Tangled! (The Artist Formerly Known As Rapunzel)

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Yes, Penny was the first thought I had when I saw the picture. I mean, I don't think Rapunzel is ugly or anything, but the fact that one character looks so much (I mean, they look different, but similar, you know?) like another bothers me a bit.
I mean, do you think that the directors told the animators, hey, you need to make Rapunzel look more like Penny, because that's the way we like our CGI characters to looK

Hopefully, it is still just concept art. Yes, they look different, but much of the basic design is the same. Rapunzel and Penny may not be twin sisters, but they do seem like close relatives. Glen Keane has been away and new people have been working with the project in his absent, and the result, in my opinion, is a character that looks a litte too smooth, almost like a doll instead of a real human.

Since the director has also worked as an animator, it shows he is able to draw, and it wouldn't surprise me if he had something to do with the new look. Chris Sanders worked as director on both Lilo and Stitch and American Dog, before he was removed from the last project which then was renamed Bolt. And it's not difficult to see the big design similarities between Lilo and the original Penny (or whatever she was called) in Chris Sanders' concept art of American Dog.

With so many years since the original test clip, one would except that it should have improved. Instead the design has become more simplified, which is a bit disappointing. But now when Keane is back, who knows what will happen. I'm hoping for the best.

[blackcauldron85]

As much as I do love the older design, part of me is thinking- why would Disney show this version of Rapunzel to the audience at the D23 Expo if it isn't what she'll end up looking like?

[ajmrowland]

i wasn't saying she looked like the Rapunzel from Shrek. javascript:emoticon(':lol:') i would definitely be getting my eyes checked if that were the case.. but I was saying she looks like she should be in Shrek. It's generic, boring character design, no details (like that gorgeous artwork of her in D23 or even the disneyanimation.com site..), not painterly and very unoriginal...

Apparently you doneed corrective surgery, because there's nothing generic or boring about this design.

The shrek character looks like a hag compared to this one!

In all seriousness, I love the design. I didn't even think of Penny when I looked at it, and it should only be the good qualities that are shared anyway.

[blackcauldron85]

Just because, I put together all the pictures I could find of Rapunzel. Thoughts on her evolution? (Sorry some of the pictures are a little small.)



I absolutely love the first picture. She's so beautiful, but there's also just something about her. Some spunk, maybe? I do like the second picture, although it's in CGI, and I do prefer the hand-drawn concept art. I think that she's pretty in the 3rd picture (although small). The 4th picture is pretty, but it's a different style. I'm not such a fan of the 5th picture (top of the 3rd column)...she looks too hard or harsh or something. And the newest picture...while pretty, sure, she does look like Penny...there's nothing wrong with Penny, but the comparison is striking.

And we can compare Penny & Rapunzel. I was looking for a different shot of Penny to use (this is already the 2nd I tried), but I guess it gives us a good enough idea:

[Rumpelstiltskin]

She has been through a lot of different stages. Each time something new is released, she has a different look. But I actually don't care how she will end up like, as long as it looks good.
The question is if the picture just published is the final design. I guess it all deponds on if the actual production has started, and if not, if Glen Keane is satisfied with it (and how much influence he has if he is not).

[Cordy_Biddle]

Just because, I put together all the pictures I could find of Rapunzel. Thoughts on her evolution? (Sorry some of the pictures are a little small.)



I absolutely love the first picture. She's so beautiful, but there's also just something about her. Some spunk, maybe? I do like the second picture, although it's in CGI, and I do prefer the hand-drawn concept art. I think that she's pretty in the 3rd picture (although small). The 4th picture is pretty, but it's a different style. I'm not such a fan of the 5th picture (top of the 3rd column)...she looks too hard or harsh or something. And the newest picture...while pretty, sure, she does look like Penny...there's nothing wrong with Penny, but the comparison is striking.

And we can compare Penny & Rapunzel. I was looking for a different shot of Penny to use (this is already the 2nd I tried), but I guess it gives us a good enough idea:

I'm sorry, but in that 5th picture Rapunzel looks hideous. Ideally I'd love her to look more like the first picture (she's absolutely stunning in it); but again I say that I'd like to trust the animators and then go see the film before I cast my stones.

[nomad2010]

my favorite is the fourth, she looks feminine but also if you put a smirk on her face she would look like she had some spunk.

[Marky_198]

That latest picture is not what I had in mind when I heard about the "beautiful, painterly" Rapunzel.

It looks like a cheap, generic, rubber, CGI doll, just like Penny and Jessie.

Also why is the design getting worse?
Why are they making sure that Rapunzel doesn't look beautiful?
Are they afraid that a human character in cgi will look too realistic if they will try to make her look beautiful?

I mean, it will look like a doll anyway, so then they might as well could make her look like a beautiful doll.

