ITW Film: Characters Renamed to Disney Counterparts? — Page 2

If the song is in the credits, jacobsnchz14, it won't be considered for an Oscar. They changed that rule around 2007. The song has to be used IN the film. Credits do not count.

If this turns out like Once Upon a Time, I will seriously weep.

But Rob Marshall promised a faithful adaption Rob Marshall has never lied to me before...... ( LOL)

"To be fair, it's also crediting an all-new song for the adaptation that appears to have since been excised if it's the same one talked about for ages. "

News articles have been incorrectly saying that "Rainbows" was in the film (likely done through online "research") when it is not. When Rob Marshall told EW that this song was not in the film, all these film sites then started saying the new song was taken out. "Rainbows" was never in this version of the film. It is a completely different song that was written for it that is in it.

This is beyond bizarre. At the August screening, there was no mention of these "Disney names" whatsoever in the film. Billy Magnussen's performance is nothing like Flynn Rider, nor is Christine Baranski's Stepmother anything like Lady Tremaine. This has to be some sort of mistake. Unless during reshoots they reshot EVERY SCENE INVOLVING these two characters, I have strong doubts. And yes, I see that it's on their official website.

Reminder: neither Rainbows nor a new song for the Witch were in this film as of the version I saw in August.

Found the ruling:

"B. Original Song:
An original song consists of words and music, both of which are original and written specifically for the motion picture. There must be a clearly audible, intelligible, substantive rendition (not necessarily visually presented) of both lyric and melody, used in the body of the motion picture or as the first music cue in the end credits."

http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/rules/87/pdf/87aa_rules.pdf

Because it's Disney...

Yeah, it's really not a big deal. They are just names and it is used for correlation. It doesn't diminish the characters either way.

I suspect that this document was made for legal, and not artistic, reasons. Disney owns certain iterations of the public-domain characters, but not others. By specifying in legal documents "Rapunzel's prince, i.e. Flynn Rider," that doesn't mean the Prince will be referred to as such, or even resemble that character. It simply will entail that Disney owns a specific iteration of the character, and clearly separate future licensing and marketing use of a princely character associated with Rapunzel.

I suspect that someone misinterpreted paperwork regarding intellectual property rights to the less public-domain-oriented characters in Into the Woods, and leaked it as "they're changing characters!"

Regardless of whatever the article states, the list is not a "mistake." It was just a "mistake" to publicly post it on the official website.

What darque says rings true of this and I imagine that is, in fact, what happened. It's not too uncommon.