#anti-tangledseries

[marie95disneygirl]

"Marriage as a Prison": How Disney's Modern Narratives Betray Historical Truth and Undermine Emotional Equality

In the original Tangled movie, the relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn Rider (Eugene) was one of Disney’s most emotionally grounded and mature romances. It was a story of two individuals from vastly different backgrounds—an orphaned thief and a long-lost princess—learning to trust, open up, and build a bond rooted in equality and respect. The campfire scene, in particular, remains one of the most poignant moments in modern Disney animation. In it, neither character forces the other to reveal anything, but both choose vulnerability. Rapunzel listens—truly listens—to Eugene’s painful backstory. Her response isn’t pity, but a quiet and powerful validation: “I like Eugene Fitzherbert much better than Flynn Rider.”

That moment matters. Not just because of what it says in-universe, but because it transcends fiction. It affirms the value of emotional transparency, and it portrays love not as a transaction or a battle of power, but as mutual recognition.

But then came Tangled: The Series, and with it, a complete rejection—if not a mockery—of everything that scene stood for.

The series takes that emotional honesty and turns it into a punchline. In its very first episode, Flynn once again opens up about his traumatic childhood—only to discover he’s been talking to Pascal, a frog. “Pouring my heart out to a frog” is framed as a joke. But it isn’t funny. It’s a gut-punch to viewers who remember what the original movie taught us about compassion, empathy, and love. And even worse, the real Rapunzel, who once met Flynn’s pain with empathy, is now absent—both physically (having run away without telling him) and emotionally (withholding her own vulnerability and truth).

This version of Rapunzel, rewritten for the sake of “progressive storytelling,” actively distances herself from her partner. Marriage is now treated as a symbol of oppression and confinement—a loss of freedom—despite the movie itself having clearly shown that Flynn never sought to control her. His marriage proposal was not about taking her autonomy; it was about forming an equal partnership with the woman he literally gave his life to protect.

But in the series, that commitment is framed as selfish, and Eugene is subtly ridiculed throughout the show. Characters repeatedly insult him, his desires, and his worth. Rapunzel allows this behavior, and at times participates in it. His love and loyalty, which were once noble, are now played for laughs or dismissed as irrelevant. And all of this is somehow praised as “feminist.”

What this series truly promotes, however, is coping feminism—a warped, surface-level empowerment narrative where female strength is achieved by demeaning others, especially male partners. Instead of tackling real issues like trauma, healing, and equality in a meaningful way, it reinforces the ancient patriarchal notion that a woman’s individuality is automatically erased by marriage.

This is not just emotionally damaging—it’s also historical revisionism at its worst.

The original Rapunzel fairy tale—and Tangled’s medieval-esque setting—depicts a world where marriage was more than a romantic gesture. It was the only socially acceptable path for a man and a woman to be together. In that time period, a man who didn’t propose would have been viewed with suspicion; a woman who rejected such proposals indefinitely would have been scandalized. To pretend that a princess in that era could date casually or indefinitely without consequences is to deny the historical reality the story is supposedly set in.

This modern rewrite of Disney princesses, which constantly critiques older characters like Snow White, Cinderella, or Ariel for marrying young or desiring love, does not reflect progressive thinking—it reflects selective, hypocritical judgment. When critics endlessly mock older princesses for decisions that were both historically accurate and emotionally resonant, but defend newer ones for ghosting or gaslighting their partners, the message becomes clear: emotional connection and traditional values are no longer welcome unless they fit a very narrow ideology.

What’s worse is that fans who point this out—those who loved the original story and saw real meaning in it—are now regularly insulted, mocked, or dismissed as “regressive” or “conservative propaganda” for simply wanting respectful storytelling. Even when women themselves raise these issues, they’re accused of internalized misogyny or being “anti-feminist,” just for valuing commitment, equality, and emotional honesty in romantic relationships.

But let’s call this out for what it is: erasing the validity of genuine love stories in favor of shallow “independence” tropes isn’t feminism—it’s cowardice wrapped in progressivism. It doesn’t empower women to fear connection or to treat love as inherently suspect. It certainly doesn’t empower men to be vulnerable. It promotes detachment, distrust, and ultimately, a narrative where no one is allowed to grow, heal, or connect.

Disney once told a story where love was freedom, not imprisonment.

Now, it tells us the opposite—and it expects us to applaud it.

We don’t have to.

[bellaaldamas]

Misogynists on either the pseudo-"progressive" left or openly bigoted right hate women who dare to live out their power fantasies. That's why their main targets are Ariel and Cinderella (and Aurora to a lesser extent): because they have the audacity to have goals that revolve around them and their desires (be it personal desires such as escaping a toxic and oppressive environment where your bigoted father holds the power; or desires that would seem "mundane" to more privileged people but are a way to have a break from abuse and exploitation for domestic violence victims like Cinderella for whom the ball represented exactly that; or romantic/sexual desires). Versus around the idea that a woman sacrificing herself and her feelings/needs in the name of the Greater Good TM is more "empowering" than sacrificing for love. This idea became pervasive in mainstream media in the 90-s when pseudo-feminist narratives started flourishing.

From the more well written and genuinely high quality in many respects "Sailor Moon" which, alas, still did not escape the issue of demeaning and belittling the female protagonist Usagi in every episode and framing her daring to want to enjoy life as a regular teenage girl as an example of "immaturity" (only the "not like other girls" heroines get to be considered "mature and empowered"). Whilst celebrating 21+ year old Mamoru picking on 14 year old girls because he was "struggling with understanding himself and his new destiny" (something that Usagi was forced to do from the moment her supernatural powers were revealed to her - and she never had a choice in that matter, unlike Mamoru who was allowed infinitely more agency and freedom).

To the most gratuitous pseudo-progressive trainwreck that was "Buffy" which flat out told women they are obligated to forfeit individual wants, connections and feelings for the sake of a Greater Mission TM imposed on them by men. That is, before our "feminist" heroine "defied" those "EvOL conservative men" from the past in a "modern liberal way". Namely by forcing other women to follow the destiny SHE imposed on them without their consent (as if any sensible person needed proof that the conservative right and the "progressive" left are one and the same and always bond over their hatred of women). This not even touching up on the matter of every woman on Whedon's shows experiencing a gendered trauma of some kind, be it sexual assault or life threatening pregnancy or magical and other forms of brainwashing, culminating in either suffering or death.

And then the "progressive left" was "shocked and heartbroken" when a sexist male hack Whedon who wrote all that and was put on a pedestal by their "feminist" selves was outed as a vicious misogynistic abuser. Who psychologically tortured women on set and allegedly cheated on his wife while at it. They "separate fiction from the creator" while bullying literal children who enjoy media that was produced by problematic authors and see no problem with it.

Disney - being a pandering conformist machine that it is now - has turned Rapunzel into that exact pseudo-feminist, modern culture conformist stereotype in the series in order to cater to those who critiqued original film for the fact that it upheld an abuse victim and her narrative. Furthermore, Disney did so in the most tasteless manner possible, by directly repeating armchair critics' talking points, word for word.

First, Disney addressed the "feminist critique" of Rapunzel supposedly "falling in love with the first man she met in her lifetime" even though it is an outright false, manipulative argument. In the original film, about a half an hour after meeting Flynn Rapunzel met an all-male group of thugs from the pub and bonded with them platonically before she bonded with Flynn in an equally platonic way and then in the romantic way. The message went as follows: the men in the society saw a vulnerable young girl who physically was no match for them but instead of taking advantage of her vulnerability they chose to self reflect, relate to her and provide their support. Disney, therefore, was not telling women they should look, act or behave in a certain way to avoid being abused. They told men they have to respect women and not perpetuate the mistreatment and invalidation said women already face daily, be it in their households or from other men (in Rapunzel's case she was abused by Gothel and told she was unworthy and incapable for her entire life and then tricked by Flynn who took her to that pub with explicit purpose to discourage her from following her goals). This was the ultimate subversion of victim blaming and misogyny.

Flynn, at that stage, either tried to scare Rapunzel back into the tower (which failed and backfired on him magnificently, even though in his defense it should be noted that Rapunzel set in motion the entire situation with her own blackmail of him; Flynn responded in kind because he did not hold her, a woman, to a different standard - if she was using trickery and cunning so would he). Or, at other times, he rejected her attempts at getting emotionally closer to him and getting to know him ("I don't do backstory"). It was Rapunzel who went out of her way to learn more about him while Flynn/Eugene remained consciously emotionally distant (he certainly made no advances on her and was not swayed by her looks nor tried to prey on her vulnerability and lack of experience). Knowing Flynn's personal history and experiences was important to her even when she thought they were going to part ways forever when he guides her to see the lanterns and brings her back to her tower, to end her days there alongside her abusive "mother" (whom Rapunzel had no idea was abusive because this is how brainwashing and gas-lighting works). Rapunzel was the one in charge of her self expression whilst Flynn had to pick his battles, literally and figuratively, and only reciprocated her bonding attempts when he thought they were both going to die.

Then there came the campfire scene where Flynn/Eugene finally did respond of free will and with no imminent death looming ahead: first by expressing his desire to get to know her and understand why she "never left that tower". It was only when he took interest in her motivation and psychological context of her actions did Rapunzel make another attempt: by asking him about his past again and getting physically closer to him to prove her willingness not to judge but to listen when Flynn believed that judging and dismissing was all he was going to get.

The movie, thus, made it clear that a relationship between the two is only possible when no pressure on either end is involved. This message was further reinforced by the following scene where Gothel reminded Rapunzel of her blackmail and the satchel she was holding "hostage" to get Flynn to act as she wanted. According to Rapunzel she wanted to give the satchel back to Flynn there and then but was "scared" due to Gothel's manipulative words. And it is ONLY when she finally does give it back do they take their relationship further and almost kiss. Again, Disney makes it clear a relationship can only work when it is equal and when both parties have agency.

The campfire scene is one of the most powerful couple bonding scenes in the Disney canon because of the equal partnership it endorses. Neither knows the full backstory of the other but they are ready to listen instead of inserting their "invaluable input". Out of universe, the scene holds an even broader and greater meaning because the audience knows of the social/class imbalance between the two characters, with Rapunzel being a princess (unknowingly to herself) and Flynn/Eugene being an orphan who turned to thieving as a "better option" to starving and dying on the streets (and who, unlike Rapunzel, is intimately aware of his own backstory and how the more privileged society perceives him). Instead of admonishing and lecturing him Rapunzel acknowledges and validates Flynn/Eugene's experiences by saying she likes his real self better than his made up facade.

And then there comes the series. Which not only undo but openly spit in the face of that scene in the very first episode.

