Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)
-
ajmrowland
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 8177
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:19 pm
- Location: Appleton, WI
I'm excited to hear about Menken returning... possibly! 
I donno if it' matters or if anyone cares, but I asked Kristin Chenoweth (again) about Rapunzel. She just said "oh it was canceled!"
I'm assuming she thinks it is due to all the scrapping. Then she said "because Pixar bought out Disney!" Obviously she has that backwards and I don't see what that has to do with it... oh well! So I'd say at this point in time, she's no longer involved for sure. 
I donno if it' matters or if anyone cares, but I asked Kristin Chenoweth (again) about Rapunzel. She just said "oh it was canceled!"
I'm assuming she thinks it is due to all the scrapping. Then she said "because Pixar bought out Disney!" Obviously she has that backwards and I don't see what that has to do with it... oh well! So I'd say at this point in time, she's no longer involved for sure. 
-
Sotiris
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 21090
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:06 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Fantasyland
I thought that they continued where the previous team had left off.Neal wrote:Still of the prince? Do you mean concept art? I don't want to go to the effort of re-posting old news, but Glen Keane got kicked off the directing job and was replaced with the director of BOLT. They began again and have only been doing their version for 10 weeks.
Last edited by Sotiris on Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
DisneyJedi
- Platinum Edition
- Posts: 3738
- Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:53 pm
- Gender: Male
I still hope they keep the visions of Glen Keane in mind. Making it look like a beautiful 2d painting.
Because if this film is going to look anything like the style of Bolt (static, rubber looking human characters with no emotion whatsoever), you won't be seeing me in the cinema.
Glad about the Menken news. Not so sure about the Kristin news. I actually quite like her.
Because if this film is going to look anything like the style of Bolt (static, rubber looking human characters with no emotion whatsoever), you won't be seeing me in the cinema.
Glad about the Menken news. Not so sure about the Kristin news. I actually quite like her.
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
"what? it's been in production for YEARS. i'm lost."
There is a difference between pre-production/being in developement, and actual production. If somebody are planning to build a new house, they might be planning for years, looks at the drawings, thinks about what kind of material they should use, where to build it, what company they should hire, and so on. But it first when they start digging and the bricks arrives and so on, that the actual building starts.
"So is the movie still gonna be CGI, but still resembling 2D animation or whatever the hell kind of technique they were going to have a shot at?"
No offence, but there seems to always be a lot of confusion about that part. It will not look like 2D animation, it will be 3D, but it is supposed ot have 2D quality, and look less like CGI.
What Chris Sanders said about Bolt in the days when the movie was still called American Dog:
"We took our main character, Henry (now Bolt), who is completely CG — he’s as sharp as a tack and very round and covered with fur and looks very, very real — and place him right in the middle of an Edward Hopper painting. So we scanned a suburban Hopper painting and had Henry walk right through it. And it is a painting… it is all implied dimension. What we found was it didn’t break. It did what I suspected, which is it lit up. The hard part is retaining that painterly softness when you move around the environment, whether it’s a diner or a car or a train station."
"Paul is at the forefront of helping bring this into the computer, because he knows what makes a painting a painting; it’s not just how a brush stroke looks because we’ve gone way beyond that since Tarzan. It has to do with how light and paint interact with each other… that luminosity, the layering, which makes a huge difference. And the weird thing is, as long as you have good contact and a shadow that locks them in, you buy it."
In traditional animation, where the characters are drawn by hand, there is a limit on how detailed they can be. There is also a limit on how complex the backgrounds can be if they are gonna match with the characters. With CGI, that is no longer such a problem (imagine all the hairs on a fluffy CGI animal).
Maybe this decribes it; imagine a painting (like a Carl Barks oil painting), which is a pleasure to look at. Another painting is made that looks almost like the first, and another one, and another one. 24 in total (since it is 24 frames in a second of film). Then make some more seconds, and you will be travel through a painted landscape. The "painted" characters in this landscapes moves the way you are used to from movies like Pinocchio, Bambi and Tarzan, not the way seen in Shrek or The Polar Express.
That's what you is supposed to see if Disney succeeds. And you have have the chance to see it in 3D, with real depths and dimensions as well.
There is a difference between pre-production/being in developement, and actual production. If somebody are planning to build a new house, they might be planning for years, looks at the drawings, thinks about what kind of material they should use, where to build it, what company they should hire, and so on. But it first when they start digging and the bricks arrives and so on, that the actual building starts.
