DVDizzy Forum

Sotiris wrote:My favorite version of Gothel was the one based on Michelle Pfeiffer.

Do you have any info or pictures of this? You can pm it to me if you want.

And thank you for defending Keane's vision with such knowledge!

Disney Duster wrote:And thank you for defending Keane's vision with such knowledge!

Well, I see where this is going so I'm going to disengage now.
Thank you for the info Sotiris.

farerb wrote:I'm going to be in a minority here (as always) and say that after watching Over the Moon, I'm glad we got Tangled instead of Keane's version.

I'm also glad we got the version that we got and not Keane's version. I wanted to see the story of Rapunzel adapted by Disney since I was a child, but I wanted it to be in the style of previous Disney fairy tale adaptations. So, I've never been a fan of the more serious and adult tone Glen's version seemed to have, and to be honest, I never liked that they wanted to experiment with the painterly look in this movie either. Of course, I would've preferred it had been in hand-drawn animation, but in my opinion the film managed to capture the classic Disney style quite well despite being 3D, and that's in large part thanks to Glen Keane. I think his contribution to the final film is still very important, from the maybe few but key elements from his version that remained in the film, to the overall look of the animation, to the characterization and animation of the main character. It's sad to hear how difficult the experience of directing this project was for him, though, and personally, after watching Over the Moon, I wish he had directed a film for Disney, just not Tangled. Well, at least not the way it seems it was going to be. That said, of course I'm also very curious about what his version was going to be like and I'd love to see it too.

Sotiris wrote:You're not taking into account the change of leadership at the studio. Every new person at the helm wanted something different from the project. If Stainton remained, Unbraided would have moved forward as it was at a pretty advanced stage. I don't see how that is Glen's fault.

Yes, Glen was quite unlucky in that regard. But I think there were several factors that made it impossible for him to finish his project. Apart for the one mentioned, the story of Rapunzel is not that easy to adapt; the same happens with The Frog Prince and The Snow Queen. That's why I think these fairy tales hadn't been adapted by Disney earlier. Also, as Glen himself said, he wanted to do something different from what the studio usually does, so it was a bit risky and therefore a problem for the people in charge of the studio. And reportedly the story did have problems, at least the latter half, so I think that also contributed to such a long time in development.

D82 wrote:

farerb wrote:I'm going to be in a minority here (as always) and say that after watching Over the Moon, I'm glad we got Tangled instead of Keane's version.

I'm also glad we got the version that we got and not Keane's version. I wanted to see the story of Rapunzel adapted by Disney since I was a child, but I wanted it to be in the style of previous Disney fairy tale adaptations. So, I've never been a fan of the more serious and adult tone Glen's version seemed to have, and to be honest, I never liked that they wanted to experiment with the painterly look in this movie either. Of course, I would've preferred it had been in hand-drawn animation, but in my opinion the film managed to capture the classic Disney style quite well despite being 3D, and that's in large part thanks to Glen Keane. I think his contribution to the final film is still very important, from the maybe few but key elements from his version that remained in the film, to the overall look of the animation, to the characterization and animation of the main character. It's sad to hear how difficult the experience of directing this project was for him, though, and personally, after watching Over the Moon, I wish he had directed a film for Disney, just not Tangled. Well, at least not the way it seems it was going to be. That said, of course I'm also very curious about what his version was going to be like and I'd love to see it too.

I'm glad I'm not the only one. I'll be honest that after Treasure Planet, I wasn't interested in Disney so I didn't follow their projects or BTS drama, I remember seeing some trailers for either Brother Bear or Chicken Little on TV and non of them interested me, I was only interested in getting DVDs. Then I remember hearing about TPatF and I finally saw it on a plane to the US and it was okay I guess, didn't really give me the feeling of Disney, it felt more like Treasure Planet by taking a classic story and have a "twist" by making it in 20's New Orleans. That's a great way to lose that "Once Upon a Time" feeling (I'm guessing that's Lasseter's fault). I saw Tangled a year later and I was actually amazed at how "Disney" it felt, I didn't even mind that it was CGI, it felt more "Disney" than anything released in the 2000's and even some 90's films. IDK maybe not knowing about what had happened BTS made me judge the film as it is and not as what it could have been, and Keane's version might have been better or it might have been worse, we'll never know for sure, but what we do know is that Tangled was good and beloved and made people interested in WDAS again and might have saved them and allowed Frozen to exist. I'm starting to think that it is probably a good idea that Disney became more secretive about their upcoming projects, it might make people less resentful.

