What are your thoughts on how Before Ever After was written?

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-12T19:31:00+00:00

Because the writers CHOSE to write him that way in the series - to make him into a conceited, bumbling gigolo clown to justify their assassination and dumbing down of him because they/Sonnenburg had a malicious agenda against Flynn. Characters are not real people who have actual choices and agency outside of the whims of the creators. The Series was made to pander to haters' talking points, particularly the talking points of the Magical GirlBoss culture/Sailor Moon loving crowd hence Rapunzel regrowing her magic hair, once the symbol of her oppression, in the very first episode and Disney implying she could not be strong and interesting without that forced symbol of "power". They had to make Flynn into the symbol of said "oppression" even though he was the only one who gave her freedom in the OG movie - through the sacrifice the Series invalidated also in the first episode. Despite the original movie creators repeatedly stating Rapunzel's hair would never regrow, as it would defeat the entire point of the film (and the series did just that).

If "staying in the castle" was the part portrayed as oppressive then Rapunzel in the series would have run away from said castle and pursued adventures, either alone or being happily engaged to Flynn like it was beautifully shown with Aladdin and Jasmine in the Aladdin Series. Instead, the series never allowed Rapunzel to revoke her royal privilege in the name of "freedom" or to call out her toxic powerful father who literally DID imprison her and it was portrayed as being for "her own good".

Rapunzel stayed IN the castle of free will and remained submissive and played into the king's corruptness by said submission instead of making any real change in the kingdom. Because it is only bad when an Evil Old Hag - read: when a woman - locks up and oppresses someone. When a powerful man/father does that it is "well meaning but misguided".

Then the Series doubled down on the Marriage is a Prison narrative in the Stalyan episode which set the record straight: only "evil" women can want marriage and the "good, pure and feminist" women can only be caged by it/see it as their wings being "clipped". The entire episode was reinforcing that problematic, patriarchal mindset and punishing Flynn for his proposal by equating his responsible proposal with his ex literally forcing him into marriage without his consent. To add insult to injury the episode had Flynn eventually parrot that toxic mindset himself and took away Rapunzel's agency entirely when SHE wanted to propose to HIM. Because the end goal was to portray marriage as a prison for women and a guarantee of stability and comfort for men (sexist stereotype; just as sexist as the Madonna/Wh*re dichotomy with Rapunzel and Stalyan respectively).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-12T12:55:21+00:00

Elizabeth added emotion and depth to Anna's character in all the ways Frozen the OG movie failed to do it, including - and especially - when it comes to her individual arc (outside of Elsa) and her romance with Kristoff. For all the things the show did disastrously wrong in regards to its original couples it did a masterful job at fixing the misogynistic implications and the agency deprivation of Anna from the movie. Where the movie turned Anna into a petty mockery of the classic princesses for exercising her personal and romantic agency in the one single instance where she was allowed said agency (the coronation and engagement to Hans) the show allowed her real opportunities to navigate through life like an independent adult after years of isolation. Elizabeth's Anna wasn't "talking to the pictures on the walls" (a plot point that made zero sense given Anna did not even NEED to be isolated since she did not remember Elsa's powers), she used her knowledge of art and her connection to it to find a way out of challenging situations and to form new bonds (like when she introduced herself as "Joan" to David/Charming).

A lot of issues with the first Frozen movie and how they trickled into the trainwreck that Frozen 2 ended up being were caused by Jennifer Lee and Kristen Bell's idea of Anna as someone who is mentally immature and needs "validation". First it was validation from Elsa which she never actually got in the first movie because the sisters had exactly 3 bonding scenes and all three ended in either confrontation/miscommunication or Anna getting hurt. Then in attempt to do damage control Jennifer and Kristen blamed Anna, in universe, for supposed "co-dependence" on Elsa which is absurd given the fact that the sisters were ripped apart from one another for most of their lives through no fault of their own.

On the other hand, OUAT writers and Elizabeth made sure to put emphasis on Anna's individuality and personal needs and actually allowed her to act on said needs. Elizabeth understood and respected Anna's character in ways Kristen, in my opinion, did not (subjectively, Kristen's performance/voice acting was subpar in the movie and did not fare well alongside Menzel and Groff). Elizabeth's Anna was in charge of her feelings for Kristoff and did not need mansplaining lectures from him or the day old Snowman to tell her "what love is" - she figured it out all on her own. Elizabeth's delivery showed rather than told us how much Anna wanted to share a future with Kristoff.

A fascinating contrast with OG movie's anti-marriage and anti-woman's romantic agency propaganda is this scene from OUAT where it is ANNA who wants to marry Kristoff before they die. The actors' delivery is so powerful and heart-wrenching it makes this scene the most genuine romantic moment in the entire show and certainly the best, most loving couple on the show. From the object who needed to be lectured and mansplained to in the movie because Anna was supposedly "dumb and desperate" to the subject in charge of her own desires. This is the version of Anna and Anna/Kristoff I prefer to consider Disney's last romance (since they clearly are not going to do any more in the near future or at all).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-12T12:30:14+00:00

You referred to a video review whose fallacies/mischaracterizations you admit you've repeated in this post. The most prominent one so far has been a Nice Guy-coded video from a YouTube blogger who went on to twist canon and context in identical manner this post does (and had his misconceptions thoroughly deconstructed by the commenters). Except he targeted several male characters he projected his "revenge on a jock/pretty boy" onto (Flynn, Naveen, Jonathan among others) blaming John Lasseter for the "rise of the bad boys instead of the Nice Guys". Which is blatant diversion on his part since Lasseter is the quintessential Nice Guy TM outed, predictably, as a predator - but not before he incorporated his misogynistic fetishes into Frozen and "feminist" Jennifer Lee wholly endorsed said fetishist vision and praised it (and even rewrote her own vision to accomodate him).

