Disney's "Rapunzel" sexist rename?

[frogboy4]

Disney's upcoming "Rapunzel" film was renamed "Tangled" in an effort to encourage more boys to see it. The term Princess is big business for Disney, but that's in toys and the home video market. They didn't fare well with "Princess and the Frog" so they've decided to swap out the name. I'm not sure what to think. "Tangled" is a clever title for a film that's reportedly not the typical retelling of Rapunzel. I'll see it either way.

Here's the article.

 

[Drtooth]

They didn't fair well with Princess and the Frog because they released it at such a stupid time. Avatar kicked the snot out of them, and they gave the cushy November Thanksgiving spot (albeit early) to that horrid CGI Christmas Carol thing. And I REALLY have the feeling Disney just wanted to rush it to DVD ASAP because DVD sales are more important than box office now. So I never even got the chance to go and see it. Even Fantastic Mr. Fox, which was released to 3 theaters nation wide isn't on DVD yet. and that was released a month before Princess did.

The4 thing that worries me is that this really IS the nail in the coffin for Disney's non-CGI feature animated films. Nothing kills a franchise or directional change than a movie that didn't perform as well as it should have (due mostly to the poor release date).

 

[Super Scooter]

It's a shame "Princess and the Frog" did so poorly. I think it was the best Disney movie since "The Lion King!" Looooove the music, especially.

Not sure what I think of the change for Rapunzel. But, I will say that they had to change the title of "Princess and the Frog" too... and it didn't fare any better because of it. I just hope its dismal box office doesn't hurt the future of Disney animation.

 

[Drtooth]

It will. It sounds like another one of the blame the movie, not our mistakes move that will hamper any future movies. You know the same decisions that lead to silliness like "No movies with the letter D in the second word of a three to four word title unless the movie is PG rated and released mid-March" or "No movies that star anyone with an alliterative name as the main character as a female in yher 20's" and my personal favorite "This movie did soooo poorly we'll only make 3 THEATRICAL sequels and anything else will be DTV."

Disney has to face facts... for all the hype and merchandising and planning, they picked the STUPIDEST date to release it. Maybe they underestimated Avatar, maybe they just wanted to rush the thing to DVD for Easter... but whatever the reason, they dropped the ball and gave the movie the same poor timing treatment as Emperor's New Groove, a movie they pretended they didn't make.

Nowadays, movies are basically in theaters, no matter how successful, are there for a brief stay so they can put them on DVD's, to see how many lazy lumps want to just put it in their Netflix queue because they can't be bothered to go out to a movie anymore (That's right! People have become so lazy, they won't even leave the house to sit down!). Which sadly speaks more volumes than the people who actually go to theaters.

This honestly bugs me since Disney WAS heading for the right direction. They stopped their massive focus on 9-12 year old girls and actually reached out to other groups and fans. If the "poor" box office gross due to their poor judgment kills 2-D animation, I'm back to my original opinion of not caring about their roots, and just slopping out drivel for preschoolers and tweens. All and all, I have MORE reason to hate the slapdash Robert Zermekis Christmas Carol 3-D eye sore film... That's where Princess and the Frog SHOULD have been released.

 

[DanDanStrawberry]

That sounds pretty silly to me, I thought Rapunzel was supposed to be Disney going back to basics and telling a straight-forward fairytale with no shock twist and no modern slant or anything like that?

 

[mr3urious]

Nowadays, movies are basically in theaters, no matter how successful, are there for a brief stay so they can put them on DVD's, to see how many lazy lumps want to just put it in their Netflix queue because they can't be bothered to go out to a movie anymore (That's right! People have become so lazy, they won't even leave the house to sit down!). Which sadly speaks more volumes than the people who actually go to theaters.

Maybe some people just don't want to deal with the BS of movie theaters, like rowdy kids or other loud theater-goers.

 

[Mupp]

I'll be honest; as long as the story is strong, then I really don't care what the title is.

The fact is, the only thing that has has changed is the title, the story has not been affected.

Tangled sounds like one of those double meanings; The literal sense of tangled hair, and the idea of being tangled up in trouble.

