tangled1 tangled1


Well, it’s official. Disney’s Rapunzel has been renamed Tangled. *sigh* Not as bad a title as The Emperor’s New Groove, but still…

They obviously want to make it very clear that this isn’t a traditional re-telling of Rapunzel. In fact, according to Tangled’s producer Roy Conli on Facebook, “It’s a really fresh, smart take on the Rapunzel story.”

“In our film, the infamous bandit Flynn Rider meets his match in the girl with the 70 feet of magical golden hair. 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.

“I’m so proud of the crew working on this film — they’re doing a fantastic job creating an awesome story with great characters and a stunning world — and it’s all going to look amazing in 3D. All of us here at the studio are incredibly excited for you to see Tangled when it comes out in theaters this November.”

(Thanks, Edward Himmel)

  • djjuice5

    well i guess it’s official

    Disney-Pixar = garbage.

  • Cameron

    Wow. I didn’t think the American animation studios could actually surprise me with their stupidity anymore but….good God almighty…

  • TheGunheart

    Bad title, but it really sounds like it has potential with that character setup. A bit of a romantic body comedy, as it were, which might be a fresh change of pace from the regular type.

    I just hope Flynn doesn’t have an annoying talkie sidekick who steals every scene.

  • squirrel

    Is this for real?!!! That’s an awful word for a title!!!!! It’s been called Rapunzel for how many years it’s been in production?!?!!! I thought they were going to stick as close to a straight fairy tale as possible!!!! It was supposed to be a return to serious storytelling!!!! The producer is using as many buzzwords as possible!!!! Why would they rename THIS?!?? How could they completely abandon what they previously intended to do!?!?!?!? It makes no sense!!! NO! SENSE!

  • Claudia

    Now “Rapunzel Unbraided” sounds like a much better title.

  • Ama


    I wish I had something more valuable to say to say on the matter…

  • hudiniDan

    Here’s a better idea, STOP MAKING AND REMAKING PRINCESSES STORIES, it’s 2010.

  • Amber

    Sounds like their solution for grabbing a larger share of the market is to aggressively target little children. It worked for Alvin…?

  • Isaac

    I don’t understand the negativity. It’s related to hair, and it’s not a very negative or offensive word. You’re freaking out over nothing.

  • Bob

    If they’re that worried about Rapunzel’s box office take, Disney might want to choose a release date farther away from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

  • At least the movie’s still on track, though we still have yet to see an official trailer.

    I don’t know what to think of the proposed story. They said years ago they were moving away from the fractured fairy tale bit, now it seems to have drifted back into that terrain. Doesn’t sound like much of Glen Keane’s sensibilities are surviving this gestation.

    We’ll have to wait and see…

  • is it true, the new winnie the pooh is gonna be shipped overseas for animation

    why is disney doing this….

  • El

    Incredibly disappointing. I really wanted this to be a rumor. I’m tired to death of fresh, smart takes.

    It shouldn’t be a big deal, but it is. After all the retooling that supposedly went into turning ‘Rapunzel Unbraided’ back into something like an honest, old-school Disney fairy tale, changing the title now just proves that Disney itself doesn’t actually think that’s good enough. The film is either a Princess Movie or it isn’t; ‘Tangled’ is apparently going to try very hard to fool somebody. I hope it isn’t me.

  • Bring back Eisner!

  • So just how long has this film been in production anyway? Seems like a long, long time and that’s never a good sign.

  • Why is Disney making Dreamworks films? They already have Pixar.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    Despite the title change it still sounds good. I’m interested in seeing how it turns out.

  • “Tangled”???? For a moment I miss Michael Eisner! :-P

  • Donald C.

    “It’s a really fresh, smart take on the Rapunzel story.”

    Ever sense Shrek!
    I swear…

    Why can’t we just have a good traditional fairy tale anymore?
    It’s stops being witty and original if it becomes the norm.

  • Sean

    everyone seems to be fed up with “fresh, smart, new takes” on stories…and yet I get the feeling there would be just as many people complaining about a straight telling of the same old fairy tale: “there are no new stories!” “why can’t people come up with anything original?”
    Disney has NEVER stuck to the original stories. To do a cookie cutter “princess story” about Rapunzel would fall into the “helpless girl who needs rescuing” category and then we would have all sorts of discussions about Disney shying away from empowering young girls.

    I felt that “Rapunzel” was a nothing name for the project. “Tangled” can easily apply to the hair, as well as the ploys that could work within the plot of the story… that makes it somewhat clever. Last I checked, use of wordplay is what can make a title interesting – not awful. Sure, it isn’t as exciting as “Cinderella,” “Snow White,” or “Beauty and the Beast,” but at least if they are going to veer away from the formulaic “classic” story telling then they are better off renaming the project.

    At this point, Disney seems to be unable to to right by people – they will get lambasted for anything that they do. Unless anyone in this forum can clearly see the future, just let it happen and judge the final product.

    If you can see the future, please use your powers for something more useful than making judgments about Disney’s next project and let me know next weeks lottery numbers… after that you can slam away.

