Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Randall]

Trailers are supposed to give you an impression of what a movie's going to be like.

That's how we think. But, really, the main point of the trailer is to make an audience want to go see a movie.

[ELIOLI]

Yup. And it's a movie I want to see that's for sure!

[Dacey]

That's how we think. But, really, the main point of the trailer is to make an audience want to go see a movie.

True. I guess I stand corrected then.

But anyway, I like the new "Tangled" trailers. They make me happy in ways I don't know how to fully explain. And as for the lack of songs in the previews, I can't remember films like "Mulan" and "Enchanted" being advertised as musicals either.

[Dusterian]

Well, that's why they're calling it "Tangled," Dust. Because it's clearly not the story of "Rapunzel."

Um, there have been many different versions of Rapunzel with the story slightly changed, so a few slight changes would not mean the title needs to be. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin were changed a lot, but they were still clearly the fairy tales, as this is.

No, not from the trailer, but from the other information we know.

For a Disney film, for a very Disney film, it would usually be a bit more faithful still, but Disney is becoming less and less Disney by the days...

Yea, I know the CGI looks fairly good but few of you here really care about a Disney look or Disney essence, you just care about any animation. But I care about Disney keeping it's own kind of look, which it comes close to, but not quite. I don't think any of you really got my post, it's about Disney's 50th animated classic, and how it should be a little more Disney in story and look and title than what we are getting.

[Macaluso]

But I think it DOES look very Disney. I think you're just a little off your rocker.

[LotsoA113]

I have said it before, but I'll say it again: If it's quality, it's Disney.

[ELIOLI]

I believe it looks so good..they can even be translated to 2d and still keep with the design. (which is represented by Glen Kean's amazing concept art). I say very Disney. Disney is working well with what they have

[Dusterian]

Well, if you look at Glen Keane's original sketches, you can see that the CGI is not quite up to matching them as well as it should be.

And, um, lots of things are quality, what it means to be Disney is more than just quality.

It seems everyone here is pretty much just general animation fans and not hardcore Disney fans who care about Disney keeping with their legacy. I'm someone who loves all animation, but especially Disney's, and want them to keep their legacy.

[ELIOLI]

Well..this is why it's called Animated news..not Disney news. :p It's supposed to be general?
Anyway, I see your..concern, but can you atleast be pleased with the fact that it's some of the best CGI character renderings in like..forever? And don't worry, Disney isn't losing anything with their legacy. They have the money and talent to do 2d whenever they want, it's thier own choice if the want CGI for the next movie or not. I hope to see 2d some more, but right now, they don't want to for any of their upcoming projects but who knows? Nothing seems to be effecting their legacy. When you said quality..it shows in this movie.

[LotsoA113]

Actually, Dust, I am a DIEHARD Disney fan. My first word was Disney (no joke!) and I have watched the VHS versions of all they're films so many times they just about worn out. However, to be a good studio, period, you have to do things differently. Show different stoies. That's why I like Treasure Planet and The Emperor's New Groove and Lilo & Stitch. I don't just stand by one small piece of the studio and babble on about it. I embrace new things. New ideas. After all alt made animated films to tell all kinds of stories. You should embrace that fact, not reject it.

BEsides, the film is much more musical than the trailers are letting in so...mayhaps you will be eating crow for thanksgiving instead of turkey

[Dusterian]

Well, first what I meant by their legacy was all of it together to make a kind of essence. Like, I felt Glen Keane's original plan for the CGI, the look of a painting, was like what Walt did with animation, because Snow White was not just animated well, it had a storybook painterly feel.

That's just one instance I'm talking about. And almost none of Glen Keane's original, very Disney vision seems to be ending up here. But yes, i must admit, it is clearly Disney CGI, just...I have seen and heard of what it could have been and that was more keeping with their legacy.

Lotso, don't worry I will not be eating crow, I know this is a musical where the characters sing, I know a lot about this film by checking out many other sources, I knew Alan Menken was once going to write a song "You are My Forever" for the film which seems to be gone now and hearing the tune of Rapunzel's song "When Will My Life Begin" in a toy in stores. That song which was going to be between Rapunzel and her prince, and the prince is now a bandit...all of the great things this was going to be, changed...

[ELIOLI]

[url]ttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0hrrWXjfxC4/TE1-nNiOycI/AAAAAAAAAzA/taXiaqTjKRk/s1600/38116_1544522938876_1409090863_1441677_6470268_n.jpg[/url]
and http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-new ... rt-stills/

Look at some of the promotional images compared to Glean's sketches. I say there is alot of influence from his designs..not to mention the backgrounds.
Don't loose faith Dust. They are still maing Whinne the Poo, and if it bombs..well, it's still 2d on the big screen
And the painterly style you are talking about seems evident in the trailers. Obviously it looks different in CGI. Like in Bolt..it may have had that more "painterly" feel than Tangled. But I feel Disney wanted this to be in a sense, bigger! Instead of usuing actual paintings for a background, this is a genre of movies that Disney is know for making. Fairytales, so bigger areas and landscapes in CGI is the way to go. Gosh I didn't make sense in the last part, but whatevver. What i'm trying to say is, 2d is heavily influenced in this movie, from the poses to the movement. I have heard alot of people say that. Don't worry Dust. The quailty and magic is still there. Pardon the links ladies and gents..it's late. Haha!

