Moana

[Heartless]

If YOU didn't notice how Tangled looks more like a Disney hand-drawn film than previous efforts, A LOT of other people DID. We know for a FACT they didn't give up on it when for instance Glen Keane HAND-DREW over the CGI animation and taught them hand-drawn principles all during the animating.

If you could send me a link or source where you read that Glen Keane hand drew over the CGI I'd be interested in reading that (just out of shear curiosity).

And just because he supposedly was teaching them hand-drawn techniques to incorporate into the computer animation process does not mean that it made the entire film look more like a hand-drawn film...

In my opinion, the movie's sharp details (in hair, textures, etc.) and lighting made it stand away from looking like a hand-drawn feature.. In some cases, the environments/textures looked almost real. Compare this to any hand-drawn film and it will be vastly different.

But to say it looked more hand-drawn than past CG movies... what exactly are you meaning by this. Could you point out some details where Tangled shows more traces of having this trait more-so than, say, Bolt? CG has already advanced since Meet the Robinsons/Chicken Little and I can see obvious differences there.. but what makes it more "hand-drawn looking" than those films..

[FlyingPiggy]

But it's like Disney is giving up hand drawn animation. Why can't they just confess if they're doing hand drawn or not? Why can't they listen to us Disney fans?

Disney's hardcore fan base alone, could never support a film. [/b]

[SWillie!]

I don't know of any articles that talk about it, but having been to a lecture with Glen Keane, he showed us how he go over every scene and hand-draw animation on top of the animator's first pass on the Cintiqs. The cg animators would then take Glen's hand-drawn notes and incorporate them into their animation.

To put my two cents in - Tangled doesn't physically look like a hand drawn film, which is how I think you're picturing what others are talking about, Heartless. It's more of a "hand-drawn sensibilities" kind of thing. The animation itself takes into consideration the things that traditional animators think about when they animate.

For instance, there was a greater focus on appealing shapes being created by the character's poses. In one of the scenes where Mother Gothel is silhouetted in front of the tower window, I remember watching a video in which the animator described how Glen kept going back and forth with the team that handled her hair, because the shape caused by the silhouette wasn't appealing enough. Another example is in Rapunzel's hair - the shapes created by her hair were a huge part of the development for this film. They talk about that a lot in the "Art of" book.

Also, to start getting a little technical - the squash and stretch implemented on CG characters in Tangled was unheard of before that film, and it really shows how much they are striving to bring their hand-drawn sensibilities into their CG films. The staging of things was also more traditional-oriented. The pub scene especially comes to mind.

That kind of stuff you just didn't really see as much in CG films. Or at least, you didn't prior to Tangled. The simple fact that they had a master traditional animator that had to give the "okay" to every shot on the film (there is literally not a shot on the film that Glen did not have some say in, from what I've read and talked to people), says a lot.

So yeah, while obviously the lit and rendered characters don't look like a hand-painted cel, the film as a film is much more hand-drawn-esque.

[FlyingPiggy]

If YOU didn't notice how Tangled looks more like a Disney hand-drawn film than previous efforts, A LOT of other people DID. We know for a FACT they didn't give up on it when for instance Glen Keane HAND-DREW over the CGI animation and taught them hand-drawn principles all during the animating.

If you could send me a link or source where you read that Glen Keane hand drew over the CGI I'd be interested in reading that (just out of shear curiosity).

And just because he supposedly was teaching them hand-drawn techniques to incorporate into the computer animation process does not mean that it made the entire film look more like a hand-drawn film...

In my opinion, the movie's sharp details (in hair, textures, etc.) and lighting made it stand away from looking like a hand-drawn feature.. In some cases, the environments/textures looked almost real. Compare this to any hand-drawn film and it will be vastly different.

But to say it looked more hand-drawn than past CG movies... what exactly are you meaning by this. Could you point out some details where Tangled shows more traces of having this trait more-so than, say, Bolt? CG has already advanced since Meet the Robinsons/Chicken Little and I can see obvious differences there.. but what makes it more "hand-drawn looking" than those films..

We have video

http://penciltests.tumblr.com/post/1768 ... es-process


Or we did... I hope the video still works, my internet here is slow, and the video isn't loading for me.

[Heartless]

I don't know of any articles that talk about it, but having been to a lecture with Glen Keane, he showed us how he go over every scene and hand-draw animation on top of the animator's first pass on the Cintiqs. The cg animators would then take Glen's hand-drawn notes and incorporate them into their animation.

To put my two cents in - Tangled doesn't physically look like a hand drawn film, which is how I think you're picturing what others are talking about, Heartless. It's more of a "hand-drawn sensibilities" kind of thing. The animation itself takes into consideration the things that traditional animators think about when they animate.

For instance, there was a greater focus on appealing shapes being created by the character's poses. In one of the scenes where Mother Gothel is silhouetted in front of the tower window, I remember watching a video in which the animator described how Glen kept going back and forth with the team that handled her hair, because the shape caused by the silhouette wasn't appealing enough. Another example is in Rapunzel's hair - the shapes created by her hair were a huge part of the development for this film. They talk about that a lot in the "Art of" book.

