Jump to content

Talk:Tangled/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Plot

the "plot" section of the article doesn't actually say anything about the story shouldn't some one make a new section for the part thats there already, like "story development" or something and find out about the plot they are using now and add there there instead82.22.207.236 (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Plot" is now basically little more than a press release with one cite going elsewhere. Neat and all sure but a major copyvio and needs a less fluffspamy rewrite. 82.30.173.141 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Done ... take a look and see what you think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Rationale for use on AfD subpage is:

unreferenced speculation, WP:NOT a crystal ball

Thanks. 81.104.165.184 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What specualtion? Everything is based in information. You didn't even try to do a single search to see if at least something was correct? That's lazy. I assume some links are already mentioned in the article, so I might repeat something; http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=2684&page=6 "So with Rapunzel Keane is trying to bring drawing into CG by applying basic design principles. He admits that it’s a big leap forward for both character performance and environment. For inspiration, Keane and his animators are referencing a painting by French Rococo artist Jean-Honore Fragonard, The Swing, applying a certain richness that they have never attained in animation before." "Kyle Strawitz really helped me start to believe that the things I wanted to see were possible… that you could move in a Disney painterly world. He took the house from Snow White and built it and painted it so that it looked like a flat painting that suddenly started to move, and it had dimension and kept all of the soft, round curves of the brushstrokes of watercolor. Kyle helped us get that Fragonard look of that girl on the swing… We are using subsurface scattering and global illumination and all of the latest techniques to pull off convincing human characters and rich environments." http://www.spoiler3.blogger.com.br/DISNEY%20UPCOMING%208.jpg

http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=2684&page=5 "Paul is at the forefront of [helping bring this into the computer], because he knows what makes a painting a painting; it’s not just how a brush stroke looks because we’ve gone way beyond that since Tarzan. It has to do with how light and paint interact with each other… that luminosity, the layering, which makes a huge difference."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/23/financial1010EDT0052.DTL In an early version, Mr. Keane noticed that his famous mermaid didn't seem like herself. "There was a deadness in her eyes, a dull quality," he says. The shoulders seemed stiff. She also wasn't hitting what old-time Disney artists call "the golden poses," the few memorable images that sell each character to the audience. Fixing the piece required combining the experienced eye of a traditional animator with the computer chops of someone from the new school. Mr. Keane drew by hand what he wanted and superimposed it over the computer-animated image. At one point, his team worked for nearly a week trying to light up Ariel's smile by pushing her cheeks up and creating little creases around her eyes. "The Ariel project was a testing ground for forcing a CG figure into a hand-drawn look," Mr. Keane says. "We made the computer bend its knee to the artist, rather than the artist bend its knee to the computer." "He put together a presentation called "The Best of Both Worlds," which listed the strengths and weaknesses of each genre, and called a meeting to discuss it. "Immediately, you could feel the polarization of the two groups," Mr. Keane says." "To clear the air, Mr. Keane convened a retreat of about 25 artists at the Huntington Library in San Marino, Calif. The discussion focused on redesigning Disney's production process to enhance collaboration. Disney had already been tweaking standard computer-animation software to make it more intuitive for newcomers. At the retreat, the artists got a look at an even simpler tool the company has been developing, which would allow artists to control the movements of their computer characters by drawing on a screen with a pencil-like stylus, rather than using a mouse." "Mr. Keane and other artists often didn't like what they saw on screen in computer animation. While they admired the storytelling and characters in the computer-generated movies made by Pixar and others, many of them saw the art itself as crude, especially in its attempts to capture the complexity of a human form. "If you look at Fiona in `Shrek,"' Mr. Keane says, "her shoulders never seem to move." He decided that embracing computer animation would mean "I would have to go backwards from what I do by hand."

http://cinematech.blogspot.com/2005/09/disney-moves-away-from-hand-drawn.html "I loved 'Shrek,' " Mr. Keane responded. But the characters, particularly Princess Fiona, looked plastic to him. "Every frame of that film was a bad drawing to me, personally," he said.

http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=3178 A great example of adapting “squash and stretch” for CG animation is the big baseball game in “Chicken Little.” "CG Supervisors Kevin Geiger and Kyle Odermatt and their team came up with these tools to bring more elasticity to the facial performance, and help animators approximate the range they would normally have with traditional animation. “Chicken Wire” is a collection of wire deformers that add extra functionality. These tools specifically address the common complaint that computer animation is too puppet-like or mannequin-ish." "And finally, for those animators who come from a drawing background, new electronic tablet screens allow them to rough out their characters’ movements using digital sketches. Similar to drawn thumbnails, the computer keeps track of each successive electronic drawing and allows the animator to block out their performance in 2D in minutes. Goldberg concludes, “‘Chicken Little’ has laid a foundation for making CG features that all future Disney films will benefit from. We have the ability to create anything the story guys can come up with. We can create it and art-direct it in a way that I don’t think any other studio can realize. The Studio brings over 80 years of animation experience to the medium, and our goal is to carry that wonderful legacy forward in the new digital frontier. We are not driven by technology, but control the technology to make it do what we want it to do."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/19/business/disney.php Keane, a 31-year veteran who created the beast from "Beauty and the Beast" and Ariel from "The Little Mermaid," was a Disney traditionalist. But after a series of experiments to see whether he could create a computer-animated ballerina, his opposition softened. So he invited the 50 animators to discuss the pros and cons of both art forms, calling his seminar "The Best of Both Worlds." For an hour, Keane listed the pluses and minuses of each technique while the other animators listened quietly.


http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20944


http://www.jimhillmedia.com/mb/articles/printer_friendly.php?ID=1589 "I found my inspiration for the look of this film in a painting called 'The Swing,'" Keane continued. "It was painted by a French Rocco artist named Jean-Honore Fragonard. Just look at how rich this imagery is. It's like there's butter between the brush strokes." Glen challenged "Rapunzel" art director Lisa Keane to come up with a look that was at least as rich as the world suggested in Fragonard's painting. And wonder of wonders, Lisa was actually able to pull that off in a CG format. With these big steps forward, Glen was now able to start moving "Rapunzel Unbraided" in the direction that he wanted. Which was a Disney CG feature that -- while it still had all the strengths & virtues that a traditionally animated film had -- still looked and felt like nothing that Disney Feature Animation had ever done before."

http://www.ualberta.ca/~ntam/2005_11_01_archive.html The visual concept behind Rapunzel Unbraided - an oil painting that moves in 3D space - is one of the most exciting developments I've heard of about the future of the now rather unexciting movie business, which has with few exceptions become aesthetically stagnant now that the wonders of technology are peaking.

