Tangled (& Tangled Ever After) Discussion: Part VII

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

Disney Duster wrote: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? :)
Image
User avatar
Atlantica
Signature Collection
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:33 am
Location: UK

Post by Atlantica »

Do you think Tangled will have more than one short a la Toy Story ? Or will it likely lead to a fully fledged sequel ?

Also, if this is a success, will it lead to more animated classics getting shorts ? Is this the first out of the 50 to have a short ?

Sorry for so many qus !
Judah Ben-Hur
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:17 pm
Location: In the Queen's Garden Painting the Roses Red.

Post by Judah Ben-Hur »

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:Do you think Tangled will have more than one short a la Toy Story ? Or will it likely lead to a fully fledged sequel ?

Also, if this is a success, will it lead to more animated classics getting shorts ? Is this the first out of the 50 to have a short ?

Sorry for so many qus !
Well 'Home on the Range' had a short subject on the DVD, and I think one of the others might have... Chicken Little?
Nothing Theatrical that I can think of though, unless you count package features being chopped up and re-released as individual shorts.

I doubt we'd see a sequel so soon, as only 4 of the DACs are sequels (Three Cab., Rescuers Down Under, Fantasia 2000, and Winnie the Pooh). Didn't Zachery Levine say we'd see a TV show before a sequel? or am I miss remembering something?

It's possible if this is successful we might get more Disney Princess shorts, though something in my cynical side says nah.
DisneyDude2010
Special Edition
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:48 am

Post by DisneyDude2010 »

Whoa! A shorts enough! You can't spin a fairy tale into a sequel, short, and tv series - that would be to dreamworks.

I'm quite happy with the short as Walt originally planned a short for Snow White but it was never finished, So it's not like Tangled's short is breaking the rules or anything.

I'm not sure If I will actually end up going to BatB 3D or just wait until something appears online?

The Blu-Ray is cheap enough to buy and from what I heard the 3D in Lion King wasn't spectacular.
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney
User avatar
Atlantica
Signature Collection
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:33 am
Location: UK

Post by Atlantica »

I see what you mean I guess about how less is more ... But I see not harm in a sequel if enough thought was put into the process for it to become something great.

I guess it's just odd now to me that Disney has stopped their crappy sequels, fair enough, but also ALL sequels all together, yet Pixar are getting them left right and centre ... ?
User avatar
Dr Frankenollie
In The Vaults
Posts: 2704
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am

Post by Dr Frankenollie »

Disney Duster wrote: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.
The title change? :roll:
DisneyDude2010
Special Edition
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:48 am

Post by DisneyDude2010 »

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:I guess it's just odd now to me that Disney has stopped their crappy sequels, fair enough, but also ALL sequels all together, yet Pixar are getting them left right and centre ... ?
I know! That's why i'm so weary, I would die If we ended up with another film like Cinderella 2!

If WDAS could do a sequel then I would be more than happy!
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney
User avatar
Disney Duster
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 14063
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: America

Post by Disney Duster »

DisneyDude2010 wrote:I'm quite happy with the short as Walt originally planned a short for Snow White but it was never finished, So it's not like Tangled's short is breaking the rules or anything.
Except it broke the rule of always keeping the film title close to the original!
Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Disney Duster wrote: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.
The title change? :roll:
Much more than just that. The character backgrounds. It's okay if the degree of "seriousnesss" of the characters is changed, like in The Jungle Book.
Image
User avatar
Sky Syndrome
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1187
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:07 am
Location: Maine

Post by Sky Syndrome »

I found this on the "Hell Yeah Tangled" message board on Tumblr a few days ago.
Image
Image
Pretty clever!
Image
User avatar
Super Aurora
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4835
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am

Post by Super Aurora »

Disney Duster wrote:
Dr Frankenollie wrote: The title change? :roll:
Much more than just that. The character backgrounds. It's okay if the degree of "seriousnesss" of the characters is changed, like in The Jungle Book.
Big deal. They both end up as prince and princess in the end anyway.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
User avatar
RyGuy
Special Edition
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: Orange County, California

Post by RyGuy »

Big deal. They both end up as prince and princess in the end anyway.
I think I have to agree with Super Aurora there. That their roles were reversed (he was the peasant and she was the princess) doesn't really change the essence of the story for me. Much like it doesn't bother me that Maurice is an inventor in BatB, but a merchant in the original story.

