Disney’s <em>Tangled</em> teaser Disney’s <em>Tangled</em> teaser
DisneyFeature Film

Disney’s Tangled teaser

  • Joe

    I have nothing really to say about the trailer, but what is Disney naming everything with just “Disney Tangled” or “Disney California Adventure”? Are they afraid of owning their own properties? It used to be Disney’s California Adventure…. I’m curious if anyone knows the story behind this

  • I find it odd that they’d focus so heavily on the guy when Rapunzel is the draw of the movie. She barely has a single line in a 2 minute trailer.

    Not much else to say other than the little animal sidekick on the shoulder, which was so played to death that it’s still stale even though it hasn’t been used much in recent years.

    At least after the better part of a decade worth of speculation we finally have some concrete to go on.

  • Chris

    I don’t understand what was so wrong with calling it “Rapunzel Unbraided”.

  • Mesterius

    I wonder just how far the tone of this movie has been removed from Glen Keane’s beautiful classic fairy tale vision…

  • Solaris

    I can tell the movie is gonna be awesome. Look past the marketing here people!

  • Josh

    Not as bad as I thought it would be. As sacrilegious as it may sound I think the Rapunzel’s hair will be better CG then hand drawn. With the hair being so long and VERY useful seeing each individual strand will sell it better then just a clump of hair.

  • Those are some of the most appealing cg humans ever – There’s a warmth and softness, and nice squash and stretch in the animation.

    Looking forward to seeing what Mark Kennedy and crew did with the story too.

  • nice! marketing seems to be really down-playing the “princess” angle, but the movie itself seems really cool. This is a pretty good set-up for the story, seems to give it a lot more to work with than the original story might have. and The animation, as expected, is stellar. –also I love the design of that little chameleon she has with her.

  • MB

    Nice hair powers, I wonder if the rest of the Inhumans will show up, Disney did merge with marvel right?

  • Kyle

    horrible marketing aside, it actually does looks pretty good.

  • for some reason the human designs …especially the thief character remind me more of Dreamwork’s 2-d films Road to El Dorado and Sinbad then a Disney film. Ironically the worst looking character (to me) is the horse..it so..boring. The style is so dust dry. There’s so many ways to draw a horse.. they don’t exaggerate anything.

    That said it does look pretty. I like the scenery and the lighting manages to edge away from video game fare. I’m very willing to give it a shot but a little sad they decided to make the marketing so….edgy. When the screen flashed “shes been grounded like…forever” I gagged a bit.

  • Joffe

    thank god they changed the name from Rapunzel! Now all the boys will watch it a dozen times each for sure! If anyone can market a princess movie to boys, it’s Disney! I don’t know how much they pay their PR people but its not enough! Considering the prince design is the exact same design they use in every movie they should have some extra money to give the guy who came up with the name “Tangled” a raise! I was worried there wouldn’t be an animal sidekick too, but luckily I forgot how prevalent an archetype the Princess’ chameleon is in fairy tale literature! I am almost painfully sarcastic!

    No, but seriously Disney, you bought Marvel so you wouldn’t HAVE to keep trying to cram your “girly” movies down the over saturated boys market anymore. Throw the girls a freaking bone already and at least draw them a prince that isn’t a punchface for once.

  • Kristjan

    The pervert in me still disagree with renaming the film Tangled. But on this particular trailer I have no opinion if this is any good film.

  • Hey! We’re Disney! We are hip and cool! We use the rock music the kids seem to like in our trailers!
    Could someone explain why Prince Eric is fighting with a Barbie doll that posesses the powers of Medusa from the Inhumans?

  • joecab

    Wow, this is what it would be like if you were to take an actual Disney cartoon and make it 3D.

    I mean that positively. Really, it looks good. Of course I’m completely spoiled and only have eyes for Pixar but I’ll go see this even though I won’t see a Dreamworks pic.

  • MattSullivan


  • Shit. Try this link instead.
    That is what I get for making a snarky joke that needs a footnote.

  • Same design again…

    purple and pink colors….

    modern pop music….

    same characters….


  • Larry

    The most interesting thing about this trailer, to me, is the TONE. It plays almost like a Dreamworks movie — there’s an ironic detachment, almost making fun of the fairy tale — instead of how Disney movies of the past embraced the magic of their fairy tales. I wonder if it’s just a sign of the times (today’s youth being so predisposed to irony and postmodernism), or if its Disney trying to catch some of the box office money that Dreamworks has taken from them in recent years…

    Who knows. But interesting.

  • Glenn

    What happened to the painterly or 2d look? This looks like everything else that has been coming out….

  • Ben K.

    Really amazing job with the character animation!

  • Lucas

    Seems a little too soon to be putting out Shrek 5.

    Pop song background, anachronistic dialogue, far too many forced smirks, and a girl-power princess with butt-kicking kung-fu hair skills for no legitimately good reason. With a few gorgeous images in a few places (the tower itself, or the hair after it drops on the male lead), it’s even sadder seeing them put in service to such lowest-common-denomenator gags.

  • Chris

    They retooled the story to focus more on the Male character to avoid losing the boy audience with another princess movie.

    Looks better than I thought it would however with the horrible pop song playing I couldn’t help but have Shrek flashbacks. I’m sure there will be no similarities just wish they would ditch that tweenie music crap.

    I trust the story guys at Disney I just hope they have a director that pull it off. Anyone know whats next? King of the Elves (which I’m really worried about) or Joe Jump?

  • Visually appealing, really nice animation/timing – hope the story is excellent. Seems like a bit of a departure for Disney though. They’re spreading out to cover all the marketing bases now…

  • This breaks my hardcore Disney fan heart.
    I was hoping for a serious take on a fairytale and all we get is stupid jokes and a kung fu barbie. WHY???

    Don’t they understand that we are starving for something different from what we are used to these days? I want to be transported in a story like I felt with Lion King or Mermaid. No need to try to recreate the same stories, ( like they did with princess and the frog).
    I would expect that, with all the ridiculously talented artists they have at Disney now, that they could at least manage to make me a bit excited about excited about what they are spending their lives making.

    I am sad…

    That’s all.

    What if it flops? Will Disney stop doing animation?

  • Visually impressive, however, the trailer makes the film look “mean spirited”.

  • victoria

    I could hardly focus on the actual footage, I just could’nt get pass the fact they used a Pink song in the trailer, so tacky!!

  • Anyone else remember that this was supposed to have a painterly look, like classic oil paintings? Anyone? Because I’m not seeing it here at all.

    Although strange, when the guy and horse fell on that branch, it looked almost like the horse was covered in felt.

  • nicholas

    Of course the story will be great: each “handsome” character will be equipped with funny sidekick (goofy horse, temperamental frog), the male character will be comically afraid of the female, characters will nervously blabber and make fake nervous smiles and raise one eyebrow on 1000 occasions, will be punished for mischief, lying and flirting, and the princess will keep exchanging sarcastic accusatory remarks with the prince until he will save her and she will give in to his charmes, and the animal sidekicks will be at the wedding, and some funny animal character will fall in love and have babies with some unlikely but also funny character. OMG, I can’t wait!!!!

  • tedzey

    I think this trailer was intended for the audience that watches the disney channel. I mean this was a sneak preview they showed. All together I think its too early to judge the movie as a whole, though i have to say the fight scene hair gag was well executed

  • Flyboy

    this film looks awesome. and why are people worried this film shows too much of the guy? They want to make sure all audiences want to see it because if only girls see it and it doesnt make money and then disney closes down its anim dept and 100’s of people are out of work. How many guys here can say they wanted to see Little mermaid when it came out?

  • Re: The Inhumans. Say, if they replaced the annoying thief guy with Black Bolt, maybe he’d shut up for five seconds. That’d be a welcome relief, I’m sure.

  • Again, not an artist, just a screenwriters perspective, here. But, it looks beautiful to me…and I can see where the story could have a lot of potential. I like Larry’s remarks relating to tone, etc. I’m not sure that Disney shouldn’t be able to release a number of different types of films…some classic Disney fairy tales, others, like Tangled, more ironic in tone.

  • Scott Monroe


    …amazingly cookie cutter looking.

    Once again we have the daring dashing exciting male hero being hen-pecked and harangued by the female lead. I just don’t see the appeal of this. The boys in the audience don’t want to see the male hero having his fun ruined, and do the girls in the audience really want to the relate to the female fun ruiner? I don’t get it.

    Can’t they just, you know, go have an adventure together without all the eye rolling and animosity? Can’t they BOTH be fun? Why does it always have to be one at the expense of the other. Do we really have to start drilling the whole battle of the sexes bullcrap into kids heads at such a young age?

    I mean seriously…they have the girl *hit the guy over the head with a frying pan*, and when she’s not doing that she’s being silly and frivolous. How old fashioned can you be? This isn’t grrlpower…it’s a 50s sitcom depiction of women.

    Oh, and they’re gonna run out of animals for cute sidekicks soon.

  • The characters look pretty cute, actually.

    But yeah…I agree with Scott here. Always the same thing..women beating the stuffing out of arrogant guys, showin’ ’em who’s boss…this time by the ancient method via frying pan connecting with head.

    Makes me feel warm and fuzy and empowered all over!

  • theoutsider1983

    I’m looking forward to the movie. I think the trailer is just to get people to go see it. It kind of reminds of the trailer for Walle. They use the song At Last and it had a llight comical feel. But as we know, there was more to it than that. In a way, the trailer does make it come of as something out of Dreamworks. But I think the movies storyline will seperate it from a Dreamworks film. But I am a little dissapointed in the look. The Swing is my favorite painting ever and I was expecting to be blown away by the trailer as for as the aesthetic.

  • cristinel bostan

    Looks like Glen Keane animate it all.

  • Anthony D.

    The trailer was good. But I agree, change the title to Rapunzel: Unbraided.

  • SAY!!!!
    Doesn’t Disney OWN the Inhumans?
    They DO!!! They bought Marvel!!!
    Walt Disney’s The Inhumans!!!! It’s perfect!!! Can you picture Lockjaw drawn like the bulldog from “Lady and the Tramp”? That would make an INCREDIBLE plushy!!!
    Eh..it’ll never happen.
    Black Bolt can’t sing.