The campfire scene was permanently invalidated and ruthlessly mocked when the series did a "reprise" of it by having Flynn/Eugene "pour his heart out" about his childhood traumas and current needs to who he thought was Rapunzel. Only to find out he was actually talking to Pascal all that time ("pouring his heart out to a frog" - an actual punchline for this joke). All while Rapunzel herself lied to him and everyone else by running out of the castle - because it is so "feminist" when a woman/female character lies to her partner and her parents and "escapes on her own TM", proving she "doesn't need a man to get her out".

Except - Rapunzel was no longer a prisoner of anyone. She was, at that point of her life, a privileged princess, in the position of power herself, dealing with her father's overprotectiveness while ignoring all of Flynn/Eugene's experiences with HIS oppression and abuse (the opposite of what she did in the original movie).

Who labeled marriage to Flynn/Eugene as an automatic loss of freedom.

And the narrative reinforced that idea - but only for women and female characters, including Rapunzel. Disney started perpetuating this pseudo-feminist misconception ever since "Brave", treating marriage as a prison and loss of individuality for women and just one of the many accomplishments men can have and enjoy in their lives. Which is why King Fergus got to be the "fun dad" and reap the benefits of his marital life and fatherhood while doing the bare minimum. Whereas Queen Elinor, who had to fulfill all the emotional, royal and parenting labor, was punished for not being a perfect wife and mother by being transformed into literal animal, deprived of humanity, agency and autonomy by her "feminist" daughter Merida. Who, instead of running off on her own if she wanted freedom so much (like the "selfish" Jasmine and Ariel did) or finding an equal partner who had end goals and interests that made it beneficial for him to aid her (like original movie Rapunzel did) saw no better way to go about the situation than to rob another woman of her free will in order to have her way.

This is the "feminism" progressives wanted from Disney and Disney delivered: empowerment only for the privileged and entitled young women who abuse other people - including other women - when things don't go their way.

Original Tangled was the movie that unabashedly showed how Gothel and other abusers in the position of power over their victims are wrong when they tell, in particular, their female victims that the latter are too stupid, hormonal and gullible to be in charge of their agency. That they will be inevitably tricked and used by the "dashing and handsome men" whose good looks supposedly deprive women of the ability to think critically because women are "servants to their emotions" (a misogynistic rhetoric in and of itself). That men cannot possibly respect and aid a vulnerable woman without taking advantage of her because it is inherent to men's nature to be exploitative just like it is inherent to women's nature to be exploited (read: men are aggressive conquerors and women are delicate and nurturing flowers and if something/someone deviates from this norm it means that something/someone is wrong and unnatural; the left perpetuates this ancient patriarchal and far right thinking and does not even see a problem with it).

And then it does not happen: Rapunzel proves Gothel and her misogynistic manipulation wrong. The movie deconstructs the idea that the society and abusers "know better" what and who a woman needs. Just like it deconstructs the idea women are victims by nature and cannot expect respect and help from men unless they "show how strong, independent and not like other girls they are" first. Because it is never woman or victim's job to show and prove that to anyone.

Pseudo-"feminists" called it "wrong and not progressive" because in their view, Rapunzel should have either been "taught a lesson", Anna and Hans twist style (when a woman is lectured by everyone, from her anti-social sister to a day old mansplaining Snowman, about her own feelings and needs; and everyone ends up being in the right whilst she is framed as being in the wrong and "desperate for love" for daring to act on her romantic agency). Or Rapunzel should have "saved herself" and it was so "unfeminist" when Flynn "CuT HEr HAirr WiThoUt heR CoNsENt!!!1111!!!" when she, a victim of lifelong abuse, should have apparently done it herself.

But the most telling and outstanding thing is that the argument those "far left progressives" used to back up the above position was an unapologetic copy of the bigoted far right/"conservative" rhetoric that insists that vulnerable and oppressed people are just "not trying hard enough". Followed by examples of the people or fictional (female) characters "who made it and there is no excuse for you, Rapunzel and someone else not to".

Which conveniently diverts attention from the fact that those examples are exceptions to the rule and work within the system of abuse and oppression instead of challenging it. Prospering and thriving within the system of oppression is not empowerment, it's doing your best in a terrible situation while ignoring the majority of victims who do not thrive and who, in many cases, suffer and die because of the system.

This is also ignoring the context of Rapunzel trying to heal Flynn at the expense of her freedom without his consent, twice. All while he literally pushed her hands away because he did not agree to those conditions and was not ready to survive if it meant Rapunzel's agency and freedom being taken away from her,

The original film celebrated that genuinely empowering narrative but the pseudo-progressives did not. Hence why we got the Tangled series which warped said narrative and validated the pseudo-progressive arguments.

This is why series Rapunzel seeing the idea of marriage to Flynn as a loss of freedom is "progressive" (didn't you know that women turn into doormats and lose their individuality when they marry men?/sarcasm). Rapunzel allowing Cassandra, a third party who knew nothing of the context of her and Flynn/Eugene's relationship, to push the boundaries of them both, insert her opinion in an unsolicited manner and harass and belittle Flynn for being "unworthy" of someone as privileged as Rapunzel (that's not classism and bigotry at all, that's modern feminism TM) is also "progressive".

Conformism to the system of oppression and abuse is the modern day progressive storytelling. Especially when it is women doing the conformism or outright reinforcing said system.

The above led us to the two explicitly pandering episodes where Disney was not just addressing the talking points of the middle class armchair "feminists" whose cult leader if a misogynistic abuser Whedon and his horrendously overrated girlboss heroines like Buffy - but outright repeating said talking points within those episodes.

First it was the low quality filler where Rapunzel was throwing tantrums about that one person in the Kingdom who did not like her. This "conflict point" is literally copied and pasted from the "feminist critic" argument about Rapunzel being "too perfect" and "everyone liking her" and how "unrealistic" it supposedly is. By "everyone" they meant fellow outcasts in the form of the thugs from the pub, ironically the group that was oppressed by Rapunzel's own royal parents. The OG movie was empowering because it had Rapunzel empathize and understand the oppressed groups before regaining her own royal status - first the thugs and then Flynn.

But specially for pseudo-feminists' viewing pleasure, there is the Tangled series.

Where Rapunzel is repulsed by thieves like Flynn/Eugene (without critically analyzing and challenging the system that made them turn to that kind of life). When she takes a break from being repulsed by that Rapunzel laments and takes offense at that one person who dislikes her. Then, after saving said person's life he still keeps disliking her for no valid reason other than being another "bad conservative man" and Rapunzel should just "accept it" because what else do women expect? If others treat them with appreciation and basic decency it makes them "Mary Sues", didn't you know?

Series Rapunzel's "growth" is about no longer being a "Mary Sue": it is about putting up with unwarranted hate and aiding others in harassing, invalidating and putting down the man she loves for explicitly classist and bigoted reasons. That is "realism and feminism".

Women ought to accept nitpicking, passive aggression and deprivation of any support as a "norm" until/unless they "prove themselves".

Disney, thus, went on to validate the "feminist" argument that it was "unrealistic" how in the original Tangled the people/characters an abused young woman encountered on her way towards freedom did not contribute to her abuse, especially the male characters. That they instead aided her or at least sympathized with her (like the already mentioned thugs from the pub).

The society, according to progressives, cannot and should not want to help women. It should be aggressive and hostile towards women and it is - cherry on top of this progressive mindset - woman's job to tackle it, avoid it and be "careful". It is woman's job to "prove" she deserves more than abuse and exploitation. After all, didn't all those female victims who wore shirt skirts and walked back home at night alone not know what they were "asking for"? (this is also sarcasm, in case this is not painfully obvious).

Then there is the climax, the long awaited wet dream of the pseudo progressives. In it, Rapunzel has her girlboss feminist moment of cutting off her magical hair on her own; which progressives have been calling for since 2010. All while Flynn/Eugene is rendered useless and incapacitated, just like he is for the 99.9 percents of the series where he plays the role of an incompetent trophy boyfriend and comedic relief to his privileged girlfriend.

To add even more "progressiveness", Rapunzel terminates her magic hair's unique qualities not for Flynn/Eugene or even herself but mainly for Cassandra. Same Cassandra who spent most of the series being an antagonist. Same Cassandra who inserted herself into personal matters and relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn when she was not invited to do that because (ready for it) she "knows best". When Gothel behaved in that manner and promoted this idea it was rightly treated as manipulative and abusive. But when a young, sword wielding and attractive girl does that it is "badass and feminist".

Fact is that the inspiring, female power fantasy princess franchise ended with PaTF and original Tangled. Live Action TLM which placed the focus on Ariel and Eric romance and honored it while offering a different but no less interesting spin on it was a farewell party before Disney comes back to pandering and pseudo-feminism.

It would be perfectly consistent with their current pattern to release a Live Action Tangled where Flynn would be completely replaced by Cassandra and there is no romance at all (like in the LA Mulan). Because a woman in charge of her romantic agency is "weak" but a woman tolerating toxicity and violation of boundaries from another woman while violating boundaries of her male partner herself (like Rapunzel repeatedly does in the series) is Disney finally becoming "feminist and progressive".

Double Standards Are So Fun

Apparently, it’s totally fine to criticize older Disney princesses like Cinderella, Ariel, and Aurora because they’re ‘anti-feminist’ and ‘bad role models.’

But the second I say anything about how Rapunzel’s actions in the Tangled series make zero sense, suddenly I’m a monster who doesn’t understand ‘modern storytelling’ or ‘strong female characters.’

Cinderella: Works herself to the bone as a literal servant and still dares to dream of a better life—too passive! Ariel: Risks her life for her dream and love—bad example for girls! Aurora: Only sleeps for a curse to be broken—boring and outdated!

But Rapunzel in the series? Rejects the proposal of the man she apparently loves because she feels like a life with him is a prison, dismisses his feelings, draws his face on a punching bag, lets her bestie bully him, and rewrites his personality with time travel—ICONIC! RELATABLE! EMPOWERING!

Got it. Criticizing older princesses = totally fine. Criticizing Rapunzel for toxic behavior = misogynistic and wrong. Makes perfect sense.

