|
But, what's left? Some of those original stories were in the original book, and others were featured in "Piglet's Big Movie"? As far as I can remember, there's the Tigger's introduction story, as well as the one about the time Kanga and Roo arrived in the woods, but that would be an odd choice, IMO.
|
| # ? Nov 13, 2010 20:08 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 10:09 |
|
|
GonSmithe posted:You misspelled the word "beautiful." feedmyleg posted:It looks beautiful, but it looks like it will be terrible. What feedmyleg said, obviously. And even then I find the characters to look pretty ugly, but that's just personal opinion rather than criticism of the movie itself.
|
| # ? Nov 13, 2010 21:58 |
|
|
Lest we forget: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0j7EactM9s#t=00m40s Of course the followup went over way way better with goons. Tangled hasn't really managed that. I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a crime if Princess and the Frog did well, Tangled bombed, and then Pooh hit it out of the park. That'd seal us up with some traditional animation for a long time.
|
| # ? Nov 13, 2010 22:12 |
|
|
Some of the new stories might be from the sequel to the original book, The House At Pooh Corner. I had it as a kid and read it to death.Yawgmoft posted:Lest we forget: Probably not. We'd need to have more than one studio having CG flops and 2D hits for a better balance to be struck.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 00:08 |
|
|
Behonkiss posted:Probably not. We'd need to have more than one studio having CG flops and 2D hits for a better balance to be struck. I was only speaking in terms of Disney animation. e: Pixar presents Winnie the Pooh 3. A 50 year old Christopher Robin returns to his parents home and takes one last trip to the hundred acre woods wherein Pooh falls apart and his stuffing and string fall in a clump on the floor. Yawgmoft fucked around with this message at Nov 14, 2010 around 00:19 |
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 00:14 |
|
|
Disney animation studios was actually pretty unhappy with how Princess and the Frog went, money-wise, so I don't know if even Tangled bombing would improve matters much on the 2D front.Yawgmoft posted:I was only speaking in terms of Disney animation.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 00:30 |
|
|
Macaluso posted:And now for a quick detour from Tangled, the trailer for the new Winnie the Pooh movie (featuring a... very british Christopher Robin) I remember a month or two ago the whole internet was up in arms about how the existence of those Disney BLAM! cartoons had proven once and for all that kids were stupid and couldn't enjoy anything that wasn't loud and dumb. It makes me happy to see that even Disney disagrees.  Behonkiss posted:Probably not. We'd need to have more than one studio having CG flops and 2D hits for a better balance to be struck. This is a gross simplification, but it only took 2 movies to make Dreamworks shift from 2d to 3d: Shrek being a tremendous box-office smash and Sinbad flopping terribly was what made them switch to focusing entirely on 3d.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 00:43 |
|
|
Pick posted:Disney animation studios was actually pretty unhappy with how Princess and the Frog went, money-wise, so I don't know if even Tangled bombing would improve matters much on the 2D front. To be fair they were just unhappy that it didn't make more of a profit. It still did well, and the DVD and merchandising sales were apparently strong.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 00:48 |
|
|
Okay, so Tangled. Here's the big surprise: the marketing is actually covering up what the movie is, which is an almost slavishly traditional Disney Princess musical fairytale. It is not a zany all-out comedy, nor is it an "edgy take" on the Rapunzel story. It's about as far from Disney's Shrek 5 as it could be. It is unabashedly a movie aimed at girls. I was kinda shocked after all that hubbub about the movie being extensively retooled for boys; unless Flynn was originally a standard Prince Charming character and the 'extensive retooling' was to turn him into a Han Solo-style charming-rogue-with-a-heart-of-gold type (is that supposed to rope in the male audience?), this is a Princess Movie (tm) through and through. The animal sidekicks play no larger a role than they do in any other animated Disney musical. The story is very traditional fairytale stuff to the point where I found myself getting bored with just how traditional it all was. I thought the villain, Rapunzel's evil "mom", is handled well - they go for the whole "abusively passive-aggressive" thing, and it works. Her evil scheme is pretty clunky though and the plot has to go through some obvious contrivances to get moving, but as a whole, the story isn't bad. They *really* pile on the romance in the last half - moreso than I think I've seen in any other Disney "girl" movie. In the end it isn't a bad movie at all - just very predictable and expected to the point of being kinda dull. The biggest thing that doesn't work here is the music. The songs are totally forgettable - really not very good at all, not memorable or catchy (especially the villain song which is surprisingly uncreative and unnecessary) and they bring the movie to a screeching halt. None of them advance the plot, and the opening number is a very obvious attempt at swiping Taylor Swift's generic country-pop thing. This thing did *not* need to be a musical. It would've been a much stronger film without the songs. But thankfully there aren't very many of them - maybe 4 in total with one of them being a big "WE'RE FALLING IN LOOOOVE" anthem - so it doesn't wreck the thing, just puts a dent in it. The best thing about the film by far are the comedy elements and the sidekicks; the stuff with the horse works and is frequently very funny, and the little chameleon is cute and gets some good laughs. There's a small part played by Paul F. Tompkins that was very funny too. The film is gorgeous, as well - the background art is all very nicely done if a tad generic in design. The character animation is appropriately subtle for the human characters. It's a solidly built piece, for sure. So yeah, not at all what I was expecting and especially not at all what they're marketing it as. Hell, even the title feels misleading; this thing should've been called "Rapunzel", as "Tangled" suggests some zany wacky edgy take on the story that ends with a Smashmouth song, and that just isn't here. Color me surprised. Side note about the film's values and some plot details spoilered here: The one thing I really did hate about this was that it feels like a step backward in terms of what message is being sent to little girls. I thought The Princess and the Frog was pleasantly very progressive in its pro-career, pro-self-reliance themes, where the heroine's goal was not to be saved by the prince and get married. In Tangled, Rapunzel only really finds the motivation to fight for her freedom AFTER she finds out she's a princess (which is a big stretch considering she realizes she's an abductee based on crib memories) or when Flynn is in danger, and at the end explicitly tells Flynn that he's "her new dream", sacrificing her freedom to save his life. Kinda bullshit in my lefty view.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 01:21 |