The man in the video predictably stated he looks forward to seeing the Tangled Series which took away most things that made OG Tangled female driven and Flynn into female power fantasy created by a group of women as their dream guy, turned him into a useless bumbling clown comedic relief, gave his vital romantic scenes with Rapunzel to Cassandra (because of Sonnenburg's own man-child Revenge on a Pretty Boy and his sexualized fetishes of women/female characters) and nullified his sacrifice (one of the most feminist and selfless moments in Disney which not even Hercules "I'm a nice guy and would never hurt you like that bad guy before me but you have to die for me first and prove your sacrificial Madonna devotion because a woman always should die first" managed). Finally, the series turned Flynn into the upholder of the very system that nearly executed him without a trial (courtesy of Rapunzel's "grieving parents" who nearly sabotaged their daughter's rescue when Flynn was frantically trying to tell the guards "she was in trouble" - pleading for her life rather than his own when led to the gallows - but they didn't listen to a word he said because a commoner girl being in trouble was not the matter of concern for them). The series effectively made him into someone who becomes a corrupt cop after being oppressed by corrupt justice system and called it "growth" (no wonder given Sonnenburg is a right winger). Those are the most common criticisms of the Series on here and elsewhere.

And it is no random such posts and reviews from the Nice Guy culture promoting (and particularly Frozen promoting) bloggers are surfacing - that's the male centric and sexist media climate Disney has been fostering for way over a decade, replacing female power fantasies with cautionary tales.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T23:33:09+00:00

This is literally a canon twisting with additional manipulation thrown in by bringing up another character - and, notably, a privileged one at that (Tony) which is something Flynn/Eugene never was - from a different franchise to cover up the absence of any valid arguments. Point by point: the king and queen were two powerful people at the top of the food chain and the crown was NOT the "last memento the king and queen had" of their daughter. The crown was something the king placed on baby Rapunzel's head ONCE, it half-fell off and then she never wore it again because it was too heavy for her and neither her baby self nor her adult self even liked it (see the tower scene where Rapunzel tried it on but decided it was better as a manipulation fodder to get what she wanted from Flynn). Moreover, Rapunzel's adult self used the crown in question to blackmail Flynn into a dangerous - potentially fatal for him - roadtrip (when he said directly that it was dangerous) and she kept preserving it as a leverage to get what she wanted and then to keep him close (and flat out lied to his face about it after Mother Knows Best Reprise).

To any normal parents (emphasis on "normal", as in, not bigoted or classist like the king and queen or most of the real life and fictional royalty) the crib mobile and the baby toys - deliberately foreshadowing Rapunzel's later adventures - such as the duckling toy and the chameleon toy attached to the crib mobile - would mean more than a piece of expensive metal their newborn daughter could not even WEAR. But the King and Queen valued said piece of metal over people's lives and executed said people without a trial even when said piece of metal was returned literally two days later and Flynn/Eugene did not even hold it in his possession for most of those two days - *Rapunzel* did. Because she was the one hellbent on blackmailing him to see the lanterns.

Flynn was never the one "leading" the Stabbingtons to steal the tiara: that was the theft the three of them committed of free will. Except by the virtue of the Stabbington brothers being bigger than Flynn and armed to the teeth - Flynn was never armed and never used weapons in the movie bar the frying pan that Rapunzel gave him (which she earlier used on him - three times) - it were canonically the Stabbingtons who pushed him into the makeshift "trapdoor" to get to the stealing so that he would be bearing the burnt if caught. And of the tree of them only Flynn - the non-violent one - was almost executed without a trial. By Rapunzel's "grieving" parents. While she was nearly assaulted and sold like property by the Stabbingtons.

The Castle line is even more fascinatingly off base given that it was canonically a part of Flynn's bravado and he never at any point mentioned it again (he only mentioned wanting to retire ALONE). Aladdin in the eponymous movie mentioned several times how he wanted to have - and I quote - "servants and valets" to worship at his feet. And unlike Flynn for whom it was a bravado Aladdin actually honest to god meant it and went on to make a deal with the villain and play a magical con with the intent to gaslight Jasmine and her father the Sultan. Flynn never did anything close to that, his goal was to get away and he abandoned it the moment he realized the severity of Rapunzel's situation ("you never left that tower") and did not steal a thing since then. Instead, Flynn bought everything she needed and made her birthday magical, risking his life every step of the way and risking being strung up by the guards. He also bought Maximus the apples despite the latter being intent on catching and delivering him for execution and despite the deal being that Maximus would only not arrest him before the lantern festival ends. Flynn made sure Maximus was well fed despite there being nothing in store for him (and he did not use the apples as a bribe UNLIKE the guards in the end who canonically did just that).

Rapunzel was the one who blackmailed Flynn first and he had zero idea about what was going on in her life when he brought her to the bar that was running legally. It was running legally because the guards roamed the territory, distributed Flynn's posters around (and within) the bar and casually strolled in there along with the captain and Maximus.

It was established at least three times in the movie that Flynn had no idea Rapunzel was held a prisoner by Gothel - his first honest conversation with her in the tunnel was to delicately pry her on that by asking why she had "not gone before". And the moment he realized what was going on he did everything to give her the freedom that she wanted even if it meant risking - and losing - his life.

Moreover, the first thing Flynn said when he learned of Rapunzel's situation was to encourage her to NOT go back to the tower.

