beelzebozo said:so, on the topic of animation and getting that "hand-drawn look," can someone school me on why the animation style used in the c.g.i. segments of FUTURAMA aren't utilized more? how much of that was hand-drawn? would they have to have a large base of hand-drawn imagery that could then be manipulated in a computer?
i guess i'm trying to figure out why, presuming they can use computers to animate things that really look hand-drawn, they'd go with a pixar style but keep trying to get that hand-drawn "feel." why not just do something that is closer aesthetically to hand-drawn? what's the point?
Lord Error said:I still have high hopes for this movie. If it actually looks like that promo picture, I think they have some of that 2D look there, more specifically, the look of those detailed, gradient shaded promo posters Disney makes for their movies - like this:
![]()
I always hoped someone would make a 2D animation that would look like that. It would take tons of time per frame to draw, but I thought maybe for a short movie it would be possible, or using some 2D software that would know how to help animate details and gradients from one keyframe to another.
Also, I know it's a very old clip, but I'm not as happy with how that clip from Rapunzel looks like. Her face and eyes look more like a doll, toy, than a stylized live person.
jett said:I don't thnk it looks good at all, it's painfully obvious it's CG.
This is a somewhat old picture, but it totally has that look going on:
![]()
That promo pic seems to indicate that the movie doens't look like this anymore though...
bengraven said:It...kind of...looks like that.
jett said:I dunno, the overbearing bloom-ish lighting seems toned down and her face and hair look very different.
That's pretty amazing and exactly like what I was thinking of. I agree that the promo picture doesn't quite look like that, but it's an interior scene, so the lighting and bloom would be different there. They also definitely changed her face to be somewhat more cg-typical, but maybe they just realized they wanted her to look older for a movie that's obviously going to have some romance going on. Or maybe that picture was a "target render" of sorts that was enhanced to add some of the 2D look manuallyjett said:I don't thnk it looks good at all, it's painfully obvious it's CG.
This is a somewhat old picture, but it totally has that look going on:
![]()
That promo pic seems to indicate that the movie doens't look like this anymore though...
This doesn't sound good.cms382 said:It's been renamed again to "Tangled"
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3369110&id=23245476854
Tangled. Its a really fresh, smart take on the Rapunzel story.
ErnieMcCracken said:Wonder what brought about the name change (not liking it btw)?
There's been all sorts of talk that The Princess and the Frog's title was partially to blame for its performance. Basically, the word "princess" wasn't doing them any favors and ever since that started floating around, a Rapunzel retitling was completely expected. Disney's afraid that feminine/girly titles are going to keep some people away.ErnieMcCracken said:Wonder what brought about the name change (not liking it btw)?
Dan said:Tangled is generic, and inevitably just a lame punchline at the end of all the marketing videos.
harSon said:I think Nappy would be a better title
jett said:I don't thnk it looks good at all, it's painfully obvious it's CG.
This is a somewhat old picture, but it totally has that look going on:
![]()
That promo pic seems to indicate that the movie doens't look like this anymore though...
I'm sorry but you are acting like an idiot. Movies change names all the time. So what? Did you not watch Princess and the Frog either? Ratoutille? Up? Bolt?Siebzehn50 said:Now this looks awesome. The promo pic on the first page looks pretty meh. Now with the new named "Tangled" I officially don't care about this anymore.