DVDizzy Forum

Wow! All I can say is--"Thank you Bob Iger for getting John Lasseter on board before it was too late!"

Sotiris wrote:Oh.My.God!!!

You guys will not believe what I've just discovered; a 5-minute demo reel of the "Rapunzel Unbraided" version which includes parts of the much-hyped aborted opening!!!

Here's the link:

https://secure.creativecow.net/account/ ... ion-previz

Wow. Already watched it when someone posted the link on IMDB but the beginning animation is-is-beautiful. But then they got to The Golden Gate Bridge and everything went downhill from there, with a box type unfinished animation. Bleh. Also, the original plot and the music playing in the BG for some scenes makes it seem like part Shrek and part sequel to Enchanted (just call it "Enchanted: Revirsed and you've got the perfect title.) The original movie was about a normal girl and a normal guy, who get sucked into a fairy tale (Rapunzel) and take the places of Rapunzel and her prince (now Flynn, don't know his name in very early concepts) when they are turned into animals by the villian (Gothel?) Yes, I love Tangled MUCH more than the Rapunzel Unbraided idea, and am glad they didn't keep it. One thing that would've made Tangled better-that painted animation they were demonstrating at the beginning of the video. I get why they couldn't do it (time+money) but I'm praying they don't just abandon the idea and never use it. I'd LOVE if they made even a short using it.

And I hope I don't get ratted out for this, but I bet Tangled would look much prettier and more "classic" using the paint animation.

Being the crazy person I am, I got bored and so what do I did? I made a bad fan poster

or large if for some reason you want to:
http://oi56.tinypic.com/3444ho4.jpg

That Pre-Viz was so cool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree about the opening being beautiful. I don't think the rest of it was too bad; the first time I watched it, there was no sound, but then I closed a program and was able to hear the sound. Maybe it was better that I watched it first without sound (?), since I didn't think it was that bad. Was that Vince and Claire at the end? because Vince looked like Bear-Flynn and not the short guy driving the carriage...?

It was really fabulous seeing that. That kind of made my week.

Oh, and "Gothel"'s voice was just a scratch track, right? It was kind of bad, IMO...wouldn't want to hear that throughout the whole film...

Wait, how do we even know whether the budget was $260 million? That's huge and I seriously doubt it would have cost that much. If you're quoting that LA Times article i'm pretty sure it was debunked?

Haddad28 wrote:Wait, how do we even know whether the budget was $260 million? That's huge and I seriously doubt it would have cost that much. If you're quoting that LA Times article i'm pretty sure it was debunked?

I'm pretty sure Tangled cost more than $260 million. It's been in pre-production on and off between 1992 and 2002 and in active development with cancellations and green lights in-between. This entire production has been to hell and back. Like three times.

PatrickvD wrote:

Haddad28 wrote:Wait, how do we even know whether the budget was $260 million? That's huge and I seriously doubt it would have cost that much. If you're quoting that LA Times article i'm pretty sure it was debunked?

I'm pretty sure Tangled cost more than $260 million. It's been in pre-production on and off between 1992 and 2002 and in active development with cancellations and green lights in-between. This entire production has been to hell and back. Like three times.

More than $260 million? That's a little crazy. I mean, wasn't this movie actually in production since 2004? I dunno about it being in pre-production between 1992 and 2002.

DisneyJedi wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: I'm pretty sure Tangled cost more than $260 million. It's been in pre-production on and off between 1992 and 2002 and in active development with cancellations and green lights in-between. This entire production has been to hell and back. Like three times.

More than $260 million? That's a little crazy. I mean, wasn't this movie actually in production since 2004? I dunno about it being in pre-production between 1992 and 2002.

Some artist (including Glen Keane) started concept work on it after Aladdin wrapped up. It never came together and not until 2002 did the whole thing pick up more steam (along with The Snow Queen at the time). Then in 2003 when they shut down traditional animation it was revamped into a Shrek-like abomination, which was shut down again in 2006.

And believe me, money was spilt on this thing. Big time.

Keep in mind, Home on the Range cost $140 million. Rapunzel has been through quite a bit more troubles than that film so it's safe to assume the budget is over $300 million. However, the film that we now know and love probably didn't cost more than $150 million. A lot of money was flushed down the drain.

LucilleBallFilms wrote:

Scarred4life wrote:Is it just me, or did the part in Rapunzel Unbraided when they were in the city remind anyone of Oliver and Company?