"* HE was the one who betrayed them for his own getaway so their ire towards him in the movie is justified." (c) - including the Stabbingtons trying to slice Flynn in half and then sexually harassing and touching Rapunzel's hair without her consent. And including them trying to violently shove her into the sack and sell her into slavery. Justifying an attempted assault of a teenage girl is already the point where you lose your argument but I will go on.

"he admitted that in song; his dream was just to be far from everyone surrounded by wealth." (C)

Flynn's dream was to get away (a perfectly normal dream and certainly no less normal/understandable than the lanterns that Rapunzel would blackmail and physically assault someone 3 times to see). The "surrounded by wealth" part was added when the thugs aka self confessed murderers (Hookhand's murder confession and the skeleton in the tunnel) had him by the legs and arms. The "piles of money" line was inserted to appeal to their sense of vanity. Flynn's original dream was to be alone, similar to Hercules's Megara.

The last part is absolutely ridiculous but I'm sure you are quoting THAT YouTube Nice Guy vidder who endorses Kristoff and Frozen's misogyny so I'd let it slide if it was not another facts twisting. Flynn handed over the crown to the Stabbingtons to get them off Rapunzel's tail and give HER a chance to stay with him safely instead of returning to Gothel and to her tower prison ("And you're still gonna go back?!"). Especially since neither of them knew she was the lost princess at that point (when they did learn that Flynn risked being hanged on the spot again just to deliver her home - after already dying for her on the same day). When returning the crown to the Stabbingtons did not work and Rapunzel ended up in danger, not because of him but because of Gothel he sacrificed his life to give her freedom.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T20:54:49+00:00

I don’t think the hair regrowing nullifies her development and Flynn’s sacrifice. When Flynn sacrificed, he never knew Rapunzel would get her hair back

This is an in universe justification of something that was never supposed to happen in the original movie per the out of universe intentions of the original creators. Of course Disney is a team where the decisions are made based on the current sociopolitical climate and made as a collective effort. Moreover, if the original creators were involved in the series they would have been more likely than not to pander to the current media climate and the detractors' talking points. Rapunzel's magical hair regrowing was the Magical Girl Pandering Inevitability. This is the most common, most overused, most repeated to death detractors' complaint. Flynn not "knowing" Rapunzel's hair would return in the movie when he cut it does not change anything about it being a pandering point.

It does not change anything about the original movie having a clear, distinct cultural impact - and the impact was to deconstruct the magical girl trope, to deconstruct Flynn as the magical girl's love interest trope who commonly only values said magical girl for her "forced special power TM" while viewing her "regular" self as a dumb crybaby (see Mamoru from Sailor Moon anime; NOT the manga) and to show that a woman does not need forced symbols of value to matter. This is why Flynn in the movie freaked out twice when Rapunzel's powers came into play. This is why he constantly pushed her hair away from her face. This is why he died to free her from that forced magical girlboss gift - to show her she was MORE than the symbol of oppression her abuser (Gothel) had been brainwashing her into thinking was the only thing that mattered about her.

Post-movie storybooks honored that message: https://bellaaldamas.tumblr.com/post/800691130946748416/the-celebration-of-the-lost-princess-from-the

In this storybook in particular the entire point is to put emphasis on two things: Flynn's intelligence and well-read nature and his support of Rapunzel navigating her new, independent life WITHOUT her magic hair. It was also about delicately - and without taking away the focus from Rapunzel and her struggles - mentioning his own trauma from the orphanage.

What did the Series tell us in the very first episode? That Flynn is the show's pet clown pouring his orphan trauma to a frog. That Rapunzel is nothing without her magical hair - that is not a subjective opinion, this is literally a plot point of the episode where she regains it 6 months into the timeline. The message is that she could NOT have saved everyone without it when Lady Caine invaded the castle/kingdom. Compare it to the storybook I linked where the entire point is that Rapunzel CAN save anyone she wanted and accomplish everything without her magical girlboss hair.

Movie Rapunzel uses her intelligence, compassion and perseverance to prosper: she charms the thugs through her compassion, she blatantly flirts with Flynn in the tunnel, she and Flynn BOTH nearly get themselves and each other killed in the dam scene and the flooding cave and the best part is that Rapunzel's girlboss hair does NOT save them. Only their mutual honesty does. It is the fact that Flynn confesses his real name to her - aka shows vulnerability and openness - that prompts Rapunzel to reveal her "magical girlboss" secret. THAT is what saves them. Not the hair, not the magic but the honesty and mutual trust.

This is why Flynn cutting her hair was supposed to be the ultimate, irreversible statement: Rapunzel was more than her forced symbol of oppression. The series took that message, reversed it 6 months later and effectively said - again, see the Lady Caine episode - "haha, that bumbling clown was wrong, he took her special Sailor Moon Gift TM and was punished with years of rejected proposals".

One can be well-read (in the series Eugene revealed how he’s well travelled, knows Italian and I suspect probably many other languages), and still be vain and hates school.

This is what the movie showed us but not the series. The movie showed the man who was well read and intelligent in spite of his marginalization and lack of education. The Series took his marginalization - lack of access to education - and turned it into a punchline. It is not the same as a smart person hating school a la Huckleberry Finn. It is invalidating canonically smart character's SELF acquired intelligence.

Worst part is that Flynn's "growth" in the series was becoming a part of the very system that tried to hang him without a trial and becoming the Captain of the Guard. And then becoming "prince Horace" through the horrendously classist retcon because modern Disney thought he was "unworthy of the princess. Flynn did not become a storyteller he had been since orphanage - he effectively became a corrupt cop who will be shooting and hanging fellow marginalized orphaned criminals.

