Tangled (formerly Rapunzel) Discussion - Part II

[jpanimation]

I'm wondering if anyone here has seen Mickey's PhilharMagic. Ariel has a part in it . . . she's CG, and from what I've read, animated by Keane. I haven't seen it myself, but I'm left wondering how a character like Ariel makes the transition to CG with the proportions she has (the larger eyes and head like Rapunzel). Is it jarring? I've been able to find very few production stills of her online, and all of them are bad photos of the screen from an audience member.

I absolutely loved Mickey's PhilharMagic. I remember going there when it first opened and really didn't expect anything but man did it play on my nostalgia for these movies. All these characters made the transition from 2D to 3D well, they were animated well (they tried to get the original animators back for as many of the characters as possible), and the digital 3D was spectacular. I wasn't jarred by any of the characters and it came off as quite natural (although I imagine the advancements they've made in the past 7 years will help Rapunzel look amazing). The models were all rendered to look 3D, as in no painterly effects or cell shaders were applied to give a false sense of 2D (it's a 3D show).

To me it seems Disney uses their theme parks to experiment with technology, including that which they use in movies. They had Eric Goldberg come back to animate Genie in 2001 for The Magic Lamp 3D show at Tokyo Disney (to explore the use of S&S in computer animated films, something he briefly did before with the Roger Rabbit test). In this case Goldberg perfectly replicated Genie in 3D and it continues to impress to this day.

At WDW they have a 3D show at each one of their parks: Mickey's PhilharMagic at Magic Kingdom, It's Tough to be a Bug! at Animal Kingdom, Honey, I Shrunk the Audience! at Epcot, and Muppet*Vision 3D at MGM Studios. They are all great quality but Mickey's PhilharMagic is the most enjoyable. I'm really impressed with the way Disney translates these 2D designs to works soo well in 3D and at this point I have no doubt that Rapunzel will look great. Great acting is what's really important and if done poorly can make something distracting (no matter how well the model looks).

[Disney's Divinity]

There are some differences, although minor, like her figure, head size, hair, etc., so not exactly the same only the basic pose.

I don't know, her head and figure look the same to me. And her hair only looks different because of the heavy shadow (to me, at any rate).

[SWillie!]

There are some differences, although minor, like her figure, head size, hair, etc., so not exactly the same only the basic pose.

I don't know, her head and figure look the same to me. And her hair only looks different because of the heavy shadow (to me, at any rate).

Take them both into photoshop or some photo editing software and lay them over each other. They're different. The most obvious place is the angle of her back and the negative space between her and her arm.

Can I ask you a question? Now, I'm seriously not meaning this in any bad way or anything, I'm just curious. Have you had any experience in art? It's just that I have myself and I believe enigmawing has also, and so maybe that's why we're able to spot some of this stuff. Honestly, just curious. I'm not trying to make a stab at you or anything.

I really wish we could see some real stuff already. When I was typing "negative space" I went... am i really talking about this right now? hahahaha I'm going crazy!!!

[Polizzi]

For example, "The Little Mermaid," poor Sebastian has to escape from the (sorry to be a little bit of a racist) French chef while trying to make sure that Ariel is safe.

Hahahahahahah that was my favorite part. You better apologize for being racist. Because that is being very, very racist. And all French people ever are now offended by your post. Way to go.

I wish a certain someone would stop polluting perfectly good threads with rumbling nonsense. I've tried to ignore it but it doesn't work. Ahh, it's so frustrating. I've had enough!!!

AKA...


POLIZZI. STOP. NOBODY CARES ANYMORE.

About what I said about the chef, I am going to ask you nicely to never mention that ever again. I thought it over, and I learned my lesson. I guess I must have watched too much, "Family Guy," but I wish I learn to think before putting a post like that. So I ask you nicely, please scratch that off. I learned my lesson. Sorry.

[UmbrellaFish]

^



Anyway, I certainly thought the clipart was 3-D the very first time I saw it, but the most obviously 2-D clipart is the very first one with her holding her hair. I mean, specifically, the shape of the hair is different between the two.

