DVDizzy Forum

I finally saw the reel that was posted earlier, and I find it quite fascinating.

Dear SWillie!,

While I can understand the fact that cast members wish that the general public would "lighten up", I think that authenticity is the key to making any interpretive park a more magical world for everybody.

Examples? I cannot believe that Snow White has often been portrayed out of character at Disneyland, or that so many Disneyland Belles are sooo cutesy. I mean, Snow White's voice may be annoying to SOME, but her voice (and especially her singing voice), and her uber cutesy attitude, are her trademarks, while Belle's trademarks should be her intelligence and her kindness, and NOT a voice that makes pink and purple frosted cupcakes seem bearable.

If I were going to work as a park character, I'd study my character, analyze my character, study all of my character's physical mannerisms, etc.

I think that anybody who portrays Flynn Rider SHOULD study Flynn's smolder, because there's nothing more magical than going to Disneyland and seeing the characters behaving as they do in the movies from which they originate.

I must admit that that sort of dedication isn't for everybody, and that those who are the most committed probably make the best Disney park characters.

I also understand the fact that portraying a Disney character is rather tough, especially since the general public is oftentimes a *bleep* to deal with.

I hate to say this (and, yes, I am A Disney Essential, or one who believes in The Disney Essence, to some degree or another), but The Disney Essence should come into play when cast members are creating their roles in the parks at which they work.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

SWillie! wrote: True story: a few weeks back, a middle aged man came to meet Rapunzel and Flynn. He asked Flynn to do the smolder for the camera, and afterwards he goes "that's interesting... you did it differently in the movie. You raised both your eyebrows in more of a puppy dog look then, but now you're raising one eyebrow. How come?"

And it's like... seriously dude?! You're a grown man. Knock it off.

Another blog post is up with a lot of the behind the scenes videos. Another will be up soon featuring the best interviews with Mandy and Zac. Please read if you get the chance- it will cheer me up. I just discovered that someone stole the inflatable Mickey Santa from my front yard. I do not understand how someone cold do that. So much for the Christmas spirit. Sorry for the off topic rant.

Here's the link:
Getting Tangled: Behind the Scenes with Cast and Crew
http://my-castles-in-the-air.blogspot.c ... -cast.html

SWillie! wrote:

Rapunzel wrote:
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.

Yeah, someone pointed out somewhere else that Disney parks only use ICONIC versions of their characters. For example:

Beast: Beast form not prince form

Ariel: Mermaid form, VERY rarely you can meet her in human form


All other Disney Princesses, the traditional dress they wear for most marketing (Cinderella: Blue ball gown Belle: yellow ball gown Tiana: saw her only once, she was wearing the green ballgown

Rapunzel is the same. If she had her hair like it was in the end, she'd have to meet guests inside, and the door leading to her will have a "Spoiler warning" and to not come in if they haven't seen Tangled yet. She'd also have to explain to kids the entire plot of the movie if they ignored the warning.

Spoiler Alert: In the scene where Gothel falls from Rapunzel's tower, doesn't that scream sound familiar? Because to me, it almost sound like Queen Narissa's scream from Disney's, "Enchanted," in the scene where she, as a dragon, falls to her death while screaming. What do you guys think?

I felt the fall was unnecessary, not only because it's been done too many times, but her old age was reducing her to dust anyway.

I'm studying in the UK this year, but came home on December 4th for Christmas break. My parents were nice enough to take me to see "Tangled" AS SOON as I got off the plane haha. And I saw it for a second time today...

It's interesting to me that so many people have mentioned plot holes. I thought the story was relatively tight. Some have questioned how Mother Gothel would've known the song to access the flower's healing powers, but given she was centuries old, I'm willing to believe she might've been involved in some sort of sorcery. To be honest, I wish Mother Gothel's character would've been developed more. It really wouldn't have taken too much to give her a backstory and motive... perhaps she fell in love with a man who eventually left her for a younger woman. She is therefore obsessed with finding the "fountain of youth", and eventually protective of Rapunzel, wanting to spare the "daughter" she has come to love the heartbreak than nearly destroyed her... that also would've tied into the original fairytale's themes...

