So.. Is somebody else here watching an enjoying "Tangled the animated series"? I think it's beautyfull looking show, most episodes are fun, I love the way they are expending characters from 'Tangled" and last few episode went into some surprisingly dark places... plus the music is wonderful. I didn't like character of Cassandra at first (she felt to be just thee to annoy Eugene for the sake of it) but she grow on me.
Know as Maciej Kur, Mr. M., Maik, Maiki, Pan, Pan Miluś and many other names.
With Aladdin I always felt they where focusing more on funny sidekick characters (Iago Genie) then the main heroes (as a kid I found Aladdin and Jasmine in the show quite boring most of the time). "Tangled" isn't making that mistake - Pascal and Maximus do have their spotlight episodes but they are mostly played down and Rapunzel and Eugene and their personality development are in the center. and they making great use of their personalites.
Last Edit: Dec 12, 2017 14:07:48 GMT by Pan Maciej
Know as Maciej Kur, Mr. M., Maik, Maiki, Pan, Pan Miluś and many other names.
With Aladdin I always felt they where focusing more on funny sidekick characters (Iago Genie) then the main heroes (as a kid I found Aladdin and Jasmine in the show quite boring most of the time). "Tangled" isn't making that mistake - Pascal and Maximus do have their spotlight episodes but they are mostly played down and Rapunzel and Eugene and their personality development are in the center. and they making great use of their personalites.
True — the thing with the Aladdin series (and, to an extent, the Hercules series as well) is that it was much more about the world than about the characters, unlike the Tangled series. I don't mind that, but I suppose it's a matter of tastes.
I mean, I'm all for expeding the universe and giving atention to secondary characters... It's just get wird when your titular character is the most boring aspect of the show, like the writers where intrest in everything but him/her.
"The Little Mermaid" TV series had similar issue from what I recall.
Know as Maciej Kur, Mr. M., Maik, Maiki, Pan, Pan Miluś and many other names.
I mean, I'm all for expeding the universe and giving atention to secondary characters... It's just get wird when your titular character is the most boring aspect of the show, like the writers where intrest in everything but him/her.
Tell that to most Mickey Mouse writers. Or better still to Hergé.
I mean, I'm all for expeding the universe and giving atention to secondary characters... It's just get wird when your titular character is the most boring aspect of the show, like the writers where intrest in everything but him/her.
"The Little Mermaid" TV series had similar issue from what I recall.
I think in that case they might have been hampered by having everything take place before the movie--Ariel was pretty "set in stone" by that, which places all sorts of limits on character development. All of the most interesting things that happen to her are "in the future" and can't really be explored.
Disney's original movies are generally wonderful. However, almost all Disney's attempts to continue a movie with a sequel or a series ended up as mediocrities. The reason is this: Messing with a masterpiece is not recommended. Just let the characters live their unseen ''happily ever after''. That's why Walt Disney, whom money wasn't everything to, rejected the idea of creating a Snow White series with Dopey as the main character. He knew that such a thing would kill the movie's mage.
I have a different take on it. With me, I'm actually positively-angled towards sequels and spinoffs, long as they're well done. With me, it's more about "can you take this character/premise further?" Sequels and series don't have to be cheap cash-grabs; sometimes they can take a character or a premise to new and interesting places.
The Aladdin series was mentioned, and I think that did a very good job of this very thing -- Return of Jafar gets a lot of flak for not only being the first DTV Disney sequel, but also for its subpar and frequently off-model animation, but it did a really good job of taking the villains from the first movie and putting them into new roles and situations. Jafar is in a whole new ballpark as a powerful genie, and despite the bad animation he actuallymanages to take his villain game to a new level. And Iago, of course, goes through a development that not only fits his character but makes him a far more interesting and three-dimensional character. And going back to the original movie and watching their scenes with their future developments in mind adds something to the movie.
The series in itself managed to give at least some development to all the characters, until King of Thieves finishes by showing a new side to Aladdin with the introduction of his father... and took Iago's character arc to its logical conclusion, where he goes off with Cassim to be an outlaw of the "good, but not too good" kind.
All in all, the Aladdin sequels and series are a good example of sequels and spinoffs doing new and interesting things with the franchise as well as adding new contexts for the original. It's far from perfect (Jasmine was sorely underused, most of the original villains weren't all that interesting, Genie was dumbed-down a little too much), but for the most part it works, and it works really well.
I know Walt had the famous "you can't top pigs with pigs" quote, but.... have you seen the sequels to the original Three Little Pigs cartoon? There's a reason they failed -- they're just not very good.
The pigs have had their character traits so exaggerated they've gone from cute and lovable to horribly annoying; Fifer and Fiddler have not only become dumber than a sack of hammers but the most stereotypical "naughty cartoon children" possible; they just laugh off anything and everything their brother says and go off to do the wrong thing Just Because. And as bad as Fifer and Fiddler are, Practical is worse; he's so snooty and preachy and holier-than-thou that even if what he says makes sense you kind of want to do the exact opposite just to spite him. Watching these cartoons, I'm actively rooting for the Big Bad Wolf to catch and eat the pigs.
