DVDizzy Forum

Hi y'all,

Would you like to take a survey? There's a lot of Disney fans that Tangled might have potential to become a broadway musical. And I agree to that. The songs are very broadwayesque. (I made up that word.) Although that would be very risky for Rapunzel's hair and the water scene.

Here's some of the videos:

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JJU2XShNGGs" frameborder="0"></iframe>

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/C4nuPoKmHjM" frameborder="0"></iframe>

So what do you think? Will Tangled become a Broadway Musical?

If they do I hope they make it closer to the original fairy tale, and call it Rapunzel. And if they could, keep the original character backgrounds.

Yeah, I bet they would, seeing as how those changes caused the movie to flop horribly.

Disney Duster wrote:If they do I hope they make it closer to the original fairy tale, and call it Rapunzel. And if they could, keep the original character backgrounds.

If they did that how would it be a Broadway adaptation of the WDAS film?

I'm not a Broadway fan but the songs in the film do seem suited to a stage musical. Perhaps they could get Mandy Moore to play Rapunzel if they were ever going to adapt the film on stage.

I think it might happen but I'm not so sure with Rapunzel's hair.

I can just imagine the cast tripping all over it.

Disney Duster wrote:If they do I hope they make it closer to the original fairy tale, and call it Rapunzel. And if they could, keep the original character backgrounds.

...Not likely.

SpringHeelJack wrote:Yeah, I bet they would, seeing as how those changes caused the movie to flop horribly.

It was NOT a flop! Just because it had the second most expensive budget in the world doesn't really mean it flopped. It did well financially.

As for a Broadway show, it DOES sound like an interesting concept. However, some things would need to be changed because it can't be a direct adaptation of the film. Otherwise, it would kind of be boring that way.

Most likely. I can imagine it would be easier to write new songs for this one, considering the soundtrack is already weak.

DisneyJedi wrote:It was NOT a flop! Just because it had the second most expensive budget in the world doesn't really mean it flopped. It did well financially.

I think he was being sarcastic.

DisneyJedi wrote:It was NOT a flop! Just because it had the second most expensive budget in the world doesn't really mean it flopped. It did well financially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:If they do I hope they make it closer to the original fairy tale, and call it Rapunzel. And if they could, keep the original character backgrounds.

If they did that how would it be a Broadway adaptation of the WDAS film?

Did you not know how they did Hunchback or Mary Poppins?

Disney Duster wrote:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: If they did that how would it be a Broadway adaptation of the WDAS film?

Did you not know how they did Hunchback or Mary Poppins?

Dunno on Mary Poppin but in Hunchback, the characters in the play are kept relatively the same. Only major change is that Esmeralda dies in the end. And the gargoyles are Quasi imagination rather than actual beings. the story and "character backgrounds" (like you so much love to talk about) are same as the movie, which the movie is drastically different from the book.

Disney Duster wrote:Did you not know how they did Hunchback or Mary Poppins?

If you're going to call it "Rapunzel" and alter the characters then it's not "Tangled: The Musical". If they were to feel that they needed to make alterations to make it more suitable for the stage fine, but what you're suggesting is a continuation of your quest to change things that don't meet your personal taste, they're not actually things that necessarily need to be changed or faults within the film.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I can imagine it would be easier to write new songs for this one, considering the soundtrack is already weak.

Agreed.

The one problem that initially comes to mind is how to handle a protagonist with 50ft of magic hair. But hey, they could put The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast on stage, so I suppose that anything can happen if you let it. In any case, though, I'm not really pining for a Tangled musical. I love Tangled as much as the next man, but after a long-ish stretch of screen-to-stage adaptations, I would probably prefer to see Disney produce some new, original shows.

Super Aurora wrote:Did you not know how they did Hunchback or Mary Poppins?

Dunno on Mary Poppin but in Hunchback, the characters in the play are kept relatively the same. Only major change is that Esmeralda dies in the end. And the gargoyles are Quasi imagination rather than actual beings. the story and "character backgrounds" (like you so much love to talk about) are same as the movie, which the movie is drastically different from the book.[/quote]
You don't know it all then, apparently, because Frollo's character background is kept closer. In the show he says he used to be a priest, but then he changed to a judge, I think so he could persue women. I think there are other changes to make it close to the book. It's apparently even alluded that Quasimodo jumps into her grave in the end! Alluded, not literally shown. But yea, Mary Poppins was also made closer to the book.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:If you're going to call it "Rapunzel" and alter the characters then it's not "Tangled: The Musical". If they were to feel that they needed to make alterations to make it more suitable for the stage fine, but what you're suggesting is a continuation of your quest to change things that don't meet your personal taste, they're not actually things that necessarily need to be changed or faults within the film.

Hey mister, first, it's to make it more like how Disney used to do their classics, not just my personal taste, and second of all, it's not to make it necessarily better, I just said they could make it more faithful because past ones were done that way. And so what if the name changes when it's the musical?

Disney Duster wrote:Did you not know how they did Hunchback or Mary Poppins?

Super Aurora wrote:Dunno on Mary Poppin but in Hunchback, the characters in the play are kept relatively the same. Only major change is that Esmeralda dies in the end. And the gargoyles are Quasi imagination rather than actual beings. the story and "character backgrounds" (like you so much love to talk about) are same as the movie, which the movie is drastically different from the book.

You don't know it all then, apparently, because Frollo's character background is kept closer. In the show he says he used to be a priest, but then he changed to a judge, I think so he could persue women. I think there are other changes to make it close to the book. It's apparently even alluded that Quasimodo jumps into her grave in the end! Alluded, not literally shown. But yea, Mary Poppins was also made closer to the book.

I'm well aware of that part. Still doesn't change fact that they still kept overall Disney Hunchback story the same. You seems to want Tangle to be closer to the fairytale including Flynn as the prince and Rapunzel as the peasant which, unlike with Frollo's, would change the entirety of Tangled's story all together.


Only change in relation to the original tale I think would work, is making Mother Gothel a witch.

Oh. Yea maybe. Well I did write that Flynn could be a prince who left to become a thief and Rapunzel wants him to take her to see the lights meant for him in his kingdom and Rapunzel looks for her peasant parents at the end of the film.

DisneyJedi wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:Yeah, I bet they would, seeing as how those changes caused the movie to flop horribly.

It was NOT a flop! Just because it had the second most expensive budget in the world doesn't really mean it flopped. It did well financially.

Mmmno, I'm pretty sure there was a mass public outcry when people found out that Rapunzel wasn't a princess by birth and that Flynn was a thief and that Gothel wasn't a witch. And then it flopped horribly because of that.

Disney Duster wrote:It's apparently even alluded that Quasimodo jumps into her grave in the end! Alluded, not literally shown.

Must be the most subtle allusion ever because I've never noticed in my copy.

Disney Duster wrote:Hey mister, first, it's to make it more like how Disney used to do their classics, not just my personal taste, and second of all, it's not to make it necessarily better, I just said they could make it more faithful because past ones were done that way.

Except, you know, when they weren't.

I know there's going to be a lot of criticism here, but I'm not saying it's going to happen yet, it's just a survey. Right now, Disney is dealing with Newsies and other projects and hopefully it will include The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Super Aurora wrote:Only major change is that Esmeralda dies in the end. And the gargoyles are Quasi imagination rather than actual beings. the story and "character backgrounds" (like you so much love to talk about) are same as the movie, which the movie is drastically different from the book.

But.... isn't Frollo a man of the church again in the show?

Anyways, I would like to see them do Princess and the Frog, even if that's wishful thinking.