Una princesa solitaria y un pobre zapatero se enamoran mientras intentan recuperar tres orbes mágicos robados por un torpe ladrón, todo mientras burlan a un ambicioso hechicero.Una princesa solitaria y un pobre zapatero se enamoran mientras intentan recuperar tres orbes mágicos robados por un torpe ladrón, todo mientras burlan a un ambicioso hechicero.Una princesa solitaria y un pobre zapatero se enamoran mientras intentan recuperar tres orbes mágicos robados por un torpe ladrón, todo mientras burlan a un ambicioso hechicero.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Vincent Price
- ZigZag
- (voz)
Eddie Carroll
- The Thief (Majestic Films version)
- (voz)
- (as Ed. E. Carroll)
- …
Stanley Baxter
- Gofer
- (voz)
- …
Kenneth Williams
- Goblet
- (voz)
- …
Frederick Shaw
- Goolie
- (voz)
Thick Wilson
- Hook
- (voz)
Eddie Byrne
- Hoof
- (voz)
Opiniones destacadas
This is one of the most innovative and amazing pieces of animation I have ever seen. The treatment of each of the characters was fresh compelling, unique and entirely hilarious, especially that of Zigzag the Sorcerer and of the Thief. Princess Yum Yum was every bit as seductive as Richard William's Jessica Rabbit. The use of meticulously crafted geometric designs and patterns for the backgrounds was a delightful change from the photo realistic computer generated images offered up as the order of the day. This could easily have been considered an historic piece of classic family entertainment weren't it for the intrusive and entirely unnecessary dialogue of the usually funny Jonathan Winters as the voice of the thief. His mumblings in no way moved the story forward or complimented the visual personality of the thief, interjecting meaningless dribble into the what would be otherwise, natural pauses in the rhythm of the story. Richard Williams could have easily basked in the same spotlight as does Tim Burton or Roald Dahl. I'll keep an eye out for a 'directors cut' to share with my friends.
I've had the opportunity to view a copy of the workprint Richard Williams cobbled together (consisting of finished footage, storyboards, and pencil tests), and it gives a good idea as to what the movie would have been like if Williams had managed to finish it.
Is it better than the Miramax version? Most definitely. Miramax vandalized the movie by adding those voice-overs for the Thief and the Cobbler characters - a ludicrous idea, since these characters were designed to be SILENT. Seeing these quiet characters not moving their mouths - but hearing wise-cracking dialogue, and dialogue that doesn't fit the character's personalities - is infuriating and very distracting. Though Miramax didn't do all the butchery, since the movie was significantly cut by other hands, and with poor linking animation added. (Not to mention some HORRIBLE song numbers.)
The workprint beats the Miramax version by far - but it's not perfect. True, seeing all that uncut animation - AMAZING animation - makes it a must see. It's breathtaking at times. But if the movie had been finished, I'm sure critics and audiences - when not gushing about the animation - would have criticized the story and characters. There's barely a story here, and it takes forever to get going. And once it gets going, there are plenty of times when the story stops for a pseudo intermission. Apparently, Williams was so charmed by all the vignettes that he thought up (mostly to do with the Thief bumbling around and making an ass of himself), he didn't want to leave any of them out. Seen by themselves, the vignettes are funny and a wonder to the eye. But seeing one after the other...well, it gets tiring after a while.
As well, with all the effort put in making visual splendor and animated gags, it seems not much was put into fleshing out the characters more than they are now. (Though they all have a charm that carries them further than you'd expect.)
Though I do have some sympathy for Williams for the heartbreak he suffered after being fired from the project (after working on it for more than 20 years!), he must accept his share of the blame for his firing and the eventual butchery of his project, seeing that he constantly went over time and budget, and refused to stop "improvising" as well as avoiding scripts and storyboards.
Anyway, seek the workprint and avoid the Miramax version!
Is it better than the Miramax version? Most definitely. Miramax vandalized the movie by adding those voice-overs for the Thief and the Cobbler characters - a ludicrous idea, since these characters were designed to be SILENT. Seeing these quiet characters not moving their mouths - but hearing wise-cracking dialogue, and dialogue that doesn't fit the character's personalities - is infuriating and very distracting. Though Miramax didn't do all the butchery, since the movie was significantly cut by other hands, and with poor linking animation added. (Not to mention some HORRIBLE song numbers.)
