Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

[Aqua]

Wait, TP&TF did pretty good overseas? WTF? But then again, there are movies that did bad domestically that where hits around the world (Alien 3 comes to mind). However, I don't see how TP&TF did "terrible". Disney is still terribly disillusioned with the numbers Lion King brought up and can't get over there will never and I mean NEVER be another Disney animated film like that.

But yeah, I'm glad Tangled is going to be considered "Rapunzel" in Europe and overseas.

[SWillie!]

Seeing the teaser trailer in the cinema literrally took my breath away ..... that was the magic and wonder of Disney coming alive again for me. I mean, I adored PatF ... but this was just pitched to the audience in a different way, and it certainly spoke to me.

Whether it be Tangled or Rapunzel, nothing will stop me from seeing this movie !!

What movie was it shown in front of??!

[kbehm29]

I've always had the general feeling I'm about ten years older than a lot of people on this board. But yeah, I can totally see a change in mindset, and it's a real shame.

I recall something I'd heard years ago about Disney in the early 80's, that they interviewed people (I'm guessing in order to figure out how to increase ticket sales for both the films and the parks) and one young man (I'm guessing late teens/early 20's) said he absolutely loved Disney and couldn't wait until he had kids of his own so he'd have an excuse to go enjoy them once again.

Looks like we're facing the same issues today?

I'm 33. I have more of a mindset that either you were raised in a family that were Disney Fanatics or you weren't, OR you managed somehow to become a Disney Fanatic on your own.

I saw The Lion King in theaters when I was around 15, and it was no big deal to anyone else. I loved it. My mom took me to Disneyland when I was 5 and never took me back (she hated to travel). I was lucky enough to have a best friend who's dad was a pilot. Somewhere around 14-15 I got to go to Disneyland again with her family. I never visited Disney World as a child. Guess what the first thing I did after I turned 18 and had money of my own was? Headed to Florida. I try to visit either park at least every 1.5 years - it's getting harder financially with a big family, but I'm trying to make it work (see my post in the theme parks board).

I've heard comments such as "oh - your teenagers will be too old to do Disney soon" and the like - WHATEVER. You are NEVER too old for Disney. If I didn't have ANY kids I would go by myself. Sometimes I wish I could go by myself!

I also sort of brainwash my own kids. My seven year old keeps asking why we can't go see How to Train Your Dragon in theaters. My answer to him is because it's not Disney, and explaining my philosophy to him about how as adults we get to pick/choose which corporations we support financially isn't making sense to him (of course).

It all comes down to what your parents think about Disney, I think.

[PatrickvD]

Wait, TP&TF did pretty good overseas? WTF? But then again, there are movies that did bad domestically that where hits around the world (Alien 3 comes to mind). However, I don't see how TP&TF did "terrible". Disney is still terribly disillusioned with the numbers Lion King brought up and can't get over there will never and I mean NEVER be another Disney animated film like that.

yeah, then how do you explain pieces of trash like Ice Age 3 and Shrek 2/3/4 outgrossing The Lion King?

lots of animated features are making Lion King money... just not the ones coming from Disney.

[Atlantica]

Seeing the teaser trailer in the cinema literrally took my breath away ..... that was the magic and wonder of Disney coming alive again for me. I mean, I adored PatF ... but this was just pitched to the audience in a different way, and it certainly spoke to me.

Whether it be Tangled or Rapunzel, nothing will stop me from seeing this movie !!

What movie was it shown in front of??!

Alice in Wonderland !

[DisneyJedi]

What movie was it shown in front of??!

Alice in Wonderland !

What?! Oh, sure! Show it with AIW in the UK, but don't do the same un the US! Yeah, that sounds completely fair.

[Giygas]

yeah, then how do you explain pieces of trash like Ice Age 3 and Shrek 2/3/4 outgrossing The Lion King?

lots of animated features are making Lion King money... just not the ones coming from Disney.

I just looked at the gross for those movies. How in the world did Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 make more money than The Lion King?

[kbehm29]

yeah, then how do you explain pieces of trash like Ice Age 3 and Shrek 2/3/4 outgrossing The Lion King?

lots of animated features are making Lion King money... just not the ones coming from Disney.

I just looked at the gross for those movies. How in the world did Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 make more money than The Lion King?

