The Disney Essence Debate

[Disney Duster]

DisneyAnimation, I did not read the book, so you need to tell me if and why I am wrong on anything about how it goes, but Wikipedia said "Despite being born with a crippled leg and derisively nicknamed Lungri (The Lame One) by his own mother, Shere Khan is arrogant and regards himself as the rightful lord of the jungle". So, despite the details of his leg and how people treat him, he acts like the powerful lord of the jungle, and it sounds just like the way he acts in the film.

You said that they needed a streetsmart character because Rapunzel was a princess? They made Rapunzel a princess! They made their own requirements!

As for "suiting my own tastes", there are some things Disney does that are not to my liking or are too my liking but still do not fit with the way Walt Disney did past things. For instance, I do like the idea of the lost princess thing, but that's not as faithful as Disney's past films were.

Please read what I wrote in the "Your Version of Rapunzel" thread, you don't have to, but I will point out that the original filmakers made a mistake. They had Flynn cut Rapunzel's hair before he got healed just to make him sacrifice himself and have to die, when Flynn could have gotten healed and then cut the hair. So I came up with a solution, that Rapunzel goes to heal him, Mother Gothel says Rapunzel doesn't have to be over there to do it, just her hair, so Flynn has to cut her hair from her head before Mother Gothel pulls her back over, so he has to sacrifice himself. I came up with something that fixed the film and if you lok at what I wrote you may see other things I improved on, while keeping it more like Walt's fairy tales, so me being at Disney telling them how to do some things might be good, at least admit it's a possibility and what I wrote gives it some credulence.

Dr. Frankenollie, Walt Disney did certain kinds of changes to his films. He did specific changes, not just any changes, and I'm trying to point them out. But one thing everyone else can see, and that is that Tangled is the fairy tale that is most changed from it's source material, more than any previous Disney fairy tale and way more than any of Walt fairy tales. He never changed them that much.

Super Aurora : (

[DisneyAnimation88]

You said that they needed a streetsmart character because Rapunzel was a princess? They made Rapunzel a princess! They made their own requirements!

I'm bored of this argument now, it really is not going anywhere. Look, Disney changed the story they were adapting from, what on earth is the big deal? They've done it before and I'm pretty sure that they'll do it again. For example, considering Snow Queen has been in story-development hell for pretty much the last decade, I'm not expecting it to be a mirror-image of the fairytale. If that happens, are you going to react this way again or will you just save yourself the torment and not see the film?

As for "suiting my own tastes", there are some things Disney does that are not to my liking or are too my liking but stull do not fit with the way Walt Disney did past things. For instance, I do like the idea of the lost princess thing, but that's not as faithful as Disney's past films were.

Fine but because they don't suit your tastes doesn't make them wrong. Disney don't only make films to suit you or your tastes, they are trying to attract as large an audience as possible. Somehow I don't think they start planning a film by asking "what would Duster do?"

I came up with something that fixed the film and if you lok at what I wrote you may see other things I improved on, while keeping it more like Walt's fairy tales, so me being at Disney telling them how to do some things might be good, at least admit it's a possibility and what I wrote gives it some credulence.

I have read it and I don't think you "fixed" the film at all. The majority of people who saw the film seemed to have loved it, hence it being the massive critical and commerical success that it is. I don't think it's a possibility at all because I loved Tangled, I loved the changes they made and thought they worked perfectly. I'm sorry but I just don't believe that you exclusively know the secrets to making Disney films or that Disney need your help and I don't think what you wrote gave the film any more credulence at all.

But one thing everyone else can see, and that is that Tangled is the fairy tale that is most changed from it's source material, more than any previous Disney fairy tale and way more than any of Walt fairy tales.

You're just making a massive assumption here to try and prove your opinion as fact. Have you not read The Little Mermaid, one of the most tragic fairytales ever written? There is no technicality you can apply here because it won't alter the fact that Disney's The Little Mermaid is massively and undeniably changed from the original fairytale, no amount of "essence" will change that.

