On Queen's Thief vs Tangled

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

 On the recent post regarding the similarities between the Queen's Thief series and the movie Tangled:
How do these similarities make you feel about the movie? Do you resent them/the movie? Do you find it suspiciously or annoyingly interesting? Or do the coincidences make you like the movie all that much more?
I'm on the fence myself. On the one hand, I sort of sniff at the movie for being blatantly unoriginal and because Gen the Thief is totally superior to Eugene the thief. But on the other hand, ahh, it's coolly uncanny how many similarities there are!

Comments

[live-momma.livejournal.com]

Meh. I remember noticing a lot of similarities between Disney's Beauty and the Beast and Robin McKinley's Beauty back in 1991, too.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Hi, again! *waves*

Hmm, I'd find it odd to be annoyed by their similarities, as it's not as if Tangled is a blatant knock-off of QT. QT is mostly a court drama with dark tones, while Tangled is a charming fairy tale/adventure story. Calling the movie unoriginal is a bit much as well, as the idea of a devilish, charming thief is not exactly a new one. You might say the same about Gen and his similarities to Howl Jenkins.

I'm quite fond of Flinn, partly because he reminds me of Gen a bit and also because he's his own fun character. Is he based on Gen? Maybe... It's really hard to tell, but overall, I find it highly unlikely that all the writers and artists that would be involved in an animated movie production to have read Megan's books. Was one or two of them? It's possible, but it's still just an idea they were influenced by. There's a reason one can't copyright ideas. Hmm... I think we'd soon run out of possible plots!

[(Anonymous)]

Whoa, whoa, has this been discussed before? Similarities between Gen and Howl? Because I didn't notice any. I'm sure there are some, but there aren't any that stand out to me.
Hm...I can only say that they're both duplicitous and know more than the reader/other characters do and are pretty much always in control. But...that's it. Oh, and both avoid positions of power...but the circumstances are rather different. Oh, and,--ah, this should've been obvious from the start, but it's true for so many other characters, like Chrestomanci for instance--they're both fops. But I swear that's all I see! What have I missed?

[(Anonymous)]

On second thought, their foppishnesses aren't really the same. Gen likes to have the best of everything--I think this is rather like Chrestomanci. He likes to feel and look awesome. But Howl on the other hand is so overly vain--"what's the point in living if you're not beautiful?" or something like that. Unless that was from the movie. But still, he fixates too much on the dandyness.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Their taste for fashion is actually more similar then you might think at first. Gen likes to look good but at the heart of it, he uses clothes as a disguise to manipulate the perception of others. Howl also likes to look good and as a powerful wizard, thinks style gives him flash and presentation. He is vain, but this is partly another facet he projects in order to make others dislike him. He uses his clothes for the flash effect, primarily.

So, so, so...

Both Gen and Howl are aware that clothes effect the perception of others, and use this to their advantage. Different motivations? Yes, but still similar in the means.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Yes, it has. Mostly during the YA Fantasy Showdown (http://yafantasyshowdown.weebly.com/the-final-battle---howl-vs-eugenides.html). Gen and Howl faced down for the finale. More on this tag (http://sounis.livejournal.com/?skip=20&tag=contests).

A quite a few of them are the ones you mentioned.

(1) Fops/Dandies
(2) They whine about everything.
(3) They both hate to kill or harm others.
(4) They lie.
(5) They're not too comfortable with power, as they both doubt themselves.
(6) They both say, "What a lie that was!"
(7) They're both very protective of those they love.
(8) They're both clever and prefer the none direct route.
(9) They both think they're cowards.
(10) They both go out of their way to make people fear and dislike them.

That's my top ten, though I could go on for quite awhile. I will also say that many of their behaviors have different motivations, and I see them as very different people despite how similar they are.

I think they're also similar because I believe Megan used Howl as a character base when forming Gen, being that she is a big fan of DWJ and Gen uses one of Howl's lines. I don't mean that in a bad way, as if you are writer, you understand one tends to think of another character who is similar to the one that you want to create and use what they say and do as a way to jump start you creative process. Perfectly acceptable if she did, and I do it too in my original stories.

Flinn, Gen, and Howl are all awesome characters, and I love them all for different reasons!

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

I must say that 7 probably applies to 80% of protagonists across literature. But I quite like the similarities. No wonder I cleave to Gen so strongly. I rather like this type of character. My favourite characters from kids books are definitely Howl, Chrestomanci, and Gen--in no specific order.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

True, but usually not in such creative ways!

The two of them are especially similar in that way, because they don't quite know what they'll do when those they hold dear are threatened. Part of the reason they hate violence is because they know they are not entirely in control of the extremes of their actions. Gen's methods tend to be particularly self-multilating. Poor guy...

