Finally someone else who thought "Tangled" had several tonal shifts, which weren't quite well-done at all.Mooky wrote: Tangled's numerous plotholes, tonal shifts and jumps in logic?
Honestly, I don't think most of those things matter at all. Beauty and the Beast has even worse problems in that regard and I don't mind that either. The one thing I will agree with you on is Rapunzel's revelation which is too convenient and I am not too fond of the ensuing dialogue.Mooky wrote:Some of the more obvious ones:
- Gothel goes on a three day trip for Rapunzel's art supplies. Meanwhile, Rapunzel and Flynn embark on their journey. Gothel suddenly comes back (after a couple of hours on her 'journey'), spends at least an hour trying to enter the tower, finds Rapunzel gone, and still manages to arrive to Snuggly Duckling for what seems mere minutes after Flynn and Rapunzel have arrived there.
- Intro/prologue makes zero sense. How did Gothel know about the flower, its healing powers and the incantation if the flower grew out of a Sun drop? And for that matter, how did the King know about it if Gothel was the only one in the possession of the flower? It's one of the things changed from the source material that absolutely didn't need to be changed. What's worse, one of the alternate/deleted prologues had it right.
- Rapunzel and Flynn enter the kingdom and nobody seems fazed by the girl with 70 feet of golden hair nor does anyone notice her resemblance to the baby princess mural.
- The ending is a huge deus-ex-machina. Rapunzel suddenly remembers events from when she was several months old, and her parents recognize her and accept her without any questions or doubts at all (if Anastasia case has taught us anything it's that people are not above exploiting mourning relatives).
You can read this post for other things that annoyed me about the movie.
Oh yes, I think I indeed mixed them up. Wonder how Victor Hugo would have reacted to this movie (probably he would get a fit) and how he would have liked the idea that two 'sidekick' gargoyles carry his Christian and surname.ProfessorRatigan wrote:^Victor? He's the tall, slender, stuffy, proper gargoyle. Hugo is the fat, loud one played by Jason Alexander (in the English dub, anyway). Are you sure you didn't get them mixed? I've never minded Victor. I always found him to be my favorite of the gargoyles, given how neurotic and anxious he was. I could relate.
Other than what appears to be strange dynamics of the Enchantress' curse and prince's portrait/age being at odds with each other (which can actually be explained, see here), and unusual seasonal changes (which was somewhat remedied with the special edition), no, I don't think BatB's story logic is as flawed as Tangled's.qindarka wrote:Honestly, I don't think most of those things matter at all. Beauty and the Beast has even worse problems in that regard and I don't mind that either. The one thing I will agree with you on is Rapunzel's revelation which is too convenient and I am not too fond of the ensuing dialogue.Mooky wrote:Some of the more obvious ones:
- Gothel goes on a three day trip for Rapunzel's art supplies. Meanwhile, Rapunzel and Flynn embark on their journey. Gothel suddenly comes back (after a couple of hours on her 'journey'), spends at least an hour trying to enter the tower, finds Rapunzel gone, and still manages to arrive to Snuggly Duckling for what seems mere minutes after Flynn and Rapunzel have arrived there.
- Intro/prologue makes zero sense. How did Gothel know about the flower, its healing powers and the incantation if the flower grew out of a Sun drop? And for that matter, how did the King know about it if Gothel was the only one in the possession of the flower? It's one of the things changed from the source material that absolutely didn't need to be changed. What's worse, one of the alternate/deleted prologues had it right.
- Rapunzel and Flynn enter the kingdom and nobody seems fazed by the girl with 70 feet of golden hair nor does anyone notice her resemblance to the baby princess mural.
- The ending is a huge deus-ex-machina. Rapunzel suddenly remembers events from when she was several months old, and her parents recognize her and accept her without any questions or doubts at all (if Anastasia case has taught us anything it's that people are not above exploiting mourning relatives).
You can read this post for other things that annoyed me about the movie.
I agree. They are 100% necessary to the film. It's through them we learn Quasimodo's inner thoughts and develop his character. The movie would suffer without them. Also, comic relief is necessary to a film this serious. Like Timon and Pumba. These films would suffer without the comic relief.Mooky wrote:Mushu, gargoyles, B.E.N., Louis, Timon and Pumbaa, however irritating they may be, aren't just scene dressing meant to entertain kids, they actually affect the plot and their interaction with main characters has a meaning. They provide protagonists with someone to confide in, shape their beliefs and encourage them (btw, I don't support the theory that gargoyles are figments of Quasimodo's imagination - oh no, they're very much real). Sure, Hugo is disgusting at times, but he's there to lighten the mood. Laverne is a (grand)mother figure. Victor is sort of a serious/neurotic/formal type. So other than Hugo (who is basically this film's Timon+Pumbaa), they're not that bad. And without them, I really can't see how they'd be able to develop Quasimodo at all.
Oh, that's right. I read your explanations for a while ago.Mooky wrote: You can read this post for other things that annoyed me about the movie.
