Rapunzel gets a new title
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."
Tangled features the voices of Mandy Moore, Zachary Levi, Dan Fogler, Kristin Chenoweth, Reese Witherspoon, Donna Murphy and will let its hair down in theaters on November 24.
Tangled was released November 24th, 2010 and stars Mandy Moore, Zachary Levi, Donna Murphy, Ronny Pearlman, M.C. Gainey, Jeffrey Tambor, Brad Garrett, Paul F. Tompkins. The film is directed by Nathan Greno, Byron Howard.
Comments (29)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Diaigma
To this we agree on many levels, and I sure hope that lger can turn things around for the better.
I guess you can say that I dislike the Eisner era, right?
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
that-kid
Okay. I'm still not convinced. I do agree about Toy Story 3; that's something Disney (under Michael Eisner) threatened to do regardless of Pixar's involvement, and I feel they agreed to work on it only reluctantly to keep it out of anyone else's hands. But your assertion that they've become "sellouts" seems based on the assumption that they were not previously operating like a business with pecuniary interests. Maybe you're still disappointed that Pixar's not operating independently of Disney. I don't know.
I'm not a big fan of Disney either, but keep in mind that it is a "living" corporation with myriad components and ever-shifting management. It's had bad periods, particularly under Eisner (where sequelitis was indeed rampant), but it seems that now with Robert Iger in charge things are tending in a better direction--for one thing, he specifically promised to STOP doing cheap sequels. But I don't know how it's going to turn out. None of us do. The point is that bemoaning the downfall of Pixar at this point is premature, especially based on nothing but conjecture.
But we digress. Anyway, this title... I could actually care less about. I suppose the guy who designed the "Rapunzel" logo still got paid; that's all that matters.
2 years agoby @that-kidFlag
Diaigma
@that-kid
Okay. I appreciate that you're not flaming me, so I'll return the favor. Thank you.
Disagreeing with me is one thing, but saying I'm wrong is a dangerous edge to walk on.
Having said that, I disagree with many things that you've just said, as does my friend who recently left Pixar. Who knows better about what's going on in there than him?
For the record, from start to finish, it takes Pixar up to 4 years to produce a film. You are right in saying that Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up are among Pixar's finest, because they were in development before the buyout. Toy Story 3 has been considered for a long time and it will be Pixar's last non-Disney involved project (although by the looks of the trailer, It's highly suspect that they didn't put a view fingers in there. "Nice Ass-cot"? Butt humor again? I got enough of that from Princess Froggy, thank you).
As for Monsters Inc. 2, here you go. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453405/
I am excited about Bear and the Bow, but that doesn't mean they won't make cheap sequels in the future. They've already bastardized films like Little Mermaid to Fox and the Hound with utter tripe.
Mr. Lasseter was put in charge because he'll do whatever Disney tells him to do. Plain and simply.
It's not a bad deal, I agree. Who wouldn't want that? People who are not sellouts. That's who.
If you don't agree to work with Disney as they want you to, they will be out to destroy your career.
Just ask Richard Rich and Don Bluth about that.
Anyway, that's more of my beef. Rapunzel should be Rapunzel. That's all I'm saying :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
that-kid
Ooh... I find your comments on Pixar to be almost completely wrong. I thought the last three of their films (Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up) were among the best they've ever made. The production of Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 are fully under their control, and Cars 2 at least was conceived by John Lasseter himself. There's no "Monsters Inc. 2" on the table anywhere; I don't know what you're talking about. Another original film called The Bear and the Bow is planned for 2011. Not much of a "sequel train."
Also, Disney's buyout of Pixar resulted from a long-negotiated agreement, which also made Steve Jobs Disney's largest individual shareholder and put John Lasseter in charge of their entire animation department. I don't see how that's a bad deal.
2 years agoby @that-kidFlag
Diaigma
@Josh.
Thank you.
@sweeneyfan1
How old are you? If you said this . . .
"Now let me tell you some movies you are forgetting about.... ALL the Pixars movie!"
Then you obviously don't know that Pixar, until 2006, was its own studio, and Disney owned the distributing rights. In 2006, Pixar said they were going to start distributing their own films (because they could afford it). What did Disney do? They bought Pixar. Cheaply, I might add.
Now enjoy the show as we watch the steady decline of Pixar as Disney shoves their influence. (Cars 2, Monster's Inc. 2. Yeah. Let the sequel train ride in! No more unique films, just money making scams!)
As well as Marvel's . . .
And Dreamworks, eventually (Since Disney bought their distributing rights last year)
Come back to me when you actually know something about movies, kid :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
Josh
The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo and Stitch, Enchanted, and The Princess and the Frog are easily on par with "classic" Disney films.
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
that-kid
I mean, unless they give our guy a Fabio-esque mane, I assume there'll be some clone banging involved, right?
2 years agoby @that-kidFlag
Jason27
I hope this movie has no songs at all, lol... I wish Disney would release song-less versions of all their films, I'm really not a fan of musicals but I'm an animation nut, always loved Disney regardless.
