#marie95disneygirl

[bellaaldamas]

Do you think that if Disney makes a live action remake of tangled exactly as that horrible, awful Tangled TV show that it will be worse than the series? I originally thought it won't be as horrible because a remake will at least not be canon but I think it will be just as bad even if it's its own canon because more people will see and praise it and I think it would completely destroy any last love I have for the movie. How would you cope if the live action remake happens and is just as bad?

My position remains firm: no remake or live action adaptation can ever be as detrimental and damaging to the original as an actual canon timeline being bastardized (as you rightly point out) through character misrepresentation and assassination as it happened with the Tangled Series.

A Remake can be bad, in every way imaginable, be it in terms of the general quality of writing and directing or in terms of the take on the original story that it offers. It can be a girlboss pandering through and through, repackaging decades old cliches, stereotypes and Princess Problems Man Knows Best trope under the guise of "feminism" when it's anything but. However, it will never in any way affect the original canon, change it or take it away from the audience.

On the contrary, the Tangled Series was infinitely more harmful than any remake and a thousand times more contributory to the mission of girlbossification, suppression of woman's romantic agency in the media under the guise of "progressiveness", promotion of toxic female dynamics and reinforcement of the idea marriage and family are a prison for a woman but still a pure and beautiful "new dream" for a man.

A man can even "pour his heart out to a frog" and it is going to be treated as a comedic relief moment undoing all the emotional depth of the scene it was mocking (the campfire scene from the original, a vital bonding point for Rapunzel and Flynn where they were completely on equal footing and completely honest with each other and it was THEN that the literal and figurative sparks started flying). But for a man/male character it is never going to be a literal daytime nightmare that the idea of marrying Flynn/Eugene ended up being for Rapunzel in the series. Rapunzel wasn't having nightmares and anxieties caused by a lifetime of abuse from Gothel. She was having those nightmares and anxieties because patriarchy modern and improved! feminist! girlbossed! Disney tells women marriage means an automatic loss of freedom and individuality for them but not for men.

Men can still enjoy and cherish the idea of marital commitment because they know they won't be doing any work/labor in a familial relationship, as said work/labor has always been and always will be woman's job. And she better NOT try to break this stereotype or dare to expect an equal contribution from her male partner like the "weak and unfeminist" Rapunzel did in the original movie. Patriarchy Modern and improved! feminist! girlbossed! Disney dictates that men are simply incapable of operating with women on equal footing. Men, the poor things, are too fragile, too juvenile, too delicate when it comes to their ego and self confidence to respect a woman and/or make sacrifices to preserve her agency and free will like the OG Flynn did when he literally died for Rapunzel to preserve hers.

These days, patriarchy Disney Feminism TM says that under NO circumstances should a woman expect for a man to put in an equal amount of work in a relationship.

A man/male romantic interest in the modern media can only ever be a useless babbling boyfriend trope because that's the only way a female lead can hold her own and be worthy of respect and acknowledgment and not revoke her girlboss status. Patriarchy Disney has known this all along and now they are finally telling it like it is and have turned themselves into a worldwide laughingstock are praised and commended for becoming feminist and progressive.

On a serious note, as I discussed many times before, Disney Princess franchise was sent down the Hans Twist Drain with Frozen whilst the Tangled series was the funeral.

The reason for that and a much bigger problem than the series itself - even with all the irreversible damage said series inflicted upon the OG film - is that the audience ate it up both times, hook, line and sinker.

The "anti-woke" crowd which makes everyone's existence unbearable all over the internet when it sees women and non-white people in the protagonist roles in any media was NOWHERE to be seen when "oh, Anna, if only there was someone out there who loved you" happened. Or when Flynn's mental therapy session with the "frog" (actually Pascal) happened.

The Troll Who Cried "Woke" was nowhere around when Disney obnoxiously and unashamedly misrepresented the nature of the previous princess films with the aforementioned Hans Twist. Especially the classics, where the heroines broke their backs working their hardest and making the best out of the worst possible situations despite years of abuse and exploitation (like most women in real life do, unless they are overly privileged in multiple respects; that's what made those movies compelling and female driven).

