#antidisney

One of the reasons I keep thinking about Bitter Greens (a retelling of the Rapunzel/ Petrosinella fairy tale) is because its love story felt mutual, emotionally raw, and honest. There’s a scene where Lucio tells Margherita that he loves her deeply, but he also needs a real life — a wife, a partner — not just a hidden, incomplete relationship. And he sets a boundary. He says: “I am sick with longing all the time I am away from you, and sick with frustration all the time I am with you… I want a wife, someone to share my life.”

That’s not toxic. That’s real. That’s what commitment and romantic love should look like — not just infatuation or waiting endlessly, but two people choosing each other, fully. Margherita does love him. She’d rather die than lose him. And that intensity makes the relationship feel alive, reciprocal, and grounded in real emotional stakes.

Lucio's moment is one of healthy emotional boundaries: he loves her deeply, but he also needs a life that includes her fully, not one where he’s a secret or sidelined. That doesn’t make him the bad guy — it makes him honest and vulnerable. And the fact that Margherita loves him enough to say she’d rather die than lose him just deepens the emotional truth of it. That’s a level of intensity, clarity, and mutuality that many Disney adaptations often avoid — because they’re afraid to touch anything that deep.

Now compare that to Tangled: The Series. Flynn Rider (Eugene) is treated like a joke — his trauma is mocked, he’s sidelined emotionally, and when he expresses love and commitment, it’s framed as controlling or as a threat to Rapunzel’s “freedom.” The worst part? Rapunzel literally has panic attacks and nightmares about marrying him — as if marrying the man who died to set her free is a worse fate than being locked in a tower for 18 years by her abuser.

What are we even doing here?

If marriage feels like a prison with a specific person, that’s a huge red flag. In real life, any therapist would say that means the relationship probably shouldn’t continue. Yet the show bends over backward to justify Rapunzel’s fear, while making Flynn silently absorb it all — without ever letting him speak up for his needs. Where’s his boundary? Where’s his emotional arc?

And no, wanting stability and commitment isn’t outdated or selfish. It’s not “toxic masculinity.” It’s healthy, and it’s real. Flynn has every right to say:

“I love you, but I can’t keep living like this. I want someone who chooses me — someone who sees a future with me, not someone who’s terrified of it.”

The implication that marriage is a prison especially for women — and that Flynn is part of that “trap” — makes him feel wrongfully demonized when all he ever did was risk his life for her, respect her freedom, and love her unconditionally. When Rapunzel has nightmares about marrying him or treats his desires as threats to her autonomy, it makes him look like a villain — when he’s done nothing but love her the way a real partner should.

Marriage should only be horrible when it's with the wrong person.

So when a story frames all marriage as oppressive, it suggests either that Rapunzel sees Flynn as "the wrong person" or that the show has lost touch with what commitment actually means. Either way, it distorts the love story the film gave us.

The original Tangled film showed a love story where they risked their lives for each other. But the series undercuts all that emotional weight by rewriting Rapunzel as someone who sees that same love as a trap. The message becomes: “Love is good, but only if it doesn’t ask anything of you — not even commitment.”

And that’s not empowerment. That’s avoidance dressed up as growth.

Flynn Rider deserves a partner who wants to share her life — not someone who draws his face on a punching bag to please a toxic friend, keeps secrets, mocks his pain, and views him as a threat to her independence.

Because it most likely was intended to be. Despite the “after years of asking” joke at the end of the original Tangled, nothing in Tangled Ever After suggests a long passage of time:

Rapunzel and Flynn look exactly the same.

The little girls who braided Rapunzel’s hair are still tiny children.

Maximus and Pascal act the same.

There’s no visual age progression in anyone — including background characters.

All of this suggests the short was never really meant to show a “years later” timeline — just that some time had passed, likely a few months, enough for a royal engagement and wedding preparations.

The “years” line from Tangled is best seen as an exaggerated storytelling flourish — not a literal timestamp.

❓ Why did the animators or writers include the “years of asking” line if the short contradicts it?

The answer is probably: tone over timeline.

The ending of Tangled is narrated by Flynn — and his voice is still playful and cocky. He exaggerates for humor (“after years of asking and asking…”), then Rapunzel corrects him, and he admits the truth. That’s the joke.

The short was made to be a comedic wedding disaster, not a deep emotional follow-up. The creators were likely not thinking about long-term continuity — and that’s a valid criticism. The movie, short, and series all have different tones, teams, and goals, which causes narrative inconsistency.

