CGI goddess RAPUNZEL from TANGLED appreciation thread.

[Trekker4747]

:backs out of thread slowly:

[Corran Horn]

It's a beautiful looking blu-ray...much like "The Princess and the Frog" was. It almost looks 3D. (we did get the 4-disc blu-ray 3D combo pack, but have no 3D blu-ray player)

It's almost painful to watch the DVD transfers of "The Little Mermaid" and "The Lion King" now. They did have a blu-ray trailer for TLK on the "Tangled" blu-ray though.

[Broccoli]

I saw it this past weekend. I liked it a lot (despite some of the oddities and the deus ex machina towards the end there), but I guess I am in the minority that I found Repunzel to be the least interesting character in the film. I guess I was more invested in Flynn and Max.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kelso wrote:

---

Thanks, I just spit all over my keyboard!

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

Corran Horn wrote:

---

It's a beautiful looking blu-ray...much like "The Princess and the Frog" was. It almost looks 3D. (we did get the 4-disc blu-ray 3D combo pack, but have no 3D blu-ray player)

It's almost painful to watch the DVD transfers of "The Little Mermaid" and "The Lion King" now. They did have a blu-ray trailer for TLK on the "Tangled" blu-ray though.

Thanks for adding a positive review. With the weekend coming up it would be a great time for those who haven't seen it to settle in for nice little entertaining romp that TANGLED is.

[Worf2DS9]

Watched it last night and thought it was excellent. The animation was gorgeous, the voice cast excellent, and it was a nice spin on the Rapunzel story. The music and songs were also very good. I also liked the comic relief of Pascal & Max, and the stuff with the frying pan was amusing. The brutes from the tavern were funny too, especially the mime.

And despite this movie utilizing the latest CG animation, it somehow also had that old-school Disney feel to it. (I'd love to see what Aladdin would look like if it was made today with this technology.)

Definitely deserves to be included among the Disney classics. As I still have it for another day On-Demand, I'm going to watch it again tonight, but I'll be buying the DVD for sure.

I don't know if I'd classify Rapunzel a "goddess", but she was definitely cute and Mandy Moore enjoyably brought her to life.

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

Worf2DS9 wrote:

---

Watched it last night and thought it was excellent. The animation was gorgeous, the voice cast excellent, and it was a nice spin on the Rapunzel story. The music and songs were also very good. I also liked the comic relief of Pascal & Max, and the stuff with the frying pan was amusing. The brutes from the tavern were funny too, especially the mime.

And despite this movie utilizing the latest CG animation, it somehow also had that old-school Disney feel to it. (I'd love to see what Aladdin would look like if it was made today with this technology.)

Definitely deserves to be included among the Disney classics. As I still have it for another day On-Demand, I'm going to watch it again tonight, but I'll be buying the DVD for sure.

I don't know if I'd classify Rapunzel a "goddess", but she was definitely cute and Mandy Moore enjoyably brought her to life.

Glad you finally got a chance to check it out WORF and that you weren't dissapointed. Disney really put something wonderful together...and yeah Mandy Moore+the animation made Rapunzel a character completly made of awesome.

[The Lensman]

Upon seeing the first image of Rapunzel in this thread, my first thought was how much she looks like Elastigirl from "The Incredibles". Apparently I'm not the first that thought this, and yes, she looked better as a short haired brunette.

And I see Disney is still cashing in big time on characters who are in the public domain, while continuing to push and succeed in getting the copyright law extended further and further so that no one can do with their characters what they have done with Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Alice, and now Rapunzel. Their hypocrisy on the issue is such that I won't bother with this movie, regardless of how well done it may be.

[RoJoHen]

Well, I know what I'm going to buy when I get off work today.

[Worf2DS9]

Bought the DVD today, and damn, that format sure got shafted on the bonus features. I guess they saved all the good stuff for friggin' Blu-ray.

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

The Lensman wrote:

---

Upon seeing the first image of Rapunzel in this thread, my first thought was how much she looks like Elastigirl from "The Incredibles". Apparently I'm not the first that thought this, and yes, she looked better as a short haired brunette.

And I see Disney is still cashing in big time on characters who are in the public domain, while continuing to push and succeed in getting the copyright law extended further and further so that no one can do with their characters what they have done with Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Alice, and now Rapunzel. Their hypocrisy on the issue is such that I won't bother with this movie, regardless of how well done it may be.

I had not heard of this controversy but unfortunatly you and or your kids will be missing out on one of the best movies of 2010. If there was ever a decision to reconsider it would be this one.

[Broccoli]

The Lensman wrote:

---

Upon seeing the first image of Rapunzel in this thread, my first thought was how much she looks like Elastigirl from "The Incredibles". Apparently I'm not the first that thought this, and yes, she looked better as a short haired brunette.

