디즈니 프린세스 Article: Why do we feel the need to compare The Princess and the Frog with Tangled?

4

Why do we feel the need to compare The Princess and the Frog with Tangled?

posted by Swanpride

If I had to write an 기사 which one of those 영화 is better, I know what the result would be. I consider 라푼젤 the better movie because it has a cohesive story, better characters, better score, 더 많이 impressive 애니메이션 – it just beats The Princess and the Frog in every aspect. But why is there this constant need to compare those two 영화 in the first place? I have never seen anyone comparing any of the 디즈니 Princess 영화 with the one which came directly beforehand 또는 after, unless it was for pointing out the development in animation.

I guess the reason is simple: Because all true 애니메이션 팬 knew that the success of those 영화 would determine in which direction the studios would go in the future. We all wanted The Princess and the Frog to succeed, because we knew that if it didn’t, it might 봉인, 인감 the fate of traditional animation. And a lot of people were against 라푼젤 from the get go, because it was CGI. I think that 라푼젤 gets a lot of flak not because the movie is truly flawed (it has its flaws, but not 더 많이 than any other successful and beloved 디즈니 Movie has), but because its success made further 디즈니 영화 in traditional 애니메이션 unlikely.

People like to blame a lot of factors for The Princess and the Frog not being as successful as they wanted it to be. The marketing campaign which was mostly geared towards girls and old 디즈니 Princess 영화 fans. That it hit the theatres during a bad time. A so called prejudice against traditional animation. Racism (but really wouldn’t the number of people who didn’t watch it because of the black princess be balanced out 의해 the people who watched it because they wanted to see one?). But if we are really honest to ourselves, than we have to admit that those are factors, but not really the reason. If The Princess and the Frog had been really good, it would have gotten 더 많이 people in the theatres, due to mouth to mouth advertisements and glowing reviews. But the truth is that it didn’t convince the majority of the audience, while 라푼젤 did. Yes, 라푼젤 got the 더 많이 successful marketing, and a lot of very misleading trailers which promised a swashbuckling adventure. What the audience got was 더 많이 a panswinging princess movie, but it worked out nevertheless. If the audience hadn’t like this movie, they would have protested 더 많이 about it being so different from what was shown in the advertising. It wouldn’t have been about “the advertising is misleading” but about “the advertising makes the movie better than it is”.

Those are two very ambitious movies. The Princess and the Frog was ambitious about telling a modern 디즈니 Princess story – and fell short. 라푼젤 was ambitious about reaching a new level of animation, about merging the traditional 디즈니 aesthetic with CGI – and succeeded. Even the worst critics of 라푼젤 admitted how good the story was – and that’s what everything comes down in the end, story and characters. 당신 can do a beautiful animated movie with a wonderful soundtrack and some really memorable scenes, if the story doesn’t work at least in some part, it won’t be considered a good movie 의해 the majority of the audience (see Pocahontas). But if the very foundation of the movie, the story, holds up, the audience might not praise the movie, but it will keep it in good memory (see how beloved Robin 후드 still is, despite its numerous flaws). Sadly executives tend to look at the numbers and overlook that it’s not a matter of CGI 또는 not, but a matter of making a good movie, no matter what kind of 애니메이션 is used.

But can we blame 라푼젤 for that? Trying to pull this movie verbally down while at the same time defending TPatF won’t change the numbers. It won’t make the executive understand. If anything, saying the audience just didn’t appreciate TPatF enough because they overlook the great 애니메이션 and were unable to appreciate jazz (two of the most common arguments for the movie) just confirms the idea that the kind of 애니메이션 is to blame for the lack of success. The 질문 shouldn’t be if the audience didn’t appreciate what was good about TPatF (though I have to say that the praise for the 애니메이션 is a little bit much – it’s really good animation, but ALL 디즈니 Princess 영화 succeed in this regard), it should be why the executives didn’t combine the good aspects with a similar good plot. With proper pacing, with proper motivations for the villains, with a better focus.