[Sky Syndrome]

As for Bambi, someday I'd like to read that, but the only big changes I know of are...adding new animals to it? The rest is pretty much just moving scenes around? It seems the changes for both books for the most part were cutting, adding, and moving around.

There was no Thumper or Flower, no "Twitterpated" storyline, Bambi and Faline do not end up together, more characters die, a hunter is killed and used to help Bamb understand the danger of man, Bambi ends up far more world-weary than in the Disney film...

I want to add: in the book, Faline is Bambi's cousin. Her mother, Edna, is Bambi's mother's sister. Edna also has a son, same age as Faline, named Gobo.

[Elladorine]

Also in the book, Faline is Bambi's cousin. Her mother, Edna, is Bambi's mother's sister. Edna also had a son named Gobo.

Funny, but I remember somehow having that impression when I was a little kid, but to this day I haven't read the original book. I wonder if it was mentioned in one of my storybooks or something? Or that if it would have been impossible to imply any level of incest in any Disney version?

I thought nothing of it at the time and wondered if it was all in my head when I got older. And now that I know it's in the original book, well hmm . . .

[DisneyAnimation88]

Or that if it would have been impossible to imply any level of incest in any Disney version?

If I had to guess I would say this. I'd forgotten they were related in the novel, I did remember that they don't have the "happily ever after" ending that they do in the Disney film as Bambi essentially leaves her to follow in his father's footsteps.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Dr. Frankenollie, Walt Disney did certain kinds of changes to his films. He did specific changes, not just any changes, and I'm trying to point them out. But one thing everyone else can see, and that is that Tangled is the fairy tale that is most changed from it's source material, more than any previous Disney fairy tale and way more than any of Walt fairy tales. He never changed them that much.

As DisneyAnimation88 said, The Little Mermaid at the very least is more unfaithful to its source material than Tangled; in Hans Christian Anderson's original tale, the mermaid died and turned into sea foam at the end.

And besides, what's wrong with changes to the source material? Sometimes changes can be good, sometimes they're bad; you can't determine the quality of a film based on whether it had a number of changes to its source material. Tangled could've been the best Disney movie of all time with the changes it had, but it also could've been the worst with the same changes; it's not the changes that matter, it's the substance (characters driving the plot, emotional connection to the audience, a balance of humour and emotion, well-paced and well-structured story, etc.) and sometimes a bit of the style (mostly visuals too).

[Super Aurora]

You said that they needed a streetsmart character because Rapunzel was a princess? They made Rapunzel a princess! They made their own requirements!

You're missing the point.

The purpose of a streetsmart character(Flynn), it to be a sort of guide and leeway introduction for Rapunzel to the real world. The streetsmart character is the character that is the one that has the most idea and knowledge of outside survival. In a sense, they are opposite of the the shelter naive character. A prince isn't best suited for that type of character. A thief or someone of lower class would be.

Making Rapunzel the princess works as symbolic metaphor to her naive and uninformed natured thanks to being sheltered. A princess, who most often known for, are sheltered people inside a castle or palace.

Flynn was both a character and a plot motivator/driver for Rapunzel to get the fuck out. This is why many people like Flynn. That and they like him because he tries to be like Kyouraku Shunsui.

Super Aurora : (

You know it's true. Or else you and everyone else wouldn't be having this argument indefinitely.

[Disney Duster]

Fine but because they don't suit your tastes doesn't make them wrong. Disney don't only make films to suit you or your tastes, they are trying to attract as large an audience as possible. Somehow I don't think they start planning a film by asking "what would Duster do?"

! You didn't understand! I was telling you why it's not to suit my own tastes! I was saying that I like the lost princess thing (that is my taste), but it does not fit the faithfulness of Walt's past films (that's Disney's tastes). For another example, I do not like some of the morality of Disney's films, like making Pinocchio be brave, truthful, an unselfish instead of just be someone who is kind but can lie if it doesn't hurt anyone, can be afraid of things, and can think of his wellbeing as well, but I admit that it is a Disney taste and so I must let it be in Disney films.