But according to "feminist" Frozen they were naive and hormonal creatures out for "twoo wuv", married men "they just met" (literally not one of them did that) and were incapable of clear judgment when confronted with a pretty face. They all needed to be punished for their desires by patriarchy feminism.

It is not like Cinderella did not ever dream about a man of any kind - prince or not - and only wanted one evening for herself after a lifetime of mistreatment and forced labor. And even when she met the prince at the ball she enjoyed talking to him because HE treated her with respect while SHE had no idea who he was.

And it is not like Aurora literally turned Phillip down and ran away in the opposite direction when he asked her out on a date. It is not like she only agreed to have said date if it was on her terms, at her chosen time and on a condition her guardians - Aunties/Fairies - will be present. So it would be safe for her and they could see what he is about and give their input.

But it was extremely "outdated and unfeminist" because Aurora maintained the right to her own agency and self expression and it was her choice whether to request her family's opinion (or anyone's for that matter). Patriarchy Improved! Feminist! Disney declares that a woman is too gullible and emotional and prone to the effects of PMS to know her own mind, understand her own feelings and pass accurate judgment on men. Men are just naturally better than women at psychology and mind games, didn't you know?

Hence why Feminist Frozen had an anti-social sister, anti-social mountain recluse and a Snowman insert their unsolicited input about Anna's romantic decisions and eventually be proven right. Anna was just a superficial hormonal thing "desperate for love" and that's why she fell so easily into an elaborate trap of Hans (not because he is a pathetic unaccomplished liar dreaming of living out his Nice Guy Power Fantasy).

Hans, on one hand, was shown to be a miserable incel harboring bitterness and jealousy over his older brothers and on the other hand was a creative mastermind who could read Anna, her insecurities and her whole backstory just by looking at her and hearing her responses to their fun "couple song" in the beginning. With such an impressive arsenal of manipulative tools and mind reading at his disposal he still could not make anything out of himself or obtain power until he stumbled upon an "ideal victim" - a Stupid Teenage Girl TM who "doesn't know what love is".

Everyone else knows better even if they never had any relationship experience or also lived in isolation or considered reindeers to be better than people or are a day old Snowman who totally does know what love is better than any hormonal teenage girl but doesn't even know that snow melts in summer. ANNA is the "dumb one" here because she wants romance, make no mistake.

All of the above is not a laughably lazy, contrived, overtly sexist writing, it is Anna being that gullible and Disney being that "feminist". So "feminist" it built an entire premise of both this film and those to come on the idea women cannot think rationally/clearly when they are in love and/or when there is a man in their vicinity. Thus, they are no longer romantic stories in the Princess franchise.

And people - I can't emphasize it enough - ate it all up.

Even with Frozen, there was a glimmer of a chance it was to remain the outlier, a product with unfortunate implications that doesn't end up determining the direction for the DP franchise for years to come. But then there came the Tangled Series and delivered a crushing, deathly blow to the said franchise not even by presenting a new story with new characters (like Frozen did) but by twisting and spitting on everything that was good and empowering about the existing original.

The anti-woke crowd was silent and enjoyed every minute of it because the leads were white (just like it remained silent at the obvious pseudo-progressive pandering that was Frozen for the very same reason). Those same people, notably, are now "happy" the Tangled Live Action has seemingly been canned after the Snow White fiasco not because they do not want Rapunzel's characterization and the overall story to be misrepresented like it already was in the series. But because they are/were "afraid" her Live Action version would not be white.

Progressives, for their part, praised the Tangled Series just like the anti-woke bigots did: because "weak and unfeminist" Rapunzel was finally "strong and feminist" in the series. Especially when she grew out her magical hair back and ultimately cut it on her own like a badass girlboss vs a "weakling abuse victim" who dared to think she was worthy of support from her partner in the OG movie.

Both crowds, of course, never admitted and still do not admit they are one and the same and hate women equally.

