DVDizzy Forum

Some direct comparisons for the heck of it so we can take a look at the eyes. . .



The Disney pic of Rapunzel on the left, a screencap of Ariel in the middle (flipped over and tilted in an effort to match the angle), and the edit of Rapunzel on the right (which doesn't really count).

Hey enigmawing, could you make a gif of the image of Rapunzel morphing into the image of Ariel?

(Smt like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDIoN-_Hxs )

Thanks.

enigmawing wrote:Some direct comparisons for the heck of it so we can take a look at the eyes. . .



The Disney pic of Rapunzel on the left, a screencap of Ariel in the middle (flipped over and tilted in an effort to match the angle), and the edit of Rapunzel on the right (which doesn't really count).

Ariel and Rapunzel: BBF

sotiris2006 wrote:Hey enigmawing, could you make a gif of the image of Rapunzel morphing into the image of Ariel?

(Smt like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDIoN-_Hxs )

Thanks.

I don't have a program capable of that type of animation but I think I've found one to try. I'll see what I can do and be back in a bit.

enigmawing wrote:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/ ... comp-1.jpg

Yeah, like I said, she does share a large conceptual similarity to Ariel (and, by extension, Alice), but the eyes seem even bigger, especially when compared to the rest of her face (cheeks/chin).

But, again, like I said, it probably won't turn out this bad in other images--she looked more like Jesse from Toy Story 2 in the image of her and Flynn. I think that's just a bad picture.

I'm actually surprised people aren't a little irritated that they are heavily borrowing from other princesses, particularly Ariel. Giselle seemed to be heavily inspired by Ariel, too (with a touch of Aurora); and that was okay because it was supposed to be an imitation, and not entirely original. I mean, along the line, 2 similar character types will surely have some likenesses, but here the only big difference is the hair length. It kind of erases the potential for difference in character to have the looks so alike (and Rapunzel does have a similar over-protected, naive, aggressive feel that Ariel had, from what we've heard and seen of the story). And that can only be another detriment if this character is inevitably added to a 2D 'princess' line--they'll end up just blurring together to the general consumer.

Disney Duster wrote:I realized two more things. One, Rapunzel is the name of lettuce. In fact, she was named after the lettuce the witch traded for her. So it's not a girl's name. It's lettuce. Little boys will not think a movie titled a kind of lettuce sounds girly.

Gee, I didn't know that, so I bet a bunch of seven and eight year old boys will!

Disney Duster wrote:And...there are many things we can not be sure whether Walt Disney would approve of...but one thing we can be pretty sure he would not approve is calling his company's take on a fairy tale "Tangled" or anything so far away from the original title.

We don't know how he would feel about new territory, but when it comes to old territory, a fairy tale (or anything based on literature, for that matter), we know from showing us time and time again that he would never have changed the title (except something like for example Treasure Planet since it would not have made any sense keeping the original title as it was so different, set on other planets).

And if you say he may have changed with the times, we still can be pretty sure he wouldn't have approved of this, because many people thought Snow White was going to be a folly, that no one would want to watch it, but he stuck by it. He didn't change anything to get more people to see it.

And then of course if you keep saying Walt is dead, yea, each time you say that it just shows less and less respect for the thing you claim to love.

I've got to disagree. First off, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was not going to be a folly because of being a "princess" or "fairy-tale" movie. It was because it in itself was revolutionary. It was not the subject matter being questioned, as in the case of Tangled. It was because people said a full-length cartoon was going to be boring. You can't really compare the two.

One thing I believe about Walt was that he was adaptable and he knew what audiences liked. He was NOT out-of-touch. And Disney is out-of-touch now. I'm not saying the name change is a right choice, I mean, there was a point when I'd prefer "Rapunzel" but a movie made TODAY, well, Tangled is a more apt title.

