Tangled (formerly Rapunzel)

[Ben]

Others have already jumped in and saved this conversation from going into some silly places, frankly.

Apart from the title - which I still don't have any issue with - Tangled looks to be 100% Disney. 21st Century Disney, to be exact.

If they made Sleeping Beauty or Mermaid again (or over and over), there wouldn't be a Disney anymore. Like anything, it has to evolve. I don't think the recent Disney CG films have been all that, but we know there's been a lot of executive fiddling and upheaval. Glen Keane's Rapunzel was also a casualty of that, but now we have what looks to be a very, very good film coming out of it, and - Princess/Frog apart - the first true CG test of Lasseter's taking over at Disney Animation.

And the movie is being sold in the way that they need to sell it in order for it to be a hit (and thus make more Disney films). And I'll remind you that, as has been said before, this is not "Glen Keane's Rapunzel", this is "Disney's Tangled". And if it doesn't have his ultra-painterly look it's more than likely because that test shot took five years in rendering and a $2bn a second to create (<<joke figures...to make a point).

If the entire film was going to take that long and cost that much, there's no reason to make it - ESPECIALLY with the Disney brand being on shaky ground. Better to smooth it into something with a commercial chance, while keeping the artistic aspirations in check (though they're there, actually, if you look at how Keane's art has inspired the final rendering).

NO animated film's concept look has made it into the final screen images. MAYBE Fantasia has some scenes/shots that look just like their concepts, but that was because Walt was creating Art with that film (and it took 40 years to turn a profit as a result).

NONE of the 1990s films had looks that were as deep as their concept art suggested. Honestly, Beauty And The Beast could have looked better than Keane's Rapunzel back in '91 if they'd hand animated each frame in the style some of those paintings were created. But then they'd probably still be making that movie and would be for another couple of years.

At the moment, the important thing is that people are not saying "oh heck, another sugary, silly Disney girlie fairy movie". They ARE saying "actually, the new Disney film looks like a lot of fun", and they'll go and see it and find that special thing that makes them remember what Disney is all about and what that feeling meant to them just a few years ago.

And that's what's important at this point.

[Dusterian]

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:

[/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.

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?!

[Dacey]

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.

Perhaps...if you wanted the movie to cost $500 million to make. Computer animation doesn't happen all by itself, contrary to popular belief.

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?

See previous answer.

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.

The second image is actually better there. Something that looks good in a sketch isn't always going to look good in CGI if it's not tweaked a little.

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.

But it's ALSO clearly centered on Flynn. Whether "Tangled" is a stupid title or a good one, I can see the reason for the change, especially since they seem to be going for a romantic comedy vibe, like it or not.

Also, who really wants to see Rapunzel spend an entire movie locked away in a tower? We know that she's been up there a long time, and that's what matters.

Now, 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.

You're kinda puting a lot of stock into a simple title, you know that?

Glen Keane didn't want the titel changed, but he was knocked down. However, two things: He was kept on, 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.

You know, you keep saying that about Mr. Keane, and I have yet to find one source confirming that he said that, much less "every person working on the film."

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.

There's nothing wrong with that, but you have made your point here quite often to say the least. And I'm not saying this because we "don't understand what you're trying to say." I'm just saying that not all of us can be expected to agree with you.

I really mean no offense with this. Yeah, I know, lots of people say that when they're insulting someone, but seriously, I mean no offense. Just getting my two cents out for the heck of it. Hopefully this didn't seem too harsh.

[Tristy]

Well, for those who are worried about the music and are just so desperate to hear one of the characters singing, here's something for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xSaabg- ... r_embedded

[droosan]

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.

United Airlines has done several 'painterly' animated commercials (both traditionally-hand-painted and computer-assisted) over the past two decades. This is their most amazing one, IMO:



As I'd said, this 'look' also lends itself well to short subjects:



.. with the emphasis being on 'short' (which applies -- of course -- to tv commercials, as well).

Again: it's a matter of 'economy of scale' ..

Modern animated features may have budgets in the tens of millions .. but that money -- and a crew of (up to) a few hundred artists -- is spread across several hundred shots of varying complexity, with a total running time of ~90 minutes.

By contrast, many commercials made for nationwide or worldwide campaigns have production budgets in the 'mere' single-digit millions .. but the number of shots rarely surpasses a couple of dozen, with average total running times of ~30 seconds. Crews are much smaller (but more surgically-focused toward achieving a certain 'look'). Deadlines are still often tight -- but the short running time ensures that each individual frame receives more attention and care than is possible in a feature-length film.

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

Dacey has already addressed my 'overly ambitious' comment quite correctly. I wasn't saying that in terms of DAS having the desire to create the look of a moving painting for a full-length feature -- but instead in terms of it being possible to achieve, either on-time or on-budget.

Walt had ambition, indeed .. but his brother Roy was quick to step-in and put the brakes on that ambition, if it looked as though a particular project mightn't be cost-effective.

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

As for computers doing everything automagically (intentional mis-spelling ) .. yeah, no.

Creating an automatic algorithm to generate hair is one thing (and I'm sure even that is far from 'automatic' .. there's probably a team of artists dedicated soleley to making certain Rapunzel's hair behaves as intended).

But computers cannot paint a picture, or animate a character, or 'create' anything by themselves. Human input --whether from an artist or a programmer -- is still a very necessary part of the process (much to the chagrin of some producers I've worked with).

[EricJ]

United Airlines has done several 'painterly' animated commercials (both traditionally-hand-painted and computer-assisted) over the past two decades. This is their most amazing one, IMO:

Remember the days when United wanted us to think of their company when we heard "Rhapsody in Blue', and now we can still only think of those HIrschfeld characters from Fantasia 2000?