  • Steve Gattuso

    It sure as hell beats “Rapunzel Unbraided,” the original title for the film.

  • It’s amazing how much a title – how much just one word – can impact the public response to thousands of hours of work by hundreds of people over nearly a decade. The journey of making any film involves a lot of “dying inside” moments, but I really hope this film doesn’t become, on the surface and in viewing, much worse than the sum of its magnificent parts.

    I agree, I want the “fractured fairy tale” genre to go away… it’s not funny anymore!

  • Kate

    Hold up. November? It’s coming out this November? O.o Jinkes…

  • Tangled is a good way of describing Walt Disney Animation Studios these days.

  • Scarabim


    Damn…this, plus Disney’s planning remakes of Tron and The Black Hole (both of which were box office flops) and isn’t there a new Muppet movie (and didn’t the last one of THOSE flop?) too…

    Man, I’m really worried about Disney now… this hurts…Uncle Walt, where are you when we need you?

  • Pedro Nakama

    Disney is no longer the leader in animation. Years ago they did their own thing and it worked. Now they are looking around to see what others are doing and then decide what to do from that. At that rate they should be called Sony Pictures Animation South.

  • Justin

    some other suggestion for a title:

    -Lots and Lots of Hair.
    -The Hair That Can Tie You to a Chair.
    -A Very Hairy Fairy Affair.
    -Hair, Stairs, and Solitaire.

  • EHH

    Actually, my last name only has one M. But thank you for referring to me.

  • greg m.

    There once was a time (long, long ago) when I could count on Disney to give me the definitive version (well, sort of) of a classic tale. Peter Pan, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty… NO OTHER COMPANY existing today can pull that off and have a consumer feel that to be the case – Disney has that market cornered – but they have forgotten this.

    Now it’s about doing hip, to the moment, films – I guess.

    Has the company forgotten what the brand is about?? They used to lead, now they follow. Maybe I’m ‘just an artist’ and don’t understand business.

  • A traditional fairy tale is about 8 pages long and takes maybe 10 minutes to read out loud. If you want a straight retelling of a fairy tale, you’re not wanting a feature length movie.

    If that image is a 3D render it’s a very interesting 3D render and I’m curious to see how it holds up.

  • A little rant , tangential to this topic :

    hudiniDan wrote —

    “Here’s a better idea, STOP MAKING AND REMAKING PRINCESSES STORIES, it’s 2010.”


    This is starting to really bug me. I’m going to explode if I hear one more reference to Disney supposedly making all these “princess movies”. There seems to be some sort of bizarre memory hole about Disney Feature Animation’s output from the late 80’s to the early 2000’s. People talk as if all Disney ever did was make fairy tale princess movies in the 80’s and 90’s. But I was there and I remember that was not the case .

    Shall we review ? —

    The Great Mouse Detective – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Who Framed Roger Rabbit ? Not a ‘princess movie’ (those two movies , Great Mouse and Roger, really kicked off the start of the Disney boom of the 80’s – 90’s)

    Oliver & Co. – Not a ‘princess movie’

    The Little Mermaid – A princess movie. (Ariel is nominally a princess , however the movie is not focused on her being “princessy”, but rather on her desire to be human and then her battle to resist being enslaved by Ursula. But yes, Mermaid qualifies as a princess movie. There’s ONE.)

    The Rescuer’s Down Under – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Beauty & the Beast – Not a princess movie … though I recognize that some may contest that. However I would point out that Belle is not a princess, but a commoner , and she doesn’t have any desire to be a princess . She incidentally ends up a princess at the very end of the movie because her beloved Beast (unbeknownst to her throughout the movie) turns out to be a prince, but the story is not focused on Belle being a princess. People may be getting confused by the Disney consumer products machine which has taken this “Disney Princessesâ„¢” concept and shoved it down everyone’s throats for the last 10 years, but what consumer products marketing does is independent from the intentions of the the filmmakers who made the original films. Even if I grant this one as a princess movie, that’s only 2 out of 22 feature films from the late 80’s to early 2000’s .

    Aladdin – Not a ‘princess movie’ (one character in the movie happens to be a princess, but she’s not the main character. Another character is a genie . So is it a “Genie Movie” ? No. This is Aladdin’s story. )

    The Lion King – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Pocahontas – Not a ‘princess movie’ (again, despite the co-opting of Pocahontas by the “Disney Princesssesâ„¢” marketing machine. The focus of the movie is not in any way on Pocahontas being a “princess”) .

    The Hunchback of Notre Dame – Not a ‘princess movie’

    A Goofy Movie – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Hercules – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Mulan – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Tarzan – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Fantasia 2000 – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Dinosaur – Not a ‘princess movie’

    The Emperor’s New Groove – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Atlantis – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Lilo & Stitch – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Treasure Planet – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Brother Bear – Not a ‘princess movie’

    Home on the Range – Not a ‘princess movie’

    (and none of the CG movies made since the untimely shuttering of the old traditional animation dept. in 2003 have been “princess movies” : Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt )

    So what’s with this idea that Disney is just about “making and remaking Princess stories” ?

