tanged2-icon tanged2-icon
DisneyFeature Film

Another Tangled trailer

  • Jenks

    Hey! That looks better!

  • A dude
    • Huston

      Okay, why is it the UK trailer is so much better than the USA one? Does EVERYONE assume Americans are idiots?

      • DonaldC

        Do you really have to ask?

    • Cyle

      Why the heck couldn’t we get the UK trailer? It’s so much better! Also, it was nice to actually see that Rapunzel is a main character in her own movie. Hopefully, if the movie’s great, the good reviews will repair any damage done by the horrible US trailers.

  • Alberto

    Less annoying… but still kind of annoying.

  • It’s looking so much better!

    I’ve seen the UK trailer as well, and I really like that one. It has a bit more Rapunzel, more hints at her thoughts and her story, and more magic moments.

    Although it also includes the phrase “I have magic hair.” HMMM.

  • doop

    Yes, please no more double tower stuff.

  • Aaron

    Maybe it’s just a lag in the playback, but all the sync on the prince looked off, and too soft. It’s a trailer so they could be swapping out dialogue.

    This trailer certainly feels the pull of the marketing department to make it more of a boy/action film. I wonder how much of the story is about Rapunzel now.

    On the positive side the animation has a very nice feel to it. There’s a more natural elasticity in the animation and the quick transitions into the hard poses seem to work. The texture of the movement is pretty impressive for the most part, we’re definitely moving out of the rigid body phase of cg.

  • Justin M. Durden

    She says a lot of “Flynn!” and “Look out!” in this thing.

    So, I’m assuming the character in which the fairy tale is based upon is not the main character?


  • Yeah, this includes pop music and uses the male character as the main protagonist, but at least it doesn’t make the movie look like crap. It’s not especially new stuff, but it looks more modern than Princess and The Frog, with faster pacing and I’m starting to find Flynn’s character more charismatic. Like those other guys I didn’t like him at first but now I think he could be funny, maybe it’s the voice acting. The horse also seems too have a pretty big role and he’s unny.

    We don’t see much about Rapunzel, but there are some good uses of her hair there, and the thugs in the tavern have interesting designs.

    Yes, I think this can be fun and a little more memorable than The Princess and The Frog, which was ok but it looked too old-fashioned and not in a good way.

    I’d have liked to see this one in 2D too, but I’ve to admit it looks pretty good in CGI.

    • The problem with “The Princess and the Frog” – more than the often fun, but sometimes strange mixes of animation styles – was its mess of a story. Seriously, not since “The Black Cauldron” have I seen a Disney feature with that many story problems. A seemingly good idea was killed by hundreds of rewrites to make sure not even a frame of the film could be accused of being politically incorrect…

      “Rapunzel”, though (yes, my mind still refuses to call the film “Tangled”) looks like it could be a lot of fun. And I have my hopes up that the story will be much better than Princess, at least better told. I really wish Glen Keane could have stayed on as director, but I’ll wait with judging that decision until I see the result.

      We haven’t had a great Disney fairy tale since the early 90s – here’s wishing them the best:)

      • Hey I love The Black Cauldron. It’s sort of the bastard child of Disney but it rocks. It’s a great story it actually just needed more. A sequel or something. But it stands up imo. I also thought Princess & The Frog was really excellent. I don’t know why people down it so much. You keep downing it and you won’t ever get any new traditional Disney animation. If anything it was better than Tangled looks. Tangled, to me, looks like about 50 other Disney movies.

      • At least in my eyes, there’s no hiding that both Princess and Cauldron had lackluster, messy stories. And both the male and female heroes of Cauldron were terribly generic, under-developed characters. Not to mention the skeleton villain, who in theory could have the potential to be one of the greatest of all Disney bad guys, but turned out to have zero menace. He virtually did almost nothing for the entire film. Really disappointing.

        Cauldron had, at times, impressive visuals and some interesting experiments and forays into territories where Disney hadn’t gone before. But this can’t hide how uneven the film is. I guess the story could have been worse, but to call it “great”… naah, not at all.

  • I wish they had made this 2d…

    but then I guess even that wouldn’t compensate for those jokes/puns etc.

  • Steve

    Looks great.

    But dont forget, this trailer is missing all of Alan Menken’s music (this IS a musical after all, they just arent showing it), the villain Mother Gothel, and any of the high-stakes dramatic sequences that were in all the pre-screenings (which I was fortunate enough to attend, and loved the film)

    Marketing is just doing what marketing does. Make decisions by committee, half of the time by people who have absolutely nothing to do with the actual making of the film.

    And yeah, it looks like they are doing they annoying “couple the wrong dialogue with the wrong shot” trick.

  • I’m still underwhelmed.

  • some girl

    This trailer is looking great. I think it will be another fantastic addition to Disney’s classics.

  • AltredEgo

    So I’ve seen most of the trailers and I still have no idea what this movie is about or why I should care.

    Is there a villain, if so who/what are they? If the villain is a mystery, then you could at least explain what it is the protagonists are trying to accomplish.

    What exactly does this girl want? Also, if she has a definite personality, it certainly doesn’t come through in the trailer.