  • I dunno. I think this movie looks great. Character designs are appealing, lots of action. What’s not to love?

    Oh come on, you Poopy-heads. Lighten up. It’s a kids cartoon for the whole family. Well, except for all you animation students.

    …gloom…doom…despair. I can hear it now: “Disney hasn’t made a good movie since Walt bought the back forty…”

  • Casper the friendly executive.

    Same. Film. Again.

  • larry

    Just so you guys know, this is mostly test/teaser animation, NOT footage from the movie. This was intended to get people excited, thats all. The tone of the film does not match this trailer. Thank marketing for that.

  • Beautiful rendering, lighting, and color. Story and tone is worrying.

  • John F.

    The role of a trailer is to make the viewer want to see the movie. This made me want to see the movie. Success.

  • Lucy

    I liked it. It looks gorgeous, and they don’t look like walking, CGI zombie-people for once. The only thing that really got me was the loud pop music… I mean, really, if that hadn’t been in there, it probably would’ve played just as well, if not a little better. And I’m not sure who the male lead voice actor is, but I’m not sure I’m completely sold on his delivery yet, either. Other than that, this actually looks like quite a bit of fun :)

  • It feels really Dreamworks-like. It’s not going to help the folks that get Dreamworks, Disney, and Pixar mixed up, that’s for sure.

  • I agree with Steve Monroe’s comment’s, and if the male characters aren’t arrogant as Cynthia stated, they usually come off as very wimpy. I believe it sends the wrong message out to children.

  • I actually thought the horse was hilarious (at 1:30). Pure Disney equine design in 3D.


    Looks great technically but as a former boy I know I would not be psyched to see this at all. Who the hell is trying to sell princess movies to boys? And they really couldn’t have come up with a more generic douchebag looking main character.

    Hats off to the animators as usual, but I don’t think I could sit through more than 15 minutes of this.

  • JMatte

    I never trust trailer, as marketing is usually in charge of trying to sell the film, with little effort to try and reflect the true tone of the story.

    Glad to see this suspicion has been confirmed by larry.

    Technically beautiful. I have not seen early visual tests with the more painterly look, as other people implied. Bit of a shame.
    Looking forward to seeing it.

  • Grayson Ponti

    Not as excited for it as I was for the Princess and the Frog but the trailer still impresses me and I have my hopes.

  • @larry I’m guessing you have insider wisdom, but this is a very sad thing to hear. Not only are the artists who worked on the film being downtrodden, but the public is being deceived. It shall be interesting to hear what Lasseter has to say in answer for this film.

    They seem to have a film they were desperate to sell after being in development hell, and have no idea what is it or how to sell it.

  • Hal

    I do think a cat would be a more logical sidekick – that’s a whole lot of good hairball gags going to waste when you’ve got a princess like Rapunzel. At least they created a protagonist I WANT to see get beaten repeatedly.

    But by jolly, SOMEONE on the team was watching the Doc Ock hospital scene in SPIDERMAN 2 – that’s like shot for shot towards the end there. If not for the pop music, that whole sequence could play like some sort of Japanese hair-fetish bondage torture horror.

    Jesus though… the thought of Disney doing a CG “LOCKJAW AND THE PET AVENGERS” is just heartbreaking… because it would be SO GODDAMN PERFECT.

  • Sherrie

    Felt really underwhelmed at the trailer. It feels like its trying to hard to be edgy and hip, but at the same time it seems really generic. I have the feeling this has more to do with the music and the scenes they chose though. I’ll still give it a chance.

  • Scott Ecker

    This is some of the best CG I have ever seen! Lifelike without mocap? Bravo. Such a huge departure from Disney’s previous attempts with all CGI. Visually this looks incredible, the thief’s capture was amazing.

    But then there is the modern song, unclever desperate jokes and apparent lack of character and story. I will not condemn a movie do to its trailer. Especially Disney who cannot market a movie properly (i.e. Ratatouille, Bolt and especially Princess and the Frog). Still this has me very worried.

    I also wonder how much is similar to the original Glen Keane version, which Lasseter had called the first two-thirds some of the greatest animation ever filmed but the final third lacking. Hopefully the rumored greatness of Keane’s Rapunzel isn’t lost.

  • Geneva

    I initially was going to pass on commenting, but this remark by Scott Monroe caught my eye:

    “Once again we have the daring dashing exciting male hero being hen-pecked and harangued by the female lead. I just don’t see the appeal of this. The boys in the audience don’t want to see the male hero having his fun ruined, and do the girls in the audience really want to the relate to the female fun ruiner? I don’t get it.”

    Dude, you couldn’t be any more right.

  • The pop song is totally terrible, but other than that it’s look kind of good, pretty fluid animation. I still wish it would be 2D, but hey, I think it’s just the times.

  • Yeah yeah yeah yeah. But this is a MATURE and ADULT take on Rapunzel, so she does reveal her tryst to the witch by asking why her clothes are getting so tight, right? Right? Come on, please?!

  • Rodrigo

    Beautiful animation.

  • matt pidgeon

    OK the music is appalling but if you ignore it the trailer is really quite good. I personally like the horse – the cartoony take as it falls shows just how far things have moved in the past few years rigging wise.
    It’s hard not to hate the way this film has been tailored for teenage boys but that aside I am sure there will be scenes in there that will inspire and delight for years to come. I hope that music doesn’t make it into the movie though!!

  • gatebuilder

    If the intention was to make a CG version of a mid 90’s 2D feature, then congratulations Disney, it looks like you have succeeded!!

  • nicholas

    I love the sentiment “relax, this is just a kids movie”. Since when kids deserve some imaginative and inspiring, something with soul and originality? Lets keep them on sugar diet and cartoons following the same formula over and over. They don’t know bad from good, so why bother? The will swallow any junk, as long as it’s sweet, smooth or colorful.

  • Hopefully the next trailer will be better. This one was really a yawner.

  • Charles

    These movies are starting to become caricatures of themselves.

  • steve

    Larry , having seen the film in it’s current form, i can tell you this is indeed footage from the actual film, for whatever that’s worth. these scenes were specifically rushed for the trailer.

  • I think this has alot of potiential, the Forest environments look beautiful, I just wish they didn’t use current pop music. I think that’s what will take away from it if they do.

  • red pill junkie


    I’ve got dandruff inside my eyes! >_<

  • Shawn Jackson

    Watching it the first time, the Disney purist in me was full of judgement and “This is not what it has been like beforeeeee!”

    But give it a few more viewings, and try not to be snarky. There’s some interesting stuff going on here. I really love the animation style.

  • Nick

    Really nice designs overall, just wish the facial expressions weren’t those same annoying ones every cartoon character has had to do for the past 20+ years.

    Just wondering, is the part where she steps her foot into the light meant to be an allusion to Glen Keane’s introduction of the Beast in Beauty and the Beast?

  • Good character animation and timing… But I dunno. After 90 years, this is where they’ve come?

  • Andy

    I think this is some of the best CG animation I’ve seen so far. It’s beautifully done.

  • I like the look of that. It’s a softer look than what we’ve seen before.

    If the story doesn’t concentrate on yet another princess that will be fine with me too. It still wont’ get the 12 year old boys into the theater.

    I’m looking forward to it.

    But the stock giggle gesture she does at 1:46 made me think “Bishop”.

  • purin

    I think the visuals are great!

    As for the story and the way the trailer presents it? Well, I’m not pessimistic, but I’m not excited, either. See, a while back I read a comic book called Rapunzel’s Revenge, and, as far as I’m concerned, if you’re going to have Rapunzel equipped with hair as her superpower and wandering around the countryside with an outlaw, you might as well be making an animated adaptation of Rapunzel’s Revenge. At least Rapunzel’s Revenge remembered who the main character was.

  • AB

    The animation looks pristine. It’s amazing!

    I agree the trailer could be better, but the animation is such that I want to see it. You never know; the film could actually be good.

    I’d like to see more footage…

  • Scarabim

    I liked the hair falling on the snarky guy and his horse laughing about it.

    Otherwise it looks very generic.

  • larry


    I know. Thats why I said “mostly.” Some of it is, some of it isnt.

    How about this, all of the stuff showcasing Rapunzel’s “kung fu octopus hair” skills are not in the film. Fair enough?

  • Roberto Severino

    For some reason, I’m not really liking this. I mean why do they think it’s cool to have the princess act “tough” and make all these sort of expressions that are practically everywhere now. That in itself is becoming a cliche. The animation and even the color styling is pretty decent though, but the character designs look pretty uninspired and devoid of fun.

  • …no pop music. Trailers such as these are ruined by crappy pop songs, which give the impression that this movie is only for teenage girls.

    That long shot of the tower looks fantastic. I’m sure this film will be a good’un, I just hope that it isn’t over-modernised with cliché val-speak, ipod references and pop songs.

  • Brendan Spillane

    I’ll say this: the human characters look a lot more appealing than the ugly mannequins in those “Shrek” movies! Disney has it all OVER DreamWorks in that category!

  • NC

    First: If they wanted to make it more appealing to boys then here’s an idea. How about telling the story of Rapunzel after the prince, or thief, or whatever you want is blinded by the witch and has to travel across distant lands to find her. THAT would be cool, THAT would get boys to see the movie.

    Second: What happened to the beautiful pre-production designs?

    Finally: Apparently Disney and Dreamworks have had their brains switched in some sort of weird 90’s kid’s sitcom fashion. The studio making stupid jokes is now the one making good stories (Dragons) and the one that used make good stories is making stupid jokes.

  • diego

    What happened to the original idea and animation tests?! why after all their IDEAS they got a 5th SHREK! and why did they choose that AWFUL “Pink” music. Those damn executives! HOW I HATE THEM!

  • Hum… after seeing this I think I’ll buy a new CRT TV and re-watch Darkwing Duck cartoons.