I guess I prefer Disney movies to be somewhat more serious and dark... don't get me wrong, I thought "Tangled" was hilarious. I loved Pascal and Maximus, and even in a slightly more dramatic version think they would've been strong characters to include. But there was more they could've done with the Rapunzel-Mother Gothel dynamic. I actually liked "When Will My Life Begin?" but again, I think for a girl locked up in a tower for 18 years, the tone should've been more somber...

That is not the direction they went though so I have to ask myself the question, did I enjoy the movie for what it is? And the truth is, I really did. There are a few scenes I wish they would've spent more time on (The Campfire, Kingdom Dance, and the climax in the tower) but for the most part the film never feels rushed, yet it moves along at such a brisk pace that it doesn't lag. This is definitely an improvement over "Princess and the Frog", which did completely the opposite. It was both rushed and at times, boring. Repeat viewings are almost a chore.

The film was charming. The character design impressive. The emotion genuine. The laughs big. I liked the visual style too. I'm definitely an advocate of 2D animation, but there was some really beautiful imagery here... especially of the tower... also loved the scene when Rapunzel and Flynn are in the cave. The shadows and lighting there are gorgeous. On first viewing, I thought Flynn's narration was somewhat jarring... but again it's because I prefer Disney films to be more serious. Given the tone of "Tangled", and going along with that tone, I didn't mind it as much on second viewing. I loved the theatricality of "Mother Knows Best": Gothel is such a diva! I thought Rapunzel was totally likeable. My favorite scene was probably when she touches ground for the first time. Not only does the song soar, but her reaction is so cute! I love how she rolls in the grass and splashes in the water Haha I know I'm just throwing out random comments now... also liked when she saw the first floating lantern... her solo part of "I See the Light" was the best part of the song and scene for me...

And that's all I have to say for now

im not even gonna mention it. im really mad right now and people should always wait a month before disregarding them. i just wont say it.

SWillie! wrote: True story: a few weeks back, a middle aged man came to meet Rapunzel and Flynn. He asked Flynn to do the smolder for the camera, and afterwards he goes "that's interesting... you did it differently in the movie. You raised both your eyebrows in more of a puppy dog look then, but now you're raising one eyebrow. How come?"

That's scary 0_0

I have a feeling if I was a Disney character at one of the parks...I would be fired my first day, and you'd probably see me on some viral youtube video dressed as said character knocking someone like that's lights out.

It's interesting to me that so many people have mentioned plot holes. I thought the story was relatively tight. Some have questioned how Mother Gothel would've known the song to access the flower's healing powers, but given she was centuries old, I'm willing to believe she might've been involved in some sort of sorcery. To be honest, I wish Mother Gothel's character would've been developed more. It really wouldn't have taken too much to give her a backstory and motive... perhaps she fell in love with a man who eventually left her for a younger woman. She is therefore obsessed with finding the "fountain of youth", and eventually protective of Rapunzel, wanting to spare the "daughter" she has come to love the heartbreak than nearly destroyed her... that also would've tied into the original fairytale's themes...

I agree they could probably added a backstory or something to Gothel. But I guess her selfishness and self-obsession was her true motiviation. At least for her.

There are a few scenes I wish they would've spent more time on (The Campfire, Kingdom Dance, and the climax in the tower) but for the most part the film never feels rushed, yet it moves along at such a brisk pace that it doesn't lag.

I agree with the fact that they could've spent more times on those scenes and especially on the Kingdom Dance sequence. But I was dissapointed with the climax and I thought the film lacked a real confrontation between the villain and the hero. Besides, the destruction of Gothel was a bit too rushed and it was obvious that Rapunzel still had some affection for Gothel when she fell from the tower. I think they could've ended the climax differently.

Hello, my name is mcr5298, and I have a problem.

I am totally and unbelievably obsessed with Tangled!

I've seen it twice in 2D and once in 3D. I haven't seen a Disney movie, or any movie, that has affected me like this in a long time. I loved just about everything about this movie. The beauty of the animation, the characters, the emotions, the romance. I could go on and on. Each time I saw it there was not one point that dragged. I loved it all each time!