Another comment on a board; " And I’ve heard Disney has created such software for Keane’s Rapunzel Unbraided. Drawing forcelines and silhouettes on a tablet pc in the animation table. I believe it was shown at Siggraph last year… Who knows, maybe they’ll show it again this year? If so, I hope to hear about it, cause that seems to be the most awesome way to animate ever. Keeping the 2D feeling but having more depth as a result."

I remeber even some more links about comments on how this movie is going to be made and how those who saw the test at SIGGRAPT really thought it was like a painting coming to life, but this is probably enough for now. The last link is just referring to an opinion, but it is very well said. If you don't like how the article is written, why din't you write it with your own words instead?

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.91.183 (talk • contribs)

Content

Let's not excise large portions of the content until the AfD is done. Besides, it's obvious this information came from somewhere, we just need to find out where. Powers 11:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've yet again trimmed out the bits with shades of POV, and the paragraph on technique still doesn't really meet the creiteria for verifiability since you'd need two sources to back them up (for obvious reasons), and each part is only reported in one. Of course, the fact that it's been reported doesn't change the fact that it's still speculation until it's certain the film is in the can and ready for release. 81.104.165.184 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean about needing two sources. Powers 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) After all, we are just talking about an upcoming movie and are referring to what has already been mentioend about ambitions, attempts, technlogy and techniques in serious articles and interviews. All is mentioned in the links I have posted above (including support on the "citation needed" stuff). "The fact that it's been reported doesn't change the fact that it's still speculation until it's certain the film is in the can and ready for release." I guess that sentence says it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.216.121.100 (talk • contribs)
I'd have thought that was obvious. One source for a statement of fact, and another one to back it up. 81.104.165.184 10:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not require two sources for every assertion. If a source is reliable, that's usually considered sufficient. Powers 15:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have now posted a link that are relevent for the "citation needed" parts (which I have removed). The link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? , does not work anymore, so I have linked to a discussion board where the whole article is copied instead. In my opinion, it doesn't belong here becasue it is about Disney animation in generel, not about Rapunzel Unbraided exclusively. But since some seems to be so difficult that they thinks the whole thing should be deleted if there isn't any links where the information can be verified, it belongs there at least for the moment as all the information that is needed can be found in it and the references. 193.217.133.119 09:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, however, a message board is not an acceptable reference for Wikipedia articles (see WP:RS). 81.104.165.184 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not an opinion on a message board, what is posted is a direct copy of an article. You have to be pretty paranoid to think it is all made up. Like it said, the original artciel does no longer exist, but here is a google version of it: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:vXpXmRHCfikJ:www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ff%3D/news/archive/2003/10/23/financial1010EDT0052.DTL+Keane+Rapunzel+Disney+deadness+golden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
Nobody is saying it is made up, only that message boards are not acceptable references. 81.104.165.184 13:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

To reiterate the POV issues:

Rapunzel Unbraided will have a unique look ...

To suggest it's unique is a value judgement, which NPOV does not allow us to make. Of course, if there are enough (i.e. considerably more than just one) sources around which suggest it's unique, then we can say that provided it's attributed (i.e. we state that others think it is unique).

... a single frame from the upcoming movie is going to look much like a painting or a drawing that comes to life when played ...

Again, what constitutes "coming to life" is a value judgement. If enough people in the real world make the suggestion, then we can include it, properly attributed.

While the the movements ... are known to be much stiffer and artificial ...

That's an opinion, but whose is it? It's certainly not Wikipedia's opinion, since that needs to be neutral.

Legendary Disney lead animator Glen Keane ...

Again, legendary in whose opinion?

the experiences and knowledge from decades of traditional animation are forming the building ground where CGI is going to add new layers of animation techniques to those already present

Ugh. Sales talk.

I'm also concerned about the "concept art", which has been tagged with {{promotional}}, yet without a definitive source at Disney to suggest that they are. 81.104.165.184 11:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unique" is not a value judgement. If it hasn't been done before, it's unique; it's not really a matter of opinion. Perhaps the word "novel" or "unseen" or "different" would suit you better?
"coming to life" and "stiffer and artificial" are arguable either way. I don't see them as opinions, but just as slightly more colorful language.
Glen Keane is a legendary animator in nearly everyone's opinion. Widely acclaimed people don't need sources to state that they're widely acclaimed. Perhaps a slightly more neutral term could be found, like "Acclaimed"?
The experiences and knowledge passage sounds fine to me. It's true, isn't it? Do you have a suggested alternative wording?
The concept art is also questionable, I agree. I would not object to its removal. However, I do think it qualifies as promotional artwork, since it appears to have come from SIGGRAPH last year. Powers 12:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course "unique" is a value judgement. Wikipedia can happily say something is not unique, since the prior art will be evident, however, you can't provide evidence that there is has been nothing like it. As previously stated, if you have a citation for someone else describing it as unique, then it can be included as such (but not in the form as it was when I removed it).
"coming to life" and "stiffer and artificial" are beyond doubt critical opinions. You can't say on a factual basis that something is "stiff and artificial", since it requires appreciation.
Nearly-universal opinion and neutral opinion are not one and the same. That everyone thinks he's legendary doesn't mean it's acceptable to summarily describe him as such. There will be people who disagree.
"experiences and knowledge": The sentence combines everyone's favourite failings - sales talk, speculation, opinion, etc. It's another value judgement, and not self-evident.
For the concept art, we need an "audit trail". If the images don't come from disney.com (with a statement that they're intended for promotional use), we need to be able to trace them back. Stuff from a third-party site is no use when we don't even know for sure that they have permission to use it. 81.104.165.184 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Rapunzel Unbraided will have a unique look ...

What do you think all the fuzz in the animation industry is about? It is because what they are trying to do has never been done before.

... a single frame from the upcoming movie is going to look much like a painting or a drawing that comes to life when played ...

It is not the "coming to life" part that is the main subject here, but what a single frame from the movie looks like. ("He took the house from Snow White and built it and painted it so that it looked like a flat painting that suddenly started to move, and it had dimension and kept all of the soft, round curves of the brushstrokes of watercolor. http://www.spoiler3.blogger.com.br/DISNEY%20UPCOMING%208.jpg ) "Coming to life" only means that it is going to be like a drawing that starts to move and have dimension when the film is played.

