Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)

[singerguy04]

I thought that they continued where the previous team had left off. It's in the second half of the movie that there were storytelling problems and because of that they called in the Bolt guys. It would be impossible to still have a 2010 release and start the whole thing from scratch, right?

exactly. & there was no news that the project was stopped and scrapped. i haven't heard that. & none of the news sites reported it was scrapped. they just said that they brought on new directors to work out the story kinks in the second act. that was no concept art either. that was a still. concept art is never that detailed.

If you guys are refering to the picture with the prince scaling the tower, it is concept art. If you look at the prince's face you'll see there's hardly any detail at all, and nothing ever said it was a still. The pic is also from a over a year ago so I doubt that even if it is a still it'd remain in the final cut of the film. As far as I know they hadn't really done a ton of work into the film until this past year. Also, whenever you introduce a new director it's a lot better to just start over with the new director's vision. Otherwise we get a modgepodge of different people's ideas of the film and it just wont end up nicely. At least that is something that can be learned from The Black Cauldron.

[Disney Duster]

Singerguy04, while I'm tinkled pink you mention Cinderella as being really realistic (yes!), I think Marky meant the character's movements and emotions weren't very good, believable, realistic. And they looked rather "plasticy" or "rubbery". This doesn't have so much to do with design as the CGI animation/rendering itself.

However, I'm quite upset you think Rapunzel should have a whole new vision.

First of all, the reason most of us have so excited for this is the new hand-drawn, French roccoco painting CGI animation, and Glen's beautiful vision for characters and settings seen in the images before that concept art of the prince.

If Rapunzel is a whole new vision, I don't know whether to look forward to it or not as it will not be the same thing at all.

But listen: Lasster said Glean Keane and his team already made "one of the best openings he ever saw" or something close, and it's only the latter half of the story itself that needs re-working. But not necessarily the vision needs re-working, and Glene Keane is still working on this, by the way. It's just two new directors working on the second part of the story, with Glen and the same team as have always been on the film.

And...I like the Black Cauldron, probably mostly for it's visuals, which has to do with vision, so...Sleeping Beauty also comes to mind, one guy with one vision being in charge and maybe he didn't work well with the other people and the story's lackluster but the film's beauty more than makes up for it.

[Kyle]

that was no concept art either. that was a still. concept art is never that detailed.

Not true, concept art can be anything, it can be so rough you can barily make anything out, or it can be heavily detailed and work on its own as a painting you'd hang on a wall. All that matters is that they are trying to find the tone of an environment, character, etc. sometimes that happens to be way more detail than what is needed.

[Marky_198]

Singerguy04, while I'm tinkled pink you mention Cinderella as being really realistic (yes!), I think Marky meant the character's movements and emotions weren't very good, believable, realistic. And they looked rather "plasticy" or "rubbery". This doesn't have so much to do with design as the CGI animation/rendering itself.

However, I'm quite upset you think Rapunzel should have a whole new vision.

First of all, the reason most of us have so excited for this is the new hand-drawn, French roccoco painting CGI animation, and Glen's beautiful vision for characters and settings seen in the images before that concept art of the prince.

If Rapunzel is a whole new vision, I don't know whether to look forward to it or not as it will not be the same thing at all.

But listen: Lasster said Glean Keane and his team already made "one of the best openings he ever saw" or something close, and it's only the latter half of the story itself that needs re-working. But not necessarily the vision needs re-working, and Glene Keane is still working on this, by the way. It's just two new directors working on the second part of the story, with Glen and the same team as have always been on the film.

And...I like the Black Cauldron, probably mostly for it's visuals, which has to do with vision, so...Sleeping Beauty also comes to mind, one guy with one vision being in charge and maybe he didn't work well with the other people and the story's lackluster but the film's beauty more than makes up for it.

Thanks Disney Duster! Yes, that's what I meant.

And I agree with what you say, it's that new style we are excited about.
So you are saying that Glen Keane is still very much involved in the project (so still working on this views, development in painterly/2d look, the ballerina thing scanned to 3d etc?), just not as the director anymore?

[singerguy04]

Singerguy04, while I'm tinkled pink you mention Cinderella as being really realistic (yes!), I think Marky meant the character's movements and emotions weren't very good, believable, realistic. And they looked rather "plasticy" or "rubbery". This doesn't have so much to do with design as the CGI animation/rendering itself.

However, I'm quite upset you think Rapunzel should have a whole new vision.

First of all, the reason most of us have so excited for this is the new hand-drawn, French roccoco painting CGI animation, and Glen's beautiful vision for characters and settings seen in the images before that concept art of the prince.

If Rapunzel is a whole new vision, I don't know whether to look forward to it or not as it will not be the same thing at all.

But listen: Lasster said Glean Keane and his team already made "one of the best openings he ever saw" or something close, and it's only the latter half of the story itself that needs re-working. But not necessarily the vision needs re-working, and Glene Keane is still working on this, by the way. It's just two new directors working on the second part of the story, with Glen and the same team as have always been on the film.

And...I like the Black Cauldron, probably mostly for it's visuals, which has to do with vision, so...Sleeping Beauty also comes to mind, one guy with one vision being in charge and maybe he didn't work well with the other people and the story's lackluster but the film's beauty more than makes up for it.

I frankly forgot that Glen was remaining on the team, sorry! If that's the case that I can't really imagine the film changing too much, because Glen is available to work with. I was afraid that Glen would just be gone and therefore one vision would've potentially opened the film and a complete different one would've closed it and just don't know if looking at past work between the two if that would've worked well.