    And notwithstanding that “The Princess & the Frog” , apart from the title , is an atypical princess movie. Tiana has no interest in being a princess. She’s not looking for any fairy tale ending or a Prince Charming to sweep her off her feet. She ends up falling for Naveen despite him being a prince. So again, like Belle, she incidentally ends up being a Princess by the end of the movie when she marries Naveen, but as far as either of them knew they were going to spend the rest of their lives together in the swamp as common frogs. Tiania wasn’t pursuing the “some day my prince will come” ideal . Even after she marries Prince Naveen she doesn’t ride off into the sunset with him to live in a castle in the sky. Rather he joins her world , they roll up their sleeves, and shoulder to shoulder work together to open Tiana’s long-planned for restaurant. When have you seen that before in a Disney film ? How is that a remake of material that’s been done before by Disney ?

    The conventional wisdom is that the title turned off a significant portion of the audience , and that may be true. But the actual movie was not typical princess material.


    “is it true, the new winnie the pooh is gonna be shipped overseas for animation”

    It’s NOT true, like Princess and the Frog the inbetweens are being outsourced. Animation and clean up keys will be done in house.

  • I don’t mind the new name, though I preferred ‘Rapunzel.’ :/

  • Not a good title replacement for the movie. I think it’s a lame excuse to have a movie song named after the “new title” or something.

    As to the person who screamed “Bring back Eisner”….that’s the last thing anyone would want to do in the animation business!!! Especially when he tried to attempt to do sequels without Pixar’s involvement before he was finally axed (Thank God!).

  • Tangled is an all right title. Sure they might t be playing it safe.

    Yes, Disney has strayed far, far from the leader in animation it once was. But can we all agree on the time and energy it takes to produce an animated film of this scope?

    I bet half of the people complaining would give up a lot to work for Disney. Even if it is a mediocre presentation compared to Pixar it still is something. Something to process and improve upon. If you don’t like it create something better.

    It might not be so wonderful and great like what’s expected from the Disney name but it’s been at least 40 years since the Disney name really was Disney, not just a corporation.

  • I think “Rapunzel” sounds better and it’s more in line with the tradition of the company, I mean, they didnt call “Aladdin” “The magic lamp” or “Bedazzled”.

    But if the movie is good it doesn’t matter THAT much

  • Vee

    @ david nethery >

    are you sure “Who Framed Roger Rabbit ?” is a disney production ? I thought it was animated in the richard williams british studio …..

    but i do agree disney did not make only princess movies. But hey, it’s their trademark you know, I guess now princesses bring in more money than cats and dogs, like 101 dalmatians and oliver & co

  • Brokenshell

    “I’m so proud of the crew working on this film –”
    SO PROUD about that you felt the need to change the title to convince boys to come into the theater and releasing the trailer straight to DVD instead of putting it in front of…I dunno….A MOVIE THAT PEOPLE CAN’T SKIP THE TRAILERS FOR?!

    I’m not as upset with the title change, seeing as the story is staying the same (afterall, it was originally going to be about Rapunzel turning into a squirell and a modern age girl turning into Rapunzel), I just can’t help but notice that with every bit of new news we get on this film makes it seem like more and more that Disney is trying to bury it.

  • The definitive cartoon version of the story:


    Don’t ask me why the only online version is on the Chinese Yahoo site. I don’t speak Chinese… or Yahoo, either.

  • Julian Carter

    What are the odds of management deciding to change the title back?

    Is it even possible?

  • Marc Baker

    ‘ To do a cookie cutter “princess story” about Rapunzel would fall into the “helpless girl who needs rescuing” category and then we would have all sorts of discussions about Disney shying away from empowering young girls.’

    It seems that Disney’s current formula for empowering young girls is by giving them crappy sitcoms, recording contracts, movie deals, and to use their likeness to make millions off of them through merchandising. (CoughMileyCirusCoughSelinaGomezCough!)

    ‘Disney is no longer the leader in animation. Years ago they did their own thing and it worked. Now they are looking around to see what others are doing and then decide what to do from that. At that rate they should be called Sony Pictures Animation South.’

    I’ll say it isn’t. They no longer want to be the leader anymore, but to ape on whatever new, hip, and trendy so they can follow the crowd. As far as the ‘bring back Eisner’ chants are concerned, i don’t want a return to the glory days of badly made sequels. I’m not sure if i want to start chanting ‘bring back Katzenberg’, but i would like to say that frank Wells is an even bigger loss than Eisner, and Katzenberg.

  • peter wassink

    this language they learn in producer class;

    “…….fantastic job…….. awesome story …….great characters …….. stunning world …… look amazing ……incredibly excited …..”

    are we supposed to see it as tong in cheek here or is it a cultural thing and does it mean something to americans ?

  • I once looked forward to this film, but with every press release from Disney, I keep backing up. There goes the Glen Keane legacy.