While the the movements ... are known to be much stiffer and artificial ...

No, it is not an opinion. Everybody can see how much more fluid the movements are in hand drawned Disney movies compared to the stiffness seen in the CGI movies made so far. That's not an opinion, but a fact.

Legendary Disney lead animator Glen Keane ...

I'm sure articles found in New York Times and other famous newspapers and magazines are using words are "legendary" about people too sometimes. Like I already have mentioned a lot of time, why not replace the words with some new ones if they seems to be incorrect, instead of deleting the whole thing.

the experiences and knowledge from decades of traditional animation are forming the building ground where CGI is going to add new layers of animation techniques to those already present

Actually, it is true. The squash and stretch and all the other rules created be the nine old men, as well as the experience from those who are trained in traditional animation at the studio, are going to be used in the future computer animated features from Disney, but it is just now that the technology has advanced enough to make it possible to do on computers that earlier was only possible in 2D animation. ("The Studio brings over 80 years of animation experience to the medium, and our goal is to carry that wonderful legacy forward in the new digital frontier." http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=3178 ) If we all should delete everything that didn't fit with out personal flavor, there would be a lot of deleting on wikipedia. 193.216.120.87 13:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Whether or not what they're trying to do has been done before is neither here nor there - "unique" is not acceptable in a statement of fact (Wikiepdia is an encyclopaedia).
  2. It should be perfectly feasible to talk about what the film might look like, without using judgemental idioms such as "coming to life". Either way, to discuss that is still speculation given we're a full 2-3 years away from release. Again, blogs and message boards are not appropriate references for encyclopaedia articles.
  3. "Stiff and artificial" is an opinion. You can't argue against that. As you have just admitted, people would have to see it to appreciate it, so we can't state it as a matter of fact.
  4. The New York Times might well refer to someone as "legendary", but it is not an encyclopaedia. It is a newspaper, and is entitled to hold and express an opinion. On the other hand, neutrality is, according to the big guy, "not negotiable".
  5. Your statement on the "experiences and knowledge" passage demonstrates a fatal misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not anyone's personal plaything (with maybe one exception). The basis for inclusion of specific information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That statement is entirely unverifiable, as it is nothing more than pure speculative opinion. It is someone saying where they believe the field is going.
  6. Finally, please remain civil in talk page discussions. Wikipedia users in general will take you less seriously otherwise. 81.104.165.184 13:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I will respond to the rest later, for now I have only one thing to say; "This article or section contains information about one or more scheduled or expected future films.
The content may change dramatically as the film's release approaches and more information becomes available." Everybody knows that this is a movie not made yet, and that the information is based on how far the project has come to this point. 193.217.136.106 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Whether or not what they're trying to do has been done before is neither here nor there - "unique" is not acceptable in a statement of fact (Wikiepdia is an encyclopaedia).

It is an active and online encyclopaedia, meaning that what is unique today may not be it tomorrow. If say, the information has to adjust. Not worse than that. Also, it is fully possible to change the words in a sentence without change its meaning.

  1. It should be perfectly feasible to talk about what the film might look like, without using judgemental idioms such as "coming to life". Either way, to discuss that is still speculation given we're a full 2-3 years away from release. Again, blogs and message boards are not appropriate references for encyclopaedia articles.

I am fully aware of that, and my link was never intendent to be permanent. Only as long as the delete debate was going on, which I assume is not going to be forever either. And again, this is not speculation but based on quotes from different sources. And as I already have mentioned, most articles about future films on wikipedia have a note where it says that "the content may change dramatically as the film's release approaches and more information becomes available". And yet you claim that because it is still around 3 years in the future, it is too early for that kind of information.

  1. "Stiff and artificial" is an opinion. You can't argue against that. As you have just admitted, people would have to see it to appreciate it, so we can't state it as a matter of fact.

I have admitted what you say? It is not an opinion that the characters in CGI movies like Shrek moves much stiffer than the characters in for instance Nimh or The Little Mermaid. It's a fact.

  1. The New York Times might well refer to someone as "legendary", but it is not an encyclopaedia. It is a newspaper, and is entitled to hold and express an opinion. On the other hand, neutrality is, according to the big guy, "not negotiable".

Like also suggested, it is easy to replace the word "legendary" with something more neutral if it feels so wrong.

  1. Your statement on the "experiences and knowledge" passage demonstrates a fatal misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not anyone's personal plaything (with maybe one exception). The basis for inclusion of specific information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That statement is entirely unverifiable, as it is nothing more than pure speculative opinion. It is someone saying where they believe the field is going.

Based in the technological improvements and spoken ambitions, it is safe to say in what direction Disney wants to go with their animated movies.

  1. Finally, please remain civil in talk page discussions. Wikipedia users in general will take you less seriously otherwise.

I have never had any problems in baing taken seriously. I may seem a little aggressive in a few sentences, partly because you are unnecessary picky, but most of all because of your patronizing attitude. Without even the slightest attempt to see if anything is correct, you claims the contributions has "a strong hint of unadulterated speculation" and also claims I have totally misunderstood how Wikipedia works and are using it as my personal plaything.

Barry Manilow

OK, so apparently, Barry Manilow had a contract with Don Bluth to score three animated features, the third of which was to be "Rapunzel". The links 141.150.242.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has provided amply document that, but there's no indication of any relationship between the never-released Bluth "Rapunzel" film and this Disney "Rapunzel" film. I continue to fail to see how a contract with Bluth "must be honored" by Disney! Powers T 14:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

11/20/06 I'm not positive, but I think the Don Bluth Rapunzel and the Disney Rapunzel are one in the same now since Bluth's studio closed. I think Disney likely took over the projects in development from Bluth upon closure (therefore they would have to honor artist contracts already made), but I do not know this for sure. I would suggest contacting Mr. Bluth directly at DonBluth.com to get the definative answer to the status of Rapunzel and Barry Manilow's involvement in composing the score and orginial songs. Good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs) .

