Tangled (aka Rapunzel) Discussion - Part III

[Tristy]

Yeah. But i guess since one of the main things is the mother/daughter relationship between them it's ok to show that other side as well.

Btw, for those who don't know, the hook-handed viking is the one who's voiced by Brad Garrett (Robert Barone)

[Jack Skellington]

Or maybe she's really nice but she's just the paranoid parent who in a way tries to stop her from getting what she wants because she fears the worse. Sounds a lot like someone I know ! Love you Mom !

[Disney Duster]

Oh, no, Mother Gothel is obviously squeezing Rapunzel a little too tight and her expression looking a little too fake...

I forgot to say, being at Wal-Mart seeing the Rapunzel toys continued to make me feel so, so happy and excited for this film! And I played the song on the brush, and it was magical! Oh, can you believe it, actual hope for a great Disney movie again? The Wa-Mart toys said "Featuring Rapunzel" front and center, while the Disney Store toys say "Tangled" front and center. A woman said to her daughter "This is Rapunzel. We don't know her yet. You haven't seen her yet." I wonder if she would have known it was Rapunzel, and if she would have said anything different, if the box said "Tangled" front and center?

Jackoleen, your story sounds great! Don't tell too much, though, I wouldn't want anything to happen to it. I must say, though, there is a difference between a human falling in love with a human who was turned into a creature, so the creature still has a human soul, and a human falling in love with a creature who was always a creature.

Not.That.Kind.Of.Guy, omg thank you! HOLY CRAP that one last picture with the town and castle is so beautiful! But I can hardly believe it's for Rapunzel since it looks from a more modern time period like Victorian. Well, Mother Gothel did look Victorian in some concepts...

Enigmawing, well, I do think the pointy nose fits Rapunzel more, but I find the original size more natural and better. Anyway, your change to the CGI...first, how on Earth did you do that? You and your brilliant, amazing skills! Next, you made me see that it should indeed look more like that. Really, all the eyes would need to be is smaller, but the look of everything is perfectly better. It's what they wanted to do, I'm sure, and should have done. Sigh!

Thanks for the pics robster! How do you view them in full size HD?

I can really see how the castle was inspired by Sant Michae's Abbey (http://www.franca-turismo.com/english/st-michael.htm), but that one concept of the castle is how it should look in the movie, not the final design...

Divinity, by any chance are you warming up to Rapunzel because she is like Ariel more and more? She was a total tomboy, too. I don't think the color is as childish as you say, and I definately don't think it should be pink. I looked at pictures of Megara and that purple is even pinker. I think it should be more purple than pink. Don't you even like purple pink? The pink annoys me when I see Rapunzel, I prefer purpler, grayer, bluer concepts we have seen. I actually wish they had kept it green (a bluish green) but Tiana's green dress made them change it. The green would go with the whole Rapunzel plant thing, her golden hair the gold flower atop the green stem. Or what if it was the same as the concept we both liked (http://www.kinogallery.com/image/?film= ... div=f&n=96)? Or a gray purple version of that gray green? Don't you like that dress design better, too? Just wondering. If you have a different opinion it's okay, I'd love to know. Thanks for letting me be fastidious as always!

[Tristy]

Btw, has anyone noticed the read-along book/CD? I actually saw it and it looks like one of the songs from the movie is on it.

[Polizzi]

http://filmkinotrailer.com/2010/09/rapu ... ngled.html


Found this on Google. I cannot tell what language this is, but that is what I found.

[Jackoleen]

Dear DisneyDude2010,

Thank you SOOO much for the pics, because I printed out my favorite one yesterday (the pic of Gothel and Rapunzel), but I could only make the pic larger on the computer itself! I can FINALLY print out a really cool pic of that image!

Thank you in advance for your reply.

[Jack Skellington]

That's Russian ^^^, one of my closest friends is Russian, so I can tell !

[Jackoleen]

Dear Disney Duster,

"RUMPELSTILTSKIN" SPOILERS...

Thank you for your kind reply.

