Tangled (& Tangled Ever After) Discussion: Part VII

blackcauldron85 · Post by **blackcauldron85** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:00 pm

I wrote something in the Snow Queen/Frozen thread that got me thinking. Where has all the Flynn merchandise been? I mean, was it just Disney Marketing's ploy to get butts in the seat to make it seem like Flynn was a big deal in the film? Because, I mean, obviously his part in the film is pretty major, but I'm just wondering if the whole renaming/putting a strong male lead in Rapunzel ended up how Disney wanted it to.

The domestic gross was so not as much as other more-recent Disney films (I mean, since the Renaissance), because the budget became so astronomical...I mean, it did super-well, but since the budget was so high...I don't know how to find words for what I'm thinking, but if this is the formula they're choosing to follow for future films, I just find it interesting. But the film did do well, but Disney just made a narrower profit, I guess. I mean, it did a heck of a lot better than The Princess and the Frog (:()... Basically the foreign box office on Tangled made it what it was...I mean, so often that is the case, that the foreign outdoes the domestic, which makes sense, but Disney seems to put so much meaning into the domestic gross (look at Treasure Planet, for example, pretty much writing it off as a failure before it had time to start its foreign openings)...

Semaj · Post by **Semaj** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:53 pm

blackcauldron85 wrote:I wrote something in the Snow Queen/Frozen thread that got me thinking. Where has all the Flynn merchandise been? I mean, was it just Disney Marketing's ploy to get butts in the seat to make it seem like Flynn was a big deal in the film? Because, I mean, obviously his part in the film is pretty major, but I'm just wondering if the whole renaming/putting a strong male lead in Rapunzel ended up how Disney wanted it to.

The domestic gross was so not as much as other more-recent Disney films (I mean, since the Renaissance), because the budget became so astronomical...I mean, it did super-well, but since the budget was so high...I don't know how to find words for what I'm thinking, but if this is the formula they're choosing to follow for future films, I just find it interesting. But the film did do well, but Disney just made a narrower profit, I guess. I mean, it did a heck of a lot better than The Princess and the Frog (:()... Basically the foreign box office on Tangled made it what it was...I mean, so often that is the case, that the foreign outdoes the domestic, which makes sense, but Disney seems to put so much meaning into the domestic gross (look at Treasure Planet, for example, pretty much writing it off as a failure before it had time to start its foreign openings)...

When it came to marketing, Disney was stuck in a position where someone was going to be left out. The Disney fairy tale fans were upset by the name change from Rapunzel to Tangled, and at the film's DreamWorks-styled promotions. Alan Menken was upset that the film downplayed its musical theme. Some Disney purists were upset that the film was CGI instead of hand-drawn. Later, the non-fairy tale crowd was left out when the film became a success, and Flynn took a backseat to the Rapunzel princess campaign.

Despite that big jumble, it all worked in Disney's favor, and in spite of its budget, Tangled became their first major animated success since Lilo & Stitch, their first film to hit the $200 million domestic mark since Aladdin (!), and the film's overall box office performance put it in the Pixar neighborhood.

As for Flynn, Disney has still been making subtle changes in their latest fairy tales to make the newest prince and princess more rounded and developed than each of their predecessors. The royal couples of Tangled and Princess and the Frog were built-up from the Renaissance films, which in turn were quantum leaps from the Walt-era couples.

Prince Edward · Post by **Prince Edward** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:18 pm

Disney's "...first film to hit the $200 million domestic mark since" The Lion King you mean, not Aladdin;)

Tangled · Post by **Tangled** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:06 pm

DisneyDude2010 wrote:

I couldn't be the only person who replayed that over and over

Also, she has to be stuck as a short haired brunette, as there is this little thing called plot.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:17 pm

Semaj wrote:When it came to marketing, Disney was stuck in a position where someone was going to be left out. The Disney fairy tale fans were upset by the name change from Rapunzel to Tangled, and at the film's DreamWorks-styled promotions.

No, the Disney fans in general were upset. Even stories that weren't fairy tales, like Dumbo and The Jungle Book, kept titles that were either their original names or almost exactly!

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:58 pm

Disney Duster wrote:
Semaj wrote:When it came to marketing, Disney was stuck in a position where someone was going to be left out. The Disney fairy tale fans were upset by the name change from Rapunzel to Tangled, and at the film's DreamWorks-styled promotions.
No, the Disney fans in general were upset. Even stories that weren't fairy tales, like Dumbo and The Jungle Book, kept titles that were either their original names or almost exactly!

Yeah, Jungle Book kept its original title. But that's also the only thing it kept from the original Mowgli-stories. That, and the characters names. All the rest was invented by Walt's team and was *not* in the original source. But you already know that. You just choose to ignore it.

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 4:30 pm

BUT THE NAME! THE NAME!!!

Elladorine · Post by **Elladorine** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:13 pm

Oh, snap!

