#tangledseries

[june19estrella]

The Eclipse Flower

The Eclipse Flower, this is how the Eclipse Flower looks like I tried to make it have that black goo with colors but that was the best I could do

[marie95disneygirl]

"Marriage as a Prison": How Disney's Modern Narratives Betray Historical Truth and Undermine Emotional Equality

In the original Tangled movie, the relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn Rider (Eugene) was one of Disney’s most emotionally grounded and mature romances. It was a story of two individuals from vastly different backgrounds—an orphaned thief and a long-lost princess—learning to trust, open up, and build a bond rooted in equality and respect. The campfire scene, in particular, remains one of the most poignant moments in modern Disney animation. In it, neither character forces the other to reveal anything, but both choose vulnerability. Rapunzel listens—truly listens—to Eugene’s painful backstory. Her response isn’t pity, but a quiet and powerful validation: “I like Eugene Fitzherbert much better than Flynn Rider.”

That moment matters. Not just because of what it says in-universe, but because it transcends fiction. It affirms the value of emotional transparency, and it portrays love not as a transaction or a battle of power, but as mutual recognition.

But then came Tangled: The Series, and with it, a complete rejection—if not a mockery—of everything that scene stood for.

The series takes that emotional honesty and turns it into a punchline. In its very first episode, Flynn once again opens up about his traumatic childhood—only to discover he’s been talking to Pascal, a frog. “Pouring my heart out to a frog” is framed as a joke. But it isn’t funny. It’s a gut-punch to viewers who remember what the original movie taught us about compassion, empathy, and love. And even worse, the real Rapunzel, who once met Flynn’s pain with empathy, is now absent—both physically (having run away without telling him) and emotionally (withholding her own vulnerability and truth).

This version of Rapunzel, rewritten for the sake of “progressive storytelling,” actively distances herself from her partner. Marriage is now treated as a symbol of oppression and confinement���a loss of freedom—despite the movie itself having clearly shown that Flynn never sought to control her. His marriage proposal was not about taking her autonomy; it was about forming an equal partnership with the woman he literally gave his life to protect.

But in the series, that commitment is framed as selfish, and Eugene is subtly ridiculed throughout the show. Characters repeatedly insult him, his desires, and his worth. Rapunzel allows this behavior, and at times participates in it. His love and loyalty, which were once noble, are now played for laughs or dismissed as irrelevant. And all of this is somehow praised as “feminist.”

What this series truly promotes, however, is coping feminism—a warped, surface-level empowerment narrative where female strength is achieved by demeaning others, especially male partners. Instead of tackling real issues like trauma, healing, and equality in a meaningful way, it reinforces the ancient patriarchal notion that a woman’s individuality is automatically erased by marriage.

This is not just emotionally damaging—it’s also historical revisionism at its worst.

The original Rapunzel fairy tale—and Tangled’s medieval-esque setting—depicts a world where marriage was more than a romantic gesture. It was the only socially acceptable path for a man and a woman to be together. In that time period, a man who didn’t propose would have been viewed with suspicion; a woman who rejected such proposals indefinitely would have been scandalized. To pretend that a princess in that era could date casually or indefinitely without consequences is to deny the historical reality the story is supposedly set in.

This modern rewrite of Disney princesses, which constantly critiques older characters like Snow White, Cinderella, or Ariel for marrying young or desiring love, does not reflect progressive thinking—it reflects selective, hypocritical judgment. When critics endlessly mock older princesses for decisions that were both historically accurate and emotionally resonant, but defend newer ones for ghosting or gaslighting their partners, the message becomes clear: emotional connection and traditional values are no longer welcome unless they fit a very narrow ideology.

What’s worse is that fans who point this out—those who loved the original story and saw real meaning in it—are now regularly insulted, mocked, or dismissed as “regressive” or “conservative propaganda” for simply wanting respectful storytelling. Even when women themselves raise these issues, they’re accused of internalized misogyny or being “anti-feminist,” just for valuing commitment, equality, and emotional honesty in romantic relationships.

But let’s call this out for what it is: erasing the validity of genuine love stories in favor of shallow “independence” tropes isn’t feminism—it’s cowardice wrapped in progressivism. It doesn’t empower women to fear connection or to treat love as inherently suspect. It certainly doesn’t empower men to be vulnerable. It promotes detachment, distrust, and ultimately, a narrative where no one is allowed to grow, heal, or connect.

Disney once told a story where love was freedom, not imprisonment.

Now, it tells us the opposite—and it expects us to applaud it.

We don’t have to.

[bellaaldamas]

Misogynists on either the pseudo-"progressive" left or openly bigoted right hate women who dare to live out their power fantasies. That's why their main targets are Ariel and Cinderella (and Aurora to a lesser extent): because they have the audacity to have goals that revolve around them and their desires (be it personal desires such as escaping a toxic and oppressive environment where your bigoted father holds the power; or desires that would seem "mundane" to more privileged people but are a way to have a break from abuse and exploitation for domestic violence victims like Cinderella for whom the ball represented exactly that; or romantic/sexual desires). Versus around the idea that a woman sacrificing herself and her feelings/needs in the name of the Greater Good TM is more "empowering" than sacrificing for love. This idea became pervasive in mainstream media in the 90-s when pseudo-feminist narratives started flourishing.