[Dusterian]

The first link didn't work.

Anyway, I am not sure you got what I was saying over and over again. I was saying that this does look pretty Disney, but it was more so before and could be more so.

That sketch of Rapunzel with Pascal in the second link, that sketch is beautiful. But the Rapunzel in the final images we've seen...hardly looks like that, she doesn't look as good as that.

As for the painterly style, I was talking about Glen Keane's original idea to make this look way, way more like a painting, so that you couldn't even tell it was CGI until it moved and rotated.

This image was made completely out of CGI. This image rotated in 3D:

If it looked like a painting, and moved and was designed like hand-drawn, that would be just like the traditionally animated fairy tales they did, which were hand-painted, emphasis on painted. But now it is only about a third of that.

Glen Keane's original vision for Rapunzel...and now we get...Tangled.

[droosan]

Visual development can often lead down what ultimately become 'blind alleys'.

It's one thing to create a test shot of a girl on a swing. It may turn out looking fantastic. But the effort expended to do so has to be scalable. IOW, if you've made one representative shot ten-times more complex to do (as an example), the other 600+ shots in the movie are each going to take that much longer to achieve, as a result. (meaning, in the fictional example, you're looking at a 6000% increase over a 'normal' CG feature pipeline; in time, money, artists .. possibly all three).

This 'painterly' look is the sort of thing which would work brilliantly for a short subject, or a main/end-title sequence. It has been used on occasion, in tv commercials. For a feature-length film, it may be overly ambitious.

I don't doubt that much effort was expended --over years! -- trying to come up with a process that might have made this 'look' viable on a feature-production scale .. but, once the release date was set, hard choices likely had to be made.

That's not to say that the envelope hasn't been pushed by Tangled's animation/dev team, though. The characters' expressiveness and the lush shading I've seen in the trailers show vast improvements over even Bolt and Meet the Robinsons .. and the environments, at least, do have a somewhat 'painterly' look to them.

Plus, as has been mentioned by others, you can look at any individual still frame of Rapunzel or Flynn and recognize within it Glen Keane's drawing style (which is pretty cool, IMO). Keane is still the animation director on the movie, after all -- and obviously remains a tremendous influence.

-----------------

Development art and test sequences always look more dynamic -- and often more interesting -- than the finished films for which they're created. A look at any "Art of" book or "Conceptual Test" DVD bonus feature will confirm that.

Visual development artists have the luxury of testing the waters, trying new/different things, etc. But when it comes time to actually make the film, any new technique has to work within a production pipeline, and toward a (often unwavering) deadline.

[Bill1978]

Um, there have been many different versions of Rapunzel with the story slightly changed, so a few slight changes would not mean the title needs to be. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin were changed a lot, but they were still clearly the fairy tales, as this is.

I will preface this post by saying I'm not that up with the actual Rapunzel story. I just now it's about the girl with the long hair trapped in a tower and a lovely prince sves the day. Obviusly with the release I have caught up on the bigger picture (thanks Wikipedia).

From what I've been able to gather the 3 movies you mention are reasonably faithful to their source with a couple of detours along the way (eg someone lives instead of dying, characters are added while others are removed etc). But with Tangled it seems the fairy tale of Rapunzel is just the leaping point. If the movie was called Rapunzel would lots of people expect it to be about a girl stuck in a tower who has visits from a prince who releases her from the tower in the last 10 minutes of the movie. The trailer makes it quite clear that the story of the fairytale is quickly told in this movie and it branches of on its own little tangent. So perhaps it is justifiable to give it a title that isn't the traditional story's title, just so they can't be accused of misleading the audience even further than what the trailer is apparently doing.

And to be perfectly honest Dust, I am a huge Disney fan. They are the reason I got addicted to watching animated films and began collecting them. I'm constantly having to tell people that just cause it's animated doesn't mean it's Disney. And I'll admit I get annoyed that Pixar gets all the plaudits and Disney doesn't these days. Even though I think Pixar's movies are telling the same movie over and over and that there animation is no better than Dreamworks or Disney in terms of quality/style (well except for Madagascar). But I can tell you that I am getting a very strong Disney vibe from the trailers. The characters look Disney, the international trailer has the gorgeous Disney vibe to it. And while it would be greatto see more 'drawn' animation in cinema, Tangled gives off a very 'drawn' feel even though it's CG.

And even though there is no snippets of Menken's songs in the clip I'm still pumped for the musical aspect. And really in a way what person would go into a Disney animated film and not expect at least one moment where the characters break into song. It's almost a given. I get the impression though as we get closer to the release date more stuff about the songs will come into the public forum. Disney isn't hiding the fact there are songs. I have read interviews with Menken discussing Tangled songs, they kept the songs in the preview AND one of those links even has pictures of Menken with the voice actors, so I'm not worried.

If the movie is good word of mouth will help it succeed, if it sucks then word of mouth will destroy. But I think the trailer is very effective in getting people interested in seeing it and getting the name of the movie out there into public's conscience.