That would be original research. We need positive evidence of something before we add it to the encyclopedia. I have no idea why you think Disney took over Bluth's projects, but I've not seen a single shred of evidence toward that. As such, I'm removing the Manilow credit until such time as we have something more substantial than mere speculation. Powers T 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

11/21/06 The burden of proof is not on me to prove that Barry Manilow is signed to do the music for Rapunzel. There are plenty of sources saying the same online and in various newspaper articles and television shows during the 1990s when Thumbelina and The Pebble and the Penguin were released. The burden of proof is on you to show documentation that there are coincidently and unbelieveably two studios working many years at the same time on a movie about Rapunzel. It seems the right thing to do would be to have Barry Manilow's name, as well as Bruce Sussman listed ([1]) as signed songwriters along with the other names listed at least until it becomes clear closer to the movie release date that they are indeed involved with a completely seperate movie project with the same name, if that is the case. 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs) .

Um, yes, the burden of proof actually is on you. I've still not seen one single shred of evidence that Manilow's contract with Bluth in any way transferred to Disney. You do realize that the story of Rapunzel is in the public domain, right? Two studios certainly could have been working on versions of the same basic story, and there's absolutely zero evidence of any connection between the two projects. All we need is one single source that shows a connection -- any connection at all. Just one. If you can't find that one source, there's no reason to assume Manilow is involved. Powers T 00:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Other Rapunzel (Bluth)

11/24/06 I'm just a good samariton looking forward to a movie, not someone trying to start a fight. I think you may be right about there being two movies going on on Rapunzel. I was wondering if you can start a stub for the Bluth movie in the making. Today I came across this related sample of footage from the Bluth version here Animated News 10/22/2004 Archives: "Don Bluth animates Scissor Sisters video" 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs) .

I thought you said Bluth's studio had closed. The article you linked indicates that the Scissor Sisters video is a version of the Rapunzel tale, not a condensed version of any upcoming movie. To be honest, since the three-picture deal was more than ten years ago, and no Rapunzel has been forthcoming, I think it's safe to assume the film is dead. Not really worth an article until we have some evidence that it's actually in production rather than just in the planning stages. I don't mean to knock your enthusiasm, here; I encourage you to continue to contribute to the encyclopedia, but I think this might be a dead end. Powers T 15:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

11/25/06 Online I was looking into the status of Don Bluth's studios (Ireland and Arizona) online and found these articles Variety.com Court puts stamp on Bluth sale There is no mention in the Variety article about Rapunzel being a part of the deal which tells me that Bluth himself must still have it (that could be why some of the footage from Rapunzel surfaced in that 2004 music video). Since Rapunzel is conspiculously out of the liquidation deal (as the movie is the third and final film in the Manilow deal) leads me to think that it is currently in limbo and not necessarily dead. I am not able, at the moment, to find anything that says that the movie is canned or for that matter still active either. As for his Arizona studio, that appears to have been shutdown by Fox in 2000 Murdoch: "A Pretty Horrible Year" For 20th Century Fox

Currently, it looks like Bluth and Gary Goldman donated to the Savannah College of Art and Design one million pieces of art including animation cels, drawings and sketches Animators Don Bluth and Gary Goldman donate original artwork It also looks like they are doing animation for games Bluth and Goldman working on I-Ninja Namco announces that animated filmmakers Don Bluth and Gary Goldman will create in-game movies for its upcoming action game In all I think Bluth and Goldman are sitting on Rapunzel and could release it at anytime. It could be anything holding them up from doing so from money, to music (it seems from his official page that they left Manilow hanging on about the project) or anything. Please create a stub for this project. If nothing pans out the stub could always be deleted. 67.98.154.56 (talk • contribs) .

While your exhaustive research is appreciated, I think it only serves to prove that we have no verifiable information about the state of Bluth's Rapunzel project. There's no evidence that any of it was ever animated, that a script was ever written, nor that music was ever commissioned. The stub would basically say "In the early 1990s, Don Bluth was planning to make a film based on the fairy tale of Rapunzel, for which Barry Manilow would have written the songs, but as of 2006 it has yet to come to fruition." Such a stub would not last long on Wikipedia; one of our favorite sayings is "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Until some verifiable progress has been made toward creating the film, there's just nothing to be said about it. Powers T 16:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: Note that my proposed stub sentence I quoted above would be perfectly appropriate as a sentence in the Don Bluth article. Why don't you add it there? Powers T 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a full-length feature film

Define the phrase "not a full-length feature film". This was a description of this film at Talk:The Princess and the Frog. Georgia guy 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comedy

Is it a fairy tale comedy a la Shrek, Happily N'Ever After, and Chicken Little? Or is it more like the normal Disney princesses? 24.4.131.142 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a fairy tale comedy. It was, but they're decided theat they're sticking to the original storyline. By the way, Chicken Little is not a fairy tale. (talk 7:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please no kitsch!

The last view animated movies were really great, I just hope disney can keep this up. However if I view this screenshot of the main character and look at the so far discussed plot, I have my doubts that this movie will be any good. I hope they are not going to tell a kitschy fairy tale movie. Fairy tales are always great, if they stick to a good plot line! The danger in animating a fairy tale is always that you move away from a sincere movie to a crappy kitsch tale. This animated character remembers me very much on the barbie movies. I've seen what Barbie as Rapunzel and what they made with the movie, it was total kitschy crap, mostly like the rest of the line. However I hope Disney can make it better! The idea is great, I hope disney really makes something out of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Konohanin (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

#?

If this is the 49th and The King of Elves is the 51th, then what is the 50th? That seems like a big number. are they keeping some big Mickey centered epic under their hat for THIS long?

chantal

hi rapunzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.176.7 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"Tangled"

According to a press release on the official Walt Disney Animation Studios Facebook page, this film has apparently been renamed "Tangled". Not sure if that is enough evidence, though - or how to change the page title, for that matter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophias (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Note, I'm closing this since it was moved. I'll make additional comments on the following request. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Rapunzel (film) → Tangled (film) — It was announced on Facebook today that the film will be called "Tangled". [Reopened for further discussion] - 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a vandal. What gives you that idea? Changes to pages should not be based on the user who made them, but the changes that were made and their sources. --DisneyFriends (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And this change has no source. Georgia guy (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. Yes, there is a posting on Facebook discussing this. No, I don't believe DisneyFriends is acting in a malicious manner for trying to make the change. To his credit, he has proposed the move instead of outright moving it. However, Georgia guy is right in that there is no verifiable source data on this. I don't have any proof that the WDAS Facebook page actually belongs to WDAS and is authorized to make such statements. If it had, the same info would have started appearing on Disney's official websites. Further, it would have appeared in the entertainment media. To that end, I checked the WDAS website and Walt Disney Pictures website and even Variety ... the first two still say Rapunzel and there is no news story on Variety with the keywords "Disney," "Rapunzel" and "Tangled". So, for the time being, until a reliable source appears, it's Rapunzel. Looks like it's Tangled ... other sources are carrying the same story, so either everyone got buffaloed (like the Cars 2 story the other day) or it's legit. Change to support. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. --DisneyFriends (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Having two nominations opened at the same time seems to have confused the RM listing bot. It also appears that the reverse of this move was made the day before the nominations if I'm reading the history correctly. So that makes both of these discussions some what confusing. So this situation in my opinion results in a no consensus here. Having said that, If anyone believes that this move is still the correct choice they can relist this at WP:RM. With only one discussion open, maybe the discussion will be less confusing.