2 years agoby @jason27Flag
ParkWilliams
@Brian:
"Surprised this isn't in 3D."
Umm...did you read the line in the article that says "and it's all going to look amazing in 3D?"
2 years agoby @azadorFlag
MutantFairy
They obviously changed the name so that little girls (the target audience) wouldn't get confused with barbie's rapunzel movie: movieweb/dvd/DVJ9cLJLLXQoNR i just hope this movie has better songs than the princess & the frog.
2 years agoby @mutantfairyFlag
sweeneyfan1
Im sorry did u mention Tresaure Planet, Fantasia 2000, The Emperors New Groove, Enchanted, and The Pirates of the Carribean!!! All of those Disney movies Suck! Now let me tell you some movies you are forgetting about.... ALL the Pixars movie! Lilo & Stich,....... I guess your right, there isnt that many classic's like they ust to have. (SORRY ABOUT THE F*CKING SPELLING)
2 years agoby @sweeneyfan1Flag
Jason27
How retarded! Its not like Disney cant afford it, just pay the damn people you cheap bastards!
:)
2 years agoby @jason27Flag
Illuminati
as masta-cheif said disney must have issues with purchasing the rights.
But this is a bad title...im sure they'll change it.
2 years agoby @illuminatiFlag
Diaigma
@sweeneyfan
I am sure that you would figure that out, but the kiddies won't. If I were to tell you the story of why I don't like Disney in its entirety, it would take volumes (From degrading products to business ethics). But I see now why you're defensive about this because you like it. Some people in this world like to eat guano, so, to each his own. I like Disney, Pre-1996 Disney. So many classics and favorites. Sorry, but I can count on one hand what they've produced since then that's actually good (First Pirates, Enchanted, New Groove, Treasure Planet, Fantasia 2000) And I'm looking forward to Prince of Persia and Tron Legacy, btw. My problem is you just don't mess with the classics. Rapunzel is Rapunzel, not Tangled. I'm sure it will be an excellent production (Alan Menken , I mean, come on!) but the title? Why change it? What was wrong with it before? Nothing. They just did it because they think, once again, that they can do whatever they want and get away with it. If you think I'm upset, you should check out IMDBs boards. They're going berserk over there. :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
Josh
The movie is probably going to be fantastic no matter what it's called, but that's a stupid stupid name.
Maybe they should have called it "Tangled Up in Blonde"
2 years agoby @shuabertFlag
sweeneyfan1
SH*T man Do you Think we are all a bunch of Retards not to know that Tangled wil mean a movie about Rapunzel. And yes I would like to hear your story about Disney, because I think Disney s is one of the best production companys out there.
2 years agoby @sweeneyfan1Flag
07cabrala
Tangled??
What were they thinking...
Their making this film sound stupid..
2 years agoby @07cabralaFlag
Diaigma
@sweeneyfan1
How does "Tangled" make you think?
The reason Disney Fairy tales have been successful is because people knew what they were going to see, and so did their children. Now the parents have to go through the rigmarole of saying "Let's go see Tangled!" "Huh? What's that?" "A Rapunzel movie" "Oooooh!"
Don't take my opinion personally, sweeney. I've had a long feud with Disney.
I just don't like how they've done things since 1996.
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
sweeneyfan1
Ohh shut up Diaigma, its just a f*cking title change. And you all know what? Tangled is a way better title than Rupuzel!!! Titles that make u think are better than titles that just tell u what character it is about. Think about it
2 years agoby @sweeneyfan1Flag
Clockworkcookie
I don't like the new name (seriously, who does??) but from what we've seen so far the movie looks gorgeous.
2 years agoby @clockworkcookieFlag
that-kid
Sounds painful.
2 years agoby @that-kidFlag
Diaigma
Bad idea. Bad, bad idea. I just might not see it now. Good job, again, Disney.
You know NOTHING about what people really want anymore. Nothing! And you know it.
That's why you're buying up everyone you can get your hands on.
Parasite! :P
2 years agoby @diaigmaFlag
Avrahama
Tangled.. I don't get it.
2 years agoby @avrahamaFlag
Masta_Chiefed
Ha Disney counldnt shell out enough for naming rights!!!!
2 years agoby @masta-chiefedFlag
Richardson
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out for sure. So what do you think? Is Disney planning on moving from a "Princess" title to a more widely marketable title? Stay tuned....
http://www.articlesbase.com/health-articles/acai-max-cleanse-review-risk-free-trial-1854829.html
2 years agoby @richardsonFlag
Null and Void.
What a stupid title change.
2 years agoby @soylentgreenFlag
Goliath
Why change it? Cinderella was Cinderella, Snow White was Snow White, etc. etc. etc.... Just call it what it is.
2 years agoby @goliathFlag
Johnnyblaze09
Would sound good when we see the title design... anybody ask what is their reason of changing? ok, an exciting news.. always loves Disney.
2 years agoby @johnnyblaze09Flag
Brian
Surprised this isn't in 3D.
2 years agoby @brianFlag