CGI goddess RAPUNZEL from TANGLED appreciation thread.

[Mr. Adventure]

Am I the only one a little bit creeped out by this thread?

It would seem so...as there is nothing wrong with admiring true beauty even if its created from pixels and CGI.

Especially these days when most "real" magazine photos have been more than a little manipulated in Photoshop.

As for me I didn't really find Rapunzel so lustworthy maybe because they really sold her as a sweet young girl. I thought it was a pretty good film, one I actually enjoyed watching with my niece, not just someting you tolerated for the kids.

 

[Bishop76]

As for me I didn't really find Rapunzel so lustworthy maybe because they really sold her as a sweet young girl.

That's kind of why I find this disturbing.

 

[Christopher]

^Oh, come on. Admiring beauty is not equivalent to lust or sexual possessiveness. Especially when it's the beauty of a cartoon character with no physical existence.

Although I don't agree that they portrayed Rapunzel as a "sweet young girl." The film was set mostly on her 18th birthday, IIRC, and she was shown to be quite savvy and mature for someone as sheltered as she'd been.

 

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

I was driving past one of my local theaters one night after work and lol'ed at the sign - they had Tangled and Yogi Bear as two of the selections, but put them both on the same line, in that specific order. I might give it a shot if I have time.

TANGLED is definately the film that you would want to MAKE the time before. After spending a bit over an hour and a half with Rapunzel it will leave you wanting more!

It's a rare movie where everything came out RIGHT!

Special props to Disney for not going for BIG NAME VOICE talent...stuff like that didn't help coullosal misfires like MEGA MIND and YOGI...instead they gave the voice roles to people who could turn in great performances and you weren't hindered by "knowing" what the voice performer looked like and that allowed the characters to have a life of their own.

 

[Worf2DS9]

I certainly plan to see TANGLED when it comes to DVD, but your enthusiasm has made me wish March-whatever would get here pronto.

 

[MetalPants]

I thought it was a pretty good film, one I actually enjoyed watching with my niece, not just someting you tolerated for the kids.

Exactly the same for me.

 

[Christopher]

Special props to Disney for not going for BIG NAME VOICE talent...stuff like that didn't help coullosal misfires like MEGA MIND and YOGI...instead they gave the voice roles to people who could turn in great performances and you weren't hindered by "knowing" what the voice performer looked like and that allowed the characters to have a life of their own.

Mandy Moore is a pretty well-known singer-actress. Zachary Levi is the star of a popular NBC show (though I don't care for it), and Donna Murphy is a very big name in musical theater. Plus there were supporting roles played by well-known character actors Ron Perlman, Jeffrey Tambor, M. C. Gainey, and Brad Garrett. These are all well-known or at least familiar people, even if they're not A-list actors.

The original choices for Flynn and Mother Gothel were going to be Dan Fogler and Grey DeLisle. I've never heard of Fogler, and while I'm a big fan of DeLisle's voice work (she was Azula in Avatar: The Last Airbender among many other roles), she's unknown to the general public. So the film ended up with more of a "big-name" cast than it was originally going to have. (Rapunzel was going to be Kristin Chenoweth, who's pretty well-known, though whether she's more famous than Ms. Moore probably depends on what demographic you're polling.)

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I heartily agree that Tangled was Disney finding itself again. In the vein of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, they created a heroine with dimension, a villain both frightening and seductive, revived a classic fairy tale with a very modern sensibility, and had a healthy dose of genuine humor. My nephews, one of whom is deep into the "all things even vaguely feminine suck" phase, loved it as much as I and my mom did. Good to know they've still got it somewhere. It's a truly beautiful movie too - the animation is lush and gorgeous. I'm glad I saw it on the big screen.

 

[melancholymecha]

I guess I need to see it again, i was kinda disapointed with it, it just seemed so generic & cookie cutter. I know there's not much love for the 2d animated films Disney made during the 2000's(Atlantis,Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Lilo & Stitch, etc...) but I actually thought those at least tried to do different things & break the norm.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Am I the only one a little bit creeped out by this thread?

No, but I only find it the tiniest bit creepy. Mandy Moore is an attractive adult, so I'm bearing that in mind.

Special props to Disney for not going for BIG NAME VOICE talent...stuff like that didn't help coullosal misfires like MEGA MIND and YOGI...

Megamind was the awesome. You, sir (or madam), are metaphorically ON CRACK. (Yes, yes, I know - opinions are like anuses, or some such....)

Mandy Moore is a pretty well-known singer-actress.

Moore is excellent, but does anyone else think that she might be an out-and-out clone of Sally Field?

