Tangled or Frozen? A Question of Morality

Hey Internet, this is MovieDragon009 back again with another movie-related blog.
Obviously it's been a while since I've posted anything in regards to film reviews, both here and on YouTube, but right now, I need to get something off of my chest: lately I've heard talk about how Disney's Frozen is overrated and how it's predecessor Tangled is far superior. And while I'm fan enough to admit that there are several flaws within Frozen, I do have to contend with that particular claim.
     Don't get me wrong, I think that Tangled is a fun film; I get quite a few laughs and I have a good time afterwards. But there is one issue that I have with this adaptation of Rapunzel, and unfortunately it's a major one: the film's overall morality. In other words, what is Tangled trying to teach kids?
I'm assuming here that the people who read this blog will have seen the movie by now, so I won't go over the plot too much, but there are major points that I do have to address. Basically we have the story of a young woman locked in a tower by her (fake) mother who forbids her to go out so she can take advantage of Rapunzel's magic hair (kind of a weird way to make mile-long hair relevant to the plot, isn't it?), a situation that continues until a thief stumbles across her hiding place. Rapunzel takes advantage of the situation and coerces the thief into taking her with her for a tour of the outside world--all behind her adoptive mother's back. A lot of people will describe the themes as being 'breaking free', 'rebellion', and 'honesty'. As for me, I have some issues with how they attempt to portray such topics.
     The first point I have to bring up is the film's villain, Mother Gothel. As a Disney villain, she's a lot of fun to watch, kind of like an overly dramatic stage mother with a dark edge, able to get you to sing along with her but scare you at the same time, two traits that are great to have for any villain. However, unlike other Disney Villains, I just couldn't find any grounds to sympathize with her; all we get is a vain, self-glorifying, deceitful, and subtly abusive woman, a complete monster of a woman. The only reason that Rapunzel could possibly have any affection for her is the fact that this is the only person she's ever known her whole life, the very person who raised her as her own (anyone see any parallels to Hunchback of Notre Dame, or is it just me?). 
     Why do I bring this up? It's because Gothel, unlike so many other Disney Villains, is unique in that she is the parental figure in her relationship with Rapunzel in spite of the true nature of their coming together, and this has a major influence on the moral. Let's face it, her only major motivation is eternal youth, and that is hardly a justifiable motivation for a character in this role (especially how that's been done before in the form of the Evil Queen from Snow White). This basically turns the moral into "It's okay to rebel against your parents because they may not really be your parents if they tell you what not to do; heck if they're being really uncool, you should just go up and MURDER them", and what kind of lesson is that to teach to your kids?
      It's probably safe to say that this is an exaggeration as much as Gothel herself is an exaggeration. In that light, it probably means that, just like The Little Mermaid, the lesson in Tangled is meant to be learned by the parents. Well, if that's the case, then at the very least give Gothel some understandable motivations that people can honestly relate to. At least that would make her a much more ambiguous, and quite possibly stronger, character in the process. An example of this that immediately comes to mind is the Witch from the musical "Into the Woods", one of my favorite plays; there, it's basically the same story in that the Witch raises Rapunzel as an adoptive parent, but they play up the parent aspect so much more than they do in Tangled; here, this version of the Witch isn't keeping Rapunzel in the tower just so she can partake of a fountain of eternal youth, it's because she legitimately doesn't know anything at all about being a parent, and this is her response to the issue of raising a child. Of course it backfires in her face, but not in the way that you'd think. In the end, we can still identify the witch as a 'bad' person, but we can actually empathize with her, understanding the reasons for her actions, and feel sorry for her when things start backfiring on her. There are instances in Tangled where they remind us that Gothel and Rapunzel have a mother/daughter relationship and show some glimpses of genuine love between them, but to me, they barely registered in the whole process of the story. Had Gothel been given similar reasons (and in fact, I believe that was the original angle they were going with during production), the character might've been improved, along with the moral.
      This leads into my second issue with the film; how it treats authority figures (I'm leaving the King and Queen out of the discussion because, let's face it, they don't even get a line in the entire movie). Rapunzel may have a sympathetic, and arguably justifiable reason, to rebel against the authority figure in her life, but Flynn Rider, the male lead in the movie, goes off and steals a crown, double-crosses his partners in said crime, and proceeds to steal even more things in the move, all for the sake of his own gain. Unlike characters like Robin Hood or even Aladdin, he doesn't exactly have the most admirable of motivations; there's no oppressive regime or even the threat of starvation, he's just trying to make a quick buck! Even the thugs in the Snuggly Duckling pub are quick to point this out ("Your dream stinks"). And what does he get for his comeuppance? A hot chick with benefits and an entire kingdom in the end! Granted, we have to assume that he was pardoned in the end because he returned Rapunzel to her parents, but we don't get an actual acknowledgement of regret for his actions in stealing the crown; the only regret we see is when he's confronted by the Stabbington Brothers at the edge of the lake. And then we get his direct opposite in the form of Maximus, the law-abiding horse who spends the first two-thirds of the movie trying to recover said crown, but in a way that can be summarized as 'psychotic' and 'obsessive'. What happens to him in the end? I don't know about you, but it feels like he becomes okay with Flynn's crimes in the end. Granted, it seems like he has become more balanced and less rigid, but given how Maximus was essentially a caricature, it makes it seem like abiding the law is somehow 'uncool'. Flynn even goes as far as to make rebellion seem like a natural part of life, when in fact it gets more teenagers and young adults into trouble than it's worth.
     So, what's the sum moral of the story? Apparently it's "It's cool to break the rules and rebel against the authority figure in your life because rules are lame, and only your real parents would let you do whatever you want in life and get away with it!"
     It's possible that I'm way off the mark with this conclusion, and there's something that I'm not seeing here. However, I feel that Frozen, for all it's mistakes and flaws, was far clearer in what it was trying to say, that love, not fear, is what will bring happiness and stability in life, and is therefore the more worthwhile film to watch. So unless anyone has any points that I have yet to know, this is my stance on the argument. I just had to get it out.
This is MovieDragon009 signing out.

(P.S. I saw Godzilla last May, and while there was a long wait with 'meh' characters to get to the titular character, the film ROCKED!)