    What does the ‘hero’ want besides getting rich (presumably)? Also, could the hero be any more like Alladin? I call the male lead the ‘hero’ because he seems like the only active force in the film. She seems to wait to be rescued and then seems to be dragged along through the rest of the film. Ariel, she is not.

    Beyond personal motivations, what is this film as a whole about? I get nothing beyond “a bunch of stuff happens that we hope you think is either funny or entertaining”

    There is no chance I’ll see this in theatres. I wouldn’t spend the bandwidth to download it either, but I concede that I am not the target audience. And since they didn’t bother to provide anything to interest me in this film, I will simply spent my time and money elsewhere.


    • Tim Douglas

      I pretty much agree, why market it like this?

      Yes it has jokes, yes there is a Disney feel to it, and yes it’s certainly less annoying than the Double Rainbow trailer, but is it good?

      I have absolutely no idea. Where is the story? & Pleeeease tell me he doesn’t narrate the whole film.

      • Elissa

        And most important thing (( at least to me )) She’s wearing a
        Pijama? I’m sorry but i don’t like her outfit… At first sight,
        looks like she’s wearing a pijama, but then, its a dress… Or
        something… I don’t like at all her design… She’s 12? 15? 20+?

        BUT yes… I’m gonna see the movie… I liked the horse… That’s my defense… Haha!

    • Klyph

      Agreed! I too am going to base my opinion of an entire movie I haven’t seen based on the 2 1/2 minutes a marketing department has shown me months before the movie is even released.

      • AltredEgo

        Watching a 2 minute trailer and deciding that you are going to see the full film is a decision that is as valid as watching a trailer and deciding that you are NOT going to see it.

        Trailers are made so to help you decide whether or not you are going to see the movie.


        If after 2 minutes of random footage from all parts of the film, you don’t see anything that appeals to you, the odds are pretty high that the rest of the movie is not going to either.

        I watched 30 seconds of the first Dark Knight trailer (the one with just Michael Caine and Christian Bale talking – no visuals, just audio) and I turned it off. I was sold. No need to see any more, and I was there opening week to see it in IMAX.

        Now this is the second Tangled trailer I’ve seen, each with more footage than the first and still I haven’t seen one thing that I’d want to see again. I have tons of basic questions about the movie, not in a ‘build audience interest’ kind of way, but in a ‘this is likely a very generic film’ kind of way.

        Since all the promo material has failed for me, the only thing that can change my mind are reviews. It’d need like 90% on RT to get me to override all of my natural responses and give it a shot. Yet somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen.


      • Michael

        My guess is 92% (from seeing the screening)

      • Klyph

        You heard it here first folks. If Tangled scores 85% positive reviews AlteredEgo will not only not see it, but not waste precious bandwidth to illegally download it. Even if it has good word of mouth! Are you listening Disney?

    • Rodan

      I think all she really wants is some really good conditioner and an industrial hairbrush.

      The antagonists are Xrunchi Queen of the knots.
      And Pantina Scalpina the aging ex-beauty jealous of any girl with long flowing hair…who’s after our heroins folic beauty!

  • So, she’s going to carry her hair around in her arms like that the whole film? I mean when she’s not using at a rope and all that. Maybe she gets it cut right at the end when they ride off together.

    • Tim Douglas


      If anything is certain in this world, she WILL cut her hair at the end.

      • Maybe we could bet on what style she ends up with. Mine’s on a ‘Tank Girl’ mohican.

    • Chuz

      I see it braided in some shots.

  • John

    This looks like Shrek, Ella Enchanted, and Happily Never After all rolled into one, count me out!

  • I still don’t understand why Rapunzel has become a secondary character in her own story. I don’t care about this male character at all. From what I can tell in the trailers I have seen Rapunzel is a character trope I like to call “Safe Spunky”.
    The Safe spunky girl character has “attitude” and she “won’t take any crap booyz” but at the same time shes usually helpless or insecure and has a need to be protected or rescued. Her lame tude attributes usually include kicking butt until its convenient to be rescued and saying a few lame one liner comebacks (ala rom com) until its time to fall in love usually for no reason or after being rescued.
    I hate this empty character development..it sends out the wrong kind of messages about being independent and usually the girl is never considered attractive until she stops acting intelligent and starts acting helpless or weak. The Frog Princess broke this mold a little bit but not enough to move away from the set Disney Formula.

    The male character is bad in his own way representing every shitty smarmy character trait you’ve ever seen. Hes like a mixture of Tulio and Miguel from road to El Dorado (sans charm) and the Prince Charming character from the Shrek franchise.(sans irony) He is annoying as hell and his one liners don’t impress me.

    So far the only thing endearing me to this film is the horse.(despite the fact he is pretty much the same horse as Altivo from El-dorado and just like the thief looks like a shitty Shrek character) Seriously man. I really hope this movie surprises me.

    …oh and…….wheres the villian? I’ve seen three different trailers and still no villian. Lame Disney.

    • Michael

      She isnt secondary. Shes definitely the main character in the whole movie. Marketing is just spinning it this way.

