"Rapunzel:Unbraided" Coming Unglued?

[Sarangel]

This comes from Jim Hill:

Though "Rapunzel" isn't actually supposed to hit theaters 'til sometime in 2008, WDFA has already been heavily promoting this picture (EX: Having the film's director -- Disney animation legend Glen Keane -- make an appearance at SIGGRAPH 2005. With the hope that Glen's appearance might convince the cream of today's animators to come work for the Mouse House). And -- up until just recently -- the buzz on "Rapunzel Unbraided" has been mostly positive.

Oh, sure. There had been a few whispers about the film's screenplay. Which seemed to be all over the place. First the script was thought to take a far-too-traditional approach to the source material. But then the next version of "Rapunzel Unbraided" 's screenplay ... That was said to be far too jokey. Yet another "Shrek" clone.

And then there was the whole Reese Witherspoon issue. To explain: With the hope of that this might convince the star of "Legally Blonde" to come on board as the voice of Rapunzel, Disney Studios allegedly offered Ms. Witherspoon an executive producer position on "Rapunzel Unbraided." Which meant that Reese would supposedly have considerable say-so over how her character would be portrayed.

Unfortunately, the whole Ms.-Witherspoon-as-executive-producer didn't really work out. Reese reportedly had lots & lots of ideas about how to improve "Rapunzel Unbraided." But few (if any) of her ideas were actually workable for an animated feature.

Which is Ms. Witherspoon eventually got frustrated with the project and quietly exited "Rapunzel Unbraided" earlier this year. According to her reps, her reason for leaving the picture was that " ... 'Rapunzel Unbraided' was no longer the film that Reese had originally signed on to do." Which is why the co-star of "Walk the Line" decided to take a walk.

So that left "Rapunzel Unbraided" without a name actress to voice the film's title character. Plus the project's screenplay lacked a consistant tone and/or a strong emotional arc.

So if you're a WDFA exec, what do you do in a situation like this? When your multi-million dollar prestige production is clearly in trouble? It's simple, really. You shut your picture down for serious retooling.

According to what I've been hearing, that's what's going on right now. Glen Keane has reportedly gone into hiding as he tries to come up with a new workable storyline for this film. Mind you, given that Glen is a first-time director on "Rapunzel Unbraided" ... Well, there are a number of folks at the studio who are supposedly very concerned that Keane is now the guy who's deciding what Disney's "Rapunzel" should really be about.

"Why is that a problem?," you query. Well, no one's disputing that Keane is a master animator. But to have a guy who's directing his very first animated feature suddenly become the unofficial head of story on that same picture ... That seems like an awfully large workload. One that might actually crush a first time film-maker.

Which is why a lot of WDFA insiders are hoping that Glen soon reaches out to the other members of the studio's story department to help get the film's script back on track. So that Keane can then take advantage of their talents. More importantly, so that "Rapunzel Unbraided" can then be put back into active development / production.

Of course, that's the other reason why Feature Animation vets hope that Keane quickly comes up with a new workable storyline for "Rapunzel Unbraided." Until this project officially goes back into development / production, that means that the WDFA staffers who were already assigned to this film have to find temporary positions on the studio's other CG projects, "A Day with Wilbur Robinson" and "American Dog." And if they can't find a new in-house gig ... These WDFA employees may soon find themselves on the outside of the Mouse Factory, looking in.

"So what sort of changes is Glen Keane reportedly making to the storyline of 'Rapunzel Unbraided?," you ask. Well, the way I understand it ... Given all the criticism that's being leveled at "Chicken Little" for that film having far too many pop culture jokes and film references ... That's the stuff that Glen is supposedly cutting out of "Rapunzel." All the "Shrek"-like stuff.

Mind you, virtually every great animated film has gone through a moment like this. "Toy Story," "The Lion King," "Aladdin." These films all had to be shut down in mid-production for significant retooling. And -- once these animated features solved their story problems -- they all went on to become better, stronger, more entertaining pictures.

So here's hoping that "Rapunzel Unbraided" follows the very same path. That this still-in-production film emerges from its current retooling with a much better story. Because -- to be honest -- the folks who work at Disney Feature Animation could really use a bit of good news right about now.

 

[Peter Pirate]

At this point I'd like to ask Mr. Voice (if he's around) to comment on his opinion of how common this type of action might be today? Must it spell doom? Or can the be breakthrough possibilities again be repeated?

 

[CarnotaurDad]

I wouldn't mind taking out the Shrek like references and coming up with a more classic movie in the traditional Disney sense.

CL was good for what it is (our daughter is in love with everything about it), but it certainly isn't a classic.

 

[Another Voice]

Mr. Pirate – generally in Hollywood this is called putting a movie in “turn-around”. It is very, very, very, very seldom a good thing. The general practice is that a studio will offer to sell all its rights and all its work-to-date to another studio should they decide to finish the movie. This does occasionally happen (as when Disney sold off The Lord of the Rings to New Line).

Note, this is different than movies with script troubles. Sometimes, because of the speed that things need to happen, some pre-production work will begin before an acceptable script is complete. If you know who the main characters are, know the main settings and have a good idea about the general plot, there’s a lot you can do before you start filming. Sometimes, the script takes longer to iron out and the “everything else” catches up.

But at some point in to the development process, you know if the film is going to work or not. In most cases, especially in live action features, it’s generally better to walk away from the movie than throw additional money at and hope you’ll get right this time around. Animation, because of its long lead time and high expense, can be slightly different. So much time and money has already been spent that sometimes it’s worth sticking it out. When Empire in the Sun ran into troubles, Disney picked up scraps of design and characters and created The Emporer’s New Groove out of the pieces*.

There has, obviously, been a lot of buzz about Hollywood concerning Disney’s future in animation. The general consensus is that Disney wants to stop all in house production. Who they buy their movies from – Pixar, Vanguard, Dreamworks or Joe & Pirates Film-o-Matic – has yet to be decided.




* - Although many people claim that had things gone as the studio wanted, the entire effort would have been scrapped. At the time, Disney was following a “global” strategy to their animation. Each film would be taken from a different culture – Mulan from China, Lion King from Africa, a planned film about an elephant herd for India. It was hoped that each film would be a big hit in that region and become the focal point for Disney’s global expansion. Disney has always been strong in South America and the marketing people were demanding a film, so Empire was remade.

 

[SoCalKDG]

This comes from Jim Hill:

It should be noted that Jim Hill has now come out and said the reason the movie is being moved back is due to the imminent agreement between Pixar and Disney.

 

[YoHo]

If this means anything, it means that Jim Hill's sources are feeding him a line.

 

[RyMickey]

I wouldn't mind taking out the Shrek like references and coming up with a more classic movie in the traditional Disney sense.

Couldn't agree more. This has been my problem with animated movies as of late. I despise the Shrek pop-culture references. I can't see flicks like this having any lasting value...more of an "I love it at the moment" kind of thing.

If this means anything, it means that Jim Hill's sources are feeding him a line.

You're absolutely right...but I still find it enjoyable to read the lies (oops...I mean lines) anyway.

 

[YoHo]

Oh Jim is definatly one of the more interesting Disney reads on the net.