It's a crying shame. Shrek was good, the sequels were horrible. I have no idea how Dreamworks pulls it off time after time again, with the release of pure crap.

[SWillie!]

What movie was it shown in front of??!

Alice in Wonderland !

WHAT?! Why is Disney so DUMB? I was expecting to see it in front of Alice, but then it didn't! I don't understand why they wouldn't do it. Especially with Alice being THEIR MOVIE and all.

And kbehm29: To each their own, but I have to say I really don't agree with you not allowing your kids to see How to Train Your Dragon simply because of the fact that it's not Disney. It's not like their asking to go see some R rated horror film, or a film with a bunch of sex scenes or something... HTTYD is a great movie for the whole family! That doesn't make sense to me. You aren't helping Disney at all by refusing to see movies made by their competition.

[Scarred4life]

Alice in Wonderland !

WHAT?! Why is Disney so DUMB? I was expecting to see it in front of Alice, but then it didn't! I don't understand why they wouldn't do it. Especially with Alice being THEIR MOVIE and all.

And kbehm29: To each their own, but I have to say I really don't agree with you not allowing your kids to see How to Train Your Dragon simply because of the fact that it's not Disney. It's not like their asking to go see some R rated horror film, or a film with a bunch of sex scenes or something... HTTYD is a great movie for the whole family! That doesn't make sense to me. You aren't helping Disney at all by refusing to see movies made by their competition.

If you're going to show the trailer, show it everywhere!

[Elladorine]

I just looked at the gross for those movies. How in the world did Shrek 2 and Shrek 3 make more money than The Lion King?

It's a crying shame. Shrek was good, the sequels were horrible. I have no idea how Dreamworks pulls it off time after time again, with the release of pure crap.

Personally, I enjoyed Shrek 2 more than the original. Part 3 on the other hand . . . well, it was disappointing and utterly boring. I liked the original Ice Age but haven't bothered with the sequels yet. And if How to Train Your Dragon makes a ton of money . . . well at least in that case it deserves it.

The thing is that studios like Dreamworks and Blue Sky have pulled off being current and "cool," possibly because they aim at an older audience while remaining relatively family-friendly. Can you picture some of Shrek's gags being put in a Disney movie?

It seems pretty acceptable these days for the older crowd to enjoy certain animated films, but none of them seem to be Disney anymore since those are apparently for babies (obviously not my opinion). Part of my point earlier was that it wasn't always this way, and it's something that seems to cycle back and forth. Disney is struggling with its identity again, but the last thing they should do is try to be Dreamworks. It has to be frustrating for them since Shrek-like films are grossing more than theirs. Maybe they should just concentrate on making good-quality films, sort of as an investment that can be released over and over again (like they used to) but apparently it's easier to be short-sighted and base all their decisions on unreliable marketing research, reducing themselves into changing their marketing angles and film titles.

I'm 33. I have more of a mindset that either you were raised in a family that were Disney Fanatics or you weren't, OR you managed somehow to become a Disney Fanatic on your own.

I guess I didn't spell it out but I'm 34. I'd say my parents were Disney fans but they were never fanatics, or at least not in the sense that I became. I suppose I could blame them though, lol; when Disney specials were on it was designated "family time," as they especially enjoyed certain the behind-the-scenes stuff and certain theatrical films. I'd marvel in wonder when my dad would explain it took years just to make one of those movies. Although they basically designated it as family bonding time, they also made it clear that it wasn't just for kids like I'd seen with some of my friends (one of my grade school friends rarely got to watch cartoons as she was growing up as her father absolutely hated them, to this day she is one of the very few people I know that grew up to actively dislike cartoons). My dad was the one that made sure to take me to Lady and the Tramp in '86 and that I got the VHS for Christmas in '87 (which was the very first Disney movie I owned), and my mom was adamant about taking me to see films like Snow White and Song of the South.

At the same time, when there was some non-Disney cartoon I particularly wanted to see, my parents often dismissed it as being for little kids. It's a fact that I still find myself resenting to this day, much in the same way that I resent never being able to experience Disneyland as a kid.

I totally missed out on the whole theme park experience until just a few years ago. The last time my parents did a family vacation at Disney was a few years before I was born, and even then it was a side-trip from visiting family in the area. We lived in in Illinois, which might as well have been light years away from both Disneyland and Walt Disney World.

