DVDizzy Forum

Oy . . . I thought I'd already seen the last of that avatar.

Boy will I be adding even more drama to this thread...

Recently, David Kawena (aka the infamous Disney artist behind the Disney Heroes pinup series), added Flynn Rider to his collection. While that sounds like business as usual, he actually refused to do it at first! Why?

Take a guess...

I'll wait...

*Waits a minute

Give up? He didn't want to draw Flynn because he was a CG character. Yes, he is one of those Disney fanatics that believes that the Disney Essence(c) only exists in the hand drawn animated features. While I understand the preference, he was pretty judgement of the movie long before it premiere (he was that way with Princess and the Frog too, though he kept showering it with praise).

Here's what happened, though.

First, he received as a present the Art of Tangled book, and he loved it. He realized that a lot of artistry went into the creation of the movie and that the character designs were beautiful. He was still doubtful, though, but far more respectful.

But what really did it for him was the flying lanterns scene. He said that during that moment, he forgot all about the CG, all his bias, all his prejudices, all the issues he had with the movie, EVERYTHING, because the scene was pure Disney magic. In other words "I see the light" was dripping in Disney Essence(c).

You know what this tells me? That fans are putting WAY too much stock in the MEDIUM used rather how the medium is USED. In other words, if its in 2D, AMAZING. If its in 3D, BOO. They fail to understand that the power of the medium lies in HOW it is used, not in that it is being used altogether. In other words, does the story benefit from the medium? Does it help me engage in the characters and their universe? It doesn't matter if the film is in 2D or 3D, if it doesn't do that, I don't care.

A lot of people have said that "Princess and the Frog" was a far more progressive film. How? Because it was in 2D? Because it relied on the nostalgia of the audience rather than creating its own appeal? I can see how it featuring an African American cast helped, but note that Disney scaled back a lot of the issues present in the decade the movie portrayed in fear of backlash. Their original vision was dumbed down. How is that progressive? That's basically bending backwards just to fulfill the wishes of a few fanboys and please the PC police as well.

Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Princess and the Frog, its a really good movie and I love many of its characters (even the infamous Louis). It's just that people give it WAAAAAY too much credit for the sole fact that it is in 2D, rather than giving it credit for the things that matter like story and characters.

Imagine this... Let's pretend that Frog and Tangled switched mediums. Frog is now a CG musical and Tangled a 2D comedy. They both have the same story, the same music, the same characters, EVERYTHING is the same except the medium. I am willing to bet that people would be criticized Frog because its in 3D while Tangled, silly name and all, would be praised as a TRUE Disney film.

I get that there should be more variety in animation I too love hand drawn animation and would love to make at least one animated movie someday. 2D animation shouldn't be limited to special event films like Princess and the Frog as well as independent releases. I would to see a year where in animation everything from CG, 2D, stop motion, motion capture, 2D mixed with live action and such existed and were fairly successful.

But until that dream is realized somehow, we should stop judging movies based on the medium and take a deep look instead at the mechanics, how it works and how it benefits the story. I think all of us would be having more fun if we dropped those biases and instead just be movie goers.

I have a preference for hand drawn and probably always will (most likely because I like to draw myself), but I love CG in the same way I love stop motion. I just love animation period . . . the characters, the stories, breathing life into something inanimate, whether it's done with a pencil, stylus, puppets, or programming. I was probably the most skeptical fan out there when Toy Story was first released, even though I already carried a fascination for CG and already knew who Pixar was back then. It's all about whether or not the story and characters work first and foremost. And of course I ended up loving it.

I'd still love to see how Tangled would have looked as a hand-drawn film, even if we only got to see a scene or two. But I'm not holding anything against it for how it turned out in the end; it's such an enjoyable film regardless and even the CG is quite beautiful. I'm still of the belief that Walt Disney would have embraced CG anyway had he lived long enough to see it develop.

pap64 wrote:Boy will I be adding even more drama to this thread...

