Bolt

Post by **G1rl** » December 31st, 2007, 4:39 am

sure?
who care if this pic is a totally 2d painting or is 3d models ?, is only the medium no make the characters worst or better.
Also with the software deep paint the 3ds models can be painted too, and disney already used this method for another movies, also with any digital 2d paint software a image like this can be made or mixed.
This pic still needs more work to obtain a better quality, and for the topic of the movie a painterly look no is really needed. Maybe in 'Rapunzel' or 'Horton Hears a Who' this painterly effect can be most needed because they are based in kids books, and maybe they want the feel of old illustrations in this movies.

I think this not is an end image, and maybe the next can be better.

Post by **Ben** » December 31st, 2007, 6:00 am

So now I don't see the point of releasing a painted image for a CG feature...

Post by **Meg** » January 1st, 2008, 6:53 pm

skeezer wrote:The whole thing is painted.

No, it's obviously not. First of all, you can easily tell that the characters are CG in the HD version of the image. And secondly, like Ben said, why in the world would they release a painting instead of a CGI image for this without specifying so? Conceptual paintings have been released before we see any final images of 3D features, but it's quite clear that they really are drawings, not to mention the studio usually states that the image is not from the final film.

Post by **Foxtale** » January 1st, 2008, 6:58 pm

To me the image looks like the background was painted in Corel Painter or Photoshop and the two characters were stills taken from a 3d model and pasted onto the background. They might have filtered parts of the character to make it blend more though but the nose and tail don't looke like they were painted.

Post by **G1rl** » January 2nd, 2008, 1:41 am

Foxtale wrote:To me the image looks like the background was painted in Corel Painter or Photoshop and the two characters were stills taken from a 3d model and pasted onto the background. They might have filtered parts of the character to make it blend more though but the nose and tail don't looke like they were painted.

Yes, I think the 3d models are pasted in the background too.
This image needs more work in the characters to obtain a nearest effect of a real painting.
Is really needed a painterly look for this movie?, a pair of movies want this oily effect too, maybe is the fashion.
I think can be cute nostalgic effect, but it can work better in other movies.

About the logo, I think is nice, better than the Bee movie logo.

Post by **skeezer** » January 4th, 2008, 10:57 pm

Meg wrote:No, it's obviously not. First of all, you can easily tell that the characters are CG in the HD version of the image. And secondly, like Ben said, why in the world would they release a painting instead of a CGI image for this without specifying so? Conceptual paintings have been released before we see any final images of 3D features, but it's quite clear that they really are drawings, not to mention the studio usually states that the image is not from the final film.

No offense, but that is a pretty flimsy argument. Development (or not) artwork that is done for some of these 3D features are done so well they often look anything but drawn. I can understand why everyone is so convinced it is CG, but...

Question for you. You ask why Disney would release an image without telling us how it was made.. Huh? Do you think they really sit around thinking they have to divulge that information? Do you think the marketing/publicity dept think most people even care?

BTW. Is this even an official Disney released image? Anyone stop to think that it was put out without permission? Honestly, I don't know. But I've yet to see a press release or statement attached to this image.

Post by **skeezer** » January 4th, 2008, 11:06 pm

Foxtale wrote:To me the image looks like the background was painted in Corel Painter or Photoshop and the two characters were stills taken from a 3d model and pasted onto the background. They might have filtered parts of the character to make it blend more though but the nose and tail don't looke like they were painted.

You've made the best argument for it being CG. However, the tail of the dog and the nose, and possibly the eyes are the only places on this image that even resemble CG. However, all of that can easily be painted or at the very least stamped.

You'd be amazed at some of the 2D drawings our visdev team has made on the feature we are doing. Most people can't tell they aren't CG. They are done that way for a reason.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 7th, 2008, 7:30 pm

Wow.

Totally different from Sanders' version....not at all what I was expecting. What shocks me the most is the change from anthropomorphic to well....dog-like, walking on four legs thing. I was sure that they would retain that, since he's supposed to be a TV star and all...isn't he?

No wonder Sanders quit.

Post by **Daniel** » January 7th, 2008, 9:28 pm

Yah.

Good to see you posting again, Vi!

skeezer wrote:BTW. Is this even an official Disney released image?

It came from a Disney calander, so in a way, I guess not.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 7th, 2008, 9:36 pm

Good to see you posting again, Vi! Smile

Thanks Dan.

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » January 8th, 2008, 10:08 am

Wait,why did Sanders left?.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 10th, 2008, 3:22 pm

No one really knows exactly why he left, but many have speculated that Lassetter was not in any way a fan of the quirky, zany/artistic Lilo-and-Stitch style that Sanders wanted for American Dog. (Others think it might be that Lassetter was under a lot of pressure to deliver a "moneymaker" for WDFA and didn't want to take too many "risks" hence the more conventional storyline/look for the new film, Bolt.)

The truth is that American Dog was canceled, in favor of another movie about a dog, named Bolt. Bolt is cute but he's not American Dog. His eyes are also very Pixarian, at least in my opinion. I understand that there's the argument that many films have gone through changes and turned out just fine--Aladdin, Beauty, Ratatouille, Roger Rabbit, etc....but the truth is that in all those cases, the original ideas were almost always preserved, if not the look/story. Brad Bird's Ratatouille may be quite different from Jan Pinkava's Ratatouille but it's still Ratatouille.

I mean, no one could possibly mistake these two:

for the same movie in any capacity, even a movie in different stages of production. At least that's my take on it. Hope that helps!

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » January 11th, 2008, 7:57 am

Sounds werid,the concept arts dosn't look like Lilo and Stitch in my opinion,also what changes Beauty and the Beast had?.
Here's something i found (it's a Disney Consumer Products guide of the film i found in Prince Kido's blog):
http://bp3.blogger.com/__kA16vnWHH0/R4K ... oltdcp.jpg

Post by **Josh** » January 11th, 2008, 11:26 am

Cool image, in my opinion.

I saw it this morning via Blue Sky Disney. I love the energy of the pic!

Post by **Once Upon A Dream** » January 11th, 2008, 11:47 am

Agreed,i like it,the characters looks better and it made me wanna see the film

(i was kinda disappointed that they changed to film but the picture made me see it).
Also it's nice to see that they want to teach small kids about responsibilty about pets (altought i don't see how this is coneceted to the film).
Ha,they're making a video game (like i didn't saw that coming).