Both Bolt and The Princess and the Frog had good stories, so as long as Tangled has a good story, I'm fine with the title change.

After all, a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

And don't worry, guys, I really don't think that are giving up on 2D animation. From what I gather, they will continue to make both hand-drawn and CGI films.

As a matter of fact, in 2011, there is supposed to be a new hand-drawn theatrical Winnie-the-Pooh film done in the same style as the original Pooh films.

 

[Drtooth]

Maybe some people just don't want to deal with the BS of movie theaters, like rowdy kids or other loud theater-goers.

I'd rather deal with that then to have to squint at my tiny television to listen to a movie in ear blistering mono. Sure, if you have all that good loud big television equipment, that's fine. Frankly the whole rush to DVD thing does NOTHING for people who actually WANT to go to the movies. if I wanted to watch TV, I'd watch my computer. When I wanna see a movie, I wanna see it how the creators, producers, directors and everyone envisioned it.

Really, even Astroboy and Planet 51 took longer to get to DVD. And those did terribly.

I'll be honest; as long as the story is strong, then I really don't care what the title is. The only thing that has has changed is the title, the story has not been affected.

Tangled sounds like one of those double meanings; The literal sense of tangled hair, and the idea of being tangled up in trouble.

Both Bolt and The Princess and the Frog had good stories, so as long as Tangled has a good story, I'm fine with the title change.

After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

I don't even think I'm gonna bother with that one, unless I hear something really good about it. I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of lame Shrek wanna be CGI Fracture Fairy Tales with a "'tude" that we've been absolutely bombarded with. Even the Jim Henson Company gave us a bunch. It's sooooo stale now. I wanna see something original.... or at least 2-D or stop motion puppet or something.

 

[Mupp]

I'd rather deal with that then to have to squint at my tiny television to listen to a movie in ear blistering mono. Sure, if you have all that good loud big television equipment, that's fine. Frankly the whole rush to DVD thing does NOTHING for people who actually WANT to go to the movies. if I wanted to watch TV, I'd watch my computer. When I wanna see a movie, I wanna see it how the creators, producers, directors and everyone envisioned it.

Really, even Astroboy and Planet 51 took longer to get to DVD. And those did terribly.



I don't even think I'm gonna bother with that one, unless I hear something really good about it. I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of lame Shrek wanna be CGI Fracture Fairy Tales with a "'tude" that we've been absolutely bombarded with. Even the Jim Henson Company gave us a bunch. It's sooooo stale now. I wanna see something original.... or at least 2-D or stop motion puppet or something.

I know exactly what you mean.

From what I hear, the story will of course not be the same as the Brothers Grim version.
Disney will of course be giving it some original touches, and apparently, the Rapunzel character is not going to be another passive heroine like Snow White.
But yeah, hopefully the film will not be another "hip" fairy tale.

I'll be honest though, I'm getting a little tired of fairy tales. I'm hoping that in the future Disney will do more original stories.

And yes, I agree with you; there is nothing like seeing a film in a movie theater in its intended form.

Its really sad that most people just like to watch movies on their computer these days. I think its true, people are getting lazy.

 

[Drtooth]

Disney movies don't ALWAYS need to be fairy tales. Look at the Lion King. It was based loosely off of some story (I found out about what years ago but forget)... and other than the unfortunate similarities between that and Jungle King Leo (Kimba the White Lion.. which, incidentally was this close to being named Simba as well) it did very very good. And Lilo and Stitch was an original idea, and was a real smash for Disney, and was a source of merchandising for years. The problem is, Disney just has a better track record with Fairy Tales, especially princess movies (especially since The Little Mermaid). What I want to see out of Disney is a movie featuring their OWN characters. It would be amazing to see some sort of movie version of the Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck (they tried condensing the entire thing into a Ducktales episode before)... or maybe do something based on one of the Italian Donald Duck comics (they made DTV CGI Tinkerbelle movie, after all... based off of Italian comics).

I'm saying there's a limitless source of their own characters, and I think an actual theatrical release would suit them well.