    The film looks dreadful, has a new “hip” horrible title, and what sounds like a desperately pathetic attempt to update things in the story. I’m old fashioned. I wish it were just a good telling of a Princess story. It’s a great story that’s lived a couple of hundred years through many cultures. Now, the great storytellers think they can better it with lots of “attitude” (the new word for cliche, these days). Just listen to that synopsis, “…infamous bandit Flynn Rider meets his match …” Excuse me but the film’s about Rapunzel, isn’t it? Shouldn’t she be the lead and not a side story!

  • Kyle

    The amount of negativity being spewed here based on a title change is simply amazing. People are so quick to get cynical and angry. Relax, dudes!

    I was curious about general fairy tale knowledge with kids today. So, I did an informal poll of kids around the neighborhood, asking them to tell me the story of Rapunzel, and NONE of them had even heard of Rapunzel much less knew the story. Hmmmm….

    So, naysayers, perhaps Disney knows a little something when they’ve removed Rapunzel from the title entirely?

  • …sigh…


  • Chuck R.

    Thanks for posting, Sean and David. I enjoyed your comments!
    Even conceding that not every movie is a princess movie, I still think Disney is sticking way too close to formula, and needs to give its audiences (adults are expected to sit thru these things too) a surprise now and then. Maybe Disney now sees that as Pixar’s job, but I think that’s a mistake.

    And yes, “Tangled” is no less exciting a name than “Rapunzel”.

  • purin

    “Tangled?” It just doesn’t flow to me. Besides, even if it’s a “fresh new take,” a title like Rapunzel, tells people that it’s going to be a fairy tale of some sort, fresh take or not. Rapunzel Unbraided pretty much screams “Fresh new take on fairy tale.” Even just “Unbraided” would be better, I think. It just sounds better.

    Aaah, thank you, David Nethery! I’ve just been pondering how remarkably few Disney movies actually are fairy tales and “princess” (whatever that means, really) movies. Even the supposed formula and tropes for those movies aren’t quite as used and reused by Disney as they are by other people.

    I’ve also been pondering if audiences ever will be in the mood for a more straight retelling of a fairy tale. The “classic” three had changes for storytelling purposes, but they largely are the same story. The post-Mermaid ones increasingly move in the direction of “a fresh new take on a classic tale,” to the point that our most recent one isn’t even a “fresh new take” but a completely different story that plays on the fairy tale somewhat for plot purposes. I wonder if we’re just too savvy, or if our culture is just too different to make a more direct rendition of a fairy tale, that we can’t relate to them at all without a complete overhaul.

    The other alternative I can see is to go really artsy and symbolic with a fairy tale, but, to paraphrase a story artist for PATF, Disney can’t be “too” artsy.

  • “and it’s all going to look amazing in 3D.”

    If I had a nickel for everytime someone said that.

  • John A

    It just sounds like “Enchanted”. A single descriptive term that couldmean anything or nothing.

  • ZAR

    Sounds like a hairy idea to me.

    After surviving the mediocrity of Kiss the Frog it would be a wonder to expect something new and fresh from this studio. Besides, they bought Pixar for that and sourced out anyone else in the rest of their company who could come up with something different.

    Anyone remember when Disney actually took RISKS?


    Or maybe it’s just another one of these “adapted” fairy tales and legends and that was a different studio altogether.


  • Giovanni Jones

    Hey! This is fun!

    Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs – Applesauced!

    Pinocchio – Splintered!

    Fantasia – Conducted!

    Dumbo – Liftoff!

    Bambi – Buckshot!

    Cinderella – Slippered!

    Alice in Wonderland – Eat Me!

    Peter Pan – Hooked!

    Lady and the Tramp – Muzzled!

    Sleeping Beauty – Thorned!

    The Sword in the Stone – Warted!

    The Jungle Book – Mancubbbed!

    Anyone want to play around with the post-Walt features?

  • Austin Papageorge

    “*sigh* Not as bad a title as The Emperor’s New Groove, but still… ”

    I disagree. This is about the worst title that anyone could come up with at any time.

    @Giovanni: Ha ha!

  • I hate the way guys look in Disney movies from the last 10 years or so. they’re all asymmetrical eyebrows and teeth topped off with a symmetrical haircut from the 90’s.

  • The Obvious

    Tangled sounds “too quirky for its own good.” ;)

  • Vee says:
    “@ david nethery > are you sure “Who Framed Roger Rabbit ?” is a disney production ? I thought it was animated in the richard williams british studio ….. but i do agree disney did not make only princess movies. But hey, it’s their trademark you know”

    Hi, Vee,

    Yes, I’m sure. (my paychecks when I was working on the movie were from Disney payroll. ) Roger was a co-production of Amblin and Disney.

    Richard Williams put his own studio in mothballs for the duration of Roger. He was in charge of the animation direction and brought along a few of his key people from his studio (Roy Naisbitt and Russell Hall for example) , but the movie was made under the Disney Animation banner, not Richard Williams Animation.

