"A headline in today’s LA Times erroneously reported that the Disney fairy tale is a thing of the past, but I feel it is important to set the record straight that they are alive and well at Disney and continue this week with Tangled, a contemporary retelling of a much loved story. We have a number of projects in development with new twists that audiences will be able to enjoy for many years to come." - Ed Catmull

Hollywood Crush regrets the error.

This weekend was all about "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1," but if you managed to tear yourself away from your first or fifth viewing of the penultimate film about the Boy Who Lived, then you might have heard some disconcerting news regarding another upcoming release. Disney's "Tangled" is hitting theaters this Wednesday, and the Los Angeles Times announced yesterday that it would be the Mouse House's last fairy tale adaptation for the foreseeable future. Not exactly a vote of confidence.

Coming off the box office disappointment that was "Princess and the Frog," it's easy to see where Disney is coming from with their cautious attitude about "Tangled"'s success. In fact, it seems like they're being a bit desperate about the film. First they ditched their idea to make the film solely about Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) and instead focused the story around the Han Solo-esque Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) in an attempt to draw a larger male audience; then they changed the name from "Rapunzel" to "Tangled" to complete the makeover. The original "Rapunzel" storyline was reduced to its basic elements (the princess, the tower and the hair), and even the typical Broadway-style music was replaced with guitar solos and "handmade music."

All that's fine and good, and I agree that Disney definitely needs to step up their game to compete against the "Iron Man"s and "Transformers'" out there (the films that were described as Disney's blockbuster competition). But for a girl who grew up worshiping Disney's princesses and loving their take on classic fairy tales, it's a bit terrifying to think that the Mouse House is giving up on the films that made them a success to begin with.

Disney's first feature film was "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" way back in 1934, and they've been known for their princess flicks ever since. From the girl with skin white as snow and lips red as rose, to "Cinderella" in 1950, to "Sleeping Beauty" in 1959, Disney staked their claim on the film market thanks to these films. The genre petered off for a while, and Disney was described as having hit "rock bottom" until "The Little Mermaid" came out in 1989. It was a massive success, and then thanks to back-to-back hits with 1991's "Beauty and the Beast," 1992's "Aladdin," 1994's "The Lion King" (Nala is totally a Disney princess!) and 1996's "Pocahontas," Disney was back on top.

Since then, Disney has seemingly focused more on its live action and CGI animation departments instead of the hand-drawn animation that had previously defined the studio. Hits like 2002's "Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl" and 2008's "Bolt" made the studio more money than its animated flicks did. Also, let's face it, the quality of Disney's hand drawn animation definitely went downhill thanks to way too many straight-to-DVD sequels, prequels and totally unnecessary trilogies to just about every hit animated film they ever did.

The last major hand drawn animated release Disney had before 2009's "Princess and the Frog" was 2002's "Lilo & Stitch," and that definitely wasn't based on any folk tale. Therefore I personally don't find it too surprising that Disney lost the major market that had been paying big bucks at the box office for their animated flicks, especially for a story as little known as the princess and the frog. Hopefully "Tangled" does reach a wider audience with its more universally interesting storyline and well-known fairy tale, but it's a bit disconcerting that Disney is viewing this as their final hope.

The Los Angeles Times story said that Disney has taken all potential future fairy tale films off the docket for the next few years, but it implied that they were holding their breath to see if "Tangled" was a success or another flop. But I don't think it's fair for them to let all their hope ride on this film that just looks so desperate. Films like "The Little Mermaid" and "The Lion King" and even 1998's "Mulan" were so successful because they were confident, and the stories were interesting to audiences across genders and generations.

So maybe Disney will have to give up on the hand drawn animation, because that seems to be a liability in our CGI-saturated film industry, but to give up on fairy tales entirely is completely ridiculous. If fairy tales have been making Disney successful for the past 75 years, it's definitely the Mouse House's approach to them now that is making them box office flops. Find a better fairy tale, give it a great storyline with some great writers, borrow from "Twilight"'s romantic formula if need be, make it something worth all of America watching, and then come back and talk to us. But don't screw the genre that made you a major studio to begin with.

Do you think Disney should ditch fairy tales, or just come up with a way to make them successful again?