From the more well written and genuinely high quality in many respects "Sailor Moon" which, alas, still did not escape the issue of demeaning and belittling the female protagonist Usagi in every episode and framing her daring to want to enjoy life as a regular teenage girl as an example of "immaturity" (only the "not like other girls" heroines get to be considered "mature and empowered"). Whilst celebrating 21+ year old Mamoru picking on 14 year old girls because he was "struggling with understanding himself and his new destiny" (something that Usagi was forced to do from the moment her supernatural powers were revealed to her - and she never had a choice in that matter, unlike Mamoru who was allowed infinitely more agency and freedom).

To the most gratuitous pseudo-progressive trainwreck that was "Buffy" which flat out told women they are obligated to forfeit individual wants, connections and feelings for the sake of a Greater Mission TM imposed on them by men. That is, before our "feminist" heroine "defied" those "EvOL conservative men" from the past in a "modern liberal way". Namely by forcing other women to follow the destiny SHE imposed on them without their consent (as if any sensible person needed proof that the conservative right and the "progressive" left are one and the same and always bond over their hatred of women). This not even touching up on the matter of every woman on Whedon's shows experiencing a gendered trauma of some kind, be it sexual assault or life threatening pregnancy or magical and other forms of brainwashing, culminating in either suffering or death.

And then the "progressive left" was "shocked and heartbroken" when a sexist male hack Whedon who wrote all that and was put on a pedestal by their "feminist" selves was outed as a vicious misogynistic abuser. Who psychologically tortured women on set and allegedly cheated on his wife while at it. They "separate fiction from the creator" while bullying literal children who enjoy media that was produced by problematic authors and see no problem with it.

Disney - being a pandering conformist machine that it is now - has turned Rapunzel into that exact pseudo-feminist, modern culture conformist stereotype in the series in order to cater to those who critiqued original film for the fact that it upheld an abuse victim and her narrative. Furthermore, Disney did so in the most tasteless manner possible, by directly repeating armchair critics' talking points, word for word.

First, Disney addressed the "feminist critique" of Rapunzel supposedly "falling in love with the first man she met in her lifetime" even though it is an outright false, manipulative argument. In the original film, about a half an hour after meeting Flynn Rapunzel met an all-male group of thugs from the pub and bonded with them platonically before she bonded with Flynn in an equally platonic way and then in the romantic way. The message went as follows: the men in the society saw a vulnerable young girl who physically was no match for them but instead of taking advantage of her vulnerability they chose to self reflect, relate to her and provide their support. Disney, therefore, was not telling women they should look, act or behave in a certain way to avoid being abused. They told men they have to respect women and not perpetuate the mistreatment and invalidation said women already face daily, be it in their households or from other men (in Rapunzel's case she was abused by Gothel and told she was unworthy and incapable for her entire life and then tricked by Flynn who took her to that pub with explicit purpose to discourage her from following her goals). This was the ultimate subversion of victim blaming and misogyny.

Flynn, at that stage, either tried to scare Rapunzel back into the tower (which failed and backfired on him magnificently, even though in his defense it should be noted that Rapunzel set in motion the entire situation with her own blackmail of him; Flynn responded in kind because he did not hold her, a woman, to a different standard - if she was using trickery and cunning so would he). Or, at other times, he rejected her attempts at getting emotionally closer to him and getting to know him ("I don't do backstory"). It was Rapunzel who went out of her way to learn more about him while Flynn/Eugene remained consciously emotionally distant (he certainly made no advances on her and was not swayed by her looks nor tried to prey on her vulnerability and lack of experience). Knowing Flynn's personal history and experiences was important to her even when she thought they were going to part ways forever when he guides her to see the lanterns and brings her back to her tower, to end her days there alongside her abusive "mother" (whom Rapunzel had no idea was abusive because this is how brainwashing and gas-lighting works). Rapunzel was the one in charge of her self expression whilst Flynn had to pick his battles, literally and figuratively, and only reciprocated her bonding attempts when he thought they were both going to die.

Then there came the campfire scene where Flynn/Eugene finally did respond of free will and with no imminent death looming ahead: first by expressing his desire to get to know her and understand why she "never left that tower". It was only when he took interest in her motivation and psychological context of her actions did Rapunzel make another attempt: by asking him about his past again and getting physically closer to him to prove her willingness not to judge but to listen when Flynn believed that judging and dismissing was all he was going to get.

The movie, thus, made it clear that a relationship between the two is only possible when no pressure on either end is involved. This message was further reinforced by the following scene where Gothel reminded Rapunzel of her blackmail and the satchel she was holding "hostage" to get Flynn to act as she wanted. According to Rapunzel she wanted to give the satchel back to Flynn there and then but was "scared" due to Gothel's manipulative words. And it is ONLY when she finally does give it back do they take their relationship further and almost kiss. Again, Disney makes it clear a relationship can only work when it is equal and when both parties have agency.

