Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

[Polizzi]

Those images are really nice, actually. I love how almost every one has "Tangled" stuck up in the corner and "RAPUNZEL'S..." way bigger and more noticeable.

As for the "Logo Not Final" thing... That makes me want to get my hopes up a little, but I'm going to try not to. Best case scenario: they still haven't completely made up their mind and there's a chance of a change back. Next best case scenario: the name is still "Tangled", but the logo actually does get changed to something more interesting and inspired. I mean, most of us on this board could make that logo. Compare that to the "Princess and the Frog" logo. It's on a whole different level. I hope we see something better than just flat colors and block letters.

I love the, "Rapunzel," logo, besides the, "Tangled," logo. By the way, what you said about the title change, IF Disney ever does come to their senses to change the name back (I believe that it is the complaints from Disney fans like me about the name change...maybe), my response is this:

HALLELUJAH in D Major (song by George Frideric Handel from Messiah)

But I know, I know. We have discussed about this before. Do not put hopes on Disney's title change. It is Disney's movie, they can do whatever they want. We both understand that it is stupid to change the name to impress boys, but that is something Disney did to make sure that their next fairy tale adaptation is not too girlish. But I can tell you this, from the looks of the images that focus a lot on Rapunzel than Flynn Rider, it is probably, but not quite, better if they stick to the name, "Rapunzel," than, "Tangled,"...maybe. Besides, "Rapunzel," is a story about a girl who has long golden hair, locked in her tower, and wishes someone to set her free. But that is just my opinion. Besides, I could be wrong...or maybe right. To my belief, Disney has until either the release of, "Toy Story 3," or by September (which I read on every merchandise from Disney's, "Rapunzel (Tangled)," according to online bookstore sites (ex. Borders, Barnes and Noble)) to change the name to, "Tangled," or stick to the name, "Rapunzel (to my belief, because of people's complaints about the name change (besides, there are more fans on, "Rapunzel," than, "Tangled," according to Facebook))," but that's just my thought.

But I know what you are going to say: I don't know Polizzi. Disney has already made the title change official. It would take a miracle to convince them to change the name back. Unless there could, but not quite, be a reason to change the name back, which I doubt. Even though the logo is not final, it is still called, "Tangled." However, in other nations, they still call it, "Rapunzel," but I would not count on the U.S. Disney's purpose is to attract boys to see their next movie, because if they stick to the name, "Rapunzel," Disney would fear that the boys would not see a girl movie like Disney's, "The Princess and the Frog." That is why they changed the name to hide Rapunzel's name to get the boys to see it. And if you believe that Disney's, "Tangled," is not a good name based on the title, how would you know without seeing the movie? Who knows, it could win an Academy Award for Best Musical, nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, or other awards? It is better to get used of the title change than fight against it. After all, it's Disney's movie, they can do whatever they want.

My response to my not-so-true future thoughts about what you are going to say is this (the good news to you is that what I believe what you are going to say is not true, just a guess...I guess): It is very hard for me to get used of Disney's title change. I understand that it is their movie, but I just don't have the taste buds for their title change. I can still see the movie, but I would find it a flop. But if it ever does amaze me, I would be surprised. But I can say this, if Disney keeps the name, "Rapunzel," it can still attract boys. In fact, I talked to some little boys about the title change, and they love, "Rapunzel," more than, "Tangled." In fact, they told me that the name, "Tangled," sounds weird, and misguided. So my suggestion to Disney is this: why not take the title change to a vote, to let the people decided which name is better for their upcoming animated movie, "Rapunzel," or, "Tangled?" But I know, I know. Disney has officially made the name change, and there is no changing back. But who knows, what if Disney did change the name back for a reason, because their next fairy tale adaptation focuses on a female protagonist than a male protagonist, and it could be, but can be easily arranged, pointless to change name and/or story to get the boys well entertained. True that, "Tangled," does impress boys, but same thing to, "Rapunzel." I must agree that it is official to change the name, even though we find it stupid, but who knows what the future tells. Oh and to tell you the truth, I still got my hopes up.

[Disney's Divinity]

I just can't believe how different I feel from everyone else about this. The only one that even looks vaguely nice (the first one, where she's holding on to a paintbrush) still doesn't look very good. Her head is huge and she has no neck. It's the first time her eyes haven't bothered me, and instead the proportion looks hideous. It looks like you cut off an adult head and taper-sticked it to a 10 year old's body.

Although the fourth one (the right one on the second row) looks a lot better than the original art we got. The hair is used nicely and the pose is cool. But her face is still ugly--I guess that's not going to change.

(And am I the only one who feels like she looks different in every picture?)