The latern scene is my new favorite scene of all time. I absolutely love the song! The emotion that comes from the scene leading up to it with the King and Queen sets me off every time. I begin crying at that point, but then move on to the excitement and wonder that Rapunzel is feeling. Then Flynn's emotion and how he looks at Rapunzel during the whole scene. Ahhhhhh, I just melt every time I see it.

I seriously can't wait for this to come out on DVD!!!!

Okay, I'm done now.

I saw it in cinemas finally and boy was it awesome! The audience even clapped at the end, as did my sister (who is a tough critic when it comes to animated films)

I would change one line though. When R says "but I can't let you die..." F says "but if you do, then will die". I think a more appropriate line would be "but if you do, then you'll never live!" Because R wont die, the whole point is for G to keep R alive. But if R is locked up again, she would never be able to live her life.

I wonder if it was Gothel or her parents who named her Rapunzel. I'm leaning towards Gothel, as in the kingdom she's only known as 'the lost princess'.

Victurtle wrote: I would change one line though. When R says "but I can't let you die..." F says "but if you do, then will die". I think a more appropriate line would be "but if you do, then you'll never live!" Because R wont die, the whole point is for G to keep R alive. But if R is locked up again, she would never be able to live her life.

That's basically the same though i do like the way you changed the line. He means her spirit will die.

Jackoleen wrote:Dear SWillie!,

While I can understand the fact that cast members wish that the general public would "lighten up", I think that authenticity is the key to making any interpretive park a more magical world for everybody.

Examples? I cannot believe that Snow White has often been portrayed out of character at Disneyland, or that so many Disneyland Belles are sooo cutesy. I mean, Snow White's voice may be annoying to SOME, but her voice (and especially her singing voice), and her uber cutesy attitude, are her trademarks, while Belle's trademarks should be her intelligence and her kindness, and NOT a voice that makes pink and purple frosted cupcakes seem bearable.

If I were going to work as a park character, I'd study my character, analyze my character, study all of my character's physical mannerisms, etc.

I think that anybody who portrays Flynn Rider SHOULD study Flynn's smolder, because there's nothing more magical than going to Disneyland and seeing the characters behaving as they do in the movies from which they originate.

I must admit that that sort of dedication isn't for everybody, and that those who are the most committed probably make the best Disney park characters.

I also understand the fact that portraying a Disney character is rather tough, especially since the general public is oftentimes a *bleep* to deal with.

I hate to say this (and, yes, I am A Disney Essential, or one who believes in The Disney Essence, to some degree or another), but The Disney Essence should come into play when cast members are creating their roles in the parks at which they work.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

SWillie! wrote: True story: a few weeks back, a middle aged man came to meet Rapunzel and Flynn. He asked Flynn to do the smolder for the camera, and afterwards he goes "that's interesting... you did it differently in the movie. You raised both your eyebrows in more of a puppy dog look then, but now you're raising one eyebrow. How come?"

And it's like... seriously dude?! You're a grown man. Knock it off.

Here's the thing about the smolder. Have you tried making the face, the actual face, he makes in the film? It's darn near impossible for a human being to make without looking absolutely ridiculous. That's why they have settled on a pursed lips-smirk with one eyebrow raised. It still gives off the same "suave" or "sexy" vibe, and it looks real at the same time.

But you're right that, unfortunately, some people do not stay as "in character" as they should. But that's the almighty "Disney Princess" line for you. A big reason for this is, to use your example... LOTS of girls play both Belle and Snow White (And for that matter, Rapunzel, Cinderella, Ariel, and Aurora as well). Sometimes even in the same day. And so, bouncing back and forth between all these characters causes traits of one to pop up in another. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Like you said, if I were in charge, I would have it otherwise.

But overall, while details and authenticity are both very important, it's the feeling that matters most. And so when people come up looking for details and plot points and whatnot, the feeling of "Wow, I'm meeting RAPUNZEL right now." totally goes over their heads. And instead, they get the feeling of "Wow, I'm meeting some girl in a long wig who doesn't logically make sense in the story she's trying to be a part of."