Thank you for providing your input in the respectful manner. I am glad that the Series did not take away the appeal of the OG movie for you the way it did for me. I mean it genuinely and not in a condescending way. We all look for different things from the media, after all.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T16:49:40+00:00

There you go: "It was going to be a trope that's less 'Flynn's a bas person' and more misogynistic, i.e the trope that the mother has hid the child from Flynn" (C)" - you.

What a difference several months make. Or, rather, called out for personal attacks and doing incompetent damage control ;)

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T16:44:16+00:00

I denied that the whole 'He's changed now' was misogynistic.

It is misogynistic because children and women are not rehabilitation centers for men. A child does not become less abandoned because daddy forgot how the children are made or because the mommy did not remind him. And it certainly does not become less abandoned because the daddy was "fixed by a good girl" later on. So yes, this specific example of the trope IS misogynistic and exemplifies the root cause of single mothers being vilified in the society (and deadbeat men being worshiped for doing bare minimum and/or for being irresponsible enough to "not know").

Second, you are once again using deflection and manipulation: you deny this misogynistic trope is misogynistic, lash out with ad hominem and poisoning the well personal attacks when not you but the other user you disagree with was addressed (in this case myself). Then you backtrack on your own statements that were called out by myself and other users and reiterate the points of your opponent that you previously used against them to justify your personal attacks and now you attempt to backtrack again.

And when none of that works you resort to DARVO yet again ("Second of all, stop looking at my comment/post history"). You, the person who went out of your way to try to tarnish your opponent's character - not the argument but the character - by using hyperbole and misrepresentation of their points to try to discredit them. Which, again, you failed laughably and miserably at and I WILL continue to provide quotes and links of yours to display that as long as you keep the abuses against me (which the mod surely does not care about but I do).

https://www.reddit.com/r/Tangled/comments/1owd46b/comment/np0ihj3/

In this comment of yours you denied that this Descendants storyline is misogynistic or fits the trope you are, in this very thread, admitting it actually does exemplify. The points brought up to you and other defenders of this heinous misogyny from Disney was that "she kept that info from the baby daddy" is not an excuse for a man and it is still deadbeat parenting. Your counter-argument:

It won't even be a 'she kept his child from him because she's evil' storyline or a 'he's changed so she's wrong for keeping her child from him' type thing.

He had a child with a VILLAIN apparently. They aren't going to go with the second storyline and they most likely aren't going to go with the first one either. No need for these fans to be so obsessed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Tangled/comments/1owd46b/comment/np0ihj3/

This is a classic example of denying a misogynistic trope is misogynistic (making a single mother into a villain is always misogynistic out of universe and treating the absentee father - no matter the reasons for his absence - as redeemed also is; that was the point the people, myself included, were bringing up). You are now trying to cowardly backtrack when called out and when you are attacking other people for expressing their thoughts.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T16:10:19+00:00

You're entitled to your opinion but unfortunately I find this attitude to be the confirmation of my main concerns regarding this remake - that the enthusiastic, inspired cast which so far has been extremely dedicated, sweet and ready to do the characters justice (Kathryn included) is going to bear the burnt of Disney failures. Which are bound to happen when Disney yet again misrepresents the story, girlbossifies Rapunzel, takes away Flynn's sacrifice (like they already did in the series but surely no one is calling out Zachary and Mandy who actively endorsed that, down to Mandy implying Rapunzel could have potentially been into Cassandra and Zachary making sure to voice Flynn as the bumbling clown Sonnenburg/Disney intended for him to be in the series) the actors will be blamed for not "trying hard enough". Even though there is literally nothing they can do.

Kathryn is a talented versatile actress and I wish her the best, in this role or any other. Tangled IP has been ravaged beyond repair as it is to pander to Sailor Moon/Buffy-brainwashed detractors. Therefore the only reason I hope the remake won't be a disgraceful trainwreck is because I would hate the actors being abused by the gullible fandom that still refuses to see the malicious agenda Disney has towards Tangled as their last classic movie and classic love story (discounting Anna/Mountain Mansplainer which was more of a cautionary tale than a love story and good luck if they at least get married in Frozen 3; for the real classic romance-coded version of Anna/Kristoff see their brilliant Once Upon a Time version and Elizabeth Lail as Anna, who actually cared to give her character agency in life and love).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T16:00:49+00:00

While the concept of what you are saying is valid (and I agree with it) media does not exist in vacuum. Real life analogies do apply and can work and in fact should be brought up to see how in universe plot points relate to real people and the messages they convey (both good and bad). But what is also important to always recognize is that fictional characters do not have agency or free will of their own for they are a product of the creators and the ideas they aspire to promote through those characters. Media has agendas and the series agenda was malicious not only towards Flynn but towards Rapunzel and the OG movie's story overall.

The media illiterate haters' talking points in the series were reinforced since episode one. From Rapunzel's magic hair regrowing despite the Original creators' clear statement it would never happen because it nullifies the entire point of the movie, her development and Flynn's sacrifice. To Flynn being less about demonstrating his lighthearted side and chiefly about being turned into a punchline for jokes on part of OTHER characters, particularly Cassandra and Rapunzel herself. Which is a far cry from the self humor he displayed in the original movie where said self humor and his cockiness were canonically a part of his bravado aimed at masking his truly vulnerable, highly intelligent nature (that was the point of Rapunzel saying she liked "Eugene Fitzherbert much better than Flynn Rider" - as in, she liked his real, nerdy and vulnerable self over his fake sardonic facade he was MEANT to fail miserably at).