[blackcauldron85]

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... udios.html

In the afternoon I covered three of four floors at the Disney hat building. Tangled now moves in higher gear, and the most interesting visuals I saw was the video Disney marketing has unspooling in the first floor lobby hall. They go farther than this:.

[Youtube video of the teaser trailer]

There's some nifty footage of the fairy tale's settings, with light streaming down through towering trees, verdant landscapes, a huge castle. What's on display has the flavor of some of the older hand-drawn features, viewed through a CG prism. The brief scenes with Rapunzel and Flynn are beguiling.

Whether the splashy art direction and establishing shots add up to a feature that earns a big opening weekend and five or six weeks of staying power, I donno. That will probably depend on whether the story fires on all cylinders.

We'll find that out in November.

[robster16]

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... udios.html

In the afternoon I covered three of four floors at the Disney hat building. Tangled now moves in higher gear, and the most interesting visuals I saw was the video Disney marketing has unspooling in the first floor lobby hall. They go farther than this:.

[Youtube video of the teaser trailer]

There's some nifty footage of the fairy tale's settings, with light streaming down through towering trees, verdant landscapes, a huge castle. What's on display has the flavor of some of the older hand-drawn features, viewed through a CG prism. The brief scenes with Rapunzel and Flynn are beguiling.

Whether the splashy art direction and establishing shots add up to a feature that earns a big opening weekend and five or six weeks of staying power, I donno. That will probably depend on whether the story fires on all cylinders.

We'll find that out in November.

Now THAT kind of news gets me VERY excited!!!

[Disney's Divinity]

Take them both into photoshop or some photo editing software and lay them over each other. They're different. The most obvious place is the angle of her back and the negative space between her and her arm.

I disagree.

Can I ask you a question? Now, I'm seriously not meaning this in any bad way or anything, I'm just curious. Have you had any experience in art? It's just that I have myself and I believe enigmawing has also, and so maybe that's why we're able to spot some of this stuff. Honestly, just curious. I'm not trying to make a stab at you or anything.

Actually, yes. I've had at least 6 art classes.

And I personally don't think you've seen anything different than I have. Sorry if it's noticeably not 2D to me.

[SWillie!]

What's on display has the flavor of some of the older hand-drawn features, viewed through a CG prism.

BUM-BUDALA-DUM-DUM-DUM-DUUUUUUMMMM!!!!!!!!!!! (That makes sense in my head.)

Amen.

[robster16]

Take them both into photoshop or some photo editing software and lay them over each other. They're different. The most obvious place is the angle of her back and the negative space between her and her arm.

I disagree.

There is no point in disagreeing here, there simply IS a difference between the the marketing picture on the book we see and the visual presented to the public to announce Mandy Moore as the voice for the movie.

The marketing picture is NOT the final CGI model, it's just SO obvious it's not. Just look at the difference between the Rapunzel image and this CGI promo pic for "How To Train Your Dragon". You can CLEARLY see the difference of a shaded 3D model and a painted 2D picture made to look like it has 3 dimensions. It's as easy to spot that difference as watching black and white tv and color tv. No offense.



The marketing poses are never fully on model and are only based on refference artwork by Disney, which is always the case! Later on we might start seeing publicity material where they actually use the final CGI model in posters, publicity stills etc. That is now premature. These books use refference material because they need to be made when they are still retooling and defining the definitve look for the characters, because the books needs to go in production long before the movie is out.

Just look at the first Taina still we got for PATF, which had Tiana in the same pose and the same balcony, but in and entirely different dress design. Later on this was all changed and edited. Just to show you that publicity material is sometimes based on the status quo at the studio at the time of production or release of material

[SWillie!]

Take them both into photoshop or some photo editing software and lay them over each other. They're different. The most obvious place is the angle of her back and the negative space between her and her arm.

I disagree.

