Tangled (& Tangled Ever After) Discussion: Part VII

[Sotiris]

Tangled Ever After Sneak Peek
http://hellyeahtangled.tumblr.com/post/15324943428

[Disney Duster]

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.

I see what you mean, but do you see what I mean when I say: there is a difference between a peasant being changed to a princess and a prince being changed to a thief, versus a peasant who sells goods for a living to a peasant who sells inventions for a living?

The only thing I'm upset about them changing is the title and character backgrounds. Disney has always, alwasy made their stories happier than the ones before, so The Little Mermaid and Peter and the Wolf changes make sense, but Disney never changed their titles and character backgrounds like they did in Tangled before. That's what I mean.

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?

I was referring to whatever kind of rules DisneyDude was talking about. But you could call the things Walt consistently did in his films unwritten "rules" or "guidelines" for future films.

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.

The Princess and the Frog actually has been used as a title for The Frog Prince before Disney got to it, but anyway, the Princess and the Frog was clearly not supposed to be the real Frog Prince because they had a Frog Prince book in the film that showed the story already happened before this new 1920's one.

But Rapunzel is supposed to be about the original Rapunzel, with her name and hair and her once upon a time setting. Only a few things mess up the film. And one of them is the title. And I don't feel it's the true "Disney's concept of Rapunzel", if it was really Disney's concept of Rapunzel wouldn't it be like Disney's past concepts of fairy tales? And what kind of titles did Disney's past concepts of fairy tales have? Oh yea, ones much closer to the originals! Please, just understand me bro.

[RyGuy]

I see what you mean, but do you see what I mean when I say: there is a difference between a peasant being changed to a princess and a prince being changed to a thief, versus a peasant who sells goods for a living to a peasant who sells inventions for a living?

I DO see what you mean and I think I understand why it bothers you. I get that it's a substantial change. It's just that it doesn't really alter the essence of the story (for me). Admittedly, Rapunzel wasn't a favorite story of mine or anything, so I didn't have much emotional investment in what Disney did with it, so long as the end product wasn't embarrassingly bad (which given it's success commercially and critically, I'm thinking that Disney wasn't in anyway embarrassed by Tangled).

But I certainly could understand how these changes would bug someone if Rapunzel was among their favorite stories. For me, one of my all time favorite stories is Around the World in 80 Days. And their replacing Passepartout with Jackie Chan (complete with kung-fu ass-kicking) did indeed bother me (even though I find Jackie Chan mildly entertaining in other movies).

[Super Aurora]

I see what you mean, but do you see what I mean when I say: there is a difference between a peasant being changed to a princess and a prince being changed to a thief, versus a peasant who sells goods for a living to a peasant who sells inventions for a living?

Merchants were a much higher class than a peasants. Since BatB too place in 1700's, a merchants were consider high middle to rich class. This was case even back in renaissance era. The Medici, were merchants. And look how power of a class they were. Enough to have influence over the CHURCH. Granted there is a level of status within the merchant class, but merchants were much higher class than peasants. They are no where near peasant level. So RyGuy's analogy still stands.

You may not like the background change, but the change was no where near drastic of a change as you make it out to be by Disney's standard. It's no bigger of a change than Walt turning Kaa from a Good guy to a bad guy. That's is a character background change as well.

Had Disney made Flynn go from a prince to an astronaut, then yeah your point would be much more understandable.

[DisneyDude2010]

Ahhh..... Thanks Soritis!

She looks beautiful, the whole thing does

Here is a youtube version if people want to watch it in full screen!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8WJPcfg7fo" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[DisneyAnimation88]

And I don't feel it's the true "Disney's concept of Rapunzel", if it was really Disney's concept of Rapunzel wouldn't it be like Disney's past concepts of fairy tales?

A musical fairytale where the hero and/or heroine overcome the odds with the help of some sidekicks to eventually defeat the villain and live happily ever after...what of that isn't like the true concept of Disney's past fairy tales?

but Disney never changed their titles and character backgrounds like they did in Tangled before.

Yes they did, see The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book and Bambi for evidence of story and character changes. No amount of technicalities you apply can change that, its a fact.

It's no bigger of a change than Walt turning Kaa from a Good guy to a bad guy. That's is a character background change as well.

Exactly. Disney have always made these kinds of changes if it suits the way they want to tell their version of the story so I don't understand why the changes they made to Tangled are such a big deal.

[Sotiris]

Ahhh...Thanks Sotiris!

You're welcome!

[DisneyFan09]

Ahhh..... Thanks Soritis!

She looks beautiful, the whole thing does

Here is a youtube version if people want to watch it in full screen!
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8WJPcfg7fo" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Thanks for posting.

I've said this once, but I'll say it again; I really get a Shrek 2 vibe from this featurette. However, I shan't judge before I see it.

And Flynn looked gorgeous in his groom outfit.

[Prince Edward]

That looks like a fun story! And Flynn is really handsome in that wedding outfit^^ (I'd wish Disney would release more merchandise/promotional material with the Disney princes and heroes in different outfits...)

[DisneyDude2010]

Is it just me or....

When we see Rapunzel with her father entering the church thing she doesn't have her tiara on, but later when she's all She has it on?


I'm not sure if its the lighting and that's maybe why i can't see it?
Can anyone confirm?

[singerguy04]

It does look like she has it on when she enters the church, but we're also only seeing quick clips of the short so maybe she puts it on somewhere in between the clips.

[Sotiris]

New Clip

<iframe frameborder="0" width="576" height="324" src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/movies/site/player ... "></iframe>

[DisneyDude2010]

Ahhh!!! OMG OMG OMG

Thanks so much Sotiris! It looks amazing! The animation is great

[Sotiris]

Thanks so much Sotiris!

No problem!

