Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)

[DisneyJedi]

Sorry, but I am really REALLY confused. Is the movie (Rapunzel) still gonna be in 3D, but look like a moving painting (AKA the 2D feel)? Or is the movie gonna be all in 2D animation?

[supertalies]

Sorry, but I am really REALLY confused. Is the movie (Rapunzel) still gonna be in 3D, but look like a moving painting (AKA the 2D feel)? Or is the movie gonna be all in 2D animation?

It will be 3D, looking as 2D.

[DisneyJedi]

Sorry, but I am really REALLY confused. Is the movie (Rapunzel) still gonna be in 3D, but look like a moving painting (AKA the 2D feel)? Or is the movie gonna be all in 2D animation?

It will be 3D, looking as 2D.

Funny. I was expecting the latter answer, since John Lasseter didn't seem to like the first version of it, and Glen Keane stepped down from directing it.

[Jack Skellington]

It will be 3D, looking as 2D.

How ?

[Mooky]

Funny. I was expecting the latter answer, since John Lasseter didn't seem to like the first version of it, and Glen Keane stepped down from directing it.

You know, I'm still hoping they'll retool it once again, but this time as a traditionally animated feature.

[Disney Duster]

You know, I'm still hoping they'll retool it once again, but this time as a traditionally animated feature.

Great, just destroy all the hard work, original artistic vision, and unique beautiful look, arguably more beautiful than that of any previous animated features...

It was meant to look reminiscent of traditional animation, you know!

[supertalies]

It will be 3D, looking as 2D.

How ?

As DD said:

It was meant to look reminiscent of traditional animation, you know!

[Mooky]

It was meant to look reminiscent of traditional animation, you know!

Well, based on that little piece of test footage, they are doing a lousy job. It looks just like any generic CG movie.

Personally, I'd be content if it looked at least a bit like that "Steadfast Tin Soldier" segment in "Fantasia 2000".

Great, just destroy all the hard work, original artistic vision, and unique beautiful look, arguably more beautiful than that of any previous animated features...

They can keep all that and still make it a 2D film. As far as I know, they still haven't started with animation.

I fear this film will be this generation's "Sleeping Beauty": all style and no substance. They wasted too much time and money on making it look "original".

[Jules]

Well, based on that little piece of test footage, they are doing a lousy job. It looks just like any generic CG movie.

That thing's old. It'd be better if we got to look at some new animation of the film (in high quality).

They can keep all that and still make it a 2D film. As far as I know, they still haven't started with animation.

No they can't, because a lot of the work and money spent has been on developing new software and looks for CG specifically for this film. They can't just flush all that down the toilet. Plus, it's Glen's dream ... it would be terrible for them to switch to 2D now. I'd get a heart attack. And God knows what'll happen to Glen...

[Mooky]

It wouldn't be the first time that an already costly production was retooled into something else ("The Emperor's New Groove", "Aladdin"). That's why I think it can be done, but that doesn't mean they will do it. "Rapunzel" has already eaten them a lot of money, I doubt they'll retool it again. (*but there's still a tiny glimmer of hope in me*)

As for Glen Keane... I lost every bit of respect I had for him because of this. He's bitten more than he can chew. If he wanted to develop a new type of animation, he should have started with something smaller, some type of short or something.

Now, Andreas Deja... That's the man I admire.

[Disney Duster]

No mooky, they cannot keep all that and make it 2D.

It is supposed to look like a beautiful painting that can move in animation.


In other words, the painted-looking backgrounds would actually move, trees blowing in the wind, with every leaf, clouds rolling in the sky, with every puff, etc. And the characters would look just as painterly, but move as easily and well as a hand-drawn character. That was the goal, to make the CGI move just like 2-D. There were tests to make a ballet dancer's movements in pencil be replicated the same way in the computer. The animators of "Sleeping Beauty" said they wished their characters could have the same quality as the painted backgrounds of Eyvind Earle. Glen Keane is making that possible.

And you know what, people like Sleeping Beauty. And people who didn't have grown up and started appreciating it. Story problems and some underdeveloped characters doesn't mean absolutely no substance. And there is nothing wrong with Glen trying to make a whole film be the first to take such a step forward in pushing the boundaries of animation and making something new. The first ever American animated film, Snow White, pushed the way animation was done, and what it could do. And what, you don't think Glen has done short tests with the animation already, which are like the small short you wanted him to try his animation on first?