They also would never admit the series is an openly pro-abuse narrative (the opposite of the original, anti-abuse narrative) where Rapunzel is stuck in a cycle of toxic platonic relationship with Cassandra. Who is using the very same tactics Gothel did but on a smaller scale and in a different way. Except it is "empowering" because Cassandra is young, attractive and mysterious and Gothel was an Evil Older Woman TM.

The OG movie obviously did not frame Gothel as evil because of her age but because of her abusive behavior (most of which she practiced while being transformed through Rapunzel's powers into a stunningly attractive younger lady). But the "feminist" series reduced not only the deuteragonist - Flynn - to the babbling boyfriend trope. It reduced the main villain from the original movie, Gothel, to the "Evil Older Woman" and "Bad Mother" trope, both in regards to Rapunzel AND Cassandra.

If those stereotypes are not "feminist" enough for you, how about Gothel's antithesis in the series? Not one but TWO Virtuous Fathers TM in the form of the Captain of the Guards (a Real Adoptive Parent vs Fake Adoptive Parent who is actually the aforementioned Evil Older Woman). Who took pity on Cassandra and did his parental minimum and that's why he's a hero (men are praised for so much as not leaving children for dead and that's already enough for them to be hailed as fathers of the century).

Second Gothel's antithesis? Did not manage to even do said parental minimum or any parenting at all: Flynn's biological deadbeat father. An abuser whom Rapunzel - herself a victim of lifelong "parental" abuse - encouraged Flynn to forgive. Because platonic relationship, even with families who betrayed and wronged you, are "bootiful and pure" whilst romance is dirty, nasty and turns women into hormonal creatures incapable of rational thinking. Patriarchy Improved! Feminist! Disney wouldn't lie to you.

Admittedly, Disney did have its chance to go back to the roots of the Princess franchise with the well done remake of The Little Mermaid. Ariel's character remained true to herself, to her defiance and to persistent assertion of her views and goals against her father's patriarchal pressure. The Live Action, moreover, legitimately excelled at fixing one of the major issues with the original animated TLM franchise - the fridging of Ariel's mother to make Triton and his bigotry towards humans look more "sympathetic".

In the LA, Triton repeatedly uses the matter of Ariel's mother's death as a deliberately manipulative tool to shame Ariel for her thirst for knowledge, her open mind and her refusal to perpetuate his bigotry. The movie explicitly frames this tactic of Triton as a form of guilt tripping and as borderline emotionally abusive.

No less important is that Ariel preserves her romantic agency and her arc in the LA does not turn into a cautionary tale. Her attraction to Eric remains a liberating force symbolizing her fight for independence, as opposed to being treated as a worse type of prison than her father's manipulative patriarchal environment. The mutual work both Ariel and Eric invest in pursuing their attraction and fighting for their happy ending is the key driving force of their romantic arc, even with the climax being changed to have Ariel defeat Ursula ("I didn’t fight alone, Father. Eric was with me").

Eric's motivation and development underwent considerably more changes than that of Ariel; whose goals, motives and personality remained virtually identical to her OG version. While OG Eric does not get anywhere near as much credit as he deserves for his own undeniable depth and complexity his Live Action counterpart and his struggles work just as well within the (changed) psychological context of his situation. This is how a character can/should be respectfully remade and coexist with their original counterpart.

If Disney REALLY wanted to expand on the Tangled 2010 and give the characters more depth they could have released a Live Action where Flynn's arc diverges, in a similar manner to Eric's, from the original movie through adding psychological struggles to amplify his existing characteristics.

For instance, have LA Flynn learn where and who his father is WHILE on an adventure with Rapunzel.

Have him realize his father is privileged, a royalty, etc and have Rapunzel be the one to, at first, doubt whether they can be together because of the shocking reveal that Flynn/Eugene was born into royalty. Whereas she, as far as Rapunzel is concerned, is just a sheltered teenage girl living in the woods with her overprotective reclusive mother.

This scenario would make the reveal of Rapunzel being the "lost princess" all the more powerful, especially after Flynn/Eugene's newly found father would inevitably reject him and show his true colors yet again.