The campfire scene is one of the most powerful couple bonding scenes in the Disney canon because of the equal partnership it endorses. Neither knows the full backstory of the other but they are ready to listen instead of inserting their "invaluable input". Out of universe, the scene holds an even broader and greater meaning because the audience knows of the social/class imbalance between the two characters, with Rapunzel being a princess (unknowingly to herself) and Flynn/Eugene being an orphan who turned to thieving as a "better option" to starving and dying on the streets (and who, unlike Rapunzel, is intimately aware of his own backstory and how the more privileged society perceives him). Instead of admonishing and lecturing him Rapunzel acknowledges and validates Flynn/Eugene's experiences by saying she likes his real self better than his made up facade.

And then there comes the series. Which not only undo but openly spit in the face of that scene in the very first episode.

The campfire scene was permanently invalidated and ruthlessly mocked when the series did a "reprise" of it by having Flynn/Eugene "pour his heart out" about his childhood traumas and current needs to who he thought was Rapunzel. Only to find out he was actually talking to Pascal all that time ("pouring his heart out to a frog" - an actual punchline for this joke). All while Rapunzel herself lied to him and everyone else by running out of the castle - because it is so "feminist" when a woman/female character lies to her partner and her parents and "escapes on her own TM", proving she "doesn't need a man to get her out".

Except - Rapunzel was no longer a prisoner of anyone. She was, at that point of her life, a privileged princess, in the position of power herself, dealing with her father's overprotectiveness while ignoring all of Flynn/Eugene's experiences with HIS oppression and abuse (the opposite of what she did in the original movie).

Who labeled marriage to Flynn/Eugene as an automatic loss of freedom.

And the narrative reinforced that idea - but only for women and female characters, including Rapunzel. Disney started perpetuating this pseudo-feminist misconception ever since "Brave", treating marriage as a prison and loss of individuality for women and just one of the many accomplishments men can have and enjoy in their lives. Which is why King Fergus got to be the "fun dad" and reap the benefits of his marital life and fatherhood while doing the bare minimum. Whereas Queen Elinor, who had to fulfill all the emotional, royal and parenting labor, was punished for not being a perfect wife and mother by being transformed into literal animal, deprived of humanity, agency and autonomy by her "feminist" daughter Merida. Who, instead of running off on her own if she wanted freedom so much (like the "selfish" Jasmine and Ariel did) or finding an equal partner who had end goals and interests that made it beneficial for him to aid her (like original movie Rapunzel did) saw no better way to go about the situation than to rob another woman of her free will in order to have her way.

This is the "feminism" progressives wanted from Disney and Disney delivered: empowerment only for the privileged and entitled young women who abuse other people - including other women - when things don't go their way.

Original Tangled was the movie that unabashedly showed how Gothel and other abusers in the position of power over their victims are wrong when they tell, in particular, their female victims that the latter are too stupid, hormonal and gullible to be in charge of their agency. That they will be inevitably tricked and used by the "dashing and handsome men" whose good looks supposedly deprive women of the ability to think critically because women are "servants to their emotions" (a misogynistic rhetoric in and of itself). That men cannot possibly respect and aid a vulnerable woman without taking advantage of her because it is inherent to men's nature to be exploitative just like it is inherent to women's nature to be exploited (read: men are aggressive conquerors and women are delicate and nurturing flowers and if something/someone deviates from this norm it means that something/someone is wrong and unnatural; the left perpetuates this ancient patriarchal and far right thinking and does not even see a problem with it).

And then it does not happen: Rapunzel proves Gothel and her misogynistic manipulation wrong. The movie deconstructs the idea that the society and abusers "know better" what and who a woman needs. Just like it deconstructs the idea women are victims by nature and cannot expect respect and help from men unless they "show how strong, independent and not like other girls they are" first. Because it is never woman or victim's job to show and prove that to anyone.

Pseudo-"feminists" called it "wrong and not progressive" because in their view, Rapunzel should have either been "taught a lesson", Anna and Hans twist style (when a woman is lectured by everyone, from her anti-social sister to a day old mansplaining Snowman, about her own feelings and needs; and everyone ends up being in the right whilst she is framed as being in the wrong and "desperate for love" for daring to act on her romantic agency). Or Rapunzel should have "saved herself" and it was so "unfeminist" when Flynn "CuT HEr HAirr WiThoUt heR CoNsENt!!!1111!!!" when she, a victim of lifelong abuse, should have apparently done it herself.

But the most telling and outstanding thing is that the argument those "far left progressives" used to back up the above position was an unapologetic copy of the bigoted far right/"conservative" rhetoric that insists that vulnerable and oppressed people are just "not trying hard enough". Followed by examples of the people or fictional (female) characters "who made it and there is no excuse for you, Rapunzel and someone else not to".

Which conveniently diverts attention from the fact that those examples are exceptions to the rule and work within the system of abuse and oppression instead of challenging it. Prospering and thriving within the system of oppression is not empowerment, it's doing your best in a terrible situation while ignoring the majority of victims who do not thrive and who, in many cases, suffer and die because of the system.