The entire time I was watching that part all I could think about was Oliver and Company (and god knows how long it's been since i've seen it, though the VHS is on my shelf )

I got reminded of that too! Though this is in San Francisco and Oliver&co is in NYC.
I haven't seen it in forever, but i always watched it when i was little because i loved the poodle Georgette so much, i thought it was so cool she had a bed that could turn around and i loved how she walked down the stairs at the end.... Perfect isn't easy, but it's me! xD

In a recent interview, didn't Glen Keane say that he starting working on it while he was working on Tarzan...?

Well...let me just say that we should be glad that we didn't get that trashy train wreck. It starts off well enough (even the San Francisco joy ride scene, as much as it clashes with the enchanted forest part), but this clip shows that the idea of wanting to take two teens from the real world into the Rapunzel story was a stupid idea.

I went and saw it a second time and could easily see it again.

I almost hate to admit it, but I am starting to like the CGI more and more. I knew I loved it for the hair and other objects, but not for the actual human faces and body (I still prefer the 2D traditional look) . However seeing it a second time I am getting used to it more. You can see so many details in their eyes for example. Like how Flynn has these golden flecks and Rapunzel has some light brown flecks. I don't think traditional animation would have given them as much dimension. There are still some strange things that didn't quite work like the flying birds looked weird, but overall it is so beautiful.

The songs are also growing on me and surprisingly the "pop" sound of "When Will My Life Begin" was not as bothersome to me.

I really love this movie!

Things I heard from others at the movie:

There were several people saying (rather loudly and during the movie right after Rapunzel's hair is cut and turns brown ) that "She is so pretty. Wow, she now looks so beautiful!" There were several different voices saying this. A few kids, including what sounded like a little boy, and a couple of adults.

On the way out I heard two adults going on and on about how much they loved the movie and how beautiful it was.

Several kids said it made them cry and their moms said it made them cry too.


♥ I think Tangled has been VERY well received. ♥

I finally saw it in 3D. It was great.

Tangled wrote: (Counts as a spoiler) According to an interview on http://hellyeahtangled.tumblr.com/ Rapunzel's hair indeed doesn't grow back when it's cut. The human head loses hair daily, so when Flynn cuts Rapunzel's hair all the hair she loses daily would be gone. The poor girl would be bald in a few years, and isn't she a Disney princess? Ok, I now want a fanfic about that. XD

In the movie Rapunzel doesn't actually say "it doesn't grow back". She says it "looses it's power and turns brown". I am going to assume it will start to grow like normal hair now. She won't reach the lengths it was, but she can have a full head of hair.

Another potential plot hole: Rapunzel's hair has to be super strong in order for her to swing on it and do so much with it. Right? She sure isn't afraid of it breaking. So then, we have to assume it never breaks on its own. So why is it so easy to cut if it is so strong? I guess that can all be explained away by "magic".

SWillie! wrote:Well that contradicts the fact that in Disney World they are officially saying just the opposite. If Rapunzel is asked "why isn't your hair short and brown like it was at the end of the movie?" she is supposed to reply that there is still a little bit of magic left, enough for her hair to start growing back, even if she no longer has her healing powers.

Really? Because I think it is a terrible idea to have her hair grow THAT long again and change back to blonde.[/i]

Rapunzel wrote:I went and saw it a second time and could easily see it again.

I almost hate to admit it, but I am starting to like the CGI more and more. I knew I loved it for the hair and other objects, but not for the actual human faces and body (I still prefer the 2D traditional look) . However seeing it a second time I am getting used to it more. You can see so many details in their eyes for example. Like how Flynn has these golden flecks and Rapunzel has some light brown flecks. I don't think traditional animation would have given them as much dimension. There are still some strange things that didn't quite work like the flying birds looked weird, but overall it is so beautiful.

The songs are also growing on me and surprisingly the "pop" sound of "When Will My Life Begin" was not as bothersome to me.

I really love this movie!

Things I heard from others at the movie:

There were several people saying (rather loudly and during the movie right after Rapunzel's hair is cut and turns brown ) that "She is so pretty. Wow, she now looks so beautiful!" There were several different voices saying this. A few kids, including what sounded like a little boy, and a couple of adults.

On the way out I heard two adults going on and on about how much they loved the movie and how beautiful it was.

Several kids said it made them cry and their moms said it made them cry too.


♥ I think Tangled has been VERY well received. ♥

Aren't you from Holland?
I went to the theater and was one of EIGHT people in a cinemaroom with space for 40.
This movie is gonna flop here... sadly... because it's a lovely movie

phan258 wrote:

pap64 wrote: The only thing to understand is that some people liked the movie better than others.


The same is happening with Tangled. The general consensus is that its a good movie with a lot of like. Whether its the best ever made or just OK depends on who is watching it and the kind of mentality they bring to the experience.

Again, not bashing you or anything. Just explaining that even if a million see the same movie, there will always be a million different ideas about it, and its the sort of thing you can't think about except just accept it and discuss it when you can.