D82 wrote:

Sotiris wrote:You're not taking into account the change of leadership at the studio. Every new person at the helm wanted something different from the project. If Stainton remained, Unbraided would have moved forward as it was at a pretty advanced stage. I don't see how that is Glen's fault.

Yes, Glen was quite unlucky in that regard. But I think there were several factors that made it impossible for him to finish his project. Apart for the one mentioned, the story of Rapunzel is not that easy to adapt; the same happens with The Frog Prince and The Snow Queen. That's why I think these fairy tales hadn't been adapted by Disney earlier. Also, as Glen himself said, he wanted to do something different from what the studio usually does, so it was a bit risky and therefore a problem for the people in charge of the studio. And reportedly the story did have problems, at least the latter half, so I think that also contributed to such a long time in development.

I do sympathize with Keane and I do think that Lasseter was awful with how he treated Keane, Sanders and Hahn among other people. But being a director is a stressful job. I don't see how Keane's situation was different than other directors at that time like M&C, and even in the 90's they had tight schedule and budget and even back then they had management change and low morality. And we can see in the Frozen II documentary that the situation is stressful even today (after Lasseter, Katzenberg, Eisner, whoever...are gone). That's the job of a director and maybe Keane wasn't up to that at the time, maybe he's ready now after he grew and learned from that experience. And just to make it clear, I don't want it to seem as if I'm being too hard on him. I like him and I appreciate everything he's done at Disney and his contributions to animation, but sometimes the artistic folks don't succeed in finishing their assignments in the time they agreed to. It's been a problem before, it happens, Rapunzel was hardly special in that regard. BTW what's stopping Keane from making his version of Rapunzel at Sony? It's not like Disney owns the fairytale and if it's different in its tone then it could be its own thing without people comparing it to Disney's. They were even kind enough to leave the title free for him to use .

And I agree with your assessments of these fairytales. The Frog Prince is rather short and thin on plot, The Snow Queen is melancholic and doesn't really feel like it fits for a family friendly light-hearted musical and Rapunzel is dark and more mature than other fairytales with its sexuality and violence.

Disney Duster wrote:Do you have any info or pictures of this?

Oh, it's not anything new. You've probably already seen them. Here you go: 01 / 02 / 03/ 04/ 05

D82 wrote:So, I've never been a fan of the more serious and adult tone Glen's version seemed to have.

Why not? Don't you like the more serious Disney fare like Hunchback or Pocahontas? Besides, from what I read, it wasn't even going to be as adult in tone as those adaptations.

D82 wrote:Apart for the one mentioned, the story of Rapunzel is not that easy to adapt; the same happens with The Frog Prince and The Snow Queen. That's why I think these fairy tales hadn't been adapted by Disney earlier.

I don't think any of them are particularly hard to adapt. Beauty and the Beast is more difficult to crack, in my opinion, and they managed just fine. The reason they weren't made earlier had more to do with time and circumstance than anything else. Things like the interests of directors, studio politics, box office performance, cultural trends etc.

D82 wrote:And reportedly the story did have problems, at least the latter half, so I think that also contributed to such a long time in development.

According to whom, though? That's entirely subjective. Whose to say that the studio executives weren't wrong and the director was right? Whenever story troubles are given as an excuse for changing director or direction, I take it with a grain of salt.

farerb wrote:I'm guessing that's Lasseter's fault.