Recently, David Kawena (aka the infamous Disney artist behind the Disney Heroes pinup series), added Flynn Rider to his collection. While that sounds like business as usual, he actually refused to do it at first! Why?

Take a guess...

I'll wait...

*Waits a minute

Give up? He didn't want to draw Flynn because he was a CG character. Yes, he is one of those Disney fanatics that believes that the Disney Essence(c) only exists in the hand drawn animated features. While I understand the preference, he was pretty judgement of the movie long before it premiere (he was that way with Princess and the Frog too, though he kept showering it with praise).

Here's what happened, though.

First, he received as a present the Art of Tangled book, and he loved it. He realized that a lot of artistry went into the creation of the movie and that the character designs were beautiful. He was still doubtful, though, but far more respectful.

But what really did it for him was the flying lanterns scene. He said that during that moment, he forgot all about the CG, all his bias, all his prejudices, all the issues he had with the movie, EVERYTHING, because the scene was pure Disney magic. In other words "I see the light" was dripping in Disney Essence(c).

You know what this tells me? That fans are putting WAY too much stock in the MEDIUM used rather how the medium is USED. In other words, if its in 2D, AMAZING. If its in 3D, BOO. They fail to understand that the power of the medium lies in HOW it is used, not in that it is being used altogether. In other words, does the story benefit from the medium? Does it help me engage in the characters and their universe? It doesn't matter if the film is in 2D or 3D, if it doesn't do that, I don't care.

A lot of people have said that "Princess and the Frog" was a far more progressive film. How? Because it was in 2D? Because it relied on the nostalgia of the audience rather than creating its own appeal? I can see how it featuring an African American cast helped, but note that Disney scaled back a lot of the issues present in the decade the movie portrayed in fear of backlash. Their original vision was dumbed down. How is that progressive? That's basically bending backwards just to fulfill the wishes of a few fanboys and please the PC police as well.

Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Princess and the Frog, its a really good movie and I love many of its characters (even the infamous Louis). It's just that people give it WAAAAAY too much credit for the sole fact that it is in 2D, rather than giving it credit for the things that matter like story and characters.

Imagine this... Let's pretend that Frog and Tangled switched mediums. Frog is now a CG musical and Tangled a 2D comedy. They both have the same story, the same music, the same characters, EVERYTHING is the same except the medium. I am willing to bet that people would be criticized Frog because its in 3D while Tangled, silly name and all, would be praised as a TRUE Disney film.

I get that there should be more variety in animation I too love hand drawn animation and would love to make at least one animated movie someday. 2D animation shouldn't be limited to special event films like Princess and the Frog as well as independent releases. I would to see a year where in animation everything from CG, 2D, stop motion, motion capture, 2D mixed with live action and such existed and were fairly successful.

But until that dream is realized somehow, we should stop judging movies based on the medium and take a deep look instead at the mechanics, how it works and how it benefits the story. I think all of us would be having more fun if we dropped those biases and instead just be movie goers.

Does anyone know if theres a possibility that you could get a tour of the place where the creation of Tangled took place? I would love to meet the people who helped bring the story to life. I want to ask lots of questions about the process of writing the story, creating the characters, picking the voices etc. I have so many questions. More than anything I would love to talk to the directors. It would be a dream come true If anyone has any ideas for me I would greatly appreciate it. I figured maybe someone on here could help me, you've all been so friendly before Sorry if this isnt the correct thread for this. THANKS!

pap64 wrote:Boy will I be adding even more drama to this thread...

Recently, David Kawena (aka the infamous Disney artist behind the Disney Heroes pinup series), added Flynn Rider to his collection. While that sounds like business as usual, he actually refused to do it at first! Why?

Take a guess...

I'll wait...

*Waits a minute

Give up? He didn't want to draw Flynn because he was a CG character. Yes, he is one of those Disney fanatics that believes that the Disney Essence(c) only exists in the hand drawn animated features. While I understand the preference, he was pretty judgement of the movie long before it premiere (he was that way with Princess and the Frog too, though he kept showering it with praise).