I must say, though, that you brought up an interesting (and a literally heartbreaking, but socially recurring) idea when you talked about enchanted creatures and soulless creatures. I hadn't really thought of the situation in that way before; the idea of a soulless, smiling, wheeling and dealing Rumpelstiltskin character of ANY type is enough to creep me out, fer shurr! I don't know that the aforementioned idea (the idea that you talked about) was created by anybody specific, but, for some reason, it sort of saddens me...

My beef with the story of "Rumpelstiltskin" has always dealt with the fact that, for some reason, I always sympathized with the creature (He was always being cheated), while at the same time despising the new Queen (She always struck me as being a spoiled, saved-by-the-bell little liar, who cheated Rumpel by using a man who was cruel to begin with).

That being said, I want Jackoleen's creature to start out much as SHE does: selfish, smug, greedy, gluttonous, superior, etc. I want him to find out that he is lonely. I don't think that the "Maiden" character from ANY adaptation of the "Rumpel" story will EVER be able to escape from the position of being trapped between a cruel king and an unfair, wheeling, dealing creature of some kind.

I sort of want for Jackoleen and the creature to start out by using each other, and to change their respective perspectives about life...and yet, I still want them to retain the very human, selfish aspects of their personalities, a la a couple of 1980s kids who grew up, but who still won't go without their double pep pizzas, or their G.I. Joe and Barbie collections...or some cool Best Buy cards, at least. I sort of wish to prove that we have no way of proving that a creature (a creature who was BORN as a creature) cannot have a soul...I think that the Rumpelstiltskin/ TTT character, and even Jackoleen, might be able to vaguely represent those people within whom society sometimes fails to recognize souls...(Ie: Outcasts of sorts...)

Like I said, I wish to tell a good story, while, at the same time, disobeying all of the stereotypes that our society is being fed today...

I'm not gonna spoil any more of the story, but I will say that I can only hope that Walt would've approved of such a stereotype-disobeying storyline...

Side-Note: When I always used to think of a "Jacqueline", I used to think of a bold, self-absorbed, imperious Alice (a la "Alicei n Wonderland") type...

If I'm hijacking the thread, I don't mind sending you PMs instead of discussing the Jackoleen story on the "Tangled" thread...

Thank you in advance for your reply.

[KubrickFan]

I have a question for you people.

What exactly is the difference in creating the digital CG worlds (and character models) of animated features (e.g. Tangled, Megamind) to that of live-action films making heavy use of
animation (e.g. Avatar, The Matrix)?

Aesthetically speaking, the worlds created in such live-action films are realistic (they must mesh with the live-action visuals) and seemingly more complex looking than the CG work
done on most animated features. Does this mean such CG imagery is more challenging to build from the ground up and requires an increased skill level?

In an nutshell, how would the work required for Tangled compare to the work required for Avatar?

Or am I trying to compare apples to oranges and missing the point entirely?

I think they're not going for realism, but believability. If it works in the movie, whether it's realistic or not, then it works. The backgrounds in movies have to work really well, because if they aren't seamless to either the studio sets, or the actors, then it puts people off. It seems that on most productions people take the CG backgrounds for granted, because I'm still seeing many badly composited backgrounds, that really should've been something from the past.
With animation, you don't have that. Like Kyle said, they can't make it too realistic, but there are still challenges on every movie made. The plus side is, that with so many technological breakthroughs, you see the makers experiment more. Do things a little different. Wall-E's entire look, for example, was emulated after those 70's and 80's anamorphic movies, and I think it looks great.

[Sotiris]

Source: http://informemosdedisney.blogspot.com/ ... dados.html

[Margos]

Dear Disney Duster,

"RUMPELSTILTSKIN" SPOILERS...

Thank you for your kind reply.

I must say, though, that you brought up an interesting (and a literally heartbreaking, but socially recurring) idea when you talked about enchanted creatures and soulless creatures. I hadn't really thought of the situation in that way before; the idea of a soulless, smiling, wheeling and dealing Rumpelstiltskin character of ANY type is enough to creep me out, fer shurr! I don't know that the aforementioned idea (the idea that you talked about) was created by anybody specific, but, for some reason, it sort of saddens me...