You read everything I wrote for my more Disney-ish version of Rapunzel? You didn't like any of it and couldn't see how some things from it could be in the current movie and you'd still enjoy the movie? Well, can you at least admit I fixed how Flynn had to cut Rapunzel's hair before he was healed, when in the film he didn't have to (he could have waited till he was healed, then cut it), but they made him cut it before he was healed for sake of plot without a good reason, but I gave him a good reason?

I actually did read the entire original Little Mermaid, by the way. The characters kept all their original backgrounds and the title of the movie, and most of the plot. The only thing they changed was the ending. If Tangled stayed the same except for changing the ending, then it would be the same. I have seen other people admit Tangled is still Disney's most changed fairy tale. I think you're purposely trying not to think that here.

Dr. Frankenollie, if we must, this is how it is. The Little Mermaid's changed ending was a big change of the very last section of the story, right? Well, in Tangled, not just one section, but the entire story, all it's sections, are changed. The beginning is changed from a gardening witch exchanging lettuce with peasants to some ordinary woman with a magic flower who steals from royalty, the middle section is completely changed from a prince visiting his love Rapunzel to a journey out of the tower with a thief and vikings and guards chasing them, and the ending is changed from the lovers being thrown into a dessert or blinded until they find each other and Rapunzel becomes a princess to Rapunzel getting tied up and Flynn getting stabbed and the witch growing old and Rapunzel being reunited with the King and Queen!

The reason I am against the changes is not about just making the story good. It's about keeping the changes within the way past Disney movies were done. Would Walt Disney want his studio to continue based on the success of movies that were called "good"...but they were Rated-R, had depressing endings, or were about evil conquering good? That brings up how The Little Mermaid's change was necessary, to have a typical, happy, Disney ending. Read what I siad above for anything else.

Super Aurora, no, I don't think it's true, read what I said above if you must, it might explain. And I see what you mean about making Rapunzel a princess and making Flynn a thief for the representing dynamic, but the fact is the original story had them differently, and the dynamic of a naive, almost helpless peasant and strong, powerful, knowledgable prince does make sense. And it was romantic how a prince saved an innocent peasant from a tower. I wrote my more Disney version of the story in the "Your Version of Rapunzel" thread if you want to see how it could be more like Walt's more faithful versions and still be just as enjoyable as the current movie. I'd like it if you read it, but I'd understand if you didn't.

[DisneyAnimation88]

You read everything I wrote for my more Disney-ish version of Rapunzel? You didn't like any of it and couldn't see how some things from it could be in the current movie and you'd still enjoy the movie?

Yes I did read the whole thing and no I didn't see how anything in it could improve Tangled. In my opinion Tangled is a very good film that was well written, well directed, had good songs and is very much a classic Disney film.

The only thing they changed was the ending. If Tangled stayed the same except for changing the ending, then it would be the same. I have seen other people admit Tangled is still Disney's most changed fairy tale. I think you're purposely trying not to think that here.

That is rubbish, they did not only change the ending. The Little Mermaid is not a happy fairytale, unlike the Disney version the prince doesn't have romantic feelings for the Mermaid, while Ariel is not cursed by the sea witch to feel as though she is walking on swords. Disney changed the entire feel and theme of the fairytale to make it more suitable for them to adapt. Try and justify it as much as you want, that is a fact, no one is "purposely" thinking that.

It's about keeping the changes within the way past Disney movies were done. Would Walt Disney want his studio to continue based on the success of movies that were called "good"...but they were Rated-R, had depressing endings, or were about evil conquering good? That brings up how The Little Mermaid's change was necessary, to have a typical, happy, Disney ending.

Do you really think Disney would have had the prince jump out of the tower and be blinded by thorns even if they had been entirely faithful to the fairytale? I'm beginning to agree with Goliath, you have an agenda against Tangled because you're too preoccupied with nostalgia.

I wrote my more Disney version of the story in the "Your Version of Rapunzel" thread if you want to see how it could be more like Walt's more faithful versions and still be just as enjoyable as the current movie.