|
|
Thank you for the review. I found it very helpful.TheSwami posted:Side note about the film's values and some plot details spoilered here:
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 01:41 |
|
|
Pick posted:Thank you for the review. I found it very helpful. Especially since Enchanted was pretty much a feature length admittance from Disney that the princess trope was dumb and kind of useless and played-out now. I love that movie way more than I ought to.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 01:46 |
|
|
I actually felt Enchanted was more of Disney's, "Hey, give us a break, the princesses aren't that bad" movie, but I also felt it was fully self-aware when it came to its material, which Tangled doesn't really sound like it is. And to me that makes a tremendous difference in tone, judging from other feature films I've seen over the years. I'm not lying, this kind of crap seriously gets under my skin. That was one thing I actually liked about Shrek 4; Fiona comes off as an individual in possession of a personality (even flaws!), even though making her fall in love is the crux of the film. And even as a more housewife-y type in the beginning of the film, she's generally reasonable and not given to that "my man is here, my heart, 'tis aflutter!" trash. I seem to recall a quote from Disney saying that Disney didn't have to be embarrassed to do a straight-up Princess story (since the original Rapunzel thing was going to be a metaphor or something), but you know what? Maybe they really do have to justify that, if this is the narrative scheme they're going to maintain in the twenty-first loving century. Pick fucked around with this message at Nov 14, 2010 around 01:55 |
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 01:53 |
|
|
TheSwami posted:The biggest thing that doesn't work here is the music. The songs are totally forgettable - really not very good at all, not memorable or catchy (especially the villain song which is surprisingly uncreative and unnecessary) and they bring the movie to a screeching halt. None of them advance the plot, and the opening number is a very obvious attempt at swiping Taylor Swift's generic country-pop thing. This thing did *not* need to be a musical. It would've been a much stronger film without the songs. But thankfully there aren't very many of them - maybe 4 in total with one of them being a big "WE'RE FALLING IN LOOOOVE" anthem - so it doesn't wreck the thing, just puts a dent in it. This is really surprising to me. The guy writing the songs is a big believer in "they must advance the plot or else they suck" Pick posted:the twenty-first loving century. Counterpoint: they just did Princess and the Frog. Some girls do just fall head over heals in love with a guy and that's fine. Are you saying that's not fine? Isn't that the plot of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? A crappy kid who never fights for anything or tries until he falls in love with a magic girl who's magic? That's all I'm going to say for now. Truth be told I'm a huge advocate for feminism in film, so there is a good chance I'll come out of this in a frothing rage, but we'll see. Yawgmoft fucked around with this message at Nov 14, 2010 around 02:18 |
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 02:15 |
|
|
but I like princess movies 
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 02:36 |
|
|
Hedrigall posted:but I like princess movies Amen. Was never any doubt in me to see Tangled and now that I hear it's a more traditional Disney princess movie, it makes me want to see it all the more.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 06:23 |
|
|
I just saw Megamind when I had a chance after getting out of my shift. It was alright, pretty good I suppose. As a few reviews said, the movie isn't really that funny besides a few clever bits (the "melancholy" gag got me personally, as I used to pronounce it like that until someone corrected me). What was good was how surprisingly well-developed the romance was, there was an actual emotional connection here that was honestly a bit more engrossing that any of the action or comedy bits, and I really wish it had focused more on the concept of what really constitutes "good and evil". But goddamn man, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this movie was an absolute trainwreck in terms of marketing. Hell, the slide my theater had, I have no clue why, showed Megamind on one side and his baby self holding a ray gun on the other (why would you try to endorse a completely random section of his backstory?). The fact that this was used as a promotional image for the movie when it's so completely at odds with what actually happens in it is seriously insulting. They tried to market this movie as everything that it wasn't, completely gave away important plot points in advertising, and it's obviously that the heavy emphasis on making the property a new Dreamworks marketing vehicle actually seeped into the movie and made it worse. I have to say this, without any exaggeration, that the people in charge of marketing this movie were scum, catering to the lowest common denominator and almost completely ruined anything the film had going for it. With all that said, I don't mind hearing that Tangled will probably just be a fairly boilerplate princess movie, as it still looks pretty good for what it is. Though it's odd that, even while I've already added the film to my Netflix instant-queue, I still haven't watched The Princess and the Frog, and my family had just watched it and said it was good. I really need to get around to seeing it.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 06:43 |
|
|
miscellaneous14 posted:Though it's odd that, even while I've already added the film to my Netflix instant-queue, I still haven't watched The Princess and the Frog, and my family had just watched it and said it was good. I really need to get around to seeing it. You go watch it right now! Right now! No excuses!