I agree, pap64. Thank you. Acting befuddled over someone else's personal opinions is the truly confusing thing in my eyes

I actually hate it when some people get so mad just because someone else doesn't like something. I'm on another forum where we discuss TV shows and several people HAD to make a separate topic because they just couldn't handle "all the negativity" and it made them "so sad and depressed" to hear when someone didn't like an episode or doesn't like a certain character.

Come on. There is nothing wrong with saying what you like AND dislike about a show or movie.

Disney's Divinity wrote:In a way, I feel completely on the reverse for this film. With TP&TF, everybody was complaining about everything while I mostly enjoyed it, but with Tangled, no one's pointing out any flaws at all. To me, that's just unrealistic. Even with my favorite films, there are always flaws.

I think a few of us have pointed out flaws. I for one loved the movie, but I was annoyed with Mandy Moore's voice, some of the animation is "off", I prefer 2D humans, the music was good but not movingly great, Flynn is still a bit too much like Naveen and Aladdin combined, and there are some confusing parts with the whole Gothel and Stabbington Brothers thing, to name a few. I also still think they needed to explain her name (named after the plant) and did Gothel give her this name? Does she have a different name her parents gave her because no one recognized "Rapunzel" as being the name of the lost princess. Ugh. Why were all the villagers brunettes except those three kids?

But overall, I liked the movie a lot and some of the things I didn't care for are growing on me with a second viewing.

Then again. I might be biased because Rapunzel is my favorite fairytale.

By the way, watching it a second time Rapunzel does indeed push Gothel twice although they are more like attempts to get away/get past Gothel. She also grabs hold of her wrists and that is when Gothel pulls free and falls backward into the mirror breaking it. It does seem a bit out of character for Rapunzel to grab and hold onto her like that.


Anyone else out there find comparison between Mother Gothel and Bernadette Peters' portrayal of the Witch in Into the Woods? I thought Gothel's character design looked A LOT like Peter's as the Witch. Also the music has a similar feel to it.

Fairytales wrote: Aren't you from Holland?
I went to the theater and was one of EIGHT people in a cinemaroom with space for 40.
This movie is gonna flop here... sadly... because it's a lovely movie

No, you must be thinking of someone else. I'm in the States.

Rapunzel wrote:By the way, watching it a second time Rapunzel does indeed push Gothel twice although they are more like attempts to get away/get past Gothel. She also grabs hold of her wrists and that is when Gothel pulls free and falls backward into the mirror breaking it. It does seem a bit out of character for Rapunzel to grab and hold onto her like that.

Fairytales wrote: Aren't you from Holland?
I went to the theater and was one of EIGHT people in a cinemaroom with space for 40.
This movie is gonna flop here... sadly... because it's a lovely movie

No, you must be thinking of someone else. I'm in the States.

I actually liked it that Rapunzel stood up for herself. it's terrible how mother Gothel treated her and i liked it that Rapunzel didn't run away crying. I also loved how bitchy she said: 'Did i mumble, mother? Or should i even call you that?'

And oh, sorry, i thought you were from Holland

Okay, now IMDB is stating that the budget is estimated to be about $150 million. You know, I wish we could get the information straight from the horse's mouth instead of keeping on guessing!

DisneyJedi wrote:Okay, now IMDB is stating that the budget is estimated to be about $150 million. You know, I wish we could get the information straight from the horse's mouth instead of keeping on guessing!

I've said this many times before. Hell, I even said it before there was even a budget mentioned in the media, but this movie cost Disney SO much money. Enough so that they will never. I repeat never give us the actual number. It's not going to happen.

Rapunzel wrote:

SWillie! wrote:Well that contradicts the fact that in Disney World they are officially saying just the opposite. If Rapunzel is asked "why isn't your hair short and brown like it was at the end of the movie?" she is supposed to reply that there is still a little bit of magic left, enough for her hair to start growing back, even if she no longer has her healing powers.

Really? Because I think it is a terrible idea to have her hair grow THAT long again and change back to blonde.[/i]

Well what would you have them do in the parks then? Have meet and greets with Rapunzel with her short brown hair? That would be ridiculous. Parents and kids alike would be like, "That's not Rapunzel! Where's her hair?"

And they have to have SOME explanation as to why her hair is back the way it is. It can't be like...

Little girl: "Rapunzel, your hair got cut off at the end, why is it long and blonde again?"

Rapunzel: "Well, I sell more merchandise when I'm portrayed with the long hair, so that's the wig their using. I don't know, kid."

I don't see anything wrong with saying that she has a little bit of magic left and so it has started to grow back.