Tangled (film) → Rapunzel (film) —

  • Summary revert of non-consensual move - RM still ongoing and there is not yet a clear consensus to move. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There seems to be uncetainty here. See discussion hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Disney has officially announced that the film will be renamed. Rapunzel has always been the film's "working title". The official title is Tangled. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Variety confirms it. Tangled it is. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Variety hasn't "confirmed" it by any means. Like the previous cite from comingsoon.net, that story is also using the Facebook post as its source. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Variety is a fact-checked reliable source, so if they're running with the story, they feel confident in it. Like I said before, it's still possible that everyone's been had, but it's becoming less and less likely. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
          • But they explicitly sourced it to the Facebook page, which means it inherits Facebook's reliability. There's no indication that Variety confirmed the information independently. Powers T 13:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
            • For fear of beating a dead horse, are we looking for a non-entertainment-based, third-party independent source that says in its article that it called Robert Iger directly and asked him "Is it so?" before the move is permitted? I agree that Facebook in and of itself isn't reliable, but Variety isn't dumb. Why would they put their prestige on the line and why would the author of the Variety article put his credibility on the line—which when they write/run a story is what they're doing—over a potentially-dubious Facebook post unless they've called Disney (either now or previously) to verify (a) this Facebook account is indeed owned by Disney and (b) any statements emanating from this account are to be considered as coming from the company? Do you want them (or whoever) to say in the article "The statement appeared on Disney's Facebook account, but we called to check and confirm it ourselves"? Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised with ComingSoon.net or other online-only movie sites getting taken by a questionable Facebook post, but I think if Variety takes the chance to run it, it's setting the bar pretty high. Are we risking setting the bar too high for future editors if we, for all intents and purposes, say that Variety—or any other newspaper or what-not—is no longer a reliable source if it doesn't say in the article how it got the story and whether such methodology passes muster amongst the article's editors? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, speedily. Who the hell moved this while a discussion was still going on anyway? I don't see how it can get any more official than the Disney Feature Animation website, and that still says Rapunzel. Everything else is going off what is essentially a blog post from Facebook. How that can possibly trump the official web site is beyond my comprehension. Powers T 01:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, I do believe Disney's official website tops any Facebook page on reliability. Until Disney's official website gives confirmation I believe the title change should be treated as a mere rumour. Of course, as soon as their website confirms it, the page should be immediately moved, but not before that. Lumi-chan (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Since I haven't registered a vote in this discussion, I shall now. And in doing so, I shall present a question. Below are the first three paragraphs from the article on Variety's website. One change has been made, one that removes the prepositional phrase ("on Disney's Facebook page") that seems to be giving so many people so much grief. First the paragraphs, then the question.
Disney has given "Rapunzel" a new name: "Tangled."
The animated pic, a comedic reimagining of the classic Brothers Grimm fairytale, will still unspool November 12 as a limited release, and open wide on November 24 in 3D.
Roy Conli, the film's producer, announced the new title on Friday.
Now the question, and BE HONEST. With no advance knowledge of the Facebook post, if this statement had appeared on Variety's website as written above, would there be this much gnashing of teeth? You can assume that Disney's online materials may still be saying Rapunzel, if you want. It wouldn't change anything, because per WP:RS, third-party would trump first-party.
Lastly, consider this ... Disney hasn't disavowed or denied the change. When the Cars 2 story broke last week, saying that the film had gotten bumped back six months, Disney, in a matter of hours, corrected the statement. It's been over 60 hours since this story appeared on Variety, and Disney has had plenty of time to say "it ain't so." --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Why yes, in that case I would still support leaving this article at its previous name because primary sources trump secondary sources. Powers T 19:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Lt., you made a very good statement earlier, stating that Variety was inheriting Facebook's reliability. I think you're exactly right, they are ... and they still ran the story, knowing how much egg would be on their face if they were wrong. They didn't even question it; if there was a question, they could have easily said "A Facebook account allegedly belonging to Walt Disney Animation Studios stated ...", which would have let them save face if the story turned out to be bogus. Considering Variety's decades-long prominence reporting on the entertainment industry, it's reasonable to assume they fact-checked either when they first reported it (i.e., they saw Facebook post, called Disney and asked "is this you?", Disney said "yes, it is" and they ran the story) or had done so earlier (i.e., they saw the WDAS Facebook account appear, called Disney and asked "is this you?", Disney said "yes it's officially us, so you can quote it whenever", and they ran the story, knowing it was legit). Even further, I looked up the bona fides of the author whose byline appears on the Variety story ... this isn't an intern who's blogging for them. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that Variety has somehow lost their reliability, simply that when faced with a primary source and a secondary source that disagree, we ought to preference the primary source absent a strong reason to suspect its veracity. More practically, in this specific case, the title certainly seems to be in flux (as it was years ago when Rapunzel Unbraided was the working title) and I would prefer to refrain from moving the page until the name was settled (a good indication of which would be the changing of the official web site to match the new title). Powers T 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you raised a good point (you've been good at that in this discussion--kudos), but at the same time do we allow Wikipedia to be held up when the marketing department has possibly fallen behind? I've asked for temporary move protection to keep things as they are—be it ultimately right or wrong—until this is settled, just to put the kibosh on a move war (that admittedly hasn't occurred, yet) ... frankly, I'm happy this is taking place on the talk page instead, and that we all seem to want to get this right. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
You're asking for protection while it's at your preferred location, even though there's no move war occurring? Bad form. Powers T 00:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, when this ruckus first started, I planned to ask for semi-protection for edits to protect Rapunzel from rampant changes ... until the Variety article surfaced, which indicated, in my mind, that it was probably true. Just trying to minimize disruptions, regardless of what form it's in. The admins said there wasn't enough recent move activity to warrant such protection yet, besides. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move the article back