    There were two animation units on Roger: the main unit in London and a satellite unit set up at Disney in Glendale , CA .

  • Here are a few:
    Little Mermaid-Unfinned!
    Beauty and the Beast- Beasted!
    Tarzan- Feraled!!!

  • squirrel

    Someone pointed out how you can take any of Disney’s recent films and turn the title into a past-tense verb! :D I like that idea. In fact, it sort of follows the same kind of title as Enchanted, a parody of their own princess movies, and possibly, what got them interested in 2D again in the first place.

    Also, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tangled

  • Tom

    Screw this princess crap. Seriously.

  • Sam

    Did they just modify Rapunzel’s color scheme on the above picture? I thought it looked more duller. Gone were the days you don’t rely on the computer so much that you just color correct it into a mess.

    The reception of the name Tangled has been greatly negative around the blogs, I hope Disney knows what they are doing, and they better think twice before confirming the final name. I was so looking forward to the film too until they made the name switch, it just put me off entirely and I felt if the film is good, the original title Rapunzel wouldn’t affect anything. ‘Rapunzel’ was more honest, direct to the point for the audience than trying to trick the audience into watching a film they have no idea what is it about and then realize it was just Rapunzel.

    Not a clever change, especially for a story that is known to almost every household in the United States. If it was an original story started from scratch entirely like Up, I wouldn’t have been this annoyed. It shows how Disney is so unsecured with their upcoming films they had to resort into plying such tactics.

    On the other hand, did it ever occurred to Walt Disney that they need to look into their box office statistic and realize their previous film would affect their next? Disney NEED to give 2D animation more chances to come back, they need to be consistent with the quality of their films and do a constant hit like Pixar did to win back their audience. It’s like feeding your customer foods, you maintain the quality, the customer will come back, but once it taste awful, you are bound to lose some customers each time that happens. PATF isn’t too bad, but it played the black princess tactic that didn’t fool me to think it’s a great movie just because you have a black princess and think that’s new.

    Disney, please bring back The Snow Queen. And have faith in your company than playing tricks and crazy tactics to win back your audience. There’s nothing else that would help you than to just keep making good films with GOOD story and focus on that. Get a GOOD writer for Christ’s sake, to be able to come up with such a title ‘Tangled’ shows what you all need is a real good writer. Many of us want to see you succeed. Or we wouldn’t be this frustrated.

  • Giovanni, that’s hilarious! Let’s see…

    The Aristocats – Catnapped!

    Robin Hood – Swindled!

    The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh – Heffalumped!

    The Rescuers – Rescued!

    The Great Mouse Detective – Found Out!

    Oliver and Company – Accompanied!

    The Little Mermaid – Humaned!

    On a more serious note, is this “Flynn Rider” guy an originally created character? Did the prince in the original story have a name?

  • Austin Papageorge

    Aladdin: Rubbed!

  • Stephanie

    Why must it be in 3D? Why does this fad always come back and never die? I would think since Princess and the Frog brought in great revenue with its classic 2D style that Disney would think, hey, maybe the people just want good animation.

  • Mike Russo

    People complain way too much, I swear to God.

    I get the rationale behind the title change. I think moving the title away from something that sounds too “princess-y” is a relatively good idea. It might just work. But it’s aggravating that no matter what Disney does, no matter what they change, no matter how they change it, the malcontents come out in force and complain, complain, complain!

    “Oh No! Why?”
    “I miss Eisner”
    “This is crap!”
    “Disney is dead!”

    It all sounds so stupid.

  • creepy

    What is going on over there?I would call what’s happening at the studio “Shakey”.

  • bipto

    Scarabim said, “‘Tangled’????? Damn…this, plus Disney’s planning remakes of Tron and The Black Hole (both of which were box office flops)…”

    Every guy I know between the age of 45 and 25 is looking forward to Tron. You should have seen the alphageeks in line at Avatar looking up slack-jawed at the trailer playing in the lobby.

    Commercially, the original Tron may not have been a hit, but its cultural impact was huge. I predict a winner.

    As for the The Black Hole…feh.

  • Wait… why is this bad? No one has seen the film, maybe this title makes sense…

  • Danny R. Santos

    T.A.N.G.L.E.D. …..To Animation Not Good Lest Everything Dumb. Sorry but each time the title gets changed, it quite doesn’t hit me right.

  • Dock Miles

    Aw, lighten up — considering the Chipmunks makeover, it could have been “RAP Punzel,” y’know …

  • I’m surprised they didn’t go with “Tangl’d”.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2qW1Vcnli0

    Wow! Poochie is one outrageous dude!

    He’s totally in my face!

    Remeber, kids always recycle….TO THE EXTREME!!

  • ZN

    Not hip enough. Go after social media. Call it ‘Tanglr’!!

  • Amber

    haha @ Giovanni. I wouldn’t mind the name change if they had put the ! on the end! Tangled! is much more self aware and funny than Tangled.

    I’d like to suggest “Split Ends” or “Oily Roots” as alternate titles. Although, their implied double meaning says a lot more about the state of Disney animation than it does likely does about the film itself.