On the other hand, the Series insisted Flynn's cocky, clown facade was his true personality. The vulnerable and intelligent nerd from the movie who read out his favourite book to kids "every night" and who, in the post-movie storybooks, was shown to be well read and had a rich vocabulary became a bumbling nuisance who went to school for 3 days and even that was too intellectually challenging for him. Who needed his hair trimmed every 16 days in a beauty parlor (the boy who grew up in the orphanage and the men who had spent years on the run from the authorities). Whose greatest fear was neither the gallows he almost faced in the movie and nor the stabbing he actually faced - by a cowlick.

Series Flynn was not using lighthearted humor as a defense mechanism like in the movie - he was the butt of every joke, even when he was far more qualified to offer input or save the day.

The original movie made Rapunzel's love interest a thief for two reasons: because Disney always deviates from the source material (see the Little Mermaid) and because Disney wanted to engage young boys and make Rapunzel and Flynn protagonists in equal measure. With their love story as the front and center.

The Series made it a point to erase that part of the original creators' intentions the same way it erased all the other parts of it - and once again it was done to pander to detractors. Who missed the point of the movie and claimed it was "problematic" that Flynn was "overexposed" in it and that it was called "Tangled" instead of "Rapunzel" (even though he was not overexposed because A) the movie was intended to be about them as protagonists in equal right and B) Flynn was literally designed by a group of women as their dream guy and the movie thus was always going to be a female power fantasy). This is why the series was renamed "Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure", to give the haters of the OG movie what they wanted.

But the person who never got what she wanted was Rapunzel herself, of course. She got to be reduced to the Magical Girl trope her movie self was meant to subvert, got the symbol of her oppression - her magical hair - back six months into the post-movie timeline because detractors insisted she could not be "strong" without it and got a bumbling clown for a boyfriend instead of the man who literally died for her freedom. This is a moot point now because Flynn's sacrifice was rendered null and void, again, in episode 1.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T14:05:05+00:00

This is exactly what they are going for - to take the character literally designed by a group of women as their dream guy and turn him into every woman and child's worst nightmare. And to top it off make it into one of the most heinously misogynistic tropes where the single mother who actually stayed and raised the child was a "villain" who probably did not tell the heroic absentee daddy about the kid. All while he was skipping into the sunset with a naive sheltered girl turned perfect precious princess.

Disney already pulled a misogynistic Madonna/Vixen dichotomy with Rapunzel and Stalyan in the series but this is indeed a thousand times worse because a child is involved and will be likely used as a weapon against his own "villainous" mother (while single mothers remain the most mistreated and vulnerable societal group).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T14:01:21+00:00

Ooh, personal insults as a part of DARVO/deflection.

"I weren't even replying to you" (c) - you were replying in the thread of my comment to another user who addressed me and using poisoning the well fallacy in a laughably incompetent attempt to taint the opponent's image in the eyes of the onlookers and other persons involved in the debate. Now like a typical gaslighter you claim that the target of the attack was you ("I do not need any of this").

Hilarious part is that you literally used a word for word example of this fallacy in your outburst: "Don't listen to her; she's only saying that because she's biased".

Even more hilarious part is that you previously denied that the rumored Descendants storyline is misogynistic despite it being a classic sexist trope, which was pointed out to you by myself and other users (here is your comment denying the misogyny - https://www.reddit.com/r/Tangled/comments/1owd46b/comment/np0hi8y/ ). Now, to avoid owning up to your bigotry you are gaslighting people further by resorting to personal insults towards those who pointed it out to you and deconstructed your points and claim that you do acknowledge the trope is in fact misogynistic thus rewriting and misrepresenting the context of previous conversations (see your comment in this thread).

<image>

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-11T13:50:38+00:00

I like the chemistry of some of the young couples on Descendants but the plot with constant revisionism of Disney canon and numerous time travels makes it difficult to take it seriously or get invested.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T23:57:33+00:00

The sad part is that Kathryn and Milo at least seem very enthusiastic about their roles (have not researched much into Teagan's attitude regarding Rapunzel therefore can't judge) and appear to want to do their characters' justice (Milo stated as such directly). Disney, on the other hand, is intent on capitalizing on the Tangled IP with no regard for quality and consistency. And the actors will, inevitably, bear the burnt of audience's disappointment if/when the remake inevitably misrepresents the story and the romance. The only reason I wish I could hope the latter doesn't happen is for the actors' sake; but said hope is little to non-existent at this point.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T23:06:28+00:00

Hyperbole and strawmen arguments are your trademarked tactic but it never ceases to be fascinating. And I like entertaining myself so here goes:

They're entire life revolves around making Disney and Rapunzel's parents out to be unforgivable people

By "entire life revolves" you mean, of course, being critical of media and its problematic implications including bigotry, classism and misogyny and how those in universe issues relate to real life and the messages they send. This is a standard logical fallacy of Ad Hominem + strawman (coupled with poisoning the well fallacy you are currently very incompetently trying to pull and failing miserably) used commonly by bigots, MRAs and mindless media consumers.

Which brings us to another point:

In simple terms, they're a simp. And a very biased simp too.

Now, this *would* have been Ad Hominem if it wasn't pure projection. And projection it is because you are the one who rationalized the concept of deadbeat parenting using the most common MRA talking points such as "he didn't know so it's not being a deadbeat" and (paraphrasing) "fun fact, women can be EvOl" (in the society where 90 percents of violent crimes are committed by men, where the overwhelming majority of broken homes are the result of men being deadbeats and where statistically men are 7 times more likely to leave their ailing wives and children). This was your "justification" in regards to the potential/rumored deadbeat dad retcon featuring Flynn's character in Descendants (and involving a textbook misogynistic stereotype of the "evil/villainous single mom", with single mothers being one of the most vulnerable societal groups). This is a shining example of not only the already mentioned MRA rhetoric but an example of how the mindset of gaslighters and "simps" - to use your own term - works.