Have Flynn realize he deserves and always deserved better than a toxic deadbeat dad and have this be an additional inspirational force for Rapunzel to further rebel against Gothel (if Disney is so hellbent on making their heroines more "active"). This way, Rapunzel and Flynn would still support and uplift one another while facing extra challenges and only growing stronger, individually and as a couple.

As a bonus, the climax could be reworked to have not Flynn's former partners in crime, the Sabbington Brothers, be the ones he goes to make amends with and announce he is quitting, like in the original. Instead, have Flynn's deadbeat privileged father be the one he "needs to say goodbye to" after Rapunzel and Flynn's interrupted almost kiss on the boat.

Have Rapunzel believe Flynn had betrayed her because she is a "nobody" and he chose to stay with his privileged dad and sold out the information about her magical hair, just like Gothel warned her he would. The truth, of course, would be that Flynn's father was working with Gothel in the same way Stabbington brothers were in the OG.

Eventually Rapunzel would realize that too, prompting her to further analyze the abusive and toxic familial dynamics and understand how red flags work (rather than having a Corona Kingdom emblem epiphany which was a rather random plot device in the OG movie).

There, you have the "Flynn's Father" plot, a "more active" Rapunzel plot and a further delving into psychological aspects of the original instead of girlbossing a heroine by suppressing her romantic agency and calling it a "feminist improvement".

But Disney won't do that because the series was already reasonably successful and no one complained about the travesty that it was. Anti-woke crowd only complains when there's diversity and progressives only complain when there is romance and they will never admit they just hate women.

[bellaaldamas]

Ok, since you seem to hate the Tangled series almost as much as I do (although I still think I'm hater number one of this stupid show), I have to ask, are you still able to enjoy the Tangled movie and if yes, how? I've been trying for years to forget about it and treating it as not canon, but I'm still always reminded of it and told that I have to count it as canon and that I'm awful for hating it. This is so hard for me because Tangled was one of my favorite movies and my favorite love story.

The one reason I might not quite live up to the title of the biggest hater of this character assassinating, coping "feminism" representing train-wreck is because I quit it, I believe, midway into season 2. I was fortunate to not make it as far as the episode where Rapunzel tries to alter Flynn's personality with time travel. Because evidently, from a witty, independently thinking young woman who wasn't afraid to speak her mind in the most vulnerable and stressful situations the series turned her into a pseudo-progressive stereotype of a woman whose idea of "empowerment" is to be in the position of control and dominance. The position that would give her the power to remove other person's autonomy and agency and alter their thought process with manipulation. Thus assuming the role of Gothel (who was rightly and unequivocally shown as the abuser in the OG movie) or, as is the case with most of the episodes of the series that I did see, enabling and endorsing Cassandra fulfilling that role.

Except when Cassandra, a young, good looking, sword wielding "girlboss" was doing the same things as Gothel (even if on a smaller scale), playing the "I know best" card whenever things did not go her way, pushing boundaries of both Rapunzel and Flynn, inserting her unsolicited, manipulative input regarding their relationship that she knew nothing about and was not knowledgeable on the context of it is "feminist and "progressive". According to modern and "aware" Disney, only older women can be abusers; young girlbosses could never.

Cassandra started ignoring boundaries and gaslighting Rapunzel and Flynn, aiding toxicity and lies into their relationship from the very first episode when she accused Flynn/Eugene of being "selfish" for wanting to marry Rapunzel. When a man wants an equal, responsible life long commitment with a woman he considers his partner and whose agency he once literally died for this is "not feminist" and means an automatic loss of freedom - but only for a woman. A man gets to enjoy the idea of marriage and becoming a husband whilst for a woman marriage has to be inextricably associated with her signing up for being a one dimensional, superficial, suppressed doormat with no interests and ambitions of her own.

Progressive Disney and Cassandra said so and they "know best". After all, women are too "fragile", "gullible" and "naive" to know their own minds and need the all knowing society and big corporations to teach them how to be feminist. Where did we hear this rhetoric before?

Right, from Gothel, whom the original Tangled - again - framed clearly as an abuser and manipulator.

