DVDizzy Forum

The costumes are fine in the animated part, but I really hate Giselle's Live-action dress. That's just plain ugly.

numba1lostboy wrote:

QueenRahel wrote:just by judging the pics the movie looks lame...hopefully its a good movie with lame outfits...who though of clothes stuffed with marshmellows the costumes are awful even the ariel wannabes is too ultra poofy

Bite your tongue!


I think the costumes are gorgeous!

Me too!! Especially the big, poofy, white one!!! I love dresses lik this. Idina Menzel's is great too, and Amy Adams' Regency-like blue dress, that, I guess, she's wearing throughout most of the movie.

Wow! Narissa IS Susan Sarandon! The new pictures are great! Thanks Disney Duster!
About that thing that is often said here, that the animation of this movie doesn't look like it's Disney. What do you people mean it doesn't look like Disney? Does Disney have a particular style? Heavens, no! I remember back when I was a child and I saw the first commercial for "Pocahontas"; square faces, huge lips and that strange hair that became even more strange when the wind blew...nothing like the old Disney I knew! But it WAS Disney! And I became used to that style and I still love it! And the same happened when "Hercules" came out with the huge neck, funny ears a girl with the strangest hair I had ever seen and those weird eyebrowes! But now it seems normal to me and I also love this style too! And Mulan! And Atlantis! And even "Sleeping Beauty" had its own diferrent and never-before seen style at those times! So what do we mean when we say "it doesn't seem Disney to me"? Which of each of the many Disney styles are we referring to?

I dont think its the style, but rather the lack of polish. if the animation matched the awesome concept art they'd really have some thing here. but looking at it in context, it makes sense. I mean they arent going for a real disney movie, they cant waste too much time or money on what likey wont take up more than 15 mins of screen time.

its meant to look stereotypical, nothing more. its just easy to wish it was more since fans are so starved of a new Disney princess to adore, and this is the first glimpse of one outside of rapunzel.

How can we say the animation lacks polish if we've only seen 1.5 seconds of it on the Disney Movie Surfers clip?

Oh ... and still pics are not animation. You cannot judge animation quality from a non-moving picture ...

Touche, Aladdin and Julian!
You took the words right out of my mouth!

If you were to show me 1. 5 seconds of aladdin, theres a good chance it would still look fantastic. (assuming it was of any of the main characters). know we havent seen much, but Ive seen enough. and seeing images like this give us a good idea of what to expect in terms of polish.

Im not just judging the animation here, but how the characters are drawn, the lighting effects, etc. it looks like a direct to video movie.

Yes, Kyle is saying exactly what I mean. The way the lighting and shading is, it looks very direct-to-video. Anyway, animation means the movement, but often when people complain about animation, they confuse the movement with the drawings. The drawings of a character, or the style or design of a character, can look bad to people, but that's seperate from the movement. The characters for Enchanted are drawn blockily. This is most noticable in Sarandon's character. In the animated clip, her witch hands especially looked blocky. Her face also looks "un-Disney" to me in that picture of her as the queen. Giselle, on the other hand, looks very round, mostly in the picture with her pink dress, and that looks "Disney" to me.

But the polished look is the main reason something looks "Disney" to me. In every Disney film, and even in some of the recent direct-to-videos, like Cinderella III, the characters have beautiful colored outlines that are thin but smooth, and they stand out. In these images, the outlines look like pencil lines! I don't know how to explain it, but every studio will have it's own style they can't get rid of. Each movie has it's own style, but within that, there is something the same in every movie, unless they completely change mediums. Chicken Little...

But perhaps you should judge for yourself. Try and see what I mean with these examples:

Snow White has a perfectly visible white outline in her hair, and Cinderella has a golden one in hers. They both have very round features.

Aurora is arguable not round, but her face is smooth, and she still has the life-like, small Disney pupils. Ariel' face is quite round, though.

Belle had lots of shading introduced in her movie, but she was still round and inked with solid, smooth outlines. Jasmine is not European, but still fits in with the other rounded Disney princesses.

In the left picture, Giselle looks most like Aurora, but she isn't inked like any of the other princess,and doesn't have the polished look. Her eyes are also not the Disney eyes, most evident in the right picture. The picture on the left does fit in more with the Disney style, though, which is why a few people, including myself, liked how she looked there but didn't like the animation they saw later.

