Originally Posted By Erjontem Check this out before it gets removed: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsC18NRKCBs&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...embedded</a>
Originally Posted By Erjontem Obviously this "trailer" is very rudimentary, but I can't say I'm too optimistic about the soul of this movie based on what I'm seeing... It seems the studio is doing everything possible to wring every ounce of class out of this project. It looks and feels like Shrek -- which defined itself by lampooning Disney classics. Yuck.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: My sisters and I agree with you, Erjontem, duckling. And since they're trying so hard to destroy the original heart of the original story, it begs the question as to why they attempted to tell the story of Rapunzel at all. There are already plenty of modern concepts out there they could have used to be hip and edgy without using a medieval fairytale to wipe their feet on. It makes no sense for them to do what they're doing. There is certainly no dignity nor timeless quality to THIS tangled mess.
Originally Posted By mawnck Pheww. Do not want. It's a VERY preliminary trailer, though. Perhaps even a conceptual thing to demonstrate to the nervous suits "what direction can we go to avoid the P&tF debacle." I noticed the prince character (or whoever he is) performing the dictionary picture example of the Dreamworks smirk at 1:16. If that's supposed to be an inside joke, I sure ain't laughing.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub This Tangled mess seems so inappropriate...It actually hurt my eyes and brain and breaks my heart to realize Disney does not Know Princess or Fairytale or even Shrek! The Fun in Shrek(original) was making fun of Disney. And what was that frog on Tangled's shoulder?
Originally Posted By mawnck That was a chameleon, I believe. You can do tons of super-original cartoon gags with a chameleon. 9_9
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: The chameleon character might work into the story. We all know by now that Disney heroines have some animal friends to help stretch the stories and add comedy releif. ORWEN: What we disapproved of was how Rapunzel dropped her hair down before Flynn could even finish asking her to. Then he falls to the ground! It was irreverent--which we had already read about before seeing this--and which takes all the respect out of the fairy tale. It's like Prince Phillip shaking Aurora awake instead of planting the expected 'true love's kiss' on her lips. ORDDU: Instead of allowing the audience to experience the original flavor of the tale, current Disney script writers try to be 'cute' by twisting things around to suit themselves. Fans of the original Rapunzel are insulted by this sort of thing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 FWIW, you go to that link now and get "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by The Walt Disney Company. "
Originally Posted By mawnck My question is, if Rapunzel was locked up in the castle all her life, how and why did she learn all the Hair-Ninja stuff?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss It looked okay to me. But I guess if you are expecting a letter perfect translation of the fairy tale Rapunzel, you'd be angy/upset/disappointed.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <It looked okay to me. But I guess if you are expecting a letter perfect translation of the fairy tale Rapunzel, you'd be angy/upset/disappointed.> I'm not expecting a perfect translation of 'Rapunzel' -- I'm just tired of the smug, self-effacing, we-have-to-make-fun-of-fairy-tales-because-that's-what-people-want, attitude. "Shrek" has been done.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I don't know if that's how the movie is; it's merely a trailer...and not even a real one at that. I mean that obviously wan't made for the public to see. Besides that, trailers never give you what the movie is like, at least the recent ones I have seen.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub It just seemed strange w/sexual tone for children? How did this get the OK? Hair as a whip and chaining a prince to a chair??? And actualy seeing the headbutt violence when the Prince is captured? In all fairness I looked at this quickly in the middle of the night w/out sound. And I realize it was just a minimal sketch idea. I am sure it has been changed a million times and the finished product is totally different. I am not surprised it was removed and we can all keep our fairytale innocence with all respect and honor to Disney. Gee thanks Imagineers
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub Only because they also had something in the images that flashed so rapidly to give the reference to Pocahontas. Which was an animated movie that treated the Disney Princess as a new role model for young girls.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Besides that, trailers never give you what the movie is like, at least the recent ones I have seen.> Well, to me, trailers pretty much do tell you everything you need to know. In fact 98% of the time, trailers give away absolutely everything. All the 'Twisted' trailer needed was the record player scratch noise.
Originally Posted By Erjontem I'm hoping against hope that the trailer is an inaccurate representation of the movie -- one that tries to milk any kind of action/humor in the film for all it's worth. However, no matter how charming, soulful, elegant, and timeless the movie might be, at this point I just can't imagine it being very good. After all this talk of Glen Keane and Fragonard and giving 2-D life to 3-D graphics and traditional fairy tale artistry, is this really what they meant? To me, it's pretty clear just from the official image (released on Facebook) that this movie is more Shrek than Beauty and the Beast -- from a purely visual point of view. With that kind of look, that title, and the characterizations we've seen in the trailer, hell I don't know what could save this movie. Disney, what happened? Your movies stopped making money when they stopped being good. Walt Disney himself saw his vindication in box office results. And by the way, from a quality/box office results standpoint, Princess and the Frog got just the kind of gross it deserved: fair, but no better than Hercules. People didn't stay away from it because they were tired of princesses, or because they chose Avatar over it, but simply because, well, it's no Aladdin. Make better movies, and the money will start rolling again. And give us the whole package: great music (Menken), AND a great story, AND beautiful animation. Why do we have to pick (at most) 2 these days?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Walt Disney himself saw his vindication in box office results.> Well, I understand what you're driving at I suppose. But not all of Disney's animated movies did well in their initial release in theaters. 'Fantasia' 'Alice in Wonderland' and 'Sleeping Beauty' come to mind.