  • “Just so you guys know, this is mostly test/teaser animation, NOT footage from the movie. This was intended to get people excited, thats all.”

    Intended to get people EXCITED? Wow! This is really a surprise! I´m not excited! The trailer makes the film looks bland and most of the same stuff. But I hope you are right. I would like to see Glen Keane´s work.

  • Jorge Garrido

    I just thought of an idea for an Onion article. “Disney adds fifth expression”

  • This has promise. To those who find the film’s irreverent attitude towards its source material too similar to the Dreamworks style, let me remind you that Disney long ago conquered the fractured fairy tale feature with “Aladdin,” “Hercules” and “Emperor’s New Groove.”

    While I regret that we may never see Glen Keane’s vision for the film (he’s still my idol), I’m looking forward to this film. High-time Disney Feature Animation stepped out of Pixar’s shadow. (And yes, I love Pixar too).

  • It looks good and is nicely animated, but it feels like the same type of movie but with different characters.

    I’m dissappointed, because I was hoping to see finally something new and refreshing in the CG-field, and storywise something more deeper and serious(actually the original story of Rapunzel is very dark), but all I see is another edgy, funny(not really…), popculture and over the top CG-movie.
    In the Trailer it feels like watching another (but much better!) version of Shrek.
    I fear that this movie will have a lot of flat and lame popculture jokes and Gags that have been reused million times before, that is the feeling that the trailer gave me, there wasn’t anything in it I found funny or entertaining, it feels like I already know the whole story.

    Why do have they make ALL the new CG stuff the same way(edgy, crazy, “funny”, wild, same type of designs?)?

    There is so much you can do with CG! It seems that all the big studios are trapped in the same pattern and are afraid to try something completely new!

    Even when my excitement went down after watching that, I still give it a chance and watch the movie! Maybe the movie has a lot more than that trailer is showing us!

  • I don’t know. I think 90s Disney has had this kind of jokes before. Anyone remember Hercules? Some of the jokes in that movie were hilarious but others were a little lame. Almost every Disney movie from the 90s has some good and some bad comedy, sometimes they just include some cheap gags for the kiddies.

    This is a bad teaser and it seems to concentrate in the most insignificant scenes of the movie, they show the little jokes and nothing about the story, but it’d probably be quite better than this.

    Not saying it’s going to be The Little Mermaid or Lion King quality but I have the feeling it will be better than The Princess and The Frog.

    And I’m not a huge fan of The Road To El Dorado, but if anything I think this movie will be more similar to that than Shrek.

    The first scenes , previous to the pop music, seem interesting. I get a feeling of adventure there and I guess there is more of that in the movie and not only half-assed comedy. There will probably be better jokes than those showed in the movie too. Or at least I hope there’ll be.

    Wish it would be traditional animation, though.

  • When I said “there will probably be better jokes than those showed in THE MOVIE” I meant “than those showed in the TEASER”. Sorry.

  • Paul G

    Looks awesome, its been a fantastic year for animation so far with How to Train Your Dragon, Shrek then Toy Story 3 and now Tangled to look forward to. Its nice to see Disney advancing whilst at the same time respecting its history in what looks like new and exciting ways.

  • If my boyfriend made faces like that, I’d hit him with a brick. Just saying.

  • Justin

    “Great animation can’t save a bad story, and bad animation can’t hurt a great story.”

    – Illusion of Life

  • Looks like a step forward to me.

  • James E. Parten

    Could it be that Disney bought out Marvel so as to avoid being sued!
    That said, the trailer looks good, and I think I may want to see the picture.
    As for “Disney’s Inhumans”, I can hardly wait for Black Bolt and Gorgon to do their song-and-dance act. Man, they’ll really bring down the house!

  • I agree with “Joe”‘s comment. Didn’t anyone else notice it just says
    “Disney” and the title “Tangled” NOT Walt Disney Presents or Disney’s Tangled.

    What’s up with that???

    Where’s the pride in ownership? Pride and personalizing in what you’ve done?

    Sorry Walt, you’ve been reduced to the equivalent of a Nike logo.

    Shame on you guys…..

  • The animation looks decent, and the look of the film is gorgeous, especially the lighting and textures– As far as the teaser goes, I am disappointed here, as the demographic Disney is shooting for with this film is glaringly obvious (pop song, cheesy lines, Iguana side-kick?). I will with-hold too much criticism until I see further trailers/the finished film. Hopefully this film is more successful than Bolt and will be a step in the right direction for Disney’s non-Pixar cg department.

  • Douglass Abramson

    I didn’t watch the trailer, but it must be really bad because the movie most of you folks are describing is not the one I saw two weeks ago at a test screening! No pop songs! It had new Broadway style tunes. Not Shrek 5! It is very much a classic style Disney movie, done in CGI; with a very solid script. The finished animation looks great. Finally, the frying pan is NOT sexist. It is the best weapon available to Rapunzel. For the reason she feels the need to defend herself so vigorously, you’ll have to see the first ten minuets of the film, I won’t spoil anything.

  • mickhyperion

    Smug and smarm, egocentric and shallow, sarcastic and jaded, obligatory overstylized cliché fight sequence. There’s nothing remotely WALT Disney about this. Wal-Disney, perhaps. How disappointing.

  • ZiggyStardust

    I watched it and all i could think was “I just dont care”

  • This looks great, actually. Seriously. I’ll be right there on opening day to cheer on and support great animation!

  • Please, bring back the “Silly Symphonies”!

  • Corey

    The animation is stunning!

  • HH

    somehow the horse annoys me… maybe it’s because of the face expressions like Donkey in Shrek 2.

  • Billy Batz

    the hero lands in that same cat-pose twice. even in CGI they re-use animation like Filmation!

  • Will

    Great, looks like all those Euorpean animated films have had some influence on American studios.

  • SMW

    I love it! I feel this is the first time i see 3d getting closer to 2d and I know a lot of people wont like this movie, but its up to personal preference i guess. Disney played so much attention to detail, and I cant comment on the story because its not out yet, but out of this teaser love what I see. I mean look when he holds the bow and grip it you can see the hand muscles move. Hope the story is as good as the visuals!

  • Looks good to me! —kindova CG “Enchanted”. I’ll take my girls to see it. Who knows, I may even enjoy it.

  • greg m.

    Okay, they got the animation looking good – now we have to wait and see how the story fares.

    I think they gave up on trying to achieve the “painterly look”, for schedule and budgets sake. God knows how many tens of millions they spent on this over the past 10 years. Of course they’ll reap it back.

    Hmmm, how will Rapunzel carry all that hair around at the Disneyland parks??

    Yes, even though it isn’t close to the original story, they might as well simply call it “Rapunzel” just like they did with “Hercules”. “Tangled” is just a dumb call.

    Can anyone here compare the original “Painterly” test animation to what we’ve just seen?? Which seemed better?

  • Sam

    I really hope Disney do well. I will go watch it just to support them but please, please please keep making better films as you go and don’t let us down… Disney still have my support. I personally feel Pixar and DreamWorks needs more competition just so they aren’t too comfortable in their ‘top 2’ seats..

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    It looks promising. The guy looks quite a lot like Tulio from The Road To El Dorado. Did Carlos Grangel(sic?) design him?

  • Meanwhile, Evangelion 2.22.

  • Blah

    I don’t know about recycling same old story (lines) part BUT Woah! Super character animation!

  • uncle wayne

    I think it is hySTERical! (And she is gorgeous!) I wan’t wait!! (If only stupid “Into the Woods” would be a DIME as funny!)

  • Akbar Shahzad

    Well, Chuck R’s comment above pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it? He’s a parent, an adult: MAYBE he’ll enjoy it. The reasoning behind that kind of philosophy, the kind that is responsible for so much of the dreck being produced as “family entertainment” these days, has always mystified me. I’m not an animation student (yet), I’m an 18-year-old male and god damn it, I deserve better! A good film is a good film, right? As long as it’s “appropriate” for kids to watch, a so-called “kids’ movie” might as well be as good as it can possibly be, no? That’s the kind of thinking I see behind the pre-War Disney features (and Pixar, to a lesser extent).

    Are studio executives just clueless? How do they get where they are if they are actually, demonstrably imbecilic? I understand greed and a complete lack of artistic integrity: I’d expect it in an exec. But how can they justify, in business terms, a snarky, Shrek-like take on Rapunzel? How can they justify distancing themselves from their sister studio, that makes more money than any other Hollywood, and creating “product” which, by all appearances, is indistinguishable from DreamWorks’?

    And where, oh WHERE is Glen Keane’s “painterliness”? The backgrounds are beautiful, but the characters generic. Yes, I’m judging the movie on no more than a teaser, but if this is what Disney wants us to think about their new film, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Say this IS what you see on-screen in 2011. That’s one shit movie.

    I always have high hopes for new animation, but the optimism becomes less automatic with every wretched let-down of a film that I endure. “How to Train Your Dragon” looks good. This … doesn’t.

  • Marc Baker

    Your not the only one who finds it weird that Disney doesn’t put an apostrophe ‘S’ in their name anymore on their ‘properties’, Joe. I also can’t help but wonder if the likes of Hilary Duff, or Miley cCyrus had a hand in the film’s marketing (‘She’s been grounded, like forever’? Please, 1983 ended a really long time ago, ladies!)

  • derp

    Im a 26-year old male. WHY DIDN’T THEY MAKE THIS MOVIE FOR ME?! Pink is a terrible artist and not relevant to me! dreamworks face IS NOT ALLOWED on disney faces! (golden-age disney mover/shaker name) would be turning in their grave! WHY?! oh, right, because I don’t buy toys. my niece will love this. *forced smirk* *high-five rodent sidekick*

  • Karen

    “WHERE is Glen Keane’s “painterliness”? The backgrounds are beautiful, but the characters generic”

    You wonder about an effect that has long ago been dropped, and yet slam Mr. Keane’s character designs?

  • Daniel J. Drazen

    In the classic “Rapunzel” the rescuer is pretty much a nonentity, a suit that needs filling. Here, the thief apparently gets a shot of personality and Rapunzel isn’t too bad, either. Definitely a post-mod take on the Grimm source material. And for the kids, getting a wet willie from a lizard. We’ll see, but I don’t automatically hate it.

