Disney = FAIL with "Tangled"

[Tylef]

WHATALOADOFOLDSHIT!

Disney is wringing the pink out of its princess movies.

After the less-than-fairy-tale results for its most recent animated release, "The Princess and the Frog," executives at the Burbank studio believe they know why the acclaimed movie came up short at the box office.

Brace yourself: Boys didn't want to see a movie with "princess" in the title.

This time, Disney is taking measures to ensure that doesn't happen again. The studio renamed its next animated film with the girl-centric name "Rapunzel" to the less gender-specific "Tangled."

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."

So Disney is taking no chances with "Tangled," positioned to take advantage of holiday family moviegoing when it opens Nov. 24. The studio's marketing campaign will amp up the role of the dashing Errol Flynn-styled male lead to share the spotlight with the golden-haired namesake of the classic Brothers Grimm story. Hints of swashbuckling action are already being leaked online.

"In our film, the infamous bandit Flynn Rider meets his match in the girl with the 70 feet of magical golden hair," wrote the film's producer, Roy Conli, on Disney Animation's Facebook page. "We're having a lot of fun pairing Flynn, who's seen it all, with Rapunzel, who's been locked away in a tower for 18 years."

Flynn Rider, of course, is nowhere to be found in the original "Rapunzel" story.

In the Grimm tale, a prince riding through a forest is enticed by Rapunzel's sweet singing and climbs up the tower where the imprisoned girl is reachable only by her golden tresses. The prince is hardly the boastful swordsman type, let alone a charming rogue. And in Disney's latest version, the demure princess is transformed into a feisty teen.

Disney hopes the introduction of the slightly bad-boy character will help it tap the broadest possible audience for "Tangled," emulating the success of its corporate sibling, Pixar. Pixar's movies have been huge hits because they appeal to girls, boys and adults. Its most recent release, "Up," grossed more than $700 million worldwide.

Read more horse shit here

[crazymonkey]

This is so stupid. I loved the Princess and the Frog. It was classic Disney but I thought the message it sent out to young people was excellent (ie that you should make wishes, but you have to put in alot of hard work for those wishes to come true).

[Invincible]

I hate PR/advertising folk who regularly come up with retarded ideas. It's so fucking corporate!!!

'Rapunzel' isn't immediately girly is it? I mean it's not as blatant as 'princess'.

[Tylef]

Disney is the Father of gay, in all it's fabuloisty in fabulousness, it's of the fabulator scale!!

If there so concerned about their ratings and profit then reliving a classic, they've killed a hardcore fan with their over-hyped interliazied homophobia with their outdate attitude of "perceived masculanity".

Rapunzel is such a bitch anyway she more then makes up for it when she

 SPOILER: Click to show

kills the bloddy witch and gets away with it, how macho is that?

[crazymonkey]

Originally Posted by Tylef

interliazied homophobia

Huh?

[Tylef]

Originally Posted by crazymonkey

Huh?

Whatever bright spark decided to rename Rapunzel to "Tangled" to cover up the fact it's a "princess moive" and make the character "Errol Flynn" a more prominent and "masculine" part (Even though it goes against the traditional story line) to appeal more to boys is a subtle yet obvious homophobia in order to "boost" ratings because we all know "boys" don't like "princess movies" and boys will "love" this over hyper more masculine approach to the story instead. It's just another example of a school of thought that sickens me so Disney can fill their pockets because this film might "affect" boys viewing because it might be too gay because of the title and what the title "rapunzel" traditionally implies.

Disney has a long history of homophobia, subtle but it's there, but this is a more obvious disgrace and I know for a fact if Disney himself was alive he'd have kept the title "rapunzel" instead of this blatant attempt to re-tell a story and wash it out in the minds of kids that boys should not watch "princess movies" and should instead watch a movie about a hyped up masculine dope that fits nowhere in with the orignal plot of the story to score the girl, marry her and shag her in the end

[crazymonkey]

Perhaps I should have been more specific...

Originally Posted by Tylef

interliazied

Huh!?

[Tylef]

Originally Posted by crazymonkey

Perhaps I should have been more specific...

Huh!?

If it's a spelling mistake your pointing at crazymonkey heres the correct one "internalized" otherwise my above post still holds to the incorrect spelling which should be "internalized".

Unless you really want me to hit the nail on the head?

[crazymonkey]

Originally Posted by Tylef

If it's a spelling mistake your pointing at crazymonkey heres the correct one "internalized" otherwise my above post still holds to the incorrect spelling which should be "internalized".

Unless you really want me to hit the nail on the head?

It's alright pet, I wasn't being pedantic, I just couldn't make out what word you were trying to spell.


Anyway back on topic:
Not sure I'd agree with your points on Disney but we can agree to disagree.

[Tylef]

Originally Posted by crazymonkey

It's alright pet, I wasn't being pedantic, I just couldn't make out what word you were trying to spell.


Anyway back on topic:
Not sure I'd agree with your points on Disney but we can agree to disagree.

Fair enough