Yes, it was his idea to set it in New Orleans.

farerb wrote:I don't see how Keane's situation was different than other directors at that time like M&C, and even in the 90's they had tight schedule and budget and even back then they had management change and low morality. That's the job of a director and maybe Keane wasn't up to that at the time. [...] Sometimes the artistic folks don't succeed in finishing their assignments in the time they agreed to.

It was never an issue of scheduling or budget. You seem to believe that was the reason he was replaced. It wasn't. What went down is pretty simple. Glen wanted to do a traditional, sincere take on the fairytale. Eisner forced him to make it CG with a modern twist. Glen was game and this iteration went on smoothly and reached an advanced stage. Voice recording had finished and animation had started. Then a major shake-up occurred with Eisner leaving and Lasseter coming on board. Lasseter canned the previous version, as he did with all the features set up by the previous regime, and the project started again almost from scratch. Glen developed his dream version of the tale, but Lasseter didn't like it. Lasseter assigned him a co-director and imposed changes and Glen was a good sport about it and went along with it. Then he suffered a heart attack and Lasseter took that as an opportunity to kick him off the director's seat and retool the movie to be more to his liking and personal taste. How is than even remotely Glen's fault? How does that indicate he had issues with scheduling or budget? I get that you love Tangled, but why do you need to paint Glen as an incompetent director or not up to task at the time to justify your opinion?

farerb wrote:What's stopping Keane from making his version of Rapunzel at Sony? It's not like Disney owns the fairytale and if it's different in its tone then it could be its own thing without people comparing it to Disney's.

No studio is going to touch an animated adaptation of a property that Disney has already put their seal on it. It's the same reason why Don Bluth abandoned plans for his own Beauty and the Beast after Disney's went to production.

I don't think that Glen Keane is incompetent just as I don't think Roger Allers is incompetent or others that went through the same process. I'm sorry if it came across that way. What I'm saying is that sometimes these things happen. Even from his own interview he says that his version was probably too dark for mainstream Disney and I'm guessing that that's not what Disney needed at that time after a decade of failures. I'm also guessing that his animation technique was probably too ambitious and unaffordable. Yes I agree that Keane and Lasseter probably had differences about the story or the tone but I don't think Lasseter looked for an excuse to kick him. Even Keane says he decided to step back in the interview. I hardly believe that he would have stayed as animation supervisor if he was disrespectfully discharged.

And I'm sorry to say this but a film like Pocahontas or The Hunchback of Notre Dame was not what Disney Animation needed back in 2010, they were not even well regarded back when they were released, same as experimenting again after a decade of doing only that and failing. Disney Animation needed a success, which meant doing what they always did and bring the "Disney Magic" to 2010 audience, not the 90's audience (just like how in the 90's they didn't make 50's films). Though I fail to see how Tangled is that different from the 90's films which most were comedic in tone just like Tangled was. And while I like Tangled, I don't think it was phenomenal (maybe Keane's version was who knows? That was not a risk they were willing to make nor should they at that time), but it is hardly Disney's biggest mistake like you try to make it seem.

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:So, I've never been a fan of the more serious and adult tone Glen's version seemed to have.

Why not? Don't you like the more serious Disney fare like Hunchback or Pocahontas? Besides, from what I read, it wasn't even going to be as adult in tone as those adaptations.

That was my impression as well... Just because it was less comical than Tangled doesn't mean it was going to be a boring indie film. I imagined it being something along the lines of Sleeping Beauty--serious in both its story and its art, with Gothel being more in the vein of Frollo. It would've been more like the older Disney films and less like the Dreamworks lite film it ended up being.

According to whom, though? That's entirely subjective. Whose to say that the studio executives weren't wrong and the director was right? Whenever story troubles are given as an excuse for changing director or direction, I take it with a grain of salt.

