Mandy Moore on What Disney's Rapunzel Movie Will Be Like

September 29, 2009
Source: Empire


Well, it's a slow news week. Although this is interesting, we know enough about the project already that it's not that exciting. Anyway, Empire recently talked with musician and actress Mandy Moore about voicing the lead character in Disney's upcoming Rapunzel animated 3D musical. The project will be Disney's 50th animated feature and is a passion project for John Lasseter. After being delayed for years, it's finally moving forward at the Mouse House, currently slated for a holiday 2010 release. "I just feel honored to be in such good company. Being a Disney Princess is kind of every girl's ultimate dream," Moore admits. Read on!

So what can we expect from the long-locked royal? "She's sort of the quintessential sassy, feisty Disney heroine. She's quite modern, quite a curious girl as well," says Moore of the once-entowered princess. "She's just coming into her own and is anxious to figure out a way to see the world around her that she's been kept away from for so many years."

Modern, really? I don't know if Ms. Moore knows what she's actually talking about. This version of Rapunzel is based on the original Brothers Grimm fairy tale first published in 1812. I don't think that means it will be set in modern times, but then again, who knows what Disney has up its sleeve. The film is being co-directed by story artist Nathan Greno and Bolt director Byron Howard. Originally Kristin Chenoweth was attached to voice Rapunzel but was replaced by Mandy Moore in this most recent iteration. We featured some beautiful concept art for this back in early August. Stay tuned for more updates on Disney's Rapunzel as they arrive.

Find more posts: Casting, Movie News



Ms. Moore knows exactly what she's talking about. She's referring to part she is playing, the characterization of Rapunzel as a Disney heroine in *this* version of the story, not the original text of the Grimm's fairytale. She never described Grimm's Rapunzel as modern.

Jeffrey on Sep 29, 2009


I think she means her character has a "modern" sensibility not that the film itself is set in modern times

scotty on Sep 29, 2009


Yeah, I think she was just saying modern as a character trait.....

PJ H on Sep 29, 2009


I think she means what 1, 2 & 3 said. I love when people repeat each other. I personally think this would be a movie better left to the 2D arts like all the other Disney princess movies. Even though its more expensive and Disney at some point will stop producing 2D movies. (that is of course, if Princess and the Frog doesn't do astronomically well.) Mandy Moore is hot, so if her voice is attached to this character, I'll have to go without my girlfriend.

Jared H on Sep 29, 2009


Think...Shrek. Not set in modern times but modern characters. It's ok, Alex, I'll let it slide like so many others. I agree #4. This is how Disney should have went back to drawing, not that frog crap.

Tra la la la la di da on Sep 29, 2009


Alex, she meant that Rapunzel will have an anachronistic personality and the film could have anachronistic dialogue. This is what Disney has done a lot of actually. It's an easy way to get laughs and audience buy-in. Agree with #5. See: Shrek for example of Anachronism applied to Fantasy situations for humorous effect. Lots of agreement around here for once. What an improvement!

SS on Sep 29, 2009


to add to what the previous posters have mentioned so far; Disney's Rapunzel was originally going to have a modern setting that crossed over to the fairy tale, kinda like a reverse-Enchanted but all animated. I heard when Lasseter came in he scrapped that story but who knows these days?

Otacon on Sep 30, 2009


"Modern" meaning Rapunzel will act modern, not another "damsel in distress," more of an independant female like Ariel or Jasmine. And is this film really a "passion project for John Lasseter?" If I remember correctly, the film already HAD a passionate project coordinator, Glen Keane, who was going to also direct, before he was fired by Lasse---, Oh, I mean, before he "left, due to health reasons." ha! ha!

Kenneth on Sep 30, 2009

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram