DVDizzy Forum

Yes! Yes! I know we already have a ton Rapunzel threads here, but I feel it would be better to start afresh on this new piece of news.

Remember how a lot of you were annoyed about Rapunzel's plot being about two romantically challenged teenagers who are transformed into Rapunzel and the Prince by a witch blah blah blah... ?

Well, good news awaits you because Glen Keane has discarded that part of the story line and he now says that the film will go back to the story's literary roots. Here's what I found on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398286/plotsummary

You can also look on Wikipedia and find the same information.

It also says that John Lasseter has admitted being very content about the project thus fur, especially after he has seen the almost completed first act.

Oh... and it appears "Unbraided" has been dropped from the title. It's now officially called "Rapunzel". Happy?

This is old news, sorry to burst your bubble

It's been confirmed and referred to by Disney itsself even as "Rapunzel" a fair amount of times now. And it's been mentioned in the zillion articles on the Disney/Pixar merger that Rapunzel was gonna be made only as a serious fairy tale and not a Shre clone.

is Shrek even worth cloning anyway? not really.

Julian Carter wrote:It also says that John Lasseter has admitted being very content about the project thus fur, especially after he has seen the almost completed first act.

As a matter of fact, here's something that Jim Hill has supposedly heard about Lasseter's enthusiasm about Rapunzel...

Everybody's favourite Disney pundit Jim Hill wrote:Glen Keane recently showed John Lasseter the first act of this new feature-length fairytale ...
... and John reportedly told Glen that the first 20 minutes of this film was the strongest opening he'd ever seen for a Disney animated feature.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /5733.aspx

Julian Carter wrote:Oh... and it appears "Unbraided" has been dropped from the title. It's now officially called "Rapunzel". Happy?

Very much.

I'm sooooo glad they changed the story line!!!
Though I still hope They'll decide on 2D instead of that mix.
Have you all looked at the artwork? Isn't it simply gorgeous?!!!

Well, even though this information was already posted, it slipped by me, so thank you very much Julian Carter for posting it again. Otherwise I would still be upset about the modern spoofed "Unbraided" version. I am thrilled that it's going to be done in a more classic style. And as for the CG format, I like traditional hand drawn animation, but I also like CG and feel that both mediums can thrive together. I think it would be neat to see a movie that has the potential to be in the same class as "The Little Mermaid" and "Beauty and the Beast" done in the CG style. This, plus the fact that Glenn Keane and John Lassater have dipped their hands in the project, make me more excited for "Rapunzel" than any other project currently underway at both Disney and Pixar. And I believe Alan Menken is doing the music? If so, then I wish it was done and ready now! I'm very enthused.

PatrickvD wrote:This is old news, sorry to burst your bubble

It's been confirmed and referred to by Disney itsself even as "Rapunzel" a fair amount of times now. And it's been mentioned in the zillion articles on the Disney/Pixar merger that Rapunzel was gonna be made only as a serious fairy tale and not a Shrek clone.

Oh! The shame! Posting old news!

The thing is, I never knew this until now. But I had never seen this posted on UD! Not even when I scrutinized the other "Rapunzel" thread! Until the latest posts, people were still complaining about the former storyline and its title. Could I have missed it? How annoying! I wish I knew this when it came out. How long ago was it?

Wonderlicious wrote:As a matter of fact, here's something that Jim Hill has supposedly heard about Lasseter's enthusiasm about Rapunzel...

Everybody's favourite Disney pundit Jim Hill wrote:
Glen Keane recently showed John Lasseter the first act of this new feature-length fairytale ...
... and John reportedly told Glen that the first 20 minutes of this film was the strongest opening he'd ever seen for a Disney animated feature.

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... /5733.aspx

Wow! Thanks for posting that! I hadn't read that yet and it delves into more detail. This is really exciting news. I can hardly wait for Rapunzel to hit theatres. Hmph...2009...seems so far off, what if I die before that, and don't get to see Rapunzel? I could die of cancer. I can get run over by a car or die in a car crash. I can get heart disease. I can be murdered...the list goes on.

Dottie wrote:Though I still hope They'll decide on 2D instead of that mix.

They won't be doing it in 2D. A couple of months ago, Lasseter approached Keane and asked him if he would like to restart the project in 2D. After thinking it out, Glen opted for 3D, because he had already spent a lot of time, money and effort to get his particular visual "look" for the movie.

goofystitch wrote:Well, even though this information was already posted, it slipped by me.

Same here. That's why I thought it was "new" news.

goofystitch wrote:And I believe Alan Menken is doing the music?

IS HE!!? Oh dear..if he is, then this is gonna be a masterpiece! I'm sure he is also in charge of the music for the upcoming Disney 2D animated film, "The Frog Princess".

