DVDizzy Forum

Marky_198 wrote:It looks like the most generic cgi film I've ever seen.
What's up with the characters? They look like a computer game.

Um, I hope you realize that most of the animation seen here is still in its early stages, and the small amount of animation that appears to be finished is difficult to see properly due to the low quality of pointing a camera at the computer screen.

Marky_198 wrote:It looks like the most generic CGI film I've ever seen.

What's up with the characters? They look like a computer game.
Is this for real? Or is it some fan-made thing?.

It may seem that way because the trailer is not finished. I don't think there is one completely finished frame in the trailer. The animation there is in early stages and that's why it may seem like it's "something out of a computer game".

Marky_198 wrote: And all those scenes are NOT funny at all, just a very tiring compilation of cheap slapstick moments.

They are marketing the film as a comedy and that's why those jokes were highlighted.

To be honest though, some of those gags are overdone e.g how many times has the hit-on-the-head-with-a-pan joke been used in animation?

Julian Carter wrote: - what a key pose is. Or how an animator must keep in mind things like squash and stretch while on the job (and how squash and stretch affects the final animation). And how the animator makes his characters or objects anticipate a movement effectively. I doubt he knows of the existence of the storyboard ... or the exposure sheet.

*

My whole life is dedicated to animantion, and I know a lot about it.

I know exactly what I'm talking about and think you are confusing knowledge of animation with knowledge of the English language in general.

"things like squash and stretch while on the job (and how squash and stretch affects the final animation" is something I'm really fond of and it works perfectly in films like Aladdin, but they fail miserably with it it this trailer, and therefore the movements in some of the more finished footage still look like dolls moving in an unnatural manner.

I was hoping they could finally fix this by now.

But clearly CGI animantion, has a long, long way to go to match the fluidity and overall quality look that comes close to the previous classics.

But I respect your trust in the project.

enigmawing wrote: Um, I hope you realize that most of the animation seen here is still in its early stages, and the small amount of animation that appears to be finished is difficult to see properly due to the low quality of pointing a camera at the computer screen.

I can look past that.

Some of the footage looks very finished, and we've seen it all before.
The unnatural movements, etc.

I think this film suffered so much from story problems, time schedule, etc, that they started the actual animation process/production too late, and therefore it results in looking rushed and cheap.

The test clip (also low quality) from 5 years ago looks better.

The color logo for Tangled:

http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ngled.html

Marky_198 wrote:

enigmawing wrote: Um, I hope you realize that most of the animation seen here is still in its early stages, and the small amount of animation that appears to be finished is difficult to see properly due to the low quality of pointing a camera at the computer screen.

I can look past that.

Some of the footage looks very finished, and we've seen it all before.
The unnatural movements, etc.

I think this film suffered so much from story problems, time schedule, etc, that they started the actual animation process/production too late, and therefore it results in looking rushed and cheap.

The test clip (also low quality) from 5 years ago looks better.

Bullshit! It's still Glen Keane supervising the animation and it tells. The scenes of Flynn being tangled and tossed around by Rapunzel's hair show an amount of squash, stretch, anticipation and animation principles that is hardly done in CGI animation, which usually tends to be very blocky and smooth in and out from keyframes. This looks way more fleshy and lively then anything I've seen before. Don't forget that rendering, lighting, textures, secondary action of clothing etc will add a LOT of depth, if you want to compare the stuff you can see in the unfinished trailer to anything compare it to something like this. A video of the progress of animation at Pixar, go to the 0:54 mark. That's the type of footage we saw in the trailer so far:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WyQZ--fBNfc&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WyQZ--fBNfc&hl=nl_NL&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

There's a shot in the Rapunzel trailer of her sliding down the stairs, jumping on the ground and running across the room with her hair trailing behind her. I've hardly ever seen such fluid and wonderfull animation. Even at this quality you can see the movement of cloth and hair in relation to the body is exceptional! I've heard someone on a blog say that that particular shot was a piece of test animation they worked on to figure out how to translate the 2D principles to 3D, and from the looks of things, it really worked

blackcauldron85 wrote:The color logo for Tangled:

http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2010/ ... ngled.html

that's not the official one! They tend to give their own visuals their own treatment. That is just the b&w logo with a color gradient over it. The official color logo will most likely be rendered as golden and with a texture on it, much like Princess and the Frog and the likes...

This animation is no later in production than Ratatouille was.

Also, there is one apparently finished frame that looks gorgeous, and that is Rapunzel running down the stairs.

Also, they may actually apply motion blur, which can make the squash and stretch look more natural.

Where did you found the new logo?

Marky_198 wrote: My whole life is dedicated to animation, and I know a lot about it.

Are you an animator?

Marky wrote:I know exactly what I'm talking about and think you are confusing knowledge of animation with knowledge of the English language in general.

By that, are you accusing JC of not knowing enough English?

The animation in the trailer looks rubbery because it's rough animation, and rough animation in CG looks far worse than rough 2D animation does (since really most of the main detail aside from colour and background is there). Let's not, however, jump to conclusions until we see the fully rendered animation; it may be good or bad, but as of today, we can't judge.

Btw, I don't think anyone noticed this, but there's a short shot in the new trailer of the tower, right before Flynn opens the shutters and enters the tower. It's the same shot as the concept art we already know. At first I thought it was the exact same still, but after comparing both, it's clear that the shot in the trailer is a fully rendered, final shot from the film, based on that piece of concept art. I have made a comparison picture. Look closely at the two pictures and you'll see the differences in the surroundings and the tower. But it has the same look and feel of the concept artwork. If you view the trailer frame by frame you can see in this particular shot that the waterfall behind the tower also moves. So this is final animation:

wow, great catch!

