|
Tangled
May 23, 2013 20:32:02 GMT -5
Post by icyheart16 on May 23, 2013 20:32:02 GMT -5
What Butters says does make sense. Besides, it was her tear that healed Flynn when he had died... Or am I wrong?
|
|
|
Tangled
May 23, 2013 22:30:23 GMT -5
Post by Donald Duck on May 23, 2013 22:30:23 GMT -5
Yeah, it was. That's part of the confusion for me. Just because her hair was cut, doesn't mean the magic was gone, which is evident when she cried. The only thing I can think of was that it was a different source of magic
|
|
|
Tangled
May 24, 2013 16:44:01 GMT -5
Post by icyheart16 on May 24, 2013 16:44:01 GMT -5
Well... let's just have this conversation in spoilers, sha'll we? Okay... I understand that her power was "in her hair". However, her mother ate the plant. Which could mean, possibly, that the powers of the plant were passed down to her internally.
But then again, Disney has this thing for true love conquers all and yadda yadda.
Beauty and the Beast, for example. Beast was dead/dying/whatever. Belle kissed him with true loves kiss, thus breaking the spells hold on him, which should of just transformed him back into a human. But no... her kiss and tear brought him back to life.
Or am I wrong? Perhaps we aren't supposed to understand it 100%. It is, after all, a work of fiction.
|
|
|
Tangled
May 24, 2013 16:49:36 GMT -5
Post by Butterscotch on May 24, 2013 16:49:36 GMT -5
Yeah, it was. That's part of the confusion for me. Just because her hair was cut, doesn't mean the magic was gone, which is evident when she cried. The only thing I can think of was that it was a different source of magic I've seen a few theories about that: -tears always would have worked; Gothel learned the hair was magic and never bothered trying to learn any other way to work her spell, which is lucky for Rapunzel -the tear was a last manifestation of her magic. This is a really common theory; apparently the novelization of the movie said something to this effect, and lots of people regard it as canon Or maybe an eyelash fell off when she was crying and that did it.
|
|
|
Tangled
May 24, 2013 16:51:27 GMT -5
Post by icyheart16 on May 24, 2013 16:51:27 GMT -5
All hail magical eyelashes!!!! Bahahaha!
|
|
|
Tangled
Jun 19, 2013 21:46:27 GMT -5
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jun 19, 2013 21:46:27 GMT -5
Well... let's just have this conversation in spoilers, sha'll we? Okay... I understand that her power was "in her hair". However, her mother ate the plant. Which could mean, possibly, that the powers of the plant were passed down to her internally.
But then again, Disney has this thing for true love conquers all and yadda yadda.
Beauty and the Beast, for example. Beast was dead/dying/whatever. Belle kissed him with true loves kiss, thus breaking the spells hold on him, which should of just transformed him back into a human. But no... her kiss and tear brought him back to life.
Or am I wrong? Perhaps we aren't supposed to understand it 100%. It is, after all, a work of fiction. I just watched Beauty and the Beast last night and Belle first kisses him after the transformation. The moment that begins the Beast's transformation is when Belle says "I love you." For Rapunzel, I think the healing abilities of the flower were genetic. They may well be passed onto her offspring as well. Not that I necessarily want another sequel.
|
|
jupiter23
Disney Master
Posts: 284
Favourite Movie: Tangled
|
Tangled
Jul 6, 2013 19:48:32 GMT -5
Post by jupiter23 on Jul 6, 2013 19:48:32 GMT -5
For Rapunzel, I think the healing abilities of the flower were genetic. They may well be passed onto her offspring as well. Not that I necessarily want another sequel. My personal headcanon regarding the healing power is that if there was any of it left at all, Eugene wound up with it when it brought him back to life. So if this theoretical sequel does happen, this would make for an interesting road to explore.
|
|
|
Tangled
Jul 6, 2013 22:11:30 GMT -5
Post by icyheart16 on Jul 6, 2013 22:11:30 GMT -5
I never thought of that, Jupiter. That would be a rather interesting plot. However, I'm with BRP in not really desiring a sequel for this one.
|
|
|
Tangled
Jul 7, 2013 21:32:43 GMT -5
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jul 7, 2013 21:32:43 GMT -5
The filmmakers have already stated that they will not make a sequel for the sake of making a sequel. And after the backlash against almost all the direct to DVD sequels, they will need a reson to make a sequel.
