DVDizzy Forum

Oh she was horrible at the Oscars but then again, I only knew her as
"the chick who isnt amy adams!"

It wasn't horible!!! In fact she sung it lovely. It just sounded different because her voice is trained, Amy Adams' voice isn't.
Adams may sound more "natural", but Chenoweth had perfect pitch and just sounded different because we're not used to her doing the song as the Adams version is the one our ear "knows".

For anyone that doesn't know who the amazing Kristin Chenoweth is, she played:

The original G(a)linda in Broadway's smash hit, "Wicked."
Sally Brown in her Tony-award winning role in the revival of, "You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown."
And numerous other movies such as:

Bewitched
RV
Deck the Halls
Running With Scissors
Stranger Than Fiction

Dottie wrote:It wasn't horible!!! In fact she sung it lovely. It just sounded different because her voice is trained, Amy Adams' voice isn't.
Adams may sound more "natural", but Chenoweth had perfect pitch and just sounded different because we're not used to her doing the song as the Adams version is the one our ear "knows".

I disagree. I liked Kristen's voice many other times, but at the Oscars she did badly. She was off.

Anyway, I really hope Disney has the guts to keep the thorns bloodily piercing the prince's eyes. Need I remind you we got to see blood on Maleficent Dragon? Then again, maybe magically blinding him would make the tears that magically heal him more sensical.

If they kept the pregnancy...maybe they could show little girls that getting pregnant can happen if you're not careful and it doesn't always make you happy. Then Rapunzel could go out on a quest to try and find the prince because she ain't takin' care of those kids by herself. This film should be suitable for children...but not cater to them. Maybe it could be the first PG Disney fairy tale?

Well, isn't it a Disney policy to keep the amount of blood shown to a minimum. I mean, wouldn't they have to get a close-up of the blood on the Prince's skin. Personally, I think Disney will go with the traditional, bare-boned, story. The one where the queen simply catches them, seperates them, but they reunite. I'm not agaisnt the other version at all, I prefer, but I doubt it's the route Disney will take.

Kristen really should have sung "Happy Working Song" at the Oscars. It's much more in her range (slightly).

Admittedly... I don't care if she's still doing Rapunzel or not. I like her, but I can't help but think 90 minutes of her voice might grate my nerves.

Disney Duster wrote: I disagree. I liked Kristen's voice many other times, but at the Oscars she did badly. She was off.

Gotta agree with Disney Duster on this one. I love her as Glinda and I own her last album, but I don't think her voice for for "That's How You Know." Or actually, her voice can fit perfectly for that song. She's done similar voices already! Which I think will be perfect for Rapunzel.... I hope....

I can't imagine Disney would include the thorns piercing the prince's eyes- that's violent! Blood definitely has to be kept to a minimum. And I definitely can't see Disney including a non-marital pregnancy in its films- at least Chicha was married to Pacha...there's just no way that that will be included in the film, unless they want a PG-13 rated animated classic.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I can't imagine Disney would include the thorns piercing the prince's eyes- that's violent! Blood definitely has to be kept to a minimum. And I definitely can't see Disney including a non-marital pregnancy in its films- at least Chicha was married to Pacha...there's just no way that that will be included in the film, unless they want a PG-13 rated animated classic.

I defintly agree.
They won't do that,I think the witch will just a cast a spell on him that he won't see a thing.
The witch might see the prince going to the tower himself and after he leaves she's getting mad at Rapunzel,or maybe he can forget his hat or something and then she finds out about him.
Yeah,It won't be good espically since they're not merried,and Rapunzel will look for the Prince insted of Rapunzel taking care of the children.

The pregnancy element of the tale as been abandoned/absent in many versions long ago. Excluding it from the film won't be necessarily unfaithful to the original, and plus, Disney has never been one to be known for it's faithfulness

yes, I heard Snow White's mother was cut, because she was pregnant.
But in LATT Lady was pregnant (I guess).
So ya never know, what you never know...

I don't know what it is, but I just have this deep feeling that this will be a VERY VERY beautiful movie, and I feel that it'll do extremely well!

supertalies wrote:yes, I heard Snow White's mother was cut, because she was pregnant.
But in LATT Lady was pregnant (I guess).
So ya never know, what you never know...

Of course Lady was pregnant! You just don't see the whole thing. Remember also that Perdita was clearly pregnant in 101 Dalmations and that there is an extensive scene where she gives birth to the puppies, though it happens off-screen of course.

Personally I would like to see a woman give birth to a child in a Disney movie, but if that will ever happen, it will also be off-screen I guess.

