Originally Posted By Britain Well sure, Hunchback is still from the Silver Age, albeit it was in the declining period. It was too dark and too silly at the same time. But right now, with Tangled, it's almost like WDA said, "Look, we're throwing in the towel on making this movie a hit-you-on-all-levels classic. We're going to simply make a movie that makes people kinda smile and kinda laugh."
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>The story lines for the Little Mermaid, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast (and arguably P&tF in parts) operated on a higher level of the fairy tale genre. Characters made difficult choices, difficult issues had to be dealt with, and sometimes difficult choices had to be lived with. Tangled as a retelling was told about twenty years too late to be a triumph of Disney storytelling. Though it certainly was pretty to look at.<<<< OK, I can see that. Tangled's range of choices (Leaving home and love/protection and showing vulnerability) don't live up to those expressed in the movies of the 90's?
Originally Posted By Britain Or rather, "Leaving home and love/protection and showing vulnerability" is just one layer, one choice made early in the story. It's a great start. (Hadn't we been hearing that this movie has had a fantastic first act for 10 years now, it just needed two more good acts?) "Leaving home" and all the dangers associated with that choice is your typical (in a very good way) first step. The hero's first step away from home. It's in Peter Pan, Mermaid, Nemo, Star Wars, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, Lord of the Rings, etc. But what do you build on top of it? How did the next step (to the Snuggly Duckling) advance the story? It didn't. It provided comedy, action and song, all well and good, really the only thing that was advanced was that Rapunzel & Flynn grew closer together. And that trajectory makes the last 2/3 of the film primarily a likable-but-lightweight romantic comedy, rather than a meditation on more timeless subjects.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- Has not seen 'Tangled' yet. <To be fair, Hunchback of Notre Dame was an attempt to showcase literary value in a family friendly way. Though that didn't turn out so well. Though for me Hunchback's failure was in the unchecked comedy of the sidekicks, rather than a lack of compelling storytelling.> I really like 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' The animation is really first-rate all around. The opening scene with Clopin is just fantastic -- and the 'Hellfire' sequence is beautifully done. And, overall, the songs are quite good. As you mentioned, had the comedy of the three gargoyle sidekicks been toned down just a bit (and their ridiculous musical number in Act Two been eliminated), it would be a better movie in my opinion. I'm a big fan of 'Tarzan' too. Again, the opening sequence with the shipwreck and the couple setting up the treehouse, and the chase scene with the jaguar and the mama gorilla -- again just superb. I also really, really enjoy when Jane is getting chased by the band of apes, and Tarzan has to rescue her. It's so exciting and just beautifully done. The Phil Collins music seems to work -- even as time has gone by.
Originally Posted By Britain I'm thinking they could have kept the focus on romance if they wanted, but raised the stakes more. Turned the 3rd act into something more akin to Princess Bride or Stardust. Oh well. This from a Monday morning quarterback. I haven't made a movie so it's easy to criticize. Hard to create. You know, like one of the many themes in Ratatouille.
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>OK, I can see that. Tangled's range of choices (Leaving home and love/protection and showing vulnerability) don't live up to those expressed in the movies of the 90's?<< Those elements could have, but not in the manner in which they were done. As has been said, Tangled ended up being a very lavish, romantic comedy, rather than a Disney fairy tale.
Originally Posted By Britain Agreed on the Phil Collins music. It may turn out to be just as dated-yet-it-ages-well as the stuff in Jungle Book.
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>I really like 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' The animation is really first-rate all around. The opening scene with Clopin is just fantastic -- and the 'Hellfire' sequence is beautifully done. And, overall, the songs are quite good.<< With the exception of "Topsy Turvy" I love the Hunchback soundtrack. Especially Clopin's opening number "The Bells of Notre Dame." If you fast forward through the gargoyles it's a much better movie. Though I think they were trying to lighten it up for children which is understandable.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The animation is really first-rate all around. The opening scene with Clopin is just fantastic -- and the 'Hellfire' sequence is beautifully done. And, overall, the songs are quite good.<< It's my favorite Disney animated feature.