[Ben]

Dusty...

What Dacey and Droo said.

As for B&TB, I thought the DVD contained a pretty in-depth concept art gallery? If not then I'm sure the Art Of book will satisfy...?

[droosan]

The "Art of" book for Beauty and the Beast was published just last month .. only 19 years late!

[Ben]

Yep, that's the one! I still need to pick that up...maybe as a Crimbo gift!?

[American_dog_2008]

Action!

Let's see if five years waiting is good!

The archive of IMDB wrote Rapunzel wrote the movie would had first been released in 2008 or 2009.

[Dusterian]

The second image is actually better there. Something that looks good in a sketch isn't always going to look good in CGI if it's not tweaked a little.

I know it must be changed a bit, but I will not agree the second image is better. I still think she looks much more like the sketch (and prettier, because she is supposed to look pretty) in the third image.

But it's ALSO clearly centered on Flynn. Whether "Tangled" is a stupid title or a good one, I can see the reason for the change, especially since they seem to be going for a romantic comedy vibe, like it or not.

Also, who really wants to see Rapunzel spend an entire movie locked away in a tower? We know that she's been up there a long time, and that's what matters.

First, did you not see other people's comments revealing that this is still told mainly by Rapunzel's point of view through the whole thing? Second, she would not be spending the entire movie locked in the tower, I already revealed that she leaves the tower in the second half of the original story, and Disney is just making it happen earlier. And I said I'm okay with that, it still sounds true enough to Rapunzel. Did you not read my post carefully?

You know, you keep saying that about Mr. Keane, and I have yet to find one source confirming that he said that, much less "every person working on the film."

I didn't know that it was not common sense to figure that if people make a project and someone other than the ones making it (other than the directors and Keane) changes the title, that they wouldn't like that, but have to put up with it because they belong to a corporate studio not run by them. I didn't know it was common sense that if you make a project that someone else changes the title of, I should expect that of course you would be okay with it, and not think the opposite.

Disney's marketing infringed on their art, and changed it. It's a crime and everyone is letting it go.

droosan, thank you, the short is pretty impressive and very nice, but the United Airlines commercial seems to actually be live-action with a painting effect applied, and not that many frames per second.

Also, yes, Roy Disney kept Walt's ambitiousness in check, but that didn't stop him from making Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, Disneyland...

Ben, well I never bought Beauty and the Beast's first DVD because the film is actually not that big a deal for me, I think it's a masterpiece (as I do many Disney films) but just not among my most favoritiest of favorites. Also, the DVD had compression and bad, changed, brighter and lighter colors. This new release has (almost) fixed all those problems though (actual shadow again, yay!), so I will be getting this, but there will be less gallery images. So someday I hope to own all the gallery images because those are always among my most favorite bonus feature, and I'm really interested in the art for this one. How do you know the new Art of Book will have it, though?

[Ben]

Okay...to be honest, with much of what you've just said above, I can't really take you very seriously anymore and don't have the time to make a more measured reply. In short, enthusiasm is a great thing, but it can become misplaced.

And...I still don't get "true fans" who can't see the wood for the trees and yet don't pick up all the leaves. If that even makes any sense.

[Randall]

You know, you keep saying that about Mr. Keane, and I have yet to find one source confirming that he said that, much less "every person working on the film."

I didn't know that it was not common sense to figure that if people make a project and someone other than the ones making it (other than the directors and Keane) changes the title, that they wouldn't like that, but have to put up with it because they belong to a corporate studio not run by them. I didn't know it was common sense that if you make a project that someone else changes the title of, I should expect that of course you would be okay with it, and not think the opposite.

I'm sure that all the artists know that it's never "their" movie that they're working on, it's Disney's movie. Like it or not, artists are just hired guns in the corporate machine, and they know it. They may very well hate the new title, but I wouldn't presume to guess how they felt about the title change, unless they've gone on record.

[droosan]

the short is pretty impressive and very nice, but the United Airlines commercial seems to actually be live-action with a painting effect applied, and not that many frames per second.

For someone who claims to love and appreciate animation, you're pretty quick to dismiss something which represents an astounding amount of work. I can assure you there is far more artistry behind that spot than 'live action with a painting-effect applied'.

---------



So.

Tangled .. I'm looking forward to seeing that, in a couple of months.

[Dusterian]

Now I remember. I think. I think at the TAG blog they said all who worked on the film were still calling Rapunzel because that's the project they were working on and that's what it still was to them.

droosan, don't get me wrong, I think that commercial was amazing. But it wasn't pure CGI. Also, I did not particularly like the style of painting they used which may have put me off unfairly.

Isn't it weird how we were talking about painterly animation and shorts and this new Bolt animator is making a new short that's trying to do painterly CGI, with Mia?

Anyway, I bring you some images from Rapunzel. Oh, I mean Tangled, I really did forget. Well, same thing.

First is how her design changed, shown in two beautiful paintings. I think it is hard to deny that the original image (the first one, on the left) is the better design in almost every way:



But the art is so beautiful, isn't it? Next, here's what I believe is Glen Keane's actual hand-drawn animation of Rapunzel (which is closer to her original design as well):



If only the final CGI animation looked just like that, right?

Finally, I present a little peek at how this will indeed being a classic fairy tale following the original story very well, which I have hid in case it is a spoiler, but it is only a spoiler if you do not know the original story of Rapunzel, which you should! And it is also a spoiler if you don't want to know this follows the original story even to the climax.