The bloodiest Disney ever got in their animated movies was with the dragon in Sleeping Beauty I think. And Tarzan got a scratch-mark on his chest (which soon dissapeared)and when Mulan was wounded you clearly saw a dark spot where she was hurt. I doubt Disney will go much further than that.
Even if Disney would just suggest that the princes' eyes were pierced with thorns, without showing the bloody aspects, it would still be shocking for a young audience.
So a magic spell, as Ariels' Prince suggested, could be a good solution - like they did in The Little Mermaid. (instead of robbing Ariel of her voice by cutting off her tongue!)

On the other hand, wasn't the prince blinded in the original story because he fell on the thorn bush? To blind him throug a magic spell thus means having to rework a big part of the story.
I think there is a solution to keep the original story aspect without it being too frightening:
You see the prince fall from the tower, and a thornbush beneath. Fade out.
Later when Rapunzel finds him his eyes are bandaged. When she askes what happend he explains. Her tears fall on the bandages eyes (don't know how that can be shown) and his sight is restored again. (" I suddently felt something happening, as if I got my eyes back" and he takes off the bandages and looks at her)
Just my suggestion, of course Disney has thought of something completely different.

The difficulty is of course that Disney cannot satisfy everybody, whatever solution they choose.
On one hand they may have to deal with angry parents who accuse Disney of "frightening their childeren", on the other hand there are those critics who accuse Disney of sanitising and 'dumbing down and spoiling'' original fairy tales.(but they are not the target audience anyway).

I'm just very curious how this movie will turn out. A good Disney animated fairy tale must at least have some frightening aspects.

Personally I would like to see a woman give birth to a child in a Disney movie, but if that will ever happen, it will also be off-screen I guess.

But that has happened; in L&tT, Jim Dear and Darling's baby is a major plot point.

On the other hand, wasn't the prince blinded in the original story because he fell on the thorn bush? To blind him throug a magic spell thus means having to rework a big part of the story.

Not extremely. If the witch simply found the two together, she could "blow" the prince out of the tower with a spell that blinds him simultaneously. You'd be surprised what magic can do. I'm pretty sure Disney, in the fragile state it keeps itself in, would never blind someone via thorns. Of course, we don't even know that this part of the story will be included at all.

In some ways I'm hoping they do add the thorns story point somewhere into the story for the Prince's blindness, but since it's Disney I doubt that would happen. Although if Walt was still alive and making the film, I sort of don't doubt it might be in there (but probably not bloody) since Snow White, Pinocchio, and Sleeping Beauty are darker films in themselves than many of the 90s films.

I just hope that they do a decent job in general with this movie since Rapunzel is one of my favorite fairy tales, and they manage to be true to the original story, but add a lot of their own original story conventions, like with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White. And with Glen Keane directing, I have very high hopes of this film doing well.

I think the blindness storyline can remain in place.

For example in Chamber of Secrets it was done tastefully, the Bassilisk (though not a prince) losing his vision wasn't too horrifying and Fawkes' healing tears was an emotional scene that provided the right balance between the darkness of the climatic battle and the lightness of the overall film. I mean the first two Potter films were pretty light.

I think if done in a similair way it could easily work here.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Personally I would like to see a woman give birth to a child in a Disney movie, but if that will ever happen, it will also be off-screen I guess.

But that has happened; in L&tT, Jim Dear and Darling's baby is a major plot point.

Yes, that's true. But I was thinking about something more 'close-up', for instance showing mother and baby shortly after she has given birth, or the father pacing nervously up and down waiting for things to happen (as in 101 Dalmatians) finally you hear a baby cry and "Its a boy/girl!"

BelleGirl wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:But that has happened; in L&tT, Jim Dear and Darling's baby is a major plot point.

Yes, that's true. But I was thinking about something more 'close-up', for instance showing mother and baby shortly after she has given birth, or the father pacing nervously up and down waiting for things to happen (as in 101 Dalmatians) finally you hear a baby cry and "Its a boy/girl!"

Like in the Swann Princess?

There was quite a lot of blood when Beast got stabbed...

Disney's showed pregnancy in full with TENG. Of course they're not going to show the baby actually being conceived, few movies do.

But regarding Rapunzel, it would be pre-marital sex, and sex after what, one visit of the Prince and Rapunzel? They'd get a lot of complaints about that, and it would be quite legit as well (unlike Angelina Jolie upset about lack of cultural diversity).

There's hugh difference between the Beast bleeds a bit because of a knife and thorns poking the prince's eyes.
You seriously think that they"ll keep the thorns poke his eyes?.