once she realized there was nothing to be scared of. Getting back to the lack of understanding in cause and effect, Rapunzel approached most things without fear, just like a child, because she doesn't know she should fear it.

I guessing you haven't watched the movie in a while. She did swim in the cave and when they got out she swam a good distance before coming out the water. As though shes done before, as i said.

And she didn't speak to max like a child..she spoke to him like he was a dog: ''drop the boot'' ''sit'' ''thats a good boy'' and I don't remember them saying she had a dog..

And while we're on this scene, didn't you find it strange that max was committed to pull her by the hair at one point and some how chose not to push her aside to get flynn?

I'm not sure how much you know of CG animation, and I don't mean that in a condescending way, but all of the characters are models. The models of each character do not change during the movie and the only thing that could effect their look is an odd camera angle or lighting, just like in life. So I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly but the characters never change in look or shape. If anything, hand drawn animation is much more inconsistent. Watch The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast. Belle and Ariel each have about six different faces.

No, I don't know much about animation, so thanks for the info.

Well, it looked strange to me in some scenes. when comparing ones from similar camera angles..

And in terms of the facial expressions.. Squash and stretch has always been a part of Disney animation and probably always will be. Exaggerating characters a bit more than humanly possibly contributes to the fluidity of the animation and oddly makes it more believable.

Yes, but they don't have to be extreme for it to be believable. And I've never seen Aladdin(though i hate this fool), jasmin, Ariel or Eric make extreme facial expression likes those. Its a little unrealistic/unappealing and looks like a desperate try to get some giggles. It also makes it a bit hard to take the characters seriously.

In this film, the only characters seen with swords are the guards and Gothel, both who are preventing the main characters from succeeding (aka "bad guys"). As it is made for children, maybe Disney did this consciously to keep Flynn on the good side despite him already being a thief.

The pub thugs had swords/weapons. Remember the fat guy threw an axe missing a next dudes head by a couple of inches. Isn't he suppose to be a good guy?

And what does that have to do with being bad or good?

This isn't something I noticed but I believe you. This is similar to my question as to how Rapunzel kept that satchel hidden for so long and where exactly she put it.

That never crossed my mind, your right where did she hid the satchel...

If she were behind them and hit them hard enough over the head one after another, this is believable? This part didn't bother me personally, I just assumed she used the element of surprise really well.

Theres no way an old woman is taking out two buff guys (who are meant to be sharp in their movement) with a stick, not even light enough to the holder for a quick swing.

Where can I get an English Blu-ray of this film titled Rapunzel?

Disney Duster wrote:Where can I get an English Blu-ray of this film titled Rapunzel?

I think the netherlands has it. I could be wrong on that but i remember that theirs is titled Rapunzel.

from what i recall, rapunzel didnt actively swim. she mimicked flynn by holding her breath and ducking under as the water was rising. then she made her hair glow, by which point the cave was full. then i think the current pulled them down river before they could gain their footing and get on to the bank.

Khonnor wrote:Just a question.:

Was tangled ever released with a sleeve/slipcover on dvd in the us?

I see plenty of PATF dvds with sleeve, but no tangled...I'm beginning to wonder if it even exists

I brought My Tangled blu-ray from HMV... And It did come with a slipcover
The cover must only be for the 3D Play Combo !

DisneyDude2010 wrote:

Khonnor wrote:Just a question.:

Was tangled ever released with a sleeve/slipcover on dvd in the us?

I see plenty of PATF dvds with sleeve, but no tangled...I'm beginning to wonder if it even exists

I brought My Tangled blu-ray from HMV... And It did come with a slipcover
The cover must only be for the 3D Play Combo !

The Blu-ray had a slipcover, but to my knowledge the DVD hasn't in any region.

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Where can I get an English Blu-ray of this film titled Rapunzel?

I think the netherlands has it. I could be wrong on that but i remember that theirs is titled Rapunzel.

On the cover it is, but in the film itself only when you watch it in Dutch. If you choose the English audio track, the original title will show up.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

DisneyDude2010 wrote: I brought My Tangled blu-ray from HMV... And It did come with a slipcover
The cover must only be for the 3D Play Combo !

The Blu-ray had a slipcover, but to my knowledge the DVD hasn't in any region.

The Dutch DVD does have a slipcover, weird that it doesn't have one in the US.

I was just thinking how one advantage Disney has in doing CGI films is that it's much more difficult for animators to reuse scenes from their previous films.