My beef with the story of "Rumpelstiltskin" has always dealt with the fact that, for some reason, I always sympathized with the creature (He was always being cheated), while at the same time despising the new Queen (She always struck me as being a spoiled, saved-by-the-bell little liar, who cheated Rumpel by using a man who was cruel to begin with).

That being said, I want Jackoleen's creature to start out much as SHE does: selfish, smug, greedy, gluttonous, superior, etc. I want him to find out that he is lonely. I don't think that the "Maiden" character from ANY adaptation of the "Rumpel" story will EVER be able to escape from the position of being trapped between a cruel king and an unfair, wheeling, dealing creature of some kind.

I sort of want for Jackoleen and the creature to start out by using each other, and to change their respective perspectives about life...and yet, I still want them to retain the very human, selfish aspects of their personalities, a la a couple of 1980s kids who grew up, but who still won't go without their double pep pizzas, or their G.I. Joe and Barbie collections...or some cool Best Buy cards, at least. I sort of wish to prove that we have no way of proving that a creature (a creature who was BORN as a creature) cannot have a soul...I think that the Rumpelstiltskin/ TTT character, and even Jackoleen, might be able to vaguely represent those people within whom society sometimes fails to recognize souls...(Ie: Outcasts of sorts...)

Like I said, I wish to tell a good story, while, at the same time, disobeying all of the stereotypes that our society is being fed today...

I'm not gonna spoil any more of the story, but I will say that I can only hope that Walt would've approved of such a stereotype-disobeying storyline...

Side-Note: When I always used to think of a "Jacqueline", I used to think of a bold, self-absorbed, imperious Alice (a la "Alicei n Wonderland") type...

If I'm hijacking the thread, I don't mind sending you PMs instead of discussing the Jackoleen story on the "Tangled" thread...

Thank you in advance for your reply.

What are you talking about?

[Tristy]

Why do I imagine her saying: "All right Mr. DeMille. I'm ready for my close-up."?

[Disney Duster]

Jackoleen, actually, when you said she loves a creature, I thought she would fall in love with a talking animal or something. What I'm saying is that, in real life, we have humans, and we have other creatures. We know that humans are different from even the most intelligent of creatures and our closest animal ancestors. We believe that humans have humans souls, and we feel them, when we look at a human we see them on our same level, we understand them, unlike animals. Fairy tales make everything more complicated because you have animals that talk and act like humans, or totally made up creatures like Rumpelstiltskin. Because Rumpelstiltskin is a made up character, you can make up how he is, you can decide if he has a soul like a human's or not. He seems so much like a human to me, I could believe it, and thus be able to be with humans on the same level. But it's up to you.

Divinity, I totally forgot to also say, in white: If you were talking about Rapunzel's design from the How to Draw book, her dress actually did change, look at the sleeves. I think it changed for the worse, those round ball sleeves are gross. As for her hair, I still prefer the longer hair, but the color I do like a lot. It is just that the shorter hair I think makes her eyes look even bigger, though for that form, she looks much better in the drawings than the CGI!

[Not.That.Kind.Of.Guy]

All promotional images released by Disney are now in HQ on DisneyLicious
http://www.disneylicious.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=883

[RodryCroft]

I've changed the position of that last picture to see it as a film still =)
Rapunzel looks gorgeous here!

[Disney's Divinity]

Oh, no, Mother Gothel is obviously squeezing Rapunzel a little too tight and her expression looking a little too fake...

And she's also paying more attention to Rapunzel's hair.

Enigmawing, well, I do think the pointy nose fits Rapunzel more, but I find the original size more natural and better. Anyway, your change to the CGI...first, how on Earth did you do that? You and your brilliant, amazing skills! Next, you made me see that it should indeed look more like that. Really, all the eyes would need to be is smaller, but the look of everything is perfectly better. It's what they wanted to do, I'm sure, and should have done. Sigh!