Now you're just being stubborn. I've taken the liberty of doing it myself to illustrate my point. Here are the two images, with the negative spaces highlighted:



And, to make it clearer, here they are blown up and side by side:



They're obviously different shapes. Not that this means anything as to the whole 2D/3D business, but saying "I disagree" to something that is an actual fact just doesn't make sense, and you're just being stubborn.

I'm not sure why you're so eager to hate everything about this movie, but I hope this illustrates everyone's point to you that, while yes, this will be her design... these images are not how she will actually appear on screen.

[Disney Duster]

^ And I much preferred Tiana's design in the first picture!

^And I am so glad Rapunzel now looks how she does on the left picture instead of the less appealing and less Disney looking right picture we first saw.

POLIZZI, you were not being racist by saying the chef was French. That member was being sarcastic to you. That member did not seem to get the fact you may be from another country and not understand. You don't have to feel bad or apologize you did nothing wrong. They intended to make the chef French!

Here's some more bits about Rapunzel!

In the original story, the witch locked Rapunzel in the tower because she was growing up, and would either be taken away by men or have to enter the adult world. Either way, she was going to leave her. So the witch had an actual understandable motivation for keeping her in the tower (though exaggerated, as in all fairy tales).

So the whole magic hair thing is not exactly needed for motivation as the original witch just wanted a child, something to keep and control and perhaps truly love. Though magical hair is a very renaissance Disney thing to do (I'm looking at you enchanted rose, but I like you!).

Also, the term Mother Gothel was actually a common German name for a godmother. So I wonder if the witch was actually the child's godmother, or if she was just called that because she acted like one to Rapunzel, not being her real mother. I wonder if her parents stole the rapunzel from her godmother, or if she became the godmother in exchange for letting them have the lettuce, and she took that role too far...

And I wonder if Disney will use this accuracy in their version. Maybe Mother Gothel will be the princess Rapunzel's godmother, even helping the King and Queen have a child through magic rapunzel lettuce or something. But then this godmother decides to keep the kid. Kind of like Sleeping Beauty, except this godmother's magical gift of beauty also works on her. That is only my imagination and speculation, though.

The Grimm's also apparently called the witch a fairy in early versions of the story and later an enchantress. I think witch is just what later English and other translations called her.

She was still evil for casting Rapunzel to a barren desert and trying to harm the Prince, though.

[SWillie!]

POLIZZI, you were not being racist by saying the chef was French. That member was being sarcastic to you. That member did not seem to get the fact you may be from another country and not understand. You don't have to feel bad or apologize you did nothing wrong. They intended to make the chef French!

I haven't said one word to Polizzi about his response to my sarcasm. Yes, I was being sarcastic. But I perfectly well understand that he did not get that, and I never said anything to give the impression that I didn't. So don't go making me out to be the bad guy here.

Polizzi - I was indeed being sarcastic about the "racist" comment. You have no need to be sorry for calling the chef French. He is.

To all of you defending Polizzi: I understand that, yes, he has freedom of speech and all that. I also understand that this is a Disney board and so we should expect to nitpick about every little detail; it's just what we do. So while it does get annoying hearing about the name change every single post, that is not where my biggest issues lie with him.

I believe I speak for the majority of the people here (please, correct me if I'm wrong) when I say that ever since he started posting he began rubbing people the wrong way. Throwing temper tantrums every time someone disagrees with him. Swearing up a storm when someone tells him Disney doesn't accept story ideas from anyone outside the studio. Swearing up a storm every time the word "Tangled" is mentioned. Swearing up a storm for no apparent reason. Making up stories about Rapunzel giving Flynn Ryder a blowjob and then cutting off his penis, and then posting it to the board multiple times for everyone to read.

All this, in my opinion, is not excusable forum behavior. Especially given what this fan site is all about. While I believe the majority of the members here are late teens and up, I'm sure we also have some young fans out there reading this stuff. Which is completely unacceptable.

Ever since that kind of stuff started, I find it hard to be nice to Polizzi, as I'm sure many others have.

Bottom line, in order for me to act nice and respectful, so does the person I'm trying to be nice and respectful to. I don't care where they're from.