[katherinestvincent]

. #romancetakeover - Week 2 - Enemies to Lovers . TANGLED by EMMA CHASE (TANGLED SERIES 01) . This story begins with Drew's first meeting by accident with Kate. Then, he's very shocked, found out this attractive girl was a new associate in his office and was praised by Drew's father. And disaster begins when his father, instead of giving potential clients to Drew, he is intending to give them to Kate, newbie in his office. No doubt, Drew rejected his father's idea and finally his father telling them both to compete making the best presentation and the winner would get the client. Small sabotages happened from both of them.  And after that, ridiculously, Drew's father ordered they both working together in less than 24 hours to lure their potential clients. . Drew isn't my favorite anti-hero. In my judgment, this childish man is very selfish, spoiled and superficial, and considers himself as a gift from God for women. So eager to "win" everything, Drew had made the decision "attack before being attacked" which resulted in him then experiencing pain both physically and mentally. And when he is sick, instead of being a male-style's patriotic, he's playing victim with laments to all people who want hearing his pathetic story, even to his headmaster's nun when Drew was a teenager. Drew is like a war general whose got his beard is on fire, begins to devise a war strategies to get Kate back to him, either playing with smooth, romantic, tacky or dirty acts. But finally Drew with all of his chaotic mind was stealing me to give recommendation this book.  . . . #romancestagram #contemporaryromance #tangled #emmachase #tangledseries #booksbooksbooks #bookphotography #instabook #bookstagram #bookstagrammer #bookstagramfeature #booksofinstragram #bookgram #readingbooks #ireadromance #romancereader #romancebookaddict #romancebooks #romancenovels #romanceseries #booklover #bookaddict #ilovebooks #ilovereading https://www.instagram.com/p/BzrA8fbgAPw/?igshid=pplpz6pikiww

[usuallypleasantprince]

Read Dream Man series online free by Kristen Ashley

Dream Man series Author: Kristen Ashley Kristen Ashley 《Mystery Man (Dream Man #1)》     Gwendolyn Kidd has met the man of her dreams. He's hot, he's sexy, and what started as a no-names-exchanged night of passion has blossomed into a year and a half-long pleasure fest. Sure, it's a little strange that he only appears in her bed at night, but Gwen is so sure he's the one, she just can't turn him away...     Hawk Delgado knows more about Gwen than she could ever imagine. She's gorgeous, headstrong, and skittish about relationships. But Hawk is facing his own demons, demons that keep him from connecting with anyone. Yet when Gwen is drawn into Denver's lethal underground scene, Hawk's protective nature comes out full force. The problem is, when Gwen gets a dose of Hawk's Alpha attitude in the daylight, she's not so sure he's the one anymore....《Wild Man (Dream Man #2)》     While filling the display case in her bakery, the bell over the door sounds and Tessa O'Hara looks up to see the man of her dreams. Within thirty seconds he asks her out for a beer. But after four months of dating, she discovers he's an undercover DEA agent-and he's investigating her possible role in her ex-husband's drug business. For Tess, this means their relationship is over.     Brock disagrees. He's committed to his anti-drug mission, but he's fallen in love with the beautiful woman who's as sweet as her cupcakes-and he'll do anything to win her back. Standing... Read full: Read Dream Man series online free by Kristen Ashley #Romance #BillionaireRomance #New-Adult #Young-Adult #HotBookSeries #fantasy #Vampires #OthersBooks #ScienceFiction #Thriller #Horror #Classics #NewReleases #Mystery/Suspense #HotAuthors #Series #KristenAshley # #《MysteryMan(DreamMan#1)》 # #《WildMan(DreamMan#2)》 # #《LawMan(DreamMan#3)》 # #《MotorcycleMan(DreamMan#4)》 #TheImmortalsAfterDarkseries #TenTinyBreathsseries #TheCoincidenceseries #TheSecretseries #HisDarkMaterialsseries #TheIronFeyseries #GallagherGirlsseries #TheLordoftheRings #Millenniumseries #UpintheAirSeries #StarkTrilogy #TheBadBoysSeries #TangledSeries #BeautifulBastardSeries #ContoursoftheHeartSeries #UnfinishedHeroseries #ColoradoMountainseries #Chaosseries #TheSinclairsseries #TheYoungElitesseries #BillionairesandBridesmaidsseries #JustOneDayseries #SinnersonTourseries #Manwhoreseries #ThisManseries #OneNightseries #Fixedseries #BeautifullyBrokenseries #Fallingseries #TheArcanaChroniclesseries

[bellaaldamas]

Disney already established the direction of conforming to mischaracterizations and misrepresentation of the princesses and their stories by pseudo-"progressive" critics and the Tangled series was the ultimate product of that conformism. The "marriage is a prison but only if you're a woman" repackaged patriarchal stereotype is not the only issue with the series: it served as a jump-start of the pandering process where Disney repeated faux-"feminist" critique of the original movie almost word for word. By doing so the series destroyed and invalidated everything that stood out about the original film, including the healthy and equal dynamic between Rapunzel and Flynn and woman's power fantasy narrative (women do not deserve those according to modern media; men still do, however).

The Live Action is likely to follow the pattern set in the series because there is no indication Disney re-examined and reconsidered it. They did throw the fans of the original, woman's power fantasy concept a bone by presenting a well crafted Live Action Remake of The Little Mermaid where the focus was on equal partnership and healthy relationship between Ariel and Eric as well as on the celebration of Ariel's individual desires. Now Disney is back to faux progressiveness with the Snow White remake.

The Tangled series went as far as to not only copy and paste pseudo-progressive critique of the OG movie about how Rapunzel is "weak" for not cutting off her hair on her own (even though doing so would have been the opposite of feminism and would have implied it is woman's job to escape abuse); but to rework the powerful climax scene between Rapunzel and Flynn where they admit to being each other's "new dream" and give it to Rapunzel and Cassandra instead.

Even the animation and presentation was a rehash of that moment, thematically and visually. All in order to completely remove the importance of Flynn in Rapunzel's life and in the story overall (hence why he is rendered incapacitated and useless, just as he is in all the preceding episodes). The moment is shamelessly ripped off down to a close up shot with Rapunzel leaning towards Cassandra's face and crying while cradling her in her arms.

Therefore it is more than possible that another low blow from Disney will be a total removal of Flynn/Eugene from the LA version. And a replacement of a "dirty romance" with "beautiful platonic bond" between Rapunzel and a woman who constantly pushed her and Flynn's boundaries and outright abused Flynn in the series.

Because a platonic relationship between women, according to modern progressives, cannot be toxic if one of them is the "girlboss" type.

Calling it now: if Tangled LA Remake happens they'll base it not on the original movie (Disney's last female driven and empowering princess story before the company turned to daughters transforming mothers into literal animals to have their way and labeling it as "feminist", Hans twists telling women they are "desperate for love" and are blamed for male abuse and other pseudo-progressive narratives) but on the series. Which fully embrace and perpetuate Disney's current pseudo-feminist trends and completely misrepresent the characters and the title romance.

Thus, in the remake, Flynn/Eugene will be either written out completely (like Shang from the LA Mulan - because a heroine having two daddy figures instead of a love interest she has chosen is so much more progressive) or replaced by Cass*ndra from the series. The climax will be reworked to have the same pandering, faux feminist twist with Rapunzel cutting off her hair on her own because she is such a "girlboss" now and not a victim of lifelong abuse and gaslighting who needed to be helped out of it, just like other victims do.

And just like in the series, Rapunzel will be doing it for Cass*ndra because when Flynn/Eugene sacrificed his life for Rapunzel's freedom and agency it was "not feminist" and "made her weak". But it is an "improvement and fixing the original" when Rapunzel terminates her magic hair's qualities for a female character who, from the very first episode, started to act in the "I know best" manner. Except unlike in Gothel's case the series' narrative framed it as her being strong and "badass" (passive aggressiveness and pushing boundaries is only bad when older women do it, didn't you know?/#hashtag feminism).

[bellaaldamas]

The third - joint - version would indeed work well for a live action movie. It may not be as visually outstanding as the animated film but for a motion picture with real actors it would be a far better choice than a CGI saturated action/adventure OG Tangled was. The latter kind of visual storytelling should be reserved for animation medium only, lest we get another embarrassing "CGI merged with human actors looking like out of place additions" disaster that was the Snow White remake. On top of it being disastrous for all the same reasons most modern Disney projects are - misogyny disguised as "feminism" and a literal mansplaining song ("princess problems"). This time not even from a Snowman or mountain trolls but from the "romantic" male lead who tells the heroine her house labor is not important because she "can't fix the world baking apple pies"; and because that totally does not reflect a centuries old oppression and invalidation women have faced from patriarchy.

The third version, especially with the Prince becoming as much a hostage of his self centered privileged parents metaphorically as Rapunzel was Gothel's literally would be a good way to avoid CGI-heavy visuals and place more focus on emotional parallels and bonding.

This type of storytelling would be similar to "Prince Charming" (2001) live action motion picture. Which, interestingly enough, is in itself based on the "Frog Prince" tale and does therefore have a lot of parallels with Princess and the Frog: a womanizing prince whom his strict royal father is trying to put on the right path but goes about it in all the wrong ways (setting to marry John off to a princess from the rival Kingdom for practical and political purposes - so that the King and his sworn enemy, the ruler of said rival Kingdom, could negotiate peace after a decades long "petty" war). As the result of John's promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors, however, he sabotages the wedding with the princess and is punished by being turned into a frog along with his squire.

The transformation scene and some other select elements rely on CGI but the plot and character development besides that rest upon the actors and character communication. Especially when John and his friend/servant (whom John has a relationship with virtually identical to that of Naveen and Lawrence) transform back into humans. That's where the story shifts to modern day and they meet up with the reincarnated version of the princess John had offended in the past by going after another woman for momentary pleasure on the day of their arranged wedding (which is what got him and his friend into the situation where they were cursed to be frogs and spend centuries in that form in the first place). Except this time John and the "modern day" princess bond and fall in love naturally and of free will (with no pressure from their respective families).

The conflict stems from John having to marry a different woman - the one who kissed his frog self - until the full moon. Otherwise he and his friend turn back into frogs. The conflict is not about "marriage is a prison and a result of pressure" message, it is about the importance of free will in a matter so important and private as commitment.

It is the opposite of what Tangled the Series were forcing upon the audience by having Cassandra - a third party - constantly intervene and "know better" how Rapunzel should handle her relationship with Flynn/Eugene. And give HIM a lecture on his "selfishness" for wanting to be in a responsible, adult marital relationship with Rapunzel.

In that vein, "Prince Charming" narrative clearly frames it as wrong and toxic when third parties (including close friends) intervene in people's personal lives a similar way (and in the movie they do so for explicitly selfish reasons and for personal convenience). John's friend gets development that Lawrence from PatF and Cassandra from Tangled the Series never did (it worked for Lawrence because he was a fellow antagonist alongside Facilier rather than a supporting character but Cassandra had no excuse): struggling with whether or not to betray his friend/boss for personal selfish gain (even if selfishness more often than not gets the best of him; it's believable and realistic because character development is not linear and real people struggle with selfish urges all the time too). And having a good/positive relationship with his friend's significant other (unlike Cassandra whose one sided antagonizing of Flynn was framed as "empowering" and was perpetuated and encouraged by Rapunzel herself).

