Pete sent me this picture. At first I thought it was an ad for a glass eye manufacturer. Pete: "I'm certainly more the Disney fan than you are, but even I'm getting really bad vibes about this film. "
This poster is genius! How could you guys possibly not like something so brilliant and original which doesn't have a formula that hasn't been used a thousand times in animated films, especially with that hip, never before seen 'tude expression that Prince Charming character and the even sexier leading lady, Rapunzel, have on their shiny, realistic faces. I'm pretty sure that this picture will break new ground in animation, and will even be better than all of classic Disney's best animated features, which all seem poorly drawn and primitive compared to this.
John, please publish my comment, so that your dear friend Pete Emslie and others will be cured of their bad vibes. I have a good feeling that every serious fan of good animation is going to take this new film seriously.
This is so stock, even my dad could tell, and he knows nothing about animation. He turned to me in the theater after watching the trailer, and said to me, "They make all the same facial expressions as the Little Mermaid." In those exact words.
It's so sad, we all watched the trailer at the animation studio i was at a while back and they all seemed to LOVE it, well let's say like 40%....that's too high a number for trained animators i think.
I pointed out all the horrible things about the movie and they only seemed to care about the fact that " well the animation looks good " so? nothing else does and even the animation isn't that great. good animation can't save a poor story and they wonder why anime is more and more popular ( and i mean good anime like Paprika or Tekkonkinkreet )
can't wait to have this mild and boring film come out and make a decent amount...probably mostly on toys and DVD sales...
They look like bully mannequins. Mannequin bullies. However you look at it, it's creepy.
The sad thing is that you know there are really talented people who are capable of really nice pretty drawings working on these films, but there's some overpowering force that makes everything have to end up looking exactly like this. I have aesthetic problems with CG just in general, but the problems here go deeper than that.
This is one of the things I hate on CGI-movies; no matter which studio its from, the eyes look all the same!
And right now I feel more disappointment what I saw in the trailer of Rapunzel(Tangled), looks like any other CGI-movie that came out the last 10 years.
I wonder that these people know the original story(I mean the really old one!)of Rapunzel.
months later there will be a controversy saying thats not hair from the girl's head, just like they found the anatomy shaped building in the little mermaid movie cover
John, This screen grab says it all! http://www.patmcmichael.com/tude.jpg At least they were bold enough to make Rapunzel a pretty White,blone-haired girl! Disney hasn't done this since 1959. They usually cast a melting pot of ethnic faces with a sprinkle of some handicaps or disabilities.
Anyone else feel a sexual tone in that poster? It looks like they're naked, tangled behind all that hair, maybe lying on a bed somewhere ... and those evil bedroom eyes. Yes, looks like Disney's done it again.
Pete's full comments are now on his blog. Actually, many cartoon characters have "Tude", but their "Tude"'s balanced by jokes, story and visual animation. I don't know how TANGLED will balance out, but entertainment these days, especially Rap, pushes attitude at expense of everything else. Classic example: Will Smith's rap, which veered between funny, catchy stories, and long pronouncements of "I'm great, I'll beat you any time or day, I'm great...." Unfortunately the latter, in varying forms, became more common.
"So, why do they look mean? Even princesses need to be "bad ass" now?"
Yes, Shawn, princesses do have to be "bad-ass" - according to modern culture, there are roughly only two female personalities. The first is the defenceless damsel in distress who always needs rescuing and spoke only in screams - that's the "non-pc" personality. Then there's the smarmy, independent warrior princess - the "pc" personality.
It's funny, because giving female characters UNIQUE personalities, like male characters, is more politically correct than anything else. But that's an extinct concept these days - the same with male characters, now that I think of it.
God, this movie looks horrible. An LA Times story gives some insight as to the creative process behind this film:
"The makeover of 'Rapunzel' is more than cosmetic. Disney can ill afford a moniker that alienates half the potential audience, young boys, who are needed to make an expensive family film a success.