And your accusation that the test footage looks like any generic CG movie, is, well, in fact, wrong. It looks more painterly than any CG movie before. It looks more like a painting. Just looking at one good quality screencap from that footage, it could be mistaken for a painting done for the film, not actual animation.

But even if you don't think that, you can't deny the hard work gone into it to make it look more like a painting, as it does.

[Mooky]

And you know what, people like Sleeping Beauty. And people who didn't have grown up and started appreciating it. Story problems and some underdeveloped characters doesn't mean absolutely no substance.

I know many people like "Sleeping Beauty": I don't. But I do appreciate its animation and the backgrounds and all the hard work put into it. And being grown up has nothing to do with (dis)liking "Sleeping Beauty". Even some Disney folks say the film is basically nothing more than a visual extravaganza (I can't remember the exact quote, but it's on the DVD).

And your accusation that the test footage looks like any generic CG movie, is, well, in fact, wrong. It looks more painterly than any CG movie before. It looks more like a painting.

It sure does... but only that single still. As a short clip, it doesn't look anything like traditional animation (to me, at least). It still looks like any other CG film but with a texture that makes it look softer (or painterly, as Disney describes it).

Anyway, I don't think we'll agree on this, maybe you're just as stubborn as I am . Or maybe I'm still too bitter about Disney leaving traditional animation in favor of CGI. So far, nothing has convinced me that "Rapunzel" will live up to the hype surrounding it. I guess I should save my judgment, at least until we get the first trailer. Until then, I'll try not to say anything bad about it .

[Jules]

Mooks, I gotta explain, er ... admit something.

I didn't see anything special in the Rapunzel clip either!

There. I said it.

Nevertheless, I can't bring myself to pass judgement on the animation from a single, short, muddy clip on YouTube. That scene in particular (which is the same one respresented in the cap Mike posted) was recorded with a commercial camcorder off a TV screen! I don't know form where it originated. Comic-Con perhaps?

Secondly, that clip was made years ago - early in the film's development, before the retooling, before the renaming, before Disney's acquisition of Pixar. For all we know it was not meant to test the painterly "Fragonard" inspired visuals, but perhaps something else like ... say, squash and stretch techniques in CG! See what I mean? We don't even know if Rapunzel's design as seen in the video and this well-known picture will be kept in the finsihed film in 2010.

That brings me to think ... will Byron Howard and Nathan Greno keep Kean's vision of a Fragonard inspired art direction?

[yukitora]

such silly arguments. you all know it all amounts to nothing in the end

[Mooky]

Well, silly arguments or not, it is a discussion thread.

I didn't see anything special in the Rapunzel clip either!

Thank you for admitting it

No, seriously, two years ago I've seen people at IMDb gushing over that clip and it made me question my eyesight. Everyone kept saying how it looks wonderful and completely different from anything they've ever seen, but I never saw anything amazing about it.

Nevertheless, I can't bring myself to pass judgement on the animation from a single, short, muddy clip on YouTube. That scene in particular (which is the same one respresented in the cap Mike posted) was recorded with a commercial camcorder off a TV screen! I don't know form where it originated. Comic-Con perhaps?

Secondly, that clip was made years ago - early in the film's development, before the retooling, before the renaming, before Disney's acquisition of Pixar. For all we know it was not meant to test the painterly "Fragonard" inspired visuals, but perhaps something else like ... say, squash and stretch techniques in CG! See what I mean? We don't even know if Rapunzel's design as seen in the video and this well-known picture will be kept in the finsihed film in 2010.

I understand. Like I said, I'll try to reserve my judgment until I see that clip/teaser/trailer in high quality.

I don't know... I just have a problem with it being CG/3D. It just doesn't feel right to have a fairytale film in 3D. It kind of kills all that storybook feel. That's probably where all my negative attitude towards the film comes from.

That brings me to think ... will Byron Howard and Nathan Greno keep Kean's vision of a Fragonard inspired art direction?

Why wouldn't they? Keane didn't go anywhere. He's going to be involved as much as those two.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I think some of this has already been mentioned in the thread, but I understand that it is a bit difficult to find when there is almost 500 posts.