I didn't say I didn't like The Black Cauldron, there's actually parts of it I really enjoy it's just that it is kind of a mess. It's almost like Disney's Platypus, they just had random parts left over from a large film and slaped them together then called it The Black Cauldron. That's why I'm really hoping for some good quality deleted scenes for the special edition.

Anyhow, I see where Marky is coming from, thanks for clarifying. As far as their motion and emotions go, I don't think they are nearly as bad as some people are making them out to be. By far it's nothing like Chicken Little or even Meet the Robinsons in some points. There does seem to be a progression of better animation throughout these 3 films. I think that this medium jumps leaps and bounds with each film that gets released, and I don't think we can expect anything less in Rapunzel.

[Marky_198]

Besides the static, emotion-less animation, there's also another thing I've been noticing.

I've watched quite a few pixar films lately, and there is a real lack of emotion. Almost the whole film is based on slapstick most of the time.

In all the 2d classics there are so many beautiful, serious, touching scenes, it's like they feel they have to make every moment a silly slapstick moment.

And of course, the lack of decent music and touching songs.
But a touching song sung by a character wouldn't fit in those films at all, so I understand that.
I hope Rapunzel will be the first cgi film without too much slapstick, but with real heart and emotion.

[CampbellzSoup]

Are you sure that you weren't watching a Dreamworks title?

Pixar films usually have a lot of emotion/heart, combined with a lot of good humor...nothing slapstick about it. I will agree though that it doesn't have that much emotion as say a 2D Disney title...perhaps it's a bit harder to display it in 3D?

Marky you need to warped back to 1940's I think you'd enjoy it a lot more there

[ajmrowland]

Are you sure that you weren't watching a Dreamworks title?

Pixar films usually have a lot of emotion/heart, combined with a lot of good humor...nothing slapstick about it. I will agree though that it doesn't have that much emotion as say a 2D Disney title...perhaps it's a bit harder to display it in 3D?

Marky you need to warped back to 1940's I think you'd enjoy it a lot more there

If anything, it should be easier 2D animation gets things across in a more exaggerated fashion than 3D does. Films like the Incredibles and Finding Nemo will tell you how subtle dramatic performances can be. And emotion has hardly faltered in Pixar films.

[Kyle]

Are you sure that you weren't watching a Dreamworks title?

Pixar films usually have a lot of emotion/heart, combined with a lot of good humor...nothing slapstick about it. I will agree though that it doesn't have that much emotion as say a 2D Disney title...perhaps it's a bit harder to display it in 3D?

Marky you need to warped back to 1940's I think you'd enjoy it a lot more there

some things get harder, other things get easier. in 2d its easier in that you can draw things however you want, even if it doesnt really make sense, it can still get the point accross. in 3d however its easier to be subtle, things like tiny eye movments that would be very hard to do right in hand drawn stuff. but squash and stretch becomes harder.


Also, I thnk people need to lay off the slapstick hate, I mean thats how you best take advantage of the medium. if you want to be super subtle most of the time you might as well use live action.
you'll find them using slap stick because without it the character performances tend to come off as wooden, instead of subtle. See Star Wars, the Clone wars. (although maybe not the best example, considering people say the same thing about the acting in the live action Star Wars...)

[blackcauldron85]

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... udios.html

I got a quick gander of some visual development work happening on Rapunzel, about which one of the folks on the top floor said:

"We're digging into different European locales and castles, looking at what's been done before, deciding what we can use, creating new stuff. We show a lot of the work to John [Lasseter] soon to see what he likes."

The visual development has kicked into a higher gear, but animation is still a bit of a ways off. Character modelling that I saw for an upcoming featurette also looks like enticing.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I know that Disney has a library with different books containing the works of artists like Gustave Doré. And they also have the pictures of different locations from around the world.

Wouldn't it be nice if they had a mail adress or a web site or something, where people could post their own pictures of lanscapes, villages and forests and so on, and then Disney could pick those they found worth keeping? There would be a lot of fans who are more than willing to help, and this way Disney could find inspirations and places which they would otherwise never have found.

[Marky_198]

That would be a great idea.

Ps. I watched Bolt again and I was wondering, as it does NOT look painterly at all. Do they know the difference between "photo realistic" and "painterly"?
I hope they won't try to make the backgrounds in Rapunzel like this.

[Gnomeo]

A FIRST CONCEPT ART!!!???

http://noticiasdisney.blogspot.com/2009 ... unzel.html

[Mooky]

Ew! That's gotta be the ugliest concept art I've ever seen, she looks all distorted and disproportional. Her face is kinda pretty though.

[Neal]

We don't know if that's real.

[Gnomeo]

Look:




Is from the RAPUNZEL storyboard revision in W.D.A.S. posted in the Animated News Forum.

[Neal]

Who took it? When was it taken? How did that person get into the studio to take it?

I need specifics to believe.

[Mooky]

It looks legit to me .

[Disney's Divinity]

Ah...it's Jennifer Love Hewitt's blonde counterpart. What did you do last summer?

[Jules]

Even though I believe it, I find it a bitter pill to swallow that Rapunzel restarted preproduction once again. If the last 6 years never existed, it wouldn't make a difference. It started in 2003, went into development hell. Slated to be released in 2006 or 2007. Then it was retooled and dropped Unbraided from its title. Then Pixar took over, and the first act was finalised and John loved it. April 2008 revealed Disney Animation Slate along with new art for Tapunzel. Then a year passed, the directors were replaced and they started from scratch, and all the old the old work (I'm assuming the stunning first act) were discarded.

Sigh.

And that concept art of Rapunzel is nice but NOWHERE near as beautiful as the original one.