Monday, July 05, 2010

Tangled Art

It's a contractual holiday, I've been catching up on my recreational sleeping, so here's some new Disney art (cribbed from other corners of the internets) of the oncoming CGI feature formerly known as Rapunzel.

I've had people tell me (as Floyd Norman has mentioned here in comments) that the Tangled preview hasn't gotten huge responses from theatre audiences.

Well, the trailer amused me (though I cringed at Rapunzel's line: "Best. Day. Ever!" It's beyond cliche and why the hell do we need it?)

I think the picture will perform well, despite the long development time and despite some of the brickbats that have been chucked at it. For my money, it combines the best of CG with the best of early nineties Diseny hand-drawn features. (My caveat: I haven't a clue how the story plays ... or even exactly what the story is.)

Insiders tell me the story is good; insiders tell me the story is "so-so." But I don't think insiders are necessarily the best judges. They're too damn close to the product to see the thing objectively, and they often change their opinions over time.


Anonymous said...

note: The lead male character was drawn by Jin Kim and the Rapunzel sketch is Glen Keane

Anonymous said...

bring on the was of the animation studios in 3..2..1..

Anonymous said...

(My caveat: I haven't a clue how the story plays ... or even exactly what the story is.)

You can thank marketing for that. There's a new trailer coming soon and it should help in that regard. But I can tell you this, its a classic fairy tale mixed with good humor good romance and some good action. The villain is a passive-aggressive sinister b*tch, which causes some pretty intense stuff that I wont give away.

And for the record, the screening of Toy Story 3 I went to got a great audience reaction for Tangled.

But you're right about the changing of opinions. After screenings people are jazzed and amazed at how good the movie is, but then 3 months later when we're neck deep in the dregs of production, everyone hates everything (and forget how special the movie is), so be careful who you talk to, and when you talk to them...

Anonymous said...

Prince Eric and Ariel rehashed AGAIN???!!!??!?!?!????
For the hundredth time????

Anonymous said...

Looks like Eric and Ariel to me!

Anonymous said...

Hundredth time?

Please name the other 98. Plz k thx.

Anonymous said...

These drawings DO look like the nineties Disney "house style". From what I saw of the preview, the movie is beautifully done but appears to be a CG version of said house style. Add the broadway tunes and there ya go, Disney playing it safe again attempting to recapture past success. Kinda pathetic.

Anonymous said...

They look better in 3D.

Anonymous said...

KINDA pathetic?
I'd say affirmative.

Oh wait....what wuz I thinkin'.
They NOT in it for the art.........(listen carefully now...)
they're in for for sheer money.

Anonymous said...

Pixar has a house style too. So does Dreamworks. Shit, so does Spielberg, Lucas, Burton, Christopher Nolan, Peter Jackson, and the list goes on and on.

And dont kid yourself. Everyone's in it for the money, even the most "pure" filmmakers, including Pixar.

But haters gotta hate, and Disney is the easiest target...

But I see through the hate and see jealousy or arrogance.

Anonymous said...

I do have to point out that, while many fans would love for Disney to break out and be more "in it for the art"... there are probably just as many fans that are VERY excited about the fact that we have another Disney Broadway Musical to look forward to.

Yes, they are in it for the money. But just because that's true doesn't mean it's a bad thing, and that "more of the same" can't POSSIBLY be good.

Steve Hulett said...


Every Hollywood studio back to the 1920s had a "house style."

It was based on the tastes of the heads of production, and the talents of the creative teams under contract.

Who would have thought?

Anonymous said...

THE most interesting thing about this film coming out and being for all intents and purposes, the 2nd new Disney Princess musical in 2 years is if it's a hit will it confirm to Disney's shareholders that 3D was able to do what 2D could not...?

Anonymous said...

Please stop the hypocrisy... Tiana was not a white blonde princess.
Now.. do you think teenagers are going to watch "the fresh and new" Pooh movie?
If Disney shareholders think these two movies are a good parameter for 2D...

Anonymous said...

The problem I have with the current Tangled trailer is that it plays more like the typical Dreamworks movie that even most Dreamworks movie trailers do! "Best. Day. Ever"?! yeah. poke out my eye with my animator's pencil now. please.

I sincerely hope it's just that ghastly Disney marketing engine at work again.

It's a period animated film. Fantasy. I wish it would stay in character. Like the old Disney films did. Stop trying to be hip. I wish Tangled would take a page from DW Dragon's book and not from DW Shrek.

Money? Of course everyone is it in for the money. But that doesn't mean you can't make a decent, artfully crafted, clever and engaging film along the way.

Style-wise. I wish Disney would try something different than transplanting their 2d character designs into 3d. Really, 5 heads tall in 3d too? At least Bolt had some interesting character designs going for it. The backgrounds/sets in Tangled though look gorgeous.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this should have been the film Disney made in 2d rather than Frog. The rough sketches above look much more appealing than their CG incarnations.

Anonymous said...

I wish Disney would try something different than transplanting their 2d character designs into 3d.

This is the FIRST time it has EVER happened from ANY studio in the WORLD. NO ONE has EVER successfully produced a CG film with the classic Disney look. EVER.

How is this not exciting for people???

Really, 5 heads tall in 3d too?

Really, 5 fingers too? Really, two eyes too? Really, two lips too? Really, two ears too? Oh, what, they're smiling? Oh, what, they're frowning? Really, they walk on LEGS? How unoriginal, Disney.

The creative designs are in the subtleties my friend.

I sincerely hope it's just that ghastly Disney marketing engine at work again.

Its been reiterated on dozens of websites that this trailer is in no way indicative of the tone of the final film. Why bring it up again? I can provide you links to actual Disney animators making this comment if you'd like.

robster16 said...

Someone says that they hoped that this movie would stay in character "like the old Disney classics would". But they seem to forget that those movies where made in the 40's, 50's and 60's. They appear classic, regal and formal because that was the common tone among a lot of people around that time.

These days classic stories are simply told in a more contemporary way and it would be horrible if Disney would try to pretend that we were all living in the 50s and 60s. Just look at "The Little Mermaid". A classic story, but told in a slightly contemporary way.

I agree that the trailer should have been more in line with the actual tone of voice of the actual movie, but it's only logical that today's animated classics, while remaining true to the period they are set in, have plenty of contemporary links for an audience to connect to.

Site Meter