DVDizzy Forum

DisneyDuster wrote:I didn’t think that Frollo was supposed to raise Quasimodo to make up for killing the mother, I thought he was supposed to do it because the baby was innocent and shouldn’t be killed, and needed protection, but I haven’t seen it in a while. I just don’t think Frollo could treat Quasimodo so much near a son, laying his arms on him, without some kind of feeling, and I don’t think Quasimodo could be raised by him without some kind of fond feeling. However, it’s nowhere near Rapunzel and Mother Gothel’s mother-daughter relationship, I know that.

I know you said that you haven't seen the film for a while but do you remember that Frollo is so disgusted by the baby that he is about to drop it down a well before he is stopped by the archdeacon? I see what your saying but I think the reason Frollo is such a convincing and effective villain is that he is completely, entirely, unapologetically evil. He does say during the beginning that perhaps one day Quasimodo will prove useful and he does, leading Frollo to the gypsies. I think Quasimodo views Frollo as a guardian as he has always been told a lie that Frollo saved his life but I don't think Frollo is capable of having any kind of paternal feeling toward anyone, not just Quasimodo.

Disney Duster, I just don't understand why it's so important to you for Disney to do a direct adaptation of a fairy tale. The changes they made were to better the story of the movie, the pacing, give the characters depth, ect.

What I don't necessarily know that you take into account is what a fairy tale actually is.. Fairy tales are stories passed down through generations from all around the world with many adaptations. Generally they were not written down, only shared verbally. Aside from that, Rapunzel was widely spread by The Brothers Grimm whom are known for collecting many versions of the same story and modifying them as they saw fit. Most fairy tales are simply lessons with characters wrapped around it to make it easy for children and adults to relate.

If it weren't for Hans Christian Andersen, the Brothers Grimm, Joseph Jacobs, Charles Perrault and a slew of other authors, fairy tales would still be constantly changing enigmas. Those authors immortalized one version of each tale by writing it down and therefore those versions shot up in popularity. That being said, who is to say that the creators of Tangled only read Grimm's version of Rapunzel? And why do you limit yourself only to the more popular versions of the story?

I won't comment on what you believe the Disney company to be because I know you've had plenty of conversations about that. But really.. the nature of a fairy tale isn't set in stone. They're meant to be illusive, interpretive and ever evolving to suit a new generation of children and adults alike. I just think the fact that Tangled isn't exactly like Grimm's Rapunzel is a bad reason to dislike it.

pap64 wrote:Heh, does that mean that in the 90s when Eisner was in charge he took control of the Academy Awards because they loved the fab four movies and they always won awards?

But anyways...

PIXAR IS EVUL!!!!!! THEY BRAINWASHED THE ACADEMY AWARDS INTO NOMINATING THEIR MOVIES ONLY!!!!

amazon980 wrote:

Mobje wrote:
A Blu-ray Rip of Tangled has been released!
Size is 3.83 GB though!
mariadny wrote:
Send me the link, please

mokka456
Can I have the link too please?!

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8fsp6qdrQxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Shame on you!!
How do you love a company and then want to steal from them?
All those who worked on this and other movies worked really hard! Not so you can steal! I wish you and others would stop talking about stealing movies here!! You guys bring shame to our forum with your stealing !

Most people here are Disney lovers and will therefore also buy the dvd. Bytheway, they've supported the movie too by seeing it in theaters and some of them buy merchandise. Don't be such a hypocrite. Disney will get their money, no matter what.

Fairytales wrote:

amazon980 wrote: <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8fsp6qdrQxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Shame on you!!
How do you love a company and then want to steal from them?
All those who worked on this and other movies worked really hard! Not so you can steal! I wish you and others would stop talking about stealing movies here!! You guys bring shame to our forum with your stealing !

Most people here are Disney lovers and will therefore also buy the dvd. Bytheway, they've supported the movie too by seeing it in theaters and some of them buy merchandise. Don't be such a hypocrite. Disney will get their money, no matter what.

Let's get things straight...

Amazon, I hate to say this, but you are in no right to judge people, much less label them and speak on behalf of the whole site. If you believe talk about piracy is going on, contact the mods and let them have the final word.

Fairytales, once again I hate to say this, but it is still stealing and pirating, even when you paid for it the first time or supported the release. I am not going to get into the details of piracy, the film industry etc. since we would have a million posts based on one aspect of it alone. However, I am of the belief that just because you paid for it the first time it doesn't make it any less of a crime when you illegally download it. That's like saying you shouldn't be arrested for shoplifting an item because you paid for something else, or saying that you can't steal food from a restaurant because you paid for your food on your first visit.

Saying "I already paid for it" or "Disney will get the money either way" will not matter when you are caught. All Disney and the feds will see that a crime was committed, a crime that prevented them from getting more money.

Not saying that you should or shouldn't do download movies or anything else since that is up to you to decide. What I am saying is that no disguise will change the fact that it is still considered a crime and therefore people will frown upon it. Even professional pirates know this.