Rey grew up in LA and enjoyed going to Disneyland a lot as a kid (although to be fair he preferred and still prefers Universal Studios). All of his family still enjoys Disney like it's a "normal" thing, although none of them are kids anymore. His grandma even took us shopping at Downtown Disney on Christmas Day. Rey still likes Disney a lot and even if he's not the huge fan I am, it's safe to say if he wasn't a fan of cartoons and animation in general we never would have met. And some of our best memories so far have been driving to California to enjoy the theme parks together and going to see animated movies on the big screen . . . I'm really looking forward to Rapunzel (more so than he is I imagine, lol) and we both had an absolute blast with Dragons the other night.

[kbehm29]

And kbehm29: To each their own, but I have to say I really don't agree with you not allowing your kids to see How to Train Your Dragon simply because of the fact that it's not Disney. It's not like their asking to go see some R rated horror film, or a film with a bunch of sex scenes or something... HTTYD is a great movie for the whole family! That doesn't make sense to me. You aren't helping Disney at all by refusing to see movies made by their competition.

I see your point, but with a large family - I have to budget how many movies we get to see together in theaters. I support Disney and want to see as many Disney movies as I can - if I factor in Dreamworks, it takes away from that. I do occasionally see non-Disney movies in theaters (Coraline, for example). But it has to have some outstanding reviews for me to consider it. Dreamworks hasn't been consistent enough for me. I will buy the HTTYD DVD though. And I disagree - I think that in some way I do help Disney by avoiding their competition. That's what a free market is all about. It also frees my dollars for Disney movies.

For example, Alice in Wonderland and HTTYD came out within 3 weeks of each other. I could only afford to go to one - Alice in Wonderland was my choice. I have to think that that choice is hurtful to Dreamworks that I chose Alice because of the Disney brand.

[Polizzi]

To tell you the truth, I find that title, "Tangled," misleading, funny, but misleading. To me it is like watching a parody of Shrek, Hoodwinked, and Happily N'ever After put together. But I understand that Disney is sticking to one fairy tale by the Grimm Brothers, but I am afraid what they are doing is disrespectful to not only the Grimm Brothers, but to Walt Disney as well, because Walt Disney would never change titles on fairy tales. He probably does not care about people, like boys, who complain about fairy tales with girlish titles being too girlish, the only thing that Disney cares about is not only making dreams come true for FAMILIES by adapting fairy tales into animated movies, but to fulfill famous fairy tale writers who has shaped the world of entertainment for every family around the world.

Also, those boys need to "Dig a Little Deeper (according to the song from "The Princess and the Frog")," on the story of fairy tales with girlish titles, because what if Disney arranges the story to make it more interesting than typical? Maybe then, even though fairy tales have girlish titles, but it can have an excellent story for not just girls or boys, but for FAMILIES to enjoy, learn, and love. The only way that fairy tales could be too girlish, including the title, is if the story is too girlish. But through Disney's experience when it comes to adapting fairy tales into animated movies with girlish titles, they are all FAMILY. That is what makes Disney very special.

By the way, I have no problem with "The Princess and the Frog," that I saw. I give that movie infinite A+, especially when Dr. Facilier is a fun villain, evil, but fun. But I can say this, if changing the title is what Disney wants to do to get the boys well entertained along with the girls, it is their movie. But I have a little bit of a bad feeling that their next CG movie could be a flop based on the title change. But if they decided to change the title back to the way it is, then it could be a financial success...I hope.

One more thing, it is not the title that bothers boys, it is the story itself that is not strong enough. Some times, Disney probably accidentally made the story a little too girlish for “The Princess and the Frog,” than trying to make it a family type, especially when some of the characters that Disney has created are not receiving enough roles. My advice for Disney is that the next time they want to adapt fairy tales into animated movies; they should try to make the story strong to fit to the title based on the fairy tale, instead of changing the title.

