Tangled

Hnilmik · June 10, 2010 06:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jy4LW80MiE

rtil · June 10, 2010 06:36 PM

it looks pretty, real pretty. not quite like how they described it a long time ago where every frame would look 'like a painting'. but wow, what a horrible trailer. they better put something more interesting together. the music gave it this 'demo reel' feeling.

creamcorn · June 10, 2010 06:38 PM

really funny take on the classic tale of rapunzel! you just love to hate that smug prince! and the princess looks adorable...

but the funny movements and the wacky stuff that was going on got me sold right from the start, cant wait to see what crazy adventures will happen... and of course... will he ever get the princess?

Casey Pixmintro · June 10, 2010 06:50 PM

Watched it on Cartoon Brew and almost threw up in my mouth at how retarded that trailer was. Everything that could have been wrong was wrong. At least the 3D is alright but I dont give a shit about the 3D.

Ashington · June 10, 2010 06:51 PM

I'm not sold on it but i keep going back to that establishing shot of the tower cause damn does it look nice!

CVG · June 10, 2010 07:23 PM

I love the smooth and gorgeous animation (like that horse's lips flapping haha) and it has that cartoon feel that I adore. But the problem with this trailer is that it doesn't give me anything "plot wise" and any good possible scenes are drowned out by some Disney channel country singer going "TROUBLE NOW AHHHH TROUBLE NOW!!" followed by loud whoosh sounds for the marker signs...what kind of trailer was that??

Fuzz · June 10, 2010 07:41 PM

The trailer sucked, but I think the movie will be good. Unless of course they use that same song for all the background music at that same level...

lenko · June 10, 2010 09:20 PM

only good parts = backgrounds and chameleon

spite · June 10, 2010 10:28 PM

bah

jjjjjjjjjj · June 10, 2010 10:52 PM

not really diggin it

Daveb0t · June 12, 2010 03:23 AM

he lotl like

jjjjjjjjjj · June 12, 2010 08:31 AM

it reminds me of the first time i saw the shrek trailer

Hnilmik · August 4, 2010 12:49 AM

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v186/hol...angled/?start=0

Stuff like this makes me wonder why they chose CG?

Fuzz · August 4, 2010 01:38 AM

Quote from: Hnilmikhttp://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v186/hol...angled/?start=0

Stuff like this makes me wonder why they chose CG?

That's a really good question... it's probably just cheaper to animate this way.

MarcK · August 4, 2010 04:40 AM

she was grounded...

like.... FOREVER!

billy · August 5, 2010 04:10 PM

rapunzel was hott in the trailer

rtil · August 5, 2010 04:20 PM

Quote from: Fuzz
Quote from: Hnilmikhttp://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v186/hol...angled/?start=0

Stuff like this makes me wonder why they chose CG?

That's a really good question... it's probably just cheaper to animate this way.

it used to be. it's not anymore

rtil · August 5, 2010 04:26 PM

another factor is that disney film canon is chosen way ahead of time. they have a ton of 3D animated films slated for production from the eisner years.

Fuzz · August 5, 2010 06:52 PM

You would think they could just start over... wipe the slate clean. What makes 3D movies more expensive nowadays?

rtil · August 5, 2010 08:13 PM

on top of your typical concept, animation and coloring departments, you have effects, rendering, programmers, and the cost of the technology involved. you need more people, resources and energy to produce a 3d animated film.

a hypothetical and likely example lies in tangled. there's probably an entire vfx team dedicated to the rapunzel's hair, and a lot of research and development money went into how it was going to be rendered, animated and rigged. in a 2d film, there would probably only be 3-4 master animators on rapunzel, simply drawing her hair.