DVDizzy Forum

We have now exclusively learned that Patrick Dempsey, who played Robert Phillip, will be reprising his role in this film. In addition, we are hearing that the character of Morgan, Robert’s daughter, will be returning as well, though no casting has been confirmed. The studio is also looking for an actress to play a new villain in the film.

We have also learned that Brigette Hales is attached as a writer, alongside director Adam Shankman. Hales previously has worked on Once Upon a Time for ABC and the Stephen King miniseries 11.22.63. Other writers include Richard Lagravenese (P. S. I Love You), Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber (500 Days of Summer). Previous drafts have been written by Jessie Nelson (Fred Claus), Rita Hsaio (Mulan), Annabel Oakes (Grease: Rydell High), and David Stem and David Weiss (Shrek 2).

Source: https://thedisinsider.com/2020/12/21/on ... or-disney/

Awesome news!

Now I hope Idina Menzel returns, too... And gets to sing a song this time!

Jules wrote:

Redadoodles wrote:I just hope that the animation in this will be superior to the one that was seen in the original.
I've always found the animation of the opening to be mediocre at best and I even think that the animation seen in Cinderella III was more appealing and less crude than the one from Enchanted...
Of course that is due to the fact that James Baxter had very little resources (both in cash and artists) when he was assigned to produce that part of the film and he also had to wear several hats at the same time.
Hopefully we'll get something better now that Disney is aware that Enchanted is a beloved classic and therefore a sequel is deserving of a bigger investment in its animation, especially when it could literally create more jobs and save the 2D department of the studio.

Hi Redadoodles! I think this is the first time I'm replying to you directly.

I'm come across this complaint regarding Enchanted's animation numerous times online, both from fans and, I believe, from actual animators. However, it has always left me a bit puzzled, as I feel unsure exactly where the animation falters. I actually watched the film again a couple of months ago, on a large screen, and while admittedly I didn't scrutinise the animation, I was once more left with a very positive impression.

By my understanding if the animation is subpar it should show in either the character movement or the character acting. I can't seem to recall that the finished animation looks sloppy or unpolished, whether we're talking the actual drawing, clean-up or the movement itself. Again, I didn't study the drawings under a microscope, but I don't recall any floaty or obviously mediocre animation, improper timing or spacing. There's a lot of lovely follow-through on hair and clothes, and the digital ink and paint work looks stellar.

If the problem is with the animation acting, that might mean that the technical aspects of the animation (i.e. all the basic principles) are actually fine, right?

I'm eager to know your thoughts!

Hello Jules!

My biggest issue with the animation is actually the ink and paint process they used which looks almost direct-to-video quality to me.
It reminds me of Ariel's Beginning use of shadows (UGH!!!).

The characters of Narissa, Nathanael, Edward and the hag are all fine but Giselle looks off model from one scene to the next.
The animation is nice in the opening sequence (True love's kiss) but some shots are hideous for example when Edward rescues Giselle or when the hag drags Giselle towards the well.

I don't know, some parts just look pretty cheap to me but that's only my humble opinion. I guess, they would look great coming from another animation studio but this comes from the number one animation studio in the world. I do understand that James Baxter had to create a lot on his own (on top of building Andalasia pictures at the same time) but that's no excuse as Disney had the resources to create top quality animation especially when it's only about 10 minutes of it.

There's also the fact that Giselle's design is not that interesting to look at which doesn't help, especially when she doesn't even look like Amy Adams (like at all). It doesn't make me believe in the continuity of that character. I really never bought that it was the same person which is a shame because I never had that issue with neither Nathanael, Narissa nor Edward.

If you take a look at this test of Giselle by James Baxter, you'll notice that the inking process is weird...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39ZAAFD2Yc

Especially when you compare it to this scene of Belle (also by James Baxter):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oni8_k5twU

A big part of what cheapens the look for me is how they do the highlights and shadows. It resembles photoshop's bevel and emboss, or a layer effect. rather than being hand done like something such as beauty & the beast.

Redadoodles wrote:My biggest issue with the animation is actually the ink and paint process they used which looks almost direct-to-video quality to me. It reminds me of Ariel's Beginning use of shadows (UGH!!!).

OK then, the fog is lifting. I'm surprised I had such a different reaction to the ink and paint work compared to you and Kyle. This is all the more surprising when considering that of all the digitally inked and painted films I've seen, I always had the distinct feeling that the now-ancient CAPS software seems to have produced some of the best results, even by 2020 standards. However, perhaps this is less of a software issue, and more of how said software is actually used. Next time I watch the film I will pay extra attention to the shading.