  • tedzey

    The marketing is going to destroy this movie! It’s a princess movie, make it look like a princess movie! For a movie like “The Princess and The Frog” to fail was because it wasn’t a princess movie! There wasn’t a princess in the movie till the last 15 minutes, and we had talking animals and voodoo in the bayou!

  • Oh my gosh! A trailer that raises QUESTIONS!! Oh noes!

    See, now that’s the whole point of a good trailer. I’ll be looking forward to it, because, demographics aside, the movies looks hilarious and extremely well animated with fantastic character development and wonderful voice work.

    It’s gonna be a hoot!

    • holyduck

      Okay, it’s good that the trailer doesn’t give anything away in the story.

      …but… it doesn’t give away anything in the story! There’s nothing for us to get excited about other than being familiar with the original fairy tale!

    • Tim Schuit

      Raising questions is good only when the questions are raised about how the brewing story will develop.

      Not when the questions are “is there a story?” “why should I care at all about these characters?” etc.

  • Stefan

    To all of the negative-nannies, why do you all still trust trailers? We all know that the marketeers always paint the film they’re advertising in a different light than what the final film actually is.

    Why don’t we see the whole film, before criticizing it for poor character development or a badly written story?

  • Wow, that hero is really, really irritating. It’s like they managed to take every character trait I find irritating in a man and cram ’em into one guy. He’s fantastically aggravating.

    I like the girl and the magic hair, that’s kind of cool.

  • Anthony D.

    It looks good. Again, I think it would’ve been better if it was called Rapunzel Untangled. I’ll consider seeing this.

  • Chappell

    That color palette is a hot mess.

    What strikes me most is that Disney seems stuck between deciding whether they want to reinvent the wheel or not. Sometimes I feel like they are stifled by their tradition.

    • Scarabim

      Disney’s “tradition” is the best thing it’s got going for it. It’s what people want to see when they go to a Disney movie. When it’s on top of its game, there’s not much out there can compete with it. Trouble is, some people at Disney haven’t much faith in that tradition, and it showed in that first trailer.

      This second one is much better, and now I’m interested in seeing the movie…but I agree with others here that the villain needs to make an appearance in any follow-up trailers…a strong, compelling villain is also a Disney tradition. As for the idea that the trailers should show a stronger indication of the story…look, it’s Rapunzel, everyone call tell it’s Rapunzel even though her name’s not on the title. I think the public can figure out the movie’s basic plot.

      Now about Flynn…already, he’s proving to be much more interesting than was Prince Naveen in that underwhelming letdown “Princess and the Frog”, and that’s a very, very good thing. And speaking of “Frog”…some might think of it as being in the Disney tradition. But what it really was was a weak imitation of that tradition, a by-the-numbers formulaic bore. Hopefully Tangled will be far better. It helps that it looks so good…beautiful, in fact. And beautiful-looking animation is definitely a Disney tradition, so it appears that Tangled at least has gotten *that* right.

  • some girl

    My goodness. people can be so critical for a movie they haven’t even seen yet…

  • Sometimes I don’t know what people want. Some people complain cause they don’t like Disney and other people complain cause it’s not ‘Disney’ enough.

    Comparing this trailer to the previous ones -and taking opinions from people who actually watched the screeners- I think it’s getting more and more obvious that there are some bad marketing choices but that doesn’t make the movie necessarily bad. It already looks a lot better in the new two trailers, much, much better than before.

    Considering that the male character voice over and pop music seem to be marketing decissions I don’t see this has a lot of ‘Dreamworks’ feel. Maybe the male character is not serious enough for you? Well, Aladdin or Hercules wasn’t exactly super serious characters. And not every joke in those movies was clever and brilliant either.

    The horse character does look a lot like every Disney horse but he looks more active here, like he’s actually part of the team and Flynn’s friend, not just an animal.

    Also for those of you who hate talking animals, here the sidekicks are mute! We haven’t seen a lot of him really but I felt like the chamaleon was kind of dispossable, but I’m really liking the horse.

    Rapunzel looks ok. She doesn’t seem as perfect as Tiana, who was a little annoying to me. And yeah, she seems to have this typical action-girl attitude here and there but she also looks naive, sweet and feminine enough.

    This looks like a light fun adventure. Maybe it’s not a masterpiece or something incredibly original, but it looks like a step in the right direction for Disney if you ask me.

    I thought Princess and The Frog was sort of ok-ish, but this seems more fun. The contents are equally old but the tone and pacing seems more adequate to these times. Of course they could do a more dramatic and serious movie, but this doesn’t look like a spoof to me, just a comedy-adventure type like “The Jewel Of The Nile” or “The Princess Bride” and , if it’s anything like these movies, especially the last ones, it could be pretty good.

    • Manda

      I agree with you, but unfortunately, you can’t please everyone and some people just really hate Disney no matter what they do, even if they really ARE trying to go back to their roots (like how they did with PaTF and potentially Tangled too.)