I don't see it.

And I see Disney is still cashing in big time on characters who are in the public domain, while continuing to push and succeed in getting the copyright law extended further and further so that no one can do with their characters what they have done with Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Alice, and now Rapunzel. Their hypocrisy on the issue is such that I won't bother with this movie, regardless of how well done it may be.

How is it hypocrisy? They take characters from the public domain and then spin them with their own take. From that moment on, it becomes theirs creation and others, without proper legal consent, cannot touch it. It is no different than the novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Anyone can do what they like with P&P, but you try making a story in the setting of P&P&Z, you are going to run into trouble.

Maybe you are upset that Disney is always trying to extend their copyright. Fair enough, but I don't see how that translates into the issue of taking ancient fairy tales and turning them into their own movies. It is not like once Disney does a Repunzel movie no one else can do one.

[The Lensman]

Disney is always trying to extend their copyright.

They're not "trying", they are succeeding. Wanna know why copyright laws have become so draconian? They're one of the main reasons.

IIRC, a loooooooooooong time ago, the copyright law gave you twenty years of protection before allowing your creation to go into the public domain. The idea was that everything takes it's origin from something that preceded it and so cannot be locked away from the great creative pool forever. Idea's must go back to that pool to allow others to create...as Disney has done. As the creators of "Wicked" have done. As the creators of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" have done.

Disney has basically said "we won't allow this to happen with OUR creations despite the fact that we have benefitted from creations that have fallen into the public domain." That's hypocrisy.

Mickey Mouse should've fallen into the public domain years ago. People should've been allowed to do with Mickey (and other older Disney characters) what they have done, the creators of "Wicked" have done, the creators of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" have done. I think others could do some interesting things with Mickey.....but we'll never know since Disney has no intention of letting anyone do with Mickey what they have done with the creations of others.


So, every time this comes around, Disney is there lobbying Congress to extend the copyrights.

So we went from "twenty years is enough time for you to benefit from your creation and then it goes into public domain" to "the life of the author, plus 75 years after he/she dies". It may be longer now, I don't know.


And before you ask....yes, I am a creator. I dabble in various forms of art and have posted my stuff on this site.

I don't see it

and I do. Eye, nose and smile are very similar. Neck and hairstyles are different.

[Christopher]

The Lensman wrote:

---

IIRC, a loooooooooooong time ago, the copyright law gave you twenty years of protection before allowing your creation to go into the public domain. The idea was that everything takes it's origin from something that preceded it and so cannot be locked away from the great creative pool forever. Idea's must go back to that pool to allow others to create...as Disney has done. As the creators of "Wicked" have done. As the creators of "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" have done.

Disney has basically said "we won't allow this to happen with OUR creations despite the fact that we have benefitted from creations that have fallen into the public domain." That's hypocrisy.

Not necessarily. There's another side to the question. Copyright law is about trying to balance two opposing factors. On the one hand, yes, ideas have to go back into the pool sooner or later. But on the other hand, creators deserve the right to profit from their creations while they're alive, and not to have them taken away arbitrarily. The idea behind copyright expiration was that the copyright would last until after the creators had died. But life expectancy is longer now than it was then, so there is some merit to the idea of expanding the duration of copyrights.

Of course, when the creator is defined as a corporation, something that has an open-ended life expectancy, then it becomes more of a problem. I will grant that. But it's not a completely one-sided question. Maybe copyrights shouldn't be unlimited, but they shouldn't be a mere 20 years either.

[Broccoli]

The Lensman wrote:

---

So, every time this comes around, Disney is there lobbying Congress to extend the copyrights.

And you don't think all other corporations and studios don't secretly love them for it?

It sounds as if you are confusing things in regards to the public domain. Once something is "taken from the pool", that doesn't mean that it has to be "returned" in order for someone else to use the character. For example, if I wanted to make a Repunzel movie right now, I can. Disney can't stop me. Just because they did their version doesn't mean that they own everything and anything that was, is, and will be Repunzel.

In any event, Christopher has it on the other side of the copyright stuff, so I see no need to elaborate on it.

And before you ask....yes, I am a creator. I dabble in various forms of art and have posted my stuff on this site.

Good for you, but I wasn't planning on asking. However, since you brought it up, if you crafted a design of, say, the Wicked Witch of the West and another person took your design, used it without your permission, and (arguably more importantly) profited off it, wouldn't you be upset? Or would you be cool with it since the character was from the public domain.

I don't see it

and I do. Eye, nose and smile are very similar. Neck and hairstyles are different.[/QUOTE]

Really? Repunzel's eyes are much larger, puppy dog-like with bigger pupils that are a different color. Additionally, Mrs. Incredible has a much more pale skin tone with a more angular face and thin lips. I dunno, I find any simularity to be superficial at best.