I can't believe that you actually think that you fixed the film or something. It doesn't need to be fixed or made "more Disney", it's fine the way it is. You don't have to like it, if it's "un-Disney" don't watch it ever again but you are not going to change it and that's a good thing as there are many, many people who love it the way it is.

Well, in Tangled, not just one section, but the entire story, all it's sections, are changed.

The reason for that is simple; Rapunzel is a short and straightforward fairytale in which not much happens. If it had been ninety minutes of the prince sneaking into the tower to talk with Rapunzel until he was caught and blinded, it would have been a very dull and uneventful film. You can say "Walt would have done this.." all you want but the changes were made to benefit the film, not on a whim.

I was saying that I like the lost princess thing (that is my taste), but it does not fit the faithfulness of Walt's past films (that's Disney's tastes).

Rubbish. If Disney can take The Jungle Book or The Little Mermaid or The Hunchback of Notre Dame or the legend of Pocahontas and make them into Disney films, they can do the same for a fairytale like Rapunzel. Again, you'll no doubt apply "essence" here but that is a concept that only you seem to understand given all the technicalities and changes in argument you've made. Disney try to suit the tastes of a mass audience and with Tangled, they did that. You don't have to like it, no one does, but you can't change it to try and fit your own personal views and opinions.

[Dr Frankenollie]

^I second everything DisneyAnimation88 has said.

Disney Duster, Disney has been making changes to the source material in their adaptations for decades. What do you mean "It's about keeping the changes the way past Disney movies were done"? Do you mean to still keep the happy endings in the stories, etc?

No, Walt Disney wouldn't want his movies to be Rated-R, depressing or have evil conquering good, but Tangled didn't have any of those. Also, if you're talking about the Little Mermaid, me and DisneyAnimation88 were making the point that it was changed more than Tangled (the ending wasn't the only thing changed).

[ajmrowland]

Well, in the famous words of an Un-Disney character: Good Grief.

Even Walt made a *ton* of changes to the stories to benefit the films. I think the one that was least changed is Snow White, and that film has tons of padding that didnt really benefit it. As opposed to Pinnocchio, Dumbo, and Bambi which werent really padded at all. Cinderella, at least had some good bits with the mice to lengthen things out, and Sleeping Beauty was about anyone and everyone other than Sleeping Beauty. The ending of Peter Pan was changed, various elements of Alice in Wonderland were changed, and the entire Jungle Book was changed.

The list goes on......

[DisneyAnimation88]

Even Walt made a *ton* of changes to the stories to benefit the films. I think the one that was least changed is Snow White, and that film has tons of padding that didnt really benefit it. As opposed to Pinnocchio, Dumbo, and Bambi which werent really padded at all. Cinderella, at least had some good bits with the mice to lengthen things out, and Sleeping Beauty was about anyone and everyone other than Sleeping Beauty. The ending of Peter Pan was changed, various elements of Alice in Wonderland were changed, and the entire Jungle Book was changed.

You make a very good and valid point ajmrowland but sadly we all know that you'll get the same rebuttal of "those are okay because they're Disney changed" or "those are ok because Walt either made them or they're the same kind of changes he would have made".

Rather than continue with this back-and-fore debate that is going nowhere, I just want to try and sum up my feelings on this matter and then, hopefully, put my involvement in this to rest.

Disney Duster, when others have accused you of being biased by nostalgia, I didn't agree and thought that you did make some good points in your arguments. But this past week has left me feeling that those people were right, unless it was made by Walt himself or is a Renaissance film, you pick holes in it and label it "un-Disney". Tangled, Lilo & Stitch, The Emperor's New Groove, the list goes on but there is one simple fact that cannot be denied: they ARE Disney films,no amount of technicality or essence will change that and I find it quite disrespectful to those who spent years making those films when you say that what they did is "un-Disney".