Originally Posted By Britain Understandable, yes. My kids watched it for the first time last week, and liked most of it, LOVED the screwy antics of the gargoyles in the battle at the end. I think Hunchback sort of discovered the boundary line where kids movies should end and full-on teen movies should begin. A tale about murderous lust really shouldn't be lighted up with cartoon hijinks.
Originally Posted By mawnck >> And that trajectory makes the last 2/3 of the film primarily a likable-but-lightweight romantic comedy, rather than a meditation on more timeless subjects.<< And you disapprove of likable-but-lightweight romantic comedies ... why? Some of what you're saying may be true, but you still haven't addressed why you think this sort of movie is inferior to your sort of movie. Other than some kind of, I don't know, superiority complex or something? Should I feel guilty for being entertained? <------- Wasn't real crazy about Hunchback. (Runs and hides.)
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>Should I feel guilty for being entertained?<< Not really. I was entertained by Tangled. But for me it was more Don Bluth entertained than Disney entertained.
Originally Posted By Britain Well, like I said, when discussing the issue of whether or not Tangled is a success, we should look at BO (which we have) and we should look at it artistically. Artistically, it may be successful for what it is trying to achieve, but my point is that it isn't really striving for the sort of sophistication that the silver age animated movies did, and it's VERY far away from the complexity that Pixar is doing on a regular basis (although, Cars 2 looks like a step down from that). So, is it financially what Disney is looking for? Is it artistically a true return to form for WDA? I argue no.
Originally Posted By Britain In someways it feels like Robin Hood or Sword in the Stone. Those films lay claim to the crown of Disney animation greatness, but they weren't really trying to be anything remarkable. Or maybe more like Rescuers Down Under. High polish, sweeping scope, likable characters, great animation, but the target is low: A Rescuers sequel?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- Isn't a big fan of 'The Jungle Book' or 'Robin Hood' or 'Rescuers Down Under' -- Or 'Oliver & Co.' Or 'The Rescuers'
Originally Posted By Erjontem << Methinks there is some grumpy-old-man-ism in this line of reasoning. "In my day, we had GOOD Disney movies with NEW stuff in 'em." Why is fairy tale musical #3 (Aladdin) a classic but fairy tale musicals #4 and 5 (P&tF and Tangled) aren't? >> I LOVED Aladdin the first time I saw it in theaters. I couldn't wait to get my hands on the VHS. When I saw The Lion King for the first time in 1994, I thought it was far greater than any other movie I'd seen all year (animated or live action). I'd certainly feel the same way about it now. I didn't fall in love with these movies in hindsight, and I definitely didn't say "Aladdin wasn't nearly as good as The Little Mermaid" in 1992. In 1998, I thought Mulan was probably better than some of the hallowed Renaissance films. So your accusation of "grumpy-old-man-ism" doesn't make sense. I just don't understand what people who appreciate truly great Disney movies can find of comparable worth in Tangled. The characters? Maximus and Pascal were, at best, no better than Abu, and Abu wasn't even the main comic relief in Aladdin. Rapunzel and Flynn were no better than the leads in any Katherine Heigl type rom com. The Music? Can anyone argue with the relative mediocrity of the songs? The story? I found it choppy and hard to keep track of from one scene to the next (what exactly was Mother Gothel's deal with the Stabbington brothers, for example?). Moreover, there was very little by way of climax or catharsis in the end. Some pretty computer graphics, some fun visual gags, and a lot of nostalgia are all I enjoyed in Tangled.
Originally Posted By Erjontem Though mawnck I do agree with you about Hunchback. Whose idea was it to make a Disney movie out of Victor Hugo's classic novel? Why not just do Crime and Punishment? Let's add some fun Russian garret creatures and make them sing!
Originally Posted By Christi22222 ^^Wow! Good times! lol The problem definitely was the basic premise, though. Of course, stretching creativity and thinking outside the box definitely lands you with some doozies occasionally.