Here's what happened, though.

First, he received as a present the Art of Tangled book, and he loved it. He realized that a lot of artistry went into the creation of the movie and that the character designs were beautiful. He was still doubtful, though, but far more respectful.

But what really did it for him was the flying lanterns scene. He said that during that moment, he forgot all about the CG, all his bias, all his prejudices, all the issues he had with the movie, EVERYTHING, because the scene was pure Disney magic. In other words "I see the light" was dripping in Disney Essence(c).

You know what this tells me? That fans are putting WAY too much stock in the MEDIUM used rather how the medium is USED. In other words, if its in 2D, AMAZING. If its in 3D, BOO. They fail to understand that the power of the medium lies in HOW it is used, not in that it is being used altogether. In other words, does the story benefit from the medium? Does it help me engage in the characters and their universe? It doesn't matter if the film is in 2D or 3D, if it doesn't do that, I don't care.

A lot of people have said that "Princess and the Frog" was a far more progressive film. How? Because it was in 2D? Because it relied on the nostalgia of the audience rather than creating its own appeal? I can see how it featuring an African American cast helped, but note that Disney scaled back a lot of the issues present in the decade the movie portrayed in fear of backlash. Their original vision was dumbed down. How is that progressive? That's basically bending backwards just to fulfill the wishes of a few fanboys and please the PC police as well.

Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Princess and the Frog, its a really good movie and I love many of its characters (even the infamous Louis). It's just that people give it WAAAAAY too much credit for the sole fact that it is in 2D, rather than giving it credit for the things that matter like story and characters.

Imagine this... Let's pretend that Frog and Tangled switched mediums. Frog is now a CG musical and Tangled a 2D comedy. They both have the same story, the same music, the same characters, EVERYTHING is the same except the medium. I am willing to bet that people would be criticized Frog because its in 3D while Tangled, silly name and all, would be praised as a TRUE Disney film.

I get that there should be more variety in animation I too love hand drawn animation and would love to make at least one animated movie someday. 2D animation shouldn't be limited to special event films like Princess and the Frog as well as independent releases. I would to see a year where in animation everything from CG, 2D, stop motion, motion capture, 2D mixed with live action and such existed and were fairly successful.

But until that dream is realized somehow, we should stop judging movies based on the medium and take a deep look instead at the mechanics, how it works and how it benefits the story. I think all of us would be having more fun if we dropped those biases and instead just be movie goers.

Well said!

Hey so this is probably not directly related to Tangled, but I went to see the Macy's Annual Flower Show in Herald Square over the weekend and the theme was "Towers of Flowers".

So, after going through the revolving doors at the entrance, there were four different "towering" fairy tale cakes in the window displays, and this was one of them





The other cakes were of The Princess and the Pea, Jack and the Beanstalk, etc. You can find more and better pictures at the baker's blog
http://pixelwhisk.blogspot.com/2011/03/ ... heyre.html

Arabic Tangled songs:

When Will My Life Begin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et0G36O1hRk

Mother Knows Best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMQ8qCy1gMQ

When Will My Life Begin? - Reprise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuf6N8A5908

I've Got a Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbw8ubyDQEE

Healing Incantation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlQg6qxKLwI

Mother Knows Best - Reprise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN1vIl2o8zI

I See the Light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88Rb_HK4wWI

That should be a given but some people here aren't true fans, simply put, they are trollish idiots and they will never acknowledge what you've said because of their nature.

@ pap64: very well said! I completely agree!

(See, people, we don't have to quote his entire post.)

I just don't think Rapunzel would have worked in 2D. What with the hair and all... Can't see that animated by hand.

Goliath wrote:@ pap64: very well said! I completely agree!

(See, people, we don't have to quote his entire post.)

I just don't think Rapunzel would have worked in 2D. What with the hair and all... Can't see that animated by hand.

