DVDizzy Forum

robster16 wrote:I just came across a website of a Disney artist who worked on "My Peoples" and posted a picture with the commentary that the characters in this image are COMPUTER MODELS AND NOT PAINTINGS! That is truelly astounding because you could swear that these two characters had been drawn with chalk on paper! Amazing!!! Just to keep the painterly look debate alive

You can see some footage from the movie in his demo reel on his homepage and that look is truelly AMAZING!!!

http://www.fxvet.net/reels/reels.html

I've seen something like that picture from a recent Disney related movie...only thing it was litte boy and a Grumpy old guy

I'm posting this again since no one said anything last time...those who know clothing history I hope will comment, but I want everyone's opinion, too.

This is Rapunzel doll in what I think is supposed to be her Princess outfit, as opposed to her peasant one in the tower, as she is wearing the crown and it just looks more princessy:


But I didn't think it looked right because the bodice looks like a peasant's. It's the same kind of criss-crossed lace design that she has with her tower peasant outfit, and I think the criss-cross laced looks like a corset or something only a peasant would wear, not a princess. But I am not certain, if anyone knows, that would be cool.

I also didn't think her crown looked right. It almost looks like something from Russia, not Germany, which is where this tale originated from and is supposedly set, or not even the French or European influences the setting and art seems to have. Or it just looks like a made-up child's play crown more than someting a real princess would wear. Disney's past princesses had crowns that looked more historically accurate.

So, I decided to give her bodice decoration that not only looked more princess-like, but I think also nicer and matching the vertical stripes on her puffy sleeves. I also changed her crown to what I think looks more real and better:


That's the first version. Here is the second version:


I like the first version I did better, but do you like them? Do you think they look more princessy, more accurate, or just better?

disneyboy, there are no brush strokes to be found on that UP image, so I'm not sure where your getting the comparison from.

Kyle wrote:disneyboy, there are no brush strokes to be found on that UP image, so I'm not sure where your getting the comparison from.

I think he's getting at the fact that "My Peoples" is an old lady and a young girl, and "Up" is an old man and young boy.

Because yes, the aesthetic style of the two movies is nothing remotely similar.

SWillie! wrote:

Kyle wrote:disneyboy, there are no brush strokes to be found on that UP image, so I'm not sure where your getting the comparison from.

I think he's getting at the fact that "My Peoples" is an old lady and a young girl, and "Up" is an old man and young boy.

Because yes, the aesthetic style of the two movies is nothing remotely similar.

Yeah thats what I was pointing out....and the old lady looks grouchy as does carl...russel looks happy and the young girl is too in looks alone...besides that Up has nothing to do with My Peoples

sotiris2006 wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:I could be wrong, but I think I saw something like that in a Disney art book before.

You are probably referring to the book "Disney Lost and Found" by Charles Solomon which featured art from Disney's abandoned feature films "My Peoples" and "Wild Life"

Unfortunately, the book has gone OOP.

http://www.amazon.com/Disney-Lost-Found ... 982&sr=8-1

Well, that stinks. Why does Disney have to abandon films?

DisneyJedi wrote:

sotiris2006 wrote: You are probably referring to the book "Disney Lost and Found" by Charles Solomon which featured art from Disney's abandoned feature films "My Peoples" and "Wild Life"

Unfortunately, the book has gone OOP.

http://www.amazon.com/Disney-Lost-Found ... 982&sr=8-1

Well, that stinks. Why does Disney have to abandon films?

I have that book, there is indeed plenty of art about that movie in it...

new report from the animationguild blog:

I spent the morning wandering the hall of Disney Feature Animation (Walt Disney Animation Studios to the wider world).

In the front hallway, the long display case no longer holds videos and artwork for The Princess and the Frog. Development art for Tangled has replaced it ...

Upstairs, Tangled's animators are moving briskly along with footage.

... "I'm doing five or six feet a week. We saw the reels of the picture last week, and the color that's in it looks great. And it's the first time CG characters are singing songs the way they do in the old Disney features." ...

The walls in animators' offices are decorated with Glen Keane's drawings for Tangled's lead characters. As I look at the CG versions on various computer screens, I can see Glen's input and influence on all of them.

Everybody I talked to think the picture is shaping up nicely. The schedule is tight, but sometimes that's a good thing. (Worked well for How to Train Your Dragon, so it could concentrate minds in a good way here.)

http://www.projectfirefly.com/3Danimationreel.html

^ Has test reel footage of My Peoples/Angel and Her No-Good Sister/Once in a Blue Moon.

