Originally Posted By veu I read on IMDB that GARY TROUSDALE and KIRK WISE will co-direct the movie with GLEN KEANE! Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise directed "Beauty and the Beast", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and "Atlantis - The Lost Empire"... I know that imdb isn't too reliable, but I post this news! Anyone knows something more?
Originally Posted By BlueOhanaTerror Likelihood is this was what Keane needed to do, to ensure the viability and continued greenlight for his pet project. He's worked closely with them before, so it's a good partnership.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators *sigh* This is entirely untrue. Kirk Wise and Gary Trousedale have no association with Feature Animation(at this time) Shame on IMDB or whoever saw fit to slip this up on their site. However, Glen DOES have a co-director: name to be revealed later. r.
Originally Posted By veu Actingforanimators, thank you for the answer! I read that in 2005 the plot of Rapunzel has been retooled, so I would like to ask you a little question: do you know if Rapunzel (after the retooling) will be a classical and traditonal Disney fairy tale like "Cinderella" or the new plot remain the story of a modern-day girl and boy who are transformed into Rapunzel and her gallant Prince? Do you know what is it told in the first 20 minutes of the opening of Rapunzel? I know that Lasseter said it was the strongest opening of a Disney fairy tale film he'd seen... Thank you very much by advance, Actingforanimators!!!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: I'd like to know the answer to this question, too! The last thing we need from Disney is another parody of a classic fairytale that has already been done by Shrek! Disney has a reputation to keep by doing a more serious and heart felt version of this wonderful story.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Oy, my least favorite topic, honestly... but let me try to answer this without shutting anyone down, which I truly do not intend to do, so please breathe while reading my response: First, as for the question "Is it still CGI?" Yes, still CGI. As for how, or to what degree, the film utilizes a contrasting story of contemporary lovers and fairy-tale lovers, you can count on it being much more compelling than anything Copy-Katzenberg has ever produced, of this I am certain. And my darling Witches, I beg of you not to curse me, but as for the Disney "reputation" of "a more serious and heart felt version" of anything, I'd be hard pressed to ever point to Flora, Fauna and Merryweather's cake making and dress making scenes as being a serious version of "Sleeping Beauty", or Jiminy Cricket's jazz-age wise-cracking presence in "Pinocchio" or Merlin and Mim's Wizard's Duel in "The Sword in the Stone" or Baloo's hipster piano-bar parlance in "The Jungle Book" as being in keeping with the tone of their source material. I suspect you may not have liked “Aladdinâ€, although I’ve never heard your thoughts on it, but it’s a far cry from the so-called “classical†interpretation of the Arabian Nights story, but still filled with plenty of heart. Setting, tone, point of view – these things can be far from the source without losing heart, and without being subject to a burning at the stake for not being “serious†enough, don’t you think? It’s one thing to insist that a story must be told over and over and over exactly as it has always been told, but quite another if the story is … well, frankly, dull and over-simplistic even to a toddler. Mind you, this is truly just my opinion, but when it comes to sticking to the book, nothing in all of dramaturgy is more boring than the Passion Plays for the very reason that they remain entirely rhetorical and not the least bit theatrically compelling, and I’d hate like Hades to see “Rapunzel†fall prey to it’s own pitfalls simply because nobody even attempted to open it up and grow it into something less pedantic. I do think Hollywood has long been appeasing a post-Letterman sensibility that's difficult for a lot of us to swallow. And I think that the reality of contemporary audiences preferences are something you can serve without becoming slave to. To this end, I've yet to see Disney do anything nearly as empty and cynical as "Shrek" even at their worst. Yes, Lasseter was and still is enthusiastic about the film's opening. However, in the world of film making, the first twenty minutes today is never guaranteed to be the first twenty minutes in the final cut, so it remains to be seen as to what that contains - and "remains to be seen" is exactly as it should be. See it, then judge it. Not the other way around. Consider this, if you will: there was such a cry of horror from all the classicists who heard - once upon a time - that Broadway was setting G.B. Shaw's "Pygmalion" to music, starring a non-singing Rex Harrison and an unknown English lass raised in the British music-hall. So many of those naysayers never did see it because of the very concept of desecrating a classic. Hard not to hate what you know only through rumor and conjecture. Then again, it may be harder still to love it for what it is rather than what you imagined - good or bad - once you finally see it. The opinions will be strong enough once the film is indeed "a film" and not "a film in development" or "in production" so, I really don’t want to comment on anything else with regards to a feature in development simply because I think it does ten thousand times more harm than good, and I really want to see a good film, not a second-guessed film. To paraphrase a great film legend: "I will spoil no film before its time." (Although once I get a thumbs up I'll let you know who is assisting Glen.) Nuff said.
Originally Posted By Jim As always, AFA, your insights are valued and appreciated. In all the interviews I've seen with Glen Keane, you can tell he's qualified. Maybe he could use the help of a co-director, but I fully trust his perspective. And without MBAs messing things up, I know he won't be inhibited by nonsense. A little note, I used to wonder about the contemporary films' contemporary tone, but the reality is that every classic Disney film was once contemporary and still timeless, Dumbo being a great example.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Terrific post #7, actingforanimators. I especially liked your 'post-Letterman sensibility' term.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Thanks for that post, AFA. I guess my questions were mostly satisfied. I have no problem with Disney adding moder touches to fables and fairy tales. The thing I hope they can avoid is the ironic and synical tones that the Shrek films have taken care of. I hope this is one of those films that doesn't try to poke fun at the genre, but can make the Rapunzel story a bit more accessible...I mean really, do we expect Disney to let the prince's eyes get poked out?