There is the wedding in the end of "Prince Charming" which solidifies character development and is treated as a show of growth, responsibility and, most importantly, agency (something neither John nor the past version of the princess had in the beginning). The "commitment as a form of growth and celebration of one's preexisting values" part is similar to PatF and that's the message that the Tangled series should have had. But instead it sent the opposite one - that marriage is a female prison because a woman loses autonomy and freedom the moment she commits to a man. But a man of course does not lose any of that and can be excited about the idea of marriage and see it as a form of empowerment and evolution; kudos to modern Disney, patriarchy could never.

Tangled Live Action could go a similar route as "Prince Charming" (emphasizing the character communication over visuals) and if Disney decides to remake PatF we can only hope they are smart enough to not keep Tiana and Naveen as frogs for most of the film (it worked in the animated version but will never work for a live action movie, lest it become another CGI nuisance a la Snow White remake).

That said, even if visually and thematically Disney does it right with potential remakes of Tangled and PatF, as you noted, modern Disney would still find a way to bastardize the respective movie's messages and make it about a "progressive" cautionary tale for "stupid and hormonal women".

Watch them have Tiana deliver a passage similar to Jonathan in SW remake and state that she "knows she can't fix the world cooking meals like a doormat housewife" and put emphasis on career ladder climbing instead of her passion for culinary and the values instilled in her by both parents (ones that prioritized love and healthy bonds over monetary gain). The scene where Tiana indulges in reading a culinary book for housewives en route to work? Don't dream of it EVER being a part of modern "feminist" Disney where any activities associated with traditional femininity are seen as "weak" and "inferior".

Also watch them replace Flynn with Cassandra entirely in the remake and/or keep him in but make him completely useless and incompetent and have Rapunzel cut her hair on her own to show how much of a "badass girlboss" she is. Because women in modern "feminist" media have to perform all the labor while men don't have to do anything or contribute in any meaningful ways bar standing there looking pretty (men are "perfect just the way they are" and don't need to prove anything to the society). That's not patriarchy in its ancient form at all /sarcasm.

I have yet to see the Aladdin remake but it's encouraging to hear that despite the drastic change to Jasmine's motivation (from wanting freedom to wanting power/becoming a Sultan) Disney still allowed her and Aladdin to have a healthy marital commitment. TLM remake honored Eric/Ariel in the same manner and even though it did change the climax to Ariel defeating Ursula the narrative still put emphasis on A) them doing it together and in partnership ("Eric was with me") and the main reason Ariel was able to steer the wheel in the first place was because she observed Eric doing that earlier during the storm and B) in the TLM series much younger Ariel smashed and defeated numerous villains while Triton, Sebastian, Flounder, Urchin and other male characters remained a dead weight (or, at best, only joined in on the defeat when Ariel had done the main part). Therefore it was fair to give Halle's Ariel a chance to have this kind of triumph.

As discussed before, the remakes may have flaws and virtues but they don't affect let alone misrepresent and destroy the originals. Bad remake is but a forgettable movie that takes nothing away (Snow White) whilst good remake is a treat (TLM). Neither has any bearing on the OG animated canon. Tangled the Series on the contrary is built around not even a misrepresentation of Flynn's "years of asking" joke but around an outright mockery and ridicule of the original Tangled under the guise of "feminism" when it is anything but (campfire scene, Rapunzel and Flynn's mutual sacrifice in the end scene, family reunion scene with Flynn being included for the first time after a lifetime of loneliness and social oppression - ALL of those were twisted, laughed at and involved Cassandra in them in the series; with Cassandra becoming the front and center of something that was once powerful and personal for Rapunzel and Flynn).

I'll reiterate that living to see the day when I'm compelled to say Gothel - of all characters - "deserved better" than to be reduced from a compelling manipulative villain to a "bad mother TM" trope (and to prop up multiple problematic men at that - Captain of the Guards and Flynn's deadbeat dad) is the day I know Disney is on its last legs.

How I Would Write a Tangled or Rapunzel Remake

If Disney decides to remake Tangled, I know what kind of version would finally allow me to say goodbye and feel peace — the kind of version that honors the original fairy tale, the original movie, and everything I loved about it before it was ruined by the series.

I’ve come up with three possible scenarios that would stay true to the message of the original film and the classic fairy tale. Any one of these would restore what Tangled meant to me — a love story about healing, freedom, and choosing each other over control.

Scenario One: Keep the Original Film Intact — But End With the Wedding

This is the simplest fix: Keep everything exactly as it was in the animated movie, but extend the ending to show the wedding — like the live-action Aladdin remake did. It’s clear that Tangled Ever After was meant to take place shortly after the movie. Everyone, including the four little girls who braided Rapunzel’s hair, is the same age. Flynn’s joke about marriage in the movie was just that — a joke. Unfortunately, the series writer took it literally and built an entire plot around delaying their relationship and sending the most horrible message that marriage is apparently a prison, completely missing the emotional tone of the original film.

Let’s be honest: after both characters were willing to die for each other, marriage would be the natural next step. That level of self-sacrifice is deeper commitment than any ceremony. And in the time period this is set in, marriage would have been the only way for them to even be allowed to be together. It wouldn’t just be realistic — it would be emotionally satisfying and true to the story.

Scenario Two: Adapt the Original Fairy Tale — Petrosinella

Instead of remaking Tangled, Disney could return to the roots of the Rapunzel story by adapting Petrosinella, one of the earliest versions of the fairy tale.

In Petrosinella, the heroine isn’t a damsel — she allows the prince into her tower on her own terms, plans her own escape, and uses the witch’s own magic to defeat her. She's strong, clever, and brave — and yet, she still falls in love and wants to marry the prince.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

She chooses commitment, and that choice doesn’t make her weak or anti-feminist. Feminism is about women having choices — including the choice to love, marry, and trust someone. Disney should respect that Rapunzel chooses love in the fairy tale. She doesn’t need to reject marriage to be strong.

Scenario Three: A Fusion of the Two — My Own Rewrite

This scenario is based on a version of the story I once wrote myself — one that combines the emotional core of the original film, the fairy tale’s themes, and a more grounded, character-driven journey.

Backstory: Keep Rapunzel’s magical hair as a reason Gothel wants to keep her locked away, and either use the Tangled backstory where Gothel takes Rapunzel from her birth parents or the fairy tale version where she makes them give up their child in exchange for the Rapunzel bellflower that heals Rapunzel’s mother. But I would prefer Rapunzel not to be a princess. Making her royalty undermines the emotional power of the Petrosinella story, where love and marriage, not birthright, sets her free. However, I could still live with her being a princess, if the love story and romance are respected like in the original Tangled movie.

Flynn as a Prince: In this version, Flynn is born and raised as a prince like in the fairy tale. He’s trapped by duty and pressured to marry a princess for the sake of his kingdom. His parents give him a deadline to find love or face an arranged marriage — echoing the pressure Rapunzel faces from Gothel.

How They Meet: Flynn escapes the castle and stumbles across Rapunzel’s tower. She sees a way out and tries to blackmail him into taking her to see the world. At first, he refuses and tries to run — but Rapunzel follows him. Eventually, they open up to each other: Flynn confesses the pressure he faces, and Rapunzel reveals her fear, her magic and her dreams. They bond over shared feelings of being trapped by their abusive “parents.”

Falling in Love: They travel together in secret for a few weeks, with Flynn taking her to different villages and sights across the kingdom. Their connection grows, built on shared freedom and mutual vulnerability. Eventually, Flynn realizes he truly loves her and proposes — and she accepts.

The Conflict: Unbeknownst to them, Gothel discovers what’s happening. She secretly allies with Flynn’s controlling parents who want him to marry a noblewoman. They trap Flynn, drug him, and make it seem like he abandoned Rapunzel for the arranged marriage. Gothel swoops in and tells Rapunzel they have to move again — playing the victim and deepening Rapunzel’s despair.

The Revelation: While packing in the tower, Rapunzel finds a baby blanket or a token with a symbol that links her to her real parents — either royals from another land or a kind couple like a tailor and seamstress she met with Flynn during their travels. It all clicks. She realizes Gothel kidnapped her, lied to her about Flynn leaving her, and is still trying to control her. She confronts Gothel — who becomes violent and physically restrains her.

The Climax: Flynn regains consciousness and tells his parents he won’t let them decide his future and that he would rather give up the throne than lose Rapunzel. He races to save Rapunzel and is stabbed by Gothel in the process. Just like in the original movie, Rapunzel offers her freedom for his life, and he cuts her hair to free her — sacrificing himself so she can be free.

The Ending: Her tears bring him back to life. They marry before confronting his family, solidifying their commitment. Rapunzel reunites with her real parents, and Flynn either completely breaks ties with his, keeping the theme of leaving abusive parents for love, or his parents apologize and accept their love, what Gothel wasn’t able to do and therefore prove they are better than her. The film ends with them setting off to explore the world on their honeymoon — a promise fulfilled, and a story completed with love and freedom.

Final Thoughts

Of course, I know Disney won’t do any of these versions. They’ve made it clear that they don’t value romantic storytelling like they used to and hate marriage. But if I had the chance — this is how I’d write a Tangled remake that respects the love, the themes, and the original fairy tale. This is the kind of ending that would allow me to finally say goodbye — because it would honor everything Tangled used to mean before it was changed.

Love should never be treated like a weakness. Marriage is not a prison. And not every story needs a franchise or a timeline stretched beyond its limits.

Some endings should be left whole.

[bellaaldamas]

It's also notable how Modern Disney assumed Rapunzel - whose privileged background and socioeconomic power over Flynn/Eugene was already addressed in the OG film and she still chose to be with him, an orphaned ex thief - needed to be in the position of not just power. But in the position of oppressor in order for their romance to be 'feminist'. Because apparently women in Flynn's socioeconomic and psychological situation do not exist as per modern 'feminist' narratives. A woman can only be seen as strong and independent if she is privileged and if she invalidates the experiences of those who aren't.

That's the opposite of what the OG Rapunzel's arc was about - she bonded with the 'lowly' pub thugs before she bonded let alone started feeling/expressing attraction for Flynn for crying out loud. Even without the knowledge of her being the lost princess she was still out of the thugs' league and could have easily dismissed them and their marginalized selves as sad unaccomplished inferiors - but she didn't. She listened and saw their side of things just like she listened and saw Flynn/Eugene's side of things without passing judgment.