Well, I for one wasn't aware of this news. Thank you Julain Carter!

I am glad that this will end up being a serious fairy tale, I fully trust Glen Kean and I look forward to further news about this project.

I'm not a big fan of CG, but there are a lot of very, very good and highly accomplished people working on that project, so I think it'll be great.
As I have already said: The artwork is stunningly beautiful!!!!

Dottie wrote:As I have already said: The artwork is stunningly beautiful!!!!

You can say that again! I think this has a good possibility of actually looking better technically than the Pixar films.

I think so too! From judging what I've seen so far, I guess it will be "classic" concerning the story, the colors, and the music, but not the technique used. But CG may look better when it's designed like a classic, because all the Pixars were pretty modern and kind of designed to follow a certain style that caricatured the characters.

Dottie wrote:Have you already seen this? http://yout ... QFkK5nCWQ4

That is not an official trailer/sneak peak. It must have been made by some fan with Windows Movie Maker (you can tell by the animated transitions used). It also mispels "Walt Disney Pictures" as "Walt Disney's Pictures".

I had seen it a couple of months ago.

Dottie wrote:I'm not a big fan of CG, but there are a lot of very, very good and highly accomplished people working on that project, so I think it'll be great.
As I have already said: The artwork is stunningly beautiful!!!!

First of all, I'm kind of a lurker here, but I want to add my two cents.

I'm not much of a CG fan, either, but I think of how they wanted to do more of BatB with the computers besides the ballroom sequence and "Be Our Guest,", but it would've taken more time and energy and money to do so.

Rapunzel could be a third revivial of the fairy-tale format, if it's pulled off well. Could be groundbreaking.

Can't wait for it.

promisemewings wrote:

Dottie wrote:I'm not a big fan of CG, but there are a lot of very, very good and highly accomplished people working on that project, so I think it'll be great.
As I have already said: The artwork is stunningly beautiful!!!!

First of all, I'm kind of a lurker here, but I want to add my two cents.

I'm not much of a CG fan, either, but I think of how they wanted to do more of BatB with the computers besides the ballroom sequence and "Be Our Guest,", but it would've taken more time and energy and money to do so.

Rapunzel could be a third revivial of the fairy-tale format, if it's pulled off well. Could be groundbreaking.

Can't wait for it.

I agree 100%. I mean, how many CG musicals have you seen? probably none, because as far as i know, they havn't existed yet. Rapunzel will be the first of a whole new direction that CG hasn't yet gone. CG has always been used for a more comical/cartoony use, but now people are starting to recognize you can make CG look beautiful (watch Cars when it comes to DVD, and you'll notice how beautiful some of the scenes are). Rapunzel is going to be the start of a whole new era in CG!

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think I'll be able to take the movie seriously if it's a CGI BatB-esque tale. I'd be too busy waiting for the movie to turn into a comedy...

Dottie wrote:But CG may look better when it's designed like a classic, because all the Pixars were pretty modern and kind of designed to follow a certain style that caricatured the characters.

Don't think for second this film won't be "modern". It has too.

One thing the differed TLM, BATB and Aladdin from the Walt "princess" films were modernization. It's really why they appealed to audiences. If they want this movie to appeal to audiences, they have to do something to make this tale appeal to "today's generation", because unfortunately, kids don't want to see a film that's slower paced.

I really don't know what to think about the actual movie yet. I mean, if people actually have fun pulling Chicken Little apart because of it's "SCI-FI" theme, then boy are people going to have a blast when Rapunzel comes out, I have yet to see a version of Rupunzel that was longer than say 8 minutes. If they want a feature length film to it, they really have to add a lot of great(AND ORIGINAL) stuff to it, but I'm sure critics and others will continue to find things wrong with it because they hate Disney so much.

Well, this was news to me too. I hate to say it, but after films like Chicken Little and the whole turnover to CG, it is the first time ever that I have kind of stopped paying attention to the news on upcoming Disney animated features. Last I heard was about Rapunzel being basically a Shrek copy, and that really killed my interest. As it was, Chicken Little seemed like a hodgepodge of copycatting, especially Shrek and Finding Nemo. Really didn't seem like a solid movie, but folks who wanted to make a movie just copying others... I did like Fish though, and the Raiders of the Lost Art moment.