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Based on the discussion it appears that Disney has announced that the name is the current name of the article. Since the nominator agrees, this can be closed. For those that don't know, this is my (vegaswikian) non privileged id. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Tangled (film) → Rapunzel (film) — The official Walt Disney Animation Studios website still says "Rapunzel", and so should the title remain until such time as the name change to Tangled is official (if it ever happens; this film has changed names before). And let's not do weird things like moving the article while discussion is underway, shall we? —Powers T 13:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose ... sorry to be repeating myself, but two reliable sources have put their credibility and fact-checking skills on the line to run this story. Yes, Disney is known for changing things pretty rapidly, but it appears Web Marketing is a bit behind, which is probably more to do with having a major release in under 2 weeks ... one with a hefty online promotional campaign, to boot. Most telling of all? Disney has yet to deny the story, as they did when another reliable, fact-checked source misinterpreted a conference call and ran a story saying Cars 2 would be delayed; that correction was made the same day. Disney has surely seen the Variety article and has yet to issue a statement asking for a correction or simply stating "it ain't so." --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support speedy revert. The page was initially moved to the current title while a discussion was still in progress, and notably consensus was leaning against it (and reading the above debates, it still is). Worth noting that no reliable sources have reported a definite change of name. Some of the above users have confused sources with outlets. The two items mentioned are outlets that tend to produce reliable source material, however, that does not mean that all of their stories are reliable source material. In particular, a story predicated entirely on a single post from Facebook is not ever under any circumstances an acceptable reference. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per McDoobAU93, reliable sources are the first reason for my opposition and second there seems to already be title artwork, unless it was falsely created. Jashack (talk) 2:49 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I believe that the title artwork included in this article is fake. It was uploaded by a new user with no copyright attribution. The image is lo-fi and doesn't show up on any Google searches, as you would suspect it might if Disney had actually released it. Uncle Dick (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, the title block looks somewhat reasonable, but its past concerns me, the same as it concerns Uncle Dick. I flagged it for copyright reasons, and hope it'll be resolved soon so it doesn't threaten the rest of the article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • So that last image was fake, but it seems now that the real title artwork has been made available. You can check out the new artwork here and here. With two websites and possibly more out there having the same logo I think it's starting to look more and more like it is now named Tangled. Jashack (talk) 5:51 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I finally found the magic bullet that should put all of this to rest ... and from probably the most honest, reliable source there is (relatively speaking): The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A quick search using the Office's website and its Trademark Electronic Search System (from homepage, select "Search Marks" from the Trademarks menu, then do New User Search) found nearly 30 items using either "Tangled" or "Disney Tangled". The trademarks are for all manner of consumer products that one would relate to marketing for a movie (shampoo for girls, gifts, etc.). The earliest date that I can find so far is February 11, 2010, so this is indeed a very recent decision. Best of all, who's the applicant? "Disney Enterprises, Inc." Disney wouldn't go to all the trouble to register this stuff if that wasn't the title. If the US Government isn't a reliable enough source to determine Disney has renamed the film Tangled, I don't know what is, frankly. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The USPTO records that Disney has registered trademarks in a specific name tell us nothing more than that Disney has registered those trademarks. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
How did I know that wouldn't be enough to satisfy someone ... the evidence in reliable sources keeps piling up. It's Tangled. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Where's the reliable source here? All I see are three very brief stories, all of which have as their only source a post to someone's Facebook page, and some irrelevant references to the USPTO (last time I checked, confirming film titles was not listed among their responsibilities). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Reliable source #1: Variety, the most trusted entertainment news daily in the world, arguably. It fact-checked the story and ran it, believing and trusting that the information presented was true and correct. If they had thought otherwise, they would have indicated as such in the story.
Reliable source #2: Empire magazine, a leading British entertainment magazine, in business for over 20 years. It, too, fact-checked the story and ran it, believing and trusting that the information presented was true and correct. Again, if they had thought otherwise, they would have said so in the story.
Reliable source #3: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which receives a barrage of trademark requests from Disney Enterprises for products using the name "Tangled" ... products that would quite easily carry the film's logo and name, such as would be part of a marketing campaign for the film. Said barrage hits the day before the post on Facebook, which is subsequenty fact-checked and believed to be true and correct by reliable sources #1 and #2.
Reliable source #4A: Disney itself. Ever heard the phrase "silence is deafening"? Disney's silence on the matter, when compared against an unintentional mistake regarding the release date of Cars 2 that was corrected within hours of the story's publication. Disney has had nearly 2 weeks to respond to the story, saying it's untrue, incorrect, the Facebook account isn't official, etc. They haven't, because they know the truth. It's now Tangled.
Reliable source #4B: Disney itself again. A quick peek at the WDAS website finds, lo and behold, Rapunzel is no longer there. Now, if you're going to now say the project is outright canceled because it's not listed on the WDAS website, good luck with that. More likely? They're getting ready to reload the new info for the film's new name, Tangled.
Four separate sources all saying the same thing, in one form or another. The film's name is Tangled. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You are making the mistake of suggesting that because an outlet is known to be reliable any and all of its output should be considered reliable. #1 and #2 are out - they openly admit that their only source was Facebook. The stories are therefore not sufficient - end of story. #3 is out - it tells us that Disney has registered some trademarks, nothing more - you are asking us to make the connection without supporting evidence that those marks are related to this film. #4 is out - lack of a statement is not a reliable source. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
To dismiss Variety and Empire out-of-hand simply because of the source they use for the article is being awfully short-sighted. Yes, it's on Facebook, but that doesn't mean (a) it is not official and (b) that it isn't correct. You're right in that few (if any) of us know with 100% certainty that the WDAS Facebook page is indeed Disney's. But you're also making the assumption that Variety and Empire don't know that either, which may not be the case. Again, both are sources for the information, which in turn used, as their sources, a post that they have interpreted as true, either because they had already contacted Disney in the past to confirm that anything appearing on that page is to be considered official, or they did so after the Tangled post appeared. What keeps getting ignored in all this is this ... if either Variety or Empire thought this release wasn't on the up-and-up, they could easily have said so. A few extra characters on the story, to say that "a post allegedly made by" or something like that, could have easily provided cover if the story had turned up wrong.
