Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<This Tangled mess will be a travesty that fans of the original story will be very disappointed with and THOSE are the one's whose tastes should have been considered FIRST.>> 1.) You don't know if the film will be a travesty or not. 2.) There aren't likely many fans of the original fairy tale. I dare say that the overwhelming majority of people don't even know the Rapunzel fairy tale. As a 48 year old, I can say that I only have the vaguest recollection of the story, and I'm certain I'm not alone.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss ^^And only because of the Rocky and Bullwinkle show's Fractured Fairy Tales.
Originally Posted By mawnck Now Witches ... If you'd been around in the 30s you'd be on here fussing about casting that over-the-top, way-too-modern comedian Burt Lahr as the Cowardly Lion. Have you ever seen Lahr in any of his other movies? We accept him in the Lion role today mainly because we've lived with him for 75 years. THAT BEING SAID ... I fail to see how the title "Twisted" is going to convince boys to go see the thing any better than "Rapunzel" did. If anything, it'll scare the girls off, and possibly their parents too. I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through.
Originally Posted By tonyanton Of the other options I heard I think "The Hidden Tower" or "The Secret Tower" would be far better. "Tangled" sounds just awful, IMHO.
Originally Posted By Terminus "Like... Totally Long Haired Chick; Back In The Old Days and Junk!" ... In 3D! That'd sell some tickets!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: But we DO know the film is a travesty, trekkeruss, duckling. From what we've already read of it, it's a travesty. It's just that one witch's travesty might be a trekkeruss' delight. ORWEN: As for Bert Lahr being becoming the Cowardly Lion, that is something that actually worked in favor of The Wizard of Oz because of his commedy relief. ORDDU: Also, The Wizard of Oz is a more modern fairy tale to begin with. Not nearly so ancient as something from the Brother's Grim. So no fussing from us over the casting of Bert Lahr.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: I just wanted to say that--among those who love fairy tales--Rapunzel is very well known. It's just that if you're not well read or interested in fairy tales to begin with, it's understandable why you may not have heard of it before.
Originally Posted By basil fan Remember when Disney changed the title Basil of Baker Street to The Great Mouse Detective? (to distance it from the financial flop Young Sherlock Holmes) Disney employees mocked the silly change by rewriting the titles of other animated features, such as A Boy, a Bear and a Big Black Cat. And who could forget The Girl in the See-Through Shoes?
Originally Posted By DlandDug Hmm. I have long contended that there are not enough real decision makers in the Walt Disney Company who are willing to be fearlessly sentimental. Princess and the Frog belied this, however. Do bear in mind that Princess and the Frog was not based on a classic fairy tale, either from the Brothers Grimm or Alexander Afanasyev's "Narodnye russkie skazki." It was rather based on a young adult novel by E. D. Baker, which was in turn very loosely based on the classic tale. Regardless, Disney's latest animated feature was, in my opinion, as fearlessly sentimental as any of their own classics. And it failed to connect with today's audience. I don't blame Disney that PatF wasn't as big a hit as Snow White, Cinderella, or Beauty and the Beast. Our society has changed. And (as sad as it is to contemplate), we may, indeed, be past the age of the traditional fairy tale. At least, as far as using them as the basis of increasingly expensive feature films. I prefer to believe that, ultimately, all that matters is if a film is well made, with a compelling story and appealing characters. But the tepid response that PatF received has shaken this belief.
Originally Posted By Y Tywysog Disney Many fear that fairy tales are now out of date and no longer connect with modern audiences.. but it should be remembered that in 1959 Disney released "Sleeping Beauty" and it underperformed at the box office and yet is now remembered as a Disney classic. Because of its underperformance, "Sleeping Beauty" was the end of an era and Disney decided not to do any more fairy tales.. and it took 30 years for another to made.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox While traditional fairy tales will always hold a special place in my heart, I do agree that, as a society, we've mostly moved past their importance. Audiences today relate more to the "Fractured Fairy Tales" first showcased by Jay Ward in the Rocky & Bullwinkle show, than more traditional tales such as PatF. The popularity of the Shrek franchise, along with live action films such as Enchanted, clearly demonstrate that more traditional fare will probably suffer commercially, moving forward. Now if only someone like Tim Burton would continue the Sondheim stage-to-film adaptations, and finally put "Into the Woods" on the screen. It's my favorite Sondheim musical, and the best modern take on traditional fairy tales to date.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: If it's true that the current generation can no longer appreciate the beauty and sentiment of the original fairy tales, it is a great loss that they are too unaware of to grasp. The same thing could be said about many other things in Life. People have allowed themselves to become conditioned to think in terms that they aren't even aware of. There is a lot to be learned from Fairy tales that has become lost on them. But for those who still appreciate the splendor in a well told tale that begins with 'Once Upon a time', there is great joy and happiness that can never be taken away from them. Fortunately, the Disney Studio of old has given us all a great bounty of beautiful animated films to rely on for many years to come...