Originally Posted By veu Actingforanimators, thank you very much for the news! With my post, I don't want to attack the movie and I don't judge this movie before I'll see it, but I want to explain what I think. I must say that Glen Keane has disappointed me deeply: I didn't think to say it up to now. Let me explain myself: I don't love modern day elements into a classical fairy tale... I read and I agree with you, Actingforanimators, about "Aladdin"... I love too much Aladdin, but Aladdin fortunately hasn't a part set in modern day age! I made a poll in Italy and ALL italian people don't love the modern day take for Rapunzel. I must say that I'm confused... I read many interview in which Disney said Rapunzel (after the 2005 retooling) will be a totally classical and traditional fairy tale, not a parody and in this movie there aren't pop culture references... Today I understand the truth... these rumor are only rumor! Rapunzel will be a parody, not à la Shrek but however a parody!!! Why Disney take public as a joke? Why? I'm very disappointed: Disney isn't able of doing a fully traditional version of Rapunzel! It's unbelievable! I honestly think that modern day elements in a classical fairy tale will kill the original soul of the fairy tale! I sincerely hate the story of the frustrated witch who transformed a modern day snobbish girl (a Paris Hilton lookalike) and a fat pizza boy into Rapunzel and her gallant Prince! It's so stupid! Sincerely, I'm scared to watch a similar version of Rapunzel! I hope Glen Keane at least changed the look of Vincent (the main male character)... I don't love a fat Prince!!! I hope also modern-day elements don't stick out like a sore thumb! I want a story that speaks to the heart!!! Rapunzel will be a musical? Please mr Keane don't ruin my favourite fairy tale!!! Today I place my hopes in "The Frog Princess" and I hope that at least "Frog Princess" will be a totally traditional fairy tale (as I love) with NO modern day elements!!! I apologize for errors in this post, but I recall that I'm italian. However, Actingforanimators, thank you very much again! You are a very nice person!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Sorry to disappoint you, veu, duckling but the plans for Disney's version of FROG PRINCESS are so far removed from the original Russian fairy tale that it's really going to be a different story that merely steels the title from a completely different story. ORWEN: Which implies they don't have enough confidence in their own, original stories any more--otherwise they'd come up with titles that WERE original! ORDDU: By the way, Actingforanimators, duckling; I think you're misunderstanding our point of view somewhat. We're not against all changes that are made to a motion picture versus an original tale. We're merely against changes that totally obliterate the hearts of the fairy tales. ORWEN: The fact that Uncle Walt gave personalities to the seven dwarves or added amusing little situations for Sleeping Beauty's fairies only served to enhance the personalities of characters we didn't get to know quite so well in the original versions. The stories had to be stretched out because of their short plotlines in order to justify a feature length motion picture. But at least they didn't change the sex or the race of the main characters or tamper with the time periods and place the settings in semi modern cities that brought everything too close to reality. That's where we draw the line! ORDDU: Again, if another studio can be successful with period pieces--such as Lord of the Rings--then Disney could do so, as well, instead of all this insistance upon being 'hip and edgy'. Some of you might be surprised at how popular a film can be--even in this modern age--by films that remain true to their time periods without the necessity of being 'modernized' to the nth degree. We can accept a certain amount without complaining. But, lately, Disney seems to be going way too far with this modernization process.
Originally Posted By belovedclassic Mr. Keane is such a good people, with so much sensibility and sense of humanity, please wait confident his work. If I understood. Glen wants to have two parallel stories, this doesn’t mean mixed stories. It could be good ,and would result something very different, preserving : the classic story and a new one appealing to modern audiences. I am waiting for a Disney movie longer, I hope Glen will be able to do this and tell us two good stories instead just one. There are really very good movies using this storytelling, and certainly works. Thank you for the answer Actingforanimators
Originally Posted By tcsnwhite I still think its way to soon to make your minds up on films that are barely into actual production.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: But it's not too soon to state what your criteria is in regard to personal tastes regarding movies based on fairy tales. My sisters and I know--better than any others--what we like best. If Disney doesn't meet that criteria, it's perfectly natural that we'll not like what they've done. ORWEN: Plus we've heard enough already to make us suspicious that this one won't be to our liking--especially if they muck it up with two modern teenagers who are just pretending to be Rapunzel and her prince. Thank goodness Snow White, Cinderella and Princess Aurora didn't have to be ruined by that awful idea.
Originally Posted By veu The version about 2 modern day teens who became Rapunzel and her Prince is very ugly... so it's better that Disney will realise a very classical fairy tale... Glen Keane in 2005 promised that Rapunzel hasn't pop culture references, he promises that he’s going away from the modern day storyline and he's going back to Rapunzel’s literary origins to do a traditional, character-driven fairy tale that speaks to a modern audience (here the news: <a href="http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=2684&page=6" target="_blank">http://mag.awn.com/index.php?l type=pageone&article_no=2684&page=6</a>)... but he doesn't make this if he create the modern day version of Rapunzel... he doesn't maintain promises... it's very disappointing! So I hope Glen Keane returns to the classical fairy tale!!! I don't love the modern day story... fairy tale movies must to be a indefinite age!!!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: So do we, veu, duckling. So do we. ORWEN: And we Still stand by OUR statements, too!
