Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of the headline: <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/News-HID.asp?ID=31897" target="_blank"><b>Headlines: SciFiWire: How Rapunzel changes everything for the Disney princess film</b></a> John Lasseter's remarks on "Rapunzel" from his D23 Expo presentation
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, after reading this article about how they're going to rip the heart and soul out of poor Rapunzel, I'm gonna have to cry myself a river and over-dose on another batch of Krispy Kremes. The very idea that they're gonna' turn her into a modern day Annie Oakley who uses her long hair to lasso people or objects or whatever!!! Well, it's just sad beyond belief. ORDDU: As wonderful as John Lasseter is at coming up with contemporary stories for his own brand of entertainment, he's very much out of touch with period piece fairy tales. He should have left Glenn Keane right where he was. From what we've read, Glenn would have retained a more faithful, old world retelling of this classic. John Lasseter would rather turn it into an adventure story--while sacrificing many of the original elements that made Rapunzel so touching. ORWEN: And what's with this new Rapunzel's sarcastic way of dealing with more than one suitor who comes calling on her? She supposedly drops down her hair before they can even finish asking her to do it!! ORDDU: In the original version, only one man came calling upon her and he was a handsome prince who risked his life in doing so. He never knew when--at any moment--he might be discovered by the wicked witch who held Rapunzel as a prisoner. ORWEN: One article I read said the story people couldn't figure out how to handle Rapunzel's story while she was living up in her tower. Well, I can think of plenty of things for them to do with the story. For one thing, they could have had her make friends with birds who would always be bringing her things from he outside world. I mean they could fly things up to her and she could try to figure out what they were and what they were used for. ORDDU: Another plot could involve Rapunzel gradually learning that the witch wasn't her true mother. Her curiosity would cause her to become more daring and bold in her attempts to extract a truthful answer from the evil woman. This could all be played out very dramatically if handled correctly. ORWEN: And they could have a nice sub plot going on with Rapunzel's real parents, who were contstantly trying to find out where she'd been hidden away. Little clues could be dropped here and there until they were eventually reunited. ORDDU: The possiblilties for a much better version of Rapunzel are endless. It would seem that Mr. Lasseter has merely decided to go with a version that appeals more to his personal tastes, rather than taking into consideration what a Rapunzel fan would want to see. ORWEN: At least Alen Menken is doing the music so that's ONE good thing we have to look forward to. But that's about it!!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: And, now, after having just conjured up a whole new bunch of articles on Mr. Lasseter's version of RAPUNZEL, I read something else that made my skin crawl. The kind of music they're planning for this distorted tale is going to be based on rock music from the sixties!!! How does THAT fit into a medieval fairy tale?? They're just stealing the title of a famous story and using it to promote a totally original story--like they did with that awful Chicken Little monstrosity! Disney just doesn't know how to do a proper period piece story any more. They modernize fairy tales to the point where they lose the original romance and old world charms. I no longer care to see it, if all the things I'm reading are true.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: At least we still have the timeless classics of Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty to remind us of what more faithful re-tellings of fairytales should be like. Even Beauty & the Beast was handled quite well, considerin it was produced by a contemporary staff of writers and producers. It would seem that John Lasseter has a fear that trying to capture old world charms is too risky and would lack enough appeal for a modern audience. Yet, if they destroy the original flavor of RAPUNZEL, it will never achieve the same timeless qualities that the previous Disney fairytales have successfully been able to do...
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Sometimes, it seems like they're afraid of what a post-Shrek audience will think of a classic Disney princess movie. That's a shame. Because I think we're ready for a good, solid sweet Disney Princess movie. Rapuzel -- unbraided sheesh
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: At least they've dropped the term 'unbraided' from the title. Then, again, if you look at THIS particular Rapunzel, she doesn' bother to even braid her hair. ORDDU: It sounds as though they've dropped the idea of having a handsome prince rescue the heroine in this tacky version. Instead she is rescued by some common peasant type or bandit, who is already on the run from the law. They've just completely gutted the original story and stolen a title from a classic fairy tale--as if too insecure to come up with their own original title for their own original story. ORWEN: It's Chicken Little all over again!!
Originally Posted By mawnck I'm "waiting and seeing" on this one, since I always considered the original fairy tale to be rather content-impaired (sorry Witches), and I can't bear the thought of sitting through a 75-minute version of it that doesn't contain a heck of a lot of elaboration. I don't care if she's up there curing cancer, rehearsing for Eurovision, and training a troop of flying robot cocktail waitresses to battle Al Quaeda, there's NO WAY an hour of princess-stuck-in-a-room is going to make for a good movie. As with the live-action Dr. Seuss movies, it's going to live or die on what ELSE they come up with. OK, bad example. But I'm wondering how many times Disney is going to use this "for the first time the princess is EMPOWERED" schtick? They've been doing that for every dang female lead character since The Little Mermaid. OK. We've GOT it. EVERY princess EVERYWHERE is spunky and proactive. Now let's move on.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, it's understandable that they'd have to flesh out the movie in order to make it longer than the original story. Even Uncle Walt had to do that--like with Sleeping Beauty. But even so, the original story of Sleeping Beauty wasn't discarded altogether in order to make it into a movie. ORDDU: If they would just retain the orginal plot--at least up until the point where Rapunzel is rescued by her prince and THEN go off on some original adventures, it would be much more acceptable. And if they would treat Rapunzel, herself, with much more dignity instead of making her into a Tomboy who uses her hair as a lasso, it would be much more appropriate to its time period. What Lasseter seems to be trying to do is make Rapunzel into a Jessie type character who is shoehorned into a medieval setting. It just doesn't work for us, I'm afraid. ORWEN: Some ducklings out there may really like Mr. Lasseter's version of Rapunzel. We're just saying she's not the REAL Rapunzel we were so much hoping to see--just like Chicken Little wasn't the REAL chicken Little we had read about in the original story. There's too much distortion going on behind the scenes whenever they try to do classic fairy tales these days.