I had hoped Disney could strike up a Renaissance, bring back the classics of yesteryear, but revivals sometimes happen, and sometimes they don't, and it's because of the public, and most importantly, timing. And I don't know if there's anything more "respectful" than trying to keep Walt's old company above water. Margos brought this quote up, but I'll bring it up again- "a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet". It's often forgotten, too, that a title is apart of the cover, and you don't judge a book by its cover, do you?

Walt's ideals may still very well lie in "Tangled". And I question, if Walt's ideals weren't apart of the original "Rapunzel", would it have made it any better because the name was more "classic"? I don't think so.

Disney Duster wrote:And today, I read Alice in Wonderland made a lot, a lot of money, more than they expected. And I was wondering if that PG movie with a girl's name in the title...which made them so much money in theaters...might make them think more on letting Rapunzel stay Rapunzel? Yup, I'm hopeful, like a Disney protagonist!

But you're forgetting one thing. "Tangled" is a romantic comedy, Disney musical. "Alice in Wonderland" is a twisted Tim Burton film, that just happens to be produced by Disney. In fact, I'd say it's not an over-exaggeration to say people associate the new Alice in Wonderland with Burton before they do with Disney.

sotiris2006 wrote:Hey enigmawing, could you make a gif of the image of Rapunzel morphing into the image of Ariel?

Sorry about the watermarks but I just downloaded Abrosoft Fantamorph and it's only a free trial.


Click here for the full-sized version.

I think I did pretty decently at my first shot with the program. The Rapunzel pic I used here is a combination of the original and the edit; I kept the original, larger eyes for the sake of being true to the version presented by Disney but retained the painting over of the text so we can actually see her.

That's actually pretty nice. And of course, then eyes do the least morphing. no shocker there.

enigmawing wrote:

sotiris2006 wrote:Hey enigmawing, could you make a gif of the image of Rapunzel morphing into the image of Ariel?

Sorry about the watermarks but I just downloaded Abrosoft Fantamorph and it's only a free trial.


Click here for the full-sized version.

I think I did pretty decently at my first shot with the program. The Rapunzel pic I used here is a combination of the original and the edit; I kept the original, larger eyes for the sake of being true to the version presented by Disney but retained the painting over of the text so we can actually see her.

Something you should put in the Haunted Mansion like the portrait corridors.

Well UmbrellaFish, it's not about knowing she was named after lettuce. It's that the name Rapunzel does not sound girly or like a princess, since it's lettuce, so if little boys don't know about her story (like you), then they shouldn't think it's girly, either.

I think you forget one Walt ideal might also be the title. If you don't think Walt cared about the surface of his film then why perfectionism in the animation, why Sleeping Beauty at all? Why did he have all the classics keep their classic names each and every time, even his last, The Jungle Book, kept the original name when the movie wasn't even a book and it was weird.

People have told me a rose by any other name would smell as sweet many a time, but then I posited watching Beauty and the Beast with a title change. You see the gorgeous opening with the castle, mysterious music, beautiful stained-glass windows and the story of a Prince turned to monstrous, tormented Beast. Then the title comes up saying, "Hairy". Then Belle sings a wonderful song about wanting more in life. You really think you won't be thrown off or get a bad taste in your mouth or totally lose the feelings of the film for a bit after that lameass title made you laugh or go wtf?

And the CGI is something Walt would probably approve, as he wanted his hand-drawn, hand-painted animation to look like a fairy tale, particularly like drawn and painted storybook illustrations. The CGI for Rapunzel is trying to do the same thing, feel like a fairy tale, particularly like painted storybook illustrations or paintings that would have existed back in those times.

I have wondered for a while...what if audiences stopped liking every Disney ideal or Disneyish thing? Would the Disney company become very un-Disney just to please audiences? And I'm wondering if that's slowly happening. But it's just a thought, it's just something to think on, and to illustrate my point of trying to stay as Disney possible. We don't know so much about new territory, but in the territory of fairy tales, Walt has three (and I even count Pinocchio, Peter Pan, and maybe Alice, making more like six) examples of how the Disney way is with those. I don't find the Renaissance fairy tales to have strayed away from that too much, though maybe they did a little. But none of that was like Tangled.