I sort of view the "pigs" thing as an example of how not to handle sequels and spin-offs. These cartoons clearly were created just because the public wanted more pig cartoons; Disney didn't actually have anywhere to take the characters; no new or interesting stories, no different angles to explore, no artistic reason for the cartoons to exist at all. These cartoons just scream "we don't actually care about what we're making here."
So where does the Tangled series fit in? Well... thankfully closer to Agrabah than to Practical's brick house. The creators have very clearly worked to give the series its own identity, and to showcase new sides of Rapunzel and Eugene. There is a certain fascination in "okay, happily ever after, but what exactly does that mean, and is it really that easy to get there?" Eugene was of course pardoned all his crimes when he brought back the princess, but can an ex-crook really become a respectable member of society just like that? Rapunzel is overjoyed to be with parents who aren't passive-aggressively abusive, but how fit is a princess who grew up in total isolation, to handle royal duties? These are issues that get explored, often with surprising results.
Visually the show is a treat. I really like the 2D animation; it has this "colourful storybook" kind of feel that sort of makes me wonder what we could have had if the original movie hadn't been CGI. The music is really good too; just like they haven't copied the visuals of the movie they haven't copied the music either but have tried to give the show its own aural identity. The result is a show that depicts the same world, but seen through slightly different eyes, as if this time it's Rapuzel looking back at her diary and her artwork and remembering her early days back at the palace and her courtship with Eugene... in fact, you could claim that the original movie was Eugene telling things his way -- now it's Rapunzel's turn to tell things her way.
And I like how the relationship between Rapunzel and Eugene is slowly developing. They've gone past the "initial infatuation" stage, now it's clear that they're in for the long haul and need to learn to understand each other better... but without losing the sweetness from their best part of the original movie. Really, those two are just adorable in this show. Alledgedly their voice-actors have had a lot more input in their development as characters this time around, and I think it shows. In fact, the highlight of the show is the characterisation of those two characters; they just come totally alive.
Granted, it's not all brilliant. The scripts are often rather hit-and-miss; while some episodes are absolutely brilliant others are just kind of meh. The show also struggles a little to balance its theme... it's not sure if it wants to be a slice-of-life series about personal developments and character moments, or a big story with an overarching plot and mysteries to be solved, and so it tries doing both... but not very well. The slice-of-life part is definitely the strongest; the mystery just doesn't seem to want to take off.
That said, there have been other series that took some time to find their footing, and I'm holding out hope that Tangled: The Series will do just that as it continues.
I have a different take on it. With me, I'm actually positively-angled towards sequels and spinoffs, long as they're well done. With me, it's more about "can you take this character/premise further?" Sequels and series don't have to be cheap cash-grabs; sometimes they can take a character or a premise to new and interesting places.
The Aladdin series was mentioned, and I think that did a very good job of this very thing -- Return of Jafar gets a lot of flak for not only being the first DTV Disney sequel, but also for its subpar and frequently off-model animation, but it did a really good job of taking the villains from the first movie and putting them into new roles and situations. Jafar is in a whole new ballpark as a powerful genie, and despite the bad animation he actuallymanages to take his villain game to a new level. And Iago, of course, goes through a development that not only fits his character but makes him a far more interesting and three-dimensional character. And going back to the original movie and watching their scenes with their future developments in mind adds something to the movie.
The series in itself managed to give at least some development to all the characters, until King of Thieves finishes by showing a new side to Aladdin with the introduction of his father... and took Iago's character arc to its logical conclusion, where he goes off with Cassim to be an outlaw of the "good, but not too good" kind.
All in all, the Aladdin sequels and series are a good example of sequels and spinoffs doing new and interesting things with the franchise as well as adding new contexts for the original. It's far from perfect (Jasmine was sorely underused, most of the original villains weren't all that interesting, Genie was dumbed-down a little too much), but for the most part it works, and it works really well.
I know Walt had the famous "you can't top pigs with pigs" quote, but.... have you seen the sequels to the original Three Little Pigs cartoon? There's a reason they failed -- they're just not very good.
The pigs have had their character traits so exaggerated they've gone from cute and lovable to horribly annoying; Fifer and Fiddler have not only become dumber than a sack of hammers but the most stereotypical "naughty cartoon children" possible; they just laugh off anything and everything their brother says and go off to do the wrong thing Just Because. And as bad as Fifer and Fiddler are, Practical is worse; he's so snooty and preachy and holier-than-thou that even if what he says makes sense you kind of want to do the exact opposite just to spite him. Watching these cartoons, I'm actively rooting for the Big Bad Wolf to catch and eat the pigs.
I sort of view the "pigs" thing as an example of how not to handle sequels and spin-offs. These cartoons clearly were created just because the public wanted more pig cartoons; Disney didn't actually have anywhere to take the characters; no new or interesting stories, no different angles to explore, no artistic reason for the cartoons to exist at all. These cartoons just scream "we don't actually care about what we're making here."
