Just watched Tangled

[TheArsenal]

It was TOTAL GARBAGE. This felt more like a parody of a Disney film than an actual one,

You know, where everybody is nice happy and bouncing? It felt like that.
The Jokes felt Stale, or where trying to be "Hip" and Breaking the forth wall, but failing at it.
The Antagonist's where pathetic, something that I consider very important.
The Songs where bland and forgettable (Lacking anything other than positive happy lovey dovey attitude)

I would have gave it a 3/5 if it wern't for The Princess and the Frog which managed to at least partially fulfill all the above.
So a Final grade of 2/5, I do NOT wish to see this movie again. Guess little kids would like this but I expect more from Disney now.

[Weezer]

It was TOTAL GARBAGE. This felt more like a parody of a Disney film than an actual one,

You know, where everybody is nice happy and bouncing? It felt like that.
The Jokes felt Stale, or where trying to be "Hip" and Breaking the forth wall, but failing at it.
The Antagonist's where pathetic, something that I consider very important.
The Songs where bland and forgettable (Lacking anything other than positive happy lovey dovey attitude)

I would have gave it a 3/5 if it wern't for The Princess and the Frog which managed to at least partially fulfill all the above.
So a Final grade of 2/5, I do NOT wish to see this movie again. Guess little kids would like this but I expect more from Disney now.

...Really? I watched it a few months ago and was really impressed. What do you mean by the antagonists being pathetic. I thought Gothel was one of the best Disney villains yet, she perfectly captured the controlling, dominating selfish mother. The song "Mother knows best" was an amazing lesson in how emotional manipulation is used by some people, both parents and boyfriends/girlfriends to create dependence and to ensure that their victim will never leave them. And it's most certainly not a song that has a "positive happy lovey dovey attitude". I would say it's my favorite of the computer animated Disney's. Doesn't beat out the likes of the Lion King, but still a really good film that hearkened back in many ways to classic Disney.

[endoperez]

I rather liked it.

Antagonists weren't very powerful, for the most part, but this wasn't a movie about fight. The largest threat was the control the antagonists could exert over the heroes, in different ways. I think that worked rather well, and although they didn't overly impress me, it was a nice new angle.

I don't know what you mean by the stale Jokes. Maximus, the horse, was fabulous, hilarious and ten different kinds of awesome. There were also several good visual gags. Can't remember any particularly good verbal ones, though, yeah.

As for the songs being too happy... "Mother knows best" was rather dark. It doesn't sound dark, but the undertones are quite nefarious.


I'd give it 3/5, probably, and a big plus for the visuals. That hair tech is incredibly impressive.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

It was quite a good movie, I think. It was Disney catching up to Pixar, and I ADORE Pixar.
1. The animation was simply astounding.
2. Mother Knows Best was SO good, especially the reprises
3. No, the villain wasn't a cackling evil witch with lighting shooting out of her fingers, she was an evil witch who manipulated people. More subtle. I approve.
4. Maximus. :smallbiggrin:
6. The bar scene made me grin, and when they came back, made me grin again.

It was a good Disney movie.

[Obrysii]

I actually really enjoyed it, too.

I loved Rapunzel's personality - a mixture of spunk and naivety that worked really well.

I liked Ryder's egotism and the fact he seems aware he's in a movie. The scene with him dueling the horse with a frying pan, and him saying, "I can honestly say this is the strangest thing I have ever done" landed well with me.

[Tirian]

Huh, I largely gave up on Disney movies after Pocohantas and simply haven't seen many of the ones since then. But I thought Tangled was really strong. I think that Flynn is the second most awesome male lead out there (nobody touches Prince Phillip), the climax was something that I haven't seen before, and the music was just about as memorable as Aladdin or Beauty and Beast, which means that I remember the basic gist of two or three major songs.

If anything, I think that The Princess and the Frog is the one that sold itself out to small children instead of trying to be a timeless classic. Far too much of hanging a lampshade on the fact that they deliberately drew the minor characters sloppily, and while lowbrow humor is a part of the Disney formula, there was too much butt humor for my taste. In the end, though, I think both were steps that the Disney animation department are taking in the right direction.

[ZombyWoof]

It was quite a good movie, I think. It was Disney catching up to Pixar, and I ADORE Pixar.
Not even close sir. Also Disney owns Pixar :smallwink:

But Pixar is on a different plane, sir. Disney has to catch up to Dreamworks now before they can even hope to take on the Lords of Animation themselves.

[Serpentine]

Uh... yeah. I'm not sure I'd put it as one of the best Disney movies ever - nor even one of the best Disney princess movies ever - but it still felt like a Disney princess movie, and a good, solid one. A long, long way from "TOTAL GARBAGE". I liked it.
And year, Mother Knows Best was a very dark song.

[TheArsenal]

Let me explain on the Antagonist:

I think she lacked Subtlety, she felt bouncing off the walls "Im Manipulating you!" rather than small and subtle jabs that discourage. She made me feal annoyed rather than threatened (Being scared of manipulation is still intimidation). Muntz From Up Is a good example of a villain that while physicaly pathetic, has an aura of Psychosis and threat that leaves a GREAT impression.
And Again, I hated Mother Knows Best. If it was slower, and less bouncy, then maybe I would have liked it. Otherwise she merely annoyed me.

I found the self awareness grating, I know what its trying to achieve, but I believe it failed at it and tried over and over failing each time. Like the frying Pan gag. "Hey look where tapdancing around the issue that parents are paranoid of children seeing blood, and that being threated by a sword is a empty threat since we all know everybody is going to suffer NO damage".

The Movie lacked variant tones, like sadness or morose tones. Like what if the bar scene had the guys sing about their DESTROYED dreams? Like a guy that wanted to be a pianist but lost his fingers? Or a guy found love but was scard so she left him? Each song was as equally cheery and happy and lacking variation.

[Weezer]

Let me explain on the Antagonist:

I think she lacked Subtlety, she felt bouncing off the walls "Im Manipulating you!" rather than small and subtle jabs that discourage. She made me feal annoyed rather than threatened (Being scared of manipulation is still intimidation). Muntz From Up Is a good example of a villain that while physicaly pathetic, has an aura of Psychosis and threat that leaves a GREAT impression.
And Again, I hated Mother Knows Best. If it was slower, and less bouncy, then maybe I would have liked it. Otherwise she merely annoyed me.

I found the self awareness grating, I know what its trying to achieve, but I believe it failed at it and tried over and over failing each time. Like the frying Pan gag. "Hey look where tapdancing around the issue that parents are paranoid of children seeing blood, and that being threated by a sword is a empty threat since we all know everybody is going to suffer NO damage".

The Movie lacked variant tones, like sadness or morose tones. Like what if the bar scene had the guys sing about their DESTROYED dreams? Like a guy that wanted to be a pianist but lost his fingers? Or a guy found love but was scard so she left him? Each song was as equally cheery and happy and lacking variation.

What I liked best about Mother Knows Best is the juxtaposition of a happy, upbeat sound and the dark lyrics.