Now, Queen Narissa kind of looks like the Evil Queen, but the Evil Queen's face is far more rounded and polished. Lady Tremaine has sharp facial features but the lines are smooth and flowing.

Maleficent has a very different style from previous Disney villainess, but still resembles Lady Tremaine somewhat in her sharp features and smooth lines, and the lively Disney eyes. Vanessa looks a little like Narissa, but she still has the Disney eyes that Narissa lacks.

Yzma was in a film with a distinct style and departure from the usual Disney, and I only included her because she looks like Narissa. But Yzma still has the solid, smooth, inked outlines and the Disney eyes. Narissa's face also just looks really unbalanced.

Narissa's disguise as an old woman was based off the Evil Queen's own disguise, but the Disney one is far rounder. Notice the blocky and differently proportioned Narissa. Parts of her her fingers are much larger in relation to the rest of her fingers, unlike the Evil Queen's fingers, which are thin all the way through, with even joints. Again, Narissa's proportions just don't seem balanced, even. Some parts seem to big or too small.

This won't be useful to the discussion, but Disney Duster, wow! Great eye-candy post, thanks for taking the time to do it

One of the reasons I think that could be the cause of the non-Disney-esque style could be the live action jump. I think that because of the obvious jump, the characters may have to slightly stray from the "classic Disney style".

Personally, I like the character design of Giselle and the queen (the woodland Giselle is gorgeous ), and I hope the animated portions come out alright. The little clip looked okay, but could have looked better. Perhaps it was just the mediocre quality of what it was taken from.

I agree with Wonderlicious. I really like the drawings that have been released. And I'm not trying to completely contradict Disney Duster because I do agree that past Disney animated princesses and female villains have been more round in their physical features, but I really like the drawings I've seen from "Enchanted." I think it's good to see a change in the way they draw characters. To me, it would be kind of mundane to see another Disney Princess that looks like all the rest. And while I don't much care for the image of Giselle on the right, it could also be not the best frame. We have only seen a few seconds of animation from the film, so I think it's too early to say that the animation is of a direct to video quality. I agree that what's been released doesn't look the greatest, but it's hard to say at this point. Also, that look could be because of time and the fact that the animated characters are based on real people. You can't expect an animated version of a real person to have the "Disney eyes" because real people don't have eyes like that. Even though Giselle's eyes don't look realistic, they are closer to the actress' eyes than any of the other Disney Princesse's eyes. And thank you Disney Duster for taking the time to show all of those pictures. It was really neat to see.

That being said, I actually think some of these drawings look like Hayao Miyazaki characters. Does anybody else see that? Narissa looks like the villain in Nausicaa to me and something about her as a witch reminds me somewhat of the old woman from "Howl's Moving Castle." And something about Giselle's eyes reminds me of Miyazaki eyes.

goofystitch wrote:That being said, I actually think some of these drawings look like Hayao Miyazaki characters. Does anybody else see that? Narissa looks like the villain in Nausicaa to me and something about her as a witch reminds me somewhat of the old woman from "Howl's Moving Castle." And something about Giselle's eyes reminds me of Miyazaki eyes.

I really, really don't see that. The Ghibli-movies are also much more polished than what we've seen from Enchanted. I would never have thought of Sophie when looking at Witch Narissa.
I agree with Disney Duster. I absolutely adore the Giselle on the left, but the Giselle on the right (which we know is from the movie, where the left one might be concept art) looks wrong. It still reminds me of Don Bluth-animation rather than Disney, and the lighting is just weird.

I think we're being to critical of the animation here. Afterall this is a Live-action movie with some animation, not an animated feature. It's not as if Disney poured a tremendous amount of money into the animated scenes so why are you so suprised that it looks DTV-ish?

I say lighten up and become this critical for Rapunzel and The Frog Princess. Just be glad that we are getting the quality of animation we are getting for Enchanted. I'm still impressed because it's more than I anticipated when I first heard about this film.

this movie doesnt look like a DISNEY movie...like the pics above it is too up to date or something...if there will be a new disney princess she should look like the others in design...this one does not have the same characteristics like the others...and to those who are angry about my comments reguarding the ugly costumes...maybe you should look again or stop calling urself a disney fan... sorry...