❓ Why did Disney make the short if they were supposedly against marriage (like the series seems to suggest)?

This is an important point. The short (Tangled Ever After) was released in 2012, five years before the TV series existed. It came from the same team that worked on the original film, not the series.

At that time, Disney was not pushing anti-marriage themes. In fact:

Frozen hadn’t even come out yet (2013).

Tangled Ever After was clearly a celebratory, romantic piece — albeit with slapstick comedy.

The idea that marriage = prison only came into the TV series, and that show had different writers with a different agenda. It retroactively inserted themes that were not present in the original movie or short.

So it’s fair to say: 👉 The short was made in the spirit of happy-ever-after fairy tales — not with the later “marriage is prison” metaphor in mind.

❓ Why does Rapunzel look so happy in Tangled Ever After if the series said she feared marriage?

Because at the time the short was made, Rapunzel was meant to be happy. There was no plan to “deconstruct” marriage. She’s glowing, calm, and joyful. No sign of panic or fear.

The series creators later invented a conflict for her — one that directly contradicted both the movie and the short.

You’re absolutely right to notice this: ✅ Tangled Ever After does not reflect the “marriage as prison” arc at all. ✅ It portrays a traditional, joyful wedding with no hesitation. ✅ Rapunzel is happy. Flynn is happy. There’s no rejection, no conflict.

✅ Summary

“Years of asking” was a joke — not literal.

Everyone looks the same in Tangled Ever After because it’s not meant to be years later.

The short was created before the TV series and does not share its anti-marriage themes.

So WHY do Tangled stans act like she had to reject the proposal? Why is “commitment takes time” only a valid message when it’s about marriage—but totally fine when she was ready to die for him after three days? If dying together is okay, but getting married isn’t... that’s not "modern values," that’s hypocrisy. 😑

Also, that “we got married eventually” line? It was a JOKE. Tangled Ever After clearly happens right after the movie. Same creators. Same flower girls who didn’t age a day. But y’all out here rewriting canon and acting like it’s deep.

Meanwhile, the older princesses—Ariel, Cinderella, Aurora—get trashed constantly just for marrying quickly, when that was normal for their time. It wasn’t “rushed romance,” it was historical accuracy. And now we act like the original Rapunzel’s choice to marry is a problem too? Like... do you even know the source material?

If Disney hated the old story this much, they should’ve just made up a new character. Stop erasing the original meaning of these tales just to push modern agendas. And stop pretending that this Rapunzel is the same character. She’s not.

The Tangled series sends a HORRIBLE message about marriage being a "prison," which is the complete opposite of the truth. What even happened to the characters? Flynn’s turned into a dumb sidekick, and Rapunzel? She’s toxic now. She lets everyone insult Flynn without defending him, keeps secrets from him, draws his face on a punching bag, time travels to rewrite his personality, and then rejects his proposal—after she literally would have died for him in the movie. 🙄

And why is everyone ignoring the fact that this story takes place in the 18th century? People—especially princesses—were married off at 16 so they could be together. Marriage wasn’t a choice, it was the only option. No one was living together unmarried back then. Why rewrite history? Why is this now “unrealistic”? Back then, people got married fast because that was reality.

And don’t even try to say this is “canon.” The series was written by someone else than the movie, and it’s NOT the same thing. Disney never intended for Rapunzel to reject Flynn’s proposal—that line at the end of the movie was a JOKE. Tangled Ever After doesn’t look like years later; it’s clear the creators were just trying to fill time. Plus, the Royal Theater still claims they got married quickly after the movie. So much for the series being “canon,” huh?

Tangled fans love to trash older princesses for marrying young and quickly—when it made perfect sense for their time period—but they’re fine with Rapunzel and Flynn being willing to die for each other after THREE DAYS? If the message is “commitment takes time,” then giving up your whole life and freedom for someone should ALSO take time, right? That’s real commitment, not marrying quickly. Huge double standard.

I was actually going to say that maybe Chip and Dale’s version of Peter Pan was disrespectful in light of Bobby Driscoll,

But I just saw a review of the movie that says Peter’s motivation is that he was fired from Disney for having acne???

Like. I am stunned. I actually gave the creators the benefit of the doubt. But no, this was an intentional Bobby Driscoll reference?? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?????