DVDizzy Forum

Divinity, if Disney cared more about The Black Cauldron than Treasure Planet, they would have released the former on Blu-ray before the latter by now. Heck, they probably might've even released it uncut by now.

Marky_198 wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:Eh... I think Rapunzel ties with SW as the princess who looks most like a little girl. >>;
).

Exactly, and I don't think she even looks "human", but apparently there are people attracted to little girls that look like a bug.

Yep, you got me.

You must know the level of exaggeration when you say she doesn't even look human is ridiculous. And I'm usually guilty of some fair exaggeration. But come on. I understand not being as much a fan of the big eyes design sense, and I'll even admit that it doesn't translate to CG as well as it does in traditional, but... not human?? Take another look at the image that you yourself posted - http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6amd ... o1_500.png. You're really telling me that that image doesn't look like a human? It's a stylized human, yes, but there is no doubting that is a human. (And imo, a damn attractive one).

Marky's right. She's a non-human, little bug girl! Why can't people see that?

(Image courtesy of Brendan in this thread)

It's nice to know some things at UD never change.



Albert

It's just me, but Rapunzel is the rare character who looks great both hand-drawn and in CGI.

Semaj wrote:It's just me, but Rapunzel is the rare character who looks great both hand-drawn and in CGI.

I agree. While I do see where people are coming from in the sense that Glen's designs look better drawn than translated to CG, I still think she looks great. Definitely the most appealing CG human I've seen thus far.

Escapay wrote:It's nice to know some things at UD never change.

Hahaha wow, that was a while back.

I look forward to his next argument when The Little Mermaid hits Blu-Ray and Marky will enlighten us with his infinite wisdom on why the restoration is wrong, how the 1998 LaserDisc is better, and that the general "you" will never, ever understand. Should be quite a doozy to read!

Albert

Marky_198 wrote: Exactly, and I don't think she even looks "human", but apparently there are people attracted to little girls that look like a bug.

That gotta be one hell of a sick-fuck.




















I wonder if there's any of em in places like 4chan.

Semaj wrote:Rapunzel is the rare character who looks great both hand-drawn and in CGI.

I think those characters are almost non-existent. (No, I don't think Rapunzel is one of them, personally.)

Kyle wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:

What is that even supposed to mean? She's already a CG model.

It could mean that CG designs ruin it either way.
Rapunzel looked good on paper, but not in CGI. Suddenly the eyes looked too big and weird.
Meg is a CG model with weird looking eyes, and she still looks weird after the style change. So they need to do something about it. If they are creating CGI characters, they need to keep this in mind to prevent it. Different designs, smaller eyes, etc.

Great video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO-cwt2oDq8

^

Paperman might save us all.

thelittleursula wrote:^

Paperman might save us all.

Indeed.

While I agree with the sentiment she's getting at, does anybody really think CG still looks like "plastic toys"? I really don't think Tangled suffered from that at all.

Yes, I do.
I can't help but feeling like I'm looking at rubber dolls in Tangled. Living toys.
It's just the problem of the medium I guess. It looks like the characters are real, but as in real rubber or plastic.

You know what I mean? It's like you can touch them. And automatically I get the link of plastic or rubber. I think this "realness" takes away from the illusion, the magic of story telling. That is why I love 2d so much, that is more about the illusion.

Well yes, I know you do Marky. But someone who doesn't have such a blind hatred of CG animation? Even those of you who still prefer 2d - would anyone else genuinely argue that modern CG animation still looks "plastic" like it did in Pixar's early days?

I think everyone does.

What do you expect the characters to feel like when you touch them?
This is what happens when characters look like real material.

SWillie! wrote:While I agree with the sentiment she's getting at, does anybody really think CG still looks like "plastic toys"? I really don't think Tangled suffered from that at all.

Nope, I agree with you.

Marky, you don't understand. You're in a small minority. I think most would argue that CG has come a LONG way in terms of visual appeal. Sure, there are instances where some designs don't translate as well into CG, as we've already discussed, but overall visually things do not still look plasticky.

Marky_198 wrote:I think everyone does.

What do you expect the characters to feel like when you touch them?

Skin. Duh.