  • Scarabim

    **I’ll say this: the human characters look a lot more appealing than the ugly mannequins in those “Shrek” movies! Disney has it all OVER DreamWorks in that category!**

    I have to agree with this. The human characters are superbly rendered – heck, really, everything is in that trailer. I think the trouble is that CG is CG – it will never really match the beauty of the best animated and designed 2D classic Disney feature (like Pinocchio and Lady and the Tramp. I don’t include Princess and the Frog in that category. The characters moved well. But there was no real beauty in the classic Disney sense). Although one can see the attempt at “painterliness”, at least in the backgrounds.

    You know what’s ruining it for me? The way the trailer is put together – the brash, in-your-face, pop-song-riddled mess we’ve been subjected to time and time again. Audiences are getting TIRED of that. Proof that it doesn’t always work: Marmaduke. The trailers for that film were beyond obnoxious, and on the weekend of its premiere, surprise! The movie flopped (at least I bet it was a surprise for the marketing geniuses who put those trailers together, basing them on the fond Hollywood belief that audiences are fart-loving attention-span-deprived morons). Disney needs to try again with a more thoughtful trailer. Then maybe it’ll grab viewers’ attention instead of confusing them (“Oh, no, not ANOTHER Dreamworks Fractured Fairy Tale!”)

  • tommy

    Is anyone else creeped out by the feet? I think Tarantino might have had his hand in this.

  • Cyle

    While the trailer is pretty poorly constructed, the film itself looks promising. I like the character animation. I do wish they had been able to deliver on a painterly style just because that would have been interesting to see, but if they decided it didn’t work, I won’t complain. This looks good for what it is. We’ll have to wait and see if the writing is any good.

  • I absolutely love how everyone has the same four facial expressions. Maybe we’ll see eight each in the actual movie!

    I hope for more pop songs as well.

  • To Akbar Shahzad – so don’t see the movie. If you hate “Tangled” this much, sight unseen – save your bucks.

    Life is so simple.

    What I’d REALLY love to see, is all the “observers” who trash this stuff – show us yours. Come on fanboys. Post links to your work so that we can judge your *ahem* “expertise”.

    None of the people working in the industry mind a little constructive criticism. That never hurts. But the outright hatred of the medium that I see on these boards – and considering WHO is making these comments – is completely unjustified.

    So… disappointed, bitter, angry Disney-Fan kiddies, before you comment – SHOW – US – YOURS.

    heh… heh… heh… Now THIS outta be good…

  • sgriggins

    Here’s the trailer from the Netherlands. Looks like the “pop” version was reserved for Wal-Mart America. Amazing the difference music makes…


    Seeing how I was also at the test screening a few weeks back, I can ASSURE you people that the “Shrek-y-ness” you’re all reacting to is just a product of a bad trailer and marketing.

    This movie is classic Disney and has an awesome, heartfelt story coupled with action and adventure. Just to prove how out of touch marketing is with this movie, notice how it isnt even HINTED at that this is an Alan Menken MUSICAL where the characters sing (think “Part of Your World”) in half a dozen broadway-style songs.

  • Autumn

    The guy looks like Tulio from Road to El Dorado.

    Wish she had more lines, but it’s just a teaser. Definitely going to see this.

  • http://www.slavik3d.net/

    have at it. i enjoy constructive crits!

  • btw im not a “disappointed, bitter, angry Disney-Fan kiddie.” i think this movie looks impressive. just cant pass up an oppurtunity for animation critiques

  • Glen Keane is supervising the character animation.


  • Student work.

    Don Knott’s vocal performance was nice.

  • Isaac

    “Seeing how I was also at the test screening a few weeks back, I can ASSURE you people that the “Shrek-y-ness” you’re all reacting to is just a product of a bad trailer and marketing. ”

    I want to believe.

  • Will Disney please grow up and get back to the roots….. Some DECENT writing? At least Verbinski’s going for something a little more original with Rango and not redoing every Goddamn fairy tale over and over again! The Dreamworks/Disney pissing match continues.

  • I was looking forward to the film – until this trailer. If it’s s’posed to get me into the theatre, it had the opposite effect. The person who said the characters were “generic” looking hit it right on the head. Seems like the same old crap to me, and I can’t imagine sitting through 90 minutes of it.

  • J

    It looks really good, the character designs are nice in a ‘classic’ kind of way, and you can tell a lot of time and care has been put into creating such rich visuals. I don’t see what most of you guys are on about.

  • Bill Turner

    I was going to say that this makes me less excited about the movie. But Douglass’ comments give me hope.

  • Peter F

    Disappointingly generic, and an astoundingly weak trailer. I wouldn’t have known this was Disney without the logo included. So far I am really unimpressed with their CG (non Pixar) movies – Bolt, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons and this one, which I probably won’t bother with now that my kids are teenagers and over this assembly line, paint by numbers product.

  • Randy V

    A better title than Tangled would be THE ROAD TO EL DORADO 2: DOUCHEBAG

  • A filmmakers greatest fear is to have their movie ignored. Love it or hate it, at least they’re talking about “Tangled.”

    Count your blessings, Disney.

  • Akbar Shahzad

    Hmm. Steve Schnier, you sound much more hostile to my comment than I feel towards the movie. I’ll watch Tangled — hell, I live in Pakistan, it doesn’t cost a dollar to see a movie here, and besides, it’s animated — and I sincerely hope to enjoy it. I just think the trailer is horrible, and horrifying if it’s representative. What pisses me off more than the look of the thing is the smartass angle they seem to have put on it–animation has been inundated with unfunny lampoons over the last decade with exactly the kind of audience-pandering pop-culture references that the Pink song and the general tone suggest.

    As far as your “SHOW ME YOURS” challenge goes, sorry, I’m not rising to that. Of COURSE I couldn’t do anything this good–most of the world’s population couldn’t equal even the worst theatrical movie, but that doesn’t mean they lose the right to judge. We’re the audience!

    And don’t accuse me of “hatred of the medium”. You don’t know me well enough to know how far off the mark you are with THAT, but it’s not true. I love the medium. It’s my favorite kind of film.

    To Karen, I regret the dropping of the effect. It promised something different, and I was pretty excited to hear about Keane’s efforts to make the computer “bend its will to the artist”, or something to that effect. As for his character designs–well, I couldn’t be sure they were his in the first place. Are they? I don’t know. For all I know, they could have been redesigned after Keane stepped down. And it’s perfectly possible for a brilliant animator–which Glen Keane certainly is–to be not quite as good at something else. Say, character design.

    Anyway, the designs aren’t BAD, they just look a lot like characters in other recent movies–“Sinbad”, “The Road to El Dorado”–which disappoints me, because the new look could have made them unique.

    If I sound hostile in the first post, maybe reading over a hundred angry comments upset me. I HOPE “Tangled” is good, but I’m bracing myself for a let-down.

  • Mesterius

    Why was Glen Keane’s painterliness (one of the main points of this production from the start) dropped from the character designs? Was it for budgetary reasons or something else? What I’ve heard is that he couldn’t quite get a hold of the movie’s story, but why should that have to affect his amazing ambitions for the film’s look? Anyone know any more about the reasons behind this?

  • jamesT

    The movie looks technically flawless with slick designs, so if it were a car I wouldn’t have any problem with it…

    However, as a film it’s expected to show some original ideas, imagination, be moving and inspiring. It doesn’t seem though that this is part of Disney’s philosophy. Whether it’s medeival Germany or Ancient Greece, it will always look and feel the same: language, gestures, poses, facial expressions, pace, temperament, humour, relationships, sidekicks, colors, atmosphere and endings – will all be the same.
    For people who think that we can’t criticize a movie if we can’t ourselves do better… you see, most of us don’t have those few hundreds million dollars, so it’s a bit unfair to demand from us to produce something on this scale. Besides, most of criticism is not about the animation or design quality, but about the pathetic reuse of the same old shallow ideas. Can’t we like or dislike movies as an audience? Can’t we criticise a head of state if we ourselves haven’t ruled a country?

    • lucy

      Amen to that

  • Interesting.

    The bitter animation fanboys don’t get it. When I said, “show us yours” – you don’t need $100 million to be a good animator. Just get some paper, a pencil and a pencil test system. You don’t need $100 million to be creative. A used camcorder and a great idea will take you very far.

    It’s easy to say, “woe is me”, be bitter and criticize.

    And to jamesT RE: – “Can’t we criticise a head of state if we ourselves haven’t ruled a country?” I’d rather hear the opinion of someone who actually knows what he/she’s doing. There’s a terrible problem in our society when “what I feel” is more important than “what I know” – when it comes to practical experience.

    As for Akbar – if you won’t rise to the challenge – why do you think that you deserve better than Tangled? I think that for the buck you say you’ll pay to see Tangled, the Disney studio is giving you a hell of a deal.

  • I’d bet my (_insert_something valuable here) that Keane animated the opening chase stuff. It’s amazing to me how his work translates to 3D. Really DOES look like his 2D stuff. Bravo, Glen.

    As for the sidekick idea —> barf forever.

  • FP

    Why do the characters look and move like every Disney and Dreamworks character, 2D or 3D? Same facial expressions. Same body language. Is it a Cal Arts thing? I’m tired of looking at it.

  • mawnck

    I was at the Ontario test screening too, and I concur with my fellow test screeners. Wonderful movie, tragically misleading trailer. It’s as if they made a trailer for Beauty and the Beast, animated some new Dreamworksy scenes to pump it up, and then set it to “We’re Not Gonna Take It.”

    Seriously. A good percentage of that trailer ISN’T EVEN IN THE MOVIE.

