DVDizzy Forum

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?

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 !

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.

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.

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 ... ?

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?

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!

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?

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.

I found this on the "Hell Yeah Tangled" message board on Tumblr a few days ago.


Pretty clever!

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote: The title change?

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.

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.

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?

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?

This is what I've always hated about cartoon purism.

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

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.

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"?

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?

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."

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?!

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?

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. ). I swear that it's completely unfair.