Do you really expect subtlety from Disney villains? Of the classic Disney villains I can't think of a single subtle one, Jaffar was your stereotypical gotee'd evil wizard, Scar was obviously evil from the get go even before he killed Mufasa, the list goes on. There are places where subtle villains work and are to be expected, I myself tend to enjoy them more than unsubtle ones, but Disney is not the place for it.

I for one enjoy meta-humor, when characters subtly tweak the fourth wall and incorporate awareness that they're in a movie into their humor. If that's not the type of humor you like, then I can see how this wouldn't appeal to you, it's chock full of meta.

[TheArsenal]

[QUOTE=Weezer;10995792]What I liked best about Mother Knows Best is the juxtaposition of a happy, upbeat sound and the dark lyrics.

I found the melody TOO upbeat, it just sounded annoying to me.


Do you really expect subtlety from Disney villains?

Well I realized that I was thinking of Pixar.


I for one enjoy meta-humor, when characters subtly tweak the fourth wall and incorporate awareness that they're in a movie into their humor. If that's not the type of humor you like, then I can see how this wouldn't appeal to you, it's chock full of meta.

I found the meta humor POOR. I LIKE meta humor, but not In ways like this.

[Dienekes]

Well I realized that I was thinking of Pixar.

*Thinks back on Syndrome, Hopper, and Sid.* Yes, their villains scream subtlety.

Now I haven't seen the movie but I've heard Mother Knows Best and it's about as subtle as Poor Unfortunate Souls, maybe a bit more. And Ursula was a great villain.

[The Glyphstone]

*Thinks back on Syndrome, Hopper, and Sid.* Yes, their villains scream subtlety.

Now I haven't seen the movie but I've heard Mother Knows Best and it's about as subtle as Poor Unfortunate Souls, maybe a bit more. And Ursula was a great villain.

Stinky Pete and Lotsa Huggin' were subtle enough, though - Randall was about as un-subtle as you could get, but Henry J. Waternoose made up for it. AUTO wasn't very subtle, but he wasn't in-your-face villainy either.

[Kislath]

I thought it was great, but dangerous; Frying pans can VERY easily kill someone. I shudder at the thought of dead little kids everywhere who knew better than to play with knives or guns, but thought pans are funny.

[TheArsenal]

*Thinks back on Syndrome, Hopper, and Sid.* Yes, their villains scream subtlety.

Now I haven't seen the movie but I've heard Mother Knows Best and it's about as subtle as Poor Unfortunate Souls, maybe a bit more. And Ursula was a great villain.

Not Every one. I actualy enjoy max.

And Dont you DARE compare poor unfortunate souls to "Mother knows best"

[Dienekes]

Not Every one. I actualy enjoy max.

And Dont you DARE compare poor unfortunate souls to "Mother knows best"

Poor Unfortunate Souls is a much better song, agreed. However the villain is trying to be sneaky masking her desires to get a deal and that song is about as subtle as a hammer to the forehead.

[VanBuren]

And Dont you DARE compare poor unfortunate souls to "Mother knows best"

When people make demands like this, all it does is make me really want to make that comparison, and make the hated version out to be better. Poor Unfortunate Souls was the better song in this case, but I have absolutely no sacred reverence for it.

Anyway, I thought the villain was brilliant in her manipulation. All those little cutting remarks that she says are just "jokes"? I've totally met people like that.

Also Flynn was a lovable rogue, and who doesn't enjoy one of those characters? And his major moment of heroism at the end? Simple, but awesome.

[Mauve Shirt]

I thought Gothel was an excellent villain. And Mother Knows Best reminded me a LOT of Poor Unfortunate Souls, in rhythm and such. The visuals were amazing, I think in a lot of ways the animation was better than Toy Story 3 (though TS3 was a better movie overall imho). And of course Maximus was awesome.

[Lyra Reynolds]

Mother Gothel reminded me very strongly of Frollo, who imo was one of the nastier Disney villains. She also had shades of Scar, particularly when he guilt-tripped Simba, making him think HE was the one who caused Mufasa's death.
What makes Gothel a nasty villainess is the REALISM of her evil: the taunts, the 'teasing', the subtly undermining of Rapunzel's selfconfidence. THAT's evil.

I also really liked that Rapunzel saved Flynn just as much, if not more so, than he saved her. Finally no longer a damsel in distress! There're also some subtle lampshade hangings, like Flynn giving this whole heartfelt "maybe we started off on the wrong foot" speech and Maximus just being completely unimpressed. It's classic Disney but at times it knows it and pokes gentle fun at it.

And to be honest I loved how classic Disney the whole film felt. The Art of Tangled book has pretty much an entire chapter of how they looked back to the older films, particularly Pinocchio and Cinderella, to base the look of Tangled on. It's old-school Disney in a new form, and I love it.

And the floating lantern scene was pure magic and I won't hear otherwise.

[Katana_Geldar]

The floating lantern scene was so beautiful I cried.

[TheArsenal]

Well whatever, It doesn't matter that the public finds this movie good. I hope you continue to enjoy it.

But I hate the abomination.

[Serpentine]

It's not an abomination, and it's not total garbage. It's a movie that most people think is at worst average, that you don't like. That's it.

[ZombyWoof]

What I liked best about Mother Knows Best is the juxtaposition of a happy, upbeat sound and the dark lyrics.

Do you really expect subtlety from Disney villains? Of the classic Disney villains I can't think of a single subtle one, Jaffar was your stereotypical gotee'd evil wizard, Scar was obviously evil from the get go even before he killed Mufasa, the list goes on. There are places where subtle villains work and are to be expected, I myself tend to enjoy them more than unsubtle ones, but Disney is not the place for it.

I for one enjoy meta-humor, when characters subtly tweak the fourth wall and incorporate awareness that they're in a movie into their humor. If that's not the type of humor you like, then I can see how this wouldn't appeal to you, it's chock full of meta.
But see that's why Pixar is on such a different plane. Who was the villain of Cars?


Lightning McQueen.

[Themrys]

I thought it was great, but dangerous; Frying pans can VERY easily kill someone. I shudder at the thought of dead little kids everywhere who knew better than to play with knives or guns, but thought pans are funny.

Well, the film should have shown them that pans are dangerous weapons, right?

I liked Tangled. Flynn was a bit too much on the typical romance hero side...but his real name is comedy gold. :smallbiggrin:

And it was about time that Disney showed the kids the quite real dangers of manipulative people who try to pass their meanness off as a joke.

[Cheesegear]

I was actually surprised that a Disney cartoon, largely aimed at a child-like audience (at least, the majority of people who would go see it are...Not that old, certainly not in the session I went to), would go so far as to show an on-screen death of a major character.

But, the obvious lack of blood was obvious.