Also, if I am not mistaken, talk about illegally downloading movies or posting illegal clips openly on the forums is against the forum rules so you guys should watch out for that.

Just sayin'...

Dream Huntress wrote:

Rapunzel wrote: Yes! I think it would have married both concepts quite nicely.

But that's been done before, in Shrek.

Was it? I don't remember. But really, reading a book or telling the story from the view point of a character is a common fairytale beginning so I don't think it is all that innovative any way you do it.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:I didn’t think that Frollo was supposed to raise Quasimodo to make up for killing the mother, I thought he was supposed to do it because the baby was innocent and shouldn’t be killed, and needed protection, but I haven’t seen it in a while. I just don’t think Frollo could treat Quasimodo so much near a son, laying his arms on him, without some kind of feeling, and I don’t think Quasimodo could be raised by him without some kind of fond feeling. However, it’s nowhere near Rapunzel and Mother Gothel’s mother-daughter relationship, I know that.

I know you said that you haven't seen the film for a while but do you remember that Frollo is so disgusted by the baby that he is about to drop it down a well before he is stopped by the archdeacon? I see what your saying but I think the reason Frollo is such a convincing and effective villain is that he is completely, entirely, unapologetically evil. He does say during the beginning that perhaps one day Quasimodo will prove useful and he does, leading Frollo to the gypsies. I think Quasimodo views Frollo as a guardian as he has always been told a lie that Frollo saved his life but I don't think Frollo is capable of having any kind of paternal feeling toward anyone, not just Quasimodo.

One of the reasons I hate Disney's Hunchback is because they change the character of Frollo so very much. In the book he is actually a good man. He saves and raises Quasi like a son. He has true love and compassion for the boy and for his brother. He struggles with his own desires and religious beliefs which end up being his downfall, but in his heart he is a good man who tries to live a good life and who does love Quasimodo like a son. It is so tragic and sad. His death is just as tragic as Esmeralda's and Quasi's.


Okay, I don't really "hate" Disney's version. It is good on its own merits. But I have to really try hard to separate the REAL story of Quasimodo that Victor Hugo wrote from the Disney story that is barely the same thing. None of the characters are the same or have the same stories. Good characters are made totally evil (Frollo), and bad characters are made to be the hero (Pheobus is a womanizer). Not to mention Esmeralda is a married woman.

There is that word again..."real". But The Hunchback of Notre Dame was never a fairytale. It is a tragic novel. It actually HAD a set storyline unlike something like Rapunzel which has many variations and versions. Also, I wonder what Victor Hugo would think. He had very specific messages in his novel that the Disney film has completely removed from the story. But, he has been dead a while, so he had no say.

Rapunzel wrote:
One of the reasons I hate Disney's Hunchback is because they change the character of Frollo so very much. In the book he is actually a good man. He saves and raises Quasi like a son. He has true love and compassion for the boy and for his brother. He struggles with his own desires and religious beliefs which end up being his downfall, but in his heart he is a good man who tries to live a good life and who does love Quasimodo like a son. It is so tragic and sad. His death is just as tragic as Esmeralda's and Quasi's.


Okay, I don't really "hate" Disney's version. It is good on its own merits. But I have to really try hard to separate the REAL story of Quasimodo that Victor Hugo wrote from the Disney story that is barely the same thing. None of the characters are the same or have the same stories. Good characters are made totally evil (Frollo), and bad characters are made to be the hero (Pheobus is a womanizer). Not to mention Esmeralda is a married woman.

There is that word again..."real". But The Hunchback of Notre Dame was never a fairytale. It is a tragic novel. It actually HAD a set storyline unlike something like Rapunzel which has many variations and versions. Also, I wonder what Victor Hugo would think. He had very specific messages in his novel that the Disney film has completely removed from the story. But, he has been dead a while, so he had no say.

I usually have no problems with Disney adapting famous stories and/or fairy tales and changing their details. They're just taking the same element, the story and structure of the original tale, and making it into their own.

With fairy tales it's usually okay, because there have been several different variations of certain fairy tales throughout the years.

But even when it comes to adapting famous novels (Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmations, HoND, Tarzan, etc.), I don't have much of a problem with it, because there have been several film adaptions that didn't stick close to their original novels as well. So Disney is just telling their version.

Like in the 1923 film of the HoND, Esmeralda is rescued by Quasimodo from the gallows. And in the 1939 film, Esmeralda and Quasimodo stay alive, and Phoebus is killed by Frollo.
In fact, I think the Disney version was influenced by the 1939 film.

LySs, for some reason with Hunchback it bothers me more than other novels turned into Disney movies. In fact, none of the other novels you mentioned bothered me as Disney films (and yes I have read them). I think it has to do with the extremely tragic nature of HoND and that it is rooted stronger in the real world. Also, perhaps it is because the other novels were based more on a fantasy world where you could understand what dogs were thinking, or step through a looking glass and talk to invisible cats, or never grow up, or where a man lives with apes. So changes don't seem as severe when the book is already fantastical.