And let's not forget that Disney claimed story problems when they shelved The Snow Queen after they sabotaged TP&TFTP&TF "under-performed." And yet all those story problems disappeared immediately when Tangled did well and it was revived as a 3D film--once they realized that neither fairy tales nor musicals nor female-driven stories were the box office poison they assumed (hand-drawn animation was scapegoated similarly, but didn't get the second chance those other qualities did).

farerb wrote:I saw Tangled a year later and I was actually amazed at how "Disney" it felt, I didn't even mind that it was CGI, it felt more "Disney" than anything released in the 2000's and even some 90's films. IDK maybe not knowing about what had happened BTS made me judge the film as it is and not as what it could have been, and Keane's version might have been better or it might have been worse, we'll never know for sure, but what we do know is that Tangled was good and beloved and made people interested in WDAS again and might have saved them and allowed Frozen to exist.

I agree. I'm glad you also think it feels very Disney.

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:So, I've never been a fan of the more serious and adult tone Glen's version seemed to have.

Why not? Don't you like the more serious Disney fare like Hunchback or Pocahontas? Besides, from what I read, it wasn't even going to be as adult in tone as those adaptations.

I like those films, but they're far from being my favorites and are not my idea of what a Disney film should be like. Everyone has their own idea of how a Disney film should be, and I think that depends on your personal taste but also on the films you grew up with. I'm older than most members here, so when Pocahontas and Hunchback were released I was already a teenager. Therefore, I don't have the same nostalgia for these films as I have for some of the older ones and I was more critical of them when they were released. I felt these two films in particular deviated too much from the Disney I knew and loved. Not just in its tone and adult themes, but even visually, like the more realistic proportions of the designs or the more angular shapes. Also, I got the feeling back then that Disney went more and more in that direction (The Lion King is more serious and adult than Aladdin, Pocahontas than The Lion King and Hunchback than Pocahontas). So I was very glad when I first saw the trailer for Hercules. That movie of course was different from the classic Disney ones in other aspects, but to me then it was a relief and a breath of fresh air. For a long time, I almost wished Disney hadn't made Pocahontas and Hunchback, even though I love certain elements from them like for example Alan Menken's music, but now I don't mind that much that Disney experiments with other tones and styles every once in a while. I just hope that in general they don't lose their identity and continue to make films that still feel Disney. But, as I said, the story of Rapunzel was special to me, so I was really wishing it wouldn't end up feeling out of place among previous fairy tale adaptations like Cinderella or Aladdin. And again, despite being CG, I was very pleased with the end result.

It's possible Glen's version wasn't going to be as adult and serious as Hunchback or Pocahontas, but the things I've heard or read about it remind me too much of Hunchback, and I don't know, it doesn't attract me much. I wouldn't have minded, though, a version that had some darker elements, as long as it also had comedy, adventure or music, like Snow White, for example, or Beauty and the Beast. Anyway, as I've been saying, I love Tangled, and even though I also think it's not perfect, I wouldn't trade it for any other version. Would you trade The Little Mermaid, for example, for other version? Even for one that was made by Walt himself?

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:Apart for the one mentioned, the story of Rapunzel is not that easy to adapt; the same happens with The Frog Prince and The Snow Queen. That's why I think these fairy tales hadn't been adapted by Disney earlier.

I don't think any of them are particularly hard to adapt. Beauty and the Beast is more difficult to crack, in my opinion, and they managed just fine. The reason they weren't made earlier had more to do with time and circumstance than anything else. Things like the interests of directors, studio politics, box office performance, cultural trends etc.

Yes, of course, all those things clearly play a role in that. And to be fair, the fairy tales that got adapted first were also chosen because they were more popular. But I think their popularity is also related to the fact that their stories are simpler and easier to understand, and therefore to adapt. The last ones to be adapted by Disney were in my opinion more complex and there are many things in them that don't make sense. That's fine in a book, but not so much in a movie (at least a Western one), and I think it takes time to find a way to make these stories work. Beauty and the Beast to me is not that difficult to adapt. I guess we just have different opinions on this.

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:And reportedly the story did have problems, at least the latter half, so I think that also contributed to such a long time in development.

According to whom, though? That's entirely subjective. Whose to say that the studio executives weren't wrong and the director was right? Whenever story troubles are given as an excuse for changing director or direction, I take it with a grain of salt.