Do you see why Disney caters to the young ones most? It's because they are willing to believe in the magic. And crazy Disney Enthusiasts are not. (Which really seems odd, as it would seem to me that Disney Enthusiasts would be the first ones to embrace the magic. But they get so stuck up about things, it's sad.)

Again, the bottom line is that you're there to HAVE FUN. So stop reading into things and ruining it for yourself.

ajmrowland wrote:im not even gonna mention it. im really mad right now and people should always wait a month before disregarding them. i just wont say it.

I thought you said you were gonna stop coming to this thread now, since it's been two weeks since the movie was released and we should be able to stop with the white out crap.

SWillie! wrote:That just simply isn't possible. Before the film was released, that would make sense. But... people have SEEN the movie. And so, people have SEEN her hair get cut.

And again, you're being the person that everyone here at Disney can't stand - looking for plot holes. How do you know how long Rapunzel has been out of the tower? She says things like "I remember the first time I left my tower... the feel of the grass, and the touch of water... it was so wonderful!" For all you know it's been a few years since the end of the movie and now Eugene is taking her to visit other kingdoms.

And again, we're trying to KEEP THE MAGIC. That means that, when coming to visit a character, you have to play YOUR part in keeping the magic. If that means ignoring the fact that if her hair is growing back now then it only logically makes sense that the tuft that Gothel cut would have grown back years ago, then so be it.

Bottom line is, we're talking about a girl with magic, 70 ft long hair. And you're trying to make logical sense of it. It would be so much more fun and you'd enjoy it so much more if you weren't obsessed with plot holes and problems with the film and the story and the characters and the tiniest, stupidest little details.

Oh my goodness! I have no idea why my opinion upsets you so much. I just like the ending of the movie so much that I feel like having it grow back blonde and to extreme lengths significantly changes the end of the film. So, I would prefer if she was existing in the pre-ending world, not post-ending with it all returning. I like her short brown hair ending a lot.

Now, for your information, if I were at the park I would NEVER ask Rapunzel why her hair is back and blonde or try to pry out plot holes from any character. You are assuming a LOT about me. I would tell myself it is pre-ending and go about thinking of it that way. I loved this movie. I loved Rapunzel and Eugene. I would gleefully meet them and play along at the park. But, in my head I would explain her hair by saying this is pre-ending because I like that better than thinking the magic and hair came back.

And again, because you have classified me as "being the person that everyone here at Disney can't stand", I want to stress that I would never go up to any face character and start asking any kind of questions about the movie. I just enjoy getting a picture with them and saying hello, or how I love this or that about them (ex. I told Ariel her eyes were such a pretty blue). I would, ironically, be telling Rapunzel how much I love her hair especially with all the flowers in it.

Out of curiosity what DO they say when they have Beast in beast form in the parks? I'm sure some one brings it up (And no, again, I would NOT be that person), but I am interested in what they explain. I wouldn't have even thought to ask what happened because I'd be playing along as if I just hadn't seen the end of the movie. I would have assumed that he was pre-ending as well.

I just remembered that I saw Donna Murphy on Broadway back in the late 80's. She was the understudy for Betty Buckley in The Mystery of Edwin Drood.

And, I saw Mandy Moore perform "Candy" back when she was just 16. I watched the video the other day and gosh, she was so young!

Gosh, I feel old now.

SWillie! wrote: Here's the thing about the smolder. Have you tried making the face, the actual face, he makes in the film? It's darn near impossible for a human being to make without looking absolutely ridiculous. That's why they have settled on a pursed lips-smirk with one eyebrow raised. It still gives off the same "suave" or "sexy" vibe, and it looks real at the same time.

Believe me, when I wear my Flynn costume, I hate doing the smolder. It's not a very attractive look, even in the movie. But I do it anyway, for the character and it's fun. It always gets laughs out of people. To me, the smolder isn't suppose to be sexy. Flynn just thinks it is. It obviously didn't work on Rapunzel.

mcr5298 wrote:I just remembered that I saw Donna Murphy on Broadway back in the late 80's. She was the understudy for Betty Buckley in The Mystery of Edwin Drood.

Ahhhhh lucky!!!!! I did get a chance to meet her in Sept. though! Would love to see her perform live. Oddly enough, she wasn't even at the premiere of the movie.