Bolt

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » December 28th, 2007, 3:40 am

Daniel wrote:Keep in mind, that most of the concept art we saw for the film before, was when it was originally titled American Dog and still had Chris Sanders at the helm. IIRC, they featured techniques such as non-photorealistic rendering, which gave it that special visual appearence.

The look for Bolt so far is cute, but I agree, I am a bit dissapointed.

Oh,i didn't knew he left

(i thought it was just a rumer).
Anyway he is cute (not something adorable like Remy,Shrek's kids,Wall-E and etc.) but still.
It's not pretty like those concept arts... but you know what? this is actually like a movie that a 5 years old kid can see,when i saw those concept arts i wasn't sure if parents will take small kids to this film.

Post by **Meg** » December 28th, 2007, 9:48 am

Hm...You know, I was never a particularly huge fan of Sander's original designs - I always thought the dog looked more like a moose than anything else - but while the originals never struck me as overly appealing, these new ones are almost *too* cutesy for me, almost to the point where they are generic-looking (as others have already mentioned). Still, cute does sell, and with the animation department at Disney still being on a rather patchy relationship with general audiences, I don't think they can afford to do anything really 'out-there' until they reestablish their name as one of the top dogs in the animation world.

On a different note, the actual look of the still is great! Really has the look of a painting, especially those backgrounds. I'm looking forward to seeing how the first footage looks.

Post by **Ben** » December 28th, 2007, 2:57 pm

All the points subsequent to my initial reaction post to this image are what I was getting at.

Under Sanders, American Dog would have been something unique to look at and quirky to experience.

Under Disney, Bolt just looks like a CGI comedy about a lost dog.

Post by **G1rl** » December 28th, 2007, 8:58 pm

The fur of the characters is a little outdated, compared with other movies of the last years, the hamster look like Jimmy Newtron´s pet, and Bolt (the dog) look like a Balto son (but is better than the first "American Dog"). And the poster is really generic too.

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » December 29th, 2007, 5:32 am

Meg wrote:I always thought the dog looked more like a moose than anything else.

LOL,he does look like a moose

.

Post by **Meg** » December 29th, 2007, 8:18 am

'Did' look like a moose...I'm referring to the old design, which unless I'm misunderstanding you, is the same one you're speaking of as well?

The fur of the characters is a little outdated,

I think the fur looks fine. Again, it's supposed to have a painterly quality to it, so perhaps that's what's bothering you about it?

Post by **G1rl** » December 29th, 2007, 2:09 pm

I think they look like outdated render models than painted characters, if they are compared with real paints.

But in movement maybe they looks better than in this Pic.

Post by **Meg** » December 29th, 2007, 3:14 pm

LARGE version here:

http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/ ... otobig.jpg

The painterly look of it is much more obvious in this one, but I still don't like the designs much (cat's alright, though).

Post by **Ben** » December 29th, 2007, 4:11 pm

Now that I've seen more of the painterly look, I now don't get the point of placing CGI characters in such lovely backgrounds!

Post by **skeezer** » December 29th, 2007, 11:28 pm

Umm. Are you guys nuts? This is not a CG render. It is concept artwork that was drawn.

Post by **G1rl** » December 30th, 2007, 12:02 pm

In this new pic (most big) The background look like most a paint (maybe photoshop paint?, the grass look like be made with the classic photoshop grass brush) but the character look like someone copy and paste 3d models in the background , I think they need a little more work because the render of the character look brush in parts but no completely, the Bolt eyes look traditional render, but still thinking maybe this look better in movement.

Maybe the image can be totally painted in photoshop (also the 3d look) Who know? with the modern tablets PC of this days and the tutotorials how to draw 3d characters in photoshop, everything can be made.(<-- like a tv spot ... hehe )

Post by **PatrickvD** » December 30th, 2007, 12:09 pm

if the paint-ish look is going to end up in the film, could this be some sort of test for the tradtionally animated films like Princess and the Frog. To sort of test to see how CGI rendered backgrounds can look more traditional?

just wondering. Also, I read on another forum that the look for Princess and the Frog is going to be partially inspired by Bambi. interesting.

Post by **Ben** » December 30th, 2007, 3:44 pm

So...is the entire image painted? Because I'm seeing a painted background and CG rendered animals, which I still don't see the point of.

Post by **G1rl** » December 30th, 2007, 4:13 pm

I think they are 3d CGI models pasted in a 2d background ... mmm maybe with the debut of a pupil of Bob Ross with that happy tree and house?. The grass look very photoshoped, if you know the default brushes in photoshop, I think this background is nice but can be better, if they want

Post by **skeezer** » December 31st, 2007, 1:03 am

The whole thing is painted.