Episodic doesn't automatically = bad to me. As for MTR, the only part of the film that fails is the intro. of the Robinsons in the middle of the film. I'd hardly call the entire second act a failure. And Tangled, though not one of my favorites by any means, never reaches the same lows as Hunchback.Mooky wrote:Really? Jungle Book's episodic nature doesn't bother you? MTR's entire second act which is at odds with the rest of the movie?
Perhaps internally, like most movies?Annoyance aside, I was talking about sidekicks' purpose. Flit, Meeko, Pascal, Maximus, Pegasus, Djali, Morph, and other such characters serve no other purpose other than being cute, funny (debatable), and hogging screen time away from the protagonists.
Mushu, gargoyles, B.E.N., Louis, Timon and Pumbaa, however irritating they may be, aren't just scene dressing meant to entertain kids, they actually affect the plot and their interaction with main characters has a meaning. ... And without [the gargoyles], I really can't see how they'd be able to develop Quasimodo at all.
2 probably isnt a plothole. Neither is three. Plotholes are plot points that directly contradict prior information without resolve.Mooky wrote:Some of the more obvious ones:
- Gothel goes on a three day trip for Rapunzel's art supplies. Meanwhile, Rapunzel and Flynn embark on their journey. Gothel suddenly comes back (after a couple of hours on her 'journey'), spends at least an hour trying to enter the tower, finds Rapunzel gone, and still manages to arrive to Snuggly Duckling for what seems mere minutes after Flynn and Rapunzel have arrived there.
- Intro/prologue makes zero sense. How did Gothel know about the flower, its healing powers and the incantation if the flower grew out of a Sun drop? And for that matter, how did the King know about it if Gothel was the only one in the possession of the flower? It's one of the things changed from the source material that absolutely didn't need to be changed. What's worse, one of the alternate/deleted prologues had it right.
- Rapunzel and Flynn enter the kingdom and nobody seems fazed by the girl with 70 feet of golden hair nor does anyone notice her resemblance to the baby princess mural.
- The ending is a huge deus-ex-machina. Rapunzel suddenly remembers events from when she was several months old, and her parents recognize her and accept her without any questions or doubts at all (if Anastasia case has taught us anything it's that people are not above exploiting mourning relatives).
You can read this post for other things that annoyed me about the movie.
By lows you mean the Gargoyles, right?Disney's Divinity wrote:And Tangled, though not one of my favorites by any means, never reaches the same lows as Hunchback.
Well, to me episodic is bad, especially when coupled with absence of any depth, emotion and sense of direction. As for MTR, you're actually the first person I've spoken to that doesn't find the entirety of second act to be too zany for its own good and too jarring compared to the rest of the movie. One of my friends actually said it was like The Jetsons on steroids and I was inclined to agree.Disney's Divinity wrote:Episodic doesn't automatically = bad to me. As for MTR, the only part of the film that fails is the intro. of the Robinsons in the middle of the film. I'd hardly call the entire second act a failure.Mooky wrote:Really? Jungle Book's episodic nature doesn't bother you? MTR's entire second act which is at odds with the rest of the movie?
Some movies, yes. Disney movies never do. Name one Disney movie that showed protagonist's internal thoughts, musings and conflicts without the significant use of sidekicks.Disney's Divinity wrote:Perhaps internally, like most movies?Mooky wrote:Annoyance aside, I was talking about sidekicks' purpose. Flit, Meeko, Pascal, Maximus, Pegasus, Djali, Morph, and other such characters serve no other purpose other than being cute, funny (debatable), and hogging screen time away from the protagonists.
Mushu, gargoyles, B.E.N., Louis, Timon and Pumbaa, however irritating they may be, aren't just scene dressing meant to entertain kids, they actually affect the plot and their interaction with main characters has a meaning. ... And without [the gargoyles], I really can't see how they'd be able to develop Quasimodo at all.
I wasn't arbitrary at all, I just listed reasons why some sidekicks work and some doesn't, and I never said those characters are or should be devoid of any type of humor. Heck, all the positive examples I listed are comic relief characters. The point here is the thing you do with those characters other than having them as comic relief. Since you pretty much explained Timon and Pumbaa's influence on the main plot and the protagonist (which I argued for anyway), I just don't understand the issue you and everyone else have with the gargoyles when they were clearly designed with the same intention in mind.Disney's Divinity wrote:Personally, I think you're being very arbitrary--comic relief is all of those characters' purpose, including the gargoyles. Mushu, BEN, and Timon and Pumbaa are the only sidekicks out of those mentioned that are inextricable from the plot in some way or another (though T&P are mostly disposable, they do introduce the Hakuna Mutata philosophy that keeps Simba from returning to the Pride Lands--and they act as his foster parents while he's still a child).