Mr. Doodles wrote:The characters of Narissa, Nathanael, Edward and the hag are all fine but Giselle looks off model from one scene to the next.
The animation is nice in the opening sequence (True love's kiss) but some shots are hideous for example when Edward rescues Giselle or when the hag drags Giselle towards the well.

I'm curious what causes characters to go off-model in animated films. Is it a rushed schedule, depriving the animators of enough time to refine and tweak the drawings to perfection? For some reason it isn't something that really bothers me, and I like to believe that even if a character goes off-model regularly, the "off-model animation" can still be technically fantastic. For this reason I am very forgiving of off-model characters. (Then again, they distribute model sheets around the studio for a reason, so I imagine the animators aren't as easy on themselves as I am! )

I have to have a closer look at the two shots you mentioned. Before I do that, is the issue in these scenes indeed with off-model characters, or is the animation itself inherently flawed? Or is this another case of shoddy ink and paint?

Disney Duster, if you're reading this I distinctly remember you mentioning that you found the animated shot of Prince Edward and Chip coming up the manhole to be unsatisfactory. That was about 13 years ago, lol. I don't think I replied to you on that issue back then, but I felt the same way. However, I couldn't really figure out why it looked off. Now I think I know, though I'm depending very much on my memory rather than studying the actual footage.

Unless I am mistaken I think at least part of the animation of Prince Edward ascending towards the camera may have been resized in the digital ink and paint (i.e. rather than Prince Edward starting off as a tiny drawing and then getting larger, all the drawings would have been the same size but then digitally resized to create the illusion of the character getting larger.) I suspect many of the drawings are either reduced or enlarged, which may be why the aesthetics are unsatisfactory.

If this is not the case, and my memory is playing tricks on me, then I think it may also have to do with the framerate. I believe that shot of Edward is clearly on twos (maybe even less??) where it may have benefited from being on ones. You can actually see the framerate switch very easily on Pip, who is on twos until getting close to the camera but then switches to ones at the very end for smoother movement. However, in this case I feel a disconnect between the two framerates which has always kind of bothered me.

Mr. Noodles wrote:There's also the fact that Giselle's design is not that interesting to look at which doesn't help, especially when she doesn't even look like Amy Adams (like at all). It doesn't make me believe in the continuity of that character. I really never bought that it was the same person which is a shame because I never had that issue with neither Nathanael, Narissa nor Edward.

I agree with this 100%. I could never understand why Giselle is the only animated character who doesn't resemble her live-action counterpart. Honestly, animated Giselle and Amy Adams seem to have a completely different facial structure. I think this also applies a little bit to Narissa, but it's not so egregious as to call attention to itself. Agreed that animated Edward, Nathanael, and even Nancy are perfect and believable caricatures of the real-life actors.

Redadoodles wrote:If you take a look at this test of Giselle by James Baxter, you'll notice that inking process is weird...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W39ZAAFD2Yc

It is indeed!

But as I watched that clip I realised something seemed familiar about that ink and paint aesthetic.

Followed by a light bulb moment.

Alphonse Mucha!!





Am I overanalysing this? If feels too similar to be coincidental. Have I made a breakthrough?

EDIT: Kyle! Just spotted your comments on the test video Reda posted. I recognised you not from your name but the tiny avatar next to it. You are unmistakeable!

Sotiris wrote:

We have now exclusively learned that Patrick Dempsey, who played Robert Phillip, will be reprising his role in this film. In addition, we are hearing that the character of Morgan, Robert’s daughter, will be returning as well, though no casting has been confirmed. The studio is also looking for an actress to play a new villain in the film.

We have also learned that Brigette Hales is attached as a writer, alongside director Adam Shankman. Hales previously has worked on Once Upon a Time for ABC and the Stephen King miniseries 11.22.63. Other writers include Richard Lagravenese (P. S. I Love You), Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber (500 Days of Summer). Previous drafts have been written by Jessie Nelson (Fred Claus), Rita Hsaio (Mulan), Annabel Oakes (Grease: Rydell High), and David Stem and David Weiss (Shrek 2).

Source: https://thedisinsider.com/2020/12/21/on ... or-disney/

I hope that's true. It would be great if not only Patrick Dempsey returned, but also his daughter in the original. And, as I already said, I'd be glad if there was a new villain this time around. By the way, it's surprising how many drafts this film has gotten!

bruno_wbt wrote:Now I hope Idina Menzel returns, too... And gets to sing a song this time!

Yes, please!

Kyle wrote:A big part of what cheapens the look for me is how they do the highlights and shadows. It resembles photoshop's bevel and emboss, or a layer effect. rather than being hand done like something such as beauty & the beast.

I think I hadn't really noticed the highlights and shadows before. Personally, they don't bother me, but I understand why some people could have an issue with that.