This is also ignoring the context of Rapunzel trying to heal Flynn at the expense of her freedom without his consent, twice. All while he literally pushed her hands away because he did not agree to those conditions and was not ready to survive if it meant Rapunzel's agency and freedom being taken away from her,

The original film celebrated that genuinely empowering narrative but the pseudo-progressives did not. Hence why we got the Tangled series which warped said narrative and validated the pseudo-progressive arguments.

This is why series Rapunzel seeing the idea of marriage to Flynn as a loss of freedom is "progressive" (didn't you know that women turn into doormats and lose their individuality when they marry men?/sarcasm). Rapunzel allowing Cassandra, a third party who knew nothing of the context of her and Flynn/Eugene's relationship, to push the boundaries of them both, insert her opinion in an unsolicited manner and harass and belittle Flynn for being "unworthy" of someone as privileged as Rapunzel (that's not classism and bigotry at all, that's modern feminism TM) is also "progressive".

Conformism to the system of oppression and abuse is the modern day progressive storytelling. Especially when it is women doing the conformism or outright reinforcing said system.

The above led us to the two explicitly pandering episodes where Disney was not just addressing the talking points of the middle class armchair "feminists" whose cult leader if a misogynistic abuser Whedon and his horrendously overrated girlboss heroines like Buffy - but outright repeating said talking points within those episodes.

First it was the low quality filler where Rapunzel was throwing tantrums about that one person in the Kingdom who did not like her. This "conflict point" is literally copied and pasted from the "feminist critic" argument about Rapunzel being "too perfect" and "everyone liking her" and how "unrealistic" it supposedly is. By "everyone" they meant fellow outcasts in the form of the thugs from the pub, ironically the group that was oppressed by Rapunzel's own royal parents. The OG movie was empowering because it had Rapunzel empathize and understand the oppressed groups before regaining her own royal status - first the thugs and then Flynn.

But specially for pseudo-feminists' viewing pleasure, there is the Tangled series.

Where Rapunzel is repulsed by thieves like Flynn/Eugene (without critically analyzing and challenging the system that made them turn to that kind of life). When she takes a break from being repulsed by that Rapunzel laments and takes offense at that one person who dislikes her. Then, after saving said person's life he still keeps disliking her for no valid reason other than being another "bad conservative man" and Rapunzel should just "accept it" because what else do women expect? If others treat them with appreciation and basic decency it makes them "Mary Sues", didn't you know?

Series Rapunzel's "growth" is about no longer being a "Mary Sue": it is about putting up with unwarranted hate and aiding others in harassing, invalidating and putting down the man she loves for explicitly classist and bigoted reasons. That is "realism and feminism".

Women ought to accept nitpicking, passive aggression and deprivation of any support as a "norm" until/unless they "prove themselves".

Disney, thus, went on to validate the "feminist" argument that it was "unrealistic" how in the original Tangled the people/characters an abused young woman encountered on her way towards freedom did not contribute to her abuse, especially the male characters. That they instead aided her or at least sympathized with her (like the already mentioned thugs from the pub).

The society, according to progressives, cannot and should not want to help women. It should be aggressive and hostile towards women and it is - cherry on top of this progressive mindset - woman's job to tackle it, avoid it and be "careful". It is woman's job to "prove" she deserves more than abuse and exploitation. After all, didn't all those female victims who wore shirt skirts and walked back home at night alone not know what they were "asking for"? (this is also sarcasm, in case this is not painfully obvious).

Then there is the climax, the long awaited wet dream of the pseudo progressives. In it, Rapunzel has her girlboss feminist moment of cutting off her magical hair on her own; which progressives have been calling for since 2010. All while Flynn/Eugene is rendered useless and incapacitated, just like he is for the 99.9 percents of the series where he plays the role of an incompetent trophy boyfriend and comedic relief to his privileged girlfriend.

To add even more "progressiveness", Rapunzel terminates her magic hair's unique qualities not for Flynn/Eugene or even herself but mainly for Cassandra. Same Cassandra who spent most of the series being an antagonist. Same Cassandra who inserted herself into personal matters and relationship between Rapunzel and Flynn when she was not invited to do that because (ready for it) she "knows best". When Gothel behaved in that manner and promoted this idea it was rightly treated as manipulative and abusive. But when a young, sword wielding and attractive girl does that it is "badass and feminist".

Fact is that the inspiring, female power fantasy princess franchise ended with PaTF and original Tangled. Live Action TLM which placed the focus on Ariel and Eric romance and honored it while offering a different but no less interesting spin on it was a farewell party before Disney comes back to pandering and pseudo-feminism.

It would be perfectly consistent with their current pattern to release a Live Action Tangled where Flynn would be completely replaced by Cassandra and there is no romance at all (like in the LA Mulan). Because a woman in charge of her romantic agency is "weak" but a woman tolerating toxicity and violation of boundaries from another woman while violating boundaries of her male partner herself (like Rapunzel repeatedly does in the series) is Disney finally becoming "feminist and progressive".

Double Standards Are So Fun

Apparently, it’s totally fine to criticize older Disney princesses like Cinderella, Ariel, and Aurora because they’re ‘anti-feminist’ and ‘bad role models.’