"So is the movie still gonna be CGI, but still resembling 2D animation or whatever the hell kind of technique they were going to have a shot at?"
No offence, but there seems to always be a lot of confusion about that part. It will not look like 2D animation, it will be 3D, but it is supposed ot have 2D quality, and look less like CGI.
What Chris Sanders said about Bolt in the days when the movie was still called American Dog:
"We took our main character, Henry (now Bolt), who is completely CG — he’s as sharp as a tack and very round and covered with fur and looks very, very real — and place him right in the middle of an Edward Hopper painting. So we scanned a suburban Hopper painting and had Henry walk right through it. And it is a painting… it is all implied dimension. What we found was it didn’t break. It did what I suspected, which is it lit up. The hard part is retaining that painterly softness when you move around the environment, whether it’s a diner or a car or a train station."
"Paul is at the forefront of helping bring this into the computer, because he knows what makes a painting a painting; it’s not just how a brush stroke looks because we’ve gone way beyond that since Tarzan. It has to do with how light and paint interact with each other… that luminosity, the layering, which makes a huge difference. And the weird thing is, as long as you have good contact and a shadow that locks them in, you buy it."
In traditional animation, where the characters are drawn by hand, there is a limit on how detailed they can be. There is also a limit on how complex the backgrounds can be if they are gonna match with the characters. With CGI, that is no longer such a problem (imagine all the hairs on a fluffy CGI animal).
Maybe this decribes it; imagine a painting (like a Carl Barks oil painting), which is a pleasure to look at. Another painting is made that looks almost like the first, and another one, and another one. 24 in total (since it is 24 frames in a second of film). Then make some more seconds, and you will be travel through a painted landscape. The "painted" characters in this landscapes moves the way you are used to from movies like Pinocchio, Bambi and Tarzan, not the way seen in Shrek or The Polar Express.
That's what you is supposed to see if Disney succeeds. And you have have the chance to see it in 3D, with real depths and dimensions as well.
I noticed in Bolt that everything looks way too "lit up". Like they found some kind of "glow/bright" button and they used it way too much. If that's their way of covering up things, I'm not impressed.Rumpelstiltskin wrote:"
"We took our main character, Henry (now Bolt), who is completely CG — he’s as sharp as a tack and very round and covered with fur and looks very, very real — and place him right in the middle of an Edward Hopper painting. So we scanned a suburban Hopper painting and had Henry walk right through it. And it is a painting… it is all implied dimension. What we found was it didn’t break. It did what I suspected, which is it lit up. The hard part is retaining that painterly softness when you move around the environment, whether it’s a diner or a car or a train station."
Maybe this decribes it; imagine a painting (like a Carl Barks oil painting), which is a pleasure to look at. Another painting is made that looks almost like the first, and another one, and another one. 24 in total (since it is 24 frames in a second of film). Then make some more seconds, and you will be travel through a painted landscape. The "painted" characters in this landscapes moves the way you are used to from movies like Pinocchio, Bambi and Tarzan, not the way seen in Shrek or The Polar Express.
That's what you is supposed to see if Disney succeeds. And you have have the chance to see it in 3D, with real depths and dimensions as well.
That's probably why they decided to make Rapunzel bright as well, so they can (over)use this function again.
About the paintings, that sounds wonderful.
But remember that a painting is painted, and therefore 2d.
Nothing will ever look like a real painting unless it's actually drawn/painted. Especially the characters. Hopefully they can do something with that in the future, because the human characters in Bolt didn't look anything like that at all (they looked very static, rubber-ish and emotion-less), and even that huge "glow" couldn't change it.
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
I havn't seen Bolt yet, so I can't tell, even if I have heard the backgrounds looked a lot more painterly than what has been done in CGI movies so far.
I'm not sure if true paintings are the only ones that will ever look like real paintings. There is a simple way of testing that. Show a person a frame from a movie and a real painting based on the movie, and ask him or her which is which. Some day, it will be impossible to tell the difference. And based on how far they have come since Toy Story, I would say it's not too far into the future.
I'm not sure if true paintings are the only ones that will ever look like real paintings. There is a simple way of testing that. Show a person a frame from a movie and a real painting based on the movie, and ask him or her which is which. Some day, it will be impossible to tell the difference. And based on how far they have come since Toy Story, I would say it's not too far into the future.