The workprint beats the Miramax version by far - but it's not perfect. True, seeing all that uncut animation - AMAZING animation - makes it a must see. It's breathtaking at times. But if the movie had been finished, I'm sure critics and audiences - when not gushing about the animation - would have criticized the story and characters. There's barely a story here, and it takes forever to get going. And once it gets going, there are plenty of times when the story stops for a pseudo intermission. Apparently, Williams was so charmed by all the vignettes that he thought up (mostly to do with the Thief bumbling around and making an ass of himself), he didn't want to leave any of them out. Seen by themselves, the vignettes are funny and a wonder to the eye. But seeing one after the other...well, it gets tiring after a while.
As well, with all the effort put in making visual splendor and animated gags, it seems not much was put into fleshing out the characters more than they are now. (Though they all have a charm that carries them further than you'd expect.)
Though I do have some sympathy for Williams for the heartbreak he suffered after being fired from the project (after working on it for more than 20 years!), he must accept his share of the blame for his firing and the eventual butchery of his project, seeing that he constantly went over time and budget, and refused to stop "improvising" as well as avoiding scripts and storyboards.
Anyway, seek the workprint and avoid the Miramax version!
Back in the mid-90s, I first discover this movie on TV. And I immediately found it to be another movie to enjoy.
Since then, it wasn't until the early 2000s, when I learn about it's shocking and tragic history.
"The Thief & Cobbler/Arabian Knights" takes place in a fictional desert world. The story focuses on a partly silent cobbler name Tack & a silent thief. The kingdom they're in, is known for the protected treasure of 3 golden balls. If those balls were to be removed from their place, and fall into enemy hands. Then the kingdom will fall. Tack was a poor cobbler until he got convicted for leaving tacks on the road of the visor's parade. And was saved from imprisonment when Princess Yum Yum had a liking for him, and asked for a cobbler to fix her shoes. Not only did Tack found what appears to be the girl of his dreams. He soon finds himself to be a possible hero of the kingdom.
Meanwhile the visor: Zig-Zag plots to steal the golden balls and present them to the enemy side: The One Eye Army. With the gold balls in their possession, they'll destroy the kingdom with their number of soldiers and weapons of all kinds. Can a cobbler like Tack, really be able to save a country? In development for more than 28 years. Making this film the longest animated/feature length film to be in production. The version I saw on TV, was considered to be an alternate and less convincing movie than the other kind that was attended to be seen. As I learn the original animators and writers spent so much time, the whole thing was shelved by various distributors.
After seeing the revised version(which has numerous storyboard/UN finished scenes). I was remotely surprised on how different it is. Minus all the changes and unnecessary dialog & songs used in the Miramax version.
A lot of people consider this to be a rip off of Aladin. But trust me, it's way different from Aladin. Not as well known as Aladin. But it's one of those movies that deserve more. If it was finished by the original dudes who put their life's work into. Then people would recognize it as a classic.
It's yet to get a better DVD release. And the revised version of this film is out there, but hard to find. This and Twice Upon a Time are perfect examples of animated movies that became fan favorites over the years.
The original version is intended for sophisticated viewers. While the Miramax version was made to be kid friendly.
Since then, it wasn't until the early 2000s, when I learn about it's shocking and tragic history.
"The Thief & Cobbler/Arabian Knights" takes place in a fictional desert world. The story focuses on a partly silent cobbler name Tack & a silent thief. The kingdom they're in, is known for the protected treasure of 3 golden balls. If those balls were to be removed from their place, and fall into enemy hands. Then the kingdom will fall. Tack was a poor cobbler until he got convicted for leaving tacks on the road of the visor's parade. And was saved from imprisonment when Princess Yum Yum had a liking for him, and asked for a cobbler to fix her shoes. Not only did Tack found what appears to be the girl of his dreams. He soon finds himself to be a possible hero of the kingdom.
Meanwhile the visor: Zig-Zag plots to steal the golden balls and present them to the enemy side: The One Eye Army. With the gold balls in their possession, they'll destroy the kingdom with their number of soldiers and weapons of all kinds. Can a cobbler like Tack, really be able to save a country? In development for more than 28 years. Making this film the longest animated/feature length film to be in production. The version I saw on TV, was considered to be an alternate and less convincing movie than the other kind that was attended to be seen. As I learn the original animators and writers spent so much time, the whole thing was shelved by various distributors.
After seeing the revised version(which has numerous storyboard/UN finished scenes). I was remotely surprised on how different it is. Minus all the changes and unnecessary dialog & songs used in the Miramax version.
A lot of people consider this to be a rip off of Aladin. But trust me, it's way different from Aladin. Not as well known as Aladin. But it's one of those movies that deserve more. If it was finished by the original dudes who put their life's work into. Then people would recognize it as a classic.
It's yet to get a better DVD release. And the revised version of this film is out there, but hard to find. This and Twice Upon a Time are perfect examples of animated movies that became fan favorites over the years.