Let's look at this another way. Let's say the President tells a reporter he's going to cut taxes. The reporter publishes his story in his newspaper or paper's website. Using your methodology, you wouldn't consider the newspaper a reliable source unless the President posted something on his website corroborating the story. Similarly, whenever Usama Bin Laden (or a proxy of his) releases another threatening audio tape, news agencies almost always say "a voice purported to be UBL" or some such, because they are questioning the veracity of the source. Saying they aren't reliable because of the source is dismissive of the journalistic processes at work at Variety and Empire, both of which are considered reliable source material for film articles.
As to the USPTO search, it's corroborating evidence. A bunch of trademark requests using the same name appearing all at once a day before a press release on Facebook announces the name change to that very name. All too coincidental to be chance or to be anything else. The main sources still stand: Variety ran it without question. Empire ran it without question. Disney has not denied the story or requested a retraction. Disney has removed references to Rapunzel from the WDAS website ... again, using your methodology, the film must therefore be canceled. So, which is it? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't buy the argument that "everything Variety says anywhere on its website is gospel". No sane person would. Ultimately, their story is a reliable source to testify that a statement has been made. It isn't an authority on the accuracy of that statement. If these sources were reporting with independent corroboration, e.g. a conference or a release, fine - but they're not. Both stories seem to have made a point of identifying Facebook as the source. If the President says he's going to cut taxes in a public statement, multiple sources will be able to come forward and say "We were there when he said it", and some would even have the film to prove it. If the President announced a major initiative via their social profile, there would be a follow-up statement somewhere - on the Web, via a press briefing, etc. If the President announced something via a social profile, and then said nothing for two weeks, the conclusion most people would draw is that it's not happening. The USPTO is not corroborating evidence - it's evidence that they own the marks, nothing more. They may have made speculative applications. They may even have another project in the works of that title. A record at USPTO only proves that they own the mark, it says nothing as to how they intend to use them. It may be that this project has a new title, in which case it would be appropriate to move it when we have solid reporting that confirms it. Right now, we cannot say with any degree of certainty that the title has changed, so the move was premature. It was also carried out while discussion was ongoing, and without consensus to do so. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Never said Variety was gospel ... just what WP:FILMS has said, that it's considered "reliable." Without looking at the timeline of the events, I'd say the move to Tangled occurred after the Variety article surfaced, since it rendered the previous discussion moot, by being a reliable source running a story whose source happens to be a post that Disney (most likely) posted on one of its many Facebook marketing accounts. The whole matter here happens to be Variety's mention of Facebook. I still submit that if Variety hadn't mentioned Facebook in their story, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The article would have been moved per a reliable source, and that's that. So just because Facebook is involved there's this much invective. Then Empire corroborates it, showing the same comfort level with their source as Variety did. Again, you are assuming that neither Variety nor Empire did their homework before running this story. I submit they did, because otherwise they wouldn't have earned the title of "reliable" around here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Just because a source is generally reliable does not mean that everything they print can be taken to be necessarily true. When an article involves original reporting, we can be assured that it's been fact-checked and most likely meets a good standard for accuracy. But they do not print just original reporting; they also often repeat information presented elsewhere more-or-less verbatim. In this case, the publications are merely repeating an announcement made in another channel; there's no indication of independent corroboration (which would be indicated by saying something like "sources within the company"). Absent such language, it is irresponsible to assume they did any independent fact-checking, and the reasonable conclusion is that they simply saw the same Facebook notice we did and put it up on their site -- carefully attributed to Facebook so that readers would know it was not their own reporting. (That said, the recent removal of Rapunzel from the WDAS web site is telling, but not conclusive.) Powers T 13:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
But that returns to "doing your homework" earlier ... how do we know that Variety and Empire haven't already contacted Disney to find out if this Facebook account is actually theirs, and therefore it actually is "sources within the company." Another reason a news story says "sources within the company" is because someone's leaking information or otherwise isn't authorized to talk to the media. Again, if Variety or Empire thought something wasn't on the level, THEY COULD HAVE SAID SO. If either was considered a gossip rag, a la National Enquirer, we wouldn't be discussing this, because they wouldn't be considered "reliable." You're right, Facebook on its own isn't a reliable source. But when Variety puts its decades-long history on the line to simply say "Disney said on its Facebook page X" without even questioning if it was actually Disney saying it, that gives it the weight needed. And yes, even though the vote is leaning oppose, this will be settled in the very near future with the first appearance of a Tangled trailer, either with Alice in Wonderland next Friday or on the Princess and the Frog DVD/BD release in mid-March. But until then, we have a number of WP-worthy reliable sources saying the same thing ... the film's title is Tangled. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
We don't know whether or not they've contacted Disney or not. That's the whole point. And your paraphrase is right: "Disney said on its Facebook page X" is all that Variety said about the topic. That fact is not in dispute; what is in dispute is whether that fact is sufficient for changing the title or not. It might be worth a mention in the article, but we need better sources than that to change the title. Powers T 17:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we do ... if Variety didn't think the story was legitimate, the lead to the story would be something more like this: "A Facebook account claiming to belong to Walt Disney Animation Studios said today that the name of their upcoming Rapunzel project was changed to Tangled." It's only a few more keystrokes, and it's not like they're posting on Twitter, with a 140-character maximum, so those keystrokes come at no penalty or additional cost. The fact they simply published the story and indicated that it was WDAS saying it on Facebook says that they are comfortable with that source and that it's truthful and accurate. That's why I say that Variety is placing its credibility and history in support of what is considered a questionable source on its own.
I still haven't seen anyone respond to my question: if Variety had not mentioned Facebook in their story, would we be discussing this? If they had merely said "Disney has announced that the film's name is now Tangled", wouldn't we be taking Variety at its word as a RELIABLE SOURCE for the story and made the edit accordingly? *sigh* All of this just because of where it came from, with no regard to who's publishing the story. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did respond to that question, in the section above when you first posted it. My position then remains the same. On the other hand, you're right that if Variety had not mentioned Facebook, this discussion would have a different tenor to it, because then we'd have to question where Variety got their information from. Powers T 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
My mistake, indeed you did. I stand corrected. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proving Variety was right all along, the Walt Disney Pictures website has replaced Rapunzel with Tangled. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So should this discussion be marked as resolved?--Jashack (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think so ... it's been 7 days since the discussion was started. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the new evidence, I'll concede, although I still think it's a mistake on Disney's part. =) Strictly speaking, though, we still need an uninvolved admin to close it. Powers T 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Would Vegaswikian be able to do that? I think he took care of the previous two discussions, and he hasn't rendered any opinions on this one. I'll leave him a message and see if he can. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prince?