[Sotiris]

I just can't believe how different I feel from everyone else about this. The only one that even looks vaguely nice (the first one, where she's holding on to a paintbrush) still doesn't look very good. Her head is huge and she has no neck. It's the first time her eyes haven't bothered me, and instead the proportion looks hideous. It looks like you cut off an adult head and taper-sticked it to a 10 year old's body.

Although the fourth one (the right one on the second row) looks a lot better than the original art we got. The hair is used nicely and the pose is cool. But her face is still ugly--I guess that's not going to change.

(And am I the only one who feels like she looks different in every picture?)

I dislike her character design too. You are not alone.

[Siren]

I really dislike her face too. Its like they tried to mix Disney animation with anime and they got this mutt.

No offense, but her eyes are freaking annoying. And I do agree, her proportions, head to body, and just overall, its not feeling that professional, fantastic Glenn Keane to me. I see his art in it, but I see it was like someone took his art and asked a bad Deviantart anime artist to draw a rendition of her and that's what they chose.

A few pages ago, Enigmawing did a redesign of her face and that was far better than this. I wish Enigmawing was the lead animator.

[Elladorine]

Guys, I think the main problem might be that we're looking at hand-drawn/painted designs from artists not nearly as talented as Keane (and heck, who is?) trying to replicate the CG look of the film (something very difficult to do), and of course the CG itself is based on hand-drawn sensibilites . . . in other words, something has gotten lost in translation. I'm gonna continue to put my faith in the final look of the movie even though we've seen so little. I've always loved Keane's work; if anyone can pull off what they're trying to do here, I believe it's him.

These new images don't bother me when I keep this in mind. Disney clip art is never all that great to begin with (I sure wish they'd have their lead animators come up with the art they use over and over again) and proportions in CG come off very differently than they do in hand-drawn designs, especially in production stills. Larger heads and eyes somehow seem more acceptable with more of a hand-drawn, cel-shaded look . . . the added shading and dimension of highly-detailed CG does tend to enhance the "doll effect." But honestly, I'm glad her features are a little exaggerated . . . when too small or "realistic" you get something like the princesses from Shrek the Third. And as long as she isn't as exaggerated as Sam Sparks (God, she would have looked so much better hand-drawn) I think she'll work out okay within the film itself.

Anyway, I'm rambling. At least I'm still excited to get more of a glimpse of what's coming.

A few pages ago, Enigmawing did a redesign of her face and that was far better than this. I wish Enigmawing was the lead animator.

Aw, thanks . . . heh, I wish I was too.

[ajmrowland]

Sam Sparks, huh? Interesting example.




You have a pretty good point. I never noticed that.

In fact, in 2D, she looks straight out of My Life As A Teenage Robot cookie to anyone wh actually knows that nickelodeon cartoon.

Edit: Of note in the left image is the more realistic-looking render in the bottom-right corner.

[Disney's Divinity]

Disney clip art is never all that great to begin and proportions in CG come off very differently than they do in hand-drawn designs, especially in production stills.

See, I would just dismiss this as, "Oh, those clip art artists have screwed us again" (and I did do so a few pages ago, though I've considered the point more since then), but I haven't really seen clip art from a 3D film that isn't directly from the film/designs themselves (thinks of Pixar toys, books, etc.). Most of the time, the crappy clipart for those films occur when the cheapscape marketing settles for 2D versions of 3D characters. Wouldn't it be rather costly to try and recreate Rapunzel in 3D when they could just borrow designs/art directly from the film? And how would they get the hair down so well, but everything else so wrong?

And even if these are just examples of incorrect clipart...it's hard to believe that they would all end up with the same problem (overly big eyes, bad body proportions), and that doesn't have something to do with the original design.

Larger heads and eyes somehow seem more acceptable with more of a hand-drawn, cel-shaded look . . . the added shading and dimension of highly-detailed CG does tend to enhance the "doll effect."

I'm aware of this. However...I don't think that's an excuse. The animators have to know that what works in 2D does not necessarily work in 3D. Of course her looks are going to be exaggerated, but what worked on Ariel and Belle (apparently) does not work here. Also, they should be able to see that it doesn't work just by looking at it, and then fix it.

So I don't feel wrong in thinking these pictures are a sign of the worst. We'll see when we get actual advertisements, trailers, and commercials, but...it doesn't bode well.

[SWillie!]

But still... this is clip art. No one in any way affiliated with the film, or anyone actually affiliated with Walt Disney Animation Studios for that matter, has anything to do with these photos.

While I certainly don't hate them as much as some of you... I also don't love them. But we can't expect beautiful renderings for a coloring book cover.

