Tangled Discussion Part VI: Let the Drama continue...

[Disney Duster]

BigOne I forgot to say, making Flynn’s and other character’s movements less whiplash modern cynical short attention span fast in today’s faster way of movies would not make the animation jerkier or “jankier” as you put it. What I meant was make the characters a little less fast and use a lot of frames, it would be very smooth. It looked like in Tangled fast movements took like 3 frames when in older Disney movies they would have used like 6 frames. I’m approximating, but you get the gist of what I meant.

But it's still hardly the first Disney movie to futz with the origins "for no good reason." I mean, look at "Aladdin." His mom is dead and he's an orphan. A little different, I think. Belle is not the daughter of a once-wealthy sea merchant who is sent to the castle because her dad picked a rose. Cinderella's dad isn't some doddering dope hanging around who sits there while she's treated as a servant. The origin there is still different from the movie but it works. That's why it's an adaptation. I don't see why changing the origins is a bad thing, but anything else is just part of how things work.

Those character backgrounds are slightly different, but if you don't see the huge difference between a peasant changed to a princess a witch changed to an ordinary woman and a prince changed to an orphan thief...see what I mean? This time they changed the characters backgrounds a lot more, in an un-Disney way.

This I still don't get. It's exaggerated cartoon violence. I doubt any kid there for a minute is seriously thinking Lilo's going to get it between the eyes when Jumba is running around with a space blaster that shoots green balls or something. Do you get offended when Sykes has a gun in "Oliver & Company"? Or when Bambi's mom gets, you know, shot? Or when Old Yeller is put down? Isn't that violence or guns?

It was the way that Lilo & Stitch's violence was handled. It was done in an un-Disney way. The alien giant guns with lots of explosions and loudness is a lot stronger and more violent than the things you mentioned.

Disney Duster -- I thought of you yesterday! I was subbing for a group of fourth graders and we were looking at a fairly traditional Rapunzel picture book and Lon Po Po (a Chinese version of Little Red Riding Hood) and I was talking about how there are lot of different versions of fairy tales, blah blah blah. The kids were supposed to used a Venn Diagram to compare and contrast the two stories and a kid got very confused and wanted to know whether or not Rapunzel is a princess. "She was in <i>Tangled!</i>," he said.

Anyway, yeah. I figured you'd have a lot to say in response.

Thank you! This simply illustrates one of the things Disney needed to do, keep her a peasant, keep her background the same! Children never got that confused from a Disney film and the original fairy tale before.

DisneyAnimation88 maybe you are right about Frodo but I need to re-watch it.

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.

Okay, first it is true that fairy tales can be viewed the way you said.

But what Disney always traditionally did was took the literary versions and made those “set in stone” ones into their versions. That was what Walt did three times, and so from those three examples that was the Disney way of doing fairy tales, so Disney should keep following it to this day.

They did not need to change Rapunzel so much to make it more appealing or have more depth or whatever. I already talked about this, but it would possible for Rapunzel to have been a peasant exchanged for magic Rapunzel lettuce from Mother Gothel’s garden, and she had Prince Flynn (or Prince Bastian, a more German sounding name as Rapunzel is German), who runs away from his parents to have adventure instead of settle down, but Rapunzel, who loves the lights from his castle, make him fall in love with her and he learns to love the lanterns of his castle with her, and she goes back to get tell Mother Gothel she’s safe and get her blessing to marry the prince, but Mother Gothel chains her up…et cetera.

Disney’s Divinity, first, please never say “there’s no such thing as originality”. Ever little thing a human being does is at least slightly original from what another does, even in the smallest, subtlest ways. As a creative person you should know originality does exist, and actually, it’s only a certain way of thinking that can turn anything into “the same” as anything else, so it is the mind and a certain way of thinking which actually makes (ie. Declares) something unoriginal.

Next, I agree, Flynn’s opening narration…blech. But I seriously would not have minded if he read an opening storybook, just a little more seriously than he actually opened the film. Maybe with one joke or two.

[Patrick]

Okay, first it is true that fairy tales can be viewed the way you said.

But what Disney always traditionally did was took the literary versions and made those “set in stone” ones into their versions. That was what Walt did three times, and so from those three examples that was the Disney way of doing fairy tales, so Disney should keep following it to this day.