Originally Posted By basil fan Okay, that music thing...aughhh! Star Wars <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/glitch/swglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "Because I think we're ready for a good, solid sweet Disney Princess movie." It looks like we're getting one of those in a month or two.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I have a daughter who is "four and a whole half" and as much as I love how much she enjoys the classic princess movies I also see them showing her that girls just aren't that strong and that they need to be saved. So a Rapunzel who can hold her own doesn't frighten me as much. Every generation has retold fairy tales for their times, and these days girls need to be taught that if they are in trouble they need to save themselves and not wait for Prince Charming to rescue them.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <how much she enjoys the classic princess movies I also see them showing her that girls just aren't that strong and that they need to be saved.> I read this all the time. I have a daughter who was 4 and a half (now 15) and I say 'so what?' My daughter hasn't grown up believing that she needs to be saved by a handsome price, anymore than she believes that she can fly on a broomstick or turn into a vampire. It's fantasy. It's escapism. It's fun.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>or turn into a vampire<< Maybe not, but they're pretty good at bleeding a wallet dry at that age though, aren't they? Badda zing!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: There are already plenty of contemporary stories and films about strong willed girls who have shown themselves to be resourseful enough to save themselves without the need for any men to be involved. The point Orwen and I are trying to make is that it's not necessary to destroy a classic fairy tale in order to drive home this same point yet again. Just allow a fairytale to be timeless without any hints of a modern interference. That shouldn't be too much to ask for. ORWEN: I'm just glad Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty weren't modernized to the point where the whole souls of those 3 stories were gutted in order to make a modern statement. Otherwise they wouldn't be timeless classics. Mr. Lasetter's version doesn't stand a chance at being timeless. Even if it IS a big hit upon it's first release, it'll never be as timeless and appealing as the 3 origial princess stories. Beauty & the Beast is probably going to be the last period piece fairy tale by Disney that doesn't let itself get bogged down by political correctness or all the modern tom boy references. It's not a bad thing to have a fairytale heroine who needs to be rescued. It's worked for fairytales in the past. It can work now days, too.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Those versions of the fairy tales aren't going anywhere, and some kid is seeing one of them for the first time every day. There are plenty of stories about princesses needing to be rescued for people to watch. Disney has told that story several times themselves. I just don't think that a version of Rapunzel that is faithful to the original story is going to play very well these days, and Disney has a chance to make it something that the whole family can enjoy and not just the girls who aren't old enough for Hannah Montana yet. The original version is pretty thin to hang a 80 or 90 minute movie on.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think I'll ever get the Bullwinkle "Fractured Fairy Tale" version out of my head. (For this to work right, you MUST have June Foray's best Brooklyn accent in your head when reading Rapunzel's lines)... PRINCE: Hey Rapunzel! I've got a plan. RAPUNZEL: What's the plan? PRINCE: Jump! RAPUNZEL: (pause) Some plan.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <I just don't think that a version of Rapunzel that is faithful to the original story is going to play very well these days> I don't see why it wouldn't. <and Disney has a chance to make it something that the whole family can enjoy and not just the girls who aren't old enough for Hannah Montana yet.> 'Little Mermaid' and 'Beauty and the Beast' appeal to all ages. <The original version is pretty thin to hang a 80 or 90 minute movie on> None of the classic fairy tales, in their original form, have much to hang 80 or 90 minutes on. But 'Snow White' 'Sleeping Beauty' and 'Cinderella' all did it. At any rate -- you win. 'Rapunzel' seems to be going the Fractured Fairy Tale - Shrek route. And Shrek rhymes with Blecch!
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Well, of course a more faithful retelling of Rapunzel would work today. Otherwise you wouldn't be seeing the latest Snow White & the 7 Dwarfs dvd selling very well. It has become a classic. Rapunzel may never have a chance to become a classic at all if it's original plot is twisted around as much as the articles we've been reading have indicated. ORWEN: We say stop using classic fairytales as a way to tell a modern story. If you want to tell an original, modern story that ends up having very little to do with the original, then go out and create an original title to go along with it. ORDDU: Even the Princess and the Frog isn't going to be very pleasing to us because it's really just an original story by Disney. They stole a title from an Russian Fairytale and tacked it onto a more modern story of their own creation. ORWEN: Why couldn't they call it Tiana and the Frog or something similar? And why couldn't they have renamed Rapunzel by giving her an original name to fit what's turning out to be an original story? That way fans--along with potential fans--of the original story wouldn't be so likely to get confused between the two VERY different versions?
Originally Posted By tonyanton I read the article and don't quite understand the outrage...still seems pretty classic to me...the original ideas for "Rapunzel Unbraided" where modern day kids were involved in the story sounded awful...I'm excited for both this and "Princess and the Frog" Glad to see Disney is not being so formulaic.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Actually, Disney IS being formulaic. They take 3 classic fairytales--Chicken Little, The Frog Princess and Rapunzel--modernize them to the point where they're totally unrecognizable from the orignal source material and cause them to become dated in years to come. That's one formula we'd like them to stop repeating over and over again with fairy tales.