|
|
jupiter23
Disney Master
Posts: 284
Favourite Movie: Tangled
|
Tangled
Jul 8, 2013 10:09:17 GMT -5
Post by jupiter23 on Jul 8, 2013 10:09:17 GMT -5
When you think about it, most movies that get a sequel at all, Direct to DVD or not, are only getting one for the sake of having one. A lot of studios don't need any more of a reason than that. Don't get me wrong, I'm actually in agreement with most of you that I don't think they should make a sequel to Tangled either. I think the entire franchise should be left alone as it is and let the fans use their own imaginations as to what the characters all do with the rest of their lives.
|
|
|
Tangled
Jul 8, 2013 20:01:30 GMT -5
Post by Briar Rose's Dark Knight on Jul 8, 2013 20:01:30 GMT -5
In the case of Tangled, I have no problem if the filmmakers sit around one day and decide that they have a new story they want to tell featuring these characters and then go to Disney animation with their idea.
On the other hand, I don't want to see some management type decide that Disney needs to make a sequel to Tangled because people really liked the first one.
|
|
jupiter23
Disney Master
Posts: 284
Favourite Movie: Tangled
|
Tangled
Jul 8, 2013 21:43:44 GMT -5
Post by jupiter23 on Jul 8, 2013 21:43:44 GMT -5
Meh, I could live with a Tangled sequel if they do it in a way that does the first one justice. I speak mostly from my general opinion on Disney sequels, as I feel most of them were only done for the sake of milking more money out of a particular franchise. I digress, though. On a different subject, I was lurking around on TVTropes.org earlier when I came across something interesting in regards to Tangled that I've not seen or heard of anywhere else. It seems that Disney threw in some subliminal messaging regarding the Sun Flower in this movie, namely what happens when you get addicted to drugs. Think about it: Gothel finds a plant that restores her youth and beauty and makes her feel good, but then eventually she needs another "fix." Over time it gets to the point where she'll do anything to keep getting her fix, even if it ruins someone else's life in the process. And also over time she builds up a tolerance, so that she needs more and more of it after shorter amounts of time in order to keep functioning, because by this point she can't live without it (in Gothel's case, she literally can't live without it.) Whereas you have other characters who are exposed to it for such short amounts of time, or somehow see the effects it really has on the people involved in it, that they not only could live without it, but also see that in the end it does more harm than good and therefore are able to keep from getting addicted. Thought that this was something that would make for interesting discussion.
|
|
|
Tangled
Jul 9, 2013 17:43:26 GMT -5
Post by Silver on Jul 9, 2013 17:43:26 GMT -5
Jupiter23- Actually I though about addiction to plastic surgery when I first watched it. (Drugs also came tyo mind later) I admire your courage to bringing up this topic.
|
|
|
Tangled
Jul 9, 2013 19:00:10 GMT -5
Post by icyheart16 on Jul 9, 2013 19:00:10 GMT -5
Wow! Am I that daft, or am I the only one who has never put all that much thought into subliminal messaging in movies? Yes, everyone associates Alice in Wonderland with acid and such (the question as to whether or not you like the movie is on most psych evaluation tests in reference to see if you "like" drugs). But any other one: just a story to me. I don't read that deep. However, now that it has been brought to my attention, I do see the strong points that do indicate it to be true. And, as the ending of the movie showed, were the subliminal messages meant to be, bad addictions like that CAN lead to death, as we were shown when mother Gothel died.
|
|
jupiter23
Disney Master
Posts: 284
Favourite Movie: Tangled
|
Tangled
Jul 9, 2013 19:51:09 GMT -5
Post by jupiter23 on Jul 9, 2013 19:51:09 GMT -5
Silver--LOL Thanks. I hadn't thought about it being related to plastic surgery addiction, though. But I can also see how that works.
Arielle--Give me enough time (and a crayon) and I can over-analyze anything straight to death. An underlying message about the dangers of drug addiction is among the milder of the hidden and subliminal messages I've reasoned out of or otherwise read about Tangled alone.
[Offtopic: A friend of mine told me some time ago that Alice In Wonderland, when it originally was written, was not in fact the result of a drug trip like so many believe. Actually, the author was a math teacher and was in the middle of the time period when they were starting to introduce algebra into math curriculums in schools, and he thought that all these new forms of math were straight-up ridiculous. So his purpose behind writing Alice In Wonderland was to actually make fun of all these new versions of math that involved the alphabet.]
|
|