[Candy-Bonita95]

To tell you the truth, I find that title, "Tangled," misleading, funny, but misleading. To me it is like watching a parody of Shrek, Hoodwinked, and Happily N'ever After put together. But I understand that Disney is sticking to one fairy tale by the Grimm Brothers, but I am afraid what they are doing is disrespectful to not only the Grimm Brothers, but to Walt Disney as well, because Walt Disney would never change titles on fairy tales. He probably does not care about people, like boys, who complain about fairy tales with girlish titles being too girlish, the only thing that Disney cares about is not only making dreams come true for FAMILIES by adapting fairy tales into animated movies, but to fulfill famous fairy tale writers who has shaped the world of entertainment for every family around the world.

Also, those boys need to "Dig a Little Deeper (according to the song from "The Princess and the Frog")," on the story of fairy tales with girlish titles, because what if Disney arranges the story to make it more interesting than typical? Maybe then, even though fairy tales have girlish titles, but it can have an excellent story for not just girls or boys, but for FAMILIES to enjoy, learn, and love. The only way that fairy tales could be too girlish, including the title, is if the story is too girlish. But through Disney's experience when it comes to adapting fairy tales into animated movies with girlish titles, they are all FAMILY. That is what makes Disney very special.

By the way, I have no problem with "The Princess and the Frog," that I saw. I give that movie infinite A+, especially when Dr. Facilier is a fun villain, evil, but fun. But I can say this, if changing the title is what Disney wants to do to get the boys well entertained along with the girls, it is their movie. But I have a little bit of a bad feeling that their next CG movie could be a flop based on the title change. But if they decided to change the title back to the way it is, then it could be a financial success...I hope.

One more thing, it is not the title that bothers boys, it is the story itself that is not strong enough. Some times, Disney probably accidentally made the story a little too girlish for “The Princess and the Frog,” than trying to make it a family type, especially when some of the characters that Disney has created are not receiving enough roles. My advice for Disney is that the next time they want to adapt fairy tales into animated movies; they should try to make the story strong to fit to the title based on the fairy tale, instead of changing the title.

Now that's what I'm talking about.
And another thing is that kids are only interested in whatever they think is good.Even the peeps in my high-school thought Alvin and the Chimpmunks Squeakuel was good.I asked, "Has anyone seen TPATF over the holidays?"
My friend Damane said,"NO!I would never see that movie unless my girlfriend forces me to see it.It's so girly!"
My negative response, " It's not a girly movie.Calm down Damane!"
Like what the *beep*
Even freshmen think TPaTF is girly ,yet they think the Squeakuel was good.
It's just today's mentallity that is all wrong not the title "Rapunzel".

[Goliath]

I guess I didn't spell it out but I'm 34

Really? I always thought we were of the same age --and that's a compliment.

As I was saying, when I was a teen Disney was not only accepted, but was considered cool. [...]Our drama class actually studied the themes in Beauty and the Beast, [...] we still loved the Disney Afternoon shows, and getting to bring in a Disney VHS (like Aladdin) to watch during class was actually exciting for everyone. I'm guessing a lot of that excitement peaked with the release of The Lion King [...]

I was occasionally able to take my nieces to the theaters in the mid/late 90's for movies like Mulan. A few years later, I asked one of them if she'd be interested in going to see Treasure Planet, and she looked at me as if I was utterly insane. [...]

Well, Disney is to blame for a lot of that attitude themselves. (Yes, that's right, WDWLocal, you better skip this post!)

You mentioned the 'Disney Afternoon'. Disney completely dumbed down the programming after the mid-1990's. Think about it: the early series like Duck Tales and Gummi Bears were true adventure stories, which are still fun to watch nowadays, even when you're an adult. Disney invested a lot in original characters and high quality writing. Tale Spin had an orphan as a lead character, who was taken in by Baloo. At the same time, there was single mom Rebecca with her daughter. Although there was no romance going on between them, they still formed a family --a dysfunctional one, but still... there was character development. And then there was Gargoyles: mystery, witchcraft, ancient history, Shakespeare characters everywhere, a realistic human world, a villain who was not black-and-white, long story arcs. This was mature stuff.

But that was its peak. After that, what did we get? Lazy, easy projects in which Disney just took their Classic films and turned them into tv series, like 101 Dalmatians. Or rip-offs from popular Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network shows. Disney desperately tried to copy their popular style. They stopped investing in their own, original programming and started to imitate other networks/shows. Cheap laughs, gags-only, no story, no character development, just dumbing down and targeting the kiddies. True, there were exceptions (Hercules, Kim Possible), but they were overshadowed by all the crap Disney started to turn out. Their series started to look like assembly line products that could have easily been made by any other company. Just take a look at things like Dave the Barbarian: the way it's animated, I would say it's a Cartoon Network production.

