I read all of your replies carefully, and you're all helping me feel better about some of these things, but now I hope you read my post carefully.
First, I know this has taken a long time, and usually films don't look exactly like their concept art (I also agree, they often don't look as deep or interesting either, but I always thought it was to make a more "normal", unified look), but two things: first, when you make something on the computer, can't you make a program that makes everything look painterly automatically? I mean, computers do that automatic stuff, they made programs just for Rapunzel's hair, for instance. I would think achieving that one image in complete CGI would just be needed to make a program that makes all images in the film look like that. Second, this
has been in development for so long, why hasn't all this time gotten them the look that was supposed to take them so much time?
Someone on another forum said they knew of a guy who not only saw them make Snow White's watercolor background of the cottage in complete CGI, so it would finally be CGI that looks exactly like you expect from Disney, but they also created a very subtle cel-shading effect that gave the CGI characters outlines like hand-drawn animation. But the main point was, the guy who worked on that said he was dissapointed to see none of that work end up in the film, so I took that to mean it
could have been applied to the whole film, but Disney just didn't do it because they think kids want to see CGI. That was my guess.
There was also some other images that showed a slightly less painterly, but still very painterly look. Here is one still:
http://www.kinogallery.com/image/?film= ... &div=f&n=5
And this image is actually from some animation. This thing was animated, with a voice and everything. The bed looks especially painterly:
http://www.kinogallery.com/image/?film= ... &div=f&n=3
As for Glen Keane's designs being put into the CGI, here is someone's little work on that. The first image is Glen Keane's (I think) sketch, the second is the final CGI, and the third is someone trying to make the CGI look more like the sketch:
![Image](http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/enigmawing/rapunzeldrawingcomp01.jpg)
[/quote]
The fact that the CGI
doesn't look like the third picture, and so doesn't look as much like the sketch, is what I have a problem with.
droosan wrote:This 'painterly' look...has been used on occasion, in tv commercials. For a feature-length film, it may be overly ambitious.
Really, what commercials? Also, I must point out, Walt Disney was extremely ambitious, so...I would think they could do ambitious again. Otherwise, it is really the dang deadline and Disney marketing that is ruining this film, title and all.
Next, the Rapunzel story, once again, two things: First is, as I said, I know alot about the project (and the original story), and I'm telling you, this movie follows the Rapunzel story even all the way to the end. As the original story goes, the first half is really about all the time in the tower. The second half is about Rapunzel and the prince living outside of the tower, finally finding each other, and magic makes them a happy couple again. This movie is just making the leaving of the tower a little early, but I'm telling you, the magic that helps them in the end, that happens, too. As long as this is about Rapunzel, a girl with long hair to let people in a tower she's locked in, the film can and should be called Rapunzel. As you said
Bill, you didn't even know much about the story beyond that, yet you knew that as Rapunzel, not by any other name, and so that also proves my point.
So here are the big main things left:
The reason I'm worried about the title and look is because I see them as Disney not just evolving, but trying to become something they are not, especially to become something everyone else is, just to get (the lowest common denominated) audiences.
Walt didn't just use any animation, he used a certain storybook illustrated style of animation for his fairy tales. Overall, he liked lush and flowy and fine looks and movement. What Glen Keane planned for this was what looked like the Disney version of CGI. Now, it's just a lot less than that.
As for the title, and the content, I want Disney to make lots of their own original works, but when they do fairy tales, which is clearly going back to tradition and the past, they shouldn't mess with the way they did those kinds of films. It's like, there's all sorts of subjects, and then there's a Disney way of doing them. They can do whatever they want, but they should keep a Disney
way. If they mess with that way, well, then eventually what is the Disney way anymore, what is Disney? I saw CGI that looked like a painting as keeping that way. I see making the CGI more generic and changing the title as losing that way. I was okay with The Emporer's New Groove because I thought that was a completely different story, with a matching different title. I was okay with The Princess and the Frog because they needed a black heroine really badly and once again the story was extremely different, and so was the title. Now, with this film, the story is kinda different but still not that much different than the way they changed past fairy tales, but the title...it's so un-Disney.
Oh, that's the biggest thing: Glen Keane didn't want the title changed, but he was knocked down from directing. However, two things: He was still kept on the project, and so was some of his vision, while as for the new directors,
they too wanted the title kept as Rapunzel. Every single person working on the film did. Disney's marketing department and the heads changed the title, and they actually came out and admitted they changed it not because it fit, but to attract more boys, to make more money. The directors now say they agree with the change, but since they didn't make it, we can only guess they are just taking what they can't change.
Now don't tell me that just because I can't change it I shouldn't talk about it. Not only are forums places to at least say how we feel regardless of what we can do, but I will not stand around and not say anything, you should never take crap lying down. Disney infringed on the Disney legacy and on the directors and artists' artistic and creative visions. Disney's marketing infringed on their art. I just don't know what this holds for the future of Disney and the future of their legacy and the future of their art. If it was all about money and popularity instead of art, I wouldn't love Disney, and they wouldn't be Disney anymore if they really became all about that, either.
Ben, as a side note, could you tell me any more about that amazing look for Beauty and the Beast you mentioned, even better or more painterly than Glen Keane's vision for Rapunzel?! Any pictures...?! How can I find out more about it?!