Michael Gracey Wants to Direct Live-Action Tangled
Deadline reports that Michael Gracey (The Greatest Showman) is in talks with Disney to direct a live-action remake of Tangled (2010). The remake is described as a “revival” of the of the animated movie, Disney’s 50th in their animated classics line. This label can be confusing and oftentimes contradictory, but it’s supposed to separate Walt Disney Animation Studios films from the works of Pixar, DisneyToon, and others. Plot details for the adaptation are unknown, but Tangled is a comedic and emotional spin on the Brothers Grimm’s Rapunzel tale. Based on the most recent Disney remakes, one can suppose a live-action Tangled would be painfully faithful to the animated movie. Jennifer Kaytin Robinson (Do Revenge, Thor: Love and Thunder) wrote the current script. Kristin Burr is producing for Burr! Productions, as well as Lucy Kitada (The Baby-Sitters Club). No casting is known.
Deadline suggests that the Tangled series is overdue for a new movie because, after the original film, only the short film Tangled Ever After and the Disney Channel series have been produced. I disagree entirely, and I don’t understand this argument. Plenty of great movies don’t have any continuation and don’t need it. Tangled was just fine without any sequels or spin-offs, though I enjoyed the short and TV show. I also don’t think a live-action remake is likely to bolster the original movie’s legacy. If anything, many of Disney’s live-action remakes have been embarrassing and aren’t well-remembered. I won’t say they diminish the originals, because I don’t believe you can do that. It’s just like with the Star Wars movies; I don’t think a new installment can change or ruin what came before. However, a bad installment can lower the perceived value of a franchise or title.
On a personal level, I just don’t want to see a Tangled remake. I love the original, and I don’t trust anyone to touch it. I don’t like The Greatest Showman, and that’s not helping the remake’s case for me. The songs are mostly good, but the bland story and paper-thin characters didn’t do it for me. The characters in Tangled are just fleshed-out enough, but in a live-action remake, Disney always thinks they need to pad everything out to fill some runtime quota. This would lead to unnecessary additions. It would be destructive to the original’s breezy pacing and, most likely, very cringey in tone. I’m thinking about the Beast’s parents abusing him and Belle’s mom having the plague in the Beauty and the Beast remake. I don’t want that again.
At first, Disney was mostly adapting Golden Age and Renaissance Disney films. The upcoming Moana remake has opened the floodgates for modern retellings of movies that are already inherently modern. How do you update Tangled’s pop-rock-folk soundtrack? Why would you want to? The animation was revolutionary at the time, melding CG with a painterly look based on the works of Jean-Honoré Fragonard. The movie came out in 2010, making it not even 15 years old yet. It probably won’t be 20 by the time a remake comes out. What’s the point? What can be said that wasn’t in the original? Every movie is getting a sequel, remake, or sometimes both, so I don’t know why I care. But Tangled is great as it is, and nobody wants it. If Snow White’s trailer and the financial loss of The Little Mermaid haven’t taught Disney a lesson, I don’t think anything will.
But what do you think? Do you want a live-action Tangled, and is Michael Gracey the one for the job? Sound off in the comments!
***
If you want to know what kind of political leanings movies have or just talk about cinema, check out the movie ratings community Criticless.
Get Your Geeks + Gamers merch here!
Comments (1)
Someone said the top ten grossing movies of the year were all remakes. I never saw this one but have seen that kingdom dance scene and I really love the music in it. Heard a young lady talk about the original film in a speech the other day, so it was a massive hit.