      Personally, as a huge Disney fan, I’ve been anticipating this film since I first heard about it in 2008, and based on what I’ve read/heard/seen, I just know I’m going to love it. But I’ve also already accepted the fact that there definitely WILL be people who will hate this movie. Trust me, no matter how successful a movie is, some people just won’t click with it for whatever reason, and there are other people out there who just like ruining it for everyone. *shrugs* But I’ve learned not to care and to go about my own business.

  • Rick

    It could be fun. But I’m still looking forward to the day when the studios get away from using (and overusing) those stock facial expressions. Of course now that they are undoubtedly baked in as blend shapes when the models are set up, its probably harder than ever to get away from them.

    • Jenks

      Stock? What, you mean like “smile” and “angry eyebrow?” What do you expect them to do, make the eyebrows slither away like a snake when he’s mad?

      What a weird comment. Would you call the humans expressions in Ratatouille “stock” too? I mean, they are caricatures of humans, and there’s certain rules to follow to make them feel human but also expressive. I truly dont know what you mean. I suspect your comment stems from CG-hate and not an actual criticism.

      • Rick

        Actually I’m a CG animator, so no self-hate here. I’m talking about the stock incredulous look, the stock sly look, etc. And yes they used some of those expressions in Ratatouille as well. So its not so much the use of individual elements (like a raised eyebrow), but when the whole face is arranged in such a way that is used in every film (One eyebrow raised, one lowered, eyelids similarly offset, right or left side of the upper lip raised, mouth slightly open), then it goes beyond just the “rules” and becomes a stock expression.

        I admit this is a personal preference (as all opinions we express tend to be), but its just more fun to come up with expressions that are special to your character and enhance them as an individual personality as opposed to sticking with what’s in the archive. But I also know there is a lot of pressure to stick with what “worked”, and often that is what is used to create the facial deformations.

      • Rick

        (I have to say though your snake idea is actually pretty cool too, not so much the slithering away but have them hiss at the person, talk about animation specific! Granted it would have to be right for the character, like a villain angry with a henchman)

      • Chappell

        Not just the facial expressions. The scenes in the trailer where Flynn is running through the forest look straight lifted from Tarzan. Not like that’s anything new for any animation company.

        And yeah, eyebrows slithering off—that’s the point of animation. To do something that you can’t do in real life.

      • Sam

        I think Disney needs some love around here, so here’s mine for them.

        I hope Tangled do so well that they would make these silly people who criticized the film badly even before watching, look like a bunch idiots. And even if it doesn’t do well, Disney will still have my support, I would keep hoping that they would make a great come back, be able to hire a ton of animators and artists again and KEEP them again.

        Princess and the Frog sucked for me, a lousy story plot and all, but I am still happy to see them doing 2D again, giving the 2D animators a chance to stretch their 2D animation muscle, that I went to watch it 3 times.

        Disney was what started the entire great Animation stuff after all, and I hope they last for a much longer decade.

  • pappy d

    The animation & environments are truly excellent! With this picture Disney is definitely re-establishing its brand in the 3D arena.

    But the trailer tells a meta-story of a brain-dead marketing strategy.

    Marketing needs more princesses, but boys, savage little sexists that they are, will get fidgety in a romantic, girl-centered picture. So we market to boys with our best hurt-gags, confident that we’ll pick up the girls’ money on the back end with glitter-encrusted merchandise. Moms hate witches, so we’ll leave Mother Gothel out of the advertising altogether. Nobody wants a prince movie.

    That said, it could be a really good story. It’d certainly be a mistake to judge a film of this genre by the fairy tale whose familiarity-quotient gives it legs. To use a fairy-tale analogy, Rapunzel is just the stone in the stone soup.

  • Chuz

    Much better trailer this time around and now looks like a decent movie (as we’ve keep being told from insiders at Disney).

  • While I agree they aren’t giving away much of the story, I still feel sucked into the world…which is a good thing. My eight year old daughter is a pretty savvy critic of animated films and not easily drawn in to a movie from the trailer alone, (Skittles and popcorn are the real “carrot”). But, she’s been champing at the bit since the first trailer came out. I have high hopes for her sake and Disney’s, that she’s right. Also thought the “dreams” joke was very funny.

  • From Inside the Hat Building

    Worry not. This film has tons of Rapunzel in it. Just enjoy the trailer for what it is, and when you see the film, you’ll see that it’s balanced and well done. Then again Im biased…

    • John

      Inside Disney guy, why does all the characters have baby bottom smooth skin, even the bad guys?

      • Sam

        Perhaps it’s just a style, you don’t want it to be so realistic like Monsters Vs Aliens, it can get very disturbing going up close to those skin and hair.

    • It’s a good example on how much a single trailer can ruin ones perception of a film though. I was all ready to be upset with it being obviously more about the hero than the heroine until I read your comment. Here’s hoping you’re right…

  • Ok, I feel even obnoxious for saying this but is anyone else bothered by the lipsynch on HIM? It looks soft and offset “you leave me no choice”, like it’s missing basic movements, am I hallucinating?
    I honestly love some of the animation but I also hate the fact that this movie is marketed like a Dreamworks film and that bothers me a LOT. I still don’t understand what it’s all about, and like most of you above, I agree that the film losts its female main protagonist in the marketing campaign, now I’m worried about her role in the film itself.
    WHY CAN’T THEIR BE ANY GOOD FEMALE HEROES EXCEPT IN MIYAZAKI FILMS (and a few others)? Sorry I had to say it.
    “Brave” better rocks… and this one better surprises me as well.