[Avilan the Grey]

It was TOTAL GARBAGE. This felt more like a parody of a Disney film than an actual one,

You know, where everybody is nice happy and bouncing? It felt like that.
The Jokes felt Stale, or where trying to be "Hip" and Breaking the forth wall, but failing at it.
The Antagonist's where pathetic, something that I consider very important.
The Songs where bland and forgettable (Lacking anything other than positive happy lovey dovey attitude)

I would have gave it a 3/5 if it wern't for The Princess and the Frog which managed to at least partially fulfill all the above.
So a Final grade of 2/5, I do NOT wish to see this movie again. Guess little kids would like this but I expect more from Disney now.

YMMV. I LOVE this one, it is definitely the first really good Disney since Emperor's New Groove. The jokes are hysterical, the characters are great, the animation is wonderful.


I thought it was great, but dangerous; Frying pans can VERY easily kill someone. I shudder at the thought of dead little kids everywhere who knew better than to play with knives or guns, but thought pans are funny.

Sorry, but I don't bite. I watched Loony Tunes and Tom & Jerry my entire childhood and I have never hit anyone with a frying pan yet.

[rakkoon]

Best Disney movie in ten years time.
They were due to get their groove back eventually but it took awhile.
Sorry you didn't like it but since I didn't like the last 12 or so I think it evens out in the end.

MAXIMUS, we love you!

[Serpentine]

Sorry, but I don't bite. I watched Loony Tunes and Tom & Jerry my entire childhood and I have never hit anyone with a frying pan yet.It demonstrated the dangers of anvils pretty well.

[Avilan the Grey]

I must say that my favorite animated movies the last 12 months has not been Pixar!

Despicable Me
Megamind
Tangled

and above all

How To Train Your Dragon

are all wonderful movies that really shows that both Disney and Dreamworks have reached Pixar's standard.

[Brother Oni]

are all wonderful movies that really shows that both Disney and Dreamworks have reached Pixar's standard.

I'm just wondering when one of those studios will finally take the plunge and produce something aimed at older children, or even the young adult market, like Studio Ghibili.

Up comes very close and I can see the case for it breaking the mold, but that's looking from an adult's perspective on the movie, rather than being accessible to the target age range.

I doubt that Disney/Pixar or Dreamworks will produce anything like Mononoke Hime, let alone something like Grave of the Fireflies or Only Yesterday.

Mentioning Pom Poko would be unfair. :smalltongue:

[Avilan the Grey]

I'm just wondering when one of those studios will finally take the plunge and produce something aimed at older children, or even the young adult market, like Studio Ghibili.

Why would they when half their audience is adults without the company of kids?
Or to put it another way: They already ARE.

(Edit: to be fair I have not heard of any of the movies or companies you mention, but that doesn't really change the fact: Both Disney / Pixar and Dreamorks are already producing animated movies for adults.
By the sound of the names the companies and movies you list are Anime, yes?)

[Mauve Shirt]

You know, Arsenal, you've made a lot of threads screaming about things you hate. What do you like?

[Obrysii]

Despicable Me
Megamind
Tangled
How To Train Your Dragon

Yes! All four are solid movies, that even people in their 20s and older enjoy.

[Tirian]

And it was about time that Disney showed the kids the quite real dangers of manipulative people who try to pass their meanness off as a joke.

I gave a pass to the frying pan violence, but I do have to say that I was less than charmed with the theme of "You're a grown teenager, so thwart your mother and go have a secret adventure with that guy you just met! Everything will work out in the end!!!"

[Serpentine]

If your mother is keeping you locked up in a tower away from any other human contact, yeah, I think that's not a bad message.

[TheArsenal]

You know, Arsenal, you've made a lot of threads screaming about things you hate. What do you like?

Quiet Personal Stuff....

I liked Paranoia Agent. I like all Music (Except for most rap and some recent pop), I like most anime, I liked Scott Pilgrim, I liked All other Disney and Pixar Films except for this one (Well most of them), I like Rahl Dahl books, I like Bioshock, Portal, Most Videogames, Fish, Cats, Sushi, Plants, Dancing, Singing, Acting, Some books.

I Make things about stuff I hate but I also wrote threads about things I liked. Those disappeared in weeks. I talk about things that I like but what is there to discuss? Guess hatred attracts more attention then praise. I post online since I have not much people to talk to in real life, so I scream here to avoid screaming at people close to me.

[Brother Oni]

Why would they when half their audience is adults without the company of kids?
Or to put it another way: They already ARE.

(Edit: to be fair I have not heard of any of the movies or companies you mention, but that doesn't really change the fact: Both Disney / Pixar and Dreamorks are already producing animated movies for adults.
By the sound of the names the companies and movies you list are Anime, yes?)

Yes, but the adult component of their audience isn't the intended target. Anything that appeals to adults is usually inadvertent or the adults are more than happy to sit through something intended for children.

Compare to the Wallace and Gromit films by Aardman studios. While intended for children, they add little things in to keep the adults amused (off the top of my head, some of the dialogue in Curse of the Were-rabbit will fly straight over the heads of children, as does the 'May contain nuts' on the box a naked Wallace uses to cover himself).

However neither actually aim their movies for older children and adults in the same way as Studio Ghibli sometimes does.

The films I mentioned are anime - here's some info about what I mean specifically:


Studio Ghibili (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_Ghibli) - premier animation studio from Japan. Pixar is very much inspired by them; they have this up on the Studio Ghibili Musuem walls (http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kz1evbcM1f1qam639o1_500.jpg), all signed by Pixar staff, plus Totoro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Neighbor_Totoro) has a cameo in Toy Story 3.

Mononoke Hime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mononoke_hime) - supernatural period drama set in Japan, focusing on the conflict between the old nature spirits and the new age of steel being brought by the humans.
Not intended for small children (the opening scene with the infected boar spirit scared my children so much, they refused to watch the rest of it) both in tone and depiction, it's still fairly close to a typical adventure story made by the western studios and the base story could be made suitable for younger children with a bit of work, rather than the intended older audience.

Grave of the Fireflies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grave_of_the_fireflies) - WWII drama about a pair of orphans in the aftermath of the Kobe firebombings. As happy and cheery as it sounds with a matching ending, it can be watched by children, but would be regarded as slow and boring.

Only Yesterday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_Yesterday_%281991_film%29) - an office worker returns home for a holiday and becomes nostalgic for her childhood days. This is an unusual one as it's more a drama in animated form, well outside the normal topics covered by animation and is aimed at adults.

Pom Poko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pom_Poko) - this one is aimed at children and could be directly brought to the west, provided you can get past the raccoon-dog testicles. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Actually, it's my understanding that Pixar is deliberately shifting its focus to at least include older audiences - I've heard statistics of some sort that suggest that a major component of Pixar's audience (as in, approaching 50% or something like that) is older people. Thus, I suppose, Up.
I do know what you mean, though, about cartoons aimed at adults. I would be interested in seeing it.

[Avilan the Grey]

Exactly; if you look at the movies you see that more than half the dialogue and jokes are tailored to adults, these days. They know where their paying audience is.

[Brother Oni]

Actually, it's my understanding that Pixar is deliberately shifting its focus to at least include older audiences - I've heard statistics of some sort that suggest that a major component of Pixar's audience (as in, approaching 50% or something like that) is older people. Thus, I suppose, Up.
I do know what you mean, though, about cartoons aimed at adults. I would be interested in seeing it.