  • The Eighth Dwarf

    Perspective from the inside:

    We hate the new title. We love the film.

    It IS the classic Rapunzel story (though not Glen’s dark version). The title is all marketing spin…

  • captainmurphy

    Eisner Disney = Broadway Disney on Ice
    Post Eisner Disney = Hanna Montana’s High School Musical

    It’s all about the connections of the top middle management, which still creatively run Disney.

  • Norton Simonized

    Why don’t they just bring back Howard Ashman? Oh, yeah.

  • Mike Caracappa

    They probably changed the title after “Princess Frog” failed to meet their expectations, so more than likely the execs at Disney could be afraid to outright label it as a princess movie. That’s just a guess.

  • Mac

    David Nethery makes a good point by listing how many Disney movies aren’t ‘princess movies’. However, lately it seems that Disney has made themselves the company for little girls and babies, while Pixar is for little boys and older children. Take a look at all the currently successful non-Pixar stuff that is heavily branded with the Disney name:

    High School Musical, Hannah Montanna, the Whatsname Boithers; all this stuff is aimed squarely at little girls. There is also a slightly disturbing sexual quality to all this stuff that I can’t quite put my finger on, but don’t like at all.

    Disney Fairies and Tinkebell; who could all this stuff be aimed at? Only little girls surely.

    The Disney Princess Franchise; every Disney heroine who used to be unique to their own film is now part of a hugely successful pink franchise aimed at little girls. It’s been so successful that films that would have once been known as ‘Animated Fairytales’ are now simply ‘Princess Movies’ and are looked down upon with greater disdain. It’s worked so well that, as an adult male, I’m embarrassed to buy my ticket for “DISNEY’S PRINCESS and the Frog”

    The Disney Pictures logo; playing before every Disney movie this logo used to be simple, white and blue. What colour is it now? Of course pink and purple for little girls, with a ship load of fairy dust.

    Mickey Mouse Clubhouse; the only currently successful non-Pixar Disney franchise I can think of that isn’t aimed squarely at girls takes the key timeless Disney characters and aims them squarely at babies. At age 10 is was perfectly acceptable for me to be a fan of these character and read the comic books. Would that be true for kids now?

    I’m hoping that this Tangled title isn’t indicative of a mess of a film. I don’t like the title, but can see why Disney are scurrying around trying to second-guess their audience again. Now that the Disney Company as a whole had made themselves a little girl company, I think this affects the box office results of any animated Disney movie which looks a bit girly too.

  • Donald C.

    “It IS the classic Rapunzel story (though not Glen’s dark version). The title is all marketing spin…”
    Well that’s good to hear.
    However, it only continues to validate my disdain for marketing divisions.

  • Mike Caracappa

    May I clarify my post? It should be “The Princess and the Frog”, not “Princess Frog” It would make my post a little clearer.

  • @ The Eighth Dwarf:

    So, the artists hate the title, the fans despise it, the general public seems to hate it (after reading responses on movie related forums, etc)… Remind me again, why was this movie given a new, horrendous title?!?

  • i agree with machael sporn.

    why not keep with the theme and call it, “the prisoner’s new tude”

    also i doubt this movie has any possessed cabbage heads which is my favorite thing about the fairy tale.

  • joe

    “I miss Eisner”

    People may have hated Eisner, but Lasettar isn’t much a different beast. It’s interesting when we hear the commentary on how pixar was made because of things they hated at disney (princess movies, movies that don’t need sequels, musicals, non-director driven films), yet this is exactly the box they are making for the studio!

  • Ross W

    How about “The Princess and the Hair”?

    Oh, yeah- Disney is running away from movies titles that don’t appeal to boys.

    If it truly is a good movie, show some conviction and call it “Rapunzel”. Renaming it “Tangled” seems like Disney doesn’t have faith in this film.

  • The Eighth Dwarf


    Because the leadership are scared that Disney has been pigeon-holed as “movies for girls.” They feel “Rapunzel” has a stigma which instantly alienates boys, teen boys, and young adults (both male and female).

    We’ve stated our case. We feel this film is worthy of the name “Rapunzel.” They still chose “Tangled.”

    From what I’ve heard, Glen also opposes the title change. This is a John, Ed, and Roy decision.

    As a side note, I feel they are dwelling on a title problem, when they should be dwelling on a release date problem.

  • chipper

    They should change the character’s name, too.

    “Tangled, Tangled! Let down your hair!”
    “Aw man, why did my mom have to name me that?”

    I don’t really care what it’s named, I’m just relieved that it no longer has the real world teenagers get into a fairy tale thing. I hope.

  • Alberto

    I hope the Eighth Dwarf is right b/c i’ve been losing enthusiasm for Disney for many years now. Judging by the image provided it still appears to be a modern adaptation. Just look at the poses, a really strong, sassy, woman, and a helpless, dorky, male lead. Even though the title may be a marketing spin, it isn’t helpful to persuading me otherwise. However, there isn’t too much info that i can actually dig up to expect from the movie, so i will remain open minded.

