DVDizzy Forum

This concept art has nothing to do with Bolt.
It looks painted. Not realistic at all.

It would be really strange if the Rapunzel characters are suddenly transformed into plasticky "Bolt" characters, and the backgrounds transformed into photo realistic backgrounds, so basically unlike anything we see in this concept art.

It actually looks more like the Little Mermaid screenshot in your signature, in terms of style, and everybody loves it.

Remember the concept art for Bolt released shortly before the film premiered? We were getting excited that Penny had short black hair reminscent of Lilo....

You know Disney would get a lot of academy awards if they made this film look exactly like this concept art. Sure it'd take a few more years, wouldn't be in 3D, and probably lacking in plot due to animation difficulties, but it'd be a piece of art, forever immortalised unlike any other film this decade, just like Sleeping Beauty. Probably bankrupt the studio too, like SB

The thing is that Rapunzel has everything to do with Bolt. The same animators/directors are making this film. And most likely the same concept artist:






If you honestly think Rapunzel is magically gonna wind up looking closer to its concept art than Bolt you're fooling yourself. Glen Keane did not develop something magical and new. He was kicked out of the director's chair.

And your hatred for Bolt's animation has blinded you so much that you don't see the brush strokes in the backgrounds during several scenes in the movie. Rapunzel will have more of this. I already explained why. But that's as close as we're gonna get.

If you hate computer animation that much, seeing as you found Bolt (wich was visually quite spectacular) an embarrassment and photo-realistic (for CG standards it was far from photo-realistic), you might wanna skip Rapunzel alltogether. I think you'll be really disappointed. It's still computer animation.

Ok, I'm really worried now.
That Bolt concept art looked beautiful and painterly too, but the actual film........ehm.....not at all.

Sterile, plasticky and rubber looking humans, moving in slowmotion and the typical static cgi way.

I'm starting to realize that no 3d/cgi film will EVER look painterly.
Maybe someday in the future they will come up with a new technology to make a film look like a moving painting, but this is not it.
It's a pity they are making Rapunzel at this moment, because clearly technology isn't ready yet for what they had in mind.

I wish they would drop the "painterly" name calling and stop people giving this beautiful painterly concept art, while the film is going to end up looking like Bolt.

"You know Disney would get a lot of academy awards if they made this film look exactly like this concept art"

Exactly, but clearly it's too early for that in terms of technology.
Giving people false expectations with beautiful, painterly concept art isn't going to help.

About the Bolt pictures you posted. It's amazing to see that in the concept art Bolt actually has "expression", a face that's alive. A face that touches you, light and dark patches in the eyes. While in the screenshot of the actual film all the life is gone. A plastic, dead white ball that is supposed to be an eye?

This painted look also looks much more 3 dimensional.
Cgi has a long, long way to go to make characters look truly alive and give them real expressions.

Marky_198 wrote:Ok, I'm really worried now.
That Bolt concept art looked beautiful and painterly too, but the actual film........ehm.....not at all.

Sterile, plasticky and rubber looking humans, moving in slowmotion and the typical static cgi way.

Slowmotion? What?

As for typical static CGI way, did you see Chicken Little with it's "squash and stretch"? Chicken Little is still the closest CGI came to hand-animation in my opinion.

I wish they would drop the "painterly" name calling and stop people giving this beautiful painterly concept art, while the film is going to end up looking like Bolt.

"You know Disney would get a lot of academy awards if they made this film look exactly like this concept art"

Er. Have you seen the concept art on other DVDs. Rarely does the final film live up to the concept art.

Firstly, concept art is just that... its to explore concepts and designs. It's not to "lock" the designs - that's what model sheets and (probably) in the case of CGI marquettes are for. Often concept art is "blue-sky" thinking - a sort of throw everything down on the paper and see what sticks. Often its overtly ambitious, but some of that ambition can find its way into the final film.

However, designs are often simplified or adjusted to be easier or quicker to draw. Look at Lilo's dress on some of the concept art, then then look at the simplified design in the actual film.

Exactly, but clearly it's too early for that in terms of technology.
Giving people false expectations with beautiful, painterly concept art isn't going to help.

What false expectations. It's clearly labeled as "concept" art, not "actual" art. Are you disappointed about all those concept cars which never have and never will see the light of day on a production line?

About the Bolt pictures you posted. It's amazing to see that in the concept art Bolt actually has "expression", a face that's alive. A face that touches you, light and dark patches in the eyes. While in the screenshot of the actual film all the life is gone. A plastic, dead white ball that is supposed to be an eye?