At the same time though... this is Rapunzel's basic design. While yes, the CG version will, I'm sure, look much better... it's still going to be the huge eyes, the small neck... the weird proportions. But that's how things are these days. Disney started with extremely realistic stuff: Snow White, Cinderella, Alice, etc. After a while things started changing... we eventually moved on to more stylistic and cartoony stuff: Ariel, Belle, Jane. Animation in general is just moving in that direction. Imagine if Disney released a movie with characters that looked like Cinderella today. I can almost guarantee that it wouldn't be very successful. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it is today.

But really, just keep in mind that everyone that has seen the animation in this movie says it looks spectacular. Not one person has had anything bad to say about it. Divinity, I know you've said before that you don't put much weight on someone's opinion who is working on the movie, which I understand. But there are people raving about it that aren't. People from AnimationMentor are talking. People form the Animation Guild are talking. Not just Disney artists.

So, while this is her basic design... hold off on judging it too harshly just yet.

[Disney's Divinity]

But still... this is clip art. No one in any way affiliated with the film, or anyone actually affiliated with Walt Disney Animation Studios for that matter, has anything to do with these photos.

And your proof for this is...?

I'm just being honest that I've never seen 3D clip art on merchandise for 3D films that didn't look like it came directly from the film, or the filmmakers. So I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

As for the "things have changed, proportions just aren't what they used to be" bit, that's not my point. My point is that she's too exaggerated, and that she's ugly as a result. It looks nothing like Ariel or Belle (or even Jasmine) to me, and that largely has to do with the medium. But I can't help that what works in 2D does not work so well in 3D, and I don't have to pretend that one looks as good as another.

And, honestly, I do think something realistic like Cinderella could make it today. People are usually wow-ed when animation looks that real, so I don't see how it could not be a selling point.

[Polizzi]

I have no problem with the merchandise photos, I think they are great. Except that her eyes are kind of too big, but her eyes remind me of Ariel from Disney's, "The Little Mermaid." Why couldn't Disney make Rapunzel's eyes similar to Ariel's? If they do that, my response would go like this:

Quagmire: Giggity giggity goo. Al----right (from Seth MacFarlane's, "Family Guy")!

[Elladorine]

This is the type of "clip art" I was talking about:



While these are obviously based on the CG designs, they are clearly not production stills. They're completely original 2D renderings (like we've seen from Pixar and the Little Golden Books, just less stylized). Just how well do these represent the look of their respective films? Maybe as well as these new Rapunzel pics? I mean, I'm pretty sure that this clip art is nothing more than that . . . clip art based on production stills, model sheets, etc. This may not be the best example, but I think this is all we have to compare at this point:



Designs are a personal preference and I'm not trying to start any kind of argument here. We've all seen how Keane draws females and it seems Rapunzel is matching them, proportions-wise (especially Ariel). I'm not gonna judge how this looks in CG until I actually see running, animated footage of her. In the meantime, I can picture how other CG characters look and make comparisons in my head . . .





I'm wondering if anyone here has seen Mickey's PhilharMagic. Ariel has a part in it . . . she's CG, and from what I've read, animated by Keane. I haven't seen it myself, but I'm left wondering how a character like Ariel makes the transition to CG with the proportions she has (the larger eyes and head like Rapunzel). Is it jarring? I've been able to find very few production stills of her online, and all of them are bad photos of the screen from an audience member.



If they *had* to go with CG for the latest Disney princess (as we know, the artists had no choice as this was an executive decision), I'd prefer the Ariel look over something like Ginormica (more cartoony) or the Shrek princesses (less cartoony). Although I suppose the difference between the cartoony-ness of characters is in itself debatable.

I will say this much for certain . . . just looking at this Rapunzel clip art I think little girls everywhere are going to absolutely love the character . . . the large head, the large eyes, and the long, pretty golden hair. If the look of the movie ends up sucking, well . . . that'll suck. And if that affects the film's profits, hopefully it'll be a long, hard lesson the execs will learn from. But I doubt it . . . they'll find other things to blame.

[Kyle]

Ive seen poor quality footage of that on youtube years back, and it looked great what what I could tell. I mean, it could use better surface shaders and whatnot, but the animation itself had a quality to it I haven't really seen before in CG. I cant comment on the eyes, as I never found it jarring in the first place.

Edit, found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WaL2qTe ... feature=iv

Glen has spoke highly of the 2d quality they were able to get out of this whole sequence, and this was just the very beginnings of the tools they are using on Tangled. I really do think they were on to something in terms of getting their CG to flow more like hand drawn animation. No its not perfect, but compare this to pretty much anything done before, and I'm seeing a lot of potential. the lighting, shaders, etc all need work, but the flexible character rigs is what I'm focusing on here.

[Elladorine]

Ooh, thanks for the link, Kyle! I'd really love to see that in person . . . too bad it's only in Florida.