    I’ve been discussing what I saw at the test screening in some depth (but without significant spoilers) on laughingplace.com since the night I saw it. Check it out – it might cheer you up:

  • As a student of animation I will go ahead and respond to Akbar Shazhad:

    Frankly Akbar,
    I would recommend a different career choice. It is disheartening and a tad embarrassing for our generation to see such a blatant disregard for the talent and manpower required to make an animated film for the sole purpose of self-righteous, anarchistic hate-speak. To use “I’m not even a student of animation yet, but damn it I deserve better!” as some kind of qualifier for the misinformed rant that follows is appalling. A film not being of your taste is one thing, but attacking an entire studio of which you have little to no understanding of is unacceptable. I apologize if I fail to follow your point on pre-war Disney fairy tale flicks. Disney’s mantra has never been to deliver fairy tales in their purest form, and if you expect the “Disneyfied” versions of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc. to be that then you are sadly mistaken. Disney films have always followed a story arc of conquering seemingly insurmountable odds and everything ending up “happily ever after.” Pixar films typically follow the “rag tag characters stick beside each other despite their differences,” with a “we can do it!” attitude. I see nothing wrong with Disney desiring to step outside their box a little, and add a little edge to their films.

    And your complaint on Disney “distancing itself” from whom I am assuming you’re referring to as Pixar is absurd. Pixar is was and always will be a separate company, though now more than ever they are connected with John Lassetter presiding as the Chief Creative Officer of both. Despite this fact, I see no foul in Disney desiring to maintain an image and foothold in the industry aside from Pixar.

    And to attack the vision of Glen Keane, who has seen his influence on the film diminish since 2008 following health concerns? Personally, I enjoy the look of the film, and have no problem distinguishing the Rococo feel that originally inspired him. As a die-hard 2D guy, I am impressed with what he was able to accomplish in the medium of cg from everything I have seen.

    All in all, I feel that your bitterness toward this film is sad and entirely unwarranted and that you may educate yourself on the medium of animation before making similar posts in the future. Teasers are handled entirely by the marketing department, and should not influence your opinion on the overall film. To attack a studio and director/creative producer based solely on your disapproval of their take on a story following a 2 minute teaser trailer is irresponsible at best. Scarabim’s critique is more on point, and valid. Critique the teaser at this point, not the film.

    Part of the exec’s job is to make sure that these films will make money. With major studios dropping hundreds of millions of dollars on these films, they want to see returns. Animation is a business, and unfortunately sometimes creative decisions are made based on potential returns, merchandise sales, increasing marketability, etc. This is a fact of life, and happens at ALL studios. Even Pixar is not untouchable, and immune to this influence. If you desire to stand a chance to work in this industry, it is best that you accept this fact now.

    Animators who have worked on Tangled, and people who have seen it in screenings feel that it is a step in the right direction for Disney, and is nothing like the “Snarky-Dreamworks take on Rapunzel” that is presented here. I will personally hold judgment until I see it in November, but am excited for it non-the-less.

    Part of being a student of animation is being able to appreciate strides being taken in story-telling, and advances in this field. We should be grateful that Disney is pushing to develop its feature department aside from Pixar, as well as root for emerging studios such as Illumination (Despicable Me), and Sony as they grow. Frankly, it will mean more jobs when you get around to graduating–provided your attitude undergoes drastic changes.

    That is all,

  • Brian

    I don’t mind the CG, I don’t mind the music or the smirk. This could be a good movie. Probably not on the level of Lilo & Stitch, which I’m constantly waiting for them to equal, but still.

    One thing I do mind, and it was so blatant in this trailer that it really bugged me: Why is female-on-male violence regarded as so appropriate and funny here? This is a kids’ cartoon. I don’t think a woman beating the hell out of a guy for five minutes and hitting him with a frankly lethal frying pan is really the kind of thing I’d want my daughter or son to see, laugh at, or think was OK. It may seem a minor quibble, but it bugged me. And I’m hardly a prude: I loved some of Bakshi’s stuff dig the old violent Looney Tunes (that was CARTOON violence … CGI of humans is something different), and wish the animation companies would make some mature movies for older audiences.

    Or am I totally off-base?

  • Quick follow up (after seeing Akbar’s second post),

    Glen Keane has had a hand in designing character’s for Disney for a while. That being said, I am not sure what you were looking for. If a character works for the film, it was successful. As far as resembling character designs of The Road to El Dorado……. so? There is rarely anything new in film. Technology changes, but that’s about it. No matter how revolutionary a film is said to be, it has been done before. Hell, even Disney’s “remarkable technological achievements” (multi-plane camera, rotoscoping) weren’t his. He could just afford to make the best use of them. Half of the Disney princes are nearly inter-changeable if the hair color is changed. The resemblance is coincidental at best, but definitely fits into the “Disney style” and look of this film; and that’s all that matters.

    Plus you have to remember this film is meant to be mass-released to the general public. That alone will cause a studio to play it a little safe (look to Avatar if you disagree with me; the film was a story re-hash of Dances With Wolves, but it had to be! As much as Cameron was throwing at audiences that was visually new, if the story was just as radical it would tank in the box office. The audience is only willing to accept so much).

  • jamesT

    Steve, again, it’s not the animation quality that is being criticised here, but the lack of originality. For me it feels ridiculously shallow, I am sorry, what can I do? I am not blaming anybody, maybe this is the way to go in this business, maybe most people like it the way it is, good for them. Your challenge “show me yours” is absolutelly irrelevant. I don’t need to be an animation expert to like or dislike a film, I believe it was made not only for animation professionals. I know that I have already seen these characters, acting and jokes, what else do I need to know about animation in order say whether it’s imaginative and original? Some people talk about the weather, do they need to understand meteorology for that?

  • herzig


    Glen did zero animation on this film. He doesnt do CG animation. But he gives his input and advice on every shot. Thats what “directing animator” means. From what I’ve heard, his largest contribution to the film has been passing his knowledge on to the new talent of animators there.

  • In case anybody expects me to show my work as a defense, here’s some animation I’ve done:
    (I realize that it’s not Disney quality, but I think it’s more entertaining than this movie will be).

    What people are complaining about isn’t the technical quality of the animation, design or backgrounds, because it’s CLEAR that these are all very high… Nobody’s claimed that they can draw better than the Disney artists (although I suspect many of the professionals here can).

    What people are reacting negatively to is the content. The fact that the designs are extremely similar to previous ones. The stock actions and dopey facial expressions with little basis in reality are ripped straight out of every 2D movie Disney’s done for the last 20 years. I’m all for supporting the medium, but that doesn’t mean blindly praising everything. I know it’s frowned upon to bring up John K, but his description of modern Disney as “inbred” really fits here. This trailer reeks of formula, just like the Princess and the Frog did.

    Disney doesn’t seem to have learned anything from their late 90’s-early 2000’s downturn– people are tired of this stuff. If they want to see a movie in the style of the “Disney Renaissance”, chances are they’ll pop in a DVD of Aladdin or the Lion King, not a desperate attempt 15 years later to recapture the “magic.”

    Yes, all us naysayers are basing our opinions off of a trailer, but THAT’S WHAT THE TRAILER IS FOR– to give you an impression of what the movie will be like. If the trailer misrepresents the movie, that’s Disney’s fault, not the audience’s.

    I look forward to being proven wrong by the movie.

    On the plus side, it looks like it does a very good job of capturing the hand-drawn Disney style. The fact that this is 3D animation didn’t occur to me once as I watched it.

  • Rooniman

    The trailer just killed off 2,000 of my brain cells.

    Same story
    Same characters
    Same gags
    Same personalitys
    Same blandness
    Same Shit-factor dialouge

  • Hal

    I still think all the hair bondage fetishists are going to have a field day with this one. Disney movies aren’t just for Furries anymore!

    • lucy

      that’s just plain creepy :(

  • jamesT,

    No they do not, however, you do not suit up for the beach solely on the opinion of your neighbor that “it probably will not rain.” My point, and I believe the point of Steve as well, is that we have seen 2 minutes of footage, most of which will likely not make the final cut; so it is premature to offer a critique of the film as “pure shit,” or “unoriginal” as of now. To do so is disrespectful and unfounded. Any specific critique one may have of the film (with exception to those who have attended screenings) is merely speculative, and to be openly hostile is unfair towards a company that is the very reason people such as myself and Akbar are pursuing this field.

  • Repunzel looks so…. “bland”. And she doesn’t even have nice looking feet. If you’re going to have a female lead be barefoot a lot, at least give her nice feet for the freaks with foot fetishes to stare at.

    Um…. I wouldn’t be one of those freaks.

  • Aaron Long – Hey – cool videos. You should promote them more. Good for you. Also, try adding a music score – it’ll add tons of production value. You can find open source stuff online if you don’t have a budget for a composer.

    As far as “Disney hasn’t learned anything” – the one truth in the biz is that nobody knows anything. Period. Ever. Disney didn’t “know” when they did The Lion King or Aladdin. Nor did Walt when he did “Snow White”. Its a crap shoot. Always has – always will be. That’s what makes it so much fun.

    jamesT – RE: The Show Me Yours. Criticism of a professional’s work that goes beyond “not my taste” – but gets into specific technical aspects requires some professional knowledge and experience. Otherwise the opinion is meaningless.

    About the “pathetic reuse of ideas” – the audience likes those ideas or themes. There is safety and familiarity in a Disney movie that a parent understands. There will be some songs. There will be some jokes. There will be a scary part. There will be nothing that scares the crap out of the kids. Parents get it. Disney gets it. YOU are not the audience for this movie. If YOU don’t get it – don’t watch it.

    I’m sure there are animated films with more challenging themes – this isn’t one of them.

  • Mark

    Doesn’t look like El Dorado. Thankfully. And besides, no one SAW El Dorado–it flopped because it was horrible.

  • manny

    It never fail to amaze me how idiotic people can be whenever I read comments on cartoonbrew…

  • gene schiller

    Interesting hair…that’s all.

  • mawnck

    “THAT’S WHAT THE TRAILER IS FOR– to give you an impression of what the movie will be like”

    THAT’S WHAT THIS COMMENT SECTION IS FOR – so you can hear from people who know better that the trailer is not an accurate representation of the movie.

    “People are reacting to the content / designs / stock actions”? There are 150 comments of people describing exactly what they’re reacting to, and very few of them are complaining about stock actions.