Don’t get me wrong: I am sure that there are a lot of people out there, who genuinely like PatF. It’s this need to compare it with 라푼젤 which makes me weary about the motivation behind a lot of reviewers, who have decided to tackle the 영화 in their 비디오 또는 blogs. There is a certain pattern in those reviews, the 더 많이 the reviewer does like traditional animation, the 더 많이 he will be inclined to concentrate on the good aspects of PatF and the bad aspects of Tangled.

And, 더 많이 generally speaking, it doesn’t really say much about the quality of a movie to compare one single aspect of it. Yes, we do it all the time, doing countdowns about which Princess looks better, is the better role-model, is braver and whatever else we can come up with. It is good fun, but one shouldn’t make the mistake to believe that those aspects have anything to do with the quality of a movie as a whole.

When I read “how can 당신 excuse Flynn’s womanizing but complaining about Naveen doing the same”, I just feel that the argument is missing the point. Because Eugene and Naveen are two entirely different characters. They have different backstories, different motivations, and there is a profound difference between stealing a crown to be alone and happy on an island, 또는 marrying a woman for her money, a difference between striking a deal and then trying to trick the other party into backing out of the deal and making a deal with the intention to never hold up your side of it. The same way one aspect doesn’t make a movie, one trait is not the beginning and the end of a character.

When PatF was announced, I was as glad as everyone else that 디즈니 was trying to go back to what 디즈니 does best. And like so many people out there, I wanted this to be the success, I wanted it to be the comeback for traditional animation. It wasn’t to be. But that it didn’t happen has everything to do with PatF and nothing with 라푼젤 또는 the audience. And we will all have to live with the knowledge that it might be a long time until 디즈니 will decide to visit its roots again. Until then, we should judge every movie on its own merits.

JNTA1234, AnimaIuco and 2 others like this

5 more comments

loading additional comments...

Swanpride Hunchback has a very impressive soundtrack and enough good going on in it to warrant some attention (mainly one of the best Disney villain). Lilo and Stitch is a really good movie which just fell through the cracks, which is the reason why the DVD sales were really high, and it became eventually popular enough to warrant sequels and a TV show. And Hercules has a cult following at best, similar to what The Black Cauldron has, and, Imho, got some popularity boost due to Hades being one of the funniest guests in the House of Mouse. You know how it is, when the protagonist doesn't enchant the masses, try market the villain.

