Originally Posted By Imagineer This Rapunzel is having more troubles: <a href="http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/showarticle.php?ID=1725" target="_blank">http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb /articles/showarticle.php?ID=1725</a>
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Oh, thank you so much, Imagineer This, duckling! Us Cauldron girls had been reading about how RAPUNZEL UNBRAIDED was headed down the wrong path when we read about all the drastic ideas they've come up with all along. Any more, Current management seems so unwilling to do a period piece that's true to it's time period--always wanting to throw in too many references to the modern world--when what most fans want is a chance to ESCAPE the modern world and not be reminded of it with fart jokes and other things that no self-respecting witch can find appealing. ORDDU: We have heard that it was Mr. Ei$ner's decision to add the word 'unbraided' to the title. What kind of lame brain idea is THAT, we ask you? It's a good thing he wasn't in charge during Uncle Walt's day or he might have mishandled the titles of OTHER classics--coming up with something like SNOW WHITE UNBLEACHED or some such! ORWEN: If the success of LORD OF THE RINGS hasn't taught them--by now--that period pieces CAN work for modern audiences, I don't know what can. Old world charm never goes out of style. But executives who try to fix things that aren't broken DO need to go home and just STAY there!
Originally Posted By actingforanimators OH MY GOD!!!!!! Rapunzel isn't even completed and you people have already decided not to like it???!!!!! HELP, SOMEBODY, HELP !!!!!!!!!! My deepest and most profound sympathy to your Mothers and Fathers, who doubtless threw away endless amounts of food you never touched without so much as tasting it.....*sigh* If I wasn't so tired of being offended by the overwhelming power of pooled ignorance I'd rant for another ten pages, but frankly I'm just too overwhelmed to bother.....*thud*
Originally Posted By Bystander A few comments. 1. "Rapunzel Unbraided" is apparently in reference to Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound," which you can read here, if you've a mind. <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/139/shel116.html" target="_blank">http://www.bartleby.com/139/sh el116.html</a> What the reference *means,* I of course do not know. 2. A straightforward telling of Rapunzel would take about five minutes; like most fairy tales, it's rather short. I found a version here: <a href="http://www.familymanagement.com/literacy/grimms/grimms09.html" target="_blank">http://www.familymanagement.co m/literacy/grimms/grimms09.html</a> 3. Disney has NEVER done a straightforward telling of ANY story. Everything they have adapted has been heavily altered. In this case, They'll probably make Rapunzel older, on the grounds that twelve is a bit young to be having men up to your room, and change the bit where she just tells the witch what she's been up to, on the grounds that it was dumb. Just for starters. 4. The Lord of the Rings movies have a considerable number of alterations, emendations, shortenings, and shufflings. They are also based on a twentieth-century novel, not a centuries-old folk tale, and thus require less "adjustment" to make a story that we, with our modern sensibilities, would want to see.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Somehow a witch thinks some ducklings are deliberately missing the points trying to be made, here. First of all, there's nothing wrong with making certain alterations to a fairy tale. Walt Disney did this, himself. ORWEN: It's just that some of the recent alterations made to classic fairy stories--such as CHICKEN LITTLE--have gone too far--and end up making the story so different--like giving a sex change to the main character--that the film they end up with just BEGS for a totally different title. ORDDU: And--for the record--there's nothing wrong for deciding to not like a motion picture before it's released IF all the information you're reading about it--before hand--turns out to be true. We have read that Glen Keane wants a more traditional retelling of RAPUNZEL--as opposed to a more modern or 'hip' version. If this is how the final movie turns out, then the movie has a better chance of satisfying purists of the modern fairy tale. ORWEN: So please don't end up over-reacting, yourselves, to the opinion of some who prefer the more traditional approach to the Disney presents a fairytale. After all, the only thing we're really trying to do, here, is to preserve the original spirit of RAPUNZEL, since the original story is so beautiful it would be a shame to change it's time period or make it into some sort of SHREK sequel that would end up making it a parody of itself. RAPUNZEL deserves better treatment than that!!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: And one more thing--RAPUNZEL's original story line is about the same length as SNOW WHITE or SLEEPING BEAUTY. Uncle Walt and Company have always been able to successfully flesh out their past endeavors without destroying the original spirit of the original tale. In fact, they were even quite good at enhancing the originals with memorable and loveable characters. ORWEN: And they were able to do this without having to bring the stories into a modern setting. THAT's what we hate to see happen--like they did with CHICKEN LITTLE. Altering a story's time period--just for the sake of making it hip and edgy just destroys a fairy tale that already has an established period setting.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Oh, no! must have wrong in-for-mation from art-ist's mouth. Must have mis-un-der-stood their ex-cite-ment. Reach-ing for phone....*pant* ...call -ing story po-lice...can't dial...too weak from ex-haust-ionnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn Must try wri-ting lett-er inst-ead ...more pure and not as hip *sigh* as hip new fan-gled tel-e-phone.
Originally Posted By idleHands Perhaps "overactingforanimators" would be more apropos. Just a thought.
Originally Posted By basil fan Hmmm...if you didn't try to decide whether you'd like a movie before you saw it, you'd have to see every single movie ever made. Now, some people go too far, but you can sure tell a lot of the time that you won't like something up front. Sometimes you're wrong. I thought I'd hate Groove & like Nemo. One can be fooled on occaision.
Originally Posted By idleHands "Now back to the Devil's work, idle Hands." It's an ugly job but somebody's gotta do it, now that Eisner has left the building.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators Next up from Walt Disney Pictures: A live action/animation idleHands appears with Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse and Paris Hilton in "Don't Go In the Mouse House!"
Originally Posted By electra all the Witches & some of us are saying is, we'd prefer they dont dumb down these classic stories. That's all.