[Disney's Divinity]

There is no point in disagreeing here, there simply IS a difference between the the marketing picture on the book we see and the visual presented to the public to announce Mandy Moore as the voice for the movie.

It really doesn't matter what you say (or how snobby you say it)--the pictures look exactly the same to me except for the shadow.

And, let's say, for a moment that they weren't precisely alike (such as the arms being a little closer in this direction than they are in another--wow, what a colossal difference that would be!)--they are still enough alike for me to assume that the pose was slightly altered for a more lively look for a coloring book. But she's still 3D and a 3D model can't be off-model.

The marketing picture is NOT the final CGI model, it's just SO obvious it's not. Just look at the difference between the Rapunzel image and this CGI promo pic for "How To Train Your Dragon". You can CLEARLY see the difference of a shaded 3D model and a painted 2D picture made to look like it has 3 dimensions. It's as easy to spot that difference as watching black and white tv and color tv. No offense.

Also notice how one is superimposed onto a coloring book and one is a model. Rapunzel is still 3D. It's just SO obvious she is. And telling the difference between 3D and 2D is not difficult. That's why I am disagreeing. You might as well give it up, because it's always going to look 3D to me. It's like telling me the sky is green when I can clearly see that it's blue.

The marketing poses are never fully on model and are only based on refference artwork by Disney, which is always the case!

Yes. When it's 2D!!!!...!

[robster16]

There is no point in disagreeing here, there simply IS a difference between the the marketing picture on the book we see and the visual presented to the public to announce Mandy Moore as the voice for the movie.

It really doesn't matter what you say (or how snobby you say it)--the pictures look exactly the same to me except for the shadow.

And, let's say, for a moment that they weren't precisely alike (such as the arms being a little closer in this direction than they are in another--wow, what a colossal difference that would be!)--they are still enough alike for me to assume that the pose was slightly altered for a more lively look for a coloring book. But she's still 3D and a 3D model can't be off-model.

The marketing picture is NOT the final CGI model, it's just SO obvious it's not. Just look at the difference between the Rapunzel image and this CGI promo pic for "How To Train Your Dragon". You can CLEARLY see the difference of a shaded 3D model and a painted 2D picture made to look like it has 3 dimensions. It's as easy to spot that difference as watching black and white tv and color tv. No offense.

Also notice how one is superimposed onto a coloring book and one is a model. Rapunzel is still 3D. It's just SO obvious she is. And telling the difference between 3D and 2D is not difficult. That's why I am disagreeing. You might as well give it up, because it's always going to look 3D to me. It's like telling me the sky is green when I can clearly see that it's blue.

The marketing poses are never fully on model and are only based on refference artwork by Disney, which is always the case!

Yes. When it's 2D!!!!...!

You are now seriously beyond all hope! Or blind. Excuse me for being so blunt, but you are acting ridiculous! I would cut off both arms if that was an actual 3D model. The artwork you see on the books are 2D DRAWINGS based on the model in the movie! That is NOT the actual 3D model you'll see in the movie, she's not even on model from one drawing to another. Her eyes float inside her head, they aren't locked in the same position from one drawing to another.

But, if you wish to be stubborn, then so be it! I'll talk to you once actual 3D models of the characters appear online and you'll be forced to say you were wrong, because you are!

NEXT SUBJECT!!!

[Kyle]

If your still insisting that is 3d, I could show you a plethora of 2D pics from Deviantart alone that you would swear was 3D as well. you really need to look closer. the shading is a dead giveaway.

[Candy-Bonita95]

I love the clip art.The clip art is so girly that it makes the tactic of attracting the young male demographic seem stupid.
My favourite would have to be the sketch of Flynn and Rapunzel.They look like a real Disney couple.

Just one question not referring to the clip art:
Did Alan Menken drop the idea of the 60s rock inspiration for the movie's music?

[Elladorine]

[Candy-Bonita95]

That's sums the whole chapter. ^

[Sotiris]

Btw, your drawing of Rapunzel looks amazing!