Also, Disney has enough money, really. Pixar makes them lots, Alice just made them a buttload more than they dreamed of. They can stand to make Rapunzel traditional Disney even if it means a little less than they wanted, because the smarter people will realize those kinds of films are good and get Academy awards, not stuff like Alvin and the Chipmunks and the many other stupid films that for some reason make big money despite how crappy they are.

But Rapunzel will be such a good film with the traditional story (it apparently has) and the traditional name (it needs to have) that everyone will want to see it anyway.

I don't mind about Lettuce...that's a cool thing I never knew about...but I swear if this movie includes an Ogre holding and Onion and/or a Parfait im going to snap

I was just wondering, but do you think we will see Rapunzel and Flynn get married? Out of Disney's fairy tale films, there have only been three weddings between the main characters: Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, and The Princess and the Frog.

For me, a wedding scene (like the movies I named) or seeing a couple's married life (Enchanted, Pride and Prejudice, Emma) or both (Princess and the Frog) just makes the movie complete.

Wow. Wowy. Wow. I'm lovin' this new picture! A very nice find! It looks very Glen Keaneish, the way she should look. Very painterly. I showed my sister this pic, and she insisted that it was just concept art, not an actual movie still!

Also, congradulations to the person who managed to morph the Ariel pic into Rapunzel. An extremely neat effect!

Thanks enigmawing! Great gif!

Disney Duster wrote:Well UmbrellaFish, it's not about knowing she was named after lettuce. It's that the name Rapunzel does not sound girly or like a princess, since it's lettuce, so if little boys don't know about her story (like you), then they shouldn't think it's girly, either.

I don't know what you mean about me not knowing about the original story of Rapunzel, but I assume that you're saying that in the fairy tale by the Grimm's, Rapunzel was named for lettuce. But here's the thing- while I may not know that, I know Rapunzel is the princess that let her hair down for a prince to climb and save her from a wicked witch. And so do little boys. I mean, how could you say that if they don't know the story, then they'll think it's about lettuce? Of course they're going to insinuate the name of Rapunzel as "girly". Undoubtedly they've heard of the story.

Disney Duster wrote:I think you forget one Walt ideal might also be the title. If you don't think Walt cared about the surface of his film then why perfectionism in the animation, why Sleeping Beauty at all? Why did he have all the classics keep their classic names each and every time, even his last, The Jungle Book, kept the original name when the movie wasn't even a book and it was weird.

Well, I don't think titles like "Cinderella" or "Sleeping Beauty" carried quite as much of a punch back then as they do now. They were just fairy tales that had been told as family traditions passed on through the generations, and Walt was only carrying on that tradition by making the film. Now, "Cinderella" and "Sleeping Beauty" and little girls' Barbie dolls, backpacks, pencil sets... I blame the current state of Disney on two things- the princess line and the DTV sequels. I think they've caused so much damage to Disney's public image that we've only scratched the surface. And I think that's why "Rapunzel"'s name had to be changed.

Disney Duster wrote:People have told me a rose by any other name would smell as sweet many a time, but then I posited watching Beauty and the Beast with a title change. You see the gorgeous opening with the castle, mysterious music, beautiful stained-glass windows and the story of a Prince turned to monstrous, tormented Beast. Then the title comes up saying, "Hairy". Then Belle sings a wonderful song about wanting more in life. You really think you won't be thrown off or get a bad taste in your mouth or totally lose the feelings of the film for a bit after that lameass title made you laugh or go wtf?

I don't think "Tangled" is as bad as "Hairy", but that's just my opinion. And honestly, I don't know if "Tangled" will have as much depth and be as beautiful as "Beauty and the Beast". If it does, that's lovely, and as I'm already grown to not hate the title "Tangled", I'm sure I'll be even better with the name change, because the film will still be good. I guess what I'm saying is "Tangled" is simply not as screwed up as "Hairy".