And at the footage on that other reel!!! OMG!!! <3

Btw, today, April 13th is Glen Keane's birthday. Here's what Disney D23 website has to say about him:

This Day in Disney: April 13, 1954

Master Animator Glen Keane is Born

On this day, animator Glen Keane was born in Philadelphia, the son of widely admired cartoonist Bil Keane. As a young boy, Glen was the "all-American boy� rambunctious, extroverted. Always the ringleader," as his father described him in a 1989 article in People magazine. And if you want further insight into Glen's childhood, all you have to do is open your newspaper to his father's comic strip, The Family Circus. Glen was the personification of the character Billy growing up. Following in his father's footsteps, Glen became an artist himself, beginning his career at Disney in 1974 and becoming supervising animator for characters such as Ariel, the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas and Tarzan. Glen is currently wrapped up in Tangled, the upcoming animated feature, for which he is supervising animation for the entire film.

To Disney Duster: I actually do like the straight lines better than the tied lace, though I can't explain why. I don't know, I think the whole dress is kind of ugly. It's like they chose the most god-awful shade of purple and slapped it on her. And she should really stop getting autographs taken on it.

Feel sorry for the children who grow up with this. It could totally set fashion back.

Disney Duster, the lace work on the boddice is very typical of the Medieval England style of clothing for Royal / well off women. The ties would be made of rich, colourful fabric. The more peices of material that were used, the richer the person was. So whenever there was a space to sew, place, or attatch anything onto clothing, if you were wealthy enough, you would jump at the chance.

I don't know what time period this movie is set in though, so I can't comment on if it is suitable or not.

"The Art of Tangled" by Jeff Kurtti is now available for pre-order on both amazon.com and amazon.co.uk. The book will be released on the 27th of October 2010. What is odd though is that on both sites it's still named as "The Art of Rapunzel" instead of "Tangled".

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Rapunzel-Jeff ... 870&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Art-Rapunzel-Hc ... 306&sr=1-1

See it's stuff like that that makes me most upset about the name change. It's like, if you're going to change the dang name, then change it already. The dolls, the posters in Hollywood Studios, this book... all "Rapunzel."

I know this might just be a placeholder by amazon, but still. If they would just change everything for sure, I would get over the name change a lot easier. But stuff like this just makes me want it to stay Rapunzel every time I see it.

I found this on Barnes and Noble Bookstore website.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Tangle ... 's+tangled

As SWillie! said, they need to change the name in all their products; having half of the merchandise named "Tangled" and the other half named "Rapunzel" is really frustrating.

sotiris2006 wrote:

Polizzi wrote:I found this on Barnes and Noble Bookstore website.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Tangle ... 's+tangled

The same one is also listed on amazon. As SWillie! said, they need to change the name in all their products because having half of the merchandise named "Tangled" and the other half named "Rapunzel" is really frustrating.

I did not know, just thought it might be something interesting. Anyways, who knows what merchandise is going to be, either, "Rapunzel," or, "Tangled." Which means that Disney has not yet confirmed if this idea of changing the name would be officially official, even though it is official. That depends on their story they are developing.

By the way, speaking of stories, I have created my own story about, "Rapunzel," based on the Grimm fairy tale. What if I share it with Disney?

SWillie! wrote:See it's stuff like that that makes me most upset about the name change. It's like, if you're going to change the dang name, then change it already. The dolls, the posters in Hollywood Studios, this book... all "Rapunzel."

I know this might just be a placeholder by amazon, but still. If they would just change everything for sure, I would get over the name change a lot easier. But stuff like this just makes me want it to stay Rapunzel every time I see it.

These things take time, theres a Lot of things Im sure their scrambling to fix, but thats what happens when you change the name of a movie after merchandize has already been made with another name in mind.

Polizzi wrote:By the way, speaking of stories, I have created my own story about, "Rapunzel," based on the Grimm fairy tale. What if I share it with Disney?

Tell me WHY would you share your version with Disney? Their version of this story is almost finished. Done. Do you seriously think that they would change all and cancel it now when the premiere is only few months away (it really is )??
Everyone can have their version of the story, but to make acceptable and great film of it is whole another story and not so simple thing. There are thousands of details to tangle and solve to get it done. To me it seems that you don't get that to make a movie, especially an animated one, really IS challenging task and you just can't do it in few short months. So my answer to your question; you can keep your version of Rapunzel all to yourself (or you can send it to some cheap rip-off company which will no doubt make their version of this after Disney's version is out). Phew. Sorry but I just HAD to let that out.

Polizzi wrote:By the way, speaking of stories, I have created my own story about, "Rapunzel," based on the Grimm fairy tale. What if I share it with Disney?

Yes. WE KNOW.