_Cookie_Lover_ This is going to be a long comment, but who cares, debating's fun! Interesting article. These days, I do get a little tired of people comparing PATF and Tangled to each other, but I do understand why that is. They were the first fully animated fairytales that Disney had done in a long time, and they were released pretty much back to back to each other. This hasn't been done in a long time, so it was a big deal for Disney fans. I'd like to somewhat quote the Doug Walker/Nostalia Critic when he reviewed the Princess and the Frog and Tangled (seeing as he also made this comparison), and I agree with his reasoning that 1) There was more money and effort put into Tangled's advertising, especially over the internet, and I really think Disney borrowed Dreamworks tactics for making their movie trailers appeal to a mass audience (presenting more jokes, action, and showing more of the male protagonist) 2) And I do think there is a little prejudice against 2D animation. People do tend to think that 2D is more for kids, so adults are just put off. And since Pixar have really made computer animated films as popular as they are, and have made some truly mature/family oriented stories, parents are far more willing to take their kids to see a computer animated film, as they believe it's something they're more likely to enjoy also. 3) And let's not forget the fact that PATF was released around the same time as freaking James Cameron's friggin' "Avatar". Whoever it was over at Disney that made the decision to release PATF in the same year as a James Cameron flick needs a good smack. And I don't believe that box office numbers really represent how good a movie is. Take "Brave" and "Wreck It Ralph" for example. Brave made more money at the box office than Wreck It Ralph did, despite the fact that so many people complained about how terrible they thought Brave was, and how Wreck it Ralph was the superior film. And like I mentioned, Avatar managed to make a crapload of money despite using a recycled and mediocre story about appreciating nature, as seen in "Pocahontas", "Ferngully", "Dances with Wolves" and probably many more. How much a movie makes can be completely irrelevant at times, it doesn't prove that one movie is better than another. I think I've written in a past comment about why I believe PATF and Tangled to be equal in terms of quality and entertainment. I agree that Tangled had the better executed story overall, but this doesn't make PATF's story weak though. I also think Tangled had the better instrumental score, but PATF had better songs, since, going by my first impressions to both soundtracks, I found PATF's songs far catchier, and were songs I wanted to listen to again instantly after I heard them the first time. With Tangled, not so much. As for the characters, Tangled had better supporting characters, but PATF had better main characters. Many will disagree, but I find Tiana and Naveen far more creative and original characters. Tiana is the first workaholic Princess, who runs her own business, and I like that she is openly flawed. Her strength is also her weakness, she's over-determined and lets family and life pass her by because she's obsessed. And her journey is about finding a balance and bettering herself. Not all her problems are caused by other people, but also by herself. And Naveen is the first flirtatious and womanizing Prince Disney has created. And for me, Naveen seems to have this innate charm and bubbly personality that just makes him seem like a fun character to be around. Unlike Flynn. I can't think of any original aspect to this character, nor is his backstory all that interesting and original. He's really a mix of Aladdin (a thief who ends up pretending to be someone else because he's afraid of how the world will view him), and Naveen (the whole "I'm so gorgeous and woman go weak in the knees when they gaze upon my face"). And you're right, Naveen and Flynn are still two separate characters, and folks shouldn't compare them. I just find it troubling when people seem to be able to completely forgive Flynn of all his wrong-doings, and not hold it against him. He does one good deed in the end, and then all the terrible things he's ever done are forgiven. Shouldn't this guy at least be doing some community service or something? One good deed does not erase years of bad ones. Whatever his reasons for going down the wrong path, he still willingly stole from people (perhaps good people), left his partners to be captured and potentially executed, and never does he show regret for his life of crime. He thinks because he had nothing, this entitles him to take from others. This really gets to me. And last, but not least, the villains in both these movies are equal to me too. They both have class and style, and their songs are definitely some of the best in their film's soundtrack. I don't think this article will stop anyone from comparing these movies in the future, but this was still an excellent read, you're a really passionate writer. Hope you continue to write even more articles for the club.

Swanpride Actually, "Brave" and "Wreck it Ralph" is a good example for what I was trying to say...because, box office aside, and Oscars aside, "Wreck it Ralph" is the movie which convinced the audience, it got the acclaim Disney wants for its movies and was a smashing success (a good way to judge things like this is to look at the DVD sales). If TPatF had convinced the audience than, advertising or not, it would have shown by now. And you know what: I actually agree that the concept for Tiana is more creative than the concept for Rapunzel...but the execution of the character is better in Tangled. (I don't think that there is really a difference in creativity between the "spoiled brat who learns the satisfaction of work and helping others" and the "thief with a good heart", those are both well known concepts, but again, I think it's the execution where Naveen falls flat, not the idea). As I said, I wish that the animators had paired the good things in TPatF with a good cohesive story. I actually think is that Flynn is an extreme of what Aladdins character could have been. Flynn is very much what Aladdin at the start of movie might have become in the future (while Eugene, the orphan who tells other orphans stories is actually close to Aladdin himself, down to the insecurities of both characters). And Naveen is what the Beast might have become if the fairy had never come along. Though my issue with Naveen is not that I think the character in itself can't work, but again, with the execution. With the Beast, him changing for the better makes sense...he has a motivation to try, he apparently honestly had never anyone who had shown him any boundaries until Belle came along, so him realizing that he has to change his behaviour makes sense. Naveen on the other hand has people in his life who tell him that his actions are wrong, he just ignores them, he has no interest in considering Tiana's point of view and is downright dismissive of her...and then he suddenly does? Why? I guess the biggest flaw of TPatF is that Naveen isn't more impressed by Tiana managing the situation the moment they are in the swamp. Because if he were, it would make more sense that he changes his views.