Jules wrote:I'm curious what causes characters to go off-model in animated films. Is it a rushed schedule, depriving the animators of enough time to refine and tweak the drawings to perfection? For some reason it isn't something that really bothers me, and I like to believe that even if a character goes off-model regularly, the "off-model animation" can still be technically fantastic. For this reason I am very forgiving of off-model characters. (Then again, they distribute model sheets around the studio for a reason, so I imagine the animators aren't as easy on themselves as I am! )

I've never been as bothered as others about off-model characters either. And I'm not sure every time they seem off-model, they actually are. I mean, CG characters also seem off-model sometimes, but we know that's not possible (unless they're squashed and stretched considerably). I think sometimes it's just the same thing that happens in photos, for example. There are times people don't look like themselves in a photo, maybe because of the angle or the expression they are making. I think the same probably happens in animation.

Jules wrote:

Redadoodles wrote:There's also the fact that Giselle's design is not that interesting to look at which doesn't help, especially when she doesn't even look like Amy Adams (like at all). It doesn't make me believe in the continuity of that character. I really never bought that it was the same person which is a shame because I never had that issue with neither Nathanael, Narissa nor Edward.

I agree with this 100%. I could never understand why Giselle is the only animated character who doesn't resemble her live-action counterpart. Honestly, animated Giselle and Amy Adams seem to have a completely different facial structure. I think this also applies a little bit to Narissa, but it's not so egregious as to call attention to itself. Agreed that animated Edward, Nathanael, and even Nancy are perfect and believable caricatures of the real-life actors.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the animated Giselle doesn't resemble her live-action counterpart much. I like the animated design, but I wish they had made her more similar to Amy Adams.

Jules wrote:Am I overanalysing this? If feels too similar to be coincidental. Have I made a breakthrough?

You have! These style guides by Enchanted layout artist Craig Elliott confirm it. I had noticed the characters sometimes had a thicker border of ink than the rest around them, but I didn't know it was inspired by this artist's work. As a tumblr user pointed out, even Giselle's dress is inspired by one of his drawings:

the Mucha/art nouveau style is one of the things that Ive always loved about Enchanted's animation! Makes me wish we could get a whole film with that aesthetic!

its weird I never found Enchanted's animation cheap but Ive always noticed it with the dtvs, even the better made ones like Bambi 2, LM2, Lady and the Tramp 2, there's always something about them that seems off, but I could never tell what it was, other than maybe the colors seeming too bright and oversaturated. The DTV sequel that I always felt came closest to the original's look that wasn't made by WDFA themselves was Lion King 2, and even there there's a couple scenes that dont look right.

I think the way colors are handled, especially in a 2D animated film can make or kill that same film. If you take the animation in Cinderella III or Ariel's beginning, the animation is quite nice and handled with care but the colors are way too bright and flashy so no matter how nice the animation is, the final product looks cheap and hideous.

As for Enchanted, I thought it was a pretty well known fact that art nouveau was the main inspiration for the animated sequence. They wanted the round and elegant shapes to contrast highly with the harsh and brute architecture of New York City.

unprincess wrote:the Mucha/art nouveau style is one of the things that Ive always loved about Enchanted's animation! Makes me wish we could get a whole film with that aesthetic!

its weird I never found Enchanted's animation cheap but Ive always noticed it with the dtvs, even the better made ones like Bambi 2, LM2, Lady and the Tramp 2, there's always something about them that seems off, but I could never tell what it was, other than maybe the colors seeming too bright and over saturated. The DTV sequel that I always felt came closest to the original's look that wasn't made by WDFA themselves was Lion King 2, and even there there's a couple scenes that dont look right.

Lion king 1/2 for me is hard to beat in terms of looking like the original. Maybe that's cheating a bit due to the nature of the story running through the original scenes, but there's still enough new where I still think they hit the mark very well.

D82 wrote:

Sotiris wrote:Source: https://thedisinsider.com/2020/12/21/on ... or-disney/

I hope that's true. It would be great if not only Patrick Dempsey returned, but also his daughter in the original. And, as I already said, I'd be glad if there was a new villain this time around. By the way, it's surprising how many drafts this film has gotten!

bruno_wbt wrote:I've never been as bothered as others about off-model characters either. And I'm not sure every time they seem off-model, they actually are. I mean, CG characters also seem off-model sometimes, but we know that's not possible (unless they're squashed and stretched considerably). I think sometimes it's just the same thing that happens in photos, for example. There are times people don't look like themselves in a photo, maybe because of the angle or the expression they are making. I think the same probably happens in animation.