 

[USS Triumphant]

I guess I need to see it again, i was kinda disapointed with it, it just seemed so generic & cookie cutter. I know there's not much love for the 2d animated films Disney made during the 2000's(Atlantis,Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Lilo & Stitch, etc...) but I actually thought those at least tried to do different things & break the norm.

There's not enough love for Atlantis, that I will grant you... but Lilo & Stitch? Really?! That is pretty wildly inconsistent with my experience. (Not sure if you did, but I had kids of the appropriate age in the 2000's, so that might color my view a bit.)

 

[JarodRussell]

Am I the only one a little bit creeped out by this thread?

I am a bit.

I haven't seen the movie, but this:

is maybe a cute little girl, but definately not a hot babe.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

She is a romantic interest in the film so she is meant to be a young lady not a young girl, it's just one on the very edge of the transition.

 

[Christopher]

^Like I said, most of the film is set on her 18th birthday. True, her features are a little infantilized with the smooth features and oversized eyes, but that's a pretty standard practice in cartoon caricatures, particularly of women (see Betty Boop or most any anime character). And it's not like there aren't real, adult women with childlike features. My best friend in college was so girlish-looking that she could pass for a teenager well into her 30s.

And like I said, it's rather shallow and sleazy to assume that our admiration for the character design and animation must be purely sexual. If someone waxes poetic about the beauty of the Mona Lisa, it doesn't mean they want to take the painting to bed. It means they admire it on an aesthetic level and appreciate the skill and inspiration of the artist. Rapunzel is an artistic creation, perhaps Glen Keane's greatest masterpiece as a character designer and animator. How is it wrong to admire the beauty of an artist's work?

 

[USS Triumphant]

My best friend in college was so girlish-looking that she could pass for a teenager well into her 30s.

My wife (35) got carded not too long ago for standing too close to the hentai section of a gaming/anime shop that we go to sometimes - and didn't have her license with her. She told me to tell the lady behind the counter that she was over 18, and I said, "I'ma tell your mama when we get home!"

 

[tharpdevenport]

"Wall-E" was okay, but I didn't like the left-leaning political stuff hiding away in a few parts.

What "left-leaning" stuff? Do you mean the environmental message? Did you know Richard Nixon founded the EPA? And of course Teddy Roosevelt was big on preserving nature. Before Reagan turned the Republicans into the party of big business, they were the pioneers of the environmentalist movement, seeing conservation as a logical outgrowth of conservatism. It's not a partisan message that it's a good idea to keep our home clean and livable. It's just common sense.

And one could just as easily read a "right-leaning" message into the film's critique of the effortless, coddled life aboard the starship; that could be seen as an allegory for the welfare system, with the message being that people need to reject handouts and embrace hard work.

Save the misrepresentations and misleading stuff for TNZ, sport.

 

[Mutara Nebula 1967]

I guess I need to see it again, i was kinda disapointed with it, it just seemed so generic & cookie cutter. I know there's not much love for the 2d animated films Disney made during the 2000's(Atlantis,Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, Lilo & Stitch, etc...) but I actually thought those at least tried to do different things & break the norm.

Cookie cutter is NOT a description I would associate with TANGLED.
Here's a couple of points on why
FLYNN-the hero is an anti-hero. In the fairytale he was a Prince..here he is a thief with sticky fingers until you guessed it...he meets Rapunzel.

The villain MOTHER GOTHEL is not some completly iredeemdable well "cartoon villian". She has an AMBIGUITY to her actions that sets her apart from say a Cruellla Devil.

The Animals (with great personality) do NOT talk.

Those are just some example. Watch the DVD in March and you may truly reacess your judgement.

P.S. I saw there are some new pics at that site today. One has Rapunzel as a JEDI! That was pretty funny.

 

[Neroon]

Save the misrepresentations and misleading stuff for TNZ, sport.

Likewise, only save it for another board altogether. No sense fomenting trouble between any of the forums on this board.

 

[ancientone51]

Am I the only one who thought that Rapunzel's frying pan made a much more entertaining "sidekick" than the chameleon? I dug the frying pan.

 

[Christopher]

Save the misrepresentations and misleading stuff for TNZ, sport.

Don't call me a liar. I was merely trying to propose that there could be more than one way of interpreting the message of a film. My point is that not every story has a specific, intentional "right" or "left" slant, that some stories are just trying to tell entertaining stories and that any agenda one way or another that the individual may read into it reflects their own preconceptions and biases more than the actual intent of the story. I was trying to broaden your mind beyond partisanship, not to make a partisan assertion of my own.