OG movie Rapunzel sang along with the thugs when they mused about their sacred dreams instead of giving them a lecture on "thief legacy" when they sang about their wrongdoings, like the show Rapunzel does to Flynn/Eugene. Wielding her privileged background as a moral highground card.

The original movie was an example of how a competent narrative should build up a future ruler/leader that Rapunzel was meant to be and how a healthy love story should be written.

It is also extremely important that during the campfire scene Rapunzel did not press the matter of Flynn/Eugene's upbringing (she mentioned his real name that he had chosen to reveal earlier and left it up to him whether he wanted to proceed with opening up). She remembered he did not want to talk about "where he was born" (he dodged that question in the cave earlier) and didn't pursue it further.

Rapunzel saw the respect Flynn/Eugene showed towards her when he didn't push her boundaries but listened to what she had to say about why she "never left that tower" and she responded in kind. She allowed him to choose what he did and did not want to reveal. Afterwards she made it clear he didn't need to put his bravado/facade back up because she liked his real socially "unacceptable" self "much better".

Moreover, it was established Rapunzel would have given Flynn/Eugene back the satchel right after their moment of honesty during the campfire scene were it not for Gothel manipulating Rapunzel into believing SHE was not good enough for him. Rapunzel had just learned Flynn's underprivileged background and insecurities and did not for one second consider him unworthy. It were her own insecurities and fears that needed to be worked out for their romance to continue to develop and that's what happened during their Kingdom scenes. Where they put aside their traumas and weaknesses and chose to utilize their strengths together and by complementing each other: Rapunzel by employing her drawing/art skills and Flynn by employing his resourcefulness and imaginative thinking (it's only fitting a kid who read stories to younger children grew up into a man who made sure a similarly abused and insecure person, and one younger than him, has a "decent seat" as she watches her dream come true - hence the boat scene).

It was no less important Flynn/Rapunzel in the OG film don't attempt to kiss before there is no more power imbalance left between them (not one they know of) and before Rapunzel finally does give Flynn back the satchel. That's how equal relationship and competent writing works.

Then the series came along and stated that Flynn/Eugene's bravado/facade was not only his real self but all that there was to him. Even then Flynn/Eugene - a man, one that the series considered an unworthy lowlife who didn't deserve Rapunzel or to be anything but a babbling boyfriend trope - was still allowed to enjoy the idea of committing to Rapunzel through marriage. Because men are created to make love and to make war and to be the receiving party in a relationship, never the giving one/hashtag feminism

On the contrary, Rapunzel - a woman and the story lead - was made to view marriage as a female prison because women are expected to lose all of their autonomy after getting married. Because a woman can only ever give and never receive anything in return so she better not even consider the idea of marriage at all, unless she is ready for the "imprisonment" and agency deprivation it supposedly entails. That's what patriarchy and modern Disney say except they do so under the guise of "feminism" now.

As much as I criticize Cassandra and the glorification of toxic female dynamic between her and Rapunzel the show misrepresented her too. Ultimately, Cassandra was but a plot device to reduce Gothel from a compelling abuser archetype that she was in the original film to an actual sexist stereotype of an Evil Older Woman and Bad Mother trope.

AND to juxtapose Gothel against not one but two Virtuous Fathers - a former antagonist (Captain of the Guards) and a toxic deadbeat dad in the form of Flynn's biological father. Who betrayed and abandoned Flynn as a child, destroyed his life and self esteem and deserved to die in a fire - literally or figuratively - like Gothel did.

Except Flynn's deadbeat father got away with child abuse because men can be forgiven for terrible parenting as long as they acknowledge their child exists but women are still evil when they do the same things. That's Feminist Writing at its peak.

Never thought I'd live to see the day when I come to think Gothel "deserved better" than to be turned into a sexist cliche instead of a well crafted manipulative villain she used to be. This is a sure sign how tragically misogynistic and lazy Disney has become.

How Tangled: The Series Undermines the Original Film — And Why We’re Allowed to Reject It

Let’s get one thing straight: You’re allowed to love the original Tangled movie. You’re allowed to reject Tangled: The Series. You’re allowed to protect the version of the story that meant something to you.

Because what the series did wasn’t just lazy or inconsistent—it was insulting. It took two beautifully written characters, Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene, and systematically warped them under the guise of “progress.” And it hurts. Especially when you're expected to applaud it.

The series builds itself on the patriarchal narrative that marriage is a prison—but only for women. That if a man proposes, he must be trying to “trap” her. That commitment is the enemy of independence. That wanting to build a life with someone you love is... antifeminist?

This entire framing is deeply regressive, wrapped in a modern, faux-progressive ribbon.

In the time period the story is set in, marriage was the only socially accepted way for two people—especially a princess and a commoner—to be together. A rejected proposal would have meant the end of that relationship. The original fairy tale understood this. Even the Tangled Ever After short did. But the series demands you ignore all of that for the sake of its shallow, revisionist messaging.

And the disrespect doesn’t stop there.

Flynn/Eugene, once the best-written male love interest Disney ever gave us—a flawed, complex, survivor—is reduced to a sidekick. A punchline. His entire arc from the film is undermined when the series implies that “Flynn Rider” wasn’t a mask or a coping mechanism, but his “real self.” Suddenly he’s not a man who grew through love and vulnerability, but just another "womanizing thief."

What made the Tangled movie so profound was that it challenged those assumptions. Rapunzel looked at Eugene’s worst parts and said, “I see you. And I like you better this way.” She validated him when society never did. She listened. And he listened back. They grew together.

The series throws all that away.

Now Rapunzel lies to him, gaslights him, and mocks his trauma (and yes, from what I've seen, she does make fun of his past as an orphan—and the show plays it off like nothing). Why? Because now she's a princess in power, and according to modern “girlboss” feminism, that power alone is what defines her worth. Compassion, emotional intelligence, and reciprocal respect apparently aren’t needed anymore.

The fact that Flynn’s backstory was rewritten to make him look shallow while Rapunzel gets enabled in every mistake she makes isn’t empowering—it's just bad writing. This isn't feminist storytelling. It’s insecure posturing dressed up as representation.

And what makes this even harder to swallow is how criticism of the series is treated online. Fans who point out these inconsistencies or express their pain over how the characters were twisted are mocked. Labeled “anti-feminist.” Told they’re just “nostalgic” or “don’t get it.”

Meanwhile, it’s somehow fair game to endlessly criticize the older princesses for marrying young—even when they were simply written in a historically accurate context. Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel—they get dragged for “not being feminist enough,” but a series like this that twists love into weakness and turns vulnerability into comedy is held up as “progress”?

Let’s be clear: You can’t claim to be rewriting history when your version makes less sense, both historically and psychologically.

The creators claim this is canon—but canon is not law. These characters don’t exist outside of what the writers decide for them, and that means we, as viewers, get to choose what we accept. These are not real people—they are creative tools, and we have the right to curate our experience.

You don’t have to accept a version of the story that spits in the face of what you loved.

Reject the series. Embrace the movie. Love the fairy tale. You’re allowed to.

[marie95disneygirl]

I think Princess and the Frog is one of the few Disney movies that could actually benefit from a live action remake by having Tiana not remain a frog for the whole movie like you said. And if I would write a remake of that movie, I would probably also make it similar to Prince Charming (2001) by having Naveen turn back human early on, having Tiana not turn into a frog at all and having them then still go on a journey to break the curse and prevent Naveen from turning back. But I'm sure modern Disney would find a way to ruin this movie in a remake as well. I don't trust them with anything anymore.

I haven't seen the snow white remake and I won't because I refuse to watch a movie that ruins a fairy tale that is so important to my german culture. And besides, every Snow white and Jonathan interaction that I have seen from the trailers seems very cringe to me and I can't believe this is what Disney calls a good romance. And that 'princess problems' song already sounds so horrible that I will not even listen to that.

I have actually only seen the little mermaid remake once but I didn't like that they changed it to Ariel defeating Ursula at the end. Because Eric defeating her was what made Triton change his mind about humans in the original and Eric seemed rather useless in that fight in the remake, so that Triton's change of mind does not work so well for me. But I give them credit for having Ariel and Eric be engaged at the end even though they don't show the wedding and didn't have Ariel reject Eric's proposal because marriage is apparently a prison to her.

And honestly, everything that I wanted from Tangled was Rapunzel accepting Flynn's proposal the first time he asked and being happy that he proposed and this is the one thing that Disney refused to give me just because of some horrible mindset from the series's writer. But before that garbage show came out, I always thought she had accepted his proposal the first time and that Tangled ever after was set shortly after the movie because it looks like it's set at least in the same year as the movie and that short was written by the same producers as the movie. And anyone from my family with whom I watched the movie saw it that way as well because we all could see that Flynn's joke at the end about marriage was just a joke and we know what humor is. I don't get why everyone has to take everything so literally. And seriously what self respecting man would joke about his wife having to ask him for years when he was the one who got rejected for years out of such a stupid reason that marriage is a female prison? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Just like a girl refusing to marry a man for whom she wanted to go to prison for all eternity in the movie just because she thinks marriage is a prison. It makes me wonder if the series writer even watched the climax of the movie. Rapunzel calling marriage to Flynn a prison is the most illogical thing I have ever heard after she was literally willing to give up her freedom to save him and I will never get over that. I believe this is just because frozen was such a success and it always makes me wish frozen never existed.

The idea of a Rapunzel remake having her and the prince bonding over abusive 'parents' that I listed in scenario three is one that I really like and there was once a german Rapunzel live action movie from 1988 that kind of implied such a scenario. There, the prince's father is almost as controlling as the witch, wants to force the prince to marry a princess for an alliance between the kingdoms and does everything to keep him and Rapunzel apart. And at the end when their love triumphs and Rapunzel and her prince are married, they set off on a journey to find her real parents. And even after the king and the witch accept their love and give them their blessing, they still leave which sends a good message: that it's all right to leave abusive parents for love and that you don't have to stay with them even after they see the error of their ways, like Disney's the little mermaid showed. And that is also the complete opposite of what that horrible Tangled series showed where they sent the messages that they need their abusive parents in their lives which goes against what the original Tangled movie and the original fairy tale stood for and I can't believe how Disney could mess it up that much.

There was also another german live action Rapunzel movie from 2009 that was very nice and romantic. There Rapunzel also sees marriage to the prince as a liberation instead of a female prison and only ever pushes him away to protect him from the witch and because she was too scared to leave the prince but immediately changed her mind about that when the prince made it clear he would always stay with her no matter what she decided. And then at the end there was a nice scene where she told the witch that she will leave and does not need her anymore and the witch remains alone and miserable at the end instead of dying.