In the plot summary it calls Flynn Rider a prince. I have never heard him refered to as a prince. Where does thins information come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.55.26 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As you should know if you've read the article, the story of this film has changed many times. The "prince" thing may or may not be a leftover from previously revealed plots. Powers T 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the name change

I think there should be some mention of the harsh criticism the name change has recieved from Disney fans, however I have yet to find any official article about it that could be used as a reference. One can clearly see that fans almost universally dislike the title by reading comments on Disney's Facebook page, message boards, etc. but I need something official. Does anyone know a source that could be used as a reference for this? 96.255.55.26 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is that you're attempting to cite an opinion of people whose opinions, frankly, aren't that notable. I could probably find a writer who could talk to as many fans who like the name change (personally, I'm one of them who does like the new name) and write an article for a newspaper saying "Fans love 'Tangled'". That said, if people in the industry, such as the example currently cited in the article, make such statements, that's more notable and thus more appropriate for inclusion. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think you could find as many fans who like the title as those who dislike it. And it seems to me that the opinions of Disney fans are rather notable when writing about a Disney film. 96.255.55.26 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a source for facts, not opinions. Again, there are exceptions (such as the noted expert on the subject), but as a whole, opinions don't matter here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

THE OLD TIME RAPUNZEL

Years ago, when I was a child, I saw a version of Rapunzel that was an episode of a programme on PBS that related fairy tales in the following manner: the host of the program was an artist who would draw the pictures that made up the story on a huge white easel behind him. He would narrate the story and do the voices of the characters. It was always an interesting story, and I saw the show on several occasions when I had P.D. days. I don't remember the title, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.167.113 (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest posting this at the Reference Desk, because most likely this particular work you're curious about wasn't done by Disney and isn't related to this upcoming version of the fairy tale. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Full CGI

I think the article should be re-edited, now that the trailers make it apparent, that all the high and mighty words about appearing hand drawn and like oil paintings came not to be and the graphics are just todays standard CGI. --89.246.165.51 (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Since none of us have seen the entire finished work, nor has any reliable third-party publisher, I think that stating such would be a matter of opinion. The art style in Bolt is CGI, but it's not meant to look perfect. Things do look hand-drawn in a number of places, instead of being rendered on a computer ... so we should wait and see. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't add anything until the critics say something about it. But it sure is true in my humble opinion... SergioGeorgini (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2

Repeated unexplained deletion

For some reason not made clear on edit comments, the following (or similar) has been removed repeatedly from the introduction:

The story is largely based on the classic German fairy tale Rapunzel by the Brothers Grimm; according to Edwin Catmull, the president of Walt Disney Animation Studios, Tangled is the last fairy tale-based Disney film for the foreseeable future, putting on hold for the first time a tradition of "princess movies" that dates back to 1937's Snow White.

Reference cited: Chmielewski, Dawn C.; Eller, Claudia (November 21, 2010). "Disney Animation is closing the book on fairy tales". Los Angeles Times.

Seems hard to question its notability, coming from the LA Times and said by the guy who authorized the film's production. I'm mentioning it here on the assumption that it will get removed again; if that happens, I think the topic ought to be discussed here. Thanks. 67.101.5.232 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was common knowledge that Disney denied that LA Times article. They are planning on doing more musicals and fairy-tales. The Times was apparently, "misinformed". This was confirmed on Disney's Official Twitter and Facebook pages. 66.19.119.77 (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ed Catmull specifically has denied the LA Times' interpretation of his quotation. Powers T 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Gross revenue

$11,600,000 is not Tangled's Gross Revenue. That's how much it made in the US. Gross Revenue means how much it made internationally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disney09 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a gross revenue on this article, when the film hasn't been released worldwide yet? 66.19.119.71 (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the United States and Canada still counts as a gross. —Mike Allen 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fiction narrated by a dead person?

I know this probably doesn't stand a chance, but I'd point out that the article may very well qualify for Category:Fiction narrated by a dead person. Flynn even says in the opening that he dies and the fact that he's brought back to life afterward seems incidental.

...I'm just sayin'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.192 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're trying to say that Flynn Rider is basically like Mary Alice Young on Desperate Housewives, I don't think that's accurate. Flynn is very much alive at the start and the conclusion of the film, although it could be argued that the Flynn persona "died" when he felt there was no need to maintain it around Rapunzel. Barring something definitive from the producers of the film, or a published analysis of the film, this would be speculation. --McDoobAU93 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Budget

Please stop changing the budget unless you can find a reliable source that contradicts the Los Angeles Times article, "According to the Los Angeles Times, after factoring in six years of development costs Tangled cost more than $260 million to produce." [3]. Thank you. Mike Allen 22:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Annoyingly the budget is not mentioned until page 3 of the LA Times article.
They might change it without explanation but Box Office Mojo also lists the budget as $260 million
and so too does The Numbers say budget $260 million but they are honest about where they get their figures from which is almost always the LA Times (occasionally Variety or elsewhere).
$260 milllion is clearly the best available figure, at this time. -- Horkana (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Title in Germany, Austria and Switzerland

The Title in these three countries isn't Rapunzel - A Tangled Tale. It's Rapunzel - neu verföhnt which has a similiar meaning to Rapunzel - new blow-dried. That's becaue the German word for to blow-dry (föhnen) is similar to the German word etw. verfilmen which means to make sth. into a film.

Though, the word-by-word translation of the german title Rapunzel - neu verföhnt is nearly Rapunzel - new blow-dried wrong, because the german prefix ver- carries a negative connotation, so verföhnen means something like to destroy sb.'s hairstyle with blow-drying. But as a native you barely recognize this negative connotation, so it's just a wordplay with the german words for to blow-dry and to make into a movie.

Without the wordplay the german title would be Rapunzel - neu verfilmt, which could be translated to Rapunzel - remade into a movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gartenzaun (talk • contribs) 14:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Context: in the section of the article labelled "Title change" there is a claim that the English back translation of the international title for various countries including the German speaking countries mentioned above is "Rapunzel - A Tangled Tale"
This claim is not actually mentioned anywhere in the Variety article that comes after it as a reference. The sentence appears to be original research inserted before a citation for other comments. (So I removed it [4], international titles are not usually included without sources.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Was researching that and was about to change it when I saw you already had. Very correct, simply because the cited source didn't say it. --McDoobAU93 02:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tangled/Archive_1&oldid=1083536793"