I believe the animation (from what we have seen so far) is quite okay. What worries me most actually is the live action part - apart from POTC, I sadly can't remember a Disney live action movie I actually enjoyed! But I will probably give this one a look. Does anybody know how much animation versus live action there will be in this movie?

myr_heille wrote:What worries me most actually is the live action part - apart from POTC, I sadly can't remember a Disney live action movie I actually enjoyed!

Mary Poppins is a very good movie!
Anyway, I just hope this movie dosen't depend on too many "Dumb Fairytale Princess" jokes. Haven't we seen enough Dumb Princess/Blonde movies?

UmbrellaFish wrote:

myr_heille wrote:What worries me most actually is the live action part - apart from POTC, I sadly can't remember a Disney live action movie I actually enjoyed!

Mary Poppins is a very good movie!

That's true! My bad for forgetting it!

Thanks Disney Duster !!!
You put into pictures and words what I couldn't describe. Especially the hair-thing, as I see it now when comparing Giselle to for example Cinderella. I did see Giselle looked "different", but I didn't know why and how to explain it. Now I know a bit why and how she differs from the other princesses.

myr_heille wrote:This won't be useful to the discussion, but Disney Duster, wow! Great eye-candy post, thanks for taking the time to do it

Thank you! I'm so happy all that was appreciated, it wasn't hard but it did take some time.

Wonderlicious and goofystitch, you both have similar arguments, in that you think the animated characters may look different from Disney's past characters because these characters are based on real people. It's true that this movie has live-action scenes in which you will need to recognize the animated characters in their new "real people" forms, but I don't think that should stop them from exaggerating their features in the Disney way. Also, remember that the other princesses, especially Cinderella, were based off of real people as well. Cinderella is supposed to be a cross between both Helene Stanley and Illene Woods, and Illene's parents even said they noticed how Cinderella would squint her eyes in just the way their daughter did.

I used to think the Renaissance princesses had such bigger/wider eyes than past princesses that it was a completely different style, but the lines and inking still look like the past.

Dottie, I'm glad you saw what I meant. I think the most stand-out example of the different outlines and inking is in Yzma next to Narissa. Yzma's outlines are clear and polished, but Narissa's are...barely there, and just don't look as...nice. But please don't take this as the only reason they're different, because I'm not an expert and it could be something else entirely.

One thing I feel is for certain, though: In the pictures I posted, Giselle and Narissa stick out like sore thumbs, so there is something that is especially different about these new characters from the past characters.

I'm going to ask kurtadisneyite for help on this matter, because kurt has actual worked with and knows more than us about animation.

for some reason I cannot send private messages here...ah well. Apparently a bandwidth issue for new posters. I've turned MY private message notification off as it plays havoc with my spam filters, but will respond as best I can to posts.

Wrt Enchanted, my 2 cents is the style is kinda a hybrid between Disney and Bluth. The style should be whatever the animators and director feel is appropriate. Key features like Eyes and Mouths are often styled after famous people/actors (Sebastian and Cogsworth inherited some of their actors facial features and quirks, as did Cinderella).

Does The look __have__ to be like other Disney animation? Not really. Indeed, some DISNEY animation doesn't look like "disney" animation (Ward Kimball did a great deal of stylized animation for Disney TV shows, such as the MARS AND BEYOND shows) but works fine. In fact, a look completely similar to another character or feature may very well "distract" the viewers mind from what the new characters are and are trying to be.

Also, the painting of the Enchanted characters is a bit softer than usual for modern computer-painted animation. CINDERELLA III is pretty standard US Animation paint (that system's what nearly all major houses use today - LITTLE EINSTEIN is enhanced FLASH animation) , but I suspect Enchanted will be getting additional processing to improve lighting and texture.

As for my experience, it comes from many places. I don't work for Disney and they would never hire me (too old, no BFA, no thick life drawing portfolio, etc.,,, a __very__ closed universe, dey is). But I do enjoy quality work like what Enchanted's animation appears to be, and respect the talent that makes it happen!