Original movie challenged the system of abuse and oppression women experience whereas the series reinforces it but does it under the guise of feminism. In actuality it is repackaging the most ancient patriarchal ideas: that a woman becomes trapped in a marriage and turns into a property of her husband, unable to assert herself any longer, have fulfillment and desires of her own. Instead of challenging this patriarchal notion Disney goes on to reinforce it using Rapunzel and Cassandra as it's mouth-pieces.

This is, as mentioned above, a "coping feminism", not an actual feminism. Instead of breaking the stereotype that a woman loses herself and her autonomy when she gets married Disney has Rapunzel buy into this stereotype and equate marriage with a life long prison. Having daytime nightmares not about her actual imprisonment in the tower by Gothel for 18 years (which would have been a natural psychological reaction in-universe and an opportunity for Disney to explore the subject of PTSD) but about marrying Flynn/Eugene. The series narrative frames it so that in Rapunzel's mind marriage and forced isolation and removal of autonomy are one and the same.

Therefore, in order to escape her fear imposed by this patriarchal "marriage is a prison for women" stereotype Disney not only doesn't have Rapunzel confront it and talk it over with Flynn and move on from this flawed thinking but encourages this stereotype through Cassandra.

Hence why we got an open mockery of one of the most powerful moments in the original Tangled movie canon: the campfire scene. In the series said scene received (as I mentioned before in my break down post) a "reprise" in the form of Flynn/Eugene once again opening up about some of his most traumatic experiences of growing up as an orphan to who he thinks is Rapunzel. In the OG movie Rapunzel returned his genuine effort and willingness to listen to her own experiences with isolation and abuse ("that's why I never left...") and made it clear she was not only ready but wanted to listen to Flynn's "sob story", even when he was reluctant to share it.

But the new, "progressive" sequel of Rapunzel's story does not allow for equal communication between a man and a woman (modern Disney does not believe women can handle it).

Instead, the series implements a "twist" where it is revealed that Hans was evil all along and tricked "stupid and clueless" Anna so easily because teenage girls are servants to their hormones and can't think clearly when in love and Disney is so progressive and feminist for finally realizing it Flynn/Eugene had been talking to a "frog" (Pascal) all along instead of Rapunzel. The "pouring my heart out to a frog" was an actual punchline for a joke.

A scene that had a profound meaning and showcased equal communication in the original film was warped into a cheap comedic relief moment with zero depth and an even more offensive follow up when Flynn realized the real Rapunzel had lied to him and her parents and ran away from the castle. Of course this behavior is enabled by Cassandra, the ultimate avatar of the "progressive modern Disney".

Instead of Cassandra being a complex well developed character who would urge Rapunzel to think, analyze and rise above stereotypes about woman's role in a spousal relationship (which would have perfectly complemented Rapunzel's arc in the OG film where her analytical thinking was so acute she would chart stars and make observations despite the confinement of her tower that she never left) Cassandra is perpetuating and playing into Rapunzel's misplaced view of marriage and aids her in lying to and distancing herself from Flynn.

This is a prime example of "coping feminism": instead of challenging the system the narrative - and Cassandra - make Rapunzel conform to it and avoid the issue rather than tackling it head on.

And all that in the very first episode of this insulting product of Disney's faux progressive pandering. It was only natural that what followed next was a further assassination of Rapunzel and Flynn's characters individually and as a couple, reduction of Flynn to a useless comedic relief sidekick (because again, progressive media and modern Disney do not believe women have enough emotional intelligence to communicate with men on equal footing therefore men have to be robbed of any competence) and the ultimate "feminist twist" in the climax. Where Disney copied and pasted the arguments from victim blaming "progressives" about how original movie Rapunzel was "weak" for not cutting off her hair on her own.

In the series, thus, Rapunzel does cut it off on her own whilst Flynn's sacrifice is not only nullified but rendered useless, just like himself (he remains incapacitated throughout the entire scene). Cherry on top is that Rapunzel does this not for herself or him but chiefly for Cassandra - who spent the whole series violating her and Flynn's autonomy. But that's acceptable, progressive and good because Cassandra "knows best".