They managed to make it look really close to the concept art. I think Tangled will end up being visually stunning. It may actually be a damn good film in the end.... did we ever consider that?

It's a lost cause.

When Cinderella is released on Blu-Ray it'll be retitled 'Prince and the Mice'.

This is a crock full of shit. Tangled, seriously, f**k you Disney, or should I say the Bob Iger Company.

Marky_198 wrote:
I think this film suffered so much from story problems, time schedule, etc, that they started the actual animation process/production too late, and therefore it results in looking rushed and cheap.

The test clip (also low quality) from 5 years ago looks better.

I MIGHT agree that things seem to be a little rushed. I know there's still around 7-8 months left before the film is released and it will be impressive if many of the film's problems are fixed or are greatly improved upon before then.

I thought that Disney was planning an animated film release EVERY 18 MONTHS...not annually. What happened to that? Were they scared of competing with Harry Potter if they released this in summer of 2011?

They plan to release this in November that's like less than half the time Disney originally scheduled.

I do agree that I liked the Rapunzel I saw in the old test clip I saw.

toonaspie wrote: Were they scared of competing with Harry Potter if they released this in summer of 2011?

That's not logical at all since both Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One and Tangled come out in November 2010.

Widdi wrote:

toonaspie wrote: Were they scared of competing with Harry Potter if they released this in summer of 2011?

That's not logical at all since both Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One and Tangled come out in November 2010.

Well then they must've thought that HPatDH p1 would be less competetion than HPatDH p2 (which is supposed to come out July 2011). That's what I meant by my original statement.

Because if it didnt make any difference, that is the only reason I can assume as to why they're releasing this film quite early. They could've released this in June and it would still be a month ahead of the final Harry Potter film.

Oh, I see. The 'T' in the logo is extra long and wavey. Just like her hair... hahahahahahahahahaha. That's SO clever.

I do like what I see in the trailer. It's kinda obvious that they put all of the slap-stick stuff that's in the whole movie, in the trailer - and the more serious stuff gets left behind. To get all the "Shrek-people" (I liked Shrek, but you get what I mean) to go and watch this movie. It's kinda screaming: "Look at me, I have ADD, and hit people in the head with frying pans, I'm funny."

A really smart marketing move, comic-relief title, obviously edited logo, slap-stick trailer. My guess is, that the movie itself will be completely different then what you'd expect it to be after watching the trailer. Wouldn't be the first time studios offer a trailer that couldn't be more different than the movie itself (Sweeney Todd anyone?). I think many will be pleasantly surprised by this.

Still can't wait to see it! Hopefully international markets will not have to wait so long, just like we had to do with PatF and UP.

Duckburger wrote:Oh, I see. The 'T' in the logo is extra long and wavey. Just like her hair... hahahahahahahahahaha. That's SO clever.

It is just as clever as it was in the Rapunzel logo...

Duckburger wrote:Oh, I see. The 'T' in the logo is extra long and wavey. Just like her hair... hahahahahahahahahaha. That's SO clever.

I do like what I see in the trailer. It's kinda obvious that they put all of the slap-stick stuff that's in the whole movie, in the trailer - and the more serious stuff gets left behind. To get all the "Shrek-people" (I liked Shrek, but you get what I mean) to go and watch this movie. It's kinda screaming: "Look at me, I have ADD, and hit people in the head with frying pans, I'm funny."

A really smart marketing move, comic-relief title, obviously edited logo, slap-stick trailer. My guess is, that the movie itself will be completely different then what you'd expect it to be after watching the trailer. Wouldn't be the first time studios offer a trailer that couldn't be more different than the movie itself (Sweeney Todd anyone?). I think many will be pleasantly surprised by this.

Still can't wait to see it! Hopefully international markets will not have to wait so long, just like we had to do with PatF and UP.

My thoughts exactly. Listen up, Disney fans! The most accurate info we'll be getting from trailers is simply the look of the film, since they're not going to display the story properly, unfortunately. But that doesn't really matter. It's just to trick young boys into coming to the movie theaters. It will still be the same, beautiful DAC that we were all hoping for! How do I know? Check out the tower shot, and the clip of her running with all that hair.... It's got the beauty and style of 2D with all of the depth and fluidity of CG... Hmmm.... It's.... Dare I say it? "PAINTERLY!"

It reminds me of Dinosaur--near live-action--with a mix of a Dreamswork film (in animation style). Not exactly what I would call "painterly." It looks okay for CGI--but I wouldn't honestly call it "painterly."

yukitora wrote:I personally think The Princess and the Frog is a worse title than Tangled.

It's too bad we can't see one another--you couldn't possibly have said that with a straight face.

Also, if you'd seen the movie, you would've known Tiana became a princess while the two were still frogs once they married. Hence the spell was broken--"You kissed yourself a princess!"

Widdi wrote: That's not logical at all since both Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One and Tangled come out in November 2010.

Let's hope they come out the same day.

PatrickvD wrote:It is just as clever as it was in the Rapunzel logo...

Except "Rapunzel" wasn't trying to cleverly make you think it was still about a girl despite its name. Rapunzel is important enough to manipulate in their advertising, but not good enough to be in the title.

And, of course, Marky is dumped on without fail. What a surprise.

As for robster, the only thing I would say (as if anything we say could make a difference) is that Disney's previously boy-oriented films of the past decade have obviously not sold as well as TP&TF or Lilo & Stitch. Both of which had females as central characters, without titles that were made to be "masculine." All the "boy" films, if we must call them that (Treasure Planet, Atlantis: The Lost Empire, Home On The Range), have done miserably. Even The Emperor's New Groove--whose title and tone are similar to what Disney is apparently trying to go for with "Tangled"--wasn't that big of a success (and not as much of one as the two "female" films).