I understand why it upsets Disney Duster, but in my mind changes like this are less drastic than Ariel living happily ever after rather than becoming sea foam or Sasha the duck (Peter and the Wolf) not being dead because she was hidden in a tree rather than hearing her quacking inside the belly of the wolf after he has been captured.
User avatar
Elladorine
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4372
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm
Location: SouthernCaliforniaLiscious SunnyWingadocious
Contact:

Post by Elladorine »

Disney Duster wrote:Except it broke the rule of always keeping the film title close to the original!
Where exactly is this stated as a "rule?" :? Did Walt write some official DAC handbook that we don't know about? :lol:
Image
User avatar
Semaj
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1260
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:22 am
Location: Buffalo
Contact:

Post by Semaj »

enigmawing wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:Except it broke the rule of always keeping the film title close to the original!
Where exactly is this stated as a "rule?" :? Did Walt write some official DAC handbook that we don't know about? :lol:
This is what I've always hated about cartoon purism.
Image
"OH COME ON, REALLY?!?!"
DisneyDude2010
Special Edition
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 10:48 am

Post by DisneyDude2010 »

Disney Duster wrote:
DisneyDude2010 wrote:I'm quite happy with the short as Walt originally planned a short for Snow White but it was never finished, So it's not like Tangled's short is breaking the rules or anything.
Except it broke the rule of always keeping the film title close to the original!
I'm on about the short now.
Well with Princess and the Frog everyone got the impression Tiana was always a Princess and even in the trailers it wasn't made clear she was at a party when she kissed Naveen.
Princess and the Frog should of been called The Frog Prince - if we want the title original :roll:

At least with the title Tangled it had some mystery and it allowed viewers to connect and related with the characters. Regardless of the original Rapunzel story.

With the title Rapunzel you can kind of assume what will happen and it would always be compared to the original story. But with the title Tangled it allowed viewers to learn Disney's concept of Rapunzel.
Image
All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney
User avatar
Goliath
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4749
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Goliath »

DisneyDude2010 wrote:I'm quite happy with the short as Walt originally planned a short for Snow White but it was never finished, So it's not like Tangled's short is breaking the rules or anything.
What "rules"? :?
User avatar
estefan
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3195
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:27 pm

Post by estefan »

enigmawing wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:Except it broke the rule of always keeping the film title close to the original!
Where exactly is this stated as a "rule?" :? Did Walt write some official DAC handbook that we don't know about? :lol:
:lol: Brilliant! If I had any drawing talent of any kind, I would draw a picture of Mickey Mouse dressed like Moses going down Mount Disney and holding two stone tablets with "The Ten DACmmandents."
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland
User avatar
DisneyJedi
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3746
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Gender: Male

Post by DisneyJedi »

You know what sucks? Recently, I feel like I'm gaining a bitter (major) resentment towards Tangled and I don't know why. I mean, I loved the plot, the songs and the characters. So why in Heaven's name do I feel resentment?! :(
User avatar
qindarka
Special Edition
Posts: 861
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:14 am
Location: Malaysia

Post by qindarka »

DisneyJedi wrote:You know what sucks? Recently, I feel like I'm gaining a bitter (major) resentment towards Tangled and I don't know why. I mean, I loved the plot, the songs and the characters. So why in Heaven's name do I feel resentment?! :(
Because its not in 2D?
User avatar
DisneyJedi
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3746
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
Gender: Male

Post by DisneyJedi »

qindarka wrote:
DisneyJedi wrote:You know what sucks? Recently, I feel like I'm gaining a bitter (major) resentment towards Tangled and I don't know why. I mean, I loved the plot, the songs and the characters. So why in Heaven's name do I feel resentment?! :(
Because its not in 2D?
Well, probably, but it could be the fact that it did great financially and because of that, it could be sending the wrong message to Disney by saying that people don't give a damn about 2D animation because they only "want" more CGI movies from them.

Of course, I kind of feel a little resentment more towards Pixar than I do for Tangled when I ironically still love their movies. However, I feel a bit resentful towards them because I feel they're stealing everything from Disney; thunder, audiences, box office revenue, critical attention and even Oscars (Menken STILL was more deserving than Mr. "Same Song Over and Over" Newman. :x ). I swear that it's completely unfair. :(
User avatar
Sotiris
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 21225
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
Gender: Male
Location: Fantasyland

Post by Sotiris »

Image
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Post Reply