Also, to start getting a little technical - the squash and stretch implemented on CG characters in Tangled was unheard of before that film, and it really shows how much they are striving to bring their hand-drawn sensibilities into their CG films. The staging of things was also more traditional-oriented. The pub scene especially comes to mind.

That kind of stuff you just didn't really see as much in CG films. Or at least, you didn't prior to Tangled. The simple fact that they had a master traditional animator that had to give the "okay" to every shot on the film (there is literally not a shot on the film that Glen did not have some say in, from what I've read and talked to people), says a lot.

So yeah, while obviously the lit and rendered characters don't look like a hand-painted cel, the film as a film is much more hand-drawn-esque.

Ah, this makes more sense to me. I can see what you're describing here, and especially after seeing the video (thanks FlyingPiggy), I understand how Glen's animation work really added to the animation flow.

I guess I was looking at it from another point of view, but after these explanations I understand what you're saying.

[Jules]

What an incredible clip, FlyingPiggy! Makes me want to see Tangled again. I've only seen it twice, and well over a year ago.

[Disney Duster]

I am so glad to see that clip. And SO glad the animator didn't get as zany and all over the place with it as Glen Keane did. Glen Keane made her more flowy...but he went unnecessary with the action. At least I think. I hope I don't get any hate for that, just tryin' to speak up that Glen isn't always perfect. Sorry if I offended anyone.

[SWillie!]

I am so glad to see that clip. And SO glad the animator didn't get as zany and all over the place with it as Glen Keane did. Glen Keane made her more flowy...but he went unnecessary with the action. At least I think. I hope I don't get any hate for that, just tryin' to speak up that Glen isn't always perfect. Sorry if I offended anyone.

If you look at the final shot in the film, it is MUCH closer to Glen's notes. Her excitement doesn't show in the first pass (in the video), but it does show in Glen's, and it shows in the final film.

[Disney Duster]

Yes, I agree it's more close to Glen's notes, and that she looks more excited, of course, but I still think what I also said just before what you said. I mean he just went too far and the animator (Patrick) made the final version more...appropriate. I hope that word doesn't offend.

[Super Aurora]

I see what you're saying Mike. Basically it counter balance out Glen's and rough cgi one to make a final blend between the two.

Although I do think Glen has more movement and was giving her a more "awkward" movement to her personality. Kinda like Ariel's in a way. She never been on a boat before so when she walks across the boat, her balance isn't as experience thus creating the more "over-exaggerated" movement Glen made.

[SWillie!]

Agreed that it was a good balance between the two. But I've always loved Glen's knack for cutesy-awkward characters. Ariel and Tarzan have a lot of that in them, and I think they could have pushed it with Rapunzel a bit.

[Sotiris]

As much as I love the animation in Tangled, I still maintain that it would have looked better had it been hand-drawn. The designs just don't translate as well in CG. Just look at the following images. Which of the two do you find more appealing?

[qindarka]

As much as I love the animation in Tangled, I still maintain that it would have looked better had it been hand-drawn. The designs just don't translate as well in CG. Just look at the following images. Which of the two do you find more appealing?

Its not fair to compare concept art like that. Rapunzel looks much better in the finished film than she does here.

[Disney Duster]

Chris and Swillie, I also thought of the Ariel-like awkwardness Glen is so fond of. And that made me think - oh man, it's the same thing again. I know, she's not the same but, well, I'm sure you know what I mean by that too. Glen is fantastic and amazing but I gotta calls it like I sees it. When those people all "oohed" at what Glen did I was like..."R-really?"

Sotiris, I agree with quindirka, in the finished film she looks better and I actually think her second pose is more appealing in how much brighter and happier it looks, and her longer more spaced out face. They did a really, really good job with translating hand-drawn looking designs into CGI. The only thing I had a problem with was that it wasn't the very same as hand-drawn because it just can't be and also their huge eyes. The eyes were definately increased in size because it's Glen Keane and because they said they were afraid of making them look took realistic and going into uncanny valley. But the eyes were ridiculous and sometimes made things creepy or unable for me to take seriously. They could have gone with about the size of the eyes in The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast and not hit uncanny valley. Or even the eyes in Snow White or Sleeping Beauty.

[Elladorine]

Posting this again for the heck of it.

[Disney Duster]

In that one the first image is more appealing. But that's that one. The last image isn't even in the movie. It not a fair comparison to apply to what Sotiris brought up.

[DisneyJedi]

I see that Rapunzel's boobs are a bit bigger in the third picture than the second one. What did she do, get breast implants?

[Elladorine]

In that one the first image is more appealing. But that's that one. The last image isn't even in the movie. It not a fair comparison to apply to what Sotiris brought up.

Even if it was only used for promotion purposes, the second image is still made from the computer model used in the film, and made to match one of Glen Keane's drawings. Not sure why it's not a fair comparison; the very last image is just a "what if."

I see that Rapunzel's boobs are a bit bigger in the third picture than the second one. What did she do, get breast implants?

And note that it matches the original drawing more than the official promo image.

[Jules]

And note that it matches the original drawing more than the official promo image.

You didn't do Flynn's chin! That's like the most important part of the image. Get to it, woman!

[Elladorine]

And note that it matches the original drawing more than the official promo image.

You didn't do Flynn's chin! That's like the most important part of the image. Get to it, woman!

Sorry, I thought Rapunzel's boobs were more important.