You're perfectly entitled to your opinions and truth be told, sometimes what you say does make a lot of sense. But what never makes sense to me, nor apparently to many others, is this notion of a "Disney change". As Dr. Frankenollie and ajmrowland have already pointed out, Disney have ALWAYS changed the stories that they adapt into animated features. Sometimes those changes are small, sometimes they're more significant but unless they existed, those films would be "un-Disney" as you put it. It doesn't matter whether it's a fairytale like The Little Mermaid or Rapunzel, a well known work of literature like The Jungle Book, The Rescuers or The Hunchback of Notre Dame or a story based on real life or mythology like Pocahontas or Hercules, Disney's adaptatons are ALL different from the original sources. It's just a fact of life that that is what Disney do and it is something that they are heavily criticised for by scholars and academics, "Disneyfication" is the proper term they use I believe.. You say you've read The Little Mermaid but the only thing Disney changed was the ending which isn't true; they changed the backgrounds of many of the characters, something you criticised Tangled very heavily for doing. And you haven't read Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book yet defend the changes Disney made and condemn those made in Tangled.

To be clear, I'm not saying that you're wrong to dislike Tangled; no one has to like every animated Disney film, even if they're a self-confessed Disney enthusiast. But the reasons you give why the film is "wrong" or "un-Disney" just don't add up and when others point out the blatant inconsistencies in your argument, you come up with technicality after technicality to defend what you're saying. If you don't like it, just say so but accept that the problems you have with it (the changes, Flynn Rider, the ending) are what others, like myself, love about it. And we're not wrong to do so.

But I have to say that I think that the problems you have with Tangled are going to prevent you from enjoying the films Disney are making right now. You've already criticised Wreck-It Ralph for it's director and choice of cast so I've already prepared myself for the "un-Disney and essence" debate that will undoubtedly ensue when the film is actually released. Snow Queen is going to be different from the original fairytale written by Hans Christian Andersen; if it was a straightforward re-telling it wouldn't have spent the past decade being constantly delayed, cancelled and rewritten so I'm expecting a "Disney change" debate. You didn't like Disney adapting Mort because there was a characterisation of Death in the novel.

It is not my place to tell you what you should or shouldn't like but rather than constantly compare Disney's new films to bygone eras in the history of the company, why not try to enjoy the films for what they are? Walt Disney is gone but the people in charge right now are very much "Disney"; some were trained by the Nine Old Men, some have spent over three decades working for the company so I believe that they always have the heritage of the company in mind in whatever work that they do and that they will pass that on to a new generations of filmmakers and animators at Disney.

I hope nothing I say has offended you as that was not what I intended. As I said, I'm saying this to make it clear why I disagree with you on this matter, not to criticise you or start an argument. I like you, I enjoy reading your posts and realise that you're a valued member of the forum who's been here a long time but rather than continue to go back and forth as we have done, I would rather simply make my thoughts clear and this is the perfect thread to do so.

[Disney Duster]

Dr Frankenollie, yes, I know that Tangled wasn't R-rated or had a depressing ending with evil conquering good, I was using that as a mere example as to why a movie can't just be good, it has to be Disney and the kinds of things Walt set examples of.

Real quick I want to say with The Little Mermaid, I do admit the tone is changed from dark to lighter, but that is how it is in Tangled, too, and those changes are Disney in both movies so I am okay with them in both movies, that's right, even in Tangled. For the prince not having feelings for the mermaid, well actually he did love "the girl who saved him", it is only in Disney's version he finds out it's Ariel, i.e., the changed ending which we already talked about is one section. But if you don't agree, and want to compare, in Tangled the guy doesn't love Rapunzel at first unlike the original story, and I would be okay with that change, too. But then Tangled still has more changes than that, though, as I explained before.

I like you too DisneyAnimation88, because you do have great opinions and you are also nice to me, you're one of the few members here who treats me well enough to try and understand my arguments and not right it all off as nonsense without even thinking about it.

However, sometimes you don't understand me, and sometimes I think you get mad, but you're so nice I guess I can't think you're doing it on purpose, I just wish you could always understand me.