Disney Duster wrote:And the CGI is something Walt would probably approve, as he wanted his hand-drawn, hand-painted animation to look like a fairy tale, particularly like drawn and painted storybook illustrations. The CGI for Rapunzel is trying to do the same thing, feel like a fairy tale, particularly like painted storybook illustrations or paintings that would have existed back in those times.

I don't remember mentioning CGI, so... But I agree, what we've seen so far has been very, very nice.

Disney Duster wrote:I have wondered for a while...what if audiences stopped liking every Disney ideal or Disneyish thing? Would the Disney company become very un-Disney just to please audiences? And I'm wondering if that's slowly happening. But it's just a thought, it's just something to think on, and to illustrate my point of trying to stay as Disney possible. We don't know so much about new territory, but in the territory of fairy tales, Walt has three (and I even count Pinocchio, Peter Pan, and maybe Alice, making more like six) examples of how the Disney way is with those. I don't find the Renaissance fairy tales to have strayed away from that too much, though maybe they did a little. But none of that was like Tangled.

Actually, I think the classic "Disney" label hinders the company. I mean, there's no one film you expect out of Fox or Warner Bros, but you do expect a family-friendly picture from Disney. That can be a good thing and a bad thing. Maybe Walt would have actually liked that, expect now, people don't automatically expect a good family friendly picture. It seems audiences now consider a quality Disney film to be a pleasant surprise...

Disney Duster wrote:Also, Disney has enough money, really. Pixar makes them lots, Alice just made them a buttload more than they dreamed of. They can stand to make Rapunzel traditional Disney even if it means a little less than they wanted, because the smarter people will realize those kinds of films are good and get Academy awards, not stuff like Alvin and the Chipmunks and the many other stupid films that for some reason make big money despite how crappy they are.

Yeah, but as soon as animated films, particularly 2-D films and fairy tales, start losing money, their nixed. Disney's in a transitional period right now, and it's incredibly exciting to be a Disney fan, because we have no idea where the company is going, good or bad. But I think we're witnessing history, here.

Disney restyles 'Rapunzel' to appeal to boys
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... 4175.story

Floyd Norman, a retired Disney and Pixar animator, lampooned the new name with a cartoon on his blog that depicts Rapunzel in her tower brandishing a machine gun and declaring "Rapunzel Salvation: This Is Not a Princess Movie."

"The idea of changing the title of a classic like 'Rapunzel' to 'Tangled' is beyond stupid," said Norman, who worked on films including "Mulan" and "Monsters, Inc."

"I'm still hoping that Disney will eventually regain their sanity and return the title of their movie to what it should be. I'm convinced they'll gain nothing from this except the public seeing Disney as desperately trying to find an audience."

Disney Duster wrote:I realized two more things. One, Rapunzel is the name of lettuce. In fact, she was named after the lettuce the witch traded for her. So it's not a girl's name. It's lettuce. Little boys will not think a movie titled a kind of lettuce sounds girly.

Actually in some versions it's Phyeuma, the genus of an European flowering plant. It's common name is Rampion, but in the fairytale I assume the brothers Grimm choose a more feminine version: Rapunzel. Phyeuma = Rampion = Rapunzel.
I've seen one movie version where it was radishes. Reminds me of a joke my sister and I have: ♫ Radishes, radishes, they're not even human! ♫
My point is none of these, or any other vegetable, rolls off the tongue like Rapunzel does and it's not the actual name of the plant.

Disney Duster wrote:Well UmbrellaFish, it's not about knowing she was named after lettuce. It's that the name Rapunzel does not sound girly or like a princess, since it's lettuce, so if little boys don't know about her story (like you), then they shouldn't think it's girly, either.

