[surfpark]

Disney has been working on a 3D version of Rapunzel. Prior to the Pixar acquisition, the project was called "Rapunzel Unbraided". Now it looks like the film will be called "Tangled," possibly in an effort to make the movie seem less about a princess, and thus, attract more boys. Details in the link: http://thedisneyblog.com/2010/02/13/disney...-animated-film/

Quote

Disney’s next animated film has had it’s name changed… again. Now it will be called ‘Tangled’ instead of ‘Rapunzel’. This is a move to fight off what Disney marketing perceives as a bias against princess films by the lucrative 8-12 year old boy market.

Even earlier in its development the film was titled “Rapunzel Unbraided” and featured a more Shrek like spoof feeling. That went by the wayside when John Lasseter took over animation after the Pixar/Disney merger. It’s no longer an irreverent look at fairytales, like Shrek, but it is a departure from the story we know and love. The latest change makes it known that this isn’t a traditional re-telling of Rapunzel.

Tangled’s producer Roy Conli made a comment on Facebook that reveals more of the film’s story.

“It’s a really fresh, smart take on the Rapunzel story. In our film, the infamous bandit Flynn Rider meets his match in the girl with the 70 feet of magical golden hair. We’re having a lot of fun pairing Flynn, who’s seen it all, with Rapunzel, who’s been locked away in a tower for 18 years.”

[QuickGold]

Somehow I don't think the name is what would have alienated boys.

[surfpark]

I agree. I mean most of the time Disney doesn't care if the movie targets just young girls. Those types of films often do very well for the consumer products division. I imagine they are changing the name because the movie is more about the couple than just the main character. "Tangled" to me implies tangled relationships or relationship complications.

[TheInfrequentVisitor]

Tangled implies a mess, which is not something you want associated with your film. This is a dumb idea.

[COH#1fan]

TheInfrequentVisitor, on Feb 15 2010, 11:16 PM, said:

Tangled implies a mess, which is not something you want associated with your film. This is a dumb idea.

Totally agree. Once you settle on a name for a project, it should stick. Changing a name midway loses something in its identity. Oh, and the 3D aspect of it is not the Disney Way either (you can blame that on the blue alien movie).

[Sleepless Knight]

If Disney has a hope of ever convincing young boys to see fairy tale type movies again, they need to do away with the Disney Princess line. That merchandise line announces to the world that these movies are targeted at little girls only. Never mind the fire breathing dragon and sword fight in Sleeping Beauty or the comical mice battling the cat in Cinderella.

And I think this name will hurt the movie. Nobody will have any idea what it's about now.

[surfpark]

Found some more details about the film: http://www.collider.com/2010/02/12/disneys...is-now-tangled/

This news from Disney Animation's Facebook page (link):

Quote

"Hey everyone, I'm Roy Conli, producer of Disney's next animated film. I have some exciting news to share, and it was important to me that YOU guys – the Disney fans – hear it first. I want to tell you about Walt Disney Animation Studio's 2010 release, Tangled. It’s a really fresh,
smart take on the Rapunzel story.

In our film, the infamous bandit Flynn Rider meets his match in the girl with the 70 feet of magical golden hair. We're having a lot of fun pairing Flynn, who's seen it all, with Rapunzel, who's been locked away in a tower for 18 years.

I’m so proud of the crew working on this film – they’re doing a fantastic job creating an awesome story with great characters and a stunning world – and it's all going to look amazing in 3D. All of us here at the studio are incredibly excited for you to see Tangled when it comes out in theaters this November."

[COH#1fan]

This screenshot looks like something I would see out of my old View-Master toy! If this isn't going to be traditionally animated like Princess and the Frog, I'm passing.

CURSE YOU, AVATAR!!!!!!

[TheInfrequentVisitor]

I don't think this was ever going to be traditional animation, just influenced by it.

[ghost1000]

Quote

“It’s a really fresh, smart take on the Rapunzel story. In our film, the infamous bandit Flynn Rider meets his match in the girl with the 70 feet of magical golden hair. We’re having a lot of fun pairing Flynn, who’s seen it all, with Rapunzel, who’s been locked away in a tower for 18 years.”

I don't think, even with 18 years, I could grow my hair 70 feet.

[surfpark]

ghost1000 said:

I don't think, even with 18 years, I could grow my hair 70 feet.

Your hair isn't magical.

COH#1fan said:

This screenshot looks like something I would see out of my old View-Master toy! If this isn't going to be traditionally animated like Princess and the Frog, I'm passing.

CURSE YOU, AVATAR!!!!!!