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 06:52 |
|
|
Everything about this is wrong and terrible. Yogi is a charming character. What is this surprise sex-faced taxidermy monster.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:06 |
|
|
They put the unused posters up for grabs at my work, and at least a few people really wanted the Yogi Bear posters there for some reason; PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PAY TO SEE THIS MOVIE. I really, really want a movie like this one, and obviously not a blatant Summer throwaway like Marmaduke (yes, I know this movie somehow cost 50 million dollars to make), to fail spectacularly so that we can finally see the end of these live-action adaptations of old properties that do not, in any way, warrant getting them. I wish Santa were real specifically so that I could wish that movies like this just couldn't come out on Christmas, or that theaters didn't have to be open on Christmas at all. 
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:20 |
|
|
 I honestly had no idea until now that Tangled was a musical. Has there ever even been a full-fledged CG musical before?
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:22 |
|
|
Behonkiss posted:
Hoodwinked  Oh, and how could I forget Happy Feet! Which is a loving brilliant movie. Hedrigall fucked around with this message at Nov 14, 2010 around 07:27 |
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:23 |
|
|
I'm just ticked Disney cancelled Snow Queen. I was looking forward to a fairy tale movie with a strong female protagonist.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:38 |
|
|
I feel like I'll end up liking the songs in Tangled. A lot of people here said how the Princess and the Frog songs were forgettable, and I found all of them memorable and catchy. Especially "When we're human" and "dig a little deeper".Times posted:Everything about this is wrong and terrible. Yogi is a charming character. What is this surprise sex-faced taxidermy monster. This movie just baffles me. Not because it looks horrible (which it does), but because I just don't understand why it's not just a fully animated movie. They look pretty close to how they were drawn in the cartoon. THEY are animated, just plopped into a live action world for some reason, and both Dan Akroyd AND Justin Timberlake sound REALLY close to the original voices. Why isn't the whole thing just a cartoon? It's like the Scooby Doo movies. Why are they live action? I don't get it.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:54 |
|
|
Times posted:I'm just ticked Disney cancelled Snow Queen. I love Hans Christian Anderson to death, but I'm going to bet dollars to doughnuts no one was able to turn in a script that made any cohesive sense. Plus, you'd have to change a lot of the events so they're not so POWER OF JESUS oriented. Macaluso posted:"dig a little deeper". I absolutely adore Dig a Little Deeper. Both the song itself and its use in the overall narrative. It was clever and I liked how Tiana didn't get it.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 07:58 |
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:I love Hans Christian Anderson to death, but I'm going to bet dollars to doughnuts no one was able to turn in a script that made any cohesive sense. Plus, you'd have to change a lot of the events so they're not so POWER OF JESUS oriented. Off the top of my head I think the best studio to handle Snow Queen would be Studio Ghibli, honestly.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 08:07 |
|
|
While we're still talking about Princess and the Frog... I still want to know how the hell Tiana's father won the Distinguished Service Cross. Black regiments rarely if ever saw combat, and he probably was sent over as a cook or labor since he had experience in both fields. There's probably an interesting story there... Though I still think it's a neat touch to just throw that in and have no one reference it at any point. Times posted:Off the top of my head I think the best studio to handle Snow Queen would be Studio Ghibli, honestly. Probably. But then if they did there would be no end to the idiots who would say it was some crazy Japanese folklore tale with demon mirrors and ice puzzles.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 08:18 |
|
|