I agree that Up and The Incredibles are both not aimed at the same audience as Bug's Life or Toy Story, so Pixar are working on it. They'd probably limit themselves to Aardman studio limits though, as it doesn't make good financial sense to exclude their primary audience, a major issue for public companies.


Exactly; if you look at the movies you see that more than half the dialogue and jokes are tailored to adults, these days. They know where their paying audience is.

There's a difference between tagging things on the end so they get the adults in and designing it from the start for adults.

[Illieas]

saw it this weekend as well.

It had weird combination of shrek comedy and disney princess standards. it in general was very nice if a bit formulaic. the villian song for what ever reason seem to sound like "master of the house" from les miserables. I thought it was enjoyable with some good highs. I loved the just left her tower scene (where she alternates between exteremely happy and extreme guilt). lanterns scene. the near death scene. The horse scenes and the Tavern scene were just too odd to make me find it that believable. i think it would be 3.5/5. i like it may watch again not sure if it is a disney classic just yet.

[Avilan the Grey]

There's a difference between tagging things on the end so they get the adults in and designing it from the start for adults.

And?

One is not better than the other.

[Brother Oni]

And?

One is not better than the other.

I never said it was.

They're aimed at two different audiences, so they're different from the start.

Tagging on smart-alec dialogue and a couple of adult references doesn't change the target audience or the basic themes of the story.

Let's compare Up with Only Yesterday:

Up is about the regrets of an old man and his finally deciding to do something about them. Along the way, he makes his house fly with helium balloons, has conversations with semi-intelligent dogs and chases a strange large flightless bird about the place.

Only Yesterday is about the regrets of an office worker, reflecting back on the hopes and dreams of her childhood. Along the way, she goes home on holiday and talks to her old childhood friends and parents.

On the surface they're covering the same themes (bear with me, I'm stretching it a lot here), but the way they do it is completely different because they're intended for different people.

Up is intended for children but has elements that appeal to adults.
Only Yesterday is intended for adults with limited appeal to children.

I'd like to re-iterate that neither approach is better than the other, just that they're different. In my original post, I was wondering how a western company would execute the 'intended for adults' approach and what sort of film it would be.

[Avilan the Grey]

I never said it was.

They're aimed at two different audiences, so they're different from the start(...)

My point is... why should they do those kind of movies? There is no shame in not doing them. You might as well ask why Quentin Tarantino doesn't do movies for kids?

[VanBuren]

My point is... why should they do those kind of movies? There is no shame in not doing them. You might as well ask why Quentin Tarantino doesn't do movies for kids?

Is he capable of doing that?

[TheArsenal]

My point is... why should they do those kind of movies?

To have fun with more closely knit families? I donno, I enjoy watching stuff thats more lighthearted. It also bugs me that the fantastical is always attached to children. Like that only the real life is for adults.

[Serpentine]

My point is... why should they do those kind of movies?Well, while I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with movies for kids - indeed, children's media is often grossly underated - I personally would like to see Pixar do something adult at least for starters just to see what they could do, what it would be like.
To counter your question: why should they limit themselves to kids' movies? Why shouldn't they help bring to the West the adult animated film genre(?) which is doing so well in the East?

[The Glyphstone]

Probably because it'd be at a very high risk of bombing, simply due to the sheer inertia of the Animation Age Ghetto. Pixar's the closest America has to pushing the boundaries of the Ghetto, but we have to remember that they're still out for the money as much as for making good movies.

[Avilan the Grey]

To have fun with more closely knit families? I donno, I enjoy watching stuff thats more lighthearted. It also bugs me that the fantastical is always attached to children. Like that only the real life is for adults.

And I don't see that. I might just be a very childish person, but most of the time I see a "grown up fairytale" I tend to be disappointed because it's too dark and disgusting.

If I want "Fantastic For Adults" and aren't in the mood for Pixar etc I can watch Avatar, Star Trek, Star Wars or play Mass Effect...

[Mauve Shirt]

"Up" was the greatest I think because it hit chords with adults without banging them over the head with "subtle" sex jokes every scene. It was focused on children, that's true, but I see nothing wrong with Disney focusing on children's movies. It's what they do. Why get mad at them for it?
Get mad at them for the awful live action shows on the Disney Channel. :smalltongue:

[TheArsenal]

Get mad at them for the awful live action shows on the Disney Channel. :smalltongue:

You said it! Bring back cartoons!

[Dvandemon]

Quiet Personal Stuff....

I liked Paranoia Agent. I like all Music (Except for most rap and some recent pop), I like most anime, I liked Scott Pilgrim, I liked All other Disney and Pixar Films except for this one (Well most of them), I like Rahl Dahl books, I like Bioshock, Portal, Most Videogames, Fish, Cats, Sushi, Plants, Dancing, Singing, Acting, Some books.

I Make things about stuff I hate but I also wrote threads about things I liked. Those disappeared in weeks. I talk about things that I like but what is there to discuss? Guess hatred attracts more attention then praise. I post online since I have not much people to talk to in real life, so I scream here to avoid screaming at people close to me.

Hatred would attract more attention than praise if everyone seems to disagree with you.

EDIT: Honestly you shouldn't have to scream at the people close to you. Talking to them about your opinions, no matter how different shouldn't be damaging to your relatonships. All your threads about things you hate come to a head of, "I just don't like it". You never seem to elaborate on that, never really go into why X sucks and then, after everyone shows their disagreement objectively state your opinion does not match everyone elses. It's rather tedious.

[Joran]

"Up" was the greatest I think because it hit chords with adults without banging them over the head with "subtle" sex jokes every scene. It was focused on children, that's true, but I see nothing wrong with Disney focusing on children's movies. It's what they do. Why get mad at them for it?
Get mad at them for the awful live action shows on the Disney Channel. :smalltongue:

The beginning and the middle of Up hit me especially hard as a mid 20's newlywed. With my new daditude, I'm frightened by how I'll react on re-watching Finding Nemo. I'll probably cry or some other unmanly behavior.

Tangled was a worthy successor to the Disney Princess tradition, but was extremely formulaic. The Climax was a nice wrinkle and completely unexpected, but otherwise, I knew what plot points were coming and when.

Like Illieas, I didn't much like the Snuggly Duckling parts; it just felt out of place and forced. There were a couple soft spots here and there but the Lantern scene and the Climax were superb. I definitely think the strength of the movie is the relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn; it felt pretty realistic. Rapunzel was a good mix of spunk and naivete and Flynn was a good mix of bombast with a current of vulnerability.

P.S. I could have sworn that Enchanted was going to be the last Princess movie evar, but apparently not.

[DeadManSleeping]

I think I have to agree with the OP about it seeming like a pastiche of a disney princess movie. And that's why I liked it.