This was decided to be 3D a long time before Avatar. As a matter of fact, this picture was in pre-production before the Pixar acquisition in 2006. Originally the film was a project under Disney's computer animation division, the same people that worked on "Meet the Robinsons". It was shown off as a 'coming soon' feature in 2005 as 'Rapunzel Unbraided'. I guess the original script was much more fairy tale parody (i.e. Shrek, Enchanted) than good storytelling.

In 2007 the movie was overhauled. The same year, some of the test footage was leaked. The goal was to make the entire movie look like an oil painting. Keeping that kind of texture in traditional animation would be virtually impossible. Since the whole project started in the early 2000s, it does fit into the CGI craze a bit, but certainly does not look like a film from that era. The movie has been in production limbo for a while. This movie makes that "Barbie as Rapunzel" (2002) look like it was made with the technology of The Sims.

[COH#1fan]

surfpark, on Feb 23 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

This was decided to be 3D a long time before Avatar. As a matter of fact, this picture was in pre-production before the Pixar acquisition in 2006. Originally the film was a project under Disney's computer animation division, the same people that worked on "Meet the Robinsons". It was shown off as a 'coming soon' feature in 2005 as 'Rapunzel Unbraided'. I guess the original script was much more fairy tale parody (i.e. Shrek, Enchanted) than good storytelling.

In 2007 the movie was overhauled. The same year, some of the test footage was leaked. The goal was to make the entire movie look like an oil painting. Keeping that kind of texture in traditional animation would be virtually impossible. Since the whole project started in the early 2000s, it does fit into the CGI craze a bit, but certainly does not look like a film from that era. The movie has been in production limbo for a while. This movie makes that "Barbie as Rapunzel" (2002) look like it was made with the technology of The Sims.

It's still an ugly Disney CGI movie. I'm still passing.

[Sleepless Knight]

This is a hybrid between hand drawn and CGI animation, kind of a CGI style with a hand drawn look. Based on the concept art, Disney has released, this looks very different from any other CGI film we've seen from anybody. I'm really looking forward to this film based on that concept art. I just hope that Disney's improving story telling in their animated films continues.

[YoPaulie]

COH#1fan, on Feb 21 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

If this isn't going to be traditionally animated ... I'm passing.

Isn't that just as bad as dismissing an animated film for NOT being 3D? Like the mentality that led to the shuttering of Disney Feature Animation?

Just sayin'... to dismiss a film based on technique is shortsighted.

[COH#1fan]

YoPaulie, on Feb 24 2010, 06:28 PM, said:

Isn't that just as bad as dismissing an animated film for NOT being 3D? Like the mentality that led to the shuttering of Disney Feature Animation?

Just sayin'... to dismiss a film based on technique is shortsighted.

You don't get it.

Walt Disney Feature Animation was based on traditional animation. It was practically their bread-and-butter. How do you think audiences like myself who are used to just one thing will react to such changes? Not positively, I can tell you that.

[Sleepless Knight]

With all due respect, Walt Disney Feature Animation was built on great storytelling. The medium didn't matter as much as the story. Sleeping Beauty and 101 Dalmatians were released 2 years apart, yet both films look very different from each other despite being made by the same studio in a very close timeframe. The Pixar animators speak so highly of Walt Disney and the Nine Old Men. Frankly, Pixar has a lot more respect for hand drawn animation than Michael Eisner did.

The medium in which the story is told doesn't matter as much as the story that they're telling. Hand drawn animation does not automatically make a film good. I did not care at all for Atlantis or Home on the Range. Treasure Planet was okay. However, I enjoyed Meet the Robinsons and Bolt far more than those 3 films.

I think there's a time and a place for both CGI and hand drawn animation in the Walt Disney Studios. Poor storytelling did far more damage to Walt Disney Feature Animation than deciding to animate movies using a computer. Besides that, if people want to get real technical on hand drawn, Disney hasn't made a film done completely by hand since 1959.

[YoPaulie]

COH#1fan, on Feb 24 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

You don't get it.

Walt Disney Feature Animation was based on traditional animation. It was practically their bread-and-butter. How do you think audiences like myself who are used to just one thing will react to such changes? Not positively, I can tell you that.

LOL... you're telling someone who actually trained to become a Disney animator that he doesn't get Disney Feature Animation? You're missing my point, completely.

SleeplessKnight is 100% with what I'm saying. Medium is inconsequential; story is what matters.

[surfpark]

COH#1fan, on Feb 24 2010, 08:11 PM, said:

How do you think audiences like myself who are used to just one thing will react to such changes? Not positively, I can tell you that.

Oh, so you're "used to" there being 2D animation, and therefore you're unable to accept anything else? Give me a break.