I'll agree, they really did seem to be onto something there with the way she moves. And with all the much further they've gone with shaders and lighting in the past few years, I'd say Tangled has great potential.

[robster16]

Clip-art only tells you so much about a characters design. Usually they are terribly offmodel and just odd looking. Just look at all the old Disney movie posters, they are just awfull in terms of character designs. What I can't figure out in this instance though is why they wouldn't take the final 3D model and use that, a 3D model is always on model, in the correct proportions etc.

I do have complete faith in Glen Keane's abilities to make that CGI model do things that other animated features have yet to achieve. The man knows his shapes and has even been able to think in 3 dimensions while animating in 2D, so if anyone can make these characters have the same appeal as a 2D animated drawing, it's him and his team!

I can't wait to see final production stills!

Btw, the title is Tangled, even I have accepted this! It's not going to be changed back anymore!!!

[UmbrellaFish]

Wow, what a debate about clip art! No, I don't think it is awful, in fact we've already seen worse clipart with the character, but what gets me most of all, is they make this huge deal of making the movie accessible for boys and they even go so far as to change the title of the film, yet they go right around and market it as normal. They just won't work. Unless, they try and counter balance that with a slew of Flynn Rider products, this whole title ordeal has gone to waste.

[Prince Kido]

Sotiris2006, please, can you tell me where you have found those Tangled's cover books please? This is urgent, thax by advance!

[PatrickvD]

Disney wants their cake... and eat the crap out of it too.

They want to cash in on the blonde princess with the super long hair, which is bound to sell an INSANE amount of dolls, if only due to the fact that her hair is longer. And still make the money TPATF failed to make in theaters.

Meanwhile, they're calling it Tangled and make it look like some big adventure to appeal to boys. Is Disney really stupid enough to think boys aren't gonna notice the princess dolls in toy stores? They're smart enough to find out that Tangled is a fairytale.

[SWillie!]

But still... this is clip art. No one in any way affiliated with the film, or anyone actually affiliated with Walt Disney Animation Studios for that matter, has anything to do with these photos.

And your proof for this is...?

I'm just being honest that I've never seen 3D clip art on merchandise for 3D films that didn't look like it came directly from the film, or the filmmakers. So I'm sorry, but I have to disagree.

As for the "things have changed, proportions just aren't what they used to be" bit, that's not my point. My point is that she's too exaggerated, and that she's ugly as a result. It looks nothing like Ariel or Belle (or even Jasmine) to me, and that largely has to do with the medium. But I can't help that what works in 2D does not work so well in 3D, and I don't have to pretend that one looks as good as another.

And, honestly, I do think something realistic like Cinderella could make it today. People are usually wow-ed when animation looks that real, so I don't see how it could not be a selling point.

Well I'm not going to try and pretend that I have actual solid proof. But, as far as I understand (and trust me, I've talked to a lot of animation industry professionals), the people who work at WDAS do not have any say whatsoever in all the marketing, merchandising, etc. It's still within the Walt Disney Company as a whole, but it's certainly not done at the hat building. The artists there that are actually working on the movie itself have too much going on to worry about the cover for the sticker books. They pay someone to do that job separately, after giving them some stills or model sheets to go off of.

And now that enigmawing posted those pics of Disney's other 2D clip art from CG movies, what do you think now that you've seen what we're talking about? The Chicken Little one isn't bad (or at least as "not bad" as anything related to that movie can get ), but imagine if we had seen that Meet the Robinsons image before the movie came out. "OMG! They look so bland and lame!" Or the Bolt one... "Penny's hair looks like a teenage punk boy's! And Bolt's eyes are really strange!!!"

And I'm certainly sorry to hear that you really can't stand the design, period. No one is saying you have to pretend that what might look good in 2D has to look good in 3D too, because that obviously isn't true. But you have to give credit to the artists at WDAS for trying to push it and blur the line between the two mediums as much as technology will allow them to at this point.

Stop hatin' on Rapz.

[ajmrowland]

For Ariel looking good in CG, I only have the Kingdom Hearts games to go off of, but she animated pretty well in the cutscenes.

[Elladorine]

Well I'm not going to try and pretend that I have actual solid proof. But, as far as I understand (and trust me, I've talked to a lot of animation industry professionals), the people who work at WDAS do not have any say whatsoever in all the marketing, merchandising, etc. It's still within the Walt Disney Company as a whole, but it's certainly not done at the hat building. The artists there that are actually working on the movie itself have too much going on to worry about the cover for the sticker books. They pay someone to do that job separately, after giving them some stills or model sheets to go off of.

Yep, it's pretty much the standard that a different set of artists work on the marketing and merchandise material. And I'm not citing this as an excuse but they don't get paid nearly as well.