Anyway, so this is mostly great news, and thanks for posting it. However, while I love CG films that are well done (like all the PIXAR stuff, even if I didn't think Cars was as good as the rest), I agree that this should have been 2D. Partly because, as has been said before, it will be hard to not expect a comedy with a CG film, but that's just a barrier to have to cross. The real thing that bugs me is that this would have been a great opportunity to prove to the execs that what makes a film a hit is not whether it is 2D or CG, it's the quality of the story and visuals and everything put together. This would have been a great tool for bringing back 2D.

slave2moonlight wrote:Anyway, so this is mostly great news, and thanks for posting it. However, while I love CG films that are well done (like all the PIXAR stuff, even if I didn't think Cars was as good as the rest), I agree that this should have been 2D.

Whilst I agree that it may have been a good thing to present in hand-drawn animation, I believe that even though John Lasseter supposedly offered Keane the chance to make the film in 2D, he declined as this master animator had developed a way to animate a fairly realistic human character (aka something in the style of Ariel or Belle only in computer animation) as opposed to a CGI dummy (think Shrek) or a charicature (think Pixar or, from the looks of it, Meet the Robinsons), and didn't want what he'd done to go to waste. Another story that I've heard is that little bits of traditional animation are going to be folded into the movie, though I doubt that that's true.

singerguy04 wrote:

CG has always been used for a more comical/cartoony use, but now people are starting to recognize you can make CG look beautiful (watch Cars when it comes to DVD, and you'll notice how beautiful some of the scenes are).

I don't think beauty in CG is anything new with "Cars." For me, almost every shot of "A Bug's Life" is beautiful. I'm still in awe of the enviornment that Pixar was able to create for that film. To me, every shot of it was breathtaking. That was in 1998. However, I do agree that studios have flooded the market recently with cheaply and quickly produced CG comedies, such as "Hoodwinked" and "Shark Tale," which have poorly created characters and a bad story. I do have to admit that I found "Hoodwinked" funny, but it was horribly animated in all respects. Judging from the concept art for "Rapunzel," it looks like it could set a new standard upon which other animation studios will be forced to keep up with, or else sit back and let Disney and Pixar take over.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:

One thing the differed TLM, BATB and Aladdin from the Walt "princess" films were modernization. It's really why they appealed to audiences. If they want this movie to appeal to audiences, they have to do something to make this tale appeal to "today's generation", because unfortunately, kids don't want to see a film that's slower paced. Head Shake

I really don't know what to think about the actual movie yet. I mean, if people actually have fun pulling Chicken Little apart because of it's "SCI-FI" theme, then boy are people going to have a blast when Rapunzel comes out, I have yet to see a version of Rupunzel that was longer than say 8 minutes. If they want a feature length film to it, they really have to add a lot of great(AND ORIGINAL) stuff to it, but I'm sure critics and others will continue to find things wrong with it because they hate Disney so much.

During my most recent trip to Disney World, I saw more girls walking around in Cinderella dresses than ever in my life. I have a feeling that it was due to the fact that the film was recently released on DVD. I would estimate that I saw 50 Cinderella's. Guess how many Belle's and Ariel's I saw: 1 little girl dressed as Ariel and maybe 10 dressed as Belle. Most kid's would only be allowed to pick one Princess to dress up as, therefore they would pick their favorite princess. The truly classic Disney films have a timeless feeling to them. I highly doubt that if "Rapunzel" was done without any pop culture references and without her voice using slang such as "duh" and "whatever" that it would do poorly at the box office as a result, or that it would make girls like her more or less than they already would. You haven't seen a version of "Rapunzel" longer than 8 minutes. Neither had audiences before "Pinocchio," "Cinderella," "The Little Mermaid," etc... Yes. There isn't enough substance in the fairy tale to make the film 70 minutes or longer, but there wasn't for "Cinderella" or "The Little Mermaid" or even "Chicken Little" either. Disney's story development team has in the past created interesting and entertaining subplots to hold the movie through. It sounds like you like "Chicken Little." I do too. How was that film made longer than 8 minutes? By adding subplots about aliens and the bond between a father and son. Glenn Keane, who's work I love, has a lot of talent and I trust him to do a good job with this classic fairy tale. And I don't know of any critics who hate Disney. It's just that their recent work, when compared to what they have achieved in the past and to Pixar's current quality, hasn't been up to snuff.

I can't wait to see what the animator's are creating as we speak. It's too early for anyone to realy make drastic decisions seeing as the film is years away and all we have at the moment to base our opinions on is concept art and knowledge of the poor treatment they originally wanted to give the film. I'm very optimistic and am hoping that "Rapunzel" will be a turning point into the 4th golden age of Disney animation. (I feel that the first golden age was "Snow White" to "Bambi," the second "Cinderella" to "The Jungle Book," and the third "The Little Mermaid" to "Tarzan," if not to "Lilo & Stitch.")

That is the best news I've heard all day!!!! It's about time Disney realized this was for the best.