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: By the way, teddibubbles, duckling, we're sending hugs right back to you!!! You're such a sweet person who's heart is worth more than most people can imagine.
Originally Posted By Y Tywysog Disney "While traditional fairy tales will always hold a special place in my heart, I do agree that, as a society, we've mostly moved past their importance" That's how a lot of people felt 50 years ago.. they thought that the public no longer wanted to see beautifully done fairy tales which is why for 3 decades Disney didn't make any... then came films like The Little Mermaid (1989) and Beauty and the Beast (1991) which were both huge successes and based on classic fairy tales. One has to wonder how it would be if "Rapunzel" had been made by Disney in the early 1950s (a time when there was no shame in making fairy tales) and yet a decade later it would have been unthinkable to do a Disney film based on a fairy tale and that "anti-making any new fairy tales" ideology continued until the late 1980s.
Originally Posted By Y Tywysog Disney I think one of the issues may be a generational thing... a lot of the people who are in their prime working years today are those born between 1960 - 1980, who would have grown up during the Disney "dark ages" and would have probably watched more Sesame Street or Scooby Doo than anything Disney. On the other hand, people born between 1980 - 1995 might appreciate classic Disney more as they are not only the generation that grew up with films like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast.. but they also were able to appreciate the classic Disney films more due to the advent of Disney home video which caused many children to watch classic Disney films on almost a daily basis. The problem is most people of this generation are not quite at the stage of life to be thinking too much about Disney.. but some have already started having families of their own, but if they have children they probably were just recently born and are still a little too young... but probably by the end of this decade you'll see a change in attitude. That being said, Disney needs to think about how their films do in the long run... will their modern films stand the test of time?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I don't blame Disney that PatF wasn't as big a hit as Snow White, Cinderella, or Beauty and the Beast. << I do. That's what years of cheapquels does to you. If P&tF had come out in 1995, they could have called it "Bathtub Ring Time Lapse" and people would've flocked to it based on the Disney name above the title. That ship has sailed. They squandered their competitive advantage with a lengthy string of mediocre product. And now they've put characters in iasw, which is of course "no big deal," just like "Little Mermaid 2" was. Some companies learn their lesson, while others have to be schooled again and again and again ...
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I have been scanning other web-footed sites inside our crystal ball and are most interested in what other ducklings out there have to say about the constant changes going on with RAPUNZEL. ORWEN: These seem to be ducklings that aren't your traditional Disney fans, from what we can tell, and most of them are not happy with the name change. There are a few who actually like it. Many more are confused and don't see the need for it. ORDDU: The over-all reaction out there seems to be that current Disney's insecurities are showing. In an attempt to become 'hip and edgy' by straying so far afield from the original source material, the may be losing everyone in the process. They just should have abandoned this entire 'tangled' mess while they still had the chance. At this point they have to go through with it. ORWEN: Wherever the REAL Rapunzel is right now, I'm sure she's glad they're dropping her name from a movie that has very little to do with her original plotline. The poor girl wouldn't want to be associated with a totally different story that steals away her prince--only to team her up with some unknown outlaw named Flynn Rider.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer They were going to have to change the story, anyway. There just isn't an audience these days for a character who sits in one place and waits to be rescued. It might work for a film with a $10 million budget and a direct-to-video release, but families have to spend a pretty penny to go to the movie theater these days and the story and setting are going to have to be much more spectacular than a tower in the woods to make enough money to make back the production costs. The age of the woman who does nothing but wait to be rescued is over, and I think in a lot of ways the idea of telling that kind of story to young girls is something to be ashamed of in an era when girls are being told that they can be and do anything. I think Disney is ashamed by the box office returns of The Princess and the Frog more than they are of the really good story in it. But the traditional story of Rapunzel just isn't going to attract much of an audience these days.
Originally Posted By dshyates "But the traditional story of Rapunzel just isn't going to attract much of an audience these days." I would have said the same thing when Beauty and the Beast came out. I think Disney just needs to keep putting out quality product and let the chips fall where they may. Be less calculating and more daring or at least confident. I think PatF had several things going against it and part of it is the super-saturation of the Princess thing they have going now. Another is having to rebuild their reputation after a string of not so good features and Direct-to-DVD crap. One other is, unfortunately, I think their is a sort of resurgency of racism running through the country that has increased since the last election cycle.