Unfortunately, 2D and 3D are different mediums. Which is why I still prefer 2D, because it allows exaggeration, whereas 3D...not so much. I think what they've done is good for 3D, but there always has to be a distinction. I've never expected this to look like 2D in 3D because, frankly, that's kind of impossible (at the moment, anyway).

Divinity, by any chance are you warming up to Rapunzel because she is like Ariel more and more? She was a total tomboy, too.

No. I still don't think she looks that much like Ariel, or at least doesn't evoke the same reaction from me as Ariel did. Yes, large eyes are a trait of Glen Keane's, but I just don't think she looks that much like Ariel. Ariel seemed much more older, her body more lanky/defined, and her chin more sharp than Rapunzel. And I never really thought of Ariel as a tomboy either. She's obviously a strong heroine and participates in "male" activities (searching for treasure, etc.), but she always seemed fundamentally 'feminine.' Honestly, Rapunzel reminds me a lot of my sister when she was 13-15. Similar hair, faces almost exactly alike, tomboyish demeanor. That might be why she comes across so childish to me, because my sister was a child when she was like that.

I think I'm warming up to it, because I can enjoy it the same way I enjoyed MTR and Bolt, as it's own thing. I realize I don't have to hate it just because it's in a medium I prefer less. And the story seems really interesting for me. There are a lot of cons to this movie that I've seen already, but there are things that I could really love, if they manage it right.

Tbh, I hate it when purple and pink are mixed. It makes a really ugly color that I don't like. I actually would have preferred her in a green dress. I like the colors better, and it would help distance her from Aurora. I loved Tiana's dress, but I don't think Rapunzel's would've been that similar just because it had the same color.

Also, you're right that the dress changes somewhat in that art of her with the brown hair. I actually like it better, because it's more resolutely purple, and not mixed with pink as much. Also, it could just be the art being 2D, but I didn't think the short hair emphasized her eyes more. I don't know, I like to see more female characters with short hair. We've had so many long-haired blondes already..

[DancingCrab]

That new shot of her reaching up to calm Maximus looks soooo similar to Ariel reaching up in her grotto toward the end of Part of Your World. I really like her look here.

[Scarred4life]

That new shot of her reaching up to calm Maximus looks soooo similar to Ariel reaching up in her grotto toward the end of Part of Your World. I really like her look here.

Wow, you're right! I didn't even notice that. But she looks really young there, IMO. Even younger than she normally does.

[estefan]

So, the next "Tinker Bell" sequel has already been sent to DVD reviewers and according to one, there is an extended look at Tangled" on the disc.

[Sotiris]

I've just received the books Disney Tangled: Rapunzel's Dream Storybook with Musical Hairbrush and Disney Tangled: Rapunzel Adventure Storybook with Music Player. They got me very excited about the movie. For sure it will be BRILLIANT. It's a classic fairytale through and through. They aren't any Sherk-isms at all (well, they weren't any in the storybooks anyway).

Also, I have uploaded a lot of pictures from both books (but no text) and I have ziped them into a file since they were many. I've put a link below where you can download them but I must warn you they are FULL of SPOILERS. It can't get any 'spoiler-er'.


ATTENTION: ULTIMATE SPOILERS


Links:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/d9xxkt (.rar)
http://www.sendspace.com/file/xu5qbb (.zip)
http://hotfile.com/dl/69100864/730ba8d/ ... ).rar.html (mirror - rar)


ATTENTION: ULTIMATE SPOILERS


Here's a sneak preview:

http://img834.imageshack.us/i/74992227.jpg/
http://img693.imageshack.us/i/39092341.jpg/
http://img217.imageshack.us/i/60771332.jpg/
http://img39.imageshack.us/i/65117693.jpg/
http://img38.imageshack.us/i/64266984.jpg/


I'll also try to upload tomorrow the music from the music player that comes with the book. Don't get excited 'cause you can't tell a lot from those sound effect-like midis they put in those things.