According to the movie’s official website, Rapunzel’s Prince, played by Billy Magnussen, has been renamed Flynn Rider: the moniker of a similar character in the 2010 film Tangled.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Into the Woods, Featuring…Flynn Rider?! Has Disney Really Changed the Character Names for the Upcoming Film?
According to the movie’s official website, Rapunzel’s Prince, played by Billy Magnussen, has been renamed Flynn Rider: the moniker of a similar character in the 2010 film Tangled.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I could see how some people would be really upset at the changing of the name of a main character from what is now a "Classic" musical, but I think it is in the spirit of the musical. If the original into the woods is meant to pull characters from every conceivable fairytale and put them all in the same world, I think its totally OK for Disney to make the movie a mash-up thrown together world of some of their characters. They will be able to put more depth and plot into an already established character than they would be able to otherwise.
By changing the name of Rapunzel's Prince to Flynn Rider, aren't they essentially changing the character? They'll have to adapt the character to fit the mould of Flynn Rider, or else the audience will be disappointed. Flynn Rider is a very popular character, and will have to be honored as such.
Still, because it is a Disney adaptation, I don't think it's awful for them to put their own spin on things. Of course, changing the essence of the characters is another thing entirely, because now there is a different story being told.
I'm curious to see what possibilities open up in the world of the film by combining both Disney and Sondheim characters.
I think the point Disney is trying to make here is that they've been modeling their characters after these age old characters from the start. I agree that this means the character will change a little to fit the Disney mold, but if this is what they have been doing all along, I think we, as viewers, can have a little faith that Disney thought (at least a bit) about what they were doing from the start of Tangled.
I believe that if anyone else was doing this, we'd all be fine with it. Disney has a bad rep for taking the dark and spooky out of fairy tales. However, I think with movies like Maleficent coming out, it seems like Disney is now comfortable with being true to the original story. If this movie does come out terribly warped, sure be mad. Until then I'm going to hope that it's being done well based on the respectably star studded cast and effort that seems to be going into the making of this film.
I have mixed feelings about these name changes. On the one hand, I agree with Chris that it is the nature of Into the Woods to adopt the known stories about fairytale characters and give the audience some familiar faces. Our understanding of fairytale characters has definitely changed since Into the Woods was written, so in some ways I feel it is a strong choice to adapt. However, I also find this to be a fairly pushy way of Disney incorporating itself and its work in a classic musical. Are they going to change the way the characters are portrayed? Will Flynn Rider be, as Zoe suggests, the same thieving, charming man he was in Tangled? I foresee more than a few forced overlaps and attempts to keep the Disney and Sondheim characters one in the same, but I also see the value in adapting for this generation. So it will certainly be interesting to see how this turns out.
This move seems very typical of Disney; I don't think the studio can adapt a certain fairy-tale or story without putting their own twist on it (see Pocahontas or any of the Grimm's fairy tales). Broadway.com has also reported another change in the Into the Woods musical: that some of the songs from the original musical have been edited out of the script. This simply points out to me the positives and negatives of giving movie rights to large producing companies like Disney or the Weinstein company; they're trying to appeal to larger audiences (which is good for publicity and money) so they will change certain 'triggering' topics to move the rating from R to PG-13 and so on. I honestly can't say I'm surprised that Disney would replace certain names with some that are more familiar. But I'm keeping in mind that a name could just be a name; I don't think Disney will go as far to completely replicate the costumes and full characters of their previous movies. At least, I hope they won't.
In some ways I understand why Disney decided to do this. They always seem to take a popular idea, tweak it, and make it their own. They performed this act with many of the grimm fairytales. But an issue at hand is that Into the Woods IS focused on the grimm versions of these fairytales that children are used to. Yes, it makes sense that Disney would change a famous staged musical (that was also filmed) for their directed audience. And yes, changing the names of the character so the new generation of children would understand the movie may be a benefit. But they are butchering a production that had a specific purpose. And they aren't even fully changing the elements of the show for it to make sense. I could go on about this movie for hours, but all in all, this is a very frustrating matter that Disney should've have changed, but we'll see how well it does in theaters... veery soon.
I think one thing that a lot of people tend to forget is that Disney doesn't own fairy tales. Disney has their own version and interpretation of fairy tales. And sometimes these versions can be interpreted as the base that others must work off of. Sondheim made his interpretation of fairy tales in Into the Woods, the same way Disney made theirs, and it upsets me a bit to think that Disney has to change somebody else's interpretation of fairy tales to fit the Disney canon
I'm really nervous about this film adaptation of "Into the Woods"- when I was younger I nearly wore out my family's VHS tape of the original production (when I was little someone asked me who my favorite singer was, and I said Bernadette Peters) so if they mess it up I'm going to be very sad. I've heard about other things they're changing (Little Red Riding Hood is apparently actually played by a little girl, and that makes the fact that her entire story line in the first act is essentially a metaphor for rape VERY disturbing). I think it's just silly to make Cinderella's Prince Flynn Rider- not only are they now completely changing the character, isn't Flynn Rider not actually a prince? and isn't he supposed to marry Rapunzel? Also, Cinderella's Prince is a kind of scummy character- he cheats on her in the woods when he's supposed to be saving everyone! Why would Disney want to put that on one of their most beloved princes? It just seems to add a whole layer of unnecessary confusion. I really hope Disney doesn't take this wonderful dark show and make it all about Disney, but it's really not looking good.
I could see why people might be upset by this, but you know what... who cares?! It actually works. This is Disney's adaptation of Into the Woods! and I'm pretty sure Cinderella's Prince is named Prince Charming... (I don't remember exactly... I was in Pit orchestra for my high school's production of the musical.) Movie makers do it all the time. Authors do it all the time. I don't think people should get their feathers in a ruffle over something like this! I was just talking about this with friends last night about how in movies or in books, there are cross characters.
I actually just read an article about the plot being changed for the Disney version. I think that is something more to get upset about than them creating cross characters... Sondheim is okay with them and actually said that if he were a Disney executive, he would do the same thing. Don't get yourself in a tizzy, relax and enjoy what looks like it will be an amazing movie!!!
Into the Woods is one of those shows that people love or hate. I think that all Disney characters are essentially based off of the archetypal characters that are portrayed in "Into the Woods", so the fact that they are changing a few names doesn't seem too upsetting. The characters are still the same at heart and I think renaming some characters is a smart way of attracting a younger audience to a show that was made for a different generation. As long as the story is still intact, I have no problem with changing a few names to make the story more relevant to a younger audience.
Post a Comment