Tangled (aka Rapunzel) Discussion - Part III

[spitweet]

Oh my GOD !!! for an instant I thought Disney had modified their poster... She looks sooooo so much better and less ''tomboy'' on your interpretation... Sighhh...

[wowie123]

^ your version is much better. She looks horrible in the middle.

Rapunzel looks really pretty at times and absolutely awful others. I hope they get rid of some of these weird shots before the movie is finalized. I am glad Disney already retooled the promo shot of Rapunzel looking up while holding her hand in her hair and made her look less of a 12 year old tomboy and more like a princess.


I was in the Disney Store yesterday and they had a TANGLED display. A Rapunzel plush doll, princess doll, Pascal plush and a Rapunzel halloween costume.

[Tristy]

I think Rapunzel looks prettier in CG than in 2D (*ducks*). True sometimes, she just looks weird, but not ever animated character looks too consistent. I mean it's not easy trying to make characters look exactly the same in each shot.

As for those concept paintings, DAMN!!!! Those are really something!

That last one was really gorgeous. It kinda reminded me of Cinqueterra (Did I spell that right?) in Italy.

[SWillie!]

Enigmawing, I normally love your stuff so this is nothing against you at all. You did a nice job translating the drawing to CG, but after seeing that I love Rapunzel's final design even more. I think the modified version is way too crazy... and, dare I say it, her eyes are even BIGGER!! Like, I'd expect her to be poking her head to say "HIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!! III'MM RAPUNZEL AND I HAVE REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY LOOOOOONNNNNNG HAIRRR!!!!" Just like that. Does that make sense?

But I love the comparison itself. Nice job.

[DisneyDude2010]

New Pics
!!!!!!

[Alcazam]

Dear Disney Enthusiasts,

I agree with you, to some degree, Disney Duster, and that is why I'm currently writing an entirely "Disney"-esque fairy tale. I'm going to write the screenplay, the songs, etc., and send everything, including tapes of my voice, to The Disney Company.

Hi Jackoleen,

you'll probably find that Disney will send you a letter telling you about some sort of policy which prevents them from even looking at your material unless they are the ones who asked for it in the first place. These letters are probably partly serving to protect Disney from copyright problems and lawsuits (the thing is probably to get an appointment with them so you can sign a piece of paper and pitch your idea), as well as an attempt to keep at a distance all those crappy ideas that are being sent to them all the time. It is not easy to make a difference, the key is to find a way through the back door at the mouse house. Their first question would probably be "if you're so brilliant, why don't we already know who you are?" It's a thorny forest, but I wish you good luck!

[Elladorine]

Enigmawing, I normally love your stuff so this is nothing against you at all. You did a nice job translating the drawing to CG, but after seeing that I love Rapunzel's final design even more. I think the modified version is way too crazy... and, dare I say it, her eyes are even BIGGER!! Like, I'd expect her to be poking her head to say "HIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!! III'MM RAPUNZEL AND I HAVE REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY LOOOOOONNNNNNG HAIRRR!!!!" Just like that. Does that make sense?

But I love the comparison itself. Nice job.

Oh, that totally makes sense! I actually wasn't trying to "improve" anything, I just wanted to see how it might look if it matched the original sketch more closely. I asked for Rey's opinion while working on it and he immediately said it reminded him of the Joker. That's the thing with CG, because of the 3D realism-ness(?) you can't exaggerate as much as hand-drawn and get away with it, things have the potential to get weird. But at the same time I feel there's something kinda lacking (and perhaps tomboyish) in the untouched CG in certain shots. There has to be a delicate balance for the artists to be struggling with on this film to get her look good as a CG character. Not too stiff, but not too cartoony and overdone either.

To be honest I don't even know what I think of the manip I did, I just know I find the sketch more appealing than the final product (but isn't that always the way, lol). I love a lot of what they're doing with the CG, but as a general whole I still prefer the hand-drawn material.

[wowie123]

wow! the concept paintings are AMAZING

and look at CGI Flynn..wow...the detail...just look at his boots!

Rapunzel..well she isn't pretty enough to be a Disney Princess IMO. Disappointed with her design in these promos. However, in the featurette featured here a few days ago I was pleased with her design so I am sure I will like her look in the actual film.

[robster16]

Not pretty enough? I think she looks absolutely GORGEOUS and STUNNING! Very cute look she has and she looks absolutely divine in that shot with Gothel. It's absolutely remniscent to movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. I'm amazed, stunned and incredibly excited after seeing these!

This russian website has all those promo pictures and more in SUPER HIGH QUALITY!

http://www.kinogallery.com/films/foto.php?id=rapunzel

[Disney's Divinity]

I agree with enigmawing that there's something tomboyish about Rapunzel. That's something I've noticed as more shots have come out, that Rapunzel almost comes across...prepubescent. The color of her dress (it is a color I would expect to find in a nursery room), combined with her face/facial expressions and how undeveloped her body looks...she just seems way too young for Flynn. Almost like if I put Snow White with John Smith--it just wouldn't look right, age-wise.