The original version is intended for sophisticated viewers. While the Miramax version was made to be kid friendly.
The Thief and the Cobbler, created by the animator responsible for Roger Rabbit and the Pink Panther, was a beautiful film. That is, if it ever were completed properly. The film is probably the big inspiration for Disney's Aladdin, which was just as great. The animation is so brilliant, not even the likes of Disney or Don Bluth could top it. It's a film you'd have to feel bad for, since it took up to 26 years to make and seemed to fail and get butchered.
It's about a cute mute (at least he should've been) named Tack, a cobbler, who might compare to Jo-Jo in the Blue Sky version of Horton Hears a Who. The other main character is the swamp-coloured, cheeky, silent thief (at least he should've been silent). He is crazy for gold stuff as Scrat from Ice Age is crazy for acorns and he stinks so much that his flies follow him everywhere he goes. Tack falls in love with the pretty Princess Yum-Yum, daughter of the lazy King Nod (the inspiration for the Sultan), which gets the blue vizier Zig-zag angry. Zig-zag is the inspiration for the Genie and Jafar who can say anything in rhymes and is voiced by Vincent Price. The most important thing the characters need to take care of though the Thief is just too greedy to know about is the set of three golden balls above the tallest minaret. If the balls were taken away, the dark, half-blind army of One-Eyes will attack.
I've seen the three main versions; the Recobbled cut, the Allied Filmmakers version and the Miramax version. First, I am going to talk about the Recobbled cut. This cut is made by a big fan named Garrett Gilchrist of a fan company named Orange Cow Productions. He compiled footage and original sound tracks he collected from all versions of the film and people who worked on the film, no matter if it's unfinished, low quality or animated poorly by Fred Calvert. He also included classical music to make it a little more epic. It could possibly the best fan edit ever made.
10/10 for the Recobbled cut.
The Allied Filmmakers/Majestic Films version, The Princess and the Cobbler, was released only in Australia and South Africa. It was taken away from Richard after Warner Bros. rejected it and completed quite badly by television animator Fred Calvert and the Completion Bond Company. Fred added extra animation that looked as if Don Bluth animated it (some of the extra animation was produced at his studio), dialogue for Tack and crappy songs that made it quite a rip-off of Aladdin. Fred also changed the plot by mixing up scenes a little. The Thief was still silent, only making a few gasping, grunting or chuckling noises, and Zig-zag kept his great Vincent voice.
3/10 for The Princess and the Cobbler.
Miramax picked up Fred's edit, called it "Arabian Knight" and ruined it. They turned what could've been a masterpiece into a masterpiece of crap. They cut some scenes out because they thought they were too disturbing or long, added more repetition, gave Tack the inappropriate voice of Matthew Broderick and gave everyone who couldn't talk some annoying thought talk that distracted from the great animation. The thief, voiced by Jonathan Winters, spoke about everything he could see and thought that he was in the real world of the present day by speaking present day references ("Nobody lives like this except college kids.") and pop culture references ("I'm going to Disneyland!"), and he wouldn't shut the hell up. Nor would anyone else. The edit overflowed with dialogue, with tons of grunting voices and more usage of "What?" from King Nod. And that's right; Phido and the other animals could actually thought-talk as well. What, did Jim Davis suddenly take over the production? This isn't a Garfield TV special. What were they thinking? Did they care about the original's creator? It probably inspired the butchery the Weinstein Company did to the film version of The Magic Roundabout when they added cuts, random flatulence jokes, pop culture references and moose dialogue.
0/10 for Arabian Knight.
So the only version of this film to watch is the Recobbled cut. Don't waste your time with the other versions. A true-to-the-story restoration of the film was put on hold when Roy E. Disney left The Walt Disney Company so that the company could be totally butchered, but Garrett Gilchrist hears that the Disney restoration has been continued, so there's hope yet!
It's about a cute mute (at least he should've been) named Tack, a cobbler, who might compare to Jo-Jo in the Blue Sky version of Horton Hears a Who. The other main character is the swamp-coloured, cheeky, silent thief (at least he should've been silent). He is crazy for gold stuff as Scrat from Ice Age is crazy for acorns and he stinks so much that his flies follow him everywhere he goes. Tack falls in love with the pretty Princess Yum-Yum, daughter of the lazy King Nod (the inspiration for the Sultan), which gets the blue vizier Zig-zag angry. Zig-zag is the inspiration for the Genie and Jafar who can say anything in rhymes and is voiced by Vincent Price. The most important thing the characters need to take care of though the Thief is just too greedy to know about is the set of three golden balls above the tallest minaret. If the balls were taken away, the dark, half-blind army of One-Eyes will attack.