^
This
All of this

disneyprincess123 wrote:Does anyone know if theres a possibility that you could get a tour of the place where the creation of Tangled took place? I would love to meet the people who helped bring the story to life. I want to ask lots of questions about the process of writing the story, creating the characters, picking the voices etc. I have so many questions. More than anything I would love to talk to the directors. It would be a dream come true If anyone has any ideas for me I would greatly appreciate it. I figured maybe someone on here could help me, you've all been so friendly before Sorry if this isnt the correct thread for this. THANKS!

Nope, there are no tours at the actual animation building.

Goliath wrote:@ pap64: very well said! I completely agree!

(See, people, we don't have to quote his entire post.)

I just don't think Rapunzel would have worked in 2D. What with the hair and all... Can't see that animated by hand.

That and a lot of animation "purists" still would've complained about Disney doing the same ol' same ol'.

With CGI, it's harder for Disney animators to recycle animation and attempt shortcuts that they can take so easily with hand-drawn animation. They also were able to find a few technical innovations that will surely influence future CGI films.

So I really enjoy the Kingdom Dance scene far more than the I See the Light sequence.. am I alone in feeling this way? Every time I watch it, I get goosebumps as they miss one another dancing and finally end up catching each other right at the end. Plus their reaction after it happens is so perfect. I think I just prefer that music and upbeat, falling in love vibe. Definitely my absolute favorite scene from the film.

The Kingdom Dance scene is probably my favorite too actually. Minimum dialog with so much great stuff going on, plus the music.

SpringHeelJack wrote:

KubrickFan wrote: For some reason, your post reminded me of this:

I can only assume he secreted Disney Essence (c) that way too.

I have to say, your avatar fits in nicely with the gif I posted .

Goliath wrote:@ pap64: very well said! I completely agree!

(See, people, we don't have to quote his entire post.)

I just don't think Rapunzel would have worked in 2D. What with the hair and all... Can't see that animated by hand.

Aaaw, but I wanted to see my post being quoted again and again! How is my ego gonna get bigger if people don't repeat what I say? You big meanie!



But in all seriousness, good to know people agree with my post. Again, you can have your preferences in mediums. I love 2D animation. But what I care about is how the medium is going to be used, not that it was used in the first place.

There HAS been horrible 2D animation done by both Disney and lots of other companies. Just look up a couple of Nostalgia Critic reviews or type in 80s or 90s animation and you will see that even though they were created in "magical" 2D, the films weren't any better because of it.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ITD2aBuX9Us" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Patrick wrote:So I really enjoy the Kingdom Dance scene far more than the I See the Light sequence.. am I alone in feeling this way? Every time I watch it, I get goosebumps as they miss one another dancing and finally end up catching each other right at the end. Plus their reaction after it happens is so perfect. I think I just prefer that music and upbeat, falling in love vibe. Definitely my absolute favorite scene from the film.

I love that scene too! Especially the little parts where you see them reading books and eating icecreams (don't know for sure it's icecream) and stuff

pap64 wrote:Give up? He didn't want to draw Flynn because he was a CG character. Yes, he is one of those Disney fanatics that believes that the Disney Essence(c) only exists in the hand drawn animated features.

Really? He's done live-action Disney characters before in that series. Does this mean he thought the Disney "essence" applied to those movies AND 2-D, but not CGI? I'm confused, but at least he changed his mind.

I hope this Disney essence crap ends soon before somone suggests Home on the Range is better than Roger Rabbit becuase it's all 2-D and has the official label on it. I'm grateful this site isn't theme-park centric at times becuase we'd have posters claiming Crane's Bathroom of Tomorrow was better than Tower of Terror becuase Walt allowed it to be made.

And that Baloo/Tod gif is both WRONG and HILARIOUS and the same time. What has been seen cannot be unseen though.

Flanger-Hanger wrote: And that Baloo/Tod gif is both WRONG and HILARIOUS and the same time. What has been seen cannot be unseen though.

You should see the one with Prince Adam/He-Man and Tod.