But, in spite of the changes bothering me so much I still think the Disney film is really quite excellent. I have to separate the two in my mind in order to enjoy the Disney film for what it is but when I convince myself that it is practically an unrelated story, I love it...Except the gargoyles.

New sketch of Flynn posted on Tangled's facebook page.

Rapunzel wrote:LySs, for some reason with Hunchback it bothers me more than other novels turned into Disney movies. In fact, none of the other novels you mentioned bothered me as Disney films (and yes I have read them). I think it has to do with the extremely tragic nature of HoND and that it is rooted stronger in the real world. Also, perhaps it is because the other novels were based more on a fantasy world where you could understand what dogs were thinking, or step through a looking glass and talk to invisible cats, or never grow up, or where a man lives with apes. So changes don't seem as severe when the book is already fantastical.

But, in spite of the changes bothering me so much I still think the Disney film is really quite excellent. I have to separate the two in my mind in order to enjoy the Disney film for what it is but when I convince myself that it is practically an unrelated story, I love it...Except the gargoyles.

It's the same thing with Disney's The Jungle Book....there are no simlairties except the name of the characters and the jungle compared to the book...Also there are some things that are in the HOND Disney Version compared to other versions.....such as the battle at Notre Dame and Quasi pours boiling water from the bell tower that scene is in it.....But if Disney didnt make the film the original source material wouldn't be getting as much looked into even with Tim Burton rumored to make his own version of it which HOND really would be good for Tim Burton......

Patrick wrote:New sketch of Flynn posted on Tangled's facebook page.

That was one of the first sketches of Flynn ever posted.

Rapunzel wrote:

Dream Huntress wrote: But that's been done before, in Shrek.

Was it? I don't remember. But really, reading a book or telling the story from the view point of a character is a common fairytale beginning so I don't think it is all that innovative any way you do it.

Which is probably why they decided not to use the storybook opening, otherwise we would have had a bunch of fanboys going on like "Oh no, they did the same they've done hundreds of times, why can't be Disney be original".

Dream Huntress wrote:Which is probably why they decided not to use the storybook opening, otherwise we would have had a bunch of fanboys going on like "Oh no, they did the same they've done hundreds of times, why can't be Disney be original".

Werd.

^


But, yeah, I’m sure some people out there don’t think Tangled as-is is very original for the simple fact that it’s a fairy tale musical. I always hate that criticism (for any movie, Disney or otherwise). It’s totally bunk--there’s no such thing as “originality.” It’s all been done before; certain films just sometimes feel more “fresh” when that particular formula hasn’t been out in a while. I’d rather they just do what goes best with the film and the legacy they want the film to have, so if a storybook introduction would‘ve fit for it, that shouldn‘t necessarily have been out of the running because of "unoriginality."

I’ve always worried that the Flynn voice-over was a last-ditch decision (along with the film being re-named) to make the film seem somewhat male-centric. I could be wrong about that though, considering I watched the film following all these marketing decisions, but the opening has always felt too "quick" for me--almost from a different movie from the rest of the film.

When I watched the movie for the first time, Flynn's opening sentence made me think of the first line in Grave of the Fireflies.
"September 21, 1945. That was the night I died".

Sky Syndrome wrote:When I watched the movie for the first time, Flynn's opening sentence made me think of the first line in Grave of the Fireflies.
"September 21, 1945. That was the night I died".

Wow. I was actually thinking the exact same thing back when I saw Tangled, which felt kinda awkward.

Some people are addicted to drama I guess... So now we have a fake outrage about something as innocent and insignificant as downloading a movie a person has already paid for in the theater and will pay for *again* on dvd or bluray? Really?

People are talking about this as if it's a hanging offense. "Disney and the feds will see it as a crime when you get caught".... I mean, seriously... give me a fucking break. As if the FBI will come knock on your door (well, technically, they don't have to and can search your home without ever telling you, thanks to the Patriot Act) to arrest you for downloading a Disney flick! People need to gain a little more perspective.

Oh, and this drama isn't complete without Rudy Matt calling everybody who has downloaded the movie a bunch of communists. Where is he when you need him?

Edited for typo's

Goliath wrote: Oh, and this drama isn't complete without Rudy Matt calling everybody who has downloaded the movie a bunch of communists. Where is he when you need him?

He's out hunting down and killing dem communies with a bible in one hand and a machete in the other.

Per Cartoon Brew:

Meanwhile, the worldwide total for Tangled now stands at $538 million and is still rising. It is Disney Feature Animation’s second highest grossing animated feature ever behind only The Lion King, and it has surpassed the worldwide grosses of other recent animated pics like Despicable Me, Wall-E, Cars, and How to Train Your Dragon.