DVDizzy Forum

I honestly wouldn't mind at all if it turned out like Sleeping Beauty. I loved that 1959 classic. All they really had to do were insert a few lines for Aurora and Philip at the end and it would be perfect*, and I doubt the current Disney would make that "mistake" with the changes in modern theatre which require stronger and more complex plot lines.

*Okay, if they changed it so that Aurora was attracted to the spindle since she'd never seen such a thing before, rather than being hypnotized into pricking her finger, THAT would be perfect

It's clear that a lot of effort is going into the backgrounds, and I for one Love that approach, storywise I'm still a bit skeptical, but I also think it's way to early to tell.

With Glen Kleane helming this project things are bound to succeed.

After all think of what he has already shown us...

He learned us how to love a beast....



How to trust a streetrat.....



How to communicate with primates...



He swam you to open sea...



And let's not forget...
He made Poohbear pack his bags and leave the hundred acre forest

Disney Duster wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:Maybe this is a very stupid question, but I've read somewhere that Rapunzel would be a 2d hand drawn character in a 3d animated world.
But the concept clips of the main character are in 3d.
What's up with that?

That sounds like it could be done, since Treasure Planet was like that.

It can be done but I doubt they would. In fact if I recall correctly "Gnomeo and Juliet" was intended to be CGI backgrounds with 2D characters and at the time I seem to remember a lot of complaints from Disney staff about what a nightmare it would be.

Also on the bonus features for a number of Disney films, "Atlantis" springs to mind here, its either on the commentary or somewhere else but again there is a rant to the nature of trying to put 2D characters over CGI backgrounds is one of the most irritating, time consumingly, annoying things ever, which is why it is limited.

And unless I've missed something (which is quite possible since I've been in a dipping phase with UD for months now), as far as I'm aware Rapunzel is still to be fully CGI.

^That's interesting... Well despite the trouble, I always thought Atlantis was beautifully done with the 3d backgrounds, as was the ballroom scene of beauty and the beast. As long as they didn't make it look awkward by having 2D characters touching 3D objects like Home on the Range did ><

But anyhow, I was on the impression it'd look more like 3D characters on 2D hand-painted-like backgrounds. But anyhow, it'll look totally neat and different (well, maybe not so much after Bolt, which is supposedly similarly animated)

REINIER..u forgot..glen keane also animated the most beautiful female animated character that's ever graced the silver screen...and storyboard the excellent flight of marahute.

akhenaten wrote:REINIER..u forgot..glen keane also animated the most beautiful female animated character that's ever graced the silver screen...

Ariel?.[/quote]

NO! pocahontas!

akhenaten wrote:NO! pocahontas!

I know you meant her .

How about the two most beautiful female animated character?

Last time I checked, Rapunzel was to be completely CG but look a lot closer to hand-drawn animation. Isn't this something there were playing around with on Dumbo II before it got canned?

Overall, I'm a little uneasy about how Disney is going to flip-flop around with
hand-drawn and CG.

Well, "Dumbo II" was being worked on in 2001- CGI has come a long way since then, I'm sure. Plus, it's probably somewhat different creating a CG character based on a well-known 2D character versus creating all-new CG characters...the existing characters need to look perfect or else people will be upset, whereas with the brand-new characters, there isn't a 2D movie to compare them to.

I like Rapunzel's character design, whether the CG version we've seen or the drawn sketches we've seen. I think she's pretty.

I for one am very excited about this movie. I think it's going to be a very beautiful film.

By the way, is anyone else curious how the writers will expand on the story? Disney has expanded other fairy tales, and developing new characters and such. I wonder how it will be for "Rapunzel."

tsom wrote:By the way, is anyone else curious how the writers will expand on the story? Disney has expanded other fairy tales, and developing new characters and such. I wonder how it will be for "Rapunzel."