I've seen the three main versions; the Recobbled cut, the Allied Filmmakers version and the Miramax version. First, I am going to talk about the Recobbled cut. This cut is made by a big fan named Garrett Gilchrist of a fan company named Orange Cow Productions. He compiled footage and original sound tracks he collected from all versions of the film and people who worked on the film, no matter if it's unfinished, low quality or animated poorly by Fred Calvert. He also included classical music to make it a little more epic. It could possibly the best fan edit ever made.
10/10 for the Recobbled cut.
The Allied Filmmakers/Majestic Films version, The Princess and the Cobbler, was released only in Australia and South Africa. It was taken away from Richard after Warner Bros. rejected it and completed quite badly by television animator Fred Calvert and the Completion Bond Company. Fred added extra animation that looked as if Don Bluth animated it (some of the extra animation was produced at his studio), dialogue for Tack and crappy songs that made it quite a rip-off of Aladdin. Fred also changed the plot by mixing up scenes a little. The Thief was still silent, only making a few gasping, grunting or chuckling noises, and Zig-zag kept his great Vincent voice.
3/10 for The Princess and the Cobbler.
Miramax picked up Fred's edit, called it "Arabian Knight" and ruined it. They turned what could've been a masterpiece into a masterpiece of crap. They cut some scenes out because they thought they were too disturbing or long, added more repetition, gave Tack the inappropriate voice of Matthew Broderick and gave everyone who couldn't talk some annoying thought talk that distracted from the great animation. The thief, voiced by Jonathan Winters, spoke about everything he could see and thought that he was in the real world of the present day by speaking present day references ("Nobody lives like this except college kids.") and pop culture references ("I'm going to Disneyland!"), and he wouldn't shut the hell up. Nor would anyone else. The edit overflowed with dialogue, with tons of grunting voices and more usage of "What?" from King Nod. And that's right; Phido and the other animals could actually thought-talk as well. What, did Jim Davis suddenly take over the production? This isn't a Garfield TV special. What were they thinking? Did they care about the original's creator? It probably inspired the butchery the Weinstein Company did to the film version of The Magic Roundabout when they added cuts, random flatulence jokes, pop culture references and moose dialogue.
0/10 for Arabian Knight.
So the only version of this film to watch is the Recobbled cut. Don't waste your time with the other versions. A true-to-the-story restoration of the film was put on hold when Roy E. Disney left The Walt Disney Company so that the company could be totally butchered, but Garrett Gilchrist hears that the Disney restoration has been continued, so there's hope yet!
I can't stand this film being so obscure. It was a 30-year-old labor of love that Richard Williams promised to be the greatest animated film ever, before it was taken away by his creditors. All he cared about was the perfection of the art, rather than the restrictions of schedules and budgets. What happened to the movie was awful, but the remaining animation shines through, greatly. I, for one, was very upset with the release of the Miramax version on DVD, with only pan and scan, and a lack of extras. It was an insult to the original version. I really hope the restoration project is revived soon. A fully restored Director's cut is my on and only "Dream DVD". That film really changed my life and outlook on animation. It deserves more recognition and it's a great learning exercise for animators. Stay away from the Miramax version.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe film holds the record for the longest production schedule of a completed feature: 28 years.
- ErroresDuring the song sequence in the desert scenes, it is said they are all illiterate, but earlier they were seen reading.
- Citas
[last lines]
[original version]
Princess Yum-Yum: I love you.
[Tack takes the tacks from his mouth at last]
Tack the Cobbler: And I love you.
[they hug]
- Créditos curiososThe end credits of the South African/Australian prints of "The Princess and the Cobbler" show scenes from the movie that were scrapped from the edited versions, including the Thief narrowly avoiding getting his arms chopped off, behind the credits. However, the prints of "Arabian Knight" only use a black background behind the credits.
- Versiones alternativasFour major versions of the film exist - the workprint, The Princess and the Cobbler, Arabian Knight, and the Recobbled Cut. Richard Williams' 1992 workprint was bootlegged on video, and copies have been shared among animation fans and professionals for years. It is an unfinished work in progress. A slightly later workprint from 13 May 1992 was preserved by Williams himself as "A Moment In Time," archived and digitally duplicated by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. "The Academy has it, it's in a 'golden box' now and it's safe," Williams said. The unfinished version was screened at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
- ConexionesFeatured in I Drew Roger Rabbit (1988)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- El zapatero y la princesa
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 25,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 669,276
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 319,723
- 27 ago 1995
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 669,276
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 39 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39:1
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Spanish language plot outline for The Thief and the Cobbler (1993)?
Responda