Romantic hero: Knows exactly what his dramatic role is, does it on purpose, and is aware that it's kind of silly.
Princess: Exerts an aura of charm/innocence on the world around her, and seems perfectly aware of how that works out for her. The Snuggly Duckling showcases this, but she totally seems to do it on purpose other times. Also, her moodiness is totally lampshaded.
Max: The logical extreme of semisentient animals (the chameleon played it straight, though). I think Flynn missed his chance to lampshade it outside the "this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever done" scene, but still.

Also, I know I'm the only person in the world who can say this, but I really did enjoy a good amount of the music. Rapunzel's song about her daily schedule is just pleasant to listen to. "Mother Knows Best" is fun as well (the reprise felt a bit weak, though). "I Have a Dream" has some of my favorite jokes from the movie.

[Katana_Geldar]

Personally, I think Toy Story 3 was aimed at older audiences, particularly those who had gorwn up with the franchise (and maybe we around Andy's age) and thus could associate the whole growing up and giving away one's toys.

[VanBuren]

Personally, I think Toy Story 3 was aimed at older audiences, particularly those who had gorwn up with the franchise (and maybe we around Andy's age) and thus could associate the whole growing up and giving away one's toys.

I think Toy Story was the exception for that very reason: because so many of the potential audience had grown up with the franchise.

[Katana_Geldar]

There were people who complained that it was "too dark for kids" forgetting:

1) A lot of the people seeing it would be older and were fans of the first one
2) Some kids like being scared.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think I have to agree with the OP about it seeming like a pastiche of a disney princess movie. And that's why I liked it.

Romantic hero: Knows exactly what his dramatic role is, does it on purpose, and is aware that it's kind of silly.
Princess: Exerts an aura of charm/innocence on the world around her, and seems perfectly aware of how that works out for her. The Snuggly Duckling showcases this, but she totally seems to do it on purpose other times. Also, her moodiness is totally lampshaded.
Max: The logical extreme of semisentient animals (the chameleon played it straight, though). I think Flynn missed his chance to lampshade it outside the "this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever done" scene, but still.


I only agree on Flynn (and maybe Maximus, although he is only lampshades because of Flynn).
Flynn is the fourth wall breaker and the genre-savvy one. Rapunzel's innocence is genuine. The other genre-savvy character is not her, but mother Gothel.

[TheArsenal]

Just if Movie pointed out the REAL cliches then the movie would be MUCH better.

"Yah yah, "I want Mooooore, I want to see the world!" heard it before"

"I know you for less then THREE days. I don't care how suggestive these lanterns are, I DON'T LOVE YOU"

"So how will your parents recognize you now? Your Brunette, years older then they can recognize, and lack magical powers!"

"Hey, we possibly flooded a village!"

"How did an old lady with a branch defeat two viscous cutthroats?"

"Why didn't you kill me and attach me to the ship instead of knocking me out?"

[Joran]

Just if Movie pointed out the REAL cliches then the movie would be MUCH better.

"Yah yah, "I want Mooooore, I want to see the world!" heard it before"

"I know you for less then THREE days. I don't care how suggestive these lanterns are, I DON'T LOVE YOU"

"So how will your parents recognize you now? Your Brunette, years older then they can recognize, and lack magical powers!"

"Hey, we possibly flooded a village!"

"How did an old lady with a branch defeat two viscous cutthroats?"

"Why didn't you kill me and attach me to the ship instead of knocking me out?"

Would this include winking suggestively at the audience? Breaking the fourth wall is something that should be done within reason, not all the gosh darn time. Doing it too many times invokes cynicism on the part of audience not to take the movie seriously.

If you want a deconstruction of Princess movies, watch Enchanted. Tangled is what it is, another straightforward princess movie, with a couple of neat twists. I for one enjoyed the capable Princess who ends up saving the love interest.

P.S. Rapunzel shares the sames eyes and hair color as her mother. The familial likeness is obvious and it's awesome that her parents immediately recognize her.

[Avilan the Grey]

Just if Movie pointed out the REAL cliches then the movie would be MUCH better.

"Yah yah, "I want Mooooore, I want to see the world!" heard it before"

"I know you for less then THREE days. I don't care how suggestive these lanterns are, I DON'T LOVE YOU"

"So how will your parents recognize you now? Your Brunette, years older then they can recognize, and lack magical powers!"

"Hey, we possibly flooded a village!"

"How did an old lady with a branch defeat two viscous cutthroats?"

"Why didn't you kill me and attach me to the ship instead of knocking me out?"

1. It might be cliche, but a valid one. This motive for doing something is very realistic, in fact.

2. Hey I don't mind; I fell in love with my wife over the Internet in two weeks. If that can happen, 3 days of intense company (almost getting killed together and saving each other do wonders at bringing people together. For real.

3. You mean apart from the fact that Disney actually made her look like their daughter? She is very realistically looking like she is related to her mother.

4. No Endor Holocaust. I guess. Or there simpy were no villages downstream of the dam that were in a position to be flooded?

5. I don't remember a scene like that? I remember a midle-aged lady with a knife and an even sharper wit fooling two rather stupid cut-throats into working for her.

6. Because Mother Gothel wanted the pleasure of telling Rapunzel that he would hang, and be able to crush her with it. Also, by letting the authorities kill him, they won't have the guards investigating a murder right outside the city and maybe find clues to track them?

[Mauve Shirt]

Just if Movie pointed out the REAL cliches then the movie would be MUCH better.

"Yah yah, "I want Mooooore, I want to see the world!" heard it before"

"I know you for less then THREE days. I don't care how suggestive these lanterns are, I DON'T LOVE YOU"

"So how will your parents recognize you now? Your Brunette, years older then they can recognize, and lack magical powers!"

"Hey, we possibly flooded a village!"

"How did an old lady with a branch defeat two viscous cutthroats?"

"Why didn't you kill me and attach me to the ship instead of knocking me out?"

If they did that, it would be Enchanted. Not a "classic" Disney Princess movie, which is what they were trying to do (and I think they succeeded). If you don't want a cliched movie featuring wanting something more, true love at first sight and magical good luck, don't watch a Disney Princess movie. Maybe you were expecting a Shrek movie, but that's not what they were making.
I thought her I Want song was pretty lame, but she's got a dang good reason for wanting more.

[FlashRah]

I agree. Completely overhyped. There hasn't been a good kids film since Aladdin.

[Serpentine]

I agree. Completely overhyped. There hasn't been a good kids film since Aladdin.Uh... Have you seen Pixar movies? :smallconfused:
This statement... it totally boggles my mind. In my opinion, kids' movies are just getting better and better.

[FlashRah]

Uh... Have you seen Pixar movies? :smallconfused:
This statement... it totally boggles my mind. In my opinion, kids' movies are just getting better and better.

Yes I've seen Pixar movies unfortunately. That money could have been spent on something fun... like the new LCD Soundsystem album...

[Serpentine]

Amazing.
Well, I guess with nearly 7 billion people in the world, one can only expect there to be a few...

[FlashRah]

Amazing.
Well, I guess with nearly 7 billion people in the world, one can only expect there to be a few...