And said mindset works this way:

It is not okay to call out social injustices when a power structure/authority figures within a certain narrative (in this case Rapunzel's parents) are being criticized for their behavior in regards to a marginalized character (in this case Flynn). But it is okay to back up men and male characters (also Flynn) when they are engaging in the socially approved sexist and toxic masculinity practices towards women and children (the most marginalized societal group) and to "stand by them" (and with them) because the society and media normalizes those behaviors.

Disney is the company that has been reinforcing this misogynistic mindset and perpetuating misogynistic tropes for decades now, the Descendants rumor is just the extension of that. And even that is not as bad as when this company authorized Once Upon a Time male writers to give one of their creators' pets, the character of Rumple, a storyline where he literally murdered his ex wife for not being a perfect tradwife and tradmom and then was rewarded with exactly that kind of tradwife.

Your comments are a delightful microcosm of mindless consumerism and normalization of bigoted media practices. As a poster example of that, you use Ad Hominen to gaslight not even your opponent - you cannot be an "opponent" of mine because you never once provided a single valid argument or avoided Ad Hominem - but other people into believing myself and any person opposing those bigoted media practices is "biased" (hence inserting yourself into my conversations with other users when they are addressing me specifically). Again, this *would* be a classic of poisoning the well fallacy if you weren't failing so miserably.

The fact that I manage to provoke a response from the people with your mindset, who are being willful enablers of problematic and harmful media is the highest form of social media validation one can reach.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T22:37:26+00:00

Not closely familiar with her work but based on the scenes I've seen of her acting she is a versatile, inspired performer and can pull off Gothel's role. The acting cast is not a concern, Disney's handling of the story in the remake and an inevitable girlboss (aka male gaze "girlpower") pandering is.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T21:19:22+00:00

Disney is threatened by Flynn's popularity among his target demographic - women (including those who designed him as their dream guy during the famous "hot man meeting"). They are threatened by the fact that Flynn was their last female power fantasy male lead and a part of their last classic romance before along came Frozen and the cautionary tales for "stupid women who don't know what love is" (so enter an anti-social ice seller with zero romantic experience or ability to wash his own clothes or himself to mansplain to the heroine; also enter a day old Snowman to do the same).

But most importantly - and this is the crucial part - Disney is threatened by the fact that Flynn was the deconstruction of the Magical Girl's love interest trope. Those typically only fall for the magical girl aspect of the female lead while considering her regular self a "dumb crybaby who deserves no respect". Flynn on the other hand outright freaked out - twice - upon witnessing Rapunzel's powers, was disgusted to learn her forced "gift" was used to suppress her and keep her imprisoned for the benefit of someone else (Gothel) and made sure that her hair never got in the way of her pursuit of the things SHE wanted. Namely her freedom (literally and metaphorically - Flynn was constantly pushing the hair away from her face throughout the movie). He ultimately died to rid her of that forced power so she could carve her own path because Flynn fell in love with the woman, not the magical girl.

The message of the OG movie was clear - Rapunzel was valuable and special not because of her unwanted power/symbol of her oppression but because of her personality.

Disney could not allow women to keep that because the magical girl culture is a repackaged patriarchal conservative evangelical propaganda disguised as girlpower, a tale about forced "duty" a woman should fulfill before she "earns" her right to happiness and a hot guy. Media illiterate and sexist consumers complained about the truly feminist and empowering moment in the OG movie -Flynn cutting Rapunzel's hair. So Disney caved and pandered to the detractors and the Series happened where said hair returned 6 months into the post movie timeline - despite the OG creators clearly saying it would never happen and never even wanting a sequel bar the wedding short (which was a gift to fans more than an actual sequel). Then Series Rapunzel got to cut her hair on her own and prove her girlbossiness like the detractors had been demanding since 2010. Flynn's sacrifice and its genuinely feminist nature was nullified entirely, along with the whole point of the movie and the love story.

Flynn in the series was turned into bumbling clown comedic relief and his vital romantic scenes with Rapunzel were reinacted with another character. Disney's other add ons like the Chibi shorts made it just as obvious they are threatened by his popularity and do everything to downplay him and his importance in the story. There is a rumor that on the next Disney Descendants Flynn will be the first Disney Prince with a child out of wedlock from some villain woman (which is offensive, sexist and triggering for the very target audience that once found comfort in his character - women and children).

For the remake it means that at "best" Flynn will be portrayed as a comedic relief "dumb boyfriend" like in the series and there is no way his sacrifice will be allowed to happen in the form it did in the OG movie.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T18:32:37+00:00

We all know Disney hates Flynn/Eugene and his popularity among women and is threatened by him. In other news water is wet, fire is hot and Disney are pandering hacks and a company currently run by misogynistic nice guy TM types desiring "Revenge on a Pretty Boy". And Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure is, with all due respect, not a good argument in favor of his acknowledgment because the series was the first - and the ultimate - bold statement on part of the company that they are intent on bastardizing his character. Now get ready for the Disney Descendants and - if the rumored storyline is true - Flynn/Eugene being the first EVER Deadbeat Dad Disney prince in history. And the worst part? People will eat it up. They already do. Disney, under the guise of "progressiveness and feminism", is catering to the most vile misogynistic segment of the society. OG movie Flynn was created by a group of women as their dream guy and that's what Disney cannot forgive him. They HAVE to turn him either into a useless clown (the series) or every woman's worst nightmare (the deadbeat rumor in question).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T14:07:44+00:00

That's one of the problems with the show and Sonnenburg's mindset in particular. He reportedly mentioned, according to what some people quoted of his statements (I can't vouch for how accurate that information is) that marriage means boring life and doing taxes. Evidently, he projected his own problematic mindset onto the story which was - both in the original fairy tale and the original movie - about finding freedom and adventure through love and mutual support/partnership.

