Disney`s CGI RAPUNZEL

[RichSuchy]

Alright now I know I need to send in another reel there!

:)

Originally posted by RobertoOrtiz
Here is the link to the story:

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=38469

-R

[jeremybirn]

Now they need good hair technology. ;)

-jeremy

[RichSuchy]

Originally posted by jeremybirn
Now they need good hair technology. ;)

-jeremy

Heh!

seriously though

I have enough familiarity with Joe Alters Shave and a haircut to do it if they would be into that. but they have propriatary hair system (One which they keep expanding to do other things like scales on a dragon that act like scales.

[Celshader]

Originally posted by RobertoOrtiz
Here is the link to the story:

http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=38469

-R

I know this film will now be made with CG, but I have a history question: wasn't Rapunzel originally meant to be drawn entirely with charcoal?

*curious*

[cutepixie]

seeing it done in traditional animation ...and charcohal (yes i know sp :shrug: ) would have been really cooll but...cgi story of rapunzel...hey might as well check it out :)

[headengine]

Yeah I heard some stories that this is Glen Keane's baby... and he wanted it to be done pretty rough, no cleanup, in charcoal... and Disney FA brass now want to do it in CG; no clue whether or not they want to render it to *look* like charcoal though?!

Seems a little crazy if they do, defeats the purpose of keeping it raw IMHO.

Who knows? :shrug:

[LucentDreams]

somewhere on animation nation there is an article on Glen getting frustrated with Disney regarding the rapunzel production and asking for full control over design and animation for Snow Queen and leave from ruapunzel or something to that effect. was a really old comment osted back when there was a lot of discussion regarding Valiant and disney's role with that.

I'm relaly diappointed to here this is going to be done CG. I love CG films, Monsters Inc was brilliant, but why do things have to be done CG now? I wish they'd continue with classical productions and continue down the road of Emperor's new groove and Lilo and stitch where the style was very important to the film. As soon as you go for more realistic looking cg then you lose a certain artistic influence to it, Pixar does a great job of maintaining it, but ANTZ and Dinosaur, even shrek are good examples of realism weakening the style of a film.

[asparapani]

Man the 2d animators with eons of experience must REALY be pissed off!:D

[asparapani]

I agree with Kaiskai in the sense that 2d has it's charm. However don't forget who they hired @ Disney. His predecessors all thought that way and didn't turn a coin for the corporation. Disney has become more than just making movies, remember that. 2d is a VERY expensive medium and quite frankly the public is getting used to the 3d look.

Everywhere they see 3d elements, not just in movies, magazines, games, EVERYWHERE.

[Per-Anders]

actually not so true. the cg films produced in house have not been the greatest box office sucesses. dinosaur, treasure planet etc. whereas compared to the actual cost of making Lilo & Stitch etc have been far greater successes. It seems that so far it's only external companies releasing under Disneys wing (Pixar) that have brought success for Disney when working with cg animated films.

i hope that this turns out well for them, but i would have liked to have seen more traditional animation stuff that isn't just "the return of the child of the repeat".

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.