Just for curiosities sake what exactly am I "missing out on"? In other words, what do you see in these movies that I clearly don't.

[Serpentine]

Beautiful animation, great stories, often (particularly Pixar) really original stories, heartstring-tugging, humour for all ages, references and themes that appeal to older viewers, likeable characters, surprisingly "grey" villains... I think Toy Story 3 and Up are among the best movies ever made, much less the best kids' movies.

[FlashRah]

Different strokes for different folks then.

[Jahkaivah]

I agree. Completely overhyped. There hasn't been a good kids film since Aladdin.


Yes I've seen Pixar movies unfortunately. That money could have been spent on something fun... like the new LCD Soundsystem album...


Different strokes for different folks then.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/shakes_no.gif

[TheArsenal]

1. It might be cliche, but a valid one. This motive for doing something is very realistic, in fact.

Im saying the WAY it was implemented was cliche.


2. Hey I don't mind; I fell in love with my wife over the Internet in two weeks. If that can happen, 3 days of intense company (almost getting killed together and saving each other do wonders at bringing people together. For real.

Wow. Happy life then. Still I doubt that the Gal would fall in love with the guy.


3. You mean apart from the fact that Disney actually made her look like their daughter? She is very realistically looking like she is related to her mother.

Look at a Picture of Yourself at 3...No wait 3 months (She would have aged into nothing if it took her 3 years to get the Girl....Which Brings in the disturbing Idea that She was BORN looking like that.) and at 18 years. See a difference? Plus she was with a rouge who most likely was just exploiting somebody that looked SIMILAR to the mother to gain access to riches.



4. No Endor Holocaust. I guess. Or there simpy were no villages downstream of the dam that were in a position to be flooded?

Just riffing here.


5. I don't remember a scene like that? I remember a midle-aged lady with a knife and an even sharper wit fooling two rather stupid cut-throats into working for her.

So they agreed with her to let her knock them out? WHY!



6. Because Mother Gothel wanted the pleasure of telling Rapunzel that he would hang, and be able to crush her with it. Also, by letting the authorities kill him, they won't have the guards investigating a murder right outside the city and maybe find clues to track them?

And if Flynn Slipped his tongue then he WOULD lead them strait to her tower.

[SuperPanda]

Personally I thought Tangled was a fun and silly Disney film that was laughing at itself half the way while still spinning a solid yarn.

Point 1: So your upset because a company which is founded upon delivering cliche's in a cliched way did something cliched?

I don't really get what the complaint is. The character of Rapunzel in Tangled had a very real motivation "I want to see what is outside of my safety zone" which fits perfectly with the target age group, her represented age, and with the background of her character.

Thing is, this cliche is wrapped up in a less often told story which is very much real and at the heart of Tangled. The story behind that motivation is of an insecure youth trying to establish them self in a world they've been taught to fear. Coming of Age is never easy, and when you've had your support and authority figures purposefully undermining that it can be very difficult. At a subconscious level Rapunzel realizes that she has to get out because where she is is not good for her, but she's scared to do it (hence why she never has).

Cliche? Sure, but find me a film which isn't groundbreaking that isn't based around some of those.

Point 2: If this wasn't Disney I'd be more willing to agree with you there. That said, things like this can come over people suddenly especially when they are intense situations. If Flynn had kept being Flynn I don't think she would have fallen for him, I think it changed when he stopped acting.

Actually I think Flynn is interesting as a character because they set up in the film that his fourth wall breaking, genre savy, personality is actually an act. Its very possible that he doesn't know there really is an audience out there but instead is just trying to really be his own bedtime story hero. When he drops that persona and lets her meet the real guy... well, they actually have a lot in common and help each other through a lot.

For a Disney love plot I think it was fantastically well handled. Complaining because the romance was too short... well, go back and watch Aladdin again. Similar set up, roguish commoner and sheltered princess looking to see the world. Aladdin charms her out of a bind (Rapanzel does the same for Flynn here) and then she's smitten with him. Gets mad because he lied to her (after falling for him because he lied for her) and then falls for him again when he shows off all his new magic toys. Tangled did the love arch pretty well.

Note for the internet: I like Aladdin, I find it fun and sweet. I don't think its a great love story though.

3: Its a cartoon... its not suppose to hold up to science (heck, neither is science fiction anymore).

Still: Momma and Dad know that Gothel stole her, this doesn't seem to be common knowledge to anyone else. Gothel is found dead and a girl of the right age shows up at the same time. Snuggling duck people can confirm that Rapunzel and Flynn were seen together and note Rapunzel's hair. The now de-magicked hair is still in the tower. Confirms story. Flynn (wanted thief) turns himself in and gives back what he stole as part of the story (possibly sacrificing his life for the girl a second time), which gives the whole thing credibility. Lastly, Maxiums would vouch for her, and would you really question his word?

Should they have shown some of that? Yes, I'd have liked it. Is the conclusion hard to swallow? No not really.

Point 4: No indication in the film one way or another. If you didn't like this you must hate pretty much all action films out there... they are much worse.

Then again so is Portal and I love Portal (partially because of this).

Point 5: Lets see... crazy old lady promises the thug men the crown they stole (lotsa money), revenge on Flynn, and to let them use Rapunzel's magic hair to keep themselves alive for a long time with which to spend their money in exchange for playing along with Gothel.

The thugs aren't bright, they don't suspect a double cross. Its not clear if they agreed to let her knock them out so that Rapunzel goes back without fighting - Gothel would prefer Rapunzel think this is her choice - or if they just agreed to help and then Gothel got some sneak attacks in from her levels as an Arcane Trickster. Either way you have what is really just a subtler part of Gothel's character that is easy to miss if your looking for faults instead of looking for why things are where they are.

Point 6 - Gothel shows shortly after this that she doesn't intend to stay at the tower. The psychological power of using even good aspects of the outside world to scare Rapunzel is far more valuable to her than killing Flynn herself. Or, possibly, the thugs insisted that he be sent to the authorities so that they are no longer being hunted.

Even if Flynn talks, no one is going to believe him (and they don't). They will think its the convicted criminal trying to spin any yard he can to save his skin.

So, no real danger there and bases covered. The only thing she didn't count on was Flynn Rider turning out to really be a hero after all (both in the escape and in his sacrifice).

So, I personally liked it. It was nice to see that the horse from The Road to El Dorado is still getting work these days.

[Dvandemon]

Im saying the WAY it was implemented was cliche. So flipping what? Use of cliches does not an abomination make.

Wow. Happy life then. Still I doubt that the Gal would fall in love with the guy.Then that's your problem. People have fallen in love in shorter time in other movies
Look at a Picture of Yourself at 3...No wait 3 months (She would have aged into nothing if it took her 3 years to get the Girl....Which Brings in the disturbing Idea that She was BORN looking like that.) and at 18 years. See a difference? Plus she was with a rogue who most likely was just exploiting somebody that looked SIMILAR to the mother to gain access to riches. What does a baby have to do with anything? We're talking about someone identical in adulthood.EDIT: Are you changing subjects? Who was born looking like what, after aging into nothing?
Just riffing here.
Yeah don't do that. Frankly, dams don't always have to have a town downstream. It looked like it was dammed so they could mine the place
So they agreed with her to let her knock them out? WHY!?
They agreed to work with her, she double-crossed and knocked them out. So what?
And if Flynn Slipped his tongue then he WOULD lead them strait to her tower.