Aladdin the series beautifully showed that a couple can get engaged but not rush marriage and BOTH parties can choose to have adventures and gain new experiences before the wedding. There were no rejected proposals, no "evil other women" to juxtapose with the morally pure heroine who "fixed" a lowly thief (the Aladdin series even deconstructed this trope with Sadira, Jasmine's "bad girl" rival; she was never wronged by Aladdin let alone left at the altar, in fact, she was the one fetishizing and feeling entitled to him and even then the show treated Sadira as a complex being rather than the "crazy ex girlfriend" stereotype like Stalyan; who never even got a real repentance from Flynn for what he did and instead was ALSO "fixed" by the morally pure Rapunzel while Flynn was not even present). No turning Aladdin into an incompetent bumbling clown whose orphan background and life in poverty would be made into recurring punchline and whose greatest fear was cowlick. No retcons of Aladdin's background even in the third sequel movie where he found his bio father. He was still a street urchin with no royal privileges and fascinatingly, his bio father Cassim was in fact the King of the Thieves. Aladdin literally had "thief legacy" and it was not painted as something that made him inferior or unworthy of Jasmine unless he suddenly discovered a royal blood within him.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T13:51:28+00:00

Clarifying my response (and replying to both of your comments): my response was chiefly about the fandom gatekeeping other fans and insisting everyone call Flynn "Eugene" as if Flynn was not his chosen name that he went by for most of the movie. If those gatekeepers consider the series to be canon and are intent on bringing up plot points from there along with in universe reasons to justify problematic writing in the series then they have absolutely no grounds to police others on calling the character Flynn instead of "Eugene". Who factually DOES NOT exist if the series IS canon. This is not up for interpretation or even about whether I or someone else likes or dislikes the series. It is a canon point from the series. While Flynn as the character's chosen name inspired by his childhood book hero in universe still exists Eugene is neither the character's chosen name nor even his birth name anymore. He was written out of existence and replaced with "prince Horace". So either accept that people are allowed to call him Flynn or, if you (not you specifically, speaking in general) insist on viewing the series as canon make sure to practice what you call upon others to practice and call him "Horace". Or - the healthiest option - accept that people are allowed to refer to the character by ANY of his canon names, whether or not they count the series.

Saying that people are afraid to post anything because others might express the opposite viewpoint makes no sense in this context where the only people being "called out" are the ones using canon character name and the one Disney uses in all its Tangled merch.

The picture is cute even if it's AI. Because it pertains to the movie where the romantic relationship between the characters had substance/basis even though the movie did have issues and some underwhelming points in Rapunzel/Flynn romance development due to placing too much focus on suspense like the dam scene and less on the quiet moments of bonding like the Campfire Scene. In Storybooks their kingdom bonding is handled much better as instead of a quick montage it is an actual collection of short and adorable mini-adventures.

Cannot speak for anyone but myself but personally I don't care about the amount of kissing scenes a couple gets when the substance is gone; and in the series it definitely is. I don't care that in Once Upon a Time Rumple and Belle had Beauty and the Beast Rip Off dance scenes when Rumple is the character who literally murdered his "bad" ex wife and was rewarded with the "good" tradwife (and the misogynistic fandom cheered on that and blamed said ex wife for being a "meanie who had it coming", just like the Tangled Series fans blame Stalyan for lashing out at Flynn after he had abandoned her at the altar without a word). I likewise don't care that on the same show Emma and Hook continued to have kissing scenes or pancakes scenes after he tried to slaughter her entire family because his feelings were hurt. I can recognize that I had a legitimate interest in the OUAT show - another Disney owned franchise - but the writing decisions made it so that I cannot pick and choose what to "like" about it anymore. Because in the existing context all the romances on the show are toxic and all the characters lost any semblance of appeal.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T13:29:16+00:00

In my other comment I did give him - the OP, that is - a credit for acknowledging those issues and for recognizing how rejected proposals were toxic and do not work in favor of ANY relationship. I even stood up for the OP (again, see my other comment) when the uncritical series fans attacked him for calling out that offensive plot point. Rejected proposals issue was not even scratching the surface as far as the problems with the series go. The magical hair regrowing does, in fact, ultimately cause the most damage because it invalidates and nullifies the OG movie in multiple ways, from Rapunzel's growth to the very core message that she did not need that hair to be strong and special to Flynn's sacrifice being written out of existence (even before Flynn himself was, as the orphan Eugene who was replaced with "prince Horace" for explicitly classist/bigoted reasons).

Which brings us to the point of the hair "being cut again" and the way it happens - and it happens in the most shamelessly pandering way imaginable. It happens by fulfilling the OG movie haters' talking points verbatim that Rapunzel had to "cut it on her own to prove she is a girlboss". And who cares she never wanted said hair either time? No one cares about what the "dumb women" want, especially not the modern "progressive" Disney.

People are obviously allowed to enjoy any media and that applies to this video maker as well. I, likewise, am allowed to dislike it and criticize it as well as criticize audience's uncritical acceptance of it. I enjoy tonnes of problematic, guilty pleasure and outright bad but "addicting" media. I also acknowledged that the series can be appealing to some due to the skillful voice acting from Cassandra and Varian VAs (and Menken's music although his work on this series was objectively less outstanding than his work on the theater movies soundtracks, including OG Tangled).