They did not need to change Rapunzel so much to make it more appealing or have more depth or whatever. I already talked about this, but it would possible for Rapunzel to have been a peasant exchanged for magic Rapunzel lettuce from Mother Gothel’s garden, and she had Prince Flynn (or Prince Bastian, a more German sounding name as Rapunzel is German), who runs away from his parents to have adventure instead of settle down, but Rapunzel, who loves the lights from his castle, make him fall in love with her and he learns to love the lanterns of his castle with her, and she goes back to get tell Mother Gothel she’s safe and get her blessing to marry the prince, but Mother Gothel chains her up…et cetera

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I personally don't think Disney would have lasted this long if it did the same thing over and over. A company has to evolve and adapt to the present time to survive. If a food company didn't get rid of trans fat, they would be labeled unhealthy and go out of business. If Sony decided to only sell black and white TVs, they would go out of business. It's the same with Disney.. It's one thing to be known for something but it's another to keep making the same mistakes. But that's just how I feel.

[ajmrowland]

Regarding fast movements, it's just the way movies are made these days with fewer frames.

Blame the Matrix or something. times change.

[skyler888]

Patrick is "http://thedisnerd.tumblr.com/" your tumblr??

cause i love it!!

[Goliath]

Thank you! This simply illustrates one of the things Disney needed to do, keep her a peasant, keep her background the same! Children never got that confused from a Disney film and the original fairy tale before.

Oh my! Won't anybody think of the children!!!!!1!1

Those character backgrounds are slightly different, but if you don't see the huge difference between a peasant changed to a princess a witch changed to an ordinary woman and a prince changed to an orphan thief...see what I mean? This time they changed the characters backgrounds a lot more, in an un-Disney way.

NO! Because there is no such "huge difference". You have made that up. And you KNOW it. I would want to bet $100 that you KNOW you are making shit up. You KNOW there is no difference at all between Rapunzel being a princess and all the examples mentioned by SpringHeelJack. You are just saying that to justify your dislike for Rapunzel. The reason you don't think the changes that SHJ has names are the same, is NOSTALGIA. Everything that's nostalgic to you, is "better". Like my grandma always says, "everything used to be better". But you KNOW that's not an actual argument and you don't have the BALLS to admit that. So you MAKE UP bullshit criteria which modern Disney films must meet; and of course, in your eyes, they never meet those criteria. Not because they actually don't, but because you don't like anything modern by Disney.

ADMIT IT. Please, just ADMIT IT and we can all move on.

[Disney Duster]

Well you're entitled to your opinion, but I personally don't think Disney would have lasted this long if it did the same thing over and over. A company has to evolve and adapt to the present time to survive. If a food company didn't get rid of trans fat, they would be labeled unhealthy and go out of business. If Sony decided to only sell black and white TVs, they would go out of business. It's the same with Disney.. It's one thing to be known for something but it's another to keep making the same mistakes. But that's just how I feel.

Well, I want Disney to keep making original ideas (as long as they are original and Disney fitting at the same time!) but when it comes to the fairy tales, their was a set way of doing them. Even though changing things might make people think their movies are more "fresh", it's not about only appeasing the public, it's also about keeping Disney Disney, by keeping traditions. You see, the film would have still been fresh because the personalities would still be fresh. But if audiences start saying they don't like movies with happy endings for the whole family anymore, would that mean Disney should stop having happy endings or be for the whole family? No, Disney needs to stay Disney.

Goliath...please...I am metaphorically on my hands and knees now begging you. I have listened to you, and you've said the same things to me many times by now. This time, I understand you now more than ever, because you even included the experience of your grandmother's view as a bias that has affected you. I need you to not think about her, but just listen to me right now.

Okay, the changes SHJ mentioned were Cinderella just not having her dad around, which is very similar to the original stories having her dad be there but not really present in her life, like he was dead. For Aladdin, in both the original and Disney version he didn't have a father, and he was poor on the street, and stole to get what he needed, the only difference from the original story is his mother was taken out of the Disney version. For Belle, the only difference was she didn't have her sisters. Her father was changed from the original merchant to an inventor, but in both the original and Disney version he is still a peasant, who sold things.