I like to keep debating with people until we come to an agreement, or a compromise. I wish Disney itself could compromise with me, do the films they want to do, but try to do them more in the Disney way that an avid Disney fan like me feels for sure is the true way and at least, can be said, fits a lot of past Disney movies.

I see that you like Tangled a lot, and the only thing you might think should be changed is the title? Well, I can't believe you didn't think I made a tiny fix to Flynn's sacrifice, and I can't believe you don't see how the characters could keep almost all the same emotions and personalities with my changes. I think this is one place that you may be being unreasonable. You love the film so much you're not open to the idea of any piece of it changing, even if those changes won't ruin the movie at all, and won't change very much. If the movie had been like mine first, you may have actually liked it better. I'm saying you might have. not that you definately would, I'm just saying think of the possibility.

Also, at least you can admit I did explain how the film could be very faithful like Walt's past films and still have the same entertainment value of the current film, it's not all just a prince visiting a princess for 60 minutes!

Also, I think I can finally clarify on something. Okay, so Walt Disney made lots of changes. But I can explain why you do have to be specific to what kind of changes, and how far they went. It's because if we just said he made changes, that means that someone could take a story, like Little Red Ridinghood, and change it into something like...Hoodwinked!, yet we know Hoodwinked is far too changed for a Disney movie!

That's why we have to be specific to what kind of changes Disney made. It seems that it constantly goes like this:
Me: Disney made specific changes, Tangled doesn't follow them.
Lots of others: Disney always made changes!
Me: Yes, but let's look at the specific changes-
Others: Disney made changes!
Me: Yes, but let's look at how they're-
Others: Disney made changes!

Now, sometimes people will try to be understanding and look at those specific changes with me, but it's seldom. To me it, an avid Disney fan, I felt a shock at some of the changes I heard Disney was making to their movies these days, and while Walt's changes make sense to me in the, yes, sorry to say it, but "Disney essence" way, a lot of the ones today do not. I already provided a way for Tangled to have been more like the Walt fairy tale films, with the original backgrounds and closer to what actually happens in the fairy tale, but stayed roughly the same in the personalities, plot, and entertainment, so it proves that the filmakers did not need to change those things to make the story longer or better. Unfortunately, you love the film so much, you don't seem to be willing to even consider this, that maybe if you saw my version you would have liked it better, or at least almost the same. Please don't let your love of the film not let you consider other possibilities for a few seconds.

Well, I guess that's all I can say. I know you're tired of this, and I am too, but I'm also tired of not being understood, I'm tired of saying there's specific changes and everyone just says "there's changes!"

[DisneyAnimation88]

However, sometimes you don't understand me, and sometimes I think you get mad, but you're so nice I guess I can't think you're doing it on purpose, I just wish you could always understand me.

That's true, sometimes I don't fully understand what you're saying but I know the point you are trying to get across in you're argument. The problem for me is sometimes you contradict yourself, unintentionally, but I think that that is one reason myself and others have problems with some of the things you say.

I like to keep debating with people until we come to an agreement, or a compromise. I wish Disney itself could compromise with me, do the films they want to do, but try to do them more in the Disney way that an avid Disney fan like me feels for sure is the true way and at least, can be said, fits a lot of past Disney movies.

I get that, your passion for Disney is obvious in all of your posts. But it could be that in ten or fifteen years you look back and see Tangled as a classic Disney film. All I will say is rather than compare Disney's present with it's past, try to enjoy the films they're bringing out.

I think this is one place that you may be being unreasonable. You love the film so much you're not open to the idea of any piece of it changing, even if those changes won't ruin the movie at all, and won't change very much.

I don't think Tangled is perfect by any means; one thing I would have liked to have seen is some of the characters from the original concept art in the film. I like the pub thugs but ideally I would have liked them to have been developed more than they were. But I like Flynn Rider and because of that, I personally don't see any reason to change him. That's just my opinion.

Also, at least you can admit I did explain how the film could be very faithful like Walt's past films and still have the same entertainment value of the current film, it's not all just a prince visiting a princess for 60 minutes!