    Disney should do what Disney does best, and not try to outdo competing studios. Go back to 2d and find the heart of the story, don’t ruin it with your modern and hip reworking, b/c in 25 years it’s not going to be modern and hip anymore, just dated and obscure. Execs. think too much in the short term and not enough in the long term.

  • Not to imply that projects like this ever live and die by a single individual vision, but I was afraid something like this would happen as soon as Glen Keane left the project. At one time Rapunzel promised to be the proof-of-concept that the lineage of Disney princess classics would survive the transition into CG. Remember when we all heard about its promises of bringing us a whole new CG aesthetic? The concept art and test shots inspired by oil paintings? And how relieved we all were when they dropped the Shrek-clone concept of Unbraided?

    I seriously hope that we’re all overreacting to this, and that the non-traditional dynamic of the love story is as refreshing as the one in The Princess and the Frog. Setting my personal feelings aside, I can’t even fathom why they would believe this is a good marketing decision. How could you possibly not call it “Rapunzel” and hope to make more money, not less?

    I don’t want to give up hope on what was by far the most promising of Disney’s CG projects, but I’m with Michael Sporn on this one.

  • Jared Pettitt

    Man you guys are able to infer an awful lot about the movie/its production by the word ‘Tangled.’ I mean, at least wait for a trailer with pop-music celebrity voice actor montages and snappy comebacks from a plucky sidekick to lose hope. I think you’re really jumping the gun on this one- Like you’re looking for a reason to dislike Disney’s new productions. Correct me if I’m wrong, however.

  • Oh, and since nobody (to my surprise) has mentioned it: in an overcrowded market where your average filmgoer with two kids and a bucket of popcorn in tow can’t tell between one animation studio and another, does Disney seriously think it’s a good idea to make this project sound like Hoodwinked?

  • @ Giovanni,

    When “Basil of Baker Street” got changed to “The Great Mouse Detective”, a mock memo was put out by the animators about Disney changing the titles to earlier films. Here were some examples:

    The Girl Who Seemed to Die

    The Young Princess and Seven Little Men

    Colors & Music

    The Deer That Grows Up.

  • elan

    Glen Keane hasnt left the project, he just isnt directing.

    He’s the animation director.

  • Some Princess

    The funny thing is, once the movie’s released, kids and their moms are just going to call it “Rapunzel” anyway. (I know a lot of “The Princess and the Frog” fans who just call it “The Frog Prince”, which is hilarious given all the sweat Disney shed over that title.)

  • Disney. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

  • Call it ‘ Hair Iron ‘
    Include an enormous rabbit robot made of Iron.
    This will appeal to the male demographic.

  • Marc Baker

    Well said, Mac. It’s no wonder i can never buy a Disney product anymore. They’ve limited themselves to little girls, and babies. There was once a time when Disney presented themselves, and their characters for all ages, and genders. Now, Pixar seems to be doing that while Disney proper continues to sink even lower to the ‘daycare’ mentality, and what’s their solution for targeting the other demographics they’ve pushed to the side? ‘Duh, let’s buy Marvel Comics. Young boys, and geeky men like comics, and Warner Bros owns DC. Let’s do that!’ Shoot me.

  • Steve

    Rich Ross’ claim to fame is High School Musical.

    5 months after he replaces Dick Cook, Rapunzel gets watered down into “Tangled”

    Anyone else thinks this is not a coincidence?

  • @ The Eighth Dwarf

    I do hope Disney realises that they are alienating everyone by this title change. The hardcore Disney fans are angry and disappointed, the general movie going public aware of this movie for a while is confused and the general public unaware of the movie won’t have a clue what this movie will be about.

    Besides, how does a different title change the fact that the movie is an animated Disney musical. Whatever marketing spin they give this thing, it is and will always remain a classic Disney fairytale, and unless they really succeed in trying to trick everyone into thinking it’s something it’s not people will see right through this once clips of the movie hit the web. As soon as they show a girl in a tower with 70 foot long hair, they’ll know it’s Rapunzel and wonder why they hell Disney (known for it’s fairytale animated movies) would name this movie anything other then “Rapunzel”. As Glen Keane once said in regards to Rapunzel: “We should not be embarrassed or make excuses for doing a fairy tale.”

    It’s also really confusing that Mattel is releasing their new toyline for the movie under the name “Disney’s Rapunzel” on toy fair’s etc. There are now mixed signals and it’s more evidence that this decision was a rushed, last minute decision. I’m kind of hoping it’s too late logistically speaking in regards to all the merchandising partners.

    Anyway, I started a petition where people who have problems with this title can voice their opinion. I doubt we can change it back, but I simply will not just accept this stupid decision laying down. I’ll fight it tooth and nail and if they new title stays, I’ll simply be making my own posters, dvd covers, book covers etc. The name “Tangled” will not enter my house! If anyone wants to sign it to maybe try and talk some sense into the people responsible, go to this link:


  • This will be complete garbage. Shame on all of you complainers for giving more Disney movies publicity and for continuing to put your money up for seeing them.