You see, Disney kept their actual backgrounds of who they were very, very much the same, and just excised uneeded characters.

But in Rapunzel's case, their is a very big difference from being a peasant and being a thief, or being a magical witch and being ordinary, or being a prince or being a thief.

If you do not see that these are bigger differences, then their is really no hope. But you have to actually listen and talk to me and understand me and think about what I'm saying instead of dismissing it all.

Because otherwise, I am going to dismiss all that you say as just your negative cynical world view and experiences with your grandmother.

So please, I'm begging, actually consider what I have pointed out, and please try to understand instead of just dismiss it. It took a lot of effort for me to try and explain it this well.

[Dream Huntress]

Well, I want Disney to keep making original ideas (as long as they are original and Disney fitting at the same time!) but when it comes to the fairy tales, their was a set way of doing them. Even though changing things might make people think their movies are more "fresh", it's not about only appeasing the public, it's also about keeping Disney Disney, by keeping traditions. You see, the film would have still been fresh because the personalities would still be fresh. But if audiences start saying they don't like movies with happy endings for the whole family anymore, would that mean Disney should stop having happy endings or be for the whole family? No, Disney needs to stay Disney.

You're right, even if that means their stories are devoid of any originality, interesting characters or concepts, even if people's taste in movies have changed, even when other animation companies grow and are more succesful, Disney should stick to using the same tired formulas that stopped working decades ago, because, by God, if they ever tried to do something else the whole studio will fall in broken pieces, and people will curse them for destroying anything the studio standed for.

[monorail91]

Haha for real. I love how Tangled is in the "style" of most Dreamworks animated movies, with a fast, very comedic storyline, but it's still worlds better than anything Dreamworks animation has done IMO. Early to say but I think Tangled will be timeless. Its humor is more than just pop culture references (cough Shrek cough).

[ajmrowland]

Well, I want Disney to keep making original ideas (as long as they are original and Disney fitting at the same time!) but when it comes to the fairy tales, their was a set way of doing them. Even though changing things might make people think their movies are more "fresh", it's not about only appeasing the public, it's also about keeping Disney Disney, by keeping traditions. You see, the film would have still been fresh because the personalities would still be fresh. But if audiences start saying they don't like movies with happy endings for the whole family anymore, would that mean Disney should stop having happy endings or be for the whole family? No, Disney needs to stay Disney.

You're right, even if that means their stories are devoid of any originality, interesting characters or concepts, even if people's taste in movies have changed, even when other animation companies grow and are more succesful, Disney should stick to using the same tired formulas that stopped working decades ago, because, by God, if they ever tried to do something else the whole studio will fall in broken pieces, and people will curse them for destroying anything the studio standed for.

Box Office numbers mean nothing to you, do they? the Formula still works.

And I wouldnt call Tangled world's better than anything Dreamworks did. Kung Fu Panda is very original, How to Train Your Dragon is really good, and even Megamind has a lot to love.

And there's no comparison. you find more "Disney moments" in Tangled than anything Dreamworks.

[monorail91]

Eh I disagree, but to each their own. Though you're certainly right that Tangled has more "Disney moments" than Dreamworks stuff. I just meant compared to other DAC's, Tangled is closer to Dreamworks on the spectrum between that and typical Disney lore, in terms of storytelling techniques.

[Patrick]

Patrick is "http://thedisnerd.tumblr.com/" your tumblr??

cause i love it!!

Aw, thank you! Yes it is! I just started it a few weeks ago. Glad you enjoy it! I have to fill up my queue.. I didn't realize it ran out.

[Dream Huntress]

You're right, even if that means their stories are devoid of any originality, interesting characters or concepts, even if people's taste in movies have changed, even when other animation companies grow and are more succesful, Disney should stick to using the same tired formulas that stopped working decades ago, because, by God, if they ever tried to do something else the whole studio will fall in broken pieces, and people will curse them for destroying anything the studio standed for.

Box Office numbers mean nothing to you, do they? the Formula still works.

And I wouldnt call Tangled world's better than anything Dreamworks did. Kung Fu Panda is very original, How to Train Your Dragon is really good, and even Megamind has a lot to love.

And there's no comparison. you find more "Disney moments" in Tangled than anything Dreamworks.

I forgot there's no sarcasm on the internet, my bad.

