DVDizzy Forum

Continuing the discussion from Part I: http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... start=1780

People are still posting in the old thread!

Julian Carter wrote:People are still posting in the old thread!

I noticed that too.

Oh, they will come around...as soon as the old one gets locked (hint hint mods)

enigmawing wrote:

Julian Carter wrote:People are still posting in the old thread!

I noticed that too.

I saw that as well, and they are all rants at that!

People just can't adapt and overcome can they?

People here say it so many times, it's actually grown on me. Tangled... Tangled... Tangled... yep, I officialy don't care anymore. I'll take my Lifetime Achievement Award now please.

Duckburger wrote:People here say it so many times, it's actually grown on me.

You're a far better person than me.

I havent decided what my thoughts are on this yet.

I'm now used to the title and the fact that this is not the new Disney Reneissance but the age of Disney's fine arts and crappy contemporary arts.

As for trailer,it's cheesy but not necessarily certified.Most trailers are like that.

Yes, I'm perfectly OK with the title now. It didn't really bother me that much in the first place. As long as we get to see the movie.

The title has grown on me, but I still don't like it (in the long-term). I just can't imagine myself thinking of those greats "Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Hercules and...Tangled."

And that's considering the movie turns out good at all.

I realized...

If you look at Disney's list of Animated Classics, you won't see that they did Rapunzel. You'll see "Tangled" and wonder what that is.

It doesn't feel like we are getting the Disney version of Rapunzel. With what we have from the trailer, possibly with the main characters' backgrounds changed, but mostly the title. It's like it's not Disney's version of Rapunzel. It's Tangled, some other thing by some other studio.

Disney said "screw it" to the fans, their past, and themselves, the traditions that defined them, for the sake of getting less caring, less sophisticated audiences. They can make any kind of movie they want based on their own original ideas, but leave the classics alone. They can get their money from new, different, original films they make on their own, and Pixar's films are making a lot of profit for them as well, so they can and should leave the classics the way they have always done the classics, what we have known to be the Disney way. Sigh...

enig's graphic said it best. Marketing ploy through and through. And an idiotic one at that. The story is about Rapunzel. Should Hercules have been changed to Muscles? How about 101 Dalmatians be named Spots? Or Little Mermaid could have been Fishtail?

I don't hate the title. I just find it stupid. This the story of Rapunzel. Add some Disney and modern twists to it, sure, but its still Rapunzel. If they are gonna use a fairytale, least keep the title similar to the original. Like Frog Prince = Princess and the Frog.

Tangled. Rinse. Rescue. Play Twister. Repeat.

After seeing the work-in-progress video in the other thread before YouTube removed it, I can tell I'm really going to like Punzie's chameleon. I associate it to Grumpy from Snow White.

Is there any chance Disney will come to their senses and change the tilte back to "Rapunzel''?

BelleGirl wrote:Is there any chance Disney will come to their senses and change the tilte back to "Rapunzel''?

Well I was really hoping for them to change Bambi 2 back to its original trailer title "Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest". But that never happened so I'm keeping my hopes low.

BelleGirl wrote:Is there any chance Disney will come to their senses and change the tilte back to "Rapunzel''?

We can but pray.

I have to agree with Duster and Siren. When I saw that the tagline in the working trailer was "rinse, repeat, rescue" (or whatever - je m'en fou), I cringed at how contrived it seems. Making the film seem like a shampoo commercial or brainless romantic-comedy thoroughly discredits the film from the get-go. I don't expect a deeply serious and faithful adaptation of the Grimms' Fairy-Tales - as sincere as the classics are, even they don't truly fall into this category. Nor do I think that changing the overall setting or genre is necessarily detrimental to the adaptation; look at The Princess and the Frog or, getting away from fairy-tales, the adaptations and stagings of Shakespeare that don't confine the stories to Tudor Britain or Renaissance Italy. But this title change and its potential marketing plan essentially discredits the potential film. Moreover, it thoroughly discredits the original fairy-tale, as by retitling and ultimately repackaging the adaptation, it steals it from the Brothers Grimm in such a crass way more than any other literary or folkloric adaptation from Disney has done before (and that includes Chicken Little, which says something).

I wouldn't mind it if Disney changed the title to something involving Rapunzel (heck, don't most people not know who she even is according to market research? ) but included something boyish as well (like Rapunzel and the Secret Tower or Rapunzel and the Thief; as far as I'm aware, Disney added the dwarfs to the title of Snow White's story, after all). But obviously, the "promoters" know best, despite the fact that they probably never could make a film since their imagination is virtually non-existent (read: they all did degrees in such rational and soulless tat as Economics and Physics).

I wish they would at least change that horribly stupid tagline.

OK, lets make our own then

Let's see: "It takes two to get tangled" (it appeared in the trailer but not as a tagline)

"Get tangled away"

What else?

sotiris2006 wrote:
What else?

"You're sure to be bound by a hair for this!"

"Get ready to get kinky"