The clip was showed on SIGGRAPH 2005 I think, and it was probably filmed (illegal) with a mobile.

And as it has been said already, Keane hopes to combine the strength of both CGI and handdrawn animation in this movie. "The best of both worlds" as it has been quoted. So this is not a project where to goal is to make a CG film that resembles a handdrawn film as much as possible, instead it tries to show what both mediums have to offer. The animation of that from 2D movies, and the depth and complexity from CGI. Maybe the whole list will be added to the extra material on the future DVD.

And Keane has already tested the concept; the ballerina, the 3D picture of the girl in the swing, the test clip and the Little Mermaid sequence. Some of the technology has also been used in the CGI projects at Disney that has been and will be released before rapunzel.

It is not what works that you notice, but what doesn't work. We have all seen the smooth animation before in other Disney feauteres, so when we see it again in CGI, I guess many just take it for granted.

Animation is not the same as rendering and texture and so on. We are talking about two different parts of the process here, even if they in the end will be combined. The animation can be awful but the rendering amazing, and vice versa. So even if the test footage has been captured from a screen with a hand held mobile camera, from not the best angle, and then released in low resolution on Youtube, it should still be possible to see how the animation is done, at least those few seconds it lasts.

[Marky_198]

This whole idea of mixed styles sounds very interesting.
(2d combined with CGI).

I don't like the teaserclip either. It looks like a clip from the 3d "Barbie" films to me.
I do like the pictures with the trees and the girl in the swing.

I think they should focus on some sort of 2d animation for the characters only. Maybe this process of drawing them, scanning them into the computer and give a certain real life/3d feeling to the 2d drawings should work. I've read somewhere they spoke about a process like this.
But the characters in the teaserclip look way too CGI to me.

But isn't this "combined process" something they did in for example Beauty and the Beast in the ballroomscene too?

[Rumpelstiltskin]

What really confuses people, is the "2D combined with CGI" stuff. Which makes them believe that it is handdrawn animation with CGI backgrounds, or something like that.

Others have compared Disney and Barbie as well, but it is never mentioned exactly in what way the reminds about each others; is it the design, animation or rendering?

"Maybe this process of drawing them, scanning them into the computer and give a certain real life/3d feeling to the 2d drawings should work. I've read somewhere they spoke about a process like this.
But the characters in the teaserclip look way too CGI to me."

They use a graphic tablet, they don't scan it. This is shown in the extra material in Chicken Little. It is done to create the movements, since CGI originally was more like virtual stop motion than drawn animation.
What you saw was not really a teaser, but an early test footage.
I suspect that when people say that it looks "way too CGI", it is the feeling of depth and dimensions they are referring to. In that case, there really is nothing to do about it, since that's one of the main characteristics of CGI.

"I think they should focus on some sort of 2d animation for the characters only."

No offence, but that's a bad idea. It's better to save it for movies like The Princess and the Frog.

"But isn't this "combined process" something they did in for example Beauty and the Beast in the ballroomscene too?"

It was a CGI background in a hand-drawn movie. It appears like you still think that combining hand-drawn and CGI means the same as mixing oil and water; two different elements that exists side by side, but still separate. Here we are talking about fusing different concepts, like depths from CGI and fluidity from the Disney classics. Those who works with animation can tell you a lot more about this than me.

[Jack Skellington]

Are they still gonna use that clip, there's nothing artistic about it, it was very Shrek-ish actually. I think that clip was there before they dropped the Unbraided title, I hope they're taking it more seriously now.

But I hope that the top shot is actually a shot from the movie and not a promo picture, that would explain what you guys meant when you said 3D in a 2D inspired way.

[singerguy04]

The clip that everyone keep refering to is very very very old, like 2-3 years old (maybe even more). This clip was made even before Glen came on board i believe. Anyway, I think it's safe to assume that we wont see that footage in the film. A recent article that is even in this thread has said something along the lines that they havn't even gotten to animation yet for this film. I think the clip is from when Unbraided was a part of the title and since then they've changed the film a lot.

To be honest, i'm not even sure if we can count on Rapunzel being the same design by the time the film is released. At this point I don't think we can consider any art as official. In my eyes it's all concept material now.