Let's look at fairytale girls named after things:
Cinderella, from "Cinder" with a "girly" sound.
Thumbelina, from "Thumb" with a "girly" sound.
Rapunzel, from "Rampion" with a "girly" sound.

All the names were made to be feminine so of course they're going to "sound girly" to boys! They could call her Zel (which I despise) or any other similar name and it still wouldn't matter. It's all about the imagery. Boys see a girl with crazy-long blonde hair wearing a princess dress and of course they'll think the movie's for girls!
The only way they can attract more boys is, not changing the name, but advertising in trailers and commercials more of Flynn. And it can't be Flynn playing his banjo or dancing with the ladies like Naveen. No. It has to be him in action; fighting, riding his horse, something heroic. That's how they'll draw in the boys.

Thanks to those of you who liked the morph, hopefully I can pick up the actual program soon as I'd love to try other Disney ones.

UmbrellaFish wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:People have told me a rose by any other name would smell as sweet many a time, but then I posited watching Beauty and the Beast with a title change. You see the gorgeous opening with the castle, mysterious music, beautiful stained-glass windows and the story of a Prince turned to monstrous, tormented Beast. Then the title comes up saying, "Hairy". Then Belle sings a wonderful song about wanting more in life. You really think you won't be thrown off or get a bad taste in your mouth or totally lose the feelings of the film for a bit after that lameass title made you laugh or go wtf?

I don't think "Tangled" is as bad as "Hairy", but that's just my opinion. And honestly, I don't know if "Tangled" will have as much depth and be as beautiful as "Beauty and the Beast". If it does, that's lovely, and as I'm already grown to not hate the title "Tangled", I'm sure I'll be even better with the name change, because the film will still be good. I guess what I'm saying is "Tangled" is simply not as screwed up as "Hairy".

"Tangled" definitely sounds much more refined than "Hairy." Let's turn the tables and say that this Rapunzel film was being retitled "Hairy." Both new titles could have multiple meanings that could apply to a girl with 70 feet of magical hair, but it's not really a fair comparison in my book. Which makes "Tangled" sound all that much better.

UmbrellaFish wrote:Actually, I think the classic "Disney" label hinders the company. I mean, there's no one film you expect out of Fox or Warner Bros, but you do expect a family-friendly picture from Disney. That can be a good thing and a bad thing.

I've thought this for years actually, that the Disney name has held them back from keeping up with the times. Not to mention that the company spent a lot of time floundering, wondering "what Walt would have done." I was so glad to see Pirates come out with a PG-13 rating, and that it was so wildly successful despite the fact that it wasn't G or PG.

UmbrellaFish wrote:Maybe Walt would have actually liked that, expect now, people don't automatically expect a good family friendly picture. It seems audiences now consider a quality Disney film to be a pleasant surprise...

Unless it's an old-school film they grew up with, like Bambi or The Little Mermaid. Heh, even back in the day my dad was expecting The Little Mermaid to suck the night we went to the theater to see it, stating that their films hadn't been the same since Walt died . . . he was pleasantly surprised ("the magic is back!") and was actually excited about the movies released in the early 90's since his expectations were back.

Prince Edward wrote:Disney restyles 'Rapunzel' to appeal to boys
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... 4175.story

Floyd Norman, a retired Disney and Pixar animator, lampooned the new name with a cartoon on his blog that depicts Rapunzel in her tower brandishing a machine gun and declaring "Rapunzel Salvation: This Is Not a Princess Movie."

"The idea of changing the title of a classic like 'Rapunzel' to 'Tangled' is beyond stupid," said Norman, who worked on films including "Mulan" and "Monsters, Inc."

"I'm still hoping that Disney will eventually regain their sanity and return the title of their movie to what it should be. I'm convinced they'll gain nothing from this except the public seeing Disney as desperately trying to find an audience."

Yeah, I just read that (and was going to post and you beat me to it, so I need to tweak my Notepad document before I copy/paste. )


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocom ... eover.html
(via animationguildblog.blogspot.com)

"We did not want to be put in a box," said Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, explaining the reason for the name change. "Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody."