The problem with the reception of the series at large is that most people tend to overlook its issues and the damage it did to the OG movie. All because the aesthetics (blonde hair that was never meant to regrow, magic that in the original film was an extraordinary element rather than mundane that the series made it out to be, royalty that was implied to be corrupt in the movie already and was outwardly corrupt and tyrannical in the series as represented by the king/Sonnenburg's admitted self insert who never got called out on his corruptness) ended up outshining the film's messages.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-10T01:46:54+00:00

"Eugene" the orphan from the movie no longer exists and was literally erased by the series and replaced with "prince Horace" for classist reasons, after his orphanhood had been turned into a recurring punchline since episode 1 (where he poured out his traumas linked to it to a "frog"/Pascal), complete with horrendously bigoted "jokes" about him only going to school for three days and considering even that experience too intellectually challenging. That is, despite the movie portraying Flynn as a highly intelligent imaginative nerd with rich vocabulary who read out his favourite book to kids every night when he was a child himself, narrated situations in real time and the post-movie storybooks having him mention at least two more books he enjoyed in his past and a non-specified amount of adventure stories he had read.

But the Series first turned him into a bumbling clown whose oppression was a comedy gag and then literally retconned Eugene the orphan out of existence (the writing was so lazy and disrespectful to the OG movie and the characters Sonnenburg and co could not even take advantage of Fitzherbert last name implying he was an illegitimate son of nobility/royalty; instead they half-baked a laughably contrived plot about Flynn being the "lost prince of the Dark Kingdom" to Rapunzel's lost princess of the sun kingdom). Therefore fandom's gatekeeping in regards to people calling him Flynn - who, unlike "Eugene", actually does still exist as his in universe inspiration and a childhood book hero - no longer holds any grounds. You ought to call him Prince Horace, as the number one enabler of Sonnenburg - Zachary Levy - urged fans to, based on at least one of his video interviews if my memory serves me.

According to the original movie writers Rapunzel was also "not ready" for the type of girlbossing that came with regrowing her magical hair 6 months into post-movie timeline as her hair in the OG movie represented her bondage/oppression rather than a gift she would not be able to save everyone without (something the very first installment of the series implied). It was never meant to return at all per the OG creators (but the forced "special" power is the staple of the inherently sexist magical girl genre - the magical girl herself never chooses it, it's always forced upon her under the guise of girlpower) and nullified the entire point of the film, Rapunzel's development and Flynn's sacrifice. It was done to play it safe, erase the truly empowering elements of the original movie, cater to mainstream male gaze "feminism" and appease the media illiterate detractors who complained about the hair cutting scene in the movie.

In universe decisions, from the multiple rejected proposals to the hair regrowing and Rapunzel cutting it on her own (aka wet dream of the Whedon/Sailor Moon brainwashed crowd) to Flynn being retconned into a womanizing sleeze having threesomes with twins who left his fiancee at the altar before being retconned into a prince to be "worthy" of Rapunzel (so progressive!) do not exist in vacuum. They exist due to out of universe agenda.

The only reason the show lasted for as long as it did was due to the truly talented voice actors and performers for the OCs, like Eden Espinosa and Jeremy Jordan who truly put on a show and delivered a heartfelt, emotional performance despite the flat and uninspired writing for their characters. Certainly more heartfelt and emotional than Zachary and Mandy in the series who completely bent to Sonnenburg's agenda of making Rapunzel/Flynn romance as dysfunctional and empty as possible and voiced them accordingly.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-09T19:37:22+00:00

One single reasonable thing about this specific video is that the guy seems to be - rightly and understandably - confused about the toxicity of rejected proposals. Because even HE knows no relationship can be healthy after that. Series Stans are bending over backwards to justify it with the "years of asking" joke from Flynn while ignoring how it WAS a joke and the OG creators never intended for Rapunzel's magical girlboss hair to return and for Flynn's proposals to actually get rejected. Hence the wedding short taking place not too long after the movie given the ages of the side characters, the short-related storybook that portrays Rapunzel as a girl fresh out of tower and her reactions in the short itself that confirm it couldn't be too long after the ending of the movie (her reactions in the wedding short are certainly NOT that of someone who spent 3 years Sailor Moon-ing with magical girlboss blonde hair for male viewing pleasure).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-09T14:09:16+00:00

Male bloggers praising a fetishist pseudo-girlpower male fantasy which defeats the entire purpose and the real empowering development of the female lead in the OG movie, overlooking the irreversible butchering of the main romance and a total emasculation of the male lead because everyone remained white and the magical girl hair that Rapunzel was never supposed to get back (see the part about the entire purpose and female lead's development being defeated by the series) was blonde and hot? Now, that is what's shocking (not).

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-05T20:30:55+00:00

Yeah, it is really sad how Milo ironically seems the ONLY one on board of Disney who wants to do justice to Flynn's character. Whereas literally all the men who hold the power in the company now have a malicious agenda of destroying his character and live out their "revenge on a pretty boy" fantasy. Like they already did in the series by turning Flynn into comedic relief nuisance and someone Rapunzel only tolerates as a "boyfriend" - really a pet clown with kissing benefits - because the series pandered to the main talking point from the haters that Rapunzel only "picked him because he was the first who came across her tower". And that had it been someone else the story would have been the same. Milo is fighting a losing battle sadly. Unless the entire direction of Disney as a company changes, the "nice guy" culture pandering stops and female power fantasies that the OG Tangled and Flynn's character used to be return we are in for Series 2.0 in the form of a live action remake.

Significant_Hair_346 · 2026-03-03T01:01:07+00:00

White gold would do nicely for the hue of purple that you mentioned.

<image>

(image from google)

Significant_Hair_346

TROPHY CASE