Macaluso posted:I feel like I'll end up liking the songs in Tangled. A lot of people here said how the Princess and the Frog songs were forgettable, and I found all of them memorable and catchy. Especially "When we're human" and "dig a little deeper". Maybe, and good on you if you do. I loved the music in The Princess and the Frog - especially the songs you mentioned and most of the others. They were memorable tunes and I left the theater with the melodies in my head. I couldn't remember a single melody from any of the songs in Tangled even a few hours after seeing it. Incidentally, the big emotional climax of the film's overlong love ballad is the line "I See You", which stop me if I'm wrong but there was another movie that used that same line as a hook between unlikely lovers not too long ago! quote:This movie just baffles me. Not because it looks horrible (which it does), but because I just don't understand why it's not just a fully animated movie. They look pretty close to how they were drawn in the cartoon. THEY are animated, just plopped into a live action world for some reason, and both Dan Akroyd AND Justin Timberlake sound REALLY close to the original voices. Why isn't the whole thing just a cartoon? It's like the Scooby Doo movies. Why are they live action? I don't get it. Here is why:  In addition to making a shitload of money, these movies also qualify to run as Best Animated Picture nominees.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 08:33 |
|
|
TheSwami posted:Shutdown the world. Clearly we have failed.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 08:35 |
|
|
TheSwami posted:In addition to making a shitload of money, these movies also qualify to run as Best Animated Picture nominees. In the same way a arthritic man could qualify to run a triathlon to win a gold medal, but a cold day in hell if that ever loving happened. Honestly, I want to ask this: how bad is the second Alvin movie, especially considering how godawful the first one was? Are we talking Transformers 2-caliber of completely quality drop-off? I'm definitely not gonna subject myself to the movie to find out.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 12:09 |
|
|
Hedrigall posted:but I like princess movies I don't think we're complaining about princesses per se. Mulan, Giselle, Tiana, and Belle are all stars of princess movies, after all, and if anyone starts talkin' smack about Beauty and the Beast, I'll... I'll...! 
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 12:46 |
|
|
Mulan is not a princess, and neither is Giselle  Belle 4 lifeIt's okay though because Amy Adams 
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 14:26 |
|
|
Mulan is yeah-huh an official Disney princess. And Giselle was going to be, but wasn't for royalty reasons alone. (Uh, like, royalties to Amy Adams.)
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 15:03 |
|
|
I don't get how Mulan qualifies as a princess. Even assuming she does go and marry Shang, he's not a prince, he's a Captain, with no blood ties to the Emperor. 
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 15:23 |
|
|
Pick posted:Mulan is yeah-huh an official Disney princess. And Giselle was going to be, but wasn't for royalty reasons alone. (Uh, like, royalties to Amy Adams.) It always bugged me when Disney merch would lump Mulan, Pocahontas and Tinker Bell (though that's changed recently, boy howdy is the little bitch a cash cow now) into the Disney Princess line and ignore actual princesses like Kida. The problem with including Mulan was discussed, and as for Pocahontas...I'm not aboriginal, but I have this funny feeling they'd be insulted that a chief's daughter would be equated with the very European idea of the pretty pretty princess. Was there any evidence that Giselle actually was a princess beyond the ability to talk to animals and look great in a big poofy gown? She didn't marry her Prince, after all.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 15:40 |
|
|
She can start musical numbers out of nowhere, of course she's a princess! Also I thought Pocahontas was considered a princess because she's the chief's daughter, which is about as equivalent as you can get. She certainly didn't do any princess things until she saved Smith, though. But yeah, Mulan and Tinkerbell aren't princesses in any conceivable way, they're just really loved by young girls. Unless Tink is a fairy princess in those new movies.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 17:02 |
|
|
Megera posted:But yeah, Mulan and Tinkerbell aren't princesses in any conceivable way, they're just really loved by young girls. Unless Tink is a fairy princess in those new movies. Hell no, she's an engineer! 
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 17:52 |
|
|
Another Tangled clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-8wh0w4-7o featuring Flynn and the horse AT ODDS
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 19:02 |
|
|
Pick posted:Hell no, she's an engineer! Wait, please explain this some more. I haven't seen the new Tinkerbell films, but this thread makes me think I should.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 19:16 |
|
|
Macaluso posted:Another Tangled clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-8wh0w4-7o featuring Flynn and the horse AT ODDS I'll be the first to admit that I laughed.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 19:22 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 10:09 |
|
|
Macaluso posted:Another Tangled clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-8wh0w4-7o featuring Flynn and the horse AT ODDS This looks extremely good.
|
| # ? Nov 14, 2010 19:27 |
|
