Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)

[yukitora]

For the record, Yukitora's clip comes from the 2001 Playstation 2 game "Final Fantasy X".

The game came at a time in which graphics were a big focus in gaming and many companies were trying hard to emulate the same type of detail, color and animation seen in CG movies of the time. Back then, the CG clips in FFX were considered astounding.

Square-Enix, the creators of the game, were also behind the massive feature film flop "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". It was a film that tried hard to create convincing CG human beings and spared no expense in getting even the smallest details possible.

From then on, Square has been working hard to make amazing CG animation through their games. They have progressed a lot since FFVII and I think Yuki should have shown a clip from Advent Children or FFXII to give you a better idea of the type of work S-E does with CG animation.

I personally didn't like the CGI films in FFXII or FFVII:AC.

I just didn't Probably because I didn't enjoy the game/film as much, so I wasn't paying attention to detail.

[kurtadisneyite]

Keep in mind most 2D stuff these days __IS__ CGI. The artist is working with a drawing pad and computer monitor, sketching within the animation program, drawing or shaping vector shapes into a character that hopefully has personality and emotion.

If the artist is given time and support to use the tools properly, the results can be superb, and free of the jitter or shake that can be distracting. If the artist is forced to rush and use shortcuts (and CGI offers plenty), the results can become mechanical and lifeless.

Wrt 3D .vs. 2D CGI, the VOLUME of a 3D character is much more difficult to shape over time. In 2D, it's easier - just yank the line vector points around and you can easily shape a muscle, bulge, whatever you want, etc. In 3D you are forced to use lattices, deformers, muscle systems, etc...many of which can reshape things well but are not well suited to animation.

[Elladorine]

Keep in mind most 2D stuff these days __IS__ CGI. The artist is working with a drawing pad and computer monitor, sketching within the animation program, drawing or shaping vector shapes into a character that hopefully has personality and emotion.

Vector animation looks great if it's done right, but more often than not shows like Foster's leave me cold. The animation feels lifeless and unnatural to me with the way shapes and lines bend around.

[Mooky]

So I was browsing through Disney Central Plaza's forum and I found this concept art for the original version ("Rapunzel Unbraided"). Anyway, I thought you guys would like to see them. Just scroll all the way down:

http://www.disneycentralplaza.englishbo ... 37-160.htm

I apologize if this was posted before.

[Disney Duster]

They eventually came up with xerography, which was preferred by the animators at the time because it removed one of the steps that involved tracing, and thus kept some of the vitality of the original drawings.

No, you mean some more of the vitality. In addition to the vitality the 2D animation still has. Don't try to say there's no vitality in the final 2D animation!

Mooky, the link doesn't link to the page you're talking about. I had to search and find it. Did you mean those concepts of the film with the stained-glass windows and castle? If so, THANK YOU! But what is it with Disney thinking the new modern fairy tale thing is stained-glass windows? I guess they just don't want to do storybooks anymore.

But I think we should look at this link: Rapunzel Unbraided Concept Video

The things that are for Rapunzel is anything in "Animation Story Pre-Viz". In the stained-glass windows you can see Claire, the girl who the witch makes into Rapunzel, and Vincent, I think is his name, the pizza boy who replaces the Prince. Rapunzel is in the window between them, her hair leading into her tower. She wears a purple dress, a cross between Claire's pink clothes and Vincent's blue clothes. Claire has the squirrel, who Rapunzel was turned into, in her window, and Vincent has the Basset Hound, who is really the prince. The other windows around them seem to be just slight variations on the same characters and scenery. I think I caught Vincent in shining knight armor.

Claire also has the Golden Gate Bridge behind her. This is seen more beautifully in some later animation in the video. And maybe that's Claire's house at the end? But it's obvious that Claire and Vincent are the ones dancing in the spotlight in that pillared location.

Check out the Fragonard French painting beauty! With that castle, those trees, and things like Claire's house, it seems they may really have been trying to combine 2-D drawings, French paintings, and CGI into one amazing 3D world!

[Elladorine]

No, you mean some more of the vitality. In addition to the vitality the 2-D animation still has. Don't try to say there's no vitality in the final 2-D animation!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there's no vitality to the final animation, once again I just feel too much credit is given to the pencils that produce it and stated examples back up my opinion. And IMO neither Xerography nor CAPS "add" any vitality to the original line art, I was just saying that they don't take any away like the inking of the cels can. Anyway, it's all debatable. Some people prefer seeing cels that are hand-inked as opposed to scanning, especially if the inker is a master of thin and thick lines (for me, it depends on the type of animation we're looking at).

I'm agreeing with what some animators have said in that the line art loses something every time it is traced and was simply trying to point out that CAPS (and Xerography) removes one of those steps. But even then, the CAPS system scans the traced/cleaned-up animation art, which still lacks the vitality of the original rough animation.

Once again, it's all debatable. Maybe I didn't state it clearly before but my real point is that the performance (AKA heart and soul) of the drawings are still captured in the final production regardless, even though we're not even looking at the original pencils that supposedly give those performances their heart and soul.

[kurtadisneyite]

Keep in mind that in the Walt Disney days, they used clean-up artists, whose job was to take the animators drawings, ruff or otherwise, and pull them into the character's final, intended shape while retaining the animation.
For BAMBI, the Ink and paint department served as cleanup (for reasons of time, and lack of clean-drawing animators).

Also look at the older Pre-xerox Disney animation drawings. Notice how much the line weights vary, and how much light sketching is also within the drawing? All of that went away when the cleanup animator (or through SLEEPING BEAUTY, the inker) carefully (and at times, not so carefully) redrew the drawings.