  • Mark

    When you see the film, you’ll see Disney is making fun of all the Dreamworks movie posters with all the “hands on hips with one eyebrow up staring at the camera” silliness (nearly every DW poster has this pose or a slight variation on it).

    • holyduck

      Did you see the film already?

      I couldn’t agree more with the brutish guy saying the last line in the trailer. :P Is Flynn going to be the second in a long line of Disney heroes who is just self-absorbed and arrogant? From the trailer, the backgrounds are the best thing going for it.

      But you know what? Everyone will still hate anything Disney does anyway. I’ll let it rest.

      • James E. Parten

        Whaddya mean “second in a line”? Aren’t you forgetting Kuzco?

      • I agree that they should have toned down the arrogant aspect as it makes him unlikeable. But he’s actually looking funnier in this second trailer. Partly cause of the voice acting and partly for the situations he’s looking more like he pretends to be cool but he’s a little bit of a loser inside.

  • “WHY CAN’T THEIR BE ANY GOOD FEMALE HEROES EXCEPT IN MIYAZAKI FILMS (and a few others)? Sorry I had to say it.”

    WARNING SHAMELESS PLUG COMING – Go buy the new Tink DVD next week…they’re tiny, but heroes nonetheless! Lasseter pushed for those heroic character traits throughout the process. I’m guessing Rapunzel will be a strong, independent, heroine.

    • Karen

      No. It’s a bunch of GUYS idea of a “stong, independent heroine.” More like a bunch of drag queens–especially in the tinkerwhore cartoons.

      • “No. It’s a bunch of GUYS idea of a “stong, independent heroine.” More like a bunch of drag queens–especially in the tinkerwhore cartoons.”

        Respectfully Karen, this project, (as are all of the Tinker Bell films), was overseen by three VERY strong, capable women at Pixar. One a former college athlete:)

  • pantsbear

    impressive! also impressive: how they managed to get me to do a complete 180 on this movie. love the slick and polished animation. like friggin’ butter.

  • This visually looks nice!

    i look forward to seeing how the story works as a whole. definitely like this trailer more than the other ones previous.

  • This is a nice trailer. I will be seeing this.

    I’m just glad this movie will actually be complete. I had just begun my “career” in animation and educating myself with the medium when I heard that this story was being worked on at Disney. It’s been quite a while.

  • Lookin’ good.

  • I hope she never gets shoes the entire film, and is barefoot throughout.

  • Rooniman

    Still going to be the big pile of suck it’s destined to be once it hit theaters.

    Kill me.

    • Rooniman’s an idiot

      How old are you? 7? How did you figure out mom’s password!

    • Kaitlin

      All-seeing one, please tell me the Powerball numbers so I can win the lottery. I could use the money.

  • Hank the Tank

    Between the mixture of negative and positive comments…. not one BAD comment about the animation. The animation is clean, well crafted, and definitely HIGH caliber!!! …hot damn!

  • As it was mentioned before, this is just a trailer. You’d think that people reading Cartoon Brew or any other animation centric site wouldn’t fall into the marketing trap. Come one guys! You have to watch the full movie before you judge it. Do you seriously not watch a movie because of its trailer?

    • Josh

      yes. The Last Airbender. Yes. Megamind. n_n

  • Toonio

    To Clay Kaytis: Please stop beating the Tangled dead horse and come back to host the animation podcast.

    And to the Disney minions: go back to school and do something better for yourselves!

    • Say what?

      I hate to tell you, but the artists at Disney have accomplished some of the best human animation that’s ever been done in animated films…EVER.

      Why in the world would they need to go back to school, other than to be your teacher?

      • I

        um…are you a Disney employee?
        Whatever, this movie should be judged after it comes out. My first impression based on the trailer….is that it’s ok. However it doesn’t make me that excited. We’ll see.

    • This comment is childish. Have the stones to use your real identity when commenting like this.

      • Steve

        Being anonymous doesnt make it any less true.

  • CTM

    Well, it doesn’t look terrible anymore, so that’s good. Still doesn’t really look like something I’d wanna go watch though.

  • Michael

    “A painting in a museum hears more ridiculous opinions than anything else in the world.
    Edmond de Goncourt ”

    Well….except for maybe Disney Animation trailers…

  • Solaris

    If you don’t go see this movie because of the trailer that is unfortunate. You are missing a hell of a story twist.

  • I can at least understand why they’ve downplayed the fairy tale aspect this time around. They tried the modern fairy tale angle with both Enchanted and The Princess and the Frog, recalling Disney’s Renaissance features, and listing Alan Menken’s music as one of the main highlights. But even with all the boo-hooing about Disney not doing hand-drawn animation anymore, which has ironically become one of the frequent complaints about this next movie, people barely paid the previous fairy tales any attention. Last year, their attention (beyond Avatar) went to a certain CGI “squeakuel”, the very type of movie Disney’s hand-drawn fans might’ve been getting sick of this time around. The hand-drawn market is still on the fence.