Anyway, I don't understand this blown up face, Penny-like, Nightmare before christmas look.

[Elladorine]

Glad I was able to make the pic a little easier to see . . .

And having said that, she doesn't feel at all like Penny to me; maybe a little bit of Jessie and Ariel. And I feel we need higher-quality artwork before passing and judgments here.

[blackcauldron85]

Just to compare:



Now, it's interesting. Looking at the Rapunzel picture, without looking at Jessie's and Penny's pictures, I can see the resemblence, but there is less of a resemblence when looking at them all next to each other. And I agree with engimawing, in the sense that, we don't have a good-quality picture of Rapunzel (and, heck, she may even differ somewhat in her final design), but I have a lot of free time and I think that it's fun to make comparison charts...

For me, Rapunzel's eyes very much remind me of Penny's, but they also are very Jessieish, too. I don't quite see the Ariel resemblence, although Rapunzel does have big Disney-girl eyes. Originally, Rapunzel's face seemed round like Penny's, but I guess I remembered Penny's face being rounder than it actually is.

[Super Aurora]

I personally like the concept art one of her looking down over the balcony/tower. She looks bit older and more mature, yet full of spirit and energy.

Personally, although i don't hate CGI, I think that this movie would been better off going 2-D. It would save the stress and difficulty of trying making CG movies to be like 2D. To me, it just doesn't work. It's like trying to make an apple like an orange.

[blackcauldron85]

Personally, although i don't hate CGI, I think that this movie would been better off going 2-D. It would save the stress and difficulty of trying making CG movies to be like 2D. To me, it just doesn't work. It's like trying to make an apple like an orange.

Since I think that hand-drawn animation is more magical and I love the process of it, and I think it looks better, I think that Rapunzel would be amazing as a hand-drawn feature. At the same time, though, I do admire Glen Keane for wanting to push the medium of CG animation. I'm not sure if the film will end up being all that he wanted it to be, animation and technology wise, but for his sake, I hope it is.

I think that some people could argue, why bother making the film with computers if your intent is to make it look like a hand-drawn film? I think that the answer could be, just to see if it can be done. Moviemakers love challenges. And pushing the form of animation into a new level would be a huge accomplishment.

I enjoy Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, and Bolt- I like all the stories, and they all have some great characters, and the first two are quite funny. And I love Dinosaur, which is sort of in a different category, since part of the reason it looks more realistic is because of the backgrounds.

It's a hard balance: Story is king (and characters are for me, too), so technically a movie could utilize stick figures and if the story is good enough, it should be a good movie. At the same time, Disney is known for its lavishness, it's beautiful animation, and that adds greatly to the films.

I guess I'm rambling all to say: Hopefully Rapunzel will fit in nicely with the other princess films- hopefully it'll be a great Disney classic fairy tale. I'm very glad that they're not going the Unbraided route, but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't nervous at all. I'm thrilled that Alan Menken is doing the project; otherwise, I'd be a heck of a lot more nervous. He has never let me down. I am a little more nervous that Glen Keane isn't directing the film; I adore the man, and think that he is pure genius. I'm thrilled that he's still working on the picture, though. I like Bolt, and the directors had to go from what was American Dog (RIP) and turn it into Bolt, and I applaud them for doing what they had to do. At the same time, John Lasseter's influence bothers me. He wasn't involved with Meet the Robinson, Bolt, or Rapunzel in their earlier incarnations, and then here he comes, changing everything. True, maybe he rescued the pictures- we really don't know. Or at least I really don't know. And I am so happy that Rapunzel isn't Unbraided anymore. But will any elements of the Unbraided-ness be in the new movie? For example, the tidbit that Rapunzel's hair will be used like an Indiana Jones whip- I'm intrigued, sort of, but is that the sort of thing a princess would need/do/use? I mean, I can imagine the Shrek princesses using something like that, but a classy Disney princess? I mean, sure, Jasmine, Meg, and Mulan are tougher girls than some of the others, and all the girls have some strength, but I'm just concerned.

I know that I shouldn't be all, OMG, the film won't be as good as it should be, because obviously I should reserve judgment until I see the final film. I just want the film to be a wonderful classic. Not that Chicken Little isn't a wonderful classic, but there is definitely polarization here on that issue. Heck, there is polarization here on The Lion King, and that for sure is a wonderful classic.

I just want the film to be great, as good as it can be, as classic as it can be. I don't want laughs in it just so there can be cheap laughs in it. If theer are laughs in it, I want them to be genuine. I don't want Unbraided, I want classic, wonderful.

[Marky_198]

Just to compare:

It's really interesting, because she does look like Jessie.
But the sad thing is, that she's a DOLL.

There is absolutely no difference in look in "dolls" and so called "human characters" in cgi films.
Human characters will always look like dolls.