This painted look also looks much more 3 dimensional.
Cgi has a long, long way to go to make characters look truly alive and give them real expressions.

I have to disagree. I find that concept art rather bland to be honest. <shrugs> It's just another 'toon style dog with a small body and large head. I know the final Bolt was more or less the same, but I feel the same about that too. There's nothing to make the design stand out over other designs over the past 50+ years of animation. Painting it with visible brush strokes neither validates the design in my eyes, or gives it life or expression. Really, the eyes on that Bolt look no more "alive" than on the CGI Bolt.

But I'm biased ever since Chris Saunders was "removed" from the project, and it slowly turned into a bland concoction of bland ideas and uninspiring designs from such an idiosyncratic, vibrant and totally personal and individual source.

Surely that's subverting people's expectations more - removing the creative talent who devised the story and concept and replacing both with the same middle-of-the-road, unsurprising, formulatic status-quo that passes for originality in this day and age?

I remember loving the Bolt concept art when it was first released, and now I also really love the Rapunzel concept art. I guess it's because of the water-colorness effect to them.

I haven't been following this thread at all... is Kristin Chenoweth still attatched to this?

I have nothing against beards in general, only that specific kind of beard.
It's supposed to be hip and cool, the stuff that young urban girls like. Remember Treasure Planet, when they made the main character into a skater and/or surfer with an attitude? Some said it was like looking a 50 year old man trying to be young and cool.

If they are gonna keep the beard, why don't give him a long trench coat and dopey eyes, and he can have a guest role in W.I.T.C.H. at some point later. Or a caps, sagging jeans and a huge medallion around his neck, and he can be the world's first skater. Or make his hair, beard and clothes black, and give him pale skin and a stupid name like Lord Kronos, Abraxas or Morpheus, and he will have a goth appeal as well.

PatrickvD wrote:Glen Keane did not develop something magical and new. He was kicked out of the director's chair.

Some say it was because Glen Keane became sick, others says he was replaced for other reasons. But saying he was fired because he didn't add anything at all to the project, are just speculations.

And he DID achieve something. The image or Rapunzel in the Swing is a reminder to that. The goal is to make a frame from the movie look more or less like a painting. Also the to short test clips available on youtube looks impressive, especially the clip with the hair blowing in the wind. A lot has been invented since then, and Bolt took advantage of it. The tools will have evolved even more when Rapunzel is finished, just as it has improved from Meet the Robinsons to Bolt.
For each new movie we will see some evolution, in rendering, movements and design.
Look at the concept art for Bolt. The CGI characters ended up looking just like what we see there, and that's impressive. I notive some are not satisfied with Bolt's design, because there is nothing "new". Maybe not if you have handdrawn animation in mind, but being able to create detailed CGI characters that looks exactly like a handdrawn model of the kind we are familiar with from high quality classic animated features, is pretty new.
One also has to remember that these were animals. Rapunzel and the prince are humans, which is more difficult, and if they ends up looking like this in the movie, it is a bigger achievement than many are aware of. The Incredibles was released just five years ago, and the "realistic" humans was more or less considered a revolution back then.

The point is not to hide that it is CGI and pretend that it's handdrawn, but to give the computer animated characters and background a handdrawn quality. Of course you will be able to tell it is CGI because of the depth and dimensions, but that's what defines this form of animation.

In The Princess and the Frog, Disney will attempt to do what handdrawn does best, and in Rapunzel, to explore the CGI potenial that exist at the current time, and bring it to the next level. And if the story and the characters are able to deliver, the technical progress will make it an even greater experience.
Soem say the story means everything. I agree that it is important, but I wish to enjoy the visual impressions of the landscapes, backgrounds and characters as well.

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of all the worries and speculations about the final look of Rapunzel and all the negative predictions about CGI. Why at least not wait till the first teasers or so are released? Even a single frame from a new test clip would be welcomed.

Personally I don't see why people always felt so bad about Chris Sanders leaving. Disney never made a statement as to why he was taken off the project so everyone just always assumes that he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. There must have been more to it than just that.

I always wondered what it was about American Dogs premise that people were so attached to. Was it all because of Sanders? All we knew about the plot is that it was about a bunch of quirky misfits on a road trip looking for a new home. You know, like Cars, Toy Story and Finding Nemo and the much of what Bolt eventually became. I thought the paper thin premise was okay. Nothing spectacular. And Sanders unique designs didn't translate all that well in CG.