Disney artists taught me this procedure for tight animation:
1. Draw in rough blue line on the front of the paper,
2. Flip paper over on light table, draw in finer, darker line on the back of the paper (flipping / rolling stack to make sure the animation's good),
3. Flip paper again, then put new paper over, and with lights under and on top, retrace what you drew as cleanly as you can on the second paper.

Yup, it's tedious and slow, but lets you get very tight drawing and check for mistakes.

Xerox forced the animators to draw more cleanly, though at times you can catch Xeroxing of construction lines (ARISTOCATS).

Some Computer vector systems, and all bitmap systems, allow the same flip and trace process.

[Disney Duster]

You know, the computer-done 2D animation is why I like to sepcify hand-drawn animation is what I like...and what's best.

But even then, the CAPS system scans the traced/cleaned-up animation art, which still lacks the vitality of the original rough animation.

Which still lacks some of the vitality.

Anyway, as for the "back up" to your opinion, I know that in CGI many different people work on the same character. I bet one person may move it some ways, and a different person will move it in some ways, all supposed to look like some uniform emotion, thought, or action in one scene, but...

But know that you have opened my mind more to CGI, as has Glen Keane and Rapunzel. It's just, the first American animated feature film Snow White is better animated than any CGI I'm seeing. Now what exactly I'm talking about, believability or fluidity or mere possibility of the animation, I'm not going to get into it.

[Mooky]

Mooky, the link doesn't link to the page you're talking about. I had to search and find it. Did you mean those concepts of the film with the stained-glass windows and castle? If so, THANK YOU! But what is it with Disney thinking the new modern fairy tale thing is stained-glass windows? I guess they just don't want to do storybooks anymore.

Yup, that's it! And you're welcome!

[Kyle]

Anyway, as for the "back up" to your opinion, I know that in CGI many different people work on the same character. I bet one person may move it some ways, and a different person will move it in some ways, all supposed to look like some uniform emotion, thought, or action in one scene, but...

the same happens in hand drawn animation, just not as often. things like the beast's fur was animated by a different guy, am I right?

[Mooky]

Anyone read this?

AV: Now that Bolt has finished, what are the other projects you’re working on?

JM: Presently, I’m moving on from Disney and I’m going to DreamWorks. But, for Disney, I’ve just finished working on Prep and Landing. It’s a Christmas short that will be coming up next year about Santa and elves. Prior to that, I did some work on Rapunzel. I got to work with Glen Keane, who was of huge, huge influence on me. I’m a huge fan. He’s been an inspiration to me since I was in high school. So, yes, I was very lucky to be able to work with Glen. That was really exciting. The story changed so much, but I worked on Rapunzel’s stepmother, Gothel, on this sort of evil thief character Griffol, on Rapunzel’s love interest Bastion and his dog, a basset hound, which was really fun do! But I don’t think the characters and designs will remain for the new version of the story. I think there will be a Mother Gothel character but I sincerely doubt that there will be a Griffol character in the new story.

Source:
http://animated-views.com/2008/bolt-joe ... -designer/

It seems they borrowed villainess's name from "Barbie as Rapunzel"

[Sotiris]

She's named Gothel in the original fairy tale.

[Super Aurora]

AV: Now that Bolt has finished, what are the other projects you’re working on?

JM: Presently, I’m moving on from Disney and I’m going to DreamWorks.

Those bastards seems to LOVE taking workers from Disney into their own. One of Jeff Kazenburg evil scheme.

[Sotiris]

Those bastards seems to LOVE taking workers from Disney into their own. One of Jeff Kazenburg evil scheme.

Disney is solely to blame for that since they lay off most of the staff after the completion of each project.

[Super Aurora]

Those bastards seems to LOVE taking workers from Disney into their own. One of Jeff Kazenburg evil scheme.

Disney is solely to blame since after a project lays of most of the staff and does not establish stability among its personnel.

Oh if that's the case the Disney are the idiots. Greed really is a terrible sin.

[DisneyJedi]

Hey, I think I might know how the animation in this movie might work; kind of like the animated scenes in Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Mary Poppins. Except imagining the live-action actors in the animated scenes as CGI characters.

At least, I think it might look like that, or something.

[Neal]

There's so many friggin' photos in these 28 pages from all stages of this film! I gathered nearly two dozen different images my perusing all 28 pages! Can anyone provide links to the only official, current images as of right now? I need them for a video timeline of Disney films for my media class. I want only the most recent and official images/concepts there are from the current stage of the film.

I tried to do this myself but there's so many images from various stages I can't make sense of it!

Thanks.

[supertalies]

There's so many friggin' photos in these 28 pages from all stages of this film! I gathered nearly two dozen different images my perusing all 28 pages! Can anyone provide links to the only official, current images as of right now? I need them for a video timeline of Disney films for my media class. I want only the most recent and official images/concepts there are from the current stage of the film.

I tried to do this myself but there's so many images from various stages I can't make sense of it!

Thanks.

The only picture that is from the current stage of the film, is the one with the tower and the prince climbing Rapunzel's hair.

[Neal]

So that photo of Rapunzel is no longer her design? What about the logo?

This has only been since April:

/Film first look at Rapunzel

What about the basset hound seen here? The lower left is Prince Bastion, which is supposedly carrying over from Keane's vision, the upper left is the thief Griffol which supposedly is getting cut. Any word on if Bastion's basset hound is staying or going?

Character Development Blog post

[Disney Duster]

It sounds to me more like the things from the Unbraided part have been dropped. I mean, the pizza delivery boy, Vincent, was turned into a basset hound. Maybe he and Griffol were only part of the really different, changed version of Rapunzel.

Now that they're doing a straightforward, truer to the story, classic fairy tale, hopefully they kept the things that looked that way, the tower, the scenery, the painting style of animation, and Rapunzel's design.