OK, yes, you're right about that. It's true that it's something subjective and sometimes is used as an excuse. I guess we'll never know for sure whether there were story problems with that version or not.

farerb wrote:And I'm sorry to say this but a film like Pocahontas or The Hunchback of Notre Dame was not what Disney Animation needed back in 2010, they were not even well regarded back when they were released, same as experimenting again after a decade of doing only that and failing. Disney Animation needed a success, which meant doing what they always did and bring the "Disney Magic" to 2010 audience, not the 90's audience (just like how in the 90's they didn't make 50's films). Though I fail to see how Tangled is that different from the 90's films which most were comedic in tone just like Tangled was.

Exactly. Lasseter's methods probably weren't the best ones and are probably not justifiable, but I understand why he didn't want to take risks at that particular moment when he had been tasked with the mission of making WDAS successful again, which was something vital for the future of the studio.

D82 wrote:Anyway, as I've been saying, I love Tangled, and even though I also think it's not perfect, I wouldn't trade it for any other version. Would you trade The Little Mermaid, for example, for other version? Even for one that was made by Walt himself?

I personally wouldn't, although the concept art made when Walt was alive of the mermaid having black hair + the potential of having had at least half a film filled with scenes like the ending of Pinocchio when he's underwater are definitely tantalizing. I guess for me it's an easier trade not liking Tangled, but I understand if you're attached to it how you might feel differently. I actually have never been overly fond of Hunchback--although the film was super-beloved on DVDizzy for as long as I can remember. It astonished me, actually. I do love Tony Jay and the music. The film itself I have to be in the right mood to view.

Thank you Sotiris for the pictures!

But she still looks like the Gothel we know, just with different hair, don't you think?

It may be true Tangled needed to be the way it was to get audiences back (but it could have had the title Rapunzel and the Thief and had the painterly CGI, plus the original sleeves for Rapunzel's costume), but I wonder, I just wonder, if Glean Keane's intended version could have been so good, it ended up being a huge success for Disney.

Farerb, do you have a problem with me? Anyway, if Glen Kean got to make his version of Rapunzel for Sony, he would want to use the elements of the story and character designs that did make it into Tangled, but he wouldn't be allowed to because Disney actually does own those now.

farerb wrote:I'm also guessing that his animation technique was probably too ambitious and unaffordable.

I doubt this new technique was more expensive to produce than regular CG. If it was unaffordable, the previous regime, which was known for its penny-pinching ways, wouldn't have allowed it to move to production. The reason given as to why this style was abandoned was that executives (i.e. Lasseter) believed audiences would find it distracting.

farerb wrote:Yes I agree that Keane and Lasseter probably had differences about the story or the tone but I don't think Lasseter looked for an excuse to kick him.

I posit he did. He grew restless and frustrated with the Glen's version (which is why he assigned him a co-director), but he couldn't remove him just yet. Glen was venerated at the studio and in the animation community. His heart attack gave Lasseter a clean out. He was able to get what he wanted without having to look like the bad guy or get any flack for it. He literally did the same thing to Aaron Blaise. He used his wife's passing to remove him from the director's seat on King of the Elves. That shows a pattern of behavior.

farerb wrote:I hardly believe that he would have stayed as animation supervisor if he was disrespectfully discharged.

Maybe it was because he wanted to still be involved with his beloved brainchild even in this reduced capacity. Maybe it was because he was still under contract and had no other choice. The fact of the matter is, as soon as his contract expired, he left. No one leaves their job if they're happy there and are being treated well. You could argue he left because he wanted to experiment creatively and try something different. Even if that were the case, Disney could have provided that creative outlet to him. They could have let him direct his own shorts there which wouldn't carry any financial risk. Why wasn't his short "Duet" made at the studio? It was something that could have easily been produced there.

farerb wrote:It is hardly Disney's biggest mistake like you try to make it seem.

