Yukitora, it's funny you say that, because on all Sleeping Beauty bonus features, and when big people in Disney or historians or enthusiasts talk about the pre-renaissance, medieval art it's made to look like, the say how flat it is, and how it didn't have perspective. Maybe perspective isn't the same as depth, but I thought they went hand in hand. I suppose the fact everything in the style is in sharp focus could go along with the CGI or depth feel...but in real life, don't things in the distance appear less clear, actually...? Though I think Eyvind said in real life we can see everything clearly...maybe it's just when things are really far off they're out of focus...???
Marky_198 wrote:Disney Duster wrote:
Marky, don't you know that the Rapunzel on that swing was made in CGI? At first to Lasseter it looked like a hand-painting, but then the person who made it rotated it in 3D for him in the computer!
And the Rapunzel in the pictures we've seen look a little like paintings, sure, still a little like CGI, but also a little like paintings.
Are you sure they were talking about this picture?
Because that gives me new hope.
And although you can't see her face really well, it does look like a painting.
The other picture, with the squirrel, doesn't do it for me at all.
Yes, I am sure that picture with Rapunzel in pink on the swing was made in CGI. Here's the
link about it. It seems there is a pink flower petal blurred because it's in motion, blowing in the wind, maybe? That link is from Jim Hill, but I also saw, way back, a different picture of the same scene, from when it was shown at Siggraph, and they rotated the digital scene for everyone who was present!
Also, have you seen that clip of Rapunzel's hair blowing in the wind, from her tower? That was when it had the Unbraided name, but the animation showed very smooth and well-animated hair, more flowing, beautiful, and better than done before in CGI, like hand-drawn.
Marky_198 wrote:"He's thinking Rapunzel could show off a fusion of hand-drawn figures with computer-animated clothing and hair--'as long as I can make the face."
Well, the clear Rapunzel faces we've seen so far look anything but drawn.
None of the pictures we have seen are from him drawing the face (well, that I know of). His desire to possibly draw the face was seperate from what he did for the pictures we've seen so far.
Disney's Divinity, I'm sure Disney could make almost anything emotional and relatable to the audience. Many people are merely moved by the elephant trunk that touches Dumbo during Baby Mine, and some people have said it's like a character on it's own. Then, think of the carpet in Aladdin. Not really getting people sad, but it conveys emotion and people relate to it. So these are examples of things that aren't realistic looking humans with faces, but are meant to get emotion and relate to the audience. So they wouldn't have to make as real looking characters if they didn't want to.
Disney said he wanted his animated films to be as close to live-action as possible...despite the stylization, often fantasy storybook illustrations, but we could chuck that up to making the drawing and animating easier. It's merely ease. Well, not merely, it also looks cool and unique. Sleeping Beauty's backgrounds (not characters) may have been extremely detailed, but it still was easier than painting something photo-real, and it was, oddly, rather flat.
But Walt also saying he wanted Sleeping Beauty filmed almost entirely in live-action, so the characters would be as realistic as possible, and he said they needed to be like flesh and blood, etc.
But the characters really wouldn't have to be that realistic to be emotional and relatable. Disney wanted the characters, and backgrounds, to look realistic for other reasons, perhaps just because it's what he liked, what he preferred. I certainly like my characters being a mix of realistic and stylized. I don't want them to be too much of either...though I might not mind all realism, actually...
The dwarfs in Snow White, while I do think they still look rather real, they look like people I have seen in my life, and we don't see German dwarfs too often, but they are more cartoony than Snow White, the Queen, or the Prince, right? It was
their crying that made so many audiences cry when it first came out.
And, uh, for the colors of Snow White, actually the colors may look lush but Disney purposely muted them and made them more earthy than in the cartoons, to make them like real life and live action features. For the 50's films, I think, apparently they may have made films brighter to match the trend in bright Technicolor live-action films. Though I'm not sure I
want to believe that one with how bright the current DVDs are. Well, I only heard that from Netty, I think, and that was his educated guess.
OH, Okay I remembered something really good! Okay, they actually tried often to draw Snow White, and everything, by themselves, but yes, they did have to live-action reference (which some people keep confusing for rotoscoping...) some things, including the Silly Song dance. And that isn't meant to be an emotional scene. So it's not for emotion or relatability, but the a realistic look. And yea, what about the strives for realism, like with Bambi, where animals are meant to look more real than ever before (compare them to Snow White's critters!) through the whole film?
And it's really hard to animate and paint really, really, really real looking figures or anything in an animated film, unless you rotoscope it all and take a really long time to paint it, even the characters, and make it detailed and shaded....
As whenever we debate something, I hope you don't think I'm barraging you with all this to make you think what I think! I'm just making sure I give you all the info and reasons and evidence!
It really sounds like the production's been an uphill battle every step of the way.