But would they believe him? What reason would they believe, "Hey! I may be tied up but some lady just kidnapped a young woman with really long blond hair after knocking out two of my former accomplices"

[FlashRah]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/shakes_no.gif

Is it so hard to believe?

[VanBuren]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/shakes_no.gif

I love everything about that gif.

[Brother Oni]

Is it so hard to believe?

Maybe if you detailed what you don't like about them, it'd help us understand rather than putting forth blanket statements about their lack of quality?

[FlashRah]

Maybe if you detailed what you don't like about them, it'd help us understand rather than putting forth blanket statements about their lack of quality?

There's really nothing I can say without going into detail for each and every movie and wouldn't that be off topic?

[Brother Oni]

There's really nothing I can say without going into detail for each and every movie and wouldn't that be off topic?

Ah, so it's not a generic dislike of the Pixar style of storytelling, but specific points unique to each individual movie?

While it seems a little incredible that every Disney/Pixar movie since Aladdin has enough sufficient flaws to make you dislike them individually, it's more understandable than a simple universal 'I think they're all crap'.

As for off-topic, I think there hasn't been much discussion on the original topic for a couple days now.

[FlashRah]

Ah, so it's not a generic dislike of the Pixar style of storytelling, but specific points unique to each individual movie?

While it seems a little incredible that every Disney/Pixar movie since Aladdin has enough sufficient flaws to make you dislike them individually, it's more understandable than a simple universal 'I think they're all crap'.

As for off-topic, I think there hasn't been much discussion on the original topic for a couple days now.

And I don't want Pixar fans jumping down my throat. I've seen some pretty rabid Pixar fans in my time, I'm not saying they're all like that I just don't want to take the risk.

And yes it is specific points with each movie. Though upon reflection the first Toy Story and The Incredibles were actually pretty good. I'm mostly thinking of their recent stuff.

[Brother Oni]

And I don't want Pixar fans jumping down my throat. I've seen some pretty rabid Pixar fans in my time, I'm not saying they're all like that I just don't want to take the risk.

And yes it is specific points with each movie. Though upon reflection the first Toy Story and The Incredibles were actually pretty good. I'm mostly thinking of their recent stuff.

Well, I'm a Pixar fan and I'm not like that. :smalltongue:

As Serpentine said, their more recent movies has shifted towards an older audience (I'm thinking of Up and Toy Story 3 here), or rather it's more inclusive of an older audience while remaining targetted at children. If you don't like that focus shift, it's entirely understandable.

[FlashRah]

Well, I'm a Pixar fan and I'm not like that. :smalltongue:

As Serpentine said, their more recent movies has shifted towards an older audience (I'm thinking of Up and Toy Story 3 here), or rather it's more inclusive of an older audience while remaining targetted at children. If you don't like that focus shift, it's entirely understandable.

I didn't notice a focus shift. All I noticed is that I didn't like those particular movies on their own traits. They all just happen to be Pixar. My complaints with, say Wall-E and Up, are vastly different.

[Brother Oni]

I didn't notice a focus shift. All I noticed is that I didn't like those particular movies on their own traits. They all just happen to be Pixar. My complaints with, say Wall-E and Up, are vastly different.

And now we're getting somewhere. :smallbiggrin:

In deference to your request not to be jumped up and down upon by rabid Pixar fans, I'll stop here, but at least now Jahkaivah's gif is somewhat unwarranted (although no less awesome) and your dislike of Pixar films is more understandable.

[Avilan the Grey]

And now we're getting somewhere. :smallbiggrin:

In deference to your request not to be jumped up and down upon by rabid Pixar fans, I'll stop here, but at least now Jahkaivah's gif is somewhat unwarranted (although no less awesome) and your dislike of Pixar films is more understandable.

Anyway, to each his own; I loved Aladdin when it came out but I realized very quickly that it was because of Genie, and only Genie.
The Lion King, Mulan, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet and Tangled all are better, I feel (only counting movies post-Aladdin). Less hysterical, but much better from a quality standpoint. Especially The Emperor's New Groove and Tangled stands out.

[Joran]

Anyway, to each his own; I loved Aladdin when it came out but I realized very quickly that it was because of Genie, and only Genie.
The Lion King, Mulan, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet and Tangled all are better, I feel (only counting movies post-Aladdin). Less hysterical, but much better from a quality standpoint. Especially The Emperor's New Groove and Tangled stands out.

Of all the Disney princess movies, I liked Aladdin the best, mostly because of the songs. For whatever reason, they're the ones that always stick in my mind whenever I think of fun Disney songs.

For Disney animated films after Aladdin, I liked Mulan (have to, I'm Chinese-American), Lilo and Stitch (love Hawaii and funny space aliens), and Bolt. I absolutely loved Enchanted too.

And I've basically liked every Pixar film other than Cars.

[VanBuren]

And now we're getting somewhere. :smallbiggrin:

In deference to your request not to be jumped up and down upon by rabid Pixar fans, I'll stop here, but at least now Jahkaivah's gif is somewhat unwarranted (although no less awesome) and your dislike of Pixar films is more understandable.

References to The Wire are never unwarranted.

[Flickerdart]

Tangled was a perfectly fine movie until the completely ridiculous ending. Why are her tears also magical? There's no reason that her entire body shouldn't be, but it's established that separated bits lose their power. It's not even a requirement to the story that Eugene survives, and yet they had to shoehorn it in. Ridiculous.

[Mauve Shirt]

Tangled was a perfectly fine movie until the completely ridiculous ending. Why are her tears also magical? There's no reason that her entire body shouldn't be, but it's established that separated bits lose their power. It's not even a requirement to the story that Eugene survives, and yet they had to shoehorn it in. Ridiculous.

In the original story, actually, her tears bring the prince his sight back after the witch blinds him. So I was alright with that part.

[Dvandemon]

Tangled was a perfectly fine movie until the completely ridiculous ending. Why are her tears also magical? There's no reason that her entire body shouldn't be, but it's established that separated bits lose their power. It's not even a requirement to the story that Eugene survives, and yet they had to shoehorn it in. Ridiculous.

While I didn't feel it was shoehorned (it's a disney movie, do you really expect a protagonist to die and stay dead?) I did feel some form of irritation, but then I read they did that in the original story too. Either way it didn't matter, because at that point I care enough about Eugene that I almost cried when she sung her Rhyme for him. The full capacity of her healing abilities are not known, they can pull anything they want as long as it doesn't break the established rules, tears=/= hair.

[Syka]

On Eugene's death: I saw it before my mom, and she goes "Oh my god, IS HE DEAD?" all heartbroken.