Disney continued to make great Classic animated films, but they got overshadowed by the huge amount of second-rate direct-to-video sequels it was turning out. The public got oversaturated, and it didn't get the feeling that the name 'Disney' stood for quality anymore. And that's not that strange, when you consider that the cheapquels were all targeted at toddlers. The Classics had something for everybody, for children, teenagers and adults alike. But the sequels to those movies were basically just babysitters to six year olds. Stories and characters got dumbed down consistently. When the market is oversaturated with junk like this, how do you expect audiences to get excited for new theatrical releases, good as they were?

And then, in their theatrical releases, Disney started to adopt this trend of dumbing down, too. Everything had to be about comedy and quick laughs (Emperor's New Groove) or pander to six year olds with juvenile humor (Home on the Range, Chicken Little). Whenever they dared to tell a mature story, they blew it in the production, because they thought only films that looked like a computer game would be considered 'cool' (Treasure Planet). Only Lilo & Stitch took its audience seriously and had a good execution. But they just couldn't resist milking the succes with a record-number of unneccesary and bad sequels (three of them) and a kiddies-oriented tv show.

Is it really any wonder teenagers have turned away from Disney, when Disney doesn't take them seriously anymore? They have to turn to Pixar to be entertained. No teenager or adolescent I know is embarresed to admit he likes Pixar. Pixar is considered 'cool'. So the problem is not animation, it's the company doing the animation.

[Scarred4life]

I guess I didn't spell it out but I'm 34

Really? I always thought we were of the same age --and that's a compliment.

As I was saying, when I was a teen Disney was not only accepted, but was considered cool. [...]Our drama class actually studied the themes in Beauty and the Beast, [...] we still loved the Disney Afternoon shows, and getting to bring in a Disney VHS (like Aladdin) to watch during class was actually exciting for everyone. I'm guessing a lot of that excitement peaked with the release of The Lion King [...]

I was occasionally able to take my nieces to the theaters in the mid/late 90's for movies like Mulan. A few years later, I asked one of them if she'd be interested in going to see Treasure Planet, and she looked at me as if I was utterly insane. [...]

Well, Disney is to blame for a lot of that attitude themselves. (Yes, that's right, WDWLocal, you better skip this post!)

You mentioned the 'Disney Afternoon'. Disney completely dumbed down the programming after the mid-1990's. Think about it: the early series like Duck Tales and Gummi Bears were true adventure stories, which are still fun to watch nowadays, even when you're an adult. Disney invested a lot in original characters and high quality writing. Tale Spin had an orphan as a lead character, who was taken in by Baloo. At the same time, there was single mom Rebecca with her daughter. Although there was no romance going on between them, they still formed a family --a dysfunctional one, but still... there was character development. And then there was Gargoyles: mystery, witchcraft, ancient history, Shakespeare characters everywhere, a realistic human world, a villain who was not black-and-white, long story arcs. This was mature stuff.

But that was its peak. After that, what did we get? Lazy, easy projects in which Disney just took their Classic films and turned them into tv series, like 101 Dalmatians. Or rip-offs from popular Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network shows. Disney desperately tried to copy their popular style. They stopped investing in their own, original programming and started to imitate other networks/shows. Cheap laughs, gags-only, no story, no character development, just dumbing down and targeting the kiddies. True, there were exceptions (Hercules, Kim Possible), but they were overshadowed by all the crap Disney started to turn out. Their series started to look like assembly line products that could have easily been made by any other company. Just take a look at things like Dave the Barbarian: the way it's animated, I would say it's a Cartoon Network production.

Disney continued to make great Classic animated films, but they got overshadowed by the huge amount of second-rate direct-to-video sequels it was turning out. The public got oversaturated, and it didn't get the feeling that the name 'Disney' stood for quality anymore. And that's not that strange, when you consider that the cheapquels were all targeted at toddlers. The Classics had something for everybody, for children, teenagers and adults alike. But the sequels to those movies were basically just babysitters to six year olds. Stories and characters got dumbed down consistently. When the market is oversaturated with junk like this, how do you expect audiences to get excited for new theatrical releases, good as they were?