I'm not saying you didn't but I personally liked Tangled so much that I would not want to see it changed. As I said, that's just my opinion, I'm not saying I disliked what you wrote or that there could be many people on the forum who prefer it.

Please don't let your love of the film not let you consider other possibilities for a few seconds.

I do; I often watch a Disney film and think "I would have done this part another way.." but my reasoning is that these films spend years, sometimes decades in production, being rewritten and rewritten until eventually they become the films we know today. At the end of the day, these changes are made with careful consideration, sometimes because they're needed, sometimes because the filmmakers want to make them, but they're not made on a whim or to alienate audiences.

[Goliath]

Disney Duster, if you really dislike Rapunzel for the changes they made, you must absolutely DESPISE Aladdin and Hercules, right? Do you hate those movies too? With Aladdin, they turned a classic Arabian fairytale into a buddy-comedy filled with pop-culture references. The Genie does impressions of 20th century celebrities! Aladdin's mother is killed off! In the 'Prince Ali' sequence, a Thanksgivings Day parade is lampooned! Oh, how you must HATE Aladdin for all those horrible changes that totally changed the entire original fairy tale!

But at least it's not as bad as Hercules, where they turned Hercules' nemesis Hera into his loving and caring mother! Oh no, they di'n't! And that's not the worst part! They put in an entire song satirising 20th century pop culture! Air Herc sneakers! Action figures! Credit cards! Commercials! It's all there! What an insult to the ancient Greek myths, don't you think?

It sounded traditional, magical, very Disney, very beautiful, very amazing...and then it got Tangled.

Which is an amazing movie. It's so good, I watched it 5 times in less than 3 months on dvd, and I saw it in the theater. It's the classic Disney-feel that keeps pulling me back to it. I like how Rapunzel's design, animation and expressions is so reminiscent of the older Disney princesses. I also like how the songs are so much like the 1990's Classics.

I have seen other people admit Tangled is still Disney's most changed fairy tale. I think you're purposely trying not to think that here.

You have to stop this paranoid theme that runs through a lot of your posts, where you, at the end of a discussion, accuse others of 'not wanting to admit' that you are right. It's not about that. They simply don't think you're right. They simply don't believe that you would know better than Disney itself how to make a Disney movie. It's not that people don't 'understand' you. They do understand you. And they think you're wrong. Is that really so hard to grasp?

[Dr Frankenollie]

Disney Duster, I won't go into detail as DisneyAnimation88 and Goliath have already made many good points...
Whilst it's probably nonsensical, what kind of change do you like (i.e. a change that holds up the 'Disney Essence'), and what kind of change do you not like? I just don't grasp your opinion that the changes in Tangled are different to the changes in films like Aladdin and Hercules (which Goliath has already mentioned were far more unfaithful and had more pop culture references than Tangled, but you haven't brought them up to criticise).

In short, please explain why you like some changes, and why you don't like others.

[Disney Duster]

I get that, your passion for Disney is obvious in all of your posts. But it could be that in ten or fifteen years you look back and see Tangled as a classic Disney film. All I will say is rather than compare Disney's present with it's past, try to enjoy the films they're bringing out.

After this much time, at least...I still don't see Tangled as completely classic Disney! I still feel the way I do, that the filmakers can make essentially what they want to make, but also need to make them more truly Disney.

I am glad you admit you like Tangled so much, it is hard for you to accept any changes, which is what I was saying. I wish you could accept my changes, which don't change all that much.

Also, the directors said the reason they made Flynn a thief was because they had done princes so much before. That really was pretty much just a whim. They might as well have said why do a fairy tale when they have done so many fairy tales before. If you're going to do any story, do it the Disney way, so any fairy tale, do it the Disney fairy tale way of the past!

