Why are they even making a continuity of Tangled when she doesn't have her gorgeous blonde hair anymore? It kinda defeats the purpose of the whole story.
She lost her hair, the end. Nothing more to say on the matter. She's just an average princess now, nothing to make her stand out.
Yeah I have to admit I dont see why this needs a sequal. The first movie wrapped up the story pretty much perfectly.
And without the hair whats the focus of the story going to be? Whos going to be the baddie this time?
In case you two didn't know, this is only a short film that focuses on Max and Pascal. It is Eugene and Rapunzel's wedding, Max and Pascal lose the wedding rings and have to get them back. It is in theaters attached to Beauty and the Beast 3D. So since it's only a short film, it works better than a full-length sequel.
share[deleted]
because it was a cute movie and we like to see characters we love without ruining it with a sequel?
shareI beg to differ. Although Rapunzel had not her hair, remember, she still saved Flynn's life -- she is still very much a magical person. The storymasters at Disney could have a field day with her potential. She may not have her (horribly unmanageable) hair, but she still has her voice.. and that song is as magical as it ever was. She just needs to feel it in her heart, and she can 'bring back what was lost'.
shareThe song only worked when she had her hair. Now that she lost it, she has lost her magical powers of healing and rejuvinating. She can't save lives anymore and she's not much of a fighter anyway.
Most of all, she's not Rapunzel anymore without that hair! It's like calling someone 'Larry the Rich Guy' but he went bankrupt.
She had some fight in her when she told Mother G that she would "never stop trying to escape...never stop fighting...for the rest of her life" unless Mother G let her heal Flynn. Gotta love that. She would have willingly given up her freedom to save the man she loved. That's a much more admirable quality than a truckload of hair, magic or not.
share[deleted]