So where does the Tangled series fit in? Well... thankfully closer to Agrabah than to Practical's brick house. The creators have very clearly worked to give the series its own identity, and to showcase new sides of Rapunzel and Eugene. There is a certain fascination in "okay, happily ever after, but what exactly does that mean, and is it really that easy to get there?" Eugene was of course pardoned all his crimes when he brought back the princess, but can an ex-crook really become a respectable member of society just like that? Rapunzel is overjoyed to be with parents who aren't passive-aggressively abusive, but how fit is a princess who grew up in total isolation, to handle royal duties? These are issues that get explored, often with surprising results.
Visually the show is a treat. I really like the 2D animation; it has this "colourful storybook" kind of feel that sort of makes me wonder what we could have had if the original movie hadn't been CGI. The music is really good too; just like they haven't copied the visuals of the movie they haven't copied the music either but have tried to give the show its own aural identity. The result is a show that depicts the same world, but seen through slightly different eyes, as if this time it's Rapuzel looking back at her diary and her artwork and remembering her early days back at the palace and her courtship with Eugene... in fact, you could claim that the original movie was Eugene telling things his way -- now it's Rapunzel's turn to tell things her way.
And I like how the relationship between Rapunzel and Eugene is slowly developing. They've gone past the "initial infatuation" stage, now it's clear that they're in for the long haul and need to learn to understand each other better... but without losing the sweetness from their best part of the original movie. Really, those two are just adorable in this show. Alledgedly their voice-actors have had a lot more input in their development as characters this time around, and I think it shows. In fact, the highlight of the show is the characterisation of those two characters; they just come totally alive.
Granted, it's not all brilliant. The scripts are often rather hit-and-miss; while some episodes are absolutely brilliant others are just kind of meh. The show also struggles a little to balance its theme... it's not sure if it wants to be a slice-of-life series about personal developments and character moments, or a big story with an overarching plot and mysteries to be solved, and so it tries doing both... but not very well. The slice-of-life part is definitely the strongest; the mystery just doesn't seem to want to take off.
That said, there have been other series that took some time to find their footing, and I'm holding out hope that Tangled: The Series will do just that as it continues.
Stirring up the practical problems Rapunzel would face in her attempts to get accustomed to society and her royal role kills the mage of the movie. Why rationalizing a fairytale so much? Just let the readers be romantic and assume Rapunzel lived happily ever after without facing any shallow problems like those. Even though i like the fanservice (Rapunzel is hot and i enjoyed seeing her again), from a writing point of view, when it comes to fairytales, it's better to leave some questions forever unanswered.
Stirring up the practical problems Rapunzel would face in her attempts to get accustomed to society and her royal role kills the mage of the movie. Why rationalizing a fairytale so much? Just let the readers be romantic and assume Rapunzel lived happily ever after without facing any shallow problems like those. Even though i like the fanservice (Rapunzel is hot and i enjoyed seeing her again), from a writing point of view, when it comes to fairytales, it's better to leave some questions forever unanswered.
I disagree. The movie already spent much of its running time rationalising and explaining the hell out of the original fairytale, providing answers and explanations that the original didn't bother with, and the result is a much stronger story. That's standard for modern Disney movies based on old stories. Since we live in an age where "because" isn't considered a valid answer in storytelling anymore, and marriage-at-first-sight is no longer the perfect ending, and people in general demand a little more in the way of characterisation and plot.
Fairytales are an evolving art form by their very nature; they originated in the storytelling traditions among people who couldn't read or write, and who just told and retold the stories. As such, fairytales have been flexible and ever-changing; a story will change to reflect not only who's telling it at the moment, but also the time and area it's being told in. That's why retellings and further explorations of fairytales is such a sure card; these stories thrive on being explored and looked at with different eyes and in different ways. And part of that exploration is to ask questions, even the kind that older versions of the story left unanswered.
In my opinion, it's not asking questions that kills the magic of the fairytales. To just take the word as written and not bother to think about implications or what-happened-next, to be unwilling to explore... that goes against the nature of fairytales. It reduces them to stale and stagnant time-pieces, trapped between the pages of some dusty old book. Like Shakespeare's plays they lose the touch with the people they once had, and just become of interest to scholars and intellectuals... or worse, they're reduced to plain kiddie fare and have all their teeth pulled to avoid scaring the children (or more accurately, avoid scaring the adults reading the stories to the children).
"What happened next?" is a valid question. And I don't think the magic is killed by trying to answer it. In the case of Tangled, I think it enhances the original movie, by treating it as a beginning and not an ending. The adventure that brought Rapuzel and Eugene together wasn't a one-time deal; one adventures and then a completely eventless life. No, it was just the first of many adventures. A "happily ever after" that included new adventures, new events, new problems and new struggles, but also new joys and new friendships and new moments of triumph and glory. In short, it means a rich and full life, with everything that entails.
And if these events make for good stories, why not tell them? Why not allow the characters to thrive instead of just fade away into some vague "happily ever after"?