But the second I say anything about how Rapunzel’s actions in the Tangled series make zero sense, suddenly I’m a monster who doesn’t understand ‘modern storytelling’ or ‘strong female characters.’

Cinderella: Works herself to the bone as a literal servant and still dares to dream of a better life—too passive! Ariel: Risks her life for her dream and love—bad example for girls! Aurora: Only sleeps for a curse to be broken—boring and outdated!

But Rapunzel in the series? Rejects the proposal of the man she apparently loves because she feels like a life with him is a prison, dismisses his feelings, draws his face on a punching bag, lets her bestie bully him, and rewrites his personality with time travel—ICONIC! RELATABLE! EMPOWERING!

Got it. Criticizing older princesses = totally fine. Criticizing Rapunzel for toxic behavior = misogynistic and wrong. Makes perfect sense.

[supersantacruz]

cassandrama 

[vickieschau]

Ending my self-indulgent Wreck-It-Ralph princesses series with my favorite, Rapunzel! I love anything and everything this girl does! . . . #rapunzel #raps #tangled #tangledseries #tangledtheseries #rapunzelstangledadventure #tangleddisney #wreckitralph #ralphbreakstheinternet #disney #disneyprincess #fanart #illustration #ArtistsOnInstagram https://www.instagram.com/p/B_qjbNnjCEQ/?igshid=idmjwiy2adw8

[dserpentes]

#Tangled #tangledtheseries #rapunzelstangledadventure #tangledseries #tangledmovie #Disney #disneyanimation #DisneyTVAnimation #disneytangled #tangledtheseriesfanart #tangledbeforeeverafter #Enredados #Enredadosotravez #Raiponcelasérie #Raiponce #EntrelaçadosASérie #EnroladosOutraVez #TangledFanart #artistasportugueses #portugueseartists #artistsoninstagram #varian #variantangled #tangledvarian https://www.instagram.com/p/B_jbIktlz0Q/?igshid=1wdmdddq1udrb

[bellaaldamas]

Disney already established the direction of conforming to mischaracterizations and misrepresentation of the princesses and their stories by pseudo-"progressive" critics and the Tangled series was the ultimate product of that conformism. The "marriage is a prison but only if you're a woman" repackaged patriarchal stereotype is not the only issue with the series: it served as a jump-start of the pandering process where Disney repeated faux-"feminist" critique of the original movie almost word for word. By doing so the series destroyed and invalidated everything that stood out about the original film, including the healthy and equal dynamic between Rapunzel and Flynn and woman's power fantasy narrative (women do not deserve those according to modern media; men still do, however).

The Live Action is likely to follow the pattern set in the series because there is no indication Disney re-examined and reconsidered it. They did throw the fans of the original, woman's power fantasy concept a bone by presenting a well crafted Live Action Remake of The Little Mermaid where the focus was on equal partnership and healthy relationship between Ariel and Eric as well as on the celebration of Ariel's individual desires. Now Disney is back to faux progressiveness with the Snow White remake.

The Tangled series went as far as to not only copy and paste pseudo-progressive critique of the OG movie about how Rapunzel is "weak" for not cutting off her hair on her own (even though doing so would have been the opposite of feminism and would have implied it is woman's job to escape abuse); but to rework the powerful climax scene between Rapunzel and Flynn where they admit to being each other's "new dream" and give it to Rapunzel and Cassandra instead.

Even the animation and presentation was a rehash of that moment, thematically and visually. All in order to completely remove the importance of Flynn in Rapunzel's life and in the story overall (hence why he is rendered incapacitated and useless, just as he is in all the preceding episodes). The moment is shamelessly ripped off down to a close up shot with Rapunzel leaning towards Cassandra's face and crying while cradling her in her arms.

Therefore it is more than possible that another low blow from Disney will be a total removal of Flynn/Eugene from the LA version. And a replacement of a "dirty romance" with "beautiful platonic bond" between Rapunzel and a woman who constantly pushed her and Flynn's boundaries and outright abused Flynn in the series.

Because a platonic relationship between women, according to modern progressives, cannot be toxic if one of them is the "girlboss" type.

Calling it now: if Tangled LA Remake happens they'll base it not on the original movie (Disney's last female driven and empowering princess story before the company turned to daughters transforming mothers into literal animals to have their way and labeling it as "feminist", Hans twists telling women they are "desperate for love" and are blamed for male abuse and other pseudo-progressive narratives) but on the series. Which fully embrace and perpetuate Disney's current pseudo-feminist trends and completely misrepresent the characters and the title romance.

Thus, in the remake, Flynn/Eugene will be either written out completely (like Shang from the LA Mulan - because a heroine having two daddy figures instead of a love interest she has chosen is so much more progressive) or replaced by Cass*ndra from the series. The climax will be reworked to have the same pandering, faux feminist twist with Rapunzel cutting off her hair on her own because she is such a "girlboss" now and not a victim of lifelong abuse and gaslighting who needed to be helped out of it, just like other victims do.