    They’re mostly dismayed by the appearance of a lame Dreamworks clone, and that’s not what this movie is by a long shot. For instance, the tied-to-a-chair “smolder” scene is 20 seconds near the beginning of an 80-minute movie, and is not representative of the other 79 1/2 minutes. The octopus-hair fight as presented here isn’t in the movie at all. Believe it or not, the movie isn’t about Flynn anyway. It’s mostly about some kid named Rapunzel. She sings. She dances. She overcomes adversity. And she’s an interesting, fully realized character.

    It is true that Tangled is an intentional throwback to the Mermaid/Beast/Aladdin era, and feels pretty derivative at times. I am certain that the John K crowd will hate it with a purple passion, and as loudly as possible. And that’s fine.

    But all the theorizing about formulas and designs and stock actions falls flat against a theater full of very happy people. The test audience was delighted with Tangled, and didn’t seem to be “tired of this stuff” at all. If the audience enjoys themselves, then the Disney artists did it right.

    The trouble with this trailer is that it’s likely to scare off the very people who will LOVE the movie.

  • I kind of hate the term John K uses, “tude”. But, this trailer used that cliche’ to the max. It was like a Disney version of Shrek…I’ll bite my tongue until I see it.

  • jamesT

    Hmmm… I think this comment board invites comments about the posted videos. I am not being disrespectful to anybody, and never said that people shouldn’t watch it, just that I am not going to.
    What if I loved it, would I also need to watch the whole film first and create a film of my own before I could express an opinion about the trailer, or would that be OK because you would happen to agree?
    I loved the film “Persopolis” for example, but if you didn’t like it, it’s OK with me. You can say it based on the trailer, you can not know anything about animation, as long as you are not a professional critic with a popular column it’s understood that it’s just one personal opinion, which comment boards are all about.

  • @ billy batz– couldn’t say for sure, but I’d bet the two shots with the “cat-like pose” are actually probably back-to-back shots the same sequence, when seen in continuity…

  • I think it’s a pretty great representation of Glen Keane’s style in CGI. Go watch little mermaid and cheer up, peoples.
    I hate the pink song, but other than that, looks surprisingly good.
    It amazing how music can effect the image.
    Just pull a page out of Walt’s book and throw some classics in there, marketeers:

    Syncs up not bad, try watching it with the teaser muted, night and day right?

  • diego

    I noticed some fake and forced feminism for little girls in the teaser. Pure and disgusting politically correct marketing. What a lack of honesty.

    I share Aaron Long’s opinion.

  • Scarabim

    **I agree with “Joe”’s comment. Didn’t anyone else notice it just says
    “Disney” and the title “Tangled” NOT Walt Disney Presents or Disney’s Tangled.
    What’s up with that???
    Where’s the pride in ownership? Pride and personalizing in what you’ve done?
    Sorry Walt, you’ve been reduced to the equivalent of a Nike logo.
    Shame on you guys…..***

    Yes Yes YES!!! ^^^^ THIS!

    Damn you, Iger. Damn you to hell. Taking the Walt out of Walt Disney – in more ways than one. I hope Iger’s out of there SOON.

  • Peag


    Just ONE film without princesses or talking animals?

  • Curioser

    Does it remind anyone else a little of “Enchanted”?

  • Dan

    When the thief is getting the crap beaten out of him by her hair, that has Glen Keane written all over it!

  • Mac

    I like the character design, colors and rendering here but the story looks so awful in this trailer. These type of gags get old, if only there was something interesting story wise here.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    To Disney;Please keep on making animated features that appeal to all age groups-children,teens,and adults. If you can keep making high quality and all-ages movies I’ll be happy.

  • TJR

    Sometimes trailers can be deceiving, but so far this trailer is enough to keep me away

  • Mr. Dominex

    The character design, animation and lighting (color) is great. It looks like a nice 3D adaptation of Glen Keane’s animation, with a lot of “appeal.”

    The story – a dashing rogue put down in his efforts to charm by a sassy, “powerful” female, is an interesting mixture of modern day feminism and the “chastity movement” among Evangelical Christians. The heroine is shown “taking charge” of the rambunctious male in a “no-nonesense” manner as a way of teaching yong girls how to handle boys.

    Cute, commercially trendy attitudes, gestures and expressions are aimed at people who see movies in malls. Disney films have to appeal to the masses in order to make money, and it’s fine that they peddle wholesomeness to pre-teen consumers, even if it is only “hip” in a Ned Flanders sort of way. I prefer this to the frenetic, noisy bombast of films by that OTHER studio.

  • sissy

    To all those that are complaining about Rapunzel’s use of a frying pan:

    Please note that a complete stranger has entered her home and is stealing her possessions. What weapon should she use to defend herself? I doubt she has a 9mm hidden in her hair. This sounds sarcastic, but I’m very serious. It’s a realistic response to finding a strange man in your home. Hit him with whatever is nearby. It has nothing to do with a 1950’s cariacature.

    Also, please remember that every Disney movie released since the Little Mermaid (and doubtless before then, but as my memory only goes back to the advertisements from the late 1980’s, I’ll say up to this point only) has had more than one trailer. Remember the serious ads for Beauty and the Beast that made his castle seem so forboding? So dismal and still so beautiful?

    Okay. We had those ads, then we had singing candlesticks.

    Singing. Candlesticks.

    Think about it.

    There is more to this movie than people think. Give it time. Wait for the trailer they’ll release in the theatres. I bet a fair few of you will change your minds.

  • Dan


    “Hey guys,

    This “teaser” doesn’t represent our movie AT ALL. It’s typical Disney marketing crapola, desperately trying to entice I don’t know who… teenagers maybe? The music, the tone of the teaser, everything is SO NOT the movie we’re all working hard on.

    Later this year a real trailer will hopefully do our movie justice. And let me tell you, the movie is looking amazing on every level… it’s a HUGE step up from where we were on Bolt. Allan Menken wrote some really great music for it.

    Marlon, Animator on Tangled.”

    This trailer was made to attract boys, most of the scenes were about the male thief character. The movie has songs written by Alan Menken.

  • John

    The reasons why Princess and the Frog bombed, was not because it didn’t appeal to boys. It was because it sucked! The Execs are stupid here thinking that boys won’t see this if it has a girls name in the title, boys won’t see this if it looks like crap! To me this all looks like stock!

  • mawnck

    “Just ONE film without princesses or talking animals?”

    That would be Meet the Robinsons. By the way – there are no talking animals in Tangled.

    “Wait for the trailer they’ll release in the theatres.”

    You mean the one that will be in front of Toy Story 3 this coming Friday? I strongly suspect we just watched it.

    I sure hope I’m wrong. They need to show this trailer to as few people as possible. The above comments prove that.

    “Sometimes trailers can be deceiving, but so far this trailer is enough to keep me away”

    Oh come on man … EMBRACE the cognitive dissonance. Don’t try to fight it. All three commenters who have actually seen the dang movie – and now one guy who is animating on it – have told you that the trailer is bogus.

    Haven’t you ever seen a crummy trailer for a great movie before? Are you still refusing to watch Finding Nemo?

  • Akbar Shahzad

    OK. So the trailer is not representative. Apparently it’s an Alan Menken musical, which I did not know and certainly could not have been expected to pick up from the trailer. As for the character animation, I think it’s just as foolhardy to praise it on the basis of a series of two-second cuts as it is to dismiss the whole movie based on a trailer, which is not what I’m doing — I’m dismissing the trailer.

    Scott Kennell says I have “no knowledge” of the Disney studio. You may be right. I have quite a lot of knowledge of their films, however. A lot of the people here seem to be industry insiders who have spoken to, worked for or worked with people who make these films — an idea which blows my mind.

    As for the pre-War Disney films, of course I don’t mean to suggest they were “truer to the fairy tales”. That in itself is not a virtue. I only mean to say that they were better films than nearly all that the studio has done since. In the last fifteen years, even the relatively good Disney movies have appeared to be “compromises”–I’ll try to avoid sounding too much like Michael Barrier, but I’m afraid it’s true. What disappoints me about the trailer–whether or not it’s representative of the film–is that it feels the need to attach itself to bad pop music and a smirk to have a hope of getting across to anybody. It shouldn’t have to do that to itself. The reason I didn’t have trouble believing the trailer–before I found out they’d left out the whole “Alan Menken thing”–is because exactly this kind of movie is found in abundance these days. I don’t want Disney to do the same thing. I cannot think it will end well.

    If I’m wrong, and this movie is actually a good story not hung up on its own one-liners and actually delivers us a Real Movie as opposed to a Disney-Flavored Product, I’ll probably love it. I’d love it more if it were hand-drawn, but I’d still love it in CG. What is so terrible about fearing that that won’t happen? I do HOPE I’m wrong.

  • Kush

    -Yes the name change for North America is annoying.No denying that.

    Most people here don’t seem to see a difference between a 2 min trailer and a 90+min movie.Either they are overestimating the power of 2 min storytelling, or underestimating that of 90mins!

    -Yes the TRAILER is aimed at teens in general and teen boys in particular,BUT doesn’t mean the whole movie is!
    Anyone who cant seem to make that distinction, really needs to do some case studies of movies & their trailers (not just animated and not just Disney) to see how much do trailers tend to differ from the picture they actually represent (for the better or for worse)
    -Yes the characters are of the “Disney” school. As if all Pixar humans don’t look the same?Miyazaki designs don’t look like “Miyazaki’s”? Fitting into the studio’s visual style, makes it predictable at worst, but not ugly or unappealing!

    In my opinion, i have not been so visually stimulated by a CGI movie ever, closest to this was “Ratatouille”, but this is just …breathtaking! Every frame! Never have CGI humans looked this appealing and warm.This is miles ahead of anything even PIXAR has accomplished (and thats a lot).

