JCreasy said:This could be really interesting, helping distinguish Walt Disney Animation Studio CG from Pixar CG. I would LOVE to have the two different flavors to look forward to from the Mouse House. No more waiting for WDAS to catch up tech wise. This looks like the project that might do it..
harSon said:They could use 3D to add further depth
This film has been in production for awhile. The tale of Rapunzel was published in 1812, so, it isn't just another "Princess flick".entrement said:Another "Princess" flick?
If this is any indication, then the film will look pretty awesome.TacticalFox88 said:Depending on this looks in motion and in 3D I may have to check this out. It's already got an interesting artstyle going for it. I hope that potential isn't wasted.
Disney's Rapunzel, starring Johnny Yong Bosch.alr1ghtstart said:I really wish these animated movies would use actual voice actors instead of getting some "regular" actor to do them.
Teh Hamburglar said:does not look Disney
Aegus said:
Gilgamesh said:Disney's Rapunzel, starring Johnny Yong Bosch.
Couldn't you also make that argument about past Disney characters in their respective eras (i.e. Cinderella/Alice in Wonderland/Sleeping Beauty, or Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin)? The character designs, especially for the females, are all pretty similar within the same timeframe.Igo said:I'm impressed by the animation but the characters look so bland. Hell, Aren't they just the Enchanted animated characters with different hair color.
tino said:I like it alot. Its CG with old school Disney aesthetic. I like it better than Pixar's human designs actually.
I think I will pass.J2 Cool said:Not to burst the bubble, but most of the groundbreaking stuff they were attempting towards the start, like making it feel like a painting or getting it to feel more hand drawn was abandoned. It's a very traditional CG feature right now, and isn't exactly looking great from what people around the picture are saying. It's been going through revisions like crazy, and Glen Keane even took an absence from the film at one point - when he stepped down as director.
That said, Disney isn't happy about how Princess and The Frog is performing I can't imagine, so they'll probably be interested in how this performs in determining their future. It's a good time for them to get something out there garnering interest for this movie.
XiaNaphryz said:Couldn't you also make that argument about past Disney characters in their respective eras (i.e. Cinderella/Alice in Wonderland/Sleeping Beauty, or Little Mermaid/Beauty and the Beast/Aladdin)? The character designs, especially for the females, are all pretty similar within the same timeframe.
agrajag said:looks nothing like this, btw
![]()
whats the green one at the bottom? I don't recognize her.Igo said:Perhaps but that doesn't change how boring she looks. Maybe thats just my bias against blondes though.
![]()
When it comes to princes you're most certainly right.
Dead said:whats the green one at the bottom? I don't recognize her.
I think this goes with the comment that they tossed out allot of the old/ early concepts because that promo looks like normal 3D. :/jett said:![]()
![]()
I dunno I think it looks relatively clsoe to what they had shown previously. It was never meant to literally look like a painting. Art direction has changed some, yes. I just hope the animation is still as good as that one test clip.
Black-Wind said:I think this goes with the comment that they tossed out allot of the old/ early concepts because that promo looks like normal 3D. :/
Black-Wind said:I think this goes with the comment that they tossed out allot of the old/ early concepts because that promo looks like normal 3D. :/
agrajag said:The test clip doesn't look any less like normal CG to me.
I never said that pic looked good, I was simply talking about the early concept art pic. 0_ojett said:It was never going to look like a painting. The second pic you quoted is several years old and looks just like "normal 3D". Some people have totally misread Keane's comments.
I was been facetious. I just hope that this doesn't mean the death of 2D animation at Disney. The Princess and the Frog box office take has been solid, but not meeting their expectations.U K Narayan said:This film has been in production for awhile. The tale of Rapunzel was published in 1812, so, it isn't just another "Princess flick".
If this is any indication, then the film will look pretty awesome.
alr1ghtstart said:I really wish these animated movies would use actual voice actors instead of getting some "regular" actor to do them.
Igo said:\
When it comes to princes you're most certainly right.
![]()
What what ? Bolt is so awesome. One of the best Disney feature animations because of the heavy Pixar influence.TheWiicast said:As long as it's not like the American Dog fiasco.
They Went from THIS:
![]()
to This:
![]()
ugh.
NetMapel said:What what ? Bolt is so awesome. One of the best Disney feature animations because of the heavy Pixar influence.
It had kick ass animation but some people complain that the story was boring and too much like Buzzlight-year's story.NetMapel said:What what ? Bolt is so awesome. One of the best Disney feature animations because of the heavy Pixar influence.
TheWiicast said:As long as it's not like the American Dog fiasco.
They Went from THIS:
![]()
to This:
![]()
ugh.
maybe its for people who don't watch commercials or trailersAniHawk said:I liked Mittens in Bolt. That was about it though. I thought Jon Travolta did a fucking horrible job.
The part at the beginning where it's this 10 minute long action sequence? Why? Why is that there? We already know from the trailers, commercials, and other promos that it's not real. There's no surprise when it finally pulls away to reveal it's just a set. That's a good chunk of the film wasted right there.
Rest of the film was pretty boring. It was usually a clash between Travolta's awful job and Essman's great job.
I actually think the movie would have been better if it was about that part in the beginning. Like its just a movie about some lil girl and her kick ass super dog!Stabby McSter said:maybe its for people who don't watch commercials or trailers
y'know, like the parents who take their kids not really knowing anything about the movie besides that it's disney
Are you serious? That was one of the most important scenes in the movie. it introduced all the barriers that had been constructed around Bolt and showed why he acted the way he did for most of the movie.AniHawk said:I liked Mittens in Bolt. That was about it though. I thought Jon Travolta did a fucking horrible job.
The part at the beginning where it's this 10 minute long action sequence? Why? Why is that there? We already know from the trailers, commercials, and other promos that it's not real. There's no surprise when it finally pulls away to reveal it's just a set. That's a good chunk of the film wasted right there.
Rest of the film was pretty boring. It was usually a clash between Travolta's awful job and Essman's great job.