And just like in the series, Rapunzel will be doing it for Cass*ndra because when Flynn/Eugene sacrificed his life for Rapunzel's freedom and agency it was "not feminist" and "made her weak". But it is an "improvement and fixing the original" when Rapunzel terminates her magic hair's qualities for a female character who, from the very first episode, started to act in the "I know best" manner. Except unlike in Gothel's case the series' narrative framed it as her being strong and "badass" (passive aggressiveness and pushing boundaries is only bad when older women do it, didn't you know?/#hashtag feminism).

[msmarshmallowmadness]

Got this jackunzel pic done for valentines Day. Even though I’m a day late posting it XD Also was inspired by HellionYura’s art down below on devianart💕💕

[beeblouse]

small son

[justatoast]

Cassandra~

[alanahikarichan]

calliope tangledseries my beloved <3

maybe you aren't evolved enough to appreciate female characters who are terrible people but I am. Let women be annoying, self obsessed, entitled, and as much of an asshole as their male counterparts.

[june19estrella]

The siblings

I took some screen images from the series and drew over them to make them look like how they would look, I’m gonna try and redo them by me drawing them for I can get them good.

[loth-chan]

Poco a poco van cogiendo forma... #varian #adira #king #edmund #tangled #tangledseries #disney #disneydoll #ooak #customdoll #handmade #figure #arttoy #doll #disneycollector #diseñoshicade #3dart #art #artist #toymaker #designertoy #order #toycollector #instaart #clay #sculpture https://www.instagram.com/p/B7RUcfmIMiN/?igshid=1w8y7vcjpaool

[agustinabordabaez]

𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟, 𝑔𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑚 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐿𝑒𝑡 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑠𝘩𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑀𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑡𝘩𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑤𝘩𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝘩𝑎𝑡 𝘩𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝘩𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝐶𝘩𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝘩𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠' 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝘩𝑎𝑡 𝘩𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝐵𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑤𝘩𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑊𝘩𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒 ☀️☀️☀️ To make this drawing I was inspired by the finale of Tangled: the series. 🤗 . . . . . . #tangled #tangledseries #tangledseason3 #digitalart #digitalpainting #colors #illustrate #illustrationartist #illustration #ilustración #arte #supportlocalart #blackart #3d #3dart #loveart #colorful #corona https://www.instagram.com/p/B9NcMq0nfwT/?igshid=mi7ybg275i74

[bellaaldamas]

The third - joint - version would indeed work well for a live action movie. It may not be as visually outstanding as the animated film but for a motion picture with real actors it would be a far better choice than a CGI saturated action/adventure OG Tangled was. The latter kind of visual storytelling should be reserved for animation medium only, lest we get another embarrassing "CGI merged with human actors looking like out of place additions" disaster that was the Snow White remake. On top of it being disastrous for all the same reasons most modern Disney projects are - misogyny disguised as "feminism" and a literal mansplaining song ("princess problems"). This time not even from a Snowman or mountain trolls but from the "romantic" male lead who tells the heroine her house labor is not important because she "can't fix the world baking apple pies"; and because that totally does not reflect a centuries old oppression and invalidation women have faced from patriarchy.

The third version, especially with the Prince becoming as much a hostage of his self centered privileged parents metaphorically as Rapunzel was Gothel's literally would be a good way to avoid CGI-heavy visuals and place more focus on emotional parallels and bonding.

This type of storytelling would be similar to "Prince Charming" (2001) live action motion picture. Which, interestingly enough, is in itself based on the "Frog Prince" tale and does therefore have a lot of parallels with Princess and the Frog: a womanizing prince whom his strict royal father is trying to put on the right path but goes about it in all the wrong ways (setting to marry John off to a princess from the rival Kingdom for practical and political purposes - so that the King and his sworn enemy, the ruler of said rival Kingdom, could negotiate peace after a decades long "petty" war). As the result of John's promiscuous and irresponsible behaviors, however, he sabotages the wedding with the princess and is punished by being turned into a frog along with his squire.

The transformation scene and some other select elements rely on CGI but the plot and character development besides that rest upon the actors and character communication. Especially when John and his friend/servant (whom John has a relationship with virtually identical to that of Naveen and Lawrence) transform back into humans. That's where the story shifts to modern day and they meet up with the reincarnated version of the princess John had offended in the past by going after another woman for momentary pleasure on the day of their arranged wedding (which is what got him and his friend into the situation where they were cursed to be frogs and spend centuries in that form in the first place). Except this time John and the "modern day" princess bond and fall in love naturally and of free will (with no pressure from their respective families).

The conflict stems from John having to marry a different woman - the one who kissed his frog self - until the full moon. Otherwise he and his friend turn back into frogs. The conflict is not about "marriage is a prison and a result of pressure" message, it is about the importance of free will in a matter so important and private as commitment.

It is the opposite of what Tangled the Series were forcing upon the audience by having Cassandra - a third party - constantly intervene and "know better" how Rapunzel should handle her relationship with Flynn/Eugene. And give HIM a lecture on his "selfishness" for wanting to be in a responsible, adult marital relationship with Rapunzel.