I don't regard that as Disney's biggest mistake. Abandoning 2D animation is. And I don't hate Tangled; in fact it's my favorite of Disney's CG films. However, I can't help but lament the loss of Glen's version, especially since I gravitate to the more serious, innovative, and ambitious-in-scope projects.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Just because it was less comical than Tangled doesn't mean it was going to be a boring indie film. I imagined it being something along the lines of Sleeping Beauty--serious in both its story and its art, with Gothel being more in the vein of Frollo. It would've been more like the older Disney films and less like the Dreamworks lite film it ended up being.

That's a good comparison. I also expected something akin to Sleeping Beauty and Hunchback.

Disney's Divinity wrote:And let's not forget that Disney claimed story problems when they shelved The Snow Queen after they sabotaged TP&TFTP&TF "under-performed." And yet all those story problems disappeared immediately when Tangled did well and it was revived as a 3D film--once they realized that neither fairy tales nor musicals nor female-driven stories were the box office poison they assumed (hand-drawn animation was scapegoated similarly, but didn't get the second chance those other qualities did).

Exactly. The studio narrative can't be trusted. They'll just say whatever benefits them and makes them look good. We've all witnessed creatives peddling the party line about it being a director-driven studio and how they'll do 2D animation when they find the right story.

D82 wrote:I like those films, but they're far from being my favorites and are not my idea of what a Disney film should be like. Everyone has their own idea of how a Disney film should be, and I think that depends on your personal taste but also on the films you grew up with.

I agree. It really comes down to personal taste, artistic sensibilities, and one's idea of what Disney movies should be.

D82 wrote:Would you trade The Little Mermaid, for example, for other version? Even for one that was made by Walt himself?

No, but I'm not asking you to trade Tangled for Glen's version. I'm just expressing what I would have wanted.

Disney Duster wrote:But she still looks like the Gothel we know, just with different hair, don't you think?

No, I think her facial structure looks quite different.

Disney Duster wrote:If Glen Kean got to make his version of Rapunzel for Sony, he would want to use the elements of the story and character designs that did make it into Tangled, but he wouldn't be allowed to because Disney actually does own those now.

Disney also owns all the iterations of the story that were made at the studio including elements that didn't make it into the final film, so it would be next to impossible for Glen to tell the story he wanted without Disney's permission.

Just wish more people than Glen Keane and Floyd Norman, and to some degree Andreas Deja, could share their experiences at Disney, even if there is a limit for how much they are allowed to tell.

I don't know where the original Rapunzel was going storywise, but as mentioned several times in the past, I do know that I would have liked to see its animation style, like revealed in the two short videos that was leaked on youtube, and some of the pictures like when she's sitting on a swing (which Glen Keane then rotated the picture and made those present really excited). The same goes for the visual style of American Dog.

One of the problems with Lasseter's influence is that the movies usually follows a formula. It may not be noticable at first, but after a string of movies a pattern starts to emerge. Also, no matter who the director is; in my opinion the message of a film should feel like a side dish, not the main course.

Wow, all you guys are talking about this so smart! Sotiris, farerb, D82, Disney's Divinity, you guys are all talking about this in such intelligent ways realizing things and bringing up points I never could.

Sotiris, I really appreciate how you are able to defend Keane's vision. I think you're absolutely right that Disney abandoning hand-drawn animation was their biggest mistake. If [j]Rapunzel[/j] had been like Sleeping Beauty in story and scope and art, but with more personality, that would be a dream! And your pointing out of Lasseter's twisted use of personal trauma to oust people he didn't like is disturbing, though doesn't Keane still say he really wanted to step down?

Sotiris wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But she still looks like the Gothel we know, just with different hair, don't you think?

No, I think her facial structure looks quite different.

Oh. I should compare the two Gothels for myself some time.

Sotiris wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:If Glen Kean got to make his version of Rapunzel for Sony, he would want to use the elements of the story and character designs that did make it into Tangled, but he wouldn't be allowed to because Disney actually does own those now.

Disney also owns all the iterations of the story that were made at the studio including elements that didn't make it into the final film, so it would be next to impossible for Glen to tell the story he wanted without Disney's permission.

Oh no. That super sucks. Poor Glen. And poor us.