So WTF with boys' names titles...? They're not going to say, "Some people might assume it's a movie for boys when it's not," about something like Bolt or Tarzan or Hercules. And did boys have issues going to see Pocahontas or Mulan?!?

Its most recent release, "Up," grossed more than $700 million worldwide.

"The Princess and the Frog" generated considerably less -- $222 million in global ticket sales to date.

"Based upon the response from fans and critics, we believe it would have been higher if it wasn't prejudged by its title," Catmull said.

But apparently in the eyes of moviegoers, Pixar > Disney, so this makes sense. I guess I get that Disney wants to emulate Pixar as far as ticket sales go (and apparently as far as no-female-lead-characters-in-our-films go. ("But what about The Bear and the Bow? That has a princess in it." a) Not in the title, and b) as someone mentioned on some thread here, we don't know how big a role the princess will play; surely they'll downplay the princessy aspect?)

In rethinking "Rapunzel," Disney tested a number of titles, finally settling on "Tangled" because people responded to meanings beyond the obvious hair reference: a twisted version of the familiar story and the tangled relationship between the two lead characters.

I wish Mr. Norman would run the animation department. They could use him.

..."The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast" and "Mulan." The difference between those releases and "Princess and the Frog" is that those earlier films weren't marketed as princess movies.

The female characters emerged as a brand only in 1999, when Disney Consumer Products lumped nine of the favorite Disney princesses together to sell toys, clothing and other merchandise. That licensing business accounted for $3.7 billion in retail sales last year.

That is a good point, in the sense that there hadn't been a (non-sequel) "princess" film since the Disney Princess Collection brand started until TP&tF...

Disney Princesses didn't always suffer from lack of sex appeal.

Mary Costa, the actress who voiced Princess Aurora in the 1959 Disney film "Sleeping Beauty," said the animated classic continues to attract male admirers. Indeed, she recently received a letter from a 22-year-old who wrote he has loved the film since he was a young boy.

"These young men are not the least bit embarrassed about liking 'Sleeping Beauty' and consider themselves young princes," Costa said.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 ... now_l.html
(via animationguildblog.blogspot.com)

...it seems like Disney may have learned the wrong lesson from the lackluster performance of Princess and the Frog. For one thing, was it really the premise of the movie that turned kids off, or the fact that it was a hand-drawn animated picture being sold to a generation raised on the digital animation of Pixar? Perhaps it wasn't a negative reaction to girliness, but rather a rejection of Disney's old-fashioned taste. Maybe the swashbuckling hero written into the story will work out and draw little boys, but forgive us for being skeptical of the demand for an homage to Errol Flynn in 2010.

A commenter wrote:

Now, what I think kids don't know (not because they wouldn't understand, just because it's not common knowledge to them and no one's told them) is the whole idea of the Disney 90's Renaissance, or that this core group of people behind Princess and the Frog were also responsible for the Disney Renaissance films advertised in its' trailers. The advertising campaign relied a little too much on this "legacy" idea, which probably intrigued the adults, but went over kids' heads...The other half [of the advertising] was usually the scene where the frog introduces himself to the princess, which wasn't that funny to begin with.

Okay, then tell me, how does Rapunzel sound girly on its own? Hm? You don't think Rapunzel sounds like it good be a guys name? You don't think the name "Prince Rapunzel" sounds like it could be a real name? You don't think Rapunzel really just doesn't sound like anything in particular unless you are familiar with the story? Rapunzel is such a weird name, it could be for a guy or a girl in some foreign country.

And so it seems even Floyd Norman, who animated during Walt's days, disaproves of this, knows Walt would never hve done it, and wants it to change back.

I guess this is what the LA Times did robster16! I'd say you did something very successful, bringing all this to the public's attention and getting Floyd Norman to even speak!