In that vein, "Prince Charming" narrative clearly frames it as wrong and toxic when third parties (including close friends) intervene in people's personal lives a similar way (and in the movie they do so for explicitly selfish reasons and for personal convenience). John's friend gets development that Lawrence from PatF and Cassandra from Tangled the Series never did (it worked for Lawrence because he was a fellow antagonist alongside Facilier rather than a supporting character but Cassandra had no excuse): struggling with whether or not to betray his friend/boss for personal selfish gain (even if selfishness more often than not gets the best of him; it's believable and realistic because character development is not linear and real people struggle with selfish urges all the time too). And having a good/positive relationship with his friend's significant other (unlike Cassandra whose one sided antagonizing of Flynn was framed as "empowering" and was perpetuated and encouraged by Rapunzel herself).

There is the wedding in the end of "Prince Charming" which solidifies character development and is treated as a show of growth, responsibility and, most importantly, agency (something neither John nor the past version of the princess had in the beginning). The "commitment as a form of growth and celebration of one's preexisting values" part is similar to PatF and that's the message that the Tangled series should have had. But instead it sent the opposite one - that marriage is a female prison because a woman loses autonomy and freedom the moment she commits to a man. But a man of course does not lose any of that and can be excited about the idea of marriage and see it as a form of empowerment and evolution; kudos to modern Disney, patriarchy could never.

Tangled Live Action could go a similar route as "Prince Charming" (emphasizing the character communication over visuals) and if Disney decides to remake PatF we can only hope they are smart enough to not keep Tiana and Naveen as frogs for most of the film (it worked in the animated version but will never work for a live action movie, lest it become another CGI nuisance a la Snow White remake).

That said, even if visually and thematically Disney does it right with potential remakes of Tangled and PatF, as you noted, modern Disney would still find a way to bastardize the respective movie's messages and make it about a "progressive" cautionary tale for "stupid and hormonal women".

Watch them have Tiana deliver a passage similar to Jonathan in SW remake and state that she "knows she can't fix the world cooking meals like a doormat housewife" and put emphasis on career ladder climbing instead of her passion for culinary and the values instilled in her by both parents (ones that prioritized love and healthy bonds over monetary gain). The scene where Tiana indulges in reading a culinary book for housewives en route to work? Don't dream of it EVER being a part of modern "feminist" Disney where any activities associated with traditional femininity are seen as "weak" and "inferior".

Also watch them replace Flynn with Cassandra entirely in the remake and/or keep him in but make him completely useless and incompetent and have Rapunzel cut her hair on her own to show how much of a "badass girlboss" she is. Because women in modern "feminist" media have to perform all the labor while men don't have to do anything or contribute in any meaningful ways bar standing there looking pretty (men are "perfect just the way they are" and don't need to prove anything to the society). That's not patriarchy in its ancient form at all /sarcasm.

I have yet to see the Aladdin remake but it's encouraging to hear that despite the drastic change to Jasmine's motivation (from wanting freedom to wanting power/becoming a Sultan) Disney still allowed her and Aladdin to have a healthy marital commitment. TLM remake honored Eric/Ariel in the same manner and even though it did change the climax to Ariel defeating Ursula the narrative still put emphasis on A) them doing it together and in partnership ("Eric was with me") and the main reason Ariel was able to steer the wheel in the first place was because she observed Eric doing that earlier during the storm and B) in the TLM series much younger Ariel smashed and defeated numerous villains while Triton, Sebastian, Flounder, Urchin and other male characters remained a dead weight (or, at best, only joined in on the defeat when Ariel had done the main part). Therefore it was fair to give Halle's Ariel a chance to have this kind of triumph.

As discussed before, the remakes may have flaws and virtues but they don't affect let alone misrepresent and destroy the originals. Bad remake is but a forgettable movie that takes nothing away (Snow White) whilst good remake is a treat (TLM). Neither has any bearing on the OG animated canon. Tangled the Series on the contrary is built around not even a misrepresentation of Flynn's "years of asking" joke but around an outright mockery and ridicule of the original Tangled under the guise of "feminism" when it is anything but (campfire scene, Rapunzel and Flynn's mutual sacrifice in the end scene, family reunion scene with Flynn being included for the first time after a lifetime of loneliness and social oppression - ALL of those were twisted, laughed at and involved Cassandra in them in the series; with Cassandra becoming the front and center of something that was once powerful and personal for Rapunzel and Flynn).

I'll reiterate that living to see the day when I'm compelled to say Gothel - of all characters - "deserved better" than to be reduced from a compelling manipulative villain to a "bad mother TM" trope (and to prop up multiple problematic men at that - Captain of the Guards and Flynn's deadbeat dad) is the day I know Disney is on its last legs.

How I Would Write a Tangled or Rapunzel Remake

If Disney decides to remake Tangled, I know what kind of version would finally allow me to say goodbye and feel peace — the kind of version that honors the original fairy tale, the original movie, and everything I loved about it before it was ruined by the series.

I’ve come up with three possible scenarios that would stay true to the message of the original film and the classic fairy tale. Any one of these would restore what Tangled meant to me — a love story about healing, freedom, and choosing each other over control.

