DVDizzy Forum

Ha! The facial hair is one of the things I liked about the prince's look. It sets him apart from the typical Disney prince look if only slightly.

I love these new concept paintings. I can't wait to see what it all actually winds up looking like.

Very pretty!

The last one reminds me of "Pirates of the Caribbean". I wonder what time period will this be set in.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Is that a tiny beard I see at the tip of the prince's chin? I hope not.

Why? A man can't have facial hair?

Only old and/or evil men are allowed to have facial hair in children's movies. Didn't you know? *blink*

Also, the newest concept for the tower reminds me more of the other tower rather than the bright, flowery one. It's got darker, drearier colors and seems more lonesome and forbidding to me.

If the movie looks like that, it'll be fine. But for some reason it rubs me the wrong way (probably an unconscious anti-3D thing going on in my head).

Yes you are right about it color-wise, but structure-wise, and even some of the foliage and location, are more like the first OLD concept.

I actually hope it can look dark and foreboding on the outside but nice and homey on the inside because the witch wants Rapunzel to be happy. Unless she thinks dark = happy like how you get joy out of being evil or something.

I hope you still want the detailed rich rococo beauty in the film like in the OLD pic and from what Glena Kean said: Glen Keane's Rich Vision of Rapunzel's Beauty.

But let's also hope the characters themselves are able to look really 2-D somehow...

Mooky wrote:Very pretty!

Agreed.

Mooky wrote:The last one reminds me of "Pirates of the Caribbean". I wonder what time period will this be set in.

It's a fairy-tale, so it all happened once upon a time. And that's that.

In all seriousness, from a brief look at their costumes, I'd say probably the 17th (maybe early 18th) century, though to be fair, I'm not 100% certain.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Only old and/or evil men are allowed to have facial hair in children's movies. Didn't you know? *blink*

I hope you are being sarcastic because as someone with facial hair I am deeply offended .

Wow, those are all really beautiful! I especially love the one with Rapunzel and Flynn together, it's so adorable. I myself am not a big fan of guys with facial hair, but I do think that it works well with Flynn and will help set him apart from the other Disney princes.

Also, other than the villains, I tended to notice that the facial hair is almost always reserved for the father figures - Gepetto, Prince Charming's father, Mr. Darling, Jim Dear, King Stefan and King Hubert, Merlin and Sir Ector, King Triton, Maurice, the Sultan, Zeus, the list goes on and on.

I like the new tower. it looks less generic this way. you get a sense of seclusion, where the person inside is trapped, yet still feels at home.

the original felt more like a tree house that was converted into a holding cel.

I personally love the goatee on Prince Flynn. make him look cool and street smart.

I like the new concept art. I don't hate CG but i'd love if this was 2-D. It would make a great 2-D film anyway.[/i]

If it's like a treehouse converted to a holding cel, that makes it

A) not a generic tower

B) secluded but the person inside still feels at home

But like I said, I do like this new tower since it is actually based more on the old "treehouse" tower.

Disney Duster wrote:If it's like a treehouse converted to a holding cel, that makes it

A) not a generic tower

B) secluded but the person inside still feels at home

But like I said, I do like this new tower since it is actually based more on the old "treehouse" tower.

personally i loved the old one in which the prince is climbing her hair. it's so high that it's up in the clouds, the wooden/stone look was wonderful and it just all together looked like something new.

^ You could keep all of that, and still have the roomy house-like structure on top.

Though it will depend on which way they take the story, and the witch's character specifically, to decide which environment the tower would be best in. High in the clouds makes it even harder to get to, and the prince's death is more likely, but surrounded by beautiful foliage gives Rapunzel something to look at. In the original tale, the Prince fell from the tower, into a patch of thorns, and did not die.

I suppose a more strict looking tower would fit the high in the clouds way, but I thought this witch was supposed to want to make Rapunzel comfortable and cozy, which would mean more room at the top, and more warm and beautiful looking.