Would you not read a book you found interesting if it wasn't available in paperback? No, you'd pay the money for an expensive hardback or go to the library and still read the book because you are interested in the subject matter. You sound like some bitter fanboy that is a bit too obsessed with history rather than embracing something new. You've seen all of ONE frame of the film and have said the entire movie is "ugly". Real mature, thought-out criticism there. There is some great work that is done with really crappy animation (i.e. Rocky & Bullwinkle, South Park, and probably hundreds other users can name) which rely on the story and strength of the voice actors to overcome the visual deficiencies.

Disney could not keep on a trajectory just because they started there. When Disney announced they would stop traditional animation in 2005, I wasn't appalled. I realized that a combination of demand and financial reasons were in effect. If you looked at the box office numbers of their last few 2D animated features prior to this decision, you'd realize that to continue making 2D animated films was a losing proposition. "Treasure Planet," "Brother Bear," and "Home on the Range" were box office flops. It is rare that a studio would allow one film to flop before trying again, but because of Disney's production schedule, most of these films were scheduled to release anyway. Disney's share of box office dollars was raped by Pixar (pre-acquisition), Dreamworks, and anyone else that had a CGI animated film coming out. The decision made a lot of sense. Did it honor the company's history? No. Did it allow them not to remain competitive? Yes.

Some decisions are compromises at best. It seems like you haven't forgiven the company for this decision, as if you've invested so much time and energy into their products that you feel betrayed and now will boycott anything new they'll try, for fear of having your heart broken over a cartoon all over again. Step-back and realize that the SAME people that work on 2D features now also work on 3D features. Much of the pre-production work is the same (character design, storyboarding, scripting). It is only a different medium that ultimately has the same goal as every other movie. If you don't like the movie that is your right, but at least wait until you have some real criticism to give before you make a judgment. There is nothing that bothers me more than rash ignorance.

[COH#1fan]

surfpark, on Feb 25 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Oh, so you're "used to" there being 2D animation, and therefore you're unable to accept anything else? Give me a break.

Would you not read a book you found interesting if it wasn't available in paperback? No, you'd pay the money for an expensive hardback or go to the library and still read the book because you are interested in the subject matter. You sound like some bitter fanboy that is a bit too obsessed with history rather than embracing something new. You've seen all of ONE frame of the film and have said the entire movie is "ugly". Real mature, thought-out criticism there. There is some great work that is done with really crappy animation (i.e. Rocky & Bullwinkle, South Park, and probably hundreds other users can name) which rely on the story and strength of the voice actors to overcome the visual deficiencies.

I object to being called a bitter fanboy being too obsessed with history, and take full umbrage at your uncalled for commentary.

surfpark, on Feb 25 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Disney could not keep on a trajectory just because they started there. When Disney announced they would stop traditional animation in 2005, I wasn't appalled. I realized that a combination of demand and financial reasons were in effect. If you looked at the box office numbers of their last few 2D animated features prior to this decision, you'd realize that to continue making 2D animated films was a losing proposition. "Treasure Planet," "Brother Bear," and "Home on the Range" were box office flops. It is rare that a studio would allow one film to flop before trying again, but because of Disney's production schedule, most of these films were scheduled to release anyway. Disney's share of box office dollars was raped by Pixar (pre-acquisition), Dreamworks, and anyone else that had a CGI animated film coming out. The decision made a lot of sense. Did it honor the company's history? No. Did it allow them not to remain competitive? Yes.

Disney made those films to fail on purpose with poor promotion. It was all part of their "underhanded scheme" to shut down the Animation Dept. as we knew it, but it didn't help the films after Home On The Range. I suggest you check the box office numbers on Chicken Little, Meet The Robinsons, and whatever other "shiny new animated film" Disney put out.

surfpark, on Feb 25 2010, 02:53 PM, said:

Some decisions are compromises at best. It seems like you haven't forgiven the company for this decision, as if you've invested so much time and energy into their products that you feel betrayed and now will boycott anything new they'll try, for fear of having your heart broken over a cartoon all over again. Step-back and realize that the SAME people that work on 2D features now also work on 3D features. Much of the pre-production work is the same (character design, storyboarding, scripting). It is only a different medium that ultimately has the same goal as every other movie. If you don't like the movie that is your right, but at least wait until you have some real criticism to give before you make a judgment. There is nothing that bothers me more than rash ignorance.

My appreciation for Disney is based on a love/hate relationship that expands well beyond the films. Why do you think I made the decision to enjoy the rest of the parks and not just the character part of it (and by characters, I mean the Disney characters, not the Citizens of Hollywood. The CoH are more real to me than any of their Princesses ever will.) Let's face it, sometimes Disney, like all other businesses, makes stupid mistakes that their customers will not forgive them for, but they'll always come up with new reasons to draw us in. I have been trying to fight this since my previous trip. Will this be the year I keep The Mouse at bay? Who knows?

[YoPaulie]

More to the point... who cares? Keep them at bay. Go ahead. make your choice to, or not.