Both these Rapunzel movies didn't have a huge budget but they are still wonderful movies and I wish Disney would make a Rapunzel movie like that instead of using so much CGI like in their other remakes. And the idea of having Rapunzel and her prince bond over their controlling parents would work so well in a live action love story in my opinion. It kind of makes me disappointed that they switched the roles in the original Tangled movie by having Rapunzel be a princess by birth. But I wouldn't have had a problem with that if that horrible TV show never happened where Flynn is always bullied and insulted because of his background by everyone and Rapunzel just stands there and never stands up for him and even sometimes participates in bullying him because of that. And then there is the fact that she rejects his marriage proposal when she still thinks he is just a thief and only ever changes her mind about marriage and stops having nightmares about it after it turns out he is secretly a prince by birth which makes it look like she doesn't consider him good enough for her when he is not royalty which is the opposite of the fairy tale where the prince didn't care she was just a commoner and still wanted to marry her. I mean, it could have worked if her parents had been the ones who forbid their marriage and made them break up in the series and then only changed their minds about their love after it turned out Flynn was royalty. But no, instead we got a nightmare sequence of Rapunzel having a literal panic attack when Flynn proposes — framed as “character growth.” In real life, that’s a huge red flag. Any therapist would say this relationship is not healthy. But Disney twists it into some pseudo-feminist narrative where marriage = doom for women and freedom for men. That’s not empowering. That’s disrespectful.This isn’t "feminist" storytelling. It’s performative rebellion against older princesses—Cinderella, Ariel, Aurora, Snow White—who dared to want love without it canceling out their strength.

If this is what Disney calls “feminism,” it’s only because their version of progress still sees independence and love as mutually exclusive for women. Real feminism means choice — and Rapunzel choosing Flynn in Tangled was powerful.

A remake could fix the problems from the horrible series by making it not canon, completely ignoring it and having it end with their wedding like the movie was originally supposed to be and like the Aladdin remake handled it. I really think that remake wasn't so bad even with the change of having Jasmine want to be a sultan because I think that would have also fit animated Jasmine. And she still wanted to marry Aladdin and rule with him at the end. She didn't need to reject marriage to be a strong ruler which is a great message. And that is what I would want for a Tangled remake as well. But I fear Disney will not do that because of the series's annoying fans who want this pseudo progressiveness. If the remake is anything like the series then I will boycott it just like the snow white remake. At the end of the day, marriage isn’t a prison. It’s a choice. Just like love. And reducing that to a nightmare trope for female characters isn't revolutionary storytelling—it’s just sexist fear repackaged as feminism. We deserve better. We deserve a Rapunzel movie like the old german live action fairy tale movies and I will only pay Disney if they release a movie like that.

How I Would Write a Tangled or Rapunzel Remake

If Disney decides to remake Tangled, I know what kind of version would finally allow me to say goodbye and feel peace — the kind of version that honors the original fairy tale, the original movie, and everything I loved about it before it was ruined by the series.

I’ve come up with three possible scenarios that would stay true to the message of the original film and the classic fairy tale. Any one of these would restore what Tangled meant to me — a love story about healing, freedom, and choosing each other over control.

Scenario One: Keep the Original Film Intact — But End With the Wedding

This is the simplest fix: Keep everything exactly as it was in the animated movie, but extend the ending to show the wedding — like the live-action Aladdin remake did. It’s clear that Tangled Ever After was meant to take place shortly after the movie. Everyone, including the four little girls who braided Rapunzel’s hair, is the same age. Flynn’s joke about marriage in the movie was just that — a joke. Unfortunately, the series writer took it literally and built an entire plot around delaying their relationship and sending the most horrible message that marriage is apparently a prison, completely missing the emotional tone of the original film.

Let’s be honest: after both characters were willing to die for each other, marriage would be the natural next step. That level of self-sacrifice is deeper commitment than any ceremony. And in the time period this is set in, marriage would have been the only way for them to even be allowed to be together. It wouldn’t just be realistic — it would be emotionally satisfying and true to the story.

Scenario Two: Adapt the Original Fairy Tale — Petrosinella

Instead of remaking Tangled, Disney could return to the roots of the Rapunzel story by adapting Petrosinella, one of the earliest versions of the fairy tale.

In Petrosinella, the heroine isn’t a damsel — she allows the prince into her tower on her own terms, plans her own escape, and uses the witch’s own magic to defeat her. She's strong, clever, and brave — and yet, she still falls in love and wants to marry the prince.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

She chooses commitment, and that choice doesn’t make her weak or anti-feminist. Feminism is about women having choices — including the choice to love, marry, and trust someone. Disney should respect that Rapunzel chooses love in the fairy tale. She doesn’t need to reject marriage to be strong.

Scenario Three: A Fusion of the Two — My Own Rewrite

This scenario is based on a version of the story I once wrote myself — one that combines the emotional core of the original film, the fairy tale’s themes, and a more grounded, character-driven journey.

Backstory: Keep Rapunzel’s magical hair as a reason Gothel wants to keep her locked away, and either use the Tangled backstory where Gothel takes Rapunzel from her birth parents or the fairy tale version where she makes them give up their child in exchange for the Rapunzel bellflower that heals Rapunzel’s mother. But I would prefer Rapunzel not to be a princess. Making her royalty undermines the emotional power of the Petrosinella story, where love and marriage, not birthright, sets her free. However, I could still live with her being a princess, if the love story and romance are respected like in the original Tangled movie.

Flynn as a Prince: In this version, Flynn is born and raised as a prince like in the fairy tale. He’s trapped by duty and pressured to marry a princess for the sake of his kingdom. His parents give him a deadline to find love or face an arranged marriage — echoing the pressure Rapunzel faces from Gothel.

How They Meet: Flynn escapes the castle and stumbles across Rapunzel’s tower. She sees a way out and tries to blackmail him into taking her to see the world. At first, he refuses and tries to run — but Rapunzel follows him. Eventually, they open up to each other: Flynn confesses the pressure he faces, and Rapunzel reveals her fear, her magic and her dreams. They bond over shared feelings of being trapped by their abusive “parents.”

Falling in Love: They travel together in secret for a few weeks, with Flynn taking her to different villages and sights across the kingdom. Their connection grows, built on shared freedom and mutual vulnerability. Eventually, Flynn realizes he truly loves her and proposes — and she accepts.

The Conflict: Unbeknownst to them, Gothel discovers what’s happening. She secretly allies with Flynn’s controlling parents who want him to marry a noblewoman. They trap Flynn, drug him, and make it seem like he abandoned Rapunzel for the arranged marriage. Gothel swoops in and tells Rapunzel they have to move again — playing the victim and deepening Rapunzel’s despair.

The Revelation: While packing in the tower, Rapunzel finds a baby blanket or a token with a symbol that links her to her real parents — either royals from another land or a kind couple like a tailor and seamstress she met with Flynn during their travels. It all clicks. She realizes Gothel kidnapped her, lied to her about Flynn leaving her, and is still trying to control her. She confronts Gothel — who becomes violent and physically restrains her.

The Climax: Flynn regains consciousness and tells his parents he won’t let them decide his future and that he would rather give up the throne than lose Rapunzel. He races to save Rapunzel and is stabbed by Gothel in the process. Just like in the original movie, Rapunzel offers her freedom for his life, and he cuts her hair to free her — sacrificing himself so she can be free.

The Ending: Her tears bring him back to life. They marry before confronting his family, solidifying their commitment. Rapunzel reunites with her real parents, and Flynn either completely breaks ties with his, keeping the theme of leaving abusive parents for love, or his parents apologize and accept their love, what Gothel wasn’t able to do and therefore prove they are better than her. The film ends with them setting off to explore the world on their honeymoon — a promise fulfilled, and a story completed with love and freedom.

Final Thoughts

Of course, I know Disney won’t do any of these versions. They’ve made it clear that they don’t value romantic storytelling like they used to and hate marriage. But if I had the chance — this is how I’d write a Tangled remake that respects the love, the themes, and the original fairy tale. This is the kind of ending that would allow me to finally say goodbye — because it would honor everything Tangled used to mean before it was changed.

Love should never be treated like a weakness. Marriage is not a prison. And not every story needs a franchise or a timeline stretched beyond its limits.

Some endings should be left whole.

[marie95disneygirl]

I agree with everything you say, great analysis.

And that garbage Tangled series is by far the worst product Disney ever created, worse than any other sequel or Live action remake and does such an excellent job at destroying everything great and healthy about romance and showing the most toxic relationship there ever was in Disney media. Series-Rapunzel is the worst lover ever and her mindset 'marriage is a prison' is the same as the one from a book character we analyzed in school when we wrote essays about narcissism and a relationship that failed in every way possible. Only that unlike that book character Rapunzel is forgiven by everyone somehow just because she is a Disney princess and has trauma, even though there are a lot of characters in fiction that also have trauma but aren't excused because the world loves double standards.

Tangled the series destroys absolutely everything I loved about the movie and I am tired. I'm tired of being angry or heartbroken about it. It's been 8 years and it still infuriates me, that's how bad it is.

And I think the best way would be for everyone who hates the series to let Tangled go entirely. Don't even support the movie by buying merchandise or re watching it. Disney does not deserve the money. And it doesn't matter how good the movie was, Disney destroyed it with the series and they will surely never de canonize the series, considering most people refuse to see how awful it is. And I'm just tired of being angry or triggered by it, it doesn't even deserve that much attention.

And the most important reason not to give the movie attention anymore is because otherwise Disney will use it as an excuse to make a Tangled 2 movie that will of course follow this toxic series and prove that it is canon.

The movie may have been perfect, but mourning about it and pretending the series never happened isn't a good solution either. It's like rereading love letters from your toxic ex. It doesn't matter how good it was, it changed and betrayed my trust in good storytelling or good romance and I'm tired of clinging to and mourning a version that basically no longer exists. My respect and love for the movie will always be shadowed by my anger and hatred for the series. It's not the same anymore.

The only way to really restore order with imagination is to imagine my own version of the fairy tale which is still public domain and can be used by everyone and have it inspired by Tangled. That's something Disney at least can't take away again.

But my respect for Tangled and Disneys Rapunzel is forever destroyed by Tangled the series and I will no longer give it attention online or in real life.

The best Disney movies that are still comforts are the ones that never got real sequels like Alice in Wonderland, Snow white, Sleeping Beauty, Aristocats or Robin Hood. All of these also feature strong female characters even though the world refuses to see it.

