DVDizzy Forum

only one of her boobs got bigger, the other remain relatively the same. Kinda suck to have one boob stick out while the other flat chested.

Super Aurora wrote:only one of her boobs got bigger, the other remain relatively the same. Kinda suck to have one boob stick out while the other flat chested.

depends on what you're into.

Super Aurora wrote:only one of her boobs got bigger, the other remain relatively the same. Kinda suck to have one boob stick out while the other flat chested.

Maybe Rapunzel has temperamental mammary glands. Anyone wanna milk the larger boob?

EDIT: I'm not volunteering. I risk getting strangled by the long hair.

Super Aurora wrote:only one of her boobs got bigger, the other remain relatively the same. Kinda suck to have one boob stick out while the other flat chested.

The other one got rounder, I think that's a sign it's bigger but it just looks rounder because of the position. And I can't believe I am even discussing CGI boobs.

enigmawing wrote:Even if it was only used for promotion purposes, the second image is still made from the computer model used in the film

How do you know that? She doesn't look the same as in the film. What about the third image? Which doesn't look the same as the film either.

Disney Duster wrote:

enigmawing wrote:Even if it was only used for promotion purposes, the second image is still made from the computer model used in the film

How do you know that? She doesn't look the same as in the film. What about the third image? Which doesn't look the same as the film either.

I guess I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the promo material that's rendered in CG uses the same models used for the film; it doesn't make sense for them to create and use a separate model (unless it was an early version or something, which seems unlikely). It does look like the same model to me, but I suppose we'll never know unless someone from Disney tells us otherwise.

The third image was just me messing around with the second to make the edges match the original sketch. I never claimed it was suppose to look like the film, it was kind of the point that it doesn't.

Oh right. I remember you did that.

None of the promo pics ever looked enough like the film to me, except the most recent ones before the film came out like Gothel hugging Rapunzel or the film's home video cover. We know the model changed over time as we saw through lots of promo pics, so I think the model in that pic at least isn't the final one. But maybe it really is. You did give her much better eyes and hair in your version though.

Sotiris wrote:

And what is the source for those pictures, please?!

qindarka wrote:It's not fair to compare concept art like that. Rapunzel looks much better in the finished film than she does here.

I think it's fair because both of them are in a rough form. CG Rapunzel is not fully rendered or lit while 2D Rapunzel is not cleaned-up or colored.

Besides there are many other examples of this like the one enigmawing posted.

enigmawing wrote: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.

Agreed. And it's not just this one. There are many examples of this. Both from the movie itself and from promo art. I just can't be bothered right now to dig these up.

blackcauldron85 wrote:And what is the source for those pictures, please?!

I got them from the CTN panel called Untangling the Look of Tangled.

Sotiris wrote:I think it's fair because both of them are in a rough form. CG Rapunzel is not fully rendered or lit while 2D Rapunzel is not cleaned-up or colored.

The rough form of CGI that would hypothetically look exactly like a hand-drawn image would still look very different and less appealing compared to even the rough form of said hand-drawn image.

Sotiris wrote:

qindarka wrote:It's not fair to compare concept art like that. Rapunzel looks much better in the finished film than she does here.

I think it's fair because both of them are in a rough form. CG Rapunzel is not fully rendered or lit while 2D Rapunzel is not cleaned-up or colored.

Besides there are many other examples of this like the one.

I don't think it's fair either. A drawing doesn't need to be cleaned up or colored to be beautiful, Glen's drawing is wonderful as is. CGI models on the other hand require rendering to even look half way good.

As I said before, even shots in the finished film don't look as good as pre-production artwork. When I find the time, I may post some examples.

Sotiris wrote:

FlyingPiggy wrote:CGI models on the other hand require rendering to even look half way good.

Actually, that was rendered. Only the hair was not fully rendered. It was just not lit.

As I said before, even shots in the finished film don't look as good as pre-production artwork. When I find the time, I may post some examples.

I'm guessing there's a misunderstanding of the word rendered? I don't know who used it properly but I think FlyingPiggy meant more finishing kind of touches.

But I do want to see the artwork. But can we also all admit that anything not fully realistic will look better hand-drawn than something CGI anyway? They did their damndest and at least that infamous painterly image of her on the swing was gorgeous and we'd all love it for a classic Disney fairy tale to look like that (though it was hard to see her face well?)

Sotiris wrote:

FlyingPiggy wrote:CGI models on the other hand require rendering to even look half way good.

Actually, that was rendered. Only the hair was not rendered. It was just not lit.

Okay I clearly haven't gotten down the CGI lingo yet still I don't think it's really fair. Without all the details (hair, eyebrow hairs, irises, blush in the cheeks) and lighting it's not terribly pleasant to look at.

Hmm, that would be called texturing wouldn't it?

I watched the video and it didn't say she was rendered. They even showed another pose of her that looked at the same stage and they pointed out how they were still changing parts of her.

One thing though, the dress she had when holding the paint brush out in Glen Keane's drawing should've been her final film dress. The final dress is...yeesh.

Honor Hunter wrote:Ron & John's new project is going through story development and could wind up being the 2014/15 slot, but it's still deep in the early stage so time will tell what happens. A lot of people have commented that this will be the duo's first computer animated film. As of now, there are development test going on for traditional, hybrid and computer examples, and no decision has been made. This decision won't be made for quite a while. Just like Pixar, the focus is on story, story, story. Not, the medium it's presented in.

Source: http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2012/ ... ngdom.html

Sotiris wrote:

Honor Hunter wrote:Just like Pixar, the focus is on story, story, story. Not, the medium it's presented in.

Suuure.

Really, I'm still under the impression that Lasseter lied about bringing 2D back. I know that Disney is a business, but it just doesn't seem fair for them to go back on something that they promised.

I'm honestly hoping they are planning more hand-drawn films and our hopes for another hand-drawn film aren't dead completely. Hell, I actually AM hoping that Musker and Clement's next animated film is a hybrid of CG and hand-drawn, in the sense of Rapunzel, before Glen Keane stepped down as director.



You know what I mean!!!

... Don't you?

Jedi, did you read my posts about Paperman? There is no point fretting over the future of hand drawn, because it will most certainly continue to exist at Disney.

SWillie! wrote:Jedi, did you read my posts about Paperman? There is no point fretting over the future of hand drawn, because it will most certainly continue to exist at Disney.

Yeah! When I heard that Paperman is going to be part hand drawn which is also going to be part CGI, I finally realize that Disney hasn't give up hand drawn animation after all.