_Cookie_Lover_ When you said numbers in the article, I thought you were referring to just box office numbers. And yes, I guess DVD sales can be an indication of a great movie, but the same logic applies when concerning the film's advertising tactics. Trailers for a movie's release and DVD release need to be hammered out constantly so the film stays fresh in the minds of the audience, so they don't just forget about it. Because I myself have done that in the past. I've seen movies in the cinema that I really liked/loved, then years later, I'm only made aware that it was released on DVD, since I've completely forgotten or just haven't seen many advertisements to remind me to buy it. So, I still maintain that Tangled's advertising was a huge factor in it's success. And you never know what the future holds. I believe that 2D animation has this timeless quality, that people will always have an appreciation for, when used properly. With computer animation, it's always ever-changing and evolving to become even better, so I always wonder how Tangled will age in the long term. You never know, people may look back on PATF with fondness and an artistic appreciation, where as with Tangled, they may say, "Meh, compared to the computer animation of today, it looks so awful, I don't even want to watch it." I do think that Beast's character development is more believable and better executed than Naveen's, but I think Naveen's is just as well done as Flynn's. His stages of development are similar to Flynn's. They have very similar key scenes that play a major part in their change of character. Both have scenes where they sit down with the heroine, and express a fear or concern about themselves, and from then on, they start to grow. Naveen did start off as this lazy womanizer, but in the scene where he is attempting to cook with Tiana, you get a great sense that he feels ashamed of himself, "I don't know how to do anything..." He's never learned to do anything for himself, and once he's pushed into the real world, he's completely lost. That's why I believe his attraction to Tiana. He seems to appreciate the little praise she gives him, and she's so hardworking that she inspires him to do the same. When he's planning his proposal, he's ready to get at least 3 jobs to help pay for her restaurant. And he's even more touched when he learns that she's motivated by her father's restaurant dreams, so he's willing to enter into a loveless and unhappy marriage to make her happy. Yes, he was perfectly happy to marry Lottie before, but at that point he didn't need to give anything up, he wasn't in love with someone else. And to be honest, the whole Naveen marrying Lottie just for her money doesn't bother me too much, seeing as she's only interested in marrying him so she can become a Princess. In the beginning they're both equally shallow, they'd actually be perfect for each other. =)

Swanpride The fundamental difference (and the main reason why they are not comparable) is that Naveen supposedly truly change himself, while Flynn just finds his inner Eugene again. And in their relationship to Tiana/Rapunzel...since PatF is about a "hate turns to love" relationship, it's double important that the development is convincing. Tangled doesn't set itself such a challenge - and in fact, the romance is fairly unimportant, in the centre of Tangled is the relationship between Gothel and Rapunzel, and how Rapunzel eventually breaks free from it. You could tell the whole story without the romance, it would barely make any difference. The Romance (which I consider the best written in any Disney movie, perhaps exactly because it is not the beginning and the end of the plot) is a nice touch, though. In PatF, the romance is a central aspect. And again, for that reason alone it's not really comparable.

_Cookie_Lover_ You're right, there is a fundamental difference between Naveen and Flynn, but I don't see how one character's individual differences are superior to the others. For all we know, the Naveen we see at the end of the film could be the "inner Naveen", but the point is that both characters have flaws, and neither did a complete 180 and became completely different people, they still maintained their original characteristics, but repaired some of their flaws. My personal fav Disney love story is between Belle and Beast, but whichever film has the best romance is all a matter of opinion, and given that all these romances develop over just a matter of days, none are all that incredibly realistic, especially since they occur in a fairytale setting, or have fairytale characteristics. And since we all live in the real non-magical world, it's hard to relate and analyze. I disagree that Tangled would work without the romance. The relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn is really the centre of the whole film. The filmmakers themselves said that they renamed the film "Tangled" because it's Rapunzel AND Flynn's story. Though, many people believe the title issue is a sexist matter. And the relationship between Rapunzel and Gothel kinda deteriorates from a potentially interesting one that could have been about Gothel possibly having conflicting loving feelings for Rapunzel, to Gothel just being your everyday Disney villain who will do whatever it takes to get what she wants. You can always argue that a movie could still work if you removed a certain element, but that would make it a completely different story, one that doesn't exist, so it's all just speculation that doesn't matter.