    I know its cool to be a Disney basher and all, but how about sitting back and admiring the hard work,seeing it for what it IS and not what it SEEMS….and just…give it a chance!
    Though Disney has made mistakes in the last decade, i am still a Disney sympathizer,Cause they just cant seem to please the bashers..either its “too different”(Treasure Planet/Atlantis/Meet The Robinsons) and “they should stick to what they know best”, OR, “its the same old disney thing and they should really try something different” (Princess and the Frog).
    This maybe one of the best original and fresh looking american animated films of 2010(along with Dragon),a year abundant with high profile sequels!
    Am looking forward to it and will be first in line to see it!


  • Kush

    Years without a post , and now 2 posts pack to back!
    Sorry about that…just want to add an afterthought…

    Sometimes, when u wanna make something different, u need to package it in something more familiar and acceptable by the mass audience so it gets seen and not shunned,and also make the “product” commercially successful, cause lets face it, thats important too.
    Specially if u r confident that if u can get them in, they will like it!

    One can call this false advertising or smart publicity, depending on how much u liked the final film.

    Personally,if i have to sit through a crappy trailer to make a good movie viable,am very ok with that…just as long as my benefit of the doubt pays off and the movie does not turn out to be exactly what this trailer makes it out to be!:)

  • Mac

    The first comment about the change of “Disney’s” to “Disney” is possibly the most interesting part of the discussion,since what we have here is a preview fueled for Disney’s(sorry Iger)XD viewers,and,hopefully for Disney stockholders,both of those viewers will force Mom or Dad(whoever has them that weekend)the extra bucks to see this in 3-D. Iger is leaving his footprint everywhere and the new title of ownership is probably part of it. Possible reasons? That oldfangled apostrophe gets in the way on the web; causes trouble with search engines and text messaging(cue that tired Pink song that’s so 2003-when many of these little snot noses were conceived) as well as those kids having to know what an apostrophe is and how to use it. Disney-dumbing down the dumber every damn day. Wow, there’s a silent “b” in “dumb”-gotta get rid of that. Here’s a sneak peek at the next Disney treat-Dumo.

  • Matt

    To those of you of you saying that Disney needs to show this preview to as little people as possible, you need to start understanding something. You are taking your opinion based on the fact that the majority of the people in comment sections all over the internet are unhappy about the trailer. Which is true.

    But ask yourself this: WHO are those people that are commenting in the first place? They are either 1) Disney Fanatics that have been waiting to see this trailer for years, or 2) Animation Fanatics and/or Employees, who have been waiting to see this trailer for years. Sure, there are a few who have probably never heard of Tangled before this trailer, but for the most part, everyone making comments, especially here on Cartoon Brew, has a stronger connection to the animation world than the average person.

    The point is, while we all think the trailer sucks and we were hoping for something different, and Disney marketing doesn’t know what they’re doing, etc etc etc…. The truth is that the general theater-going public will eat this up. Come June 18, when the theater is full of a huge variety of people coming to see Toy Story 3, this trailer will start, and from the opening two shots will have the attention of all the males in the theater, especially the younger ones. By the time the gorgeous shot of the tower comes around, the Disney and/or animation enthusiasts who don’t follow upcoming movies and so haven’t seen this trailer will be intrigued. When Rapunzel starts kicking Flynn’s ass, the 9-10 and younger crowd will be giggling like mad. And when Rapunzel steps into the light, the rest of the ladies who haven’t been convinced yet will finally see “another princess!!!” and will also be paying attention. And maybe the Pink song will even get the last few teens that haven’t given in yet to think twice because it reminds them of 6th grade.

    So within the first minute, we have the attention of males, Disney and animation enthusiasts, children, and finally the ladies. And when a preview has the attention of a child, it also gets the attention of their parents.

    So, whether we on Cartoon Brew agree with the trailer and what it portrays about the movie, the truth is that the point of a trailer is to get the audience who will be paying money to see it aware and interested. And admit it or not, that is exactly what this trailer will do.

    And as a side note… Akbar, for someone who claims to be interested in the industry and you want to go into it, and you have all powerful knowledge of Disney films and whatnot, you obviously haven’t done your homework here. It’s been known for a good year by now that this movie is going to be a traditional fairy tale (at least as traditional as we’re gonna get these days) musical with Alan Menken music. Go read up on some stuff, then come back, enjoy the trailer for what it is, and go see the movie in November.

  • Well said.

  • Akbar Shahzad

    All right, Matt. I’ll do that. To clarify, I thought I’d read they’d ditched the musical angle along with story changes when Keane left the picture–there was something about it being retooled after he couldn’t make the third act work, or something. I am glad to hear that Menken is still involved, though.

  • Inkan1969

    I hope I don’t hurt anyone’s feelings with my comments. I don’t mean to be spiteful.

    I have to say that this was one of the least cartoony cartoon trailers I’ve seen. The humans all look so photorealistic. The only animation you really need is a CGI effect for the hair, and then you could do the exact same trailer in live action.

    Good one there, John S. Medusa immediately came to my mind as well, though I’m sure she’s not the only character with super hair power.

    Flynn has the same “attitude” schtick as Prince Naveen. I immediately remembered John K.’s long critiques against the “attitude” cliche. It tends to make characters less appealing.

  • herzig

    For the millionth time……………..

    KEANE HAS NOT LEFT THE PICTURE. He’s directing the animation!! He’s been involved with every single frame of every single shot!

  • Matt

    Akbar – you’re correct. A few years back, Keane left. I’ve read it’s because of health issues, I’ve read it’s because he was kicked off the picture. Whatever the reason, however, that’s when it changed from the dark, epic fairy tale that was Keane’s vision. That was when the title changed changed to “Rapunzel Unbraided” and the movie was going to have a Shrek-esque modern twist. After that however, Keane rejoined the project and became “Animation Director.” The title was then changed back to simply “Rapunzel” and, once again, we heard it was back to the traditional fairy tale. It was this time around that we heard Menken was working on the music. That was around a year ago now. Since then, the story and tone have apparently stayed in the “traditional” realm (again, at least as traditional as any studio is going to be willing to go these days). Then the title was changed to “Tangled” and while everyone went ape-shit thinking that the story was being retooled again, the truth is that ONLY the name was changed, and come November, we can still plan on seeing a traditional fairy tale musical with Alan Menken music.

    And gorgeous visuals.

    Herzig, calm down. Keane DID leave the picture at one point. Some people just were not aware that he is now back on the project.

  • Have we ever had a thread this long before?

    Say what you will, this discussion has been fascinating.

  • Matt

    Like you said before, Floyd… good or bad, at least people are talking.

  • ‘They just can’t get my nose right!’ are you serious? Wow…

  • elan

    Matt, you have your facts a little wrong, but thats okay. He never left the project. He took a leave of absence due to health reasons. He always retained a leadership role on the film, which he retains to this day.

  • mawnck

    “Most people here don’t seem to see a difference between a 2 min trailer and a 90+min movie.Either they are overestimating the power of 2 min storytelling, or underestimating that of 90mins!”

    90 minute storytelling has no power whatsoever in an empty theater. This trailer is going to be seen by millions in 6 days.

    “WHO are those people that are commenting in the first place? They are either 1) Disney Fanatics … or 2) Animation Fanatics”

    Nuh-uh. The trailer has received wide coverage on general interest entertainment sites. Not everybody hates it. But an awful lot of them have expressed great disappointment that Disney has sunk to doing bad Shrek imitations. Which is a shame, because that’s not what Disney is doing at all. Just the Disney trailer department.

    “The truth is that the general theater-going public will eat this up.”

    You may be right. We’ll find out soon enough. My concern is that they won’t be as enthused by what they see in this particular trailer as you think they will. Especially surrounded by trailers for half a dozen other CGI movies, which will undoubtedly have the exact same pacing, tone, and probably musical style.

    It doesn’t just look like a Dreamworks movie – certainly not one of their recent winners. It looks like one of the mediocre written-by-focus-groups Dreamworks movies from 5 or 6 years ago (better visuals notwithstanding).

    And it’s clearly spilling over into perceptions of the movie itself. Audiences aren’t going to say “oh it’s just a trailer marketed to a specific audience, the movie is probably totally different.” They’re going to say “gee, the creators of Bolt are doing a Shrek knockoff about an arrogant smirky prince guy who makes lame jokes. That doesn’t look like something I’d want to spend $40 and 90 minutes on.”

    I just think they’ve undercut the lowest common denominator here, and have narrowed the appeal to one particular demo, a small segment of the “general public” that’s not Tangled’s core audience. I think there are negative first impressions being created that are now going to have to be undone to get back the other demos that should have been a slam dunk.

    I think that after the trailer runs, and I tell the mom sitting next to me that I’ve seen the movie, and it’s actually a terrific un-fractured classic Disney fairy tale movie with Alan Menken Broadway songs, a slinky psychotic female villain, and lots of very intelligent, sophisticated humor in addition to brilliantly executed slapstick for the kids, she’s going to look at me like I’ve lost my mind.

  • Billy Batz

    Just once I’d like Disney(the modern Disney)to show real observed human acting. I’ve never seen a guy make any of those gestures or faces in real life.I’ve only seen every animated character since 1988 make them.
    Those bald pasty shut-in animators use these stock acting poses because they don’t know about life, they copy the last Disney animation. The classic Disney animators never used one of these douche bag expressions.Imagine Bogart, Dean,or Harrison ford acting like this moron hero character, you’d hate it.

  • John

    Exactly Billy Batz, you hit it right on the head! Glen Keane, Adreas Deja, Eric Golberg, we’re looking at you, and the other 5 or so guys. Draw from real life not the formulaic stuff you have been drawing for the last 30 years!

  • Lacy

    Look at all those bald, pasty, shut-in animators who dont know anything about life!


  • Kecky

    I don’t know, man. I had such high hopes for a while for this movie, and now it seems like the creators have gone back on everything hopeful they said about it.

    They took the “unbraided” off the title because they realized that Disney doesn’t need to do their own Shrek, that they can still make something beautiful and magical because that’s what Disney does best. So… THIS is Disney’s best attempt at a non-Shrek?