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

Plus, they both like to slither out of their responsibilities.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Quite. They are both professional slitherer-outers.

[veriloquently.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I see more similarity in the plots of Tangled and Aladdin, really, than I do in Tangled and QT. The down on his luck scoundrel winning a princess and a kingdom is a pretty common trope in fairy tales as a general rule. I really enjoyed Tangled for precisely that reason--it was an unabashed fairy tale that showed its love for and familiarity with the genre, even as the story was a bit more modern (only a tiny bit).

I think the common names, while fun, are trying to do very different things with the name Eugene/ides. Eugenides is a noble name with a history and a direct connection to the god that Gen is most tied to. Gen's name is a huge part of what he is and what he values in himself. Eugene from Tangled changed his name precisely because it didn't seem to reflect what he wanted to be (dashing, powerful, and in command). So my take is that probably the names are one of those happy coincidences that happen and don't really mean anything. Which, again, is me trying to say that I completely agree there is very little intentional connection between QT and Tangled, but that I really loved and enjoyed both!

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Which, again, is me trying to say that I completely agree there is very little intentional connection between QT and Tangled, but that I really loved and enjoyed both!

My sentiments exactly. I adore Tangled, and think it a lovely fairy tale that is sweet and charming in all the best ways. And it has frying pans! It also has a cute romance with lovely characters, in particular a strong female character whom I admire (a little rare in Disney). Plus, It's FUNNY!

[oxeyed.livejournal.com]

Actually, I was a little bit annoyed, but not because I thought it was a rip-off. I thought Tangled was "just ok" as far as movies go and the more people fangasmed over it, the less I liked it. So when all these similarities were pointed out to me, I was annoyed because I felt like it obligated me to like Tangled.

Of course, that reasoning doesn't make that much sense, but that's how my mind works.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Well, I'd say they only have a similar character. The plots are night and day, so I wouldn't think that being a QT fan guarantees that you'd like Tangled. I like Tangled because I'm a sucker for that sort of story, and I adore most fairytales. I squeeed about the cuteness of it all throughout the the whole movie!

[theorangethief.livejournal.com]

I think that the similarities just make the movie more enjoyable than it would of been if I had never heard of QT. Personally I love Tangled and I don't really think its a rip-off of QT. On Gen and Howl... I can see some similarities but I think they are both their own character just as Flynn and Gen are.

[hazelwillow.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Tangled (yet! I will sometime), so I can't weigh in there. But RE: character similarities, I started reading the manga Fullmetal Alchemist recently, and I think there are some surface similarities between Gen and the main character Ed. They both have untypical (western?) qualities for a hero, such as being whiny, overdramatic, sarcastic, and short. Oh, and missing appendages. In short (bahaha), both are heroes whose personalities are more than just the "hero traits" personified.
When I started reading, this turned me off because I was way over protective of Gen (and his position as pre-eminent whiner in my head/reading). But I soon got hooked on FMA and now I love it in its own right.

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

AH! Ed! That's who it was! The suspicion that Gen was similar in physique to some other character I knew has been nagging my for a while!

[inkblackswan.livejournal.com]

Gen and Ed are also the only two male characters I can think of off the top of my head who braid their hair.

[hazelwillow.livejournal.com]

An excellent point! :P

Now I'm making analogies... in QT world I think Sophos most closely resembles Alphonse. They're both kind-hearted, and their exterior (since CoK) is frightening and doesn't match who they are inside. Also if anyone is like a younger brother to Gen, it would have to be Sophos.

[inkblackswan.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I like it.

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

So all in all, the similarities seem very well-received!
One note, though--by "blatantly unoriginal" I didn't mean that I thought Disney had intentionally copied Gen. Hm...how to say this? I just meant that they came up these things second, too late--and so inferior and not original, because a precedent existed. This is actually one of my worries when writing. I feel like I'm constantly in a race to think up something before someone else does.

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Oh, I understood you. I was just being peevish, because I really like Tangled! Keh..

Ow, that's true, but sensations in the market actually cause people to look for books that are similar. Some people like to read the same basic plot interpreted by different authors (I may or may not be one of them). And there is also a risk in being entirely original, because then you're likely to create a story that only appeals to a particular group of people. Not a bad thing of course, but not always a money-maker for publishers.

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

Haha, I rather liked Tangled, as far as my liking for 3D animation extends. But not because of the similarities. I didn't even notice them. I just thought the music was pretty good and the villainess and hero refreshing for Disney.