    On its own, Rapunzel (not Tangled) doesn’t seem to do the best effort of attracting a male audience. I have a slight IDEA of what the “smolder” bit is for, but it’s just a terribly awkward choice of introducing Flynn Rider to his audience. Instead, he’s looking like some over-confident douchebag who doesn’t deserve a lady’s attention.

    Yet it can work both ways. The last time Disney did a twisted tale was thru Chicken Little, which everyone was counting on to fail. It worked in their favor, if only for a little while. But Disney should be convincing not just their male targets why they want to see this seeming “non-fairy tale” over the next chapter of Harry Potter, a faceoff which from one end would look like a vote of confidence. I haven’t seen that in any of these trailers, and if it works against Disney, it’s only going to get dicier for Winnie the Pooh, which is up against Harry Potter’s final film next summer.

  • Well at least Rapunzel talks in this one.

    It still doesn’t help that the guy talks like Megamind.

  • Scarabim

    Well, now, I think that was actually pretty good. The humor is sharp, the dialogue works…and I gotta say that the movie looks beautiful, richer and lusher than any other CGI I’ve seen. Even Kung Fu Panda didn’t look as good.

    And Flynn is less annoying, which helps.

    Love the horse.

    So hey…what can I say? Now I’m definitely going to see this movie. Nice work, Diz.

  • Autumn

    I’m excited.

  • I feel confident that this will be a good movie, I love the art direction and I have great faith in Glen Keane as animation director and story guy, but I am not feeling the vibe of how its being marketed

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    It really looks good now. You’ve got to hand it to the Disney studio for trying to make animated features (and trailers) that appeal to all age groups.

  • Alex Curtis

    Glen Keane is the animation director of Tangled. With that in mind, I’d like to make a suggestion:

    Watch the trailer with the sound off.

    If you do, you’ll see that Tangled boasts some of the best, most appealing human animation EVER done in a CG film. In fact, I’d be willing to argue that it is the best, hands down. Compare the facial animation in this trailer to anything in the Megamind trailer and the difference will be apparent. It’s not just the sophisticated facial deformations, its the APPEAL of the poses. This film has a Glen Keane appeal pass on every frame, and if you love animation, that should get you excited.

  • Pieter

    I don’t really see what Disney is trying to achieve with this film. It looks like they’re starting to parody themselves in some “Shrek-like” way: We have a vain male character (~ Prince Charming), a female character who can kick-ass (~Fiona), all drenched in some pop-culture, modern sauce.

    To sum up: it looks sh*t.

  • Good lord. I’m sorry but this looks horrible. When this project was first announced I was incredibly excited. The pre production art was gorgeous. But now all I see is a bunch of stock animation, stock characters, and stock story. I know Disney does rely on formula heavily but for some reason this film is really hitting a nerve with me. That prince character just makes me incredibly angry. Ugh. Next please.

    • I

      finally someone has the guts to say it
      when I have kids I’ll make them watch Disney movies in the 90s before anything else. At least the music, characters and everything else was memorable and fun.
      How come we haven’t seen the villain in “Tangled” yet? I still resent that stupid title name. Why not keep it as “Rapunzel”?

  • I think it looks pretty good – better than the last trailer. It looks less “Shreky” and more Disney-esque, whatever that means. I’ll check it out on DVD.

    (Not that I hated the first Shrek – though the characters were all ugly, without exception, the story and the script was pretty good, and I laughed. Didn’t care for the second one and skipped the other two.)

  • Funny B

    Most of you are way off on what the story is. What is really funny, if you look at the links of some of the people saying it looks bad….you will see that their work is the definition of bad. Some of you need to really study your craft and get those drawing skills up!

    • Chelsea

      Just because some artists commenting here are still learning, does not make their opinions on the quality of animated works invalid.

  • Leirin

    Gives me new hope for the movie!
    Though, am I the only one who noticed that some of the lighting in a few shots looked a tad primitive? Maybe it just went by too fast to tell.

  • Chris J.

    Disney knows what it’s doing. As soon as these ads get in front of my 4-Year old, she’s going to want to see it. Which means either me or my wife or both of us will be seeing it to.

    And why not? Disney makes good family films. It’s mostly for my kid – but they sneak in enough for me and my wife to enjoy as well.

    They’re never, NEVER going to sell these movies to the 18-35 year old animation professional crowd, guys, why are you so upset about that?

    And they’re simply NOT going to make edgy films like Pinnochio. Ever. Again. It’s just not what Disney does anymore. Let it go.

    • Scarabim

      Yeah…you’re probably right. Pinocchio was pretty bold for its time…and even for this time. Dark themes about the penalties of screwing up just aren’t part of the Disney storyline anymore. Not since the Lion King, anyway. Too bad. That kind of thing gave Disney films muscle. I miss it.

  • After getting tangled up in all this chatter, I have this burning urge to see Kurosawa’s masterpiece,
    “Rashomon” again. You know, great fimmaking, remember ?