Sorry, that is just silly. If archdeacon's role had been expanded at the expense of gargoyles', I can bet he would have been cracking jokes, and be voiced by, say, Michael Richards. This is a Disney movie, if the gargoyles weren't in the film, it would have been something else of the same ilk. Talking pidgeons, perhaps. Just be lucky it weren't talking bells.Disney's Divinity wrote:What little the gargoyles add could easily be filled by a miscellaneous priest with one or two lines of dialogue (the Archdeacon would seem like the ideal choice, really)
Flounder does speak. Perhaps you meant Flit/Pascal? No thanks, I've seen how Rapunzel turned out with that type of sidekick.Disney's Divinity wrote:or a non-speaking piece of scenery a la Flounder.
Again, it's a Disney movie. Protagonists are not supposed to be deeply philosophical and unbalanced. That type of character wouldn't work even in live-action. For that to work, the character would actually have to be mute, like in the novel. I doubt Disney would have agreed to that.Disney's Divinity wrote:And, really, if any film could've worked with the protagonist simply talking to themselves without anyone else around, Hunchback would have.
Out of curiosity, since it's constantly being brought up here and elsewhere, what exactly is the gargoyles' crime other than 'disrupting the tone' (a.k.a. lightening up the mood)? Other than Hugo spitting (or trying to anyway), I really can't recall any instance that would make them the lowest of the low, and by extension, bring the whole film down. Are they racist, ethnic, chauvinist stereotypes, did they swear, did they make some sexual innuendos that I wasn't aware of? Based on the sheer amount of hate for them, you'd think they came out of an American Pie movie.Disney's Divinity wrote:And Tangled, though not one of my favorites by any means, never reaches the same lows as Hunchback.
Haha, thanks. From what I've seen and read on this forum alone, Disney would be a much better place if they employed many of the talented people here, be it for their art, concepts, story ideas or just general suggestions.Marce82 wrote:Oh, and Mooky...I just read your posts about how to fix Tangled and TPATF.... great ideas!!! You should work in the story department at Disney!
I just went by one of the definitions of a plot hole from TV tropes, that says:ajmrowland wrote:2 probably isnt a plothole. Neither is three. Plotholes are plot points that directly contradict prior information without resolve.
I think No. 2 fits e) and No. 3 fits d). Either way, it's a huge stretch of imagination.Plot holes can come in many forms:
a) Characters suddenly having knowledge that was never passed to them, or vice versa; characters not knowing something they knew last week, or something that anyone in their position must know.
b) Characters acting completely out of character.
c) An event does not logically follow from what has gone before.
d) Characters ignoring or avoiding obvious solutions to their problems, provided those solutions are obvious to the characters, and not just the viewers.
e) An event occurring that, given other details present in the work, is not possible.
And you're the first I've known to consider the entire second act a failure.Mooky wrote: As for MTR, you're actually the first person I've spoken to that doesn't find the entirety of second act to be too zany for its own good and too jarring compared to the rest of the movie.
And yet Hunchback is not like most Disney films. Developing characters internally probably would've made the film's attempt to be more "mature" successful. As for past Disney films, they have used song before as a way to develop characters without only playing off other characters--Belle (reprise), Part of Your World (reprise), Goodbye May Seem Forever, etc.Some movies, yes. Disney movies never do. Name one Disney movie that showed protagonist's internal thoughts, musings and conflicts without the significant use of sidekicks.
You were being arbitrary, by deciding which characters were important to the plot over others, when some of your choices have no other purpose than to be comic relief (like Flit and Meeko, Pegasus, et al).I wasn't arbitrary at all, I just listed reasons why some sidekicks work and some doesn't, and I never said those characters are or should be devoid of any type of humor.
Except the gargoyles have no other purpose than to be comic relief--they don't add anything else beyond that--they are not in the same category as T&P, Mushu, or BEN.Heck, all the positive examples I listed are comic relief characters. The point here is the thing you do with those characters other than having them as comic relief. Since you pretty much explained Timon and Pumbaa's influence on the main plot and the protagonist (which I argued for anyway), I just don't understand the issue you and everyone else have with the gargoyles when they were clearly designed with the same intention in mind.
And that is why the gargoyles are hated--because they are an example of Disney's refusal to change or take risks. It's the same reason this film and most ever other film in the '90s after TLK is accused of being formulaic.Sorry, that is just silly. If archdeacon's role had been expanded at the expense of gargoyles', I can bet he would have been cracking jokes, and be voiced by, say, Michael Richards. This is a Disney movie, if the gargoyles weren't in the film, it would have been something else of the same ilk. Talking pidgeons, perhaps. Just be lucky it weren't talking bells.
Enough to make an impact? He is mostly silent, giving someone for Ariel to talk about her issues to, though he rarely responds to her. And, personally, Flit/Meeko/Pascal are far superior to the gargoyles--in every way. One of the first reasons is because they are silent.Flounder does speak.
The character wouldn't have to be mute to talk to himself.For that to work, the character would actually have to be mute, like in the novel.