" 'We did not want to be put in a box,' said Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, explaining the reason for the name change. 'Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody.' "
Sounds like the shareholders are the main concern here.
It doesn't look nearly as bad as Shrek did, but that's not saying much. It's almost like an experiment, with Disney trying to shoehorn a Glen Keane esthetic into a creepy-glossy CG medium. And maybe they had to buy Marvel to avoid a lawsuit for ripping off the comics' Medusa character. :)
Pete: "I'm certainly more the Disney fan than you are, but even I'm getting really bad vibes about this film. "
45 comments:
I already had bad vibes when the promotional posters for this came out way back then.
Yikes!
What could possibly go wrong?
I saw a trailer recently on this film and I can already tell that it's gonna be REALLY stale.
I saw a doosie last night called the Swan Princess filled with 10 minute songs that don't rhyme. Then the one passage that did rhyme upset the queen.
Have you seen the new Yogi Bear poster and trailer that have been posted on Cartoon Brew? They're worse than this.
Also, do you have any thoughts on the new Looney Tunes Show or the new CGI Coyote and Roadrunner theatrical shorts?
This movie will makes millions.
Millions.
Okay. A movie about being tangled up in long hair. Is that right? These ideas are just arbitrary. Where does this come from?
This poster is genius! How could you guys possibly not like something so brilliant and original which doesn't have a formula that hasn't been used a thousand times in animated films, especially with that hip, never before seen 'tude expression that Prince Charming character and the even sexier leading lady, Rapunzel, have on their shiny, realistic faces. I'm pretty sure that this picture will break new ground in animation, and will even be better than all of classic Disney's best animated features, which all seem poorly drawn and primitive compared to this.
John, please publish my comment, so that your dear friend Pete Emslie and others will be cured of their bad vibes. I have a good feeling that every serious fan of good animation is going to take this new film seriously.
I like the poster, but I'm worried that it doesn't have enough 'tude.
Yeah - I'm thinking like: 14% more 'tude.
I mean - the more 'tude the better, right?
Who needs memorable characters when you have a big ole bucket o' tude.
Gawd, that poster scares me - what are those evil little people hiding behind that hair?
Perhaps the title "Tudegled" is more appropriate?
JK, somebody, give me a reason to love animation again !!
...just noticed JK's handle for the posted pic, "Tangletudes" (TangledTudes??). Beats mine ;-)
More of Disney selling a Rapunzel re-telling to the WRONG crowd. What would former director Glen Keene think of this? What have they wrought?
That sounds about right.
"even I'm getting really bad vibes about this film"
and for goods reasons.
I looked at Disney line up for future films on Wikipedia and I'm not interested in any of them. I do hope they don't ruin the Snow Queen though.
I wish Disney would stop fumbling around to satisfy investors and get back into stride.
This is so stock, even my dad could tell, and he knows nothing about animation. He turned to me in the theater after watching the trailer, and said to me, "They make all the same facial expressions as the Little Mermaid." In those exact words.
It's so sad, we all watched the trailer at the animation studio i was at a while back and they all seemed to LOVE it, well let's say like 40%....that's too high a number for trained animators i think.
I pointed out all the horrible things about the movie and they only seemed to care about the fact that " well the animation looks good " so? nothing else does and even the animation isn't that great.
good animation can't save a poor story and they wonder why anime is more and more popular ( and i mean good anime like Paprika or Tekkonkinkreet )
can't wait to have this mild and boring film come out and make a decent amount...probably mostly on toys and DVD sales...
They look like bully mannequins. Mannequin bullies. However you look at it, it's creepy.
The sad thing is that you know there are really talented people who are capable of really nice pretty drawings working on these films, but there's some overpowering force that makes everything have to end up looking exactly like this. I have aesthetic problems with CG just in general, but the problems here go deeper than that.
I was going to have breakfast.
Now my appetite is ruined.