This was Disney's ultimate moment of "coping feminism". Very deliberately, they validated the "Rapunzel should have cut off her hair on her own to prove she is strong" rhetoric. Which not only places responsibility for escaping abuse on a victim but, from the standpoint of psychology and media criticism, feeds into the idea that if a victim can't leave an abusive situation they are "not trying hard enough and deserve what they get".

Finally, from the standpoint of feminist analysis and representation of women in popular media, this notion forces women to act within the system of abuse and oppression (but in a "badass", "girlboss" manner) instead of challenging it.

Original movie did challenge this system: instead of having Rapunzel accept the conditions imposed by her abuser Gothel (they make a deal that benefits Gothel where Rapunzel pleads to be allowed to heal Flynn at the expense of her freedom) or cut off her hair within those conditions (Gothel wants Rapunzel's hair for her selfish needs, Rapunzel cuts it off, abuser's needs are not met but remain the focus of the situation/resolution of the situation) Rapunzel and Flynn both reclaim the narrative.

Rapunzel reclaims the narrative by bonding with first the thugs from the pub (despite their unconventional and, on a surface level, frightening exterior and outcast status in the society) and then Flynn. As well as by eventually choosing to use not the blackmail, trickery or frying pan wielding antics (those "girlboss" attributes only ever got her and Flynn in trouble and delayed Rapunzel's goal to see the lanterns) but communication, empathy and partnership. That's the entire reason why the thugs were able to break Flynn out of jail and he was able to get to the tower in time: because of the situation Rapunzel created through learning and breaking stereotypes. Be it stereotypes imposed by the society (the thugs cannot be trusted because they are a marginalized and ostracized - "malicious, mean and scary" - underprivileged group, Flynn is a lowly orphaned thief who will use and take advantage of someone as "naive" and inexperienced as Rapunzel) or those imposed by Gothel (people are inherently dangerous, Rapunzel is "too weak to handle herself" and the rest is the same as the societal stereotypes described in previous parentheses because Gothel's character represented them).

In the series Rapunzel learns exactly nothing: she conforms to the very same stereotypes the original movie challenged.

Worse of all is that the existence of the series cannot be ignored - and this is where your perfectly valid questions comes into play. The series IS canon because it is set in the same universe and timeline as the OG movie's ending and precedes the wedding short.

One can think what they will about the Disney Live Action remakes. Some of them are good and honor the original story and romance (like the Live Action Little Mermaid), others are as much a pandering pseudo-feminist pieces suppressing woman's romantic agency as the Tangled series (LA Mulan). But unlike the series none of the remakes, competent or not, affects the original canon. Remakes exist as add-ons to said canon and whether or not to engage with them or acknowledge them at all is up to a consumer. Same thing cannot be done with the Tangled series because they are presented as the extension of the OG movie canon.

Therefore, my ability to enjoy the original film was severely diminished. I cannot call Tangled my favourite Disney princess movie (this title is shared by The Little Mermaid, Cinderella, Mulan and Aladdin) but the original Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene is undeniably one of the healthiest Disney romantic couples. On the contrary, the series Rapunzel and Flynn/Eugene is one of the most unhealthy relationships in animated media in general because of how they're written.

But - as responsible adults we have to recognize that neither Disney nor any other popular media, no matter how much some of it might speak to us personally or how well crafted it might occasionally be, is a factory of happiness and joy. This is business through and through and pandering to trends is something Disney and other big companies have been doing since the dawn of time. The problem is that at this point said pandering goes beyond the unavoidable conformism to modern culture climate and promotes dangerous ideas under the guise of progressiveness. Not to mention the in-universe plot related retcons that have to happen in order for such products like the Tangled series to even exist.

If we remain aware that Rapunzel, Flynn and other characters do not actually exist, have agency or any real choices beyond the powerful Disney executives' will and whims it becomes easier to recognize some developments are problematic and there is nothing we, consumers, can do about it. Other than to still enjoy the product in it's more quality and well written form by only interacting with the original movie.

We cannot control media but we can and should control our experience with it and vote with our remote and our wallet.