Goliath, Aladdin removed a character in Al's mother. Yes. Like Walt Disney removed characters such as the Queen in Cinderella, so it's still very Disney. Since the Genie is able to see into the future and is above human power, he can make reference to the pop culture of all times, past and present. In Hercules, Hera was Hercules' mother, just like the original story. We just didn't see her be villainous, but this is a Disney type of change, like how they made Maleficent and Shere Khan more villanous than their originals. The changing of where the villainy or goodness is placed has been a Disney change since Walt. But, but, if that isn't good enough for you, then I will say that perhaps Hera should have been more villanous, I don't think Hercules is perfect either. As for the pop culture references, perhaps those too shouldn't have been there, I don't remember if any Walt films had anything like that, but it being more of a comedy with drama than the original is fine as the Jungle Book and Sword in the Stone were like that. But none of it is as much as what Tangled did.

All of it fits the way Walt never changed the backgrounds of the characters, Hercules mother didn't get changed to a human, Aladdin's mother didn't get changed to a queen, nothing like that.

Dr. Frankenollie, I think the above explains it. Changes Walt Disney made were things like expanding characters, adding to characters, taking away from characters, and never changing the original backgrounds of the important characters. But Tangled changed the characters' backgrounds very much, making it less Disney in that way.

[Mooky]

In Hercules, Hera was Hercules' mother, just like the original story. We just didn't see her be villainous, but this is a Disney type of change...

Lol, wut? Duster, if you really want to help your "Disney Essence" cause, you should at least try to gather all the facts before making such absurd statements. No, Hera wasn't Hercules' mother, she was his stepmother. And no, removing every single trace of Hera's villainy is not a Disney type of change, it's a blatant disregard of the original myths where Hera's cruelty and vindictiveness is essential part of her character.

[Chernabog_Rocks]

I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually never did mind the fact that they altered the Hercules story so much. When it first came out I hadn't quite become quite as big of an Ancient Greece fan as I am today, so I took the story for what it is and just enjoyed it. Now that I've actually spent time learning more I still don't mind it at all. While I can understand -why- people are mad about the changes or don't like them, and while I also would like to see a far more faithful adaptation, it still hasn't changed how I feel about the film itself. If anything Hercules served as a starting point for me to begin learning about the greeks and their culture.

Annnnyways.

I think I can see where Duster is coming from in his line of thinking on Changes to things. I also want to point out that I do sort of agree with him on Tangled not feeling like a 'classic Disney' film. I think my largest problem with it lacking that feeling is that it looks a bit more like a Dreamworks film. To eliminate any Nostalgic feelings, I'll compare it to Princess and the Frog. PatF feels a lot more 'classic Disney' to me in the same vein as the Big Four from the early 90's and even some of the 1950's films, whereas Tangled has a slightly different feel for me. While I do love the film as a whole, it does give me a slight 'Dreamworks' vibe when I see it. A lot of this stems just from the fact that it's not a full on hand drawn film (which is -not- to say that it's not beautifully done) and I also have this same problem with Dinosaur, Chicken Little, Bolt and Meet the Robinsons.

I'm sure that Tangled does have a lot of similar qualities to the Walt-Era and 90's films that are classics, but I would have to go back and watch both Tangled and a few of each again just to refresh my memory on it all.

Going to stop rambling now since 2am posting doesn't bode well.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I am glad you admit you like Tangled so much, it is hard for you to accept any changes, which is what I was saying. I wish you could accept my changes, which don't change all that much.

That's not why I don't accept your changes; there's nothing wrong with them but I don't think they would improve the finished film in any way. In my eyes the film is perfect the way it is, it just doesn't need to be changed.

Also, the directors said the reason they made Flynn a thief was because they had done princes so much before. That really was pretty much just a whim. They might as well have said why do a fairy tale when they have done so many fairy tales before. If you're going to do any story, do it the Disney way, so any fairy tale, do it the Disney fairy tale way of the past!

Perhaps, but I've also read an interview with them where they said that they needed a character that was world-weary and imperfect to contrast the protected and sheltered life that Rapunzel had led. A prince would have led the same sheltered life so they created Flynn. Like I've said before, Disney films spend years in production; Tangled must been in production for nearly a decade. In a production that lasts so long, I don't think anything, especially the characterisaton of such an important character as Flynn Rider, was done simply on a whim.