This is one of the things I hate on CGI-movies; no matter which studio its from, the eyes look all the same!
And right now I feel more disappointment what I saw in the trailer of Rapunzel(Tangled), looks like any other CGI-movie that came out the last 10 years.
I wonder that these people know the original story(I mean the really old one!)of Rapunzel.
When did Disney buy and rename Shrek?
months later there will be a controversy saying thats not hair from the girl's head, just like they found the anatomy shaped building in the little mermaid movie cover
Have to make an All in the Family reference
Archie:
"Do you take cream or sugar in your eye."
John, This screen grab says it all!
http://www.patmcmichael.com/tude.jpg
At least they were bold enough to make Rapunzel a pretty White,blone-haired girl! Disney hasn't done this since 1959. They usually cast a melting pot of ethnic faces with a sprinkle of some handicaps or disabilities.
Somewhere in the midwest, the old fridge started to tremble. Bad vibes inside, too.
Anyone else feel a sexual tone in that poster? It looks like they're naked, tangled behind all that hair, maybe lying on a bed somewhere ... and those evil bedroom eyes. Yes, looks like Disney's done it again.
More like 'Tangleberries', amirite.
It would be a blessing if that was all you could see of them onscreen throughout the entire movie.
Don't look directly at it- you will go blind
So, why do they look mean? Even princesses need to be "bad ass" now?
Pete's full comments are now on his blog.
Actually, many cartoon characters have "Tude", but their "Tude"'s balanced by jokes, story and visual animation.
I don't know how TANGLED will balance out, but entertainment these days, especially Rap, pushes attitude at expense of everything else.
Classic example: Will Smith's rap, which veered between funny, catchy stories, and long pronouncements of "I'm great, I'll beat you any time or day, I'm great...." Unfortunately the latter, in varying forms, became more common.
Jeez!!!!.........
I love this poster! Two hot girls surrounded by hair, how can that be a bad thing?
"So, why do they look mean? Even princesses need to be "bad ass" now?"
Yes, Shawn, princesses do have to be "bad-ass" - according to modern culture, there are roughly only two female personalities. The first is the defenceless damsel in distress who always needs rescuing and spoke only in screams - that's the "non-pc" personality. Then there's the smarmy, independent warrior princess - the "pc" personality.
It's funny, because giving female characters UNIQUE personalities, like male characters, is more politically correct than anything else. But that's an extinct concept these days - the same with male characters, now that I think of it.
God, this movie looks horrible. An LA Times story gives some insight as to the creative process behind this film:
"The makeover of 'Rapunzel' is more than cosmetic. Disney can ill afford a moniker that alienates half the potential audience, young boys, who are needed to make an expensive family film a success.
" 'We did not want to be put in a box,' said Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, explaining the reason for the name change. 'Some people might assume it's a fairy tale for girls when it's not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody.' "
Sounds like the shareholders are the main concern here.
It doesn't look nearly as bad as Shrek did, but that's not saying much. It's almost like an experiment, with Disney trying to shoehorn a Glen Keane esthetic into a creepy-glossy CG medium. And maybe they had to buy Marvel to avoid a lawsuit for ripping off the comics' Medusa character. :)
hey john remeber you mentioned that the artists in animaniacs had a gun holden up to there heads ,I think the same is happening here in this movie
Why do I get the feeling that they want to kill me?
What are they thinking?
Hi John,
If you thought that movie will suck, take a gander at this trailer for the upcoming YOGI BEAR movie! I was just browsing through IMDB and found it.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi737805849/
Can you say hurp durp?
Eww. Looks like a couple of Barbie dolls poking out from inside a pile of little girls' hair.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjZIeHDfshQ&feature=player_embedded
new wil.e clip. thoughts?
Tangled: directed by Woody and Buzz Lightyear, produced by John Lasseter.
...Too good that I never had big expectations about that film.
Stop hatin'
Post a Comment