Swanpride The point is that it doesn't really matter if Naveen is superior to Flynn, what matters is if Naveen works well in the context of PatF. I don't think he does, because the movie doesn't do a very good job in developing his change. And that Naveen's "big sacrifice" is basically doing what he intended to do from the very beginning is a very basic storytelling problem. Another problem is that Tiana and Naveen are not together during the final battle, they don't face the villain together, they are not there for each other during their darkest hour because they are not even there for each other. To repeat it again: TPatF DOESN'T become a more successful or a better movie by comparing elements of it for the elements of other DP movies. It's always about how well a movie works out...and even complementary reviewer agree about the problematic plot. They just like to pretend that it isn't a big issue, when in fact, it IS the issue of the movie. It's the issue of any movie. Nobody would ever say that a book is good because it has a great cover, a nice fond, and no grammar mistakes. The same is true for a movie. When it comes down to it, it is always about the plot.

dclairmont This article was such a joy to read and I really look up to you on this site. Your comments/articles are always very kind, intelligent, and agreeable. Keep up the good work!

Swanpride Thank you...I'm glad that so many people enjoy my articles (even the ones who disagree).

_Cookie_Lover_ I understand that you don't think Naveen's development is done well, but I think it is. And I have issues with Flynn's development, just as you have issues with Naveen's, but I still think they both work equally well in their own movies. And Naveen's sacrifice shouldn't be belittled because it was something he initially set out to do. Yes, he was going to marry Lottie for his own benefit in the beginning, but afterwards he was doing it solely for Tiana, which meant that he couldn't be with her, the one he truly loves. He just wanted her to be happy, even if that meant he couldn't be happy, and that's what I consider a sacrifice. And why is it important that Naveen and Tiana be together for the final battle? When Tiana was confronting Facilier, it was her own personal battle to face, she was strong enough to face it on her own, she doesn't need Naveen to be there. And you see them being there for each other throughout the film, and at the end. They work together to escape the Frog Hunters, and Naveen and Tiana work together to repair the restaurant and work together to run it, and that's them being there for each other. I have never dismissed the flaws in PATF, I've actually agreed with you about Tangled having the better story structure. But every DP film has it's flaws, even my ultimate fav BATB has humungous flaws, which I recognize, but I embrace it's good qualities and love it nonetheless. I can see why some people can't get past the flaws in this film, but I personally don't just dismiss PATF because it has those flaws, because to me, its flaws don't destroy the movie, even if its story isn't as well executed as others. I'm lost, which particular elements from PATF did I compare to other DP movies? Do you mean Flynn and Naveen? Because I've also agreed that they're two separate characters that shouldn't be compared. I was just trying to explain why I don't think Naveen's character development is weak.

Swanpride Oh, I nearly forgot: Concerning that PatF was released in a bad year for movies: First of all, the target group for Avatar is not the same as the one for animated movies, second PatF was released BEFORE Avatar and not back-to-back and third, for animated movies, it was a very mixed bag in the year. The strongest contenders were Up and perhaps Coralin, eventually Puss in Boots. Tangled on the other hand was up against yet another Shreck movie, Megamind, Despicable me, How to train your dragon and freaking Toy Story 3 without the distinction of not being yet another CGI movie AND it hit the theatres in the year in which Disney stopped to sponsor the Annies. I guess, PatF was very unlucky with the weather for the European market, but otherwise, I don't buy the "bad timing" explanation. You can point out big blockbusters more or less for every year Disney released a movie in.

AudreyFreak About the Eugene/Naveen thing, I don't think selfishness and dishonesty from two different people are that different just because the things they're being selfish and dishonest about aren't the same thing. they're both equally selfish and greedy (actually I would venture to say Naveen seems less greedy- he doesn't constantly worry about getting Charlotte's money like Flynn does the crown). The biggest problem I have with comparing these two is that Flynn is favored and Naveen is not. I mean, normally I wouldn't care who likes who but the WAY Tangled itself presents Flynn's justified story in comparison to Naveen's, who gets his share of criticism, is unfair. One movie presents one guy as an ungrateful cad who needs his lesson learned because his attitude isn't right. He does learn it. the other movie presents the other guy as a such a charming, handsome hunk with a sympathetic orphan back story that his crimes and lying aren't really so important. Ah, what's a crown or two? Or a wallet? Or a priceless painting? (I know he didn't actually steal the rest; I'm just making examples.) One tries its best to make the audience ignore the fact that he is a thief going unpunished while the other rightfully punishes the self-centered bump on a log. Why is one excused but not the other? (And I don't think Naveen really needs excused. He got what he deserved and the movie didn't go overboard with his punishment or too light about it so I'm fine with it.) everybody admits Naveen was a lazy rich boy who got his punishment but everyone constantly rationalizes Flynn because he's sooooo cuuuuuuute and charming. Interesting article though. I just wanted to make that point because that, along with stuff about Rapunzel, bothers me the most about Tangled, although I loved it.