And then, in their theatrical releases, Disney started to adopt this trend of dumbing down, too. Everything had to be about comedy and quick laughs (Emperor's New Groove) or pander to six year olds with juvenile humor (Home on the Range, Chicken Little). Whenever they dared to tell a mature story, they blew it in the production, because they thought only films that looked like a computer game would be considered 'cool' (Treasure Planet). Only Lilo & Stitch took its audience seriously and had a good execution. But they just couldn't resist milking the succes with a record-number of unnecessary and bad sequels (three of them) and a kiddies-oriented tv show.

Is it really any wonder teenagers have turned away from Disney, when Disney doesn't take them seriously anymore? They have to turn to Pixar to be entertained. No teenager or adolescent I know is embarrassed to admit he likes Pixar. Pixar is considered 'cool'. So the problem is not animation, it's the company doing the animation.

I beg to differ about Pixar. Most teenagers I know are embarrassed to say they life Pixar. In fact, they don't even like Pixar. They're more interested in films like Step Brothers.

[SWillie!]

I beg to differ about Pixar. Most teenagers I know are embarrassed to say they life Pixar. In fact, they don't even like Pixar. They're more interested in films like Step Brothers.

Hey now. Step Brothers is a good movie.

Not that it has anything on Pixar though hahaha... but I have to beg to differ with YOU now. Because I don't think I know one person that is embarrassed to say they enjoy Pixar movies. That explains the fact that Pixar movies make more moolah than most other movies released to theaters.

[Scarred4life]

^ Touche. Well, the people I know don't much appreciate animation. (And Step Brothers may be a good movie, but I just really hate that type of humour. )

[UmbrellaFish]

Being a teenage Disney fan- what a whirl!

Here, let me start off that I've been blessed with six feet of height so most people don't mess with me. In fact, it's one of my quirks, my Disney-ness. But I can say firsthand that a lot of Disney products are embarrassing.

First you have the DCOMs. It wouldn't be so bad, if DCOMs, and Disney Channel in general hadn't turned into the "Girl's Channel", they screwed that up. Then, well, most teenagers despise Hannah Montana and The Jo Bros or whatever- they're really more popular with younger adolescents.

Then there's the Princess line. I blame this and the production of DTV sequels to the decline of the Disney brand name. In fact, I can't remember a time when a Disney movie was an "event", but that doesn't even matter anymore, because will all the animated films coming out nowadays, not every Disney film can be an "event".

Back to the Princesses, what teenage boy wants to be associated with frilly pink gowns and blonde haired maidens? The answer, none. Sure, I love The Little Mermaid, but will you ever hear me admit that at school? No. Now, Mary Poppins can slide because I can just say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" and people will think I'm funny.

Continuing with that point, no matter how excited I was, I was not going to tell my friends I was seeing The Princess and the Frog. Yeah, I know, peer pressure, blah, blah, blah, but whatever. And depending on how Disney markets "Tangled", I won't know whether I'll tell my friends that I saw that one, too.

Funny, recently, I was chatting with a new kid at school, and he started going on about how stupid Disney was. He didn't have any other point other than that Disney was for babies and yadda, yadda, yadda. I know he wasn't discriminating against it because of animation itself, because he watches "Family Guy", and today I learned he's never seen "Beauty and the Beast". So, I think the thing just boils down to Disney's public image. They've screwed up royally, and that won't be able to fix it for awhile...

On the subject of Pixar, it shares sort of the same status as Dreamworks. Yeah, if you go out to see a movie in the theatres, it better be "Transformers: Rise of the Crappy Sequel" or something, but it's okay to watch a new Pixar or Dreamworks movie like "Up" or "Monsters vs. Aliens". Maybe because the subject matter is more gender friendly, and more importantly, not fairy-tale-ish. As much as I loved The Princess and the Frog, it wasn't those two things, and that's what Disney needs before it can be really successful again.

[SWillie!]

...today I learned he's never seen "Beauty and the Beast".

Don't be friends.


Seriously, though. That's a crying shame. Having grown up watching that movie, literally, hundreds of times... I just can't even wrap my head around someone NOT having seen it at all. I've met some like him, and I just don't even know what to say in response. Flabbergasted is definitely the best word to describe how that makes me feel.