[phan258]

Woo thanks to everybody posting clips! I LOVE that Rapunzel's train echoes her long hair. Her short cut is so cute....

And my GOD Eugene looks good.

[Disney Duster]

RyGuy, I do agree that the changes don't effect a lot of events that happen in the movie. But as for the essence of the story, it does change one thing, and that is the idea of a peasant girl who had a horrible life being risen to the status of a princess because of a prince's love. It's just more romantic and it loses some of that.

But the real reason I'm so bothered is not because Rapunzel is one of my favorite stories. It's about the way Disney did all their past stories. They alwasy kept the romantic ideas of non-royals and royals keeping their original statuses. They generally stayed a little closer to the original material.

Super Aurora, then the real mistake I made was saying that Maurice was a peasant. The movie doesn't really say what class he and Belle are. But anyway, he is still of the kind of class that is beneath nobility enough to be close to the original.

What you said about Kaa being changed from good to bad...I already explained this! In the original story, Kaa didn't care about Mowgli and would have tried to eat him had they met before, he only became a good guy mentor after saving Mowgli from the monkeys! The film ends right after that part! And also, being "good or bad" is not the same as a background. A background is like a birth status and what you do. If that's not a background, then that's what I'm talking about, anyway.

And how do you not see being a rich prince in a castle is much more different than a roaming betraying orphan thief than any of the things changed in Jungle Book? I have read you and everyone else's sayings of what you think are the same differences, but I have explained why they are not the same differences, and instead of explaining back to me, you just say that it's a fact they're the same!

You know, The Jungle Book is not a good example to use. Because the cast is mostly animals and they don't have statuses of royalty, except King Louie who was added in and as you know I'm fien with Disney adding in characters as they have always done. But Kaa got to keep his hypnosis while Mother Gothel lost her witch powers.

DisneyAnimation88, read what I said above. If you gusy don't want to get into a long argument here, I was planning on finally giving a really good in-depth comparison of the stories and thinsg you said were changed the same as Tangled in the old Disney Essence thread so maybe it could be put to rest there.

[DisneyAnimation88]

You know, The Jungle Book is not a good example to use.

The Jungle Book is a perfect example to use. As has been said before, the original Disney adaptation, written by Bill Peet, had a very close resemblence to Kipling's book. When Walt Disney rejected Peet's work for being "too dark", the two fell out and Peet left the studio. Walt then instructed his team not to read the novel they were adapting as they were now going to do it their own way. This has been verified by people who worked on the film and were involved in those meetings so I think The Jungle Book is a very good example of Disney's way of thinking when it came to adapting classic stories.

I was planning on finally giving a really good in-depth comparison of the stories and thinsg you said were changed the same as Tangled in the old Disney Essence thread so maybe it could be put to rest there.

To save you doing that, didn't you write a very detailed argument in the "What would your version of Rapunzel been like" thread?

[Super Aurora]

Super Aurora, then the real mistake I made was saying that Maurice was a peasant. The movie doesn't really say what class he and Belle are. But anyway, he is still of the kind of class that is beneath nobility enough to be close to the original.

So apparently this is an exception to the so call character background change, but changing a prince to an adventurous thief isn't?

What you said about Kaa being changed from good to bad...I already explained this! In the original story, Kaa didn't care about Mowgli and would have tried to eat him had they met before, he only became a good guy mentor after saving Mowgli from the monkeys! The film ends right after that part!

That's where you're fucking wrong. Kaa never in the book tried to eat Mowgli nor did he "not care" about Mowgli. he was always on side of good. This not only shows you never read the book, but also shows you now making shit up in order to justify you own fake argument.

And also, being "good or bad" is not the same as a background. A background is like a birth status and what you do. If that's not a background, then that's what I'm talking about, anyway.

OH REALLY? The status of alliances(good/evil) in a fictional character is very much resides in the character's background. It's what makes and define the fictional character.

And how do you not see being a rich prince in a castle is much more different than a roaming betraying orphan thief than any of the things changed in Jungle Book?

They aren't much different since both are essentially a change to original. But apparently you seems so head over heel about one change yet is fine with another one.

I have read you and everyone else's sayings of what you think are the same differences, but I have explained why they are not the same differences, and instead of explaining back to me, you just say that it's a fact they're the same!

No. We have explain and provided numerous examples and counterarguments to your claim. All you did was twist and turn those examples we gave that defeatedly counter yours, around to your own choosing. Just like the above with the Maurice example. I gave you example that shows about merchant class
change, yet you now essentially saying his example don't really count since apparently his "change" is "closer to original anyway".

You know, The Jungle Book is not a good example to use. Because the cast is mostly animals and they don't have statuses of royalty, except King Louie who was added in and as you know I'm fine with Disney adding in characters as they have always done. But Kaa got to keep his hypnosis while Mother Gothel lost her witch powers.

Oh so now Jungle Book doesn't count now because it's mostly a cast of animals? This is another example of what I was saying earlier how you easily flip away any counter-argument in order to suit your need belief.

If there is anyone who not being understanding, it's you.

[tsom]

Disney Duster, in The Frog Prince, the heroine is a princess, but in Disney's adaptation, she's a waitress. What makes it different than Tangled?

It has been over a year since Tangled came out, and I know you are very passionate about your stance, but isn't it time to let it go? I mean that in the nicest possible way. When you adapt something, you barely do it word for word. No Disney fairy tale is 100 percent faithful to its original source. Making Rapunzel a princess was not a bad thing. I'm glad she was a princess. Think about it: if she was a peasant, then we wouldn't have had that gorgeous "I See the Light" scene.

[Goliath]

but Disney never changed their titles and character backgrounds like they did in Tangled before

Jungle Book. Pinocchio. 101 Dalmatians.

Again.