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:40 pm

DisneyDude2010 wrote:

Am I the only one who's reminded of former Greek prime-minister George Papandreou?

PatrickvD · Post by **PatrickvD** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:23 am

Good to see he found a new day job

Prince Edward · Post by **Prince Edward** » Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:36 am

PatrickvD wrote:Good to see he found a new day job

^^

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:22 pm

New never-before-seen artwork for Tangled!

Art by Bill Perkins

Source: http://www.highstreetstudio.com/

PatrickvD · Post by **PatrickvD** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:28 pm

Wonderful. Thanks as always!!!

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:29 pm

PatrickvD wrote:Thanks as always!!!

You're welcome!

Sky Syndrome · Post by **Sky Syndrome** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:35 pm

Heh. The golden hair stair carpet. Anyway, that picture is so pretty!

toonaspie · Post by **toonaspie** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:56 pm

Semaj wrote:
Despite that big jumble, it all worked in Disney's favor, and in spite of its budget, Tangled became their first major animated success since Lilo & Stitch, their first film to hit the $200 million domestic mark since Aladdin (!), and the film's overall box office performance put it in the Pixar neighborhood.

You gotta keep in mind that by today's standards not even $200 million would qualify as a hit in the eyes of Disney. If you can't make Pixar/Pirates numbers you're basically not worth much to the company.

And to think this all happened because of TPatF's low box office numbers. The suits freaked out and changed everything from the fairy tale titles to the Fantasyland Expansion plans at MK and even announced they would no longer do fairy tales. What a stupid thing to do really (considering they still make huge pushes with the Disney Princess franchise anyway). The promotion for TPatF was decent but had poor execution. The biggest problem with it was that it pushed too hard to be a "Renaissance film". Even it's preview TV special was more about the Renaissance films than it was about TPatF. It's a miracle that Tangled even broke $200 million with extremely little promotion. Even with Eisner gone, the suits are still making petty choices. Why don't they give WDFA the same respect they do Pixar and just let them tell and promote the stories they want to tell without worrying about stupid numbers or who their audience is?

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:05 pm

Goliath wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:Even stories that weren't fairy tales, like Dumbo and The Jungle Book, kept titles that were either their original names or almost exactly!
Yeah, Jungle Book kept its original title. But that's also the only thing it kept from the original Mowgli-stories. That, and the characters names. All the rest was invented by Walt's team and was *not* in the original source. But you already know that. You just choose to ignore it.

No. Walt kept a good amount of everything else. Like, for obviousness, the fact that Mowgli was an Indian boy raised by wolves. He wasn't changed to a prince or a thief. I already explained it, and you should know it but...you choose to ignore it?

SpringHeelJack · Post by **SpringHeelJack** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:55 pm

Disney Duster wrote:
Goliath wrote: Yeah, Jungle Book kept its original title. But that's also the only thing it kept from the original Mowgli-stories. That, and the characters names. All the rest was invented by Walt's team and was *not* in the original source. But you already know that. You just choose to ignore it.
No. Walt kept a good amount of everything else. Like, for obviousness, the fact that Mowgli was an Indian boy raised by wolves. He wasn't changed to a prince or a thief. I already explained it, and you should know it but...you choose to ignore it?

Except for how Baloo was changed from a serious, dour educator into a fun-loving friendly bear and Shere Khan was changed from a lame tiger whom no one took seriously into a legitimate threat, but that was also already explained and you should know it too but... you choose to ignore it?

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 11:06 pm

Disney Duster wrote:
Goliath wrote: Yeah, Jungle Book kept its original title. But that's also the only thing it kept from the original Mowgli-stories. That, and the characters names. All the rest was invented by Walt's team and was *not* in the original source. But you already know that. You just choose to ignore it.
No. Walt kept a good amount of everything else. Like, for obviousness, the fact that Mowgli was an Indian boy raised by wolves. He wasn't changed to a prince or a thief. I already explained it, and you should know it but...you choose to ignore it?

Next time you and Tim come over my house, remind me to give you a good beating.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 1:18 am

SpringHeelJack wrote:Except for how Baloo was changed from a serious, dour educator into a fun-loving friendly bear and Shere Khan was changed from a lame tiger whom no one took seriously into a legitimate threat, but that was also already explained and you should know it too but... you choose to ignore it?

Correction: I do know that, and I don't ignore it. If Disney changed Mother Gothel into a character taken less seriously (which at times they did) or changed the prince from serious to fun-loving (which they also did) I am fine with that. I already explained what I'm not fine with.

Other Correction: Baloo actually stayed an educator - they just changed him from being serious about it to teaching fun philosophies, and Shere Khan was still a serious threat, they just changed him from not being taken seriously by everyone all the time, and from being lame.

Super Aurora wrote:Next time you and Tim come over my house, remind me to give you a good beating.

See above.

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Tangled (& Tangled Ever After) Discussion: Part VII