    Those that download illegally, good job, but I’d just as much wish the largest media corporation in the world would die already. Too big to fail and too big to produce any art or animation worth seeing.

  • Phil Meeker

    Downloading illegally isnt the answer, and seeing how you’re an animator yourself, I’d think you wouldnt want your fellow animators employed by Disney and Pixar to suffer.

    You dont find any value at all in Disney and Pixar movies?

    For me, I miss the Rapunzel title, and hopefully Disney execs have taken this weekend to read all the comments and maybe will change their minds.

  • Ken

    I think Disney management is tangled.

  • Ken

    Sorry for the double post but…
    as of right now, the name “Rapunzel” is still on the official Disney site on for “upcoming movies”. Either they’re slow to update or (I wish I wish I wish I wish I wish) this “tangled” news isn’t as official as we previously thought.

  • “Because the leadership are scared that Disney has been pigeon-holed as “movies for girls.” They feel “Rapunzel” has a stigma which instantly alienates boys, teen boys, and young adults (both male and female).”

    I wonder why they imagine that teen boys would be more likely to see something called “tangled”.

    I wonder if the toys and related merchandise will be as heavily girl-oriented as the PatF stuff was.

  • raptorzel

    ‘I wonder if the toys and related merchandise will be as heavily girl-oriented as the PatF stuff was.’

    They had merch for that one? I couldn’t find any. Same with ‘UP’. Or ‘BOLT’.
    Way to go, Marketing. Really backing up your team. All that’s left for you is to find another Twilight weekend to release ‘The Tangler’ with, and your bosses can finally say original animated films (especially princess ones) make no money in theaters so they can close one studio and force the other to make nothing but sequels.

    Oh wait. You’re already doing that.

    …carry on.

  • Matt

    “is it true, the new winnie the pooh is gonna be shipped overseas for animation”

    “It’s NOT true, like Princess and the Frog the inbetweens are being outsourced. Animation and clean up keys will be done in house.”

    Partially correct, The Princess and the Frog’s rough animation inbetweens were done in the US by a very small team compared to the older Disney films, many of the animators chose to do their own. Only the cleanup inbetweens were outsourced.

    As far as Whinnie the Pooh goes it’s mostly the same, but with a much smaller crew of animators and only a couple inbetweeners.

  • I might have missed it but: Is Glen Keane still directing this?

  • Graham

    The title reminds me of Hoodwinked. It’s also a fresh take on an old fairy tale.

    Sound familiar?

  • ROn

    I’m quite sure THIs is the best Rapunzel take:

  • Jeff Polizzi

    I find that title, “Tangled,” disrespectful to not only the Grimm Brother’s title, but to Walt Disney as well. Because that is not what Walt Disney would do when he adapts fairy tales into animated movies. Those people, who complain about story titles being too girlish, need to understand that those story titles being too girlish happens to be written by MEN before we are even born. Also, they need to understand that they do not write stories just for girls or boys, they write for families to enjoy, learn, and love. I even love the title logo that Disney created for “Rapunzel,” and now they want to change it to “Tangled?” That title does not make any sense, and it is misleading. If they ever do change the title from “Rapunzel” to “Tangled,” I would find Disney’s next CG movie a flop. But, if they leave the title, “Rapunzel,” the way it is, and the title logo that Disney created, then I would have high confidence that Disney’s next CG movie could be a huge success. So I say to Disney, “I demand that you change that dreadful title back to “Rapunzel” at once, or else you will all become a disgrace to Walt Disney forever. And you will fall to DreamWorks Animation forever more.”

  • Whatever happened to those AMAZING screen grabs or whatever from a few years ago where they were going to try and mimic a “realistic” painterly style for this movie??

    Non artists shouldn’t be in charge of making art-specific decisions.

  • Jessie Nicole

    I think they should use `Tangled`as a sub-name, kind of like Pirates of the Caribbean: the Black Pearl, that way people would know that there is more to the story then just `Rapunzel,Rapunzel let down your hair`, but at the same time i keeps it`s fairy tale roots and in addition is also respectful to Walt Disney and the Grimm Brothers, like it could be something like `Rapunzel: the tangled years` or `Rapunzel: A tangled tale of epic proportions` or `Rapunzel: prepared to get tangled`

    the options are endless, and in my opinion it`s a very ideal compromise.

  • Anonymous

    Despite all these negative opinions, Tangled turns out to be a “VERY GOOD” movie. This just proves the fact how you shouldn’t judge a book by it’s cover. Come on, MOCK ME. I dare you. But once you watch the movie, you know I’m right. :P

  • TishTash

    I’m far from a Disney apologist by all means, but seeing the snide, supercilious, arrogant, holier-than-thou comments in this thread for a movie that turned out to be, well, quite good, I can see that it’s not just the KKK and neo-Nazis that have prejudicial proclivities. Apparently, animation fiends do as well, and in spades.