_Cookie_Lover_ AudreyFreak, you make a really great point about Flynn. Both Flynn and Naveen are selfish, but Flynn does seem to be painted in a more positive light because he has a "tragic" upbringing. It's like the movie was making an excuse for Flynn's behavior, and I just can't approve of that. For the severity of his crimes, he never gets truly punished. Sure, he briefly dies, but he's brought back to life seconds later, and rewarded with living in a luxurious castle for the rest of his life, while Rapunzel apparently does all the hard work with running the kingdom. Unless Flynn actually becomes King. I wonder how the people of Rapunzel's kingdom would feel being ruled by someone who perhaps had robbed them.... Swanpride, I'm not saying the "bad timing" explanation is the only reason, but it's like you said, PATF had some really stiff competition. It was only released a month before Avatar, and despite Avatar having an even more flawed story than PATF, it's still the movie everyone flocked to see. It's the highest grossing movie of all time, making nearly 3 billion. And again, James Cameron just really knows how to build up a movie, play up the advertising, and make his films seem epic. And I know Tangled had big competition too, but it did make less money than a lot of it's competition as well. Because Toy Story 3 made more money at the box office and probably made more in DVD sales, do you think it's better than Tangled?

princecatcher93 I love both movies almost the same, but I do agree with you that it's kind of silly to fight over which is better. A lot of people I know say they only made TPatF because of Obama became prez or that because of a whole much of other stuff. Also it's not just Flynn and Naveen, it's also Naveen and The Beast (Selfish) and Naveen and Aladdin (Liars). If fact people seem to forget that Naveen changed by the end of the movie and just blow him off as the playboy he was at the beginning of the Film. Anyway yet another great article from you. You're really good at this kind of thing.

Newbiehere13 Between Flynn and Naveen's development, I honestly find both of their development both done well. Naveen realizes that's his of no complete use and Flynn overcomes his insecurities. Both do actions to redeem themselves, I agree with Cookie Lover here when it comes to Naveen's sacrifice even if it was something he originally planned to do he had different intentions and it revolves around Tiana for him to see her happy, even if it's unusual sacrifice, it still is one. Though I wish Naveen had more involvement in Tiana's Fantasy Sequence, not necessarily be part of it, but to witness it. I'd like to see how he reacts to that. About Flynn, I suppose he is favoured because his development is more believable and his sacrifice is bigger and it's for serious cause.

Swanpride I would buy the Avatar explanation (perhaps) if the two movies had been released at the same weekend, but that wasn't the case. In fact, Disney released PatF later than planned to avoid competition with the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. PatF had four weeks with next to no serious competition to convince the audience. That's not like Treasure Planet, which was released back to back with the new Harry Potter AND the new LotR movie. Considering that Eugene couldn't know that he would survive, I don't think that the fact that he did makes his sacrifice any smaller. People have been pardoned for lesser acts. And I don't think that different kinds of cheats and betrayal are the same...it's not the same if I steal because I'm hungry or if I steal because I'm greedy (which is the reason nobody ever insisted that Aladdin needed some kind of punishment), it's not the same if you plan to play with the dreams of a woman or if you try to convince her of something with all tricks you have. The situation, the act itself, and what was done to correct the wrong you did, all this makes a huge difference. Has Naveen learned at the end of the movie that using Lottie for his own gain is wrong? No, he asks her to give Tiana the money she needs, but he doesn't tell her "and before you do this, you should know that I love Tiana and will never love you". He is STILL planing to use Lottie, only his motivation has changed. Eugene on the other hand gives the crown back - well, to the wrong people, but he gives is up, he shows that he understands that his desire to own it was wrong. I think both movies tries to tell us that the behaviour of the princes is excusable if they change (every single Disney movie works this way)...but the difference for me is that Eugene's change of heart is completed long before the end of the movie and he shows true heroics in the end, while Naveen's change of heart doesn't convince me for various reasons.