"Mom...it's a Disney movie."

"But does he die!?"

"...as I said, it's a Disney movie." *Eugene is resurrected*


It was worth it for that exchange.


I did adore Pascal and Max a lot, and generally liked Tangled a whole lot. Mostly 'cause it's a very interesting mix of traditional Disney Princess Movie and a deconstruction of that very same trope.


Oh, and you know it's a Disney movie when she first leaves the tower and you see the birds at the end of the song. Now THAT is Disney. :smallwink:

[Avilan the Grey]

Regarding the ending... My take on it was that this was the "flower's" last hurrah; it came to earth as a drop of "liquid", grew into a flower when landed, and when cut and made tea of, was absorbed (again, as liquid) by the queen. She then passed the power to her daughter while pregnant.
The power is now "stuck" in the daughter until released, and it is not released until she cries over his dead body. Once again the power becomes it's true form ("liquid") and flowers for one last time before going back to the sun.

Or something like that.

[Tirian]

On Eugene's death: I saw it before my mom, and she goes "Oh my god, IS HE DEAD?" all heartbroken.

"Mom...it's a Disney movie."

"But does he die!?"

"...as I said, it's a Disney movie." *Eugene is resurrected*


It was worth it for that exchange.

Good guys die in Disney movies, even in very recent ones. (This is me trying to avoid spoiling every Disney movie, although I suppose Tangled itself is pretty well spoiled now.)

I thought the ending was brilliant. It illustrated the sacrifices each were willing to make for the other and what they weren't willing to allow the other to give up, and in the end the only thing that was lost was the thorn that had been stuck in Rapunzel's side her entire life. One might even argue that Flynn Rider had to die so that Eugene Fitzherbert could fully live. The only part that I was meh about was Mother Gothel's death. Like Gaston before her, I thought she was more of a thug than a force of evil, and I'm not all about passing out the death penalty for that. An unnaturally long pathetic life would be an even more just punishment than what she got.

[Mewtarthio]

The only part that I was meh about was Mother Gothel's death. Like Gaston before her, I thought she was more of a thug than a force of evil, and I'm not all about passing out the death penalty for that. An unnaturally long pathetic life would be an even more just punishment than what she got.

Well, she did just stab a guy. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, premeditated murder is usually a pretty nasty thing to do. If the question is whether or not Flynn was justified in cutting Rapunzel's hair, you could argue that he was just trying to remove the one reason Gothel had to keep her locked up. I certainly wasn't expecting her to go all Walt Donovan, at any rate.

Of course, if Gaston's death made you uncomfortable, there's probably no way you'll accept Gothel's. The guy formed a lynch mob and tried to kill someone out of jealousy, then stabbed him in the back after surrendering. He's way more evil than Gothel.

[Tirian]

Of course, if Gaston's death made you uncomfortable, there's probably no way you'll accept Gothel's. The guy formed a lynch mob and tried to kill someone out of jealousy, then stabbed him in the back after surrendering. He's way more evil than Gothel.

Yeah, but they're both far less evil then Ursula or Maleficent. THAT is the sort of evil that needs to be stopped by a magic weapon straight through the heart. Gaston and Gothel could have been tied up and prosecuted by ordinary human justice, not sentenced to death by the Disney Court of Poetic Justice.

[VanBuren]

Yeah, but they're both far less evil then Ursula or Maleficent. THAT is the sort of evil that needs to be stopped by a magic weapon straight through the heart. Gaston and Gothel could have been tied up and prosecuted by ordinary human justice, not sentenced to death by the Disney Court of Poetic Justice.

They're a more subtle human evil.

Which makes them better villains IMO.

[Talya]

It was quite a good movie, I think. It was Disney catching up to Pixar, and I ADORE Pixar.


You realize it was a joint venture, yes?

When Disney paid Mr. Steve Jobs 8 billion dollars in its own shares to buy Pixar, they gave Steve enough shares that he became the single largest shareholder Disney has. He doesn't have a controlling interest, but he gets listened to, more than any other single Disney shareholder.

Apart from that, one of his stipulations during the takover was that Pixar retain its own creative control. Disney agreed wholeheartedly, and took it one step further. (Smart move for Disney.) Disney put Pixar's executive director of animation --some guy named John Lasseter, perhaps you've heard of him-- in a new role: Chief Creative Officer of Pixar and Disney Animation studios. That's right -- the man ultimately responsible for every movie Pixar ever made is now in charge of all Disney animation.

Tangled was the most expensive animated movie ever made. And John Lasseter was the reason why. Lasseter understood that both 3DCGI and traditional Cell-Shading animation techniques have advantages, and both have disadvantages. Rapunzel was going to bridge the gap --developing a new technique to allow for the "best of both worlds." Sure, they still wanted it to be a success in its own right -- but they weren't even sure it was going to turn a profit because of how much they spent developing new animation techniques for it, and they didn't care. The point wasn't only to make a good movie now, but to make future Disney and Pixar titles better.

[VanBuren]

You realize it was a joint venture, yes?

When Disney paid Mr. Steve Jobs 8 billion dollars in its own shares to buy Pixar, they gave Steve enough shares that he became the single largest shareholder Disney has. He doesn't have a controlling interest, but he gets listened to, more than any other single Disney shareholder.

Apart from that, one of his stipulations during the takover was that Pixar retain its own creative control. Disney agreed wholeheartedly, and took it one step further. (Smart move for Disney.) Disney put Pixar's executive director of animation --some guy named John Lasseter, perhaps you've heard of him-- in a new role: Chief Creative Officer of Pixar and Disney Animation studios. That's right -- the man ultimately responsible for every movie Pixar ever made is now in charge of all Disney animation.

Tangled was the most expensive animated movie ever made. And John Lasseter was the reason why. Lasseter understood that both 3DCGI and traditional Cell-Shading animation techniques have advantages, and both have disadvantages. Rapunzel was going to bridge the gap --developing a new technique to allow for the "best of both worlds." Sure, they still wanted it to be a success in its own right -- but they weren't even sure it was going to turn a profit because of how much they spent developing new animation techniques for it, and they didn't care. The point wasn't only to make a good movie now, but to make future Disney and Pixar titles better.

It can be justified as a business decision. Sure, this one project might turn to be a financial loss, but it innovates and creates techniques for future projects as you said, and it's not as though Disney doesn't have the capital to spare.

I understand that a great deal of it was for the artistic merits, but it's not simply a case of art triumphing over financial prudence, but a matter of long-term business strategy as well. It won't be nearly as expensive the next time they make a movie like this, and it's partly because they laid all the foundation work now.

[Talya]

It can be justified as a business decision. Sure, this one project might turn to be a financial loss, but it innovates and creates techniques for future projects as you said, and it's not as though Disney doesn't have the capital to spare.

I understand that a great deal of it was for the artistic merits, but it's not simply a case of art triumphing over financial prudence, but a matter of long-term business strategy as well. It won't be nearly as expensive the next time they make a movie like this, and it's partly because they laid all the foundation work now.

That's kinda what I said...