I felt that, despite a similair set-up, in the end Bolt had strong characters. The relationship between Penny and Bolt and the television industry-satire made Bolt stand out from Pixar's road trip films. Bolt learning how to be a dog and finding out that being ordinairy instead of a superhero is nothing to be ashamed of are much more interesting themes. And Penny turning her back on the TV show in the end to be a kid again were simple yet effective story arcs. If they had been in Sanders version of American Dog, maybe he would have stayed on. American Dog's plot was really Bolt minus character development. My guess is that maybe he relied on the quirkiness of the characters instead of the story. But like I said, we can only guess.

I'm willing to give Lasseter the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure removing someone from a project if it's not working out isn't a desicion he enjoys making. And he's done it at Pixar so I doubt it's about some sort of bias towards Sanders. Wich is widely assumed online and it's what got him his big fanbase over the past 3 years. I do share in the love for his designs. They're great and I'm glad he's found a home at Dreamworks.

Also, I'm not saying Bolt is a groundbreaking masterpiece. It's mostly a by the books production. But aside from the interesting designs, there was nothing about American Dog that made it stand out storywise amongst other Disney and Pixar films.

oh and I agree about Chicken Little. The character animation in that one is close to comical handdrawn animation. The same goes for Scrat sequences in the Ice Age films. They're computer animated, but it's as close to looney toons type of stuff as it gets nowadays.

just my two cents. Now I will stop, because bringing Bolt into this has made it go off topic.

Eventhough Rapunzel's production history is terribly similair to Bolts. Except Keane stayed on as a directing animator after being removed from the director's chair.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:Glen Keane did not develop something magical and new. He was kicked out of the director's chair.

Some say it was because Glen Keane became sick, others says he was replaced for other reasons. But saying he was fired because he didn't add anything at all to the project, are just speculations.

And he DID achieve something. The image or Rapunzel in the Swing is a reminder to that. The goal is to make a frame from the movie look more or less like a painting. Also the to short test clips available on youtube looks impressive, especially the clip with the hair blowing in the wind.

The CG hair blowing in the wind looked just like that. CG hair blowing the wind. Nothing Pixar or Dreamworks couldn't whip up. And his other tests probaply didn't cut it. If it really was as mindblowing as it was supposed to be, it would have been used. I do think it partly contributed to Bolt's techniques. I truly believe Keane got the ball rolling on making Disney's CG films look less CG and different from Pixar and Dreamworks. But I do not believe he succeeded in creating a new technology for Rapunzel. If he had, they could have spent time crafting a story and it would have been out on dvd by now.

I'm not saying he added nothing to the project. But from what I've read, there was still no working story reel when he was removed from the project. And after, what, 7 years? It probaply was time to move on. His health could have been a contributing factor. I recall Lasseter suffered through the same thing after completing Toy Story 2 under the heavy pressure of Disney's management. I mean Cars is a fine example. Lasseter was directing and dealing with all the Pixar/Disney negotiations. I'm pretty sure the rather generic final film is the result of those headaches. It's also the reason why they had to fix Ratatouille. And in Rapunzel's case it was that December 2010 had become the deadline. Even after the director's switch, they kept that deadline. Pretty damn stressful. Especially because of the huge expectations. It's the one fairytale that hasn't been adapted by Disney.

So much is riding on this for the studio. How it compares to the classics and how it compares to the handdrawn PatF, wich came out a year earlier. After Rapunzel, everyone will have an opinion on wich direction they want to see Disney going in. Disney may claim they want to make both handdrawn and CGI films, but if they bring us two classic fairytales, one handdrawn, the other CGI, they can expect critics to have a strong opinion on both films and wich they prefer. They're asking for it.

PatrickvD wrote:Personally I don't see why people always felt so bad about Chris Sanders leaving. Disney never made a statement as to why he was taken off the project so everyone just always assumes that he wasn't allowed to do what he wanted. There must have been more to it than just that.

I always wondered what it was about American Dogs premise that people were so attached to. Was it all because of Sanders? All we knew about the plot is that it was about a bunch of quirky misfits on a road trip looking for a new home. You know, like Cars, Toy Story and Finding Nemo and the much of what Bolt eventually became. I thought the paper thin premise was okay. Nothing spectacular. And Sanders unique designs didn't translate all that well in CG.

I think it was more Cars than anything else. What we do know is that Bolt himself KNEW he was a movie star, and after being surrounded by yes men and personal assistants, thought he was superior to others as a result, and ended up lost in the desert alone where he had to learn humility. Sound like Cars much?