    If that godawful song isn’t in the actual movie (which I’m sure it won’t be) I think it might stand a chance. I think the characters are appealing, the scenery is gorgeous, and the hair is just as fabulous as promised. The thing I can’t get past is that stupid little chameleon thing. It’s so exactly the sort of sidekick that appears in every single Barbie movie I can’t even stand it.

    So… I’m still looking forward to this movie a whole lot, but I’m growing more and more wary of it as it keeps looking like all that “this-isn’t-our-attempt-at-Shrek” talk was either just talk, or got drowned out by stupider voices.

  • I’m beside myself. This trailer makes Rapunzel look like a Shrek knock-off, the exact kind of film Disney shouldn’t be making. I preferred a more straightforward pitch, like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast.

    The news from insiders about the actual film sounds hopeful, but how is this trailer going to get people to SEE THIS FILM (instead of procrastinating until its DVD release)? More importantly, how will this gamble survive what is now is looking to be a serious bloodbath against Harry Potter?

  • Animation is never meant to be a recreation of life, merely a representation (I’m attempting to steer away from the cliched “illusion of life” phrase thrown around at Disney). This applies to facial expressions, movements, even character design. Bambi anatomically only vaguely resembles an actual deer, but it doesn’t mean that the artist is incapable of drawing an anatomically correct deer. The animator’s job is to be able to capture the essence of a deer to the point that that character is capable of a performance while still allowing the audience to immediately recognize Bambi as a deer. Viewers left the theater marveling at how accurate the animals were, yet they were nothing of the sort. Animators had merely captured the essence of what a deer was to the audience.

    The same is true of facial expression. While I will be the first to admit, I am tired of the so-called “Dreamworks face,” I would just like to point out that characters making seemingly inhuman faces are part of the medium; and are simply exaggerations HOPEFULLY used in an artistic way towards furthering the emotion of a scene.

    This is the issue with motion-capture in cg today (as well as rotoscoping “back in the day”… but this is a can of worms for another time). Raw motion-capture footage is near unusable in film due to its stiffness, despite its accuracy, and requires a team of animators to exaggerate the performance and give it more character. Even then, sometimes the movements are still cold and lack the freshness and charm of animation (see: The Polar Express). The fact that critiques involving physical accuracies are even prevalent today is a testament to how far the medium, and technology, has come.

  • Matt

    Elan – I stand corrected then, thank you. I suppose that’s what I get for having my most reliable sources come from the internet!

  • ZAR

    Well, this may actually be good! :)

    Animationwise its ok. Don’t expect any wonders if it’s not from Pixar (I guess).

    Some of the comedy reminds me of Warner Bros though – or better The Emperor’s New Groove which is the darn closest thing to a Warner Bros. cartoon Disney ever did!

  • Dave O.

    For this thing to be in development for as long as it has, and then for Disney to just spit out carbon copies of character designs and “wacky gags” that have grown stale over the last 20 years… well, I would say it’s a letdown but it’s not really. I will not go see this, based on what I’ve seen from this trailer alone.

  • Tim

    I was surprised that the story guys didn’t just ripp off the whole Zoolander joke and have the thief say Bluesteel. I am heard they even going to put in The Matrix bullet time gag too. Joking aside, gags from films are funny when you first see them, and when the character is setup so that you beleive that they are stupid enough to say it… Like Zoolander. But when you have a character from another movie say a stupid line like that it feels very shallow. It gives the impresion that the character went and watched Zoolander and thought to him self hey I’m gunna try something like that, but I’m going too look cute doing it. Plus the Disney story team looks really unorigianl in my eyes. Shame on you guys. (sorry for the bad spelling, I am on a Iphone and I’ve got big fingers hopefully you will be able to read this)

  • badjoojoo

    This teaser doesn’t make me want to see this film at all. Same old ‘tude and gags we’ve seen over and over again. I think it’s an interesting contrast to the “Rango” teaser. One teaser shows you everything you need to know about the movie and that it’s basically the same schtick that you can come to expect in an animated movie, the other tells you absolutely nothing and is in fact so odd that you might be led to suspect that this film is nothing like anything you’ve seen before.

    What’s interesting is that the reaction to both of these teasers is split. I wonder if there is any correlation between who liked and disliked this teaser and who liked and disliked the Rango teaser. Not that any of this has anything to do with the quality or box office success of either film.

  • Akbar Shahzad

    Well, my last comment seems to have got lost. To summarize: I’ve got to admit, based on the number of comments here with concrete information, that the movie “Tangled” is very little like the trailer “Disney Tangled”. I would have preferred to see Glen Keane’s “dark fairy tale”, particularly if it were rendered like an oil painting, but a traditional Menken musical is still a much, much better prospect than the Pink-soundtrack Shrek-clone for which THIS trailer should have been made.

    My question is this: If the marketing department wanted to pull in the teenage male demographic, or maybe just teenagers, is this how they expect to do it? Why include a feeble and faintly embarrassing joke like the “smolder” (I did not laugh, I winced) in a trailer? Surely they had better to work with? Not everyone in my age group (tragically) watches animated films as a matter of course; any other teenagers feeling “drawn in”?

  • Dan

    See the the Disney animators studied live action reference for believability, and Milt Kahl studied live action reference for over 40 years and one day he stopped, because it was finally all engrained in his head. Then all the other animators said look Milt is not using live action reference anymore, that’s hurt Disney animation ever since. The metality became, studying live action isn’t the way, instead it’s part of the foundation for learning animation. Grimm Natwick studied the live action footage for his animation on Snow White as only as a reference, and then animated her freehanded. Another thing that has hurt Disney animation is that most of the animators of the past went to art school, and today the training doesn’t exist today. Chouinard was shut down and replaced by Art Center, a design school. Grim went to Europe. Bill Tytla went to Europe to study sculpture and fine art. Marc Davis was an instructor from Chouinard, and taught classes to the other animators. Mlit and Davis were the finest draftsmen at the studio at the time. Milt studied a lot from the Muybridge Books.

  • mawnck

    “Surely they had better to work with?”

    At the test screening we saw, only 11% of the movie (their number – it actually seemed like even less) was fully completed animation. So perhaps not.

  • Giovanni Jones

    Regarding the use of “Disney” instead of “Disney’s”: this may, as far as I know, be the result of recent copyright laws and regulations because the possessive does not translate internationally. I’m not a copyright lawyer, so if someone can back this up, please feel free.

    If you look back at logos of Disney owned and produced projects of the last few years, you’ll see this pattern starting to emerge. Suffice it to say that this may be all there is to it — not a denial of the heritage, not a devious plan, just a legal delineation thing. Laws like this are changing all the time and their documents take up pages and pages.

    It’s easy to understand the impulse to take the use of the non-possessive “Disney” as something upsetting, since we’ve seen so many of our beloved Disney entities trifled with over the past several decades, but I don’t think this is one of them.

    So heave a sigh and enjoy one less thing to worry about.

  • mawnck

    “See the the Disney animators studied live action reference for believability, and Milt Kahl studied live action reference for over 40 years and one day he stopped, because it was finally all engrained in his head. Then all the other animators said look Milt is not using live action reference anymore, that’s hurt Disney animation ever since.”

    Link please?

  • “The metality became, studying live action isn’t the way, instead it’s part of the foundation for learning animation. Grimm Natwick studied the live action footage for his animation on Snow White as only as a reference, and then animated her freehanded. Another thing that has hurt Disney animation is that most of the animators of the past went to art school, and today the training doesn’t exist today.”

    I thought it was fairly well known that nearly all of Snow White’s movements were rotoscoped…

    As to your second point, I would argue that the reverse is true. Animators at the Disney studio originally DID NOT have the training artistically that Walt came to expect. It was because of this that he made his animators take art classes. Now more than ever the focus is on studying life, and specifically self-shot reference footage in schools. I speak as a current college student studying animation that I am hard-pressed to find an animation curriculum from an accredited university that doesn’t require at least one life drawing or action-analysis class.

    Even in talking with major studios today, it is something that they repeatedly mention– the importance of good reference footage, and more importantly, keen observation skills.

    Again, animation is never meant to be a mirror image of life, but a representation. When Pixar began work on Finding Nemo, they planned on photo-realism, attempting to fully recreate the natural world in cg. This was abandoned when the images were too cold and lifeless to sustain a feature.

  • Dan

    Mawnck here’s your link, read it and apply it. Mr. Williams said that, a lot or most of his quotes came from the big man himself f(Milt).

  • Dan

    Scott Kennell, Steven Worth at the animation archive knew Natwick. Natwick told him that he didn’t do rotoscope on Snow White! She’s not even proportional to a real human, with her big head, small torso, and short arms. Her head was made larger so that she fit in more with design of the dwarves with their big heads.

  • Dan

    I was looking at my friends dog tonight and the elegance of pose and movement, the last time I saw a dog or any animal for that matter drawn so beautifully was work done by the nine old men!

  • Dan,
    I was aware of the differing proportions of Snow White vs. an anatomically correct human, however I failed to make the distinction between true rotoscoping and Disney’s loose use of rotoscoping. I found some interesting and informative reads after some research. Thank you.

  • Dan

    You’re welcome!

  • Why didn’t the Prince just say,”The girls all love this…( insert the prince’s annoying cliche face pose) … I call it ‘Blue Steel!” BRILLIANT!! How original!!

    What happened to the quality of ‘Beauty And The Beast’ eh? I guess the Iger Tyrant , Attack-Dog-Ross, Disney-execs (lack of Dick Cook), and the Lasseter are in the process of fixing everything though right heh heh?! Anyone?

  • Joel

    I must say, the animation seems to rely much more on hand drawn principles than in other cg-movies i’ve seen so far. Nevertheless, i must say that i also thought it was somewhat clichéd and nothing new but who knows how the final movie will be. But after Princess and the Frog which, in my personal opinion, was only slightly better than “Home on the Range”, Disney doesn’t excite me at all anymore. I just lost interest somehow. I enjoy watching the stuff from the Renaissance and the early Years, but i think that time’s gone. Disney’s not the messiah of animation anymore either. Especiallly not of hand drawn animation.