I agree that the backgrounds can come quite close (like in some concept art we've seen of Rapunzel), but the characters not at all yet.Rumpelstiltskin wrote:
I'm not sure if true paintings are the only ones that will ever look like real paintings. There is a simple way of testing that. Show a person a frame from a movie and a real painting based on the movie, and ask him or her which is which. Some day, it will be impossible to tell the difference. And based on how far they have come since Toy Story, I would say it's not too far into the future.
Last edited by Marky_198 on Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
You're absolutely right. I don't see what the fuss about Bolt is about.yukitora wrote:To be honest I didn't think the backgrounds in BOLT looked very painterly at all. Sure they were a huge jump forward rom Meet The Robinsons (which may have purposely went for a sterile/clean enviroment), but I was expecting something more artistic and stylised.
Those backgrounds still look sterile, but they just lit everything up with an enormous glow. If that is supposed to mean "painterly"........
They do look quite realistic, but in a way "plastic", especially the scenes inside (kitchen, office etc), and the outside scenes with the trees look realistic, but just glowy and blurry. NOT painterly.
Painterly in my opinion is the concept Rapunzel on the swing.
So not necessarily "real life photo" realistic, but just "painterly".
And again, I'm really worried about the human characters, they look just unacceptable in Bolt.
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16690
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
-
singerguy04
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2591
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:40 pm
- Location: The Land of Lincoln
In Bolt's defense, the film isn't about the human characters so as far as their design being a little far from realistic doesn't bother me at least. Also, I can't remember a time when human characters in Disney films looked too realistic. Sure some characters have looked very human, Cinderella comes to mind, but even in the film Cinderella the king and herald (I don't really know his title so i'm calling him the herald) are not at all human realistic characters. In my opinion the human's in Bolt reflect a lot of the character designs of humans in past hand drawn disney films. I feel like the kind of character design for the humans in Bolt will cross over into Rapunzel. Obviously Rapunzel and the prince will look more lifelike and beautiful, but like almost all of the past disney films i'm expecting all the other characters to not look as good lol.
I also noticed the sort of glowy/glossy/blurred look of some of the backgrounds. The biggest place I noticed this was in the city shots. I didn't really agree with this choice of design because I've never been in a city that glowed in a almost heavenly way before. It made the city look really clean (as if that exists). I did however like it in other scenes. I also only have seen the film in 3D where it's kinda hard to really pay too close attention to much other than the characters. I'm really looking forward to getting this on DVD so I can watch it a few times and form a better opinion. Overall thought from what I could notice and what I can remember the film was wonderful. I really enjoyed the designs for Bolt, Mittens, and Rhino.
I think that as far as Bolt is concerned and how it will effect the look and feel of Rapunzel, I believe it's moving in the right direction. We'll probably be able to see better examples in some of the shorts DAS is working on as well. I'm not sure when they are coming but Glago's Quest and The Ballad of Nesse would probably be able to give us examples of animation for Rapunzel as well as Bolt.
I also noticed the sort of glowy/glossy/blurred look of some of the backgrounds. The biggest place I noticed this was in the city shots. I didn't really agree with this choice of design because I've never been in a city that glowed in a almost heavenly way before. It made the city look really clean (as if that exists). I did however like it in other scenes. I also only have seen the film in 3D where it's kinda hard to really pay too close attention to much other than the characters. I'm really looking forward to getting this on DVD so I can watch it a few times and form a better opinion. Overall thought from what I could notice and what I can remember the film was wonderful. I really enjoyed the designs for Bolt, Mittens, and Rhino.
I think that as far as Bolt is concerned and how it will effect the look and feel of Rapunzel, I believe it's moving in the right direction. We'll probably be able to see better examples in some of the shorts DAS is working on as well. I'm not sure when they are coming but Glago's Quest and The Ballad of Nesse would probably be able to give us examples of animation for Rapunzel as well as Bolt.
exactly. & there was no news that the project was stopped and scrapped. i haven't heard that. & none of the news sites reported it was scrapped. they just said that they brought on new directors to work out the story kinks in the second act. that was no concept art either. that was a still. concept art is never that detailed.sotiris2006 wrote:I thought that they continued where the previous team had left off. It's in the second half of the movie that there were storytelling problems and because of that they called in the Bolt guys. It would be impossible to still have a 2010 release and start the whole thing from scratch, right?Neal wrote:Still of the prince? Do you mean concept art? I don't want to go to the effort of re-posting old news, but Glen Keane got kicked off the directing job and was replaced with the director of BOLT. They began again and have only been doing their version for 10 weeks.