But I wonder if that was intentional, where Gothel keeps her so sheltered. Maybe the clothes are supposed to make her look more childish than she is. I know, the brown hair makes her look much more mature in the concept art, even though the dress doesn't change. I prefer the short, brown hair to the blonde, tbh.

[pettla77]

Not pretty enough? I think she looks absolutely GORGEOUS and STUNNING! Very cute look she has and she looks absolutely divine in that shot with Gothel. It's absolutely remniscent to movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. I'm amazed, stunned and incredibly excited after seeing these!

This russian website has all those promo pictures and more in SUPER HIGH QUALITY!

http://www.kinogallery.com/films/foto.php?id=rapunzel

Thanks robster16 for the link

[Scarred4life]

I LOVE the picture with Gothel! Especially Rapunzel's expression.

[Jules]

I have a question for you people.

What exactly is the difference in creating the digital CG worlds (and character models) of animated features (e.g. Tangled, Megamind) to that of live-action films making heavy use of
animation (e.g. Avatar, The Matrix)?

Aesthetically speaking, the worlds created in such live-action films are realistic (they must mesh with the live-action visuals) and seemingly more complex looking than the CG work
done on most animated features. Does this mean such CG imagery is more challenging to build from the ground up and requires an increased skill level?

In an nutshell, how would the work required for Tangled compare to the work required for Avatar?

Or am I trying to compare apples to oranges and missing the point entirely?

[Old Fish Tale]

Thanks, Robster! But one isn't working!

[wowie123]

Not pretty enough? I think she looks absolutely GORGEOUS and STUNNING! Very cute look she has and she looks absolutely divine in that shot with Gothel. It's absolutely remniscent to movies like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. I'm amazed, stunned and incredibly excited after seeing these!

This russian website has all those promo pictures and more in SUPER HIGH QUALITY!

http://www.kinogallery.com/films/foto.php?id=rapunzel

Like I said..in the actual film footage I have seen she looks gorgeous but in most of these promo shots she looks like a tomboyish eighth grader with a snarky attitude.

[jpanimation]

I love the vikings. They look soo much better then the generic shit in How to Train Your Dragon.

[Sotiris]

@Not.That.Kind.Of.Guy, DisneyDude2010, robster16: Thank you all for these lovely new images!

@enigmawing: I love your version best. It's more true to the concept art and looks better anyway.

[SillySymphony]

That new screen-cap of Flynn fighting Maximus is now my new desktop! I love how Rapunzel is hanging on Flynn.

To comment on Rapunzel's age appearance and her childish looks, I think that:
1. Part of the reason is her body type. To put it more bluntly: skinny girls don't have large chests. My friends don't!
2. If she isn't wearing makeup to hide her freckles, then she's not going to wear lipstick and eyeliner either. Plus I doubt Gothel would give them to her.
3. Like some have mentioned Gothel probably has chosen her clothing to make her appear innocent and fragile. Although you can tell from pictures that her real spirit betrays that.

Also I think that Disney tries to give an ageless quality to their princesses so they can relate to a broad range of people. (And as well to fit seamlessly together in marketing.)

Remember I'm 80% spoiler free, so unless someone else knows differently these are my assumptions.

[Kyle]

I have a question for you people.

What exactly is the difference in creating the digital CG worlds (and character models) of animated features (e.g. Tangled, Megamind) to that of live-action films making heavy use of
animation (e.g. Avatar, The Matrix)?

Aesthetically speaking, the worlds created in such live-action films are realistic (they must mesh with the live-action visuals) and seemingly more complex looking than the CG work
done on most animated features. Does this mean such CG imagery is more challenging to build from the ground up and requires an increased skill level?

In an nutshell, how would the work required for Tangled compare to the work required for Avatar?

Or am I trying to compare apples to oranges and missing the point entirely?

This is a tough question to answer. See, Realistic Avatar esk envirnments are harder in that they require a lot more detail, and very sophisticated lighting. Animation has its own set of challenges though. They actually have to pull away from photorealism at times. There are some aspects that the computer does realisticly by default, and you have to slap it around to get more cartoony/stylized stuff out of it. if you listen to the Finding Nemo commentary and behind the scenes they got the water and a whale too photo realistic, and needed to pull back, otherwise the characters wouldn't fit their environment.

Also, keep in mind the Pandora is only earth like, not the actual earth, so they were able to get away with having things look kind of odd any way. its an alien planet afterall.

realism is more of a challenge technically, but doesn't allow them to be too creative. Everything has to be at a certain level or it won't look right. getting live action footage has to line up exactly or the illusion is broken.

Realism is pretty straight forward, even though it's a challenge, they always have the blue print for how things should eventually look. More or less. if something doesn't blend, they might not know how to fix it, but they definitely know what's off about it.

With animation that blue print is constantly evolving as they develop the style, then they see how difficult it would be to put that on screen. they can have more fun with it, loosen up a bit, go crazy if they want and the audience can just accept the world within that movie's universe. that being said, their still creating Everything you see on screen, versus only certain elements in live action. it can be a huge relief to not have to worry about creating/animating everything on screen.


I'd say you can only answer this question of which is harder on a case by case basis.

[Jack Skellington]

Isn't Gothel supposed to be evil ?!