Of course, the fact Disney let two projects seemingly so similar is both a good thing and a bad thing. I suppose looking on the positive side of things it shows Sanders was left to do what he wanted for an extended time frame without interference.

I felt that, despite a similair set-up, in the end Bolt had strong characters. The relationship between Penny and Bolt and the television industry-satire made Bolt stand out from Pixar's road trip films. Bolt learning how to be a dog and finding out that being ordinairy instead of a superhero is nothing to be ashamed of are much more interesting themes.

But isn't that Buzz's journey in Toy Story?

And Penny turning her back on the TV show in the end to be a kid again were simple yet effective story arcs. If they had been in Sanders version of American Dog, maybe he would have stayed on. American Dog's plot was really Bolt minus character development. My guess is that maybe he relied on the quirkiness of the characters instead of the story. But like I said, we can only guess.

Not really. His American Dog was different, it was about learning who you are, not what you are is what's important, and nobody is better than another. But that's only from odds and sods posted in part over the past few years. I'm sure there was more to the story than that. After all, there was a giant radioactive bunny and a one eyed cat!

I'm willing to give Lasseter the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure removing someone from a project if it's not working out isn't a desicion he enjoys making. And he's done it at Pixar so I doubt it's about some sort of bias towards Sanders. Wich is widely assumed online and it's what got him his big fanbase over the past 3 years. I do share in the love for his designs. They're great and I'm glad he's found a home at Dreamworks.

Also, I'm not saying Bolt is a groundbreaking masterpiece. It's mostly a by the books production. But aside from the interesting designs, there was nothing about American Dog that made it stand out storywise amongst other Disney and Pixar films.

But Bolt's just so predictable. It had a few good ideas - I liked that Mittens was de-clawed but started out threatening people with the prospect of using her claws) but the actual story and events had nothing to make them stand out. One of the reasons the TV Studio/show opening was so-long me thinks - it was Bolt's real only unique selling point. But even this came across as over long padding.

oh and I agree about Chicken Little. The character animation in that one is close to comical handdrawn animation. The same goes for Scrat sequences in the Ice Age films. They're computer animated, but it's as close to looney toons type of stuff as it gets nowadays.

just my two cents. Now I will stop, because bringing Bolt into this has made it go off topic.

Eventhough Rapunzel's production history is terribly similair to Bolts. Except Keane stayed on as a directing animator after being removed from the director's chair.

Not in reply to you, P! But to address another point:

I really don't see anything wrong with the Prince's beard. So what if it is "current". Look at the Queen in Snow White and then look at some of the glamour film stars of the time like Mae West and Greta Garbo. It's obvious they greatly influenced her design. There's not much difference. It's problem of getting colour photos from that time period, but I doubt the Queen's make-up differs dramatically from theirs.

As for Jim in Treasure Planet. [sigh] Firstly, the very people who accuse the later Disney films of not being able to tell stories seem to overlook the obvious. The opening Surf/Jet Board sequence is vital to the movie, as it foreshadows the climax when Jim pilots the ship through the rapidly closing portal. The fact that he is troubled because he is fatherless is again vital to the movie - its how John Silver manages to influence him, and of course Jim in turn influences John Silver. In short - its 100% storytelling. The little device people insist later Disney movies don't have.

And what's the problem with Jim. He disobeys his single parent, and risks his life doing forbidden actions. Doesn't that also describe Ariel?

I did mention that I did find most of Bolt unoriginal. It's Buzz Lightyear in the Truman Show watching Tropic Thunder. I was simply pointing out that Bolt overcame familairity with strong characters. The three main characters, Bolt, Mittens and Rhino were all well developed.

I was just sort of wondering outloud what American Dog seemingly had that made it so beloved even now. The oned eyed cat and the radio-active bunny don't help matters much. Sure they're weird. In a good way. But if it really was about them finding out who they really were (I'm assuming this because you say so, I've never found a synopsis that goes beyond them going on a road trip) that's still kinda generic to me. Every animated film since The Little Mermaid has been about finding out who each character is inside.

Ultimately, only the design of American Dog is what stuck by me. Not so much the story.

As for the prince's facial hair.

Has it really come to this? So we go from "the prince isn't black enough" to "he can't have facial hair"? Leave the princes alone. They're underdevloped enough as it is. Let them go crazy with a little beard for once. I'm glad he doesnt appear to look like Phillip and prince charming and all the other ones.