I'm really curious as well. I remember reading a while ago about some concept of the prince (Bastion?) battling an ogre, but I don't know if that was merely rumor or true or not. I vaguely remember seeing concept for it, but it just might be my overactive imagination.

I'm curious too how they'll work the prince's blindness into the story. I wonder if they'll keep it like in the story where he leaps out of tower and is blinded by thorns (although I doubt they'll go that way), or they'll work out another way, like the witch cursing him to be blind so he'll never find her.

If it was either or, I think they'll more than likely have the witch curse the Prince with blindness.

There are many ways to adapt the story. For example, the writers might not stick with Rapunzel being in the tower all the time. I mean, having the Prince come and visit her each night by climbing her hair can get old pretty quick. So, they might (now this is just from me) just have Rapunzel grow up with the witch. She is a beautiful maiden, who has the gift of beauty and song, and also has very long hair. The witch can be a mother figure, but Rapunzel can probably live in the house as a servant. Rapunzel meets the Prince, they fall in love, the witch sees this and knows that the Prince might take Rapunzel away from her, so she decides to use her powers to creat an enchanted tower, and force Rapunzel to live there thinking this will stop the Prince from seeing her. Obviously, this doesn't work, and when the witch has had enough, she goes on to curse the Prince with blindness. In the process, many things occur, and Rapunzel even has animals friends there to help.

Okay, so I have an active imagination. I doubt the movie will be like this, but I just see the writers expanding the story beyond the tower.

Is Kristin Chenoweth still going to play the title character?

I also wonder what they"ll change-I guess that the witch will just cast a spell on him so he won't see anything insted of make him blind permanently (They won't keep the part that the thorns make him blind anyway),I think that they"ll also ingore the pregnancy.
tsom-Your version sounds too much like Snow White (She lives with her stepmother and cleans and one day she meets a prince and her stepmother don't like it),Cinderella (The animale sidekicks helps her save the day,thought it's also for Snow White and Sleeping Beauty) and Sleeping Beauty (Gifts of beauty and song) but I think that they"ll keep the tower.
I think Rapunzel will have a sidekick like Jaq and Gus,Abu and Pip,something that can visit her in her tower,how about a bird?.

PeterPanfan wrote:Is Kristin Chenoweth still going to play the title character?

I so hope she still is, but it's not on imdb.com anymore, so I am a little worried. However she did perform for Disney at the Oscars, which I think is a good sign that they'll keep her as Rapunzel's voice.

I absolutely adore the Cheno, and I seriously would be ecstatic if she was in it!

tsom wrote:If it was either or, I think they'll more than likely have the witch curse the Prince with blindness.

There are many ways to adapt the story. For example, the writers might not stick with Rapunzel being in the tower all the time. I mean, having the Prince come and visit her each night by climbing her hair can get old pretty quick. So, they might (now this is just from me) just have Rapunzel grow up with the witch. She is a beautiful maiden, who has the gift of beauty and song, and also has very long hair. The witch can be a mother figure, but Rapunzel can probably live in the house as a servant. Rapunzel meets the Prince, they fall in love, the witch sees this and knows that the Prince might take Rapunzel away from her, so she decides to use her powers to creat an enchanted tower, and force Rapunzel to live there thinking this will stop the Prince from seeing her. Obviously, this doesn't work, and when the witch has had enough, she goes on to curse the Prince with blindness. In the process, many things occur, and Rapunzel even has animals friends there to help.

Okay, so I have an active imagination. I doubt the movie will be like this, but I just see the writers expanding the story beyond the tower.

I remember the Barbie-version was sorta like this...I think, haven't seen that movie in ages! (how good of me! )

Dottie wrote: I so hope she still is, but it's not on imdb.com anymore, so I am a little worried. However she did perform for Disney at the Oscars, which I think is a good sign that they'll keep her as Rapunzel's voice.

I don't think that performance is going to want Disney to keep her on though....

I hope she's still doing the role.... and we haven't heard anyone else being casted!