CGI goddess RAPUNZEL from TANGLED appreciation thread.

When I saw Tangled, I was thinking that there was a resemblance between Rapunzel and Helen/Elastigirl, as much in the motion and expressiveness of the features as in the design. It's not something that comes down to specific details so much as an overall similarity of design style, but I was reminded of Helen. Which was a plus, because Helen was a magnificently animated character, with amazing subtlety and detail to her facial expressions. And so was Rapunzel.

 

The point isn't that they're going to prevent you from creating new Rapunzel content. The point is that they're going to sue the shit out of you if you create new Mickey Mouse material despite the fact that Mickey should've fallen into the public domain YEARS ago.

Let me repeat this: Mickey Mouse should've fallen into public domain YEARS ago. And because Disney doesn't want to allow people to do with Mickey what they have done with Rapunzel (or more accurately, with Alice or OZ since Rapunzel has long since fallen into folklore territory), they lobby to keep extending copyright laws.

Their creation, Mickey, should be in the exact same place that Rapunzel is NOW. But they won't allow it. If I want to create Zombie Mickey and make a cartoon out it, I can't because Disney will not allow Mickey to fall into the public domain.

Apparently it's okay for the creations of others to fall into public domain to be exploited by others (like Disney), but not the reverse. That's called hypocrisy.

What does this have to do with anything? You're point here depends on characters ALREADY being in public domain. I'm not talking about characters ALREADY in the public domain, but Disney's fight to keep their characters from being in the public domain, while exploiting characters who are.

Those other works are in public domain NOT because there was no copyright law back then, but because there was a time limit on copyrights. Time has been up for Mickey for YEARS, but god forbid some else get to do with Mickey what Disney has done with the numerous non-Disney creations.

THAT'S the issue.

Copyrights are not new. Their origins go back as far as the 16th century.

Good points and I agree....but I don't recall saying I supported twenty years as a limit...only that I believed that limit was twenty years at one time. Nor have I argued that creators rights should be arbitrarily stripped....after all why would I? I'm a creator as well. And yes, copyrights should not be unlimited, but should be longer than 20 years. I'm fine with "the life of the author".

I'm simply pointing out Disney's hypocrisy on the issue. This is not about "business sense". From that perspective, I understand why they do it. It makes it no less hypocritical.

It all comes from that great creative pool. Yes, it does get trickier with corporate entities being thrown into the picture. It gets even trickier when you throw trademarks in.

I'm not thrilled with some of the new copyright stuff that's come out in terms of "orphaned work" tho. IIRC, there are some scary implications in that. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

Meh... as far as I'm concerned, Disney can keep the mouse, and the duck and the dogs and their other creations. I just wish they'd stop buying up everyone else's stuff like the Muppets and Marvel Comics.

 

I feel like you're just getting too hung up on the letter of the law in this case. It's not like the folks at Disney are just sitting around waiting for copyrights to expire so they can snatch up properties for their own use. They're taking fairy tales, stories that are hundreds and hundreds of years old, and re-telling them with a modern spin. The authors of the original properties are hardly upset about it.

And really, I think it should come down to the last time a character was used rather than when he was created. Mickey Mouse is not only copyrighted; he is trademarked. As long as Disney continues to use him, nobody else can. They released a brand new Mickey Mouse video game just last year. Now, if Mickey had just been sitting on a shelf in the basement for 20 years without any brand new material being made, I would agree with your argument. But since Disney is still using the character, I think it's perfectly fair that they be allowed to keep him.

 

This.

 

I don't know; last I heard, the brothers who wrote the original Rapunzel are pretty grim about it.

Spoiler: Rapunzel

 

But I want to do the Zombie appocalypse with the Disney characters! It'll be an allegory about how they "consume" everything in sight!

(walks off sad, shoulders slumped....kicks a small rock. Shakes fist at sky....)

"Diiiiiiissssneeeeeeyyyy!!!!!1!11!!!"

 

Ah...see, you might be able to get away with that if being done as a parody. Even then, things can get tricky.

 

But you *can* get away with that if its Hans Christian Anderson or Mark Twain or H.G. Wells or William Shakespeare or Edgar Rice Burroughs or Lewis Carroll's Alice creations or Baum's Oz creations or the Arabian Nights or the Phantom of the Opera or Dracula or...

But no, clearly the Mouse should never be allowed to be messed with.

 

I used to work in the copy biz, and every year Disney would send out letters that basically said "Don't even think about copying our stuff.....we will sue the living shit out of you."

So....yeah. There's that.

I'll stay faaaar away from their stuff.

 

^ Maybe, but parody is protected and there isn't much Disney can do.

Take, for example, Mickey Mouse's very blatant, twisted appearance on South Park two seasons ago with no legal repercussions.

 

I don't see it either. Rapunzel is much lovlier.

 

Well, that is a very unflattering picture of Elastigirl.

 

Sorry...it was the only one I could find quickly that showed her face clearly.

 

Well, now that you've had some time did you find another one that might better illustrate your belief?

 

No, because I stopped caring week's ago. But since you are going to be like that about it, here are two more. Hopefully, they meet with your approval of being more flattering than the standard promo pick of Mrs. Incredible I posted earlier.



Still don't see it.

 

Of course you can't see it, she wears a mask.

 

I don't see any resemblance either, beyond the fact they both have small noses.

 

Nope. No resemblance. The angles are all wrong, for one, and for two, the eyes are completely different.

 

I see no resemblance either but we are talking about two different takes on the female form and several years worth of development in CGI rendering for cartoon characters not to mention a more "realistic" take on a human form and a more exaggerated one.

Still don't see how Rapunzel is a "goddess" but, whatever.