Scenario One: Keep the Original Film Intact — But End With the Wedding

This is the simplest fix: Keep everything exactly as it was in the animated movie, but extend the ending to show the wedding — like the live-action Aladdin remake did. It’s clear that Tangled Ever After was meant to take place shortly after the movie. Everyone, including the four little girls who braided Rapunzel’s hair, is the same age. Flynn’s joke about marriage in the movie was just that — a joke. Unfortunately, the series writer took it literally and built an entire plot around delaying their relationship and sending the most horrible message that marriage is apparently a prison, completely missing the emotional tone of the original film.

Let’s be honest: after both characters were willing to die for each other, marriage would be the natural next step. That level of self-sacrifice is deeper commitment than any ceremony. And in the time period this is set in, marriage would have been the only way for them to even be allowed to be together. It wouldn’t just be realistic — it would be emotionally satisfying and true to the story.

Scenario Two: Adapt the Original Fairy Tale — Petrosinella

Instead of remaking Tangled, Disney could return to the roots of the Rapunzel story by adapting Petrosinella, one of the earliest versions of the fairy tale.

In Petrosinella, the heroine isn’t a damsel — she allows the prince into her tower on her own terms, plans her own escape, and uses the witch’s own magic to defeat her. She's strong, clever, and brave — and yet, she still falls in love and wants to marry the prince.

And there’s nothing wrong with that.

She chooses commitment, and that choice doesn’t make her weak or anti-feminist. Feminism is about women having choices — including the choice to love, marry, and trust someone. Disney should respect that Rapunzel chooses love in the fairy tale. She doesn’t need to reject marriage to be strong.

Scenario Three: A Fusion of the Two — My Own Rewrite

This scenario is based on a version of the story I once wrote myself — one that combines the emotional core of the original film, the fairy tale’s themes, and a more grounded, character-driven journey.

Backstory: Keep Rapunzel’s magical hair as a reason Gothel wants to keep her locked away, and either use the Tangled backstory where Gothel takes Rapunzel from her birth parents or the fairy tale version where she makes them give up their child in exchange for the Rapunzel bellflower that heals Rapunzel’s mother. But I would prefer Rapunzel not to be a princess. Making her royalty undermines the emotional power of the Petrosinella story, where love and marriage, not birthright, sets her free. However, I could still live with her being a princess, if the love story and romance are respected like in the original Tangled movie.

Flynn as a Prince: In this version, Flynn is born and raised as a prince like in the fairy tale. He’s trapped by duty and pressured to marry a princess for the sake of his kingdom. His parents give him a deadline to find love or face an arranged marriage — echoing the pressure Rapunzel faces from Gothel.

How They Meet: Flynn escapes the castle and stumbles across Rapunzel’s tower. She sees a way out and tries to blackmail him into taking her to see the world. At first, he refuses and tries to run — but Rapunzel follows him. Eventually, they open up to each other: Flynn confesses the pressure he faces, and Rapunzel reveals her fear, her magic and her dreams. They bond over shared feelings of being trapped by their abusive “parents.”

Falling in Love: They travel together in secret for a few weeks, with Flynn taking her to different villages and sights across the kingdom. Their connection grows, built on shared freedom and mutual vulnerability. Eventually, Flynn realizes he truly loves her and proposes — and she accepts.

The Conflict: Unbeknownst to them, Gothel discovers what’s happening. She secretly allies with Flynn’s controlling parents who want him to marry a noblewoman. They trap Flynn, drug him, and make it seem like he abandoned Rapunzel for the arranged marriage. Gothel swoops in and tells Rapunzel they have to move again — playing the victim and deepening Rapunzel’s despair.

The Revelation: While packing in the tower, Rapunzel finds a baby blanket or a token with a symbol that links her to her real parents — either royals from another land or a kind couple like a tailor and seamstress she met with Flynn during their travels. It all clicks. She realizes Gothel kidnapped her, lied to her about Flynn leaving her, and is still trying to control her. She confronts Gothel — who becomes violent and physically restrains her.

The Climax: Flynn regains consciousness and tells his parents he won’t let them decide his future and that he would rather give up the throne than lose Rapunzel. He races to save Rapunzel and is stabbed by Gothel in the process. Just like in the original movie, Rapunzel offers her freedom for his life, and he cuts her hair to free her — sacrificing himself so she can be free.

The Ending: Her tears bring him back to life. They marry before confronting his family, solidifying their commitment. Rapunzel reunites with her real parents, and Flynn either completely breaks ties with his, keeping the theme of leaving abusive parents for love, or his parents apologize and accept their love, what Gothel wasn’t able to do and therefore prove they are better than her. The film ends with them setting off to explore the world on their honeymoon — a promise fulfilled, and a story completed with love and freedom.

Final Thoughts

Of course, I know Disney won’t do any of these versions. They’ve made it clear that they don’t value romantic storytelling like they used to and hate marriage. But if I had the chance — this is how I’d write a Tangled remake that respects the love, the themes, and the original fairy tale. This is the kind of ending that would allow me to finally say goodbye — because it would honor everything Tangled used to mean before it was changed.

Love should never be treated like a weakness. Marriage is not a prison. And not every story needs a franchise or a timeline stretched beyond its limits.

Some endings should be left whole.

[streetfairsblog]

Another Varian and Ruddiger comic, with Ruddiger being a brat😆