As am I. I don't have my CD with me but when I go back home I'll bring it back and encode it--might be awhile (it must be floating arund somewhere online though).
I admit, I liked the look fo Tangled, and it souns like this will be similar, but for the most part I wish they'd just leave the CGI to Pixar. When they cut their hand drawn department, I truly was devestated, and I was thrilled when Lasseter reinstated it--but non of their upcoming major features seem to be hand drawn---so what does the department do? Just random small pictures like Winnie the Pooh (which was charming)?
I think Musker and Clement are working on a new unannounced project via Peter Del Vecho the producer. Snow Queen was supposed to be their next big Hand drawn film, buy with the success of Tangled and all that did not happen. I loved that Tangled proved to be a CG film in the style of a traditional film. I can't wait to see this.
I actually don't think Tangled lived up to the artistic promise. There was supposed to be some incredible stuff going on there and it never happened. It ended up looking pretty run-of-the-mill.
'm inbetween. It *partially* did IMHO. I admit, I've never fully warmed to the look of CGI (as brilliant as I think, writing and directing wise, much of Pixar is), and I was largely OK with the Tangled compromise, but it didn't live up to Glen Keane's initial concept tests built on The Girl in the Swing by any means.
But the lantern sequence was breathtaking, I wouldn't be surprised if tangled is one of Disney's next broadway ventures. I was very excited when Disney released princess and the frog and as Much as I love it, I think Tangled had more developed story.
When you look at the Rapunzel animation tests it was really impressive stuff. They really ran out of time on that project and it shows animation-wise. There are some really beautiful sequences (the lights) but nothing with the hybrid painterly look they envisioned.
Story-wise, I was fairly impressed with their solutions to a pretty crappy fairytale. I though Princess and the Frog was just crap, some of it looked great but such a boring movie. These buddy-come-travel films are really starting to get old.
Tangled was more traditional Disney storywise compared to their other CG films like Bolt, Meet the Robinson, Chicken Little etc With the improvements in CGI I imagine Frozen will be able to achieve what Tangled didn't quite manage to do, the upcoming Wreck-it Ralph looks stunning.
I can't see Tangled as a Broadway show, the difficulty would be Rapunzel's hair and expanding the story.
I admit I'm awfully cynical by the desire of many to see nearly any Disney animated film adapted to the stage--but I don't think Tangled leads itself to stage, at least in a form similar to the movie, at all. Too much of it relies on action sequences, etc.
To clarify Tangled's title, there were reports when the name change happened that Disney was afraid of marketing it as a princess film. Tangled was thought to have a broader appeal than Rapunzel.
Well true, and you can always bring up Lion King as the example that proves that theory wrong, but I just don't see a similarly clever concept being able to make Tangled work on stage.
Finebydesign, I think Frog is cute, and has a few great sequences, but it kinda reminds me of one of the lesser Don Bluth movies--like Thumbelina or something. Which isn't really a complement.
Trent, you're right about the name switch--that's all I heard too, and it seemed to work (though Tangled was such a long process that the budget ended up being pretty astronmical). Frozen seems to be going the same way--it's too bad though, The Snow Queen could make a really good, darker animated film. (By darker I don't mean adult, just not filled with comedy).
"To clarify Tangled's title, there were reports when the name change happened that Disney was afraid of marketing it as a princess film. Tangled was thought to have a broader appeal than Rapunzel."
This. Disney is getting a lot of criticism for being too girl-centric (hence their purchase of Marvel), and the title change for Rapunzel was demanded by CEO Tom Skaggs in an attempt to market to boys (notice the trailers focused a lot on the Flynn character). Any other explanation is merely corporate spin. He even stepped in and demanded changes to the Fantasyland expansion in Florida, which focused entirely on girls, by adding a small coaster to the project.
Tom Staggs is the chairman of Disney's Parks and Resorts division (and formerly CFO of the company) and would have had nothing to do with the production or naming of this film.
"He even stepped in and demanded changes to the Fantasyland expansion in Florida, which focused entirely on girls, by adding a small coaster to the project."
I wondered why the planned Cinderella's Chateau and Sleeping Beauty Cottage attractions were cancelled and replaced with the Seven Dwarfs Mine Train Princess Fairytale Hall. I'm actually glad they they are doing the latter attractions instead because it makes sense to have Cinderella and Princess Aurora do a meet-and-greet together in one attraction and 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs' is such a classic film that it definitely still deserves an attraction at Disney World now that 'Snow White's Scary Adventures is closed.
However, Fosse, Disneyland will soon have an entire area dedicated to the Disney Princesses called Fantasy Faire village in 2013. I don't think there a plans for a coaster there.
This looks good. I can't help but think about Eartha Kitt voicing the Snow Queen for the HBO Kids series Happily Ever After whenever I hear about this film.
What's with Disney naming their new movies with those horrible one word 'modern' titles - Tangled; Frozen; what next 'Wood' for a new Pinocchio? What happened to naming them 'The Snow Queen' - too majestic and classy for them?