How Tangled: The Series Undermines the Original Film — And Why We’re Allowed to Reject It

Let’s get one thing straight: You’re allowed to love the original Tangled movie. You’re allowed to reject Tangled: The Series. You’re allowed to protect the version of the story that meant something to you.

Because what the series did wasn’t just lazy or inconsistent—it was insulting. It took two beautifully written characters, Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene, and systematically warped them under the guise of “progress.” And it hurts. Especially when you're expected to applaud it.

The series builds itself on the patriarchal narrative that marriage is a prison—but only for women. That if a man proposes, he must be trying to “trap” her. That commitment is the enemy of independence. That wanting to build a life with someone you love is... antifeminist?

This entire framing is deeply regressive, wrapped in a modern, faux-progressive ribbon.

In the time period the story is set in, marriage was the only socially accepted way for two people—especially a princess and a commoner—to be together. A rejected proposal would have meant the end of that relationship. The original fairy tale understood this. Even the Tangled Ever After short did. But the series demands you ignore all of that for the sake of its shallow, revisionist messaging.

And the disrespect doesn’t stop there.

Flynn/Eugene, once the best-written male love interest Disney ever gave us—a flawed, complex, survivor—is reduced to a sidekick. A punchline. His entire arc from the film is undermined when the series implies that “Flynn Rider” wasn’t a mask or a coping mechanism, but his “real self.” Suddenly he’s not a man who grew through love and vulnerability, but just another "womanizing thief."

What made the Tangled movie so profound was that it challenged those assumptions. Rapunzel looked at Eugene’s worst parts and said, “I see you. And I like you better this way.” She validated him when society never did. She listened. And he listened back. They grew together.

The series throws all that away.

Now Rapunzel lies to him, gaslights him, and mocks his trauma (and yes, from what I've seen, she does make fun of his past as an orphan—and the show plays it off like nothing). Why? Because now she's a princess in power, and according to modern “girlboss” feminism, that power alone is what defines her worth. Compassion, emotional intelligence, and reciprocal respect apparently aren’t needed anymore.

The fact that Flynn’s backstory was rewritten to make him look shallow while Rapunzel gets enabled in every mistake she makes isn’t empowering—it's just bad writing. This isn't feminist storytelling. It’s insecure posturing dressed up as representation.

And what makes this even harder to swallow is how criticism of the series is treated online. Fans who point out these inconsistencies or express their pain over how the characters were twisted are mocked. Labeled “anti-feminist.” Told they’re just “nostalgic” or “don’t get it.”

Meanwhile, it’s somehow fair game to endlessly criticize the older princesses for marrying young—even when they were simply written in a historically accurate context. Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel—they get dragged for “not being feminist enough,” but a series like this that twists love into weakness and turns vulnerability into comedy is held up as “progress”?

Let’s be clear: You can’t claim to be rewriting history when your version makes less sense, both historically and psychologically.

The creators claim this is canon—but canon is not law. These characters don’t exist outside of what the writers decide for them, and that means we, as viewers, get to choose what we accept. These are not real people—they are creative tools, and we have the right to curate our experience.

You don’t have to accept a version of the story that spits in the face of what you loved.

Reject the series. Embrace the movie. Love the fairy tale. You’re allowed to.

[bellaaldamas]

The idea a traumatized person will inevitably become an abuser themselves and a toxic partner is harmful and one of the many areas in which the Tangled series fails and insults abuse victims. It implies a victim is bound to be stuck in the cycle of abuse, with the only elements changing being the role of abuser and victim.

Even then, Rapunzel not so much becomes the abuser in the series towards Flynn as she continues to be the victim of people other than Gothel that entered her life after what was supposed to be her "liberation" and "finding her place":

her father who suppresses her agency and flat out removes her autonomy by trapping her in the castle;

a random business owner from the Corona Kingdom who resents Rapunzel for no valid reason other than his conservative views and the narrative normalizes HIS behavior, shames Rapunzel for being understandably upset about facing unwarranted aggression and dismisses her concerns as "not everyone is going to like you, get over it".

Notable part is that Flynn dismisses said concerns in the same manner the narrative does (and in the same manner series Rapunzel previously dismissed HIS experiences and traumas and will continue to do so throughout the entire show). That's another reversal of their OG film's dynamic where either of them offered support and comfort to the other. Even when either OG Rapunzel or Flynn believed they were being "overly dramatic, stupid and irrational" about their own insecurities the other always reassured them and validated their experiences (the flooding cave, the campfire scene, the lantern scene).

In the series? That kind of mutual support is not only no longer the case but the moralizing tale about Rapunzel having to "accept" passive and active aggression from someone she did nothing wrong to and even saved that person's life at one point was one of the many talking points of armchair "feminist" analytics back in the OG film's days that Disney decided to address.

In this case it was the absurd claim that OG Rapunzel was "too perfect and had no flaws" - because a woman/female character absolutely HAS to have perceivable negative traits that the society can tear down and belittle her for/#another feminism hashtag.

Except instead of rightly criticizing those misplaced claims from anti OG Tangled crowd Disney conformed to and reinforced them. We, the audience, were left with another "feminist" twist where the heroine is told by everyone including her romantic partner that she needs to put up with mistreatment and that other people have every right to demean her and she needs to "toughen up" and "deal with it".

Finally, there is Rapunzel's supposed "friend" Cassandra who uses the same manipulative and gaslighting tactics as Gothel, albeit on a smaller scale, and enables Rapunzel's unhealthy responses to her experiences with isolation (again, just like Gothel did because it suited her own selfish needs). But this time it is treated as a necessary experience for the "sheltered and naive Rapunzel" to gain if she wants to become a true "girlboss".

An abuse victim needs a "tough friendship" and to be ruled with an iron fist to become strong. Cassandra herself is but a mouth piece for those armchair critics mentioned above who called OG Rapunzel "weak" because she dared to have responses consistent with the ones abuse victims have and to receive respect and support from OG movie Flynn (and reciprocate it).

Then the "strong and improved" series Rapunzel, in universe, is made to address the "feminist" talking points herself - and we get another pandering scene where she cuts off her hair on her own. The way her "weak and pathetic" abused OG self "could not" (and in the series she does so for Cassandra, effectively the Gothel 2.0 except "better" because she is young, hot and badass; only older and "vain" women can be called out for being toxic in the "feminist" media, lest we forget).

After all, the OG Rapunzel was "naive enough" to value partnership, mutual support and trust and to believe men aren't fragile flowers born for only receiving and never giving.

OG Rapunzel dared to not consider that it is apparently up to a woman to perform all the emotional and physical labor like a good patriarchal tradwife awesome feminist girlboss should. Whereas a man gets to remain a babbling boyfriend who can be but a good looking comedic relief and do nothing of value because men are just too delicate for that. And he can still marry into royalty and become the eyecandy useless husband to his good patriarchal tradwife awesome feminist girlboss wife.

That's girlboss feminism at its core. That's bringing back patriarchy in its unadulterated form where a woman does all the work while a man is expected to get his happy ending while doing nothing at all but looking pretty. This is bringing back traumatized, overworked and miserable women who have no power or opportunities to respond to their traumatic experiences other than by traumatizing or invalidating others.

And to add girlboss vibes to the "improved and feminist" take on Rapunzel's story in the series, let us have ALL the major antagonists who do perceivable damage and don't get redemption or at least a pardon be female: Lady Cane, Flynn's abusive ex girlfriend who is literally a daughter of a gang boss and whose entire existence is reduced to being the toxic Vixen type to Rapunzel's "good" Madonna type (reinforcing the ages old patriarchal Madonna/Vixen dichotomy and taking away all the complexity of Rapunzel and Flynn's OG relationship by doing so is the new "progressive"); Cassandra, whose “feminist tough love” replaced Gothel’s abusive pseudo-love despite being all but the same; finally, Gothel herself who from a clever mastermind and master manipulator villain she used to be in the "non-feminist" OG movie turns into an actual misogynistic stereotype of a Bad Mom TM to both Rapunzel and Cassandra.

Why? Of course to uphold the Virtuous Fathers: the Captain who was a "big hero" for not leaving Cassandra for dead when she was a child and Flynn's deadbeat scum of a biological father. Who abandoned his son, ruined his life, subjected him to a permanent trauma of feeling not good enough for anyone and anything and was STILL forgiven while Gothel remained ever evil and ever dead.

And of course there is Rapunzel's father who, in the series version, is another Gothel but on a smaller scale. But when a man takes away his daughter's autonomy he is doing it "for her own good".

It is almost a miracle Disney somehow remained aware that King Triton was problematic and patriarchal in the LA TLM remake and even amplified those traits of his (the animated version often sugarcoated Triton's oppression with "cute" moments that framed him as a strict but well meaning dad; LA version did not tip toe around his toxicity and tackled it head on). Sadly, the TLM remake was the outlier rather than Disney admitting and fixing their mistakes and getting back to its roots.

But the "best" part is the side of the Disney fandom that complains of "wokeness" and "feminist pandering" whenever it sees diversity in the new movies. Those people ate up a three seasons long pandering fest that was the Tangled Series and praised it endlessly because the leads were white. Same thing happened with Frozen which jumpstarted the girlboss culture that Disney has been adhering to ever since.

This tells one all they need to know about how most of the "Disney critical" think pieces can't be trusted, whether they come from princess hating "feminists" or the bigoted "anti-woke"/conservative crowd.

As for how we, the consumers, can respond to that in order to not endorse Disney bastardizing its older well written products, one thing that needs to be recognized is that Disney is a monopolist. It absolutely can handle not getting our money or releasing a commercial and critical failure like the Snow White remake. It will bounce back from it without so much as a scratch.

I used to adopt the same position as yourself when I dramatically shut the proverbial door and stopped engaging with both modern Disney and specifically Tangled and anything related to it because the series undid 99.9 percents of what was good and empowering about it.

Now, however, I see that this is the exact response Disney was expecting from me and those who take issue with their repackaged patriarchy passed off as "feminist". They need people like us to leave so that their only "critics" will be far right bigots who dislike modern Disney for all the wrong reasons such as diversity and feminism and not for the actual reason why modern Disney is terrible - because their "feminism" is patriarchy dating as far back as Middle Ages and they expect modern generations to not pick up on it. They need bigots to remain their only critics so they could pet themselves on the head for "doing all the right things" by angering them.

Not at all improbable that Disney's next product will have a female lead be burned at a stake as a presumed "witch" because her hormonal and "stupid" self dared to trust a man and expect him to be a decent human being and it'll be framed as a "feminist" writing and another "much needed" cautionary tale (a more extreme version of the Hans twist). Women should just quit expecting men to respect or at least to not betray and abuse them, that's what girlboss culture says.