Oh its possible. It might be more difficult, but basically they have style guides they need to adhere to, sometimes they might push an expression or pose too far or what have you. Lets use something like ken or barbie from the toy story series. It would be off model to animate them as if they were normal characters, because they are meant to be stiff. They still have all the same controls as a normal character, but because it doesn't suit the character they have to remember to keep their joints stiff.

Kyle wrote:

unprincess wrote:the Mucha/art nouveau style is one of the things that Ive always loved about Enchanted's animation! Makes me wish we could get a whole film with that aesthetic!

its weird I never found Enchanted's animation cheap but Ive always noticed it with the dtvs, even the better made ones like Bambi 2, LM2, Lady and the Tramp 2, there's always something about them that seems off, but I could never tell what it was, other than maybe the colors seeming too bright

There's also the line work that usually use the same kind of lines without any variation to them in terms of size and shape, which gives it a very flat and boring look.

Kyle wrote: Lion king 1/2 for me is hard to beat in terms of looking like the original. Maybe that's cheating a bit due to the nature of the story running through the original scenes, but there's still enough new where I still think they hit the mark very well.

wasn't LK 1/2 and I think Brother Bear 2 and Lilo and Stitch 2 actually animated at WDFA studios? which is why the animation quality for those films looks so close to the originals compared to that of the other sequels that were animated at other studios?

Redadoodles wrote:There's also the line work that usually use the same kind of lines without any variation to them in terms of size and shape, which gives it a very flat and boring look.

yeah that too...
the thing is I would be more willing to accept the lesser animation of some of these films, which while not as good as the originals can still be very nice, if the stories/plots were better.

I would take a film like Hunchback II any day over something like Maleficent. At least with hunchback II, we know from the start that the product will be modest.

unprincess wrote:

Kyle wrote: Lion king 1/2 for me is hard to beat in terms of looking like the original. Maybe that's cheating a bit due to the nature of the story running through the original scenes, but there's still enough new where I still think they hit the mark very well.

wasn't LK 1/2 and I think Brother Bear 2 and Lilo and Stitch 2 actually animated at WDFA studios? which is why the animation quality for those films looks so close to the originals compared to that of the other sequels that were animated at other studios?

It was animated by a studio in Australia if I remember right, so I dont think so.

Edit: it was done by Disneytoon Studios in Australia.

I think the studios in Australia always had more funds when working on a project. Their work on Cinderella III was quite nice (aside from the colors). It's too bad they had to close their doors.

Patrick Dempsey has confirmed he's coming back!

Patrick Dempsey is making "Enchanted" fans' wish come true by returning alongside Amy Adams in the highly anticipated sequel, "Disenchanted." The "Grey's Anatomy" alum, who played Robert in the original movie, showed off a script for the upcoming Disney+ film Thursday on "Good Morning America" and shared that he's looking forward to revisiting that fairy tale-inspired world.

"I just got this script for the second movie, and then I'm starting to go through and get notes together," Dempsey, 55, told "GMA," adding that there's talk of "Disenchanted" starting to shoot in the spring. Dempsey also gushed about Adams, recalling how "amazing" she was as in the film and how "excited" he is to star alongside her once more.

Source: https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/cult ... l-75231103

Yay! I hope Idina Menzel, Jodi Benson, and James Marsden can appear again, even if it's in a small capacity. That may be outside their budget though, I don't know.

Sotiris wrote:Patrick Dempsey has confirmed he's coming back!

I'm glad it has been confirmed! I'm also glad they're planning to start shooting in the spring. That means they're making this film before Hocus Pocus 2. I feared they could make that sequel first, since they both have the same director.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I hope Idina Menzel, Jodi Benson, and James Marsden can appear again, even if it's in a small capacity.

I hope that too. Well, at least that Idina Menzel and James Marsden return. A Jodi Benson cameo would be nice too, but I wouldn't mind if this time around they brought the newest Disney Princess voice actresses who weren't in the first film like Anika Noni Rose, Mandy Moore or Auli'i Cravalho.

D82 wrote:I hope that too. Well, at least that Idina Menzel and James Marsden return. A Jodi Benson cameo would be nice too, but I wouldn't mind if this time around they brought the newest Disney Princess voice actresses who weren't in the first film like Anika Noni Rose, Mandy Moore or Auli'i Cravalho.

Idina Menzel and James Marsden are must-haves. Any cameos by Disney Princess voice actresses are icing on the cake.

this is really happening finally!

I just hope Idina and James show up too, even if its just their voices/animated cameos. I wanna see how Edward's handling his very modern take charge wife... and how Nancy has been dealing with that animated fairy tale world. I can see her trying to redecorate the castle.

Sotiris wrote:Idina Menzel and James Marsden are must-haves. Any cameos by Disney Princess voice actresses are icing on the cake.

Yes, exactly.