[m-chant.livejournal.com]

It was only after I found out through Sounis about the similarities and got defensive for Gen. XD.

[drashizu.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting point that originality is valued by readers and viewers to the point that it can actually influence a story's overall reception--because we're somewhat incapable of seeing a story and judging it solely on its own merits; at the very least, our idea of what a "merit" is is clearly derived from our prior reading or viewing experiences. However, I find that in my own reading, I don't care for originality of idea nearly so much as effectiveness of story.

Although I don't know if I'd say Tangled falls into this category, there are good examples out there of stories who might not do something "first" but take the idea and make a better story out of it. Completely subjective, of course. For instance, Dracula is widely considered the "first" vampire novel, but that doesn't make it the best story with vampires in it. Which one actually does take home that award depends on the merits that particular readers assign to stories based on the qualities that they find most necessary, striking, valuable, or communicative.

Precedents are often lauded because they're "first," but sometimes that correlates to inferiority along other lines, such as character development, or plot cohesion, or thematic depth, or just the sheer ability to make an audience sit back and say "Wow! That was fun!" simply because the ideas that seemed so original in the precedent had yet to be fully formed in either the creator's mind or the collective culture. This leaves room for the ideas to be explored in more depth or developed more thoroughly in future works that consider them. And either way, whether a story is superior or inferior to another is again entirely subjective.

(The reason "first" has quotes is that everything to one degree or another has precedence: in oral storytelling or science or art or religion. It's just that we think of the first vampire novel as unique because it's the first time vampires have made an appearance in that genre of culture.)

I don't know if you find yourself reading in one genre more than another, but because the stories we're comparing (Tangled and The Thief) are both fantasies, I think it's worth mentioning that certain cultures of readers tend to assign different values to the merit of originality. I rarely read fantasy (outside certain exceptions), and I'm often surprised by how often the idea of originality or uniqueness appears in readers' reviews as a standalone merit. Most of what I read is science fiction, and it feels to me that in that genre, originality doesn't automatically come with extra bonus points for the author attached to it. Original things often fall completely flat in science fiction, and this may very well be because science fiction does value realism very highly; as science progresses in the real world, it's increasingly difficult to come up with new ways of writing about it while maintaining realism. So I think the merit of originality, of setting the precedent, is culture-specific, and can differ wildly from person to person and even based on medium and genre.

Just some thoughts. I did see Tangled and liked it; it was fun. I had already seen the first post on this site, though, so I was looking for the connections to QT. I'm not sure if I would have thought Flynn Rider was anything like Gen if I hadn't. He's much too cheerful and dashing. Gen isn't dashing in my head, and he's certainly not cheerful. He's snarky and a bit mean, and much, much more ruthless than Flynn. But I liked Flynn's rivalry with the horse :)

[ninedaysaqueen.livejournal.com]

Precedents are often lauded because they're "first," but sometimes that correlates to inferiority along other lines, such as character development, or plot cohesion, or thematic depth, or just the sheer ability to make an audience sit back and say "Wow! That was fun!" simply because the ideas that seemed so original in the precedent had yet to be fully formed in either the creator's mind or the collective culture.

This is exactly what I was thinking, but Drash... You've said it far more brilliantly then I could ever hope to. Kudos to you!

Cliche can still be enjoyable if done well, and fantasy culture, especially, thrives on cliche redoes and remakes of familiar stories. Creativity does not always correspond with complete and utter newness. And you're right... I get irritated with the term "original," because most people don't truly want "original". They want a sort of story they are familiar with made into something new. Give a person something completely new and inventive like Hugo Cabret, and we have no idea what to do with it or even what to call it.

And good point on making improvement. Does Jane Austen being one of the first to write "comedy of manners" preclude that no author could ever write anything just as good or better? Certainly not! In fact, I give kudos to Tangled for taking an over-used fairytale and turning it into a very different story with new creative elements. And Flynn? Actually more typical of the usual devilish thief from fairytales than Gen.

Also, I noticed that often times people will complain about not liking a story, because it's been done before. But is this simply because it wasn't done well, or they've seen it done better?

[drashizu.livejournal.com]

Hey, thanks :)

I think, for your last point, that it's probably a combination of both. There might also be a secondary originality effect: sometimes, the first book of a particular type that a reader reads becomes the paragon of that type of story in their head, and no other story ever quite compares with it, because it came first, and was the most fresh and new seeming at the time. I know I've had it happen to me with a few stories. I can appreciate other books that do the same thing, but there's just a sort of... "loyalty" factor. I can't ever bring myself to like the later books as much as the first one, because it was, for me, my first exposure to that particular twist/trope/stereotype.