While Tangled was undeniably tarnished permanently with the series, same can be said about any product that received a sequel XX years later that undid its endgame and rewrote existing canon for money and attention. This is the most common trend in the media right now showing that creators and producers/rights holders can do whatever they please and there's nothing the audience can do about it because there will still be a demand for it and the money will keep flowing.

What is important is to recognize those characters are not real people, stick to one's critical thinking and not to make cult out of anything. Especially Disney.

How Tangled: The Series Undermines the Original Film — And Why We’re Allowed to Reject It

Let’s get one thing straight: You’re allowed to love the original Tangled movie. You’re allowed to reject Tangled: The Series. You’re allowed to protect the version of the story that meant something to you.

Because what the series did wasn’t just lazy or inconsistent—it was insulting. It took two beautifully written characters, Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene, and systematically warped them under the guise of “progress.” And it hurts. Especially when you're expected to applaud it.

The series builds itself on the patriarchal narrative that marriage is a prison—but only for women. That if a man proposes, he must be trying to “trap” her. That commitment is the enemy of independence. That wanting to build a life with someone you love is... antifeminist?

This entire framing is deeply regressive, wrapped in a modern, faux-progressive ribbon.

In the time period the story is set in, marriage was the only socially accepted way for two people—especially a princess and a commoner—to be together. A rejected proposal would have meant the end of that relationship. The original fairy tale understood this. Even the Tangled Ever After short did. But the series demands you ignore all of that for the sake of its shallow, revisionist messaging.

And the disrespect doesn’t stop there.

Flynn/Eugene, once the best-written male love interest Disney ever gave us—a flawed, complex, survivor—is reduced to a sidekick. A punchline. His entire arc from the film is undermined when the series implies that “Flynn Rider” wasn’t a mask or a coping mechanism, but his “real self.” Suddenly he’s not a man who grew through love and vulnerability, but just another "womanizing thief."

What made the Tangled movie so profound was that it challenged those assumptions. Rapunzel looked at Eugene’s worst parts and said, “I see you. And I like you better this way.” She validated him when society never did. She listened. And he listened back. They grew together.

The series throws all that away.

Now Rapunzel lies to him, gaslights him, and mocks his trauma (and yes, from what I've seen, she does make fun of his past as an orphan—and the show plays it off like nothing). Why? Because now she's a princess in power, and according to modern “girlboss” feminism, that power alone is what defines her worth. Compassion, emotional intelligence, and reciprocal respect apparently aren’t needed anymore.

The fact that Flynn’s backstory was rewritten to make him look shallow while Rapunzel gets enabled in every mistake she makes isn’t empowering—it's just bad writing. This isn't feminist storytelling. It’s insecure posturing dressed up as representation.

And what makes this even harder to swallow is how criticism of the series is treated online. Fans who point out these inconsistencies or express their pain over how the characters were twisted are mocked. Labeled “anti-feminist.” Told they’re just “nostalgic” or “don’t get it.”

Meanwhile, it’s somehow fair game to endlessly criticize the older princesses for marrying young—even when they were simply written in a historically accurate context. Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel—they get dragged for “not being feminist enough,” but a series like this that twists love into weakness and turns vulnerability into comedy is held up as “progress”?

Let’s be clear: You can’t claim to be rewriting history when your version makes less sense, both historically and psychologically.

The creators claim this is canon—but canon is not law. These characters don’t exist outside of what the writers decide for them, and that means we, as viewers, get to choose what we accept. These are not real people—they are creative tools, and we have the right to curate our experience.

You don’t have to accept a version of the story that spits in the face of what you loved.

Reject the series. Embrace the movie. Love the fairy tale. You’re allowed to.

[marie95disneygirl]

Yes, but the thing is that no matter how much I or other people who hated the series criticize Disney, they will not change a thing about this because we are unfortunately in the minority here. It's of course a good idea to keep making posts about this and spread the truth on other websites, because otherwise no one will do it and everyone will just believe this garbage series is good because its annoying and bullying fans are the loudest and they bully and insult everyone who dares to say one bad word about it, and there need to be people like me who are brave enough to speak up against them.

But I don't think it's healthy to stick to the movie and pretend like the series never happened or is not canon, like the Star Wars fandom likes to do with the sequel trilogy.

It doesn't matter how good and perfect the movie was, because when Disney green-lit the series, they basically said: the story is not over, the movie was just the first chapter or the first episode of their story. And still enjoying the movie would be like only rereading the first chapter of a book that turned into a horrible story in later chapters.

It also doesn't matter how sweet Rapunzel was in the movie, she later turned into a horrible person and the most abusive lover that I have ever seen. And I always have to think about that whenever I see something about her.

It doesn't matter how sweet and perfect Flynn was in the movie, Disney turned him into a stupid clown who was only there for comic relief.

It also doesn't matter how healthy their love story was in the movie, Disney turned it into the unhealthiest, most toxic love story there ever was in Disney.

And I know that these are not real people and shouldn't be treated as such, but I realized that it's not good for my own mental health to re watch the movie and keep buying merchandise of it because my mind always goes back to thinking about how much it was ruined later on and it's impossible for me to turn off these thoughts especially since everything and everyone online reminds me of the show's existence everywhere I go. And Disney will undoubtedly also stick to the series in future Tangled projects like the live action remake or a potential Tangled 2, especially since the series was unfortunately so popular. And I heard that they will announce something about either the remake or a sequel in November. To then still like the movie would be like being stuck in the first stage of grief (denial).

I also once quit the video game franchise Kingdom Hearts out of the same reason. I realized that no matter how good the first installments were, they later introduced stuff that just annoyed me so much and I just couldn't enjoy the old stuff anymore because I knew what happened later.

And I know that there are lots of other movies that were ruined with unnecessary sequels later but non of them infuriated me as much as the Tangled series. Tangled the movie basically showed a story with everything I like about romance and the series did the exact opposite: Showing every toxic trope I hate about bad romance.

The healthiest option is to let it go entirely. Because if fewer people like Tangled, Disney will at least stop milking this fairy tale and not produce another Tangled 2 or Tangled 3 like they are doing with Frozen or Moana. And if more people quit modern Disney then they will at least have a flop every once in a while like with the snow white remake which they deserve. Or they will cancel future projects that could ruin another movie, like they did with the Tiana series, which is really a win because I don't even want to think about how they would have ruined her and Naveen in a series. A bad series is also a million times more harmful than a bad sequel because it has so much more runtime. The Tangled series is like 16 bad sequels of Tangled whereas something like Beauty and the Beast only has two bad sequels.The best option is just to reject every bad modern movie or series and not to pay too much attention to old movies that are good otherwise companies like Disney will just ruin them as well with bad sequels.

I really loved Tangled but it was turned into something I hate and my mind can't just forget about this betrayal. And I don't want to constantly pretend it didn't happen and then get triggered every time I see or read something about the series, I would rather say goodbye. Because giving a movie you love too much attention does more harm than goo because some stories just aren't meant to have sequels or to be turned into franchises because they were based on preexisting stories or fairy tales that never got sequels in centuries, and any followups could just easily mess up a perfect ending.

And I'm still convinced the only Disney movies who should have sequels are the ones who are either based on stories which already had sequels like Tarzan or the ones that are original ideas like Zootopia (even though I'm sure a sequel could easily ruin that story as well). But Tangled was never meant to have a sequel and the series ruined everything good about it.

How Tangled: The Series Undermines the Original Film — And Why We’re Allowed to Reject It

Let’s get one thing straight: You’re allowed to love the original Tangled movie. You’re allowed to reject Tangled: The Series. You’re allowed to protect the version of the story that meant something to you.

Because what the series did wasn’t just lazy or inconsistent—it was insulting. It took two beautifully written characters, Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene, and systematically warped them under the guise of “progress.” And it hurts. Especially when you're expected to applaud it.

The series builds itself on the patriarchal narrative that marriage is a prison—but only for women. That if a man proposes, he must be trying to “trap” her. That commitment is the enemy of independence. That wanting to build a life with someone you love is... antifeminist?

This entire framing is deeply regressive, wrapped in a modern, faux-progressive ribbon.

In the time period the story is set in, marriage was the only socially accepted way for two people—especially a princess and a commoner—to be together. A rejected proposal would have meant the end of that relationship. The original fairy tale understood this. Even the Tangled Ever After short did. But the series demands you ignore all of that for the sake of its shallow, revisionist messaging.

And the disrespect doesn’t stop there.

Flynn/Eugene, once the best-written male love interest Disney ever gave us—a flawed, complex, survivor—is reduced to a sidekick. A punchline. His entire arc from the film is undermined when the series implies that “Flynn Rider” wasn’t a mask or a coping mechanism, but his “real self.” Suddenly he’s not a man who grew through love and vulnerability, but just another "womanizing thief."

What made the Tangled movie so profound was that it challenged those assumptions. Rapunzel looked at Eugene’s worst parts and said, “I see you. And I like you better this way.” She validated him when society never did. She listened. And he listened back. They grew together.

The series throws all that away.

Now Rapunzel lies to him, gaslights him, and mocks his trauma (and yes, from what I've seen, she does make fun of his past as an orphan—and the show plays it off like nothing). Why? Because now she's a princess in power, and according to modern “girlboss” feminism, that power alone is what defines her worth. Compassion, emotional intelligence, and reciprocal respect apparently aren’t needed anymore.

The fact that Flynn’s backstory was rewritten to make him look shallow while Rapunzel gets enabled in every mistake she makes isn’t empowering—it's just bad writing. This isn't feminist storytelling. It’s insecure posturing dressed up as representation.

And what makes this even harder to swallow is how criticism of the series is treated online. Fans who point out these inconsistencies or express their pain over how the characters were twisted are mocked. Labeled “anti-feminist.” Told they’re just “nostalgic” or “don’t get it.”

Meanwhile, it’s somehow fair game to endlessly criticize the older princesses for marrying young—even when they were simply written in a historically accurate context. Snow White, Cinderella, Ariel—they get dragged for “not being feminist enough,” but a series like this that twists love into weakness and turns vulnerability into comedy is held up as “progress”?

Let’s be clear: You can’t claim to be rewriting history when your version makes less sense, both historically and psychologically.

The creators claim this is canon—but canon is not law. These characters don’t exist outside of what the writers decide for them, and that means we, as viewers, get to choose what we accept. These are not real people—they are creative tools, and we have the right to curate our experience.

You don’t have to accept a version of the story that spits in the face of what you loved.

Reject the series. Embrace the movie. Love the fairy tale. You’re allowed to.