The formula can work, sometimes, it didn't work with The Princess and the Frog, but it worked with Tangled, though quite frankly I think it had more to do with them investing more on the story of Tangled and having a better marketing campaign.

My point is that Disney shouldn't be stuck with using the formula all the time, they should try different ways and different concepts, if they keep repeating themselves people will get tired of it eventually, just like it happened after the 90s ended.

There should be variety, and they shouldn't be overconfident that because something worked once it will always work. Try harder, work harder, have different inputs, try more personal projects.

And for the love of God, greenlight something already! Dreamworks has 9 projects for the following 3 years, Disney only had announced 3, 2 of them are still in pre-production, and 1 of them got canned without even beginning.

Oh, and the Dreamworks movies didn't have Disney moments? Oh gee, I wonder if it is because they're not Disney movies?

By the way, the last part was sarcasm.

[ajmrowland]

^Thank you Captain Obvious.

[SpringHeelJack]

I eventually plan on responding to Dusty's post at some point, I just... can't seem to muster up the sheer willpower to do so now. Sometimes it just feels like arguing with a See 'n Say, and I know this is internet debate, which is held in the highest esteem in the land, but I still feel like any argument is as good as what I invest in it, so... eventually.

Plus a fair amount of what I'd say would just echo Goliath. I knew that if I waited long enough, someone would lend a hand.

[Super Aurora]

I eventually plan on responding to Dusty's post at some point, I just... can't seem to muster up the sheer willpower to do so now. Sometimes it just feels like arguing with a See 'n Say, and I know this is internet debate, which is held in the highest esteem in the land, but I still feel like any argument is as good as what I invest in it, so... eventually.

Plus a fair amount of what I'd say would just echo Goliath. I knew that if I waited long enough, someone would lend a hand.

I love you. let's go eat a taco at taco bell

[SpringHeelJack]

Super Aurora, I think this is the start of a beautiful taco.

[DisneyAnimation88]

But in Rapunzel's case, their is a very big difference from being a peasant and being a thief, or being a magical witch and being ordinary, or being a prince or being a thief.

Repeating the same, old, tired argument isn't going to make anyone agree with your viewpoint if they don't believe it. At the end of the day, Disney haven't done anything wrong by changing those things, they've done what they felt they needed to do to make an entertaining film. I know you have your "essence" and your "un-Disney" stuff but, and this is the key point, they are your own personal feelings, they aren't rules or guidelines that Disney and the rest of us have to follow. If Disney had kept the original backgrounds and had Rapunzel pregnant with twins out of wedlock and the prince blinded on thorns, I think you would have said that that is "un-Disney" too so there really is no right or wrong answer in this debate.

[DisneyAnimation88]

And for the love of God, greenlight something already! Dreamworks has 9 projects for the following 3 years, Disney only had announced 3, 2 of them are still in pre-production, and 1 of them got canned without even beginning.

To be fair, there's not really much they could do about Mort; if they couldn't agree a deal for the rights, they couldn't make the film. And isn't Reboot Ralph now in full production? I'm not sure but I can remember reading an article saying that it was, on Jim Hill I think.

[Sotiris]

Why For: Even more storytelling secrets from Disney's "Tangled"
http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_chief ... -quot.aspx


Art and Comments from "Tangled" Conceptual Artist Claire Keane
http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/3 ... -ray-combo

"Rapunzel's walls are really a reflection of what she could see from her window as well as what she was thinking about. There was a definite plan with specific choices made in choosing the colors of Rapunzel's walls. It was important to create how Rapunzel would create, not how I would create, so I had to try a variety of different things that would express her world."

"I've always been inspired by other artists whose works stands out to me for different reasons. Marc Chagall inspires me for his use of color, the great illustrator Charlie Harper inspires me for how to organize objects, and my Dad (Legendary Disney artist, Glen Keane) who always pushes me to really think about what I am creating and why."

"Ideas can come from real life – learn to see the beauty in the tiniest things. Rapunzel's life changed within a single day and what happens to us on a daily basis is important and is part of what shapes us overall."

[Barbossa]

The coupon is only $5 this time? Disney's going cheap. I remember the days of the $10 off coupon. Only $5 off the 4-disc 3D set. Ouch. not so cheap.