Same concept art, but I love how the logo is over the tower picture:

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/08/02/ ... -rapunzel/

Very opening-sceneish, no?

I know this might get me some flak (complaining again?!), but I don't really like the logo. The old logo wasn't very interesting either, but at least it looked okay to me. I guess it's because the old one looked kind of--how would you describe it--like stone almost? The new one's so curly and word processor-ish that it makes the movie seem more comedic. But, then, maybe it is a little more comedic.

But it's no big deal. I hated the new logo for The Princess and the Frog, too, and I'm way more excited for that.

Oh my gosh, those pictures were simply breathtaking and beautiful! Sort of puts me in a fairy tale kind of mood. I can't wait till Christmas 2010!!!

Has Disney released an image of The Witch or Mother Gothel as she is sometimes known yet?

Deco King wrote:Has Disney released an image of The Witch or Mother Gothel as she is sometimes known yet?

Not that I know of, but I'm pretty sure that if they had we'd be talking about it right now and you would've definitely seen a pic in this thread.

So far I'm still in love with the concept art for this film. I don't think that this concept art is going to directly translate into the way Bolt looked. With every CGI film Disney has put out the technology and look have significantly improved. The transition of backgrounds from Chicken Little to Meet the Robinson's to Bolt is incredible. This is even the same with Pixar's releases. I think we can expect a different product from Rapunzel than Bolt for certain.

PATRICKVD, and EVERYONE for that matter.

Glean Keane DID create something new and magical that had a painting AND hand-drawn look in 3-D CGI.

Do you see this painting called "The Swing" by French rococo artist Jean-Honoré Fragonard?



You don't think something like that can be reproduced exactly in 3-D CGI do you? Well, guess what, Gleane Keane got someone at Disney to do it:



THAT picture up there of Rapunzel on that swing, where she, and the whole background, look just like the first painting? It rotated in complete 3-dimensional space at animation gatherings.

And do you see this beautiful rococo Fragonard-looking painting?:



Yea, well, they actually made that in 3-D CGI too, and then put in CGI hair that also matched the beautiful rococo painting look:



And then there's this clip, which does not QUITE match the beautiful rococo painted look, but it still looks more painterly than anything we've seen, even in Bolt. This animated clip of Rapunzel, before the story changed. Some people said it only looked softer than most CGI, but I'm an artist, and I can see the brush strokes and more painting-like look of the whole thing. Just look at Rapunzel's hair, dress, and the bed behind her, especially that bed. Painting-looking, not generic CGI looking.

FINALLY...Glean Keane animated a ballerina hand-drawn, with a pencil, and tried to see if they could replicate the exact movements and flow and hand-drawn feel in CGI. And they did.

So yea, it really happened.

SO the real problem may be that it's too espensive or takes too long to do all that for a whole feature, BUT THEY STILL DID IT, made it possible.

Would anyone like to make a PETITION or send a A LETTER to Disney to try and get them to keep the original beautiful rococo painting and hand-drawn look in CGI Glean Keane created for this movie?

They can work seperately on the story, and Disney can say, okay, we have the most important thing, a good story. Now, let's take the time, maybe a few more years, to keep the look that he created in every frame of the picture.

Disney Duster, you are right!

This makes me wonder, why don't they mix cgi with hand drawn/painted animation in Rapunzel?

Because they are able to make the cgi backgrounds look wonderful and painterly, only the human characters look horrible and rubber-ish.
A plasticky look and strange movements.

If they could mix this wonderful backgrounds with painted characters (like the new Rapunzel clipart), THAT would be quite something.

That short Rapunzel clip does look beautiful, although still a little too rubberish. But it's stil 500 times better than the embarrassing human characters in Bolt.

I know it's hard to see, but you don't think Rapunzel looks like she might be as painted-looking as the rest of the picture where she's on the swing? Her dress and hair look just like the rest of the painting (except brighter) for sure!

And I know in the clip I gave, she doesn't look as painterly as that, but don't you think she looks more painted than most generic CGI? Maybe not completely what you want, but getting there? More painted-looking than Bolt, right?

Yes, Rapunzel on the swing does look quite painterly.
But it's too small to tell really. It does look like 2d, which always looks more 3 dimensional to me anyway.

But from what I can see, it definitely looks painted and wonderful.

But the new concept art looks wonderful as well, just like the Bolt concept art.

And I see what you mean about the clip. They are getting there. It's a beginning. But how come the human characters in Bolt look so embarrassing, while this Rapunzel clip was made a long time before the production of Bolt?