    • Jenks

      What, you cant enjoy both?

  • akira

    damn what a waste… i wish i could see the versions of this and bolt when Chris Sanders and Glen Keane were in charge of their respective works… thank you lassetter for ensuring all the good pix come from the Pixar sequel factory banner. geez i shudder to think of how they can screw up the marvel universe, now.

  • Chelsea

    Oh wow- so much better. Goes to show you how important advertising is. As for the main guy- I think he’ll be okay, in fact, I think my 8 year old nephew would enjoy him.

    … still don’t like that chameleon character though.

  • TheVok

    As Pappy D suggested–and seems painfully, artlessly obvious to me–there is one huge reason this trailer is as it is:

    Marketing To Boys.

    These movies are expensive to produce and Disney slipped a bit with The Princess & The Frog because it was only marketed to girls.

    The most recent teaser trailer for Tangled tried to change things up by targeting girls in a shallow, more modern fashion than usual, referring to Rapunzel being, like, totally grounded fer sure, like, forever. *sigh*

    But even in cynical marketing terms, that was the wrong direction to take. Modern isn’t enough … you don’t want this to only do as well as, say, Bolt or Meet the Robinsons. And when it’s not Pixar, you can’t sell on story quality.

    So we get this, the most male-oriented ‘princess’ movie trailer ever. Way to go, Disney. Keep smelling like sweaty desperation.

    • Jenks

      “And when it’s not Pixar, you can’t sell on story quality.”

      Right. Like “How To Train Your Dragon” failed miserably at doing…


      • TheVok

        To clarify, I was referring to Disney specifically, not the animation industry at large.

  • Pedro Nakama

    Is Disney going to release 2 films within a month of each other where both lead characters are named Flynn. The other being Tron Legacy.
    Is it just me or does it seem across the board animation marketing really sucks?

    • A dude

      One is a last name, one is a first.

      I think audiences will be able to tell the difference.

  • Glen Keane would have hopefully made this film a much better one.

    ….like most disney films it’s one big unfullfilled promise. We were told to expect lush visuals. I see it, but nowhere near as much as I believed it would be.

  • some girl

    Have you ever hear of not basing the movie off the trailers? I thought that would be just common sense by now. It loos like a lovly movie, 2d or not. And people forget why the classic movies were great in the first place, not just the animation (becuase we can CAN still do 2d if we wanted to) but the story usually grasps the attention of the viewer. The look, yeah it plays a part in the actual movie of gaining our attention. But to keep it will be the story.
    Now I see someones confusion based off the trailer, saying they didn’t know what it was exactly about. Since when did you want the trailer to give it all away. I mean come on? Basing anything off a trailer because..uhh, duhh…I dun gettit.. is the stupidist thing I have ever read. Grow a backbone and actually see the movie before you say you won’t see it. Everyone thought HTTYD was going to be another DreamWorks knock-off because of the trailers, but turned out surprisingly well. And for those who said it it looked bad based of the trailer surely had to be embarrassed about their comments. Especially on a site or anywhere people give an opinion. We should know by now we shouldn’t base off things off of trailers. Haven’t you learned by now? I think this movie will indeed have loads of surprises and it looks great! Ii will still see it and judge for myself. It’s a pity if you missed something great in theaters, then watch it 6 months later by yourself with the rental eating instant popcorn instead of theater popcorn and the exciting feel of an audience with you.

  • A dude

    Winnie the Pooh will be 2d. Awesome 2d animation is still being done at Disney.

  • GOTI

    Is it too late to bring back Kristin Chenoweth?

    • Steve

      That was always a rumor. She was never officially involved.

  • Rodan

    I am sorry….but UP seemed so much better looking…and the characters seemed better suited for there surroundings. This film reminds me to much of a video game…The exact same reason I still have not watched Avatar. Just not that excited. If you want characters that are more or less designed to look like real people, I say make a real movie.

    I would feel much better about seeing this had it been 2D.
    Only the Disney label has me the lest bit interested in this.

    As far as it being a “DISNEY” film….I’m just not feeling it.

  • Anna

    dear Disney marketing, STOP. Just… stop!

  • purin

    Well, it’s a better ad, but I’m kind of torn between wanting to watch Flynn Rider: The Movie and wondering “I wonder if Rapunzel’s in this movie.”

    (Is it me, or are the supposedly more progressive movies with more dynamic women less focused on their female main characters than the old-fashioned-values ones? For example: Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty actually pass the Bechdel Test! Mermaid and onward? Just barely, if they do at all)

    Has anybody here read Rapunzel’s Revenge? It’s an alternate-telling comic book that also has Rapunzel with hair as superpower wandering around with an outlaw. However, Rapunzel’s Revenge never forgot that Rapunzel was the main character of the story. Jack never stole the show they way Flynn seems to be (he later got his own sequel, but that’s another story). I really would love to see an animated version of Rapunzel’s Revenge…

  • Martin Juneau

    I seen the UK trailer and it’s actually very charming and we may have a better vision of this new film. The horse character is suprisely the most funniest one. And i can slap me at the face for all of the negatives vibes about the first trailer and the pre-production from this picture. It sure be a better riot than was the miserable Princess and the Frog.