Disney Duster wrote:Wow, all you guys are talking about this so smart! Sotiris, farerb, D82, Disney's Divinity, you guys are all talking about this in such intelligent ways realizing things and bringing up points I never could.

You also say very interesting and intelligent things in your comments, Disney Duster. Personally, most of the time I'm not completely satisfied with what I've written, as I feel I usually don't get to convey exactly what I wanted to say, but thanks for the compliment.

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:Would you trade The Little Mermaid, for example, for other version? Even for one that was made by Walt himself?

No, but I'm not asking you to trade Tangled for Glen's version. I'm just expressing what I would have wanted.

I know, I just made that comparison so you understood how I feel regarding Tangled; that when it comes to one of your favorite films, you wouldn't replace it for another version, however good it might've been.

There were other things I wanted to reply to, but I'll have to do it another moment when I have time.

Sotiris wrote:I don't regard that as Disney's biggest mistake. Abandoning 2D animation was. And I don't hate Tangled; in fact it's my favorite of Disney's CG films. However, I can't help but lament the loss of Glen's version, especially since I gravitate to the more serious, innovative, and ambitious-in-scope projects.

I find this statement weird to tell you the truth. Do you care less about Aladdin because it's more comedy and less serious than something like The Rescuers Down Under because it was innovative? What about Cinderella? Since it was less ambitious-in-scope than Disney's other films? What about Toy Story or WALL-E or Up? They were serious, innovative and ambitious-in-scope or do you not consider them as such because they're CGI and Pixar's?
To me it's more about whether or not a film is "groundbreaking" and I don't think that Disney has made a groundbreaking film since The Lion King and I pretty much only consider the Vault films to be groundbreaking (There's a reason they were chosen to be in the vault in the first place). I also don't think Pixar did anything like that since WALL-E or Up.

Thank you so much D82! And sure thing!

I feel like only Disney's first five films, Sleeping Beauty, and then the Renaissance up to The Lion King were groundbreaking. Then Tangled is a little groundbreaking for being the first CGI film to feel Disney.

I also feel Inside Out and Coco were groundbreaking, and I think Soul will be.

farerb wrote:I find this statement weird to tell you the truth. Do you care less about Aladdin because it's more comedy and less serious than something like The Rescuers Down Under because it was innovative? What about Cinderella? Since it was less ambitious-in-scope than Disney's other films? What about Toy Story or WALL-E or Up? They were serious, innovative and ambitious-in-scope or do you not consider them as such because they're CGI and Pixar's?

Terms like "ambitious" and "groundbreaking" are subjective when we talk about art. I only consider Toy Story groundbreaking in terms of medium, and it's a medium I don't care for, and I don't find Wall-E or Up remarkable at all. I do find Cinderella ambitious in many ways like the use of suspense or the more refined animation of the characters or the stylized backgrounds of Mary Blair. Again, it ultimately comes back to individual taste and perception. Everything is filtered through that. I don't find Aladdin overtly comedic; I believe it has a nice balance of comedy and drama. For me, it also has to do with the type of comedy and how it's used. Hercules or The Emperor's New Groove, for instance, are much more comedic than Tangled, but I prefer them because they set the tone from the start, avoid things like slapstick and Valleyspeak, and the humor doesn't feel forced or out of place.

Thank you for finding such things you find groundbreaking in Cinderella, Sotiris! It made me very happy.

I truly love Tangled, and I honestly think it's up there with the greats of Disney. It makes me feel so warm and comforted when I watch it. I can't quite explain why, it just gives off that feeling !

Then also in recent years, the film has been so built upon beautifully by the series that's only added to it for me.

Atlantica wrote:I truly love Tangled, and I honestly think it's up there with the greats of Disney. It makes me feel so warm and comforted when I watch it. I can't quite explain why, it just gives off that feeling !

Then also in recent years, the film has been so built upon beautifully by the series that's only added to it for me.

I feel the same way about the movie. And that happens to me too with my favorite films; sometimes you don't really know why you like them so much, you just do.

By the way, were you finally able to watch the rest of the TV series, Atlantica?