Newbiehere13 Okay, that's the part that generally confuses me, if Flynn thought that what he has been doing is wrong, then he could've just sneaked the crown back to where it belongs or face the guards and the consequences of his actions, but that wouldn't be so easy since he'll get hanged. I think the reason why he gave the crown is because he didn't want Rapunzel to get in danger anymore, he weighed the importance between the two and figured it was Rapunzel whom he cared for, so he returns it for peace. But since we're not entirely sure why Flynn did it, it can work either way. Naveen DID say he loved Tiana. okay, maybe he should've been clearer with that. It's the communication between the two here, suppose if Lottie heard and understood what he meant or if Naveen told what he meant a little clearer the outcome would've been different. I can see the difference now, Flynn develops as an individual, and Naveen changes so he can help Tiana.

_Cookie_Lover_ I feel like I'd be repeating myself, so I won't go too much into the whole advertising issue again. A month is still not that long for a movie to earn a lot of money, unless it was well advertised, which PATF wasn't, at least not as well as Tangled. Or Alvin and the Chipmunks, cause why else did that movie make so much money? Its engaging plot and characters? No such plot or characters exist in that movie. Can you honestly tell me that so many more people ended up seeing that movie instead because it was better than PATF? They may not have been released at the exact same time, because that's a reckless move for any movie, but they were still around for viewing at the same time, and box office proves that more people saw Alvin and the Chipmunks than PATF. Advertising exists for an important reason, and you can't pretend that it doesn't play a huge factor in getting people to see a movie. When the people behind the scenes know what they're doing, they can convince people to see even the most awful of movies, like Alvin and the Chipmunks. Which people who have been pardoned for lesser acts are you referring to? Do you just mean Aladdin? Cause while he and Flynn have many similarities, they are also vastly different, especially in the differing severity of their crimes. Aladdin steals scraps of food to survive, and Flynn steals valuable property out of pure greed, and seems to actively enjoy his life of crime. And even when Aladdin has stolen, you see him giving his food to the even less fortunate, and Flynn, despite being a poor orphan, who should be able to sympathize with fellow poor folk, never does anything like this. His giving the crown back to the Stabbington Brothers could be interpreted in different ways, but it does seem that the main reason he's giving it to them is so they will leave him alone. And in the end, he never pays penance to people he must have wronged, cause we know that the royal crown wasn't the first thing he ever stole. He's a wanted thief because he's been stealing from countless people over countless years. And I still believe that one good act does not forgive him for countless crimes, crimes that he didn't fully do out of necessity, but pure selfishness. And in the end, his redemptive act is relative to how far he has fallen from grace, so to speak. His character needs to commit a very selfless act in order for the audience to like him, cause really, other than said selfless act, I find nothing about him to like, through his personality or his actions. The other Princes, who have also done wrong, are either really put through the ringer, so they're punished for their insufferable actions (like Beast, since he suffers for 10 years as a Beast, willingly dooms himself to a terrible existence by letting Belle go, and then also dies), or their actions are excused because they honestly haven't done great harm (like Naveen, because at his worst, he's just a lazy flirt. He could be labeled as a user of woman, but the only proof of this is his wish to marry Lottie for her money, and this seems somewhat lessened because Lottie is also a user. And besides, marrying someone for money may be awful, but it isn't a crime). This will be the last thing I have to say on the subject, cause we just have differing opinions, and we'll just be going around in circles XD

Swanpride Lottie isn't a user....she is spoiled, yes, and she is too much in love with her dreams. But she is also a very good person. The moment she sees Tiana on the ground, she forgets about her dream and lets fake-Naveen wait in order to take care of her. And when she learns what Naveen's request is really about, she kisses him for Tiana. The reason she wants to marry a prince is not for money (honestly, she is the sole heir of her loaded father, I don't think that money even crosses her mind), but because she believes that this is the way to happiness.