  • It’s more about him than her. I’ll pass. Cartoons are a boys world where the girls are merely tag alongs now.

  • some girl

    How do you know it’s all about him? trust me. It’s Rapunzel’s story. you’ll see..

  • Dave

    Glen Keane is great and all but his animation facial acting has way toooo much tude. It’s not really as subtilte as the Ol’ Masters of Disney. A lot of these “Tangeled” characters’ expressions look like they could go on any of the 90’s Disney characters. (ALADDIN , HERCULES , TARZAN , HUNCHBACK’s Kevin Kline character) I will admit that the CGI is incredibly lit and has unseen weight in the animation. They defiantly have produced something that shows the true potential of CGI Disney style Animation. I think they should have gone super classic with the story on this film. A CGI version of 90’s Disney was new enough, they didn’t need to turn it into a stupid hip , dated in 3 years movie.

    Bambi and Cinderella have Timeless stories that seem to have lasted due to great scenes in the movies that involved character driven gags. Lets face it, the story in both of those movies is a little boring. But the mice taking the key up the stairs is awesome!! Thumper getting a boner over the girl rabbit is hilarious.

    Tangled has non of those types of things in the trailer. Its trying desperately to hard to be cool and it looks like a bunch of OLD PEOPLE wrote a bunch of “COOL jokes”.

    I will see this movie.

    Oh by the way I am not trashing Aladdin, I love everything in that movie.

    • I agree with you in that the jokes in the classic movies were less artificial and more untemporary. But one of the reasons why I like this trailer more than the teaser is that it’s starting to look more character driven. Apart from being cool and arrogant, Flynn is starting to look more desperate, which is a funnier quality. Flynn being tricked by the fat guy to be catapulted is a nice gag, also the part with the fat guy telling him that “his dream sucks”. Actually this fat guy is looking pretty fun. Also the horse, the horse looks like he has a nice personality.

  • mawnck

    “A CGI version of 90’s Disney was new enough, they didn’t need to turn it into a stupid hip , dated in 3 years movie.”

    Don’t know how many times we have to tell you before it starts to sink in ….

    The folks at Disney have told you, those of us who have seen the test screenings have told you, and I guess I’ll tell you again, although my fingers are getting mighty tired …


    A CGI version of 90’s Disney is EXACTLY what it is.

    In fact, I don’t think I could come up with a more concise description of it. It contains NO snark, NO sarcasm, no fast-expiring cultural reference garbage, just genuine, sincere, entertaining, lush, beautiful storytelling. There are going to be arguments over whether or not it’s BETTER than The Little Mermaid, which I think it very well could be.

    Flynn is cool and arrogant, for about 15 minutes. The dreams comment, seen in the trailer out of context, comes at the tail end of a MARVELOUS Alan Menkin production number. Mother Gothel is a wonderfully disturbing villain with a wonderfully disturbing song. The animal sidekicks are both hilarious, they have great personalities, and neither one says a word. This flick is romantic, exciting, funny, scary, beautiful, and the ending … kicks … butt.

    And yes, really, honest, definitely, absotively, posilutely, take it to the bank, have no doubt, gospel truth, if I’m lying I’m dying …

    THE MOVIE IS ABOUT RAPUNZEL!!!!!!! The Ariel-looking chick with all the hair. It’s her story through Flynn’s eyes.

    You can take your kids to it, both boys and girls, and they will have a splendid time. You can take your girlfriend to it and she will love you forever, including in the Biblical sense. You can take your sullen emo teenagers to it and they will come out grinning ear to ear. You can take your grandparents to it and they’ll say “yep, that’s the Disney I remember.” You can take your Dreamworks animators to it and they’ll say “DANG!!”

    And bring some tissues, cause you’re going to need to wipe the tears off your 3D glasses to read the credits. This includes you, Bruiser.

    If you miss seeing this one in the theater because you didn’t like Flynn in the 2 minutes of footage the Disney marketing weenies have shown you, then boy are you gonna be sorry.


    Now look what you did, you made me use all caps. Go see Tangled, kay? Thx.

    (Disclaimer: mawnck is not affiliated with or compensated by Disney or any of its subsidiaries in any way shape or form. I was just lucky enough to get invited to a test screening. Tangled is not perfect, but it’s dang good, and these dozens of posts dissing it for reasons that are the exact opposite of reality are driving me bonkers.)

  • What I have seen so far has this “Rapunzel”(don’t like to call it “Tangled”)nothing to do with the original story.
    The only similar thing is the girl(Rapunzel), the long hair and the tower.

    I don’t understand why they take a classic fairytale and change it so much that it has nothing to do with its original.
    And I hate the “Prince”! He is annoying, stereotypical and megatude!

    Other than that, the film looks like a eyecandy! I’m going to watch it!

  • Jedger

    They seem to be trying to make her too inoccent, I mean look at her dressed in pink? And the fact that she’s barefoot means that she will be rendered unconscious at some point in the film.