I love this new concept art!
It's really beautiful.

It looks very painterly, so it looks like 2d basically...like real paint.

I really hope they can make the film look like this, and not give it (especially the characters) that generic cgi 3d look.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/07/31/rapun ... -to-there/

Entertainment Weekly's Pop Watch blog comments on the new concept art. It's cool seeing a Disney movie talked about in a forum such as that especially so far in advance. Building the buzz...

On top of all these wonderful new pictures I just noticed we have a new logo. I'm not sure how old it is, but I LOVE it!!!!!

I just got very very excited for this film!

I love the new logo. Much less boring than the old one.

Also, I noticed that the new concept art (wich is awesome) is clearly from the same artist that developed the visual style for Bolt. It's the exact same style. And since Bolt's "handpainted feel" suffered due to mostly city scenes, I think the new CGI technology developed for Bolt will really flourish in Rapunzel. Bolt was at its best during the country side scenes where the handpainted feel of the film was most visible. Obviously, Rapunzel won't have city scenes like Bolt, but mostly natural backgrounds. I think we're in for a real treat.

I think the characters in Bolt looked anything BUT handpainted.
They had this typical cgi look.

Everyone seems to love the new Rapunzel concept art (so do I), but I like it because the characters look so painterly, like 2d.
The style of the characters is very much like the screenshots of The Little Mermaid and Aladdin in people's signatures. It looks drawn, painted.

It would be a huge disappointment if the characters in the actual film will look rubberish-plasticky-cgi again, like the humans in Bolt.

So like this basically: 03

Which has nothing to do with the new concept art.

Marky_198 wrote:I think the characters in Bolt looked anything BUT handpainted.
They had this typical cgi look.

In case you were refering to my post, I was obviously talking about the backgrounds. CGI characters will be CGI characters. If Disney wants them to look handdrawn they have to pull out the pencils, because computers can't achieve a handdrawn look on CGI characters. The surroundings however are a different matter. And like I said, Bolt's countryside scenes proved Disney can make CGI look as warm and inviting as anything handdrawn.




also notice the lush backgrounds during the Barking at the Moon scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2N_t-_6 ... re=related

What I'm trying to say is that with Rapunzel being a fairytale, it visually lends itsself more for what Disney tried to do with Bolt. They can create painterly three-dimensional surroundings easily because Rapunzel's bakcgrounds will probaply consist of forests, waterfalls, skies and castles. The painterly feeling was lost in Bolt's many indoor scenes. Lots of streets, studios, sets, living rooms etc. Rapunzel doesn't have that limitation, so much more is possible when trying to create that handpainted feeling.

That does not mean however the characters are going to look less computer generated. The movie is CG and it will be just that. The stuff Glen Keane was experimenting with (or rather, wasting money on) is and will probaply remain a fairy tale.

"That does not mean however the characters are going to look less computer generated. The movie is CG and it will be just that. The stuff Glen Keane was experimenting with (or rather, wasting money on) is and will probaply remain a fairy tale."

That's what I'm afraid of.

There is nothing painterly about Bolt. It seems they are unable to give the characters proper movements and a proper look in general. It just looks terribly generic and cgi.
Especially the quality of the human characters is just embarassing.

About the backgrounds, I see what you mean, but in Bolt I wouldn't call it "lush" backgrounds. It's more like "photo-realistic" backgrounds.
So basically it looks like a real life photo/film with bad cgi characters in it.
There's nothing "painterly" about that.

They are presenting Rapunzel in a completely different way so far (thank god). Not only the painterly 2d look and the "astonishing beauty" Glen Keane talked about, but also the characters in the concept art look painted.
As well as the backgrounds, not photo realistic (like Bolt) at all, which is a good thing.

It's not just about the different things in the background. Too realistic waterfalls and trees wouldn't work for Rapunzel either.

Too realistic backgrounds, strange moving characters, a generic cgi look on the (human)characters, everything that Bolt has, is NOT what this film needs.