rhythmicmagic Whoops, didn't notice this with the POTM countdowns! Hmmm... Good article, well-written, but it seems that, despite the title asking why we compare the two movies, this article spends quite a bit of time trying to explain why Tangled is a better movie then PATF. Which it is, and even those who prefer PATF (I would be one) generally accept that. And I definitely wouldn't say audiences in general disliked this movie, at least not the ones I've met. I know all my friends loved it. About how a movie comes down to story and character- Tangled has the (by far) better story, while PATF has the (by far, in my opinion certainly) better characters. And my two cents on the Flynn/ Naveen thing- I really don't see what makes stealing (and not for survival, as in Aladdin's case) more acceptable than marrying a woman for her money. I also don't agree with the idea that there's a big difference between making a deal not intending to hold up your end and intending to trick the other person out of it- ultimately, in both cases the person isn't intending on holding up the deal, one is just going about it in a more manipulative way. Ultimately, I don't see why everyone makes such a big deal about how "poorly" PATF did at the box office. It was the first one of the new Disney era- TLM made less money than ANY of the 90s movies, even Hercules. I see it as being the same thing (despite TLM being better than PATF.)

Swanpride I hardly could explain how different those two movies actually are without pointing out where the differences are...thought my point was less "which is better" (that's the reason why I stated my opinion about the issue right of the bat, so that I didn't have to spend half of the article explaining why I feel this way) and more "Tangled convinced the audience more". And yes, that's exactly my point...TLM wasn't a big money maker in the theaters, but it nevertheless enchanted the people who DID see it enough that it revived a new enthusiasm for Disney - the same way Tangled did. Up until Tangled everyone was of the opinion that CGI movies made by the animation studios suck. Tangled convinced them otherwise. If PatF had been a bigger success, if not in the theatres than in the aftermath, than "Frozen" would have a different title and not CGI. If Tangled had failed too, than "Frozen" might not even be made because the conclusion would have been that Fairy Tale movies are out. It was a test, the same way TLM and Rescuers down under was a test. Back then the result of the test was that Disney stopped making movies with cute little critters (think about it, up to this point more than half of the movies in canon were about animals, not humans) and went with the Love story to Broadway music concept. This time around is that we'll see a lot of CGI movies in the near future.

AudreyFreak Cookie Lover- thanks, and in the other comment (the one you made after mine). That's one of my biggest problems with Tangled. The movie goes out of its way entirely to justify stuff, trying to influence the audience to side with Flynn/Rapunzel by giving them sympathetic qualities even though that does not make up for certain things they do, while doing the exact opposite for Gothel. That's pretty dishonest for Disney, although it isn't the first time (just the worst imo). Rhythmic- it isn't that one is worse or better. society has made crimes all relative, unfortunately. the DIFFERENCE is, however, that Naveen is duly punished for his bad attitude and choices and takes initiative to change himself for the better. Flynn changes only in the sense that he has more confidence in Eugene and no longer needs to hide behind cocky Flynn to get through life. Not once do we see a sign of remorse or repentance about his crimes. No, like Ariel, he just gets rewarded instead of having to pay for them in some way and learn nothing about that, really.

Swanpride That's Disney....we are supposed to root for the Beast, we are supposed so root for Megara, we are supposed to root for Zeus over Hades (even though Zeus acts like an A-hole), and we are supposed to root for Ariel. Can we please put the Eugene vs Flynn discussion to rest? It's certainly fascinating (I might even write an article about it in the future), but the topic of the article is to STOP comparing them as if "proving" that PatF is somehow better will change anything about the overall success of the movies.

JNTA1234 I agree even though I like Patf better than Tangled. It's just the music and characters are so overwhelming irritating to me! But I do think Tangled is a more properly made movie and at the end of the day it does come down to the story.

HarperPOP I liked PATF better than tangled, but the storyline was complicated. I watched it three times before I truly understood the movie. I don't know why people like to compare Tangled to PATF. They are two completely different movies. With the Tangled storyline...I don't know why but I found it boring. Don't get me wrong, I love Rapunzel and Flynn, they're both amazing Disney characters but their movie bored me.