Where they can make the human characters look absolutely beautiful in 2d films (Cinderella), they have to make the cgi humans weird and funny.
Like they are afraid to make them too realistic.

That's the problem of cgi. It will ALWAYS look realistic. Real looking plastic, real looking rubber, real looking dolls.

I really don't understand why they are pursuing this "nightmare before christmas look". When will they realize that human characters in cgi just don't work? And why desperately try to make something like 2d while it's definitely not? If you want to create a certain look, then use the proper goods to create that look.

[Kyle]

C'mon man, your the only one here who seems to hate 3d CGI characters. Yes, they look like dolls, so what? As long as they look like appealing dolls.
They might not work for you but dont act like its a fact when these 3d humans have been making millions at the box office, merchandising, ect. they clearly have appeal.

that said, I am dissapointed with the new design. the original with the larger forhead looked much better and unique.

Edit: as for making something 3d look 2d, there is a clear reason for that. hand drawn animation represents a near limitless control and organic flow. Its always a good idea to emulate that to prevent 3d animation from looking mechanical. Computers are perfect to a fault. They allow for many things that hand drawn could never dream of, but it has to be slapped around quite a bit more to get what you want out of it. So making it act more 2d is their way of doing that.

I don't see them ever doing a movie where you'll actually question weather or not it was hand drawn. I think the goal is not for these movies to literally look 2d, just act like it. Take the best characteristics of each and get the best results possible.

Its not like they dont do it the other way around too. I mean why do you think they add shadow maps to hand drawn animation? To give them more depth. To look, oh there's that word 3D .

[PatrickvD]

I think it's impossbile to judge it based on that image.

Having said that I''m getting incredibly tired of reading these ongoing anti CGI character rants presented as facts. Just because we prefer handdrawn dsigns and find them more appealing does not mean that CGI characters are therefore universally unappealing.

[KubrickFan]

It's really interesting, because she does look like Jessie.
But the sad thing is, that she's a DOLL.

There is absolutely no difference in look in "dolls" and so called "human characters" in cgi films.
Human characters will always look like dolls.

Where they can make the human characters look absolutely beautiful in 2d films (Cinderella), they have to make the cgi humans weird and funny.
Like they are afraid to make them too realistic.

That's the problem of cgi. It will ALWAYS look realistic. Real looking plastic, real looking rubber, real looking dolls.

I really don't understand why they are pursuing this "nightmare before christmas look". When will they realize that human characters in cgi just don't work? And why desperately try to make something like 2d while it's definitely not? If you want to create a certain look, then use the proper goods to create that look.

I don't understand. You're accusing 3D of being realistic, and yet you already made the point in another post that they can't make the CG characters too realistic. Otherwise they'd look creepy. Then you're saying that 2D looks so much better, but if 3D is searching for a way to emulate that look a bit more then they should just stick with 2D. I can understand you don't like CG, but it seems an awful lot of work to go to every thread that applies and add another rant to that. Human characters in CG look great, but they're caricatures. And that's exactly the same principle for handdrawn animation. So how can one medium be criticized for doing the same thing another is applauded for?
And on top of that I think it's amazing you can see how Rapunzel will turn out from a single, badly taken still. But you made up your mind anyway.

[Wonderlicious]

This is a picture of a famous (unfinished) painting of Mozart taken (presumably) professionally:



Now, here's my attempt at taking the above painting of Mozart, along with his harpsichord in the Mozart museum in Salzburg, Austria. Unfortunately, I was a dim-dim-dum-dum and took it on a disposable camera (so not the greatest quality anyway) and without the flash on:



If you were to take my attempt of photographing the painting very seriously, you'd think it was a splodge. I therefore think that some of the comments made about this low-quality image of Rapunzel are a bit insane. We therefore can't truly compare her to Jessie from Toy Story 2, or Ariel or whoever. When we see a proper design of her and a clip of her in motion, then we can criticize her of being a doll or a plastic lady. Let's not get silly. Don't knock anything until you have a clearer picture (no pun intended ).

[Deco King]

Has there been an image posted yet of the new Disney version of The Witch character Mother Gothel in the Grimms Fairy tale original?

[blackcauldron85]

Here's some older drawings of Rapunzel...boy, does she look a lot like Ariel in these:

http://www.photosmagiques.com/forum/vie ... 1&start=20

And Deco King, there haven't been any new pictures of Gothel, but I've been looking around to see if any have been posted in the past. If I find anything, I'll post it here.

[Elladorine]

Here's some older drawings of Rapunzel...boy, does she look a lot like Ariel in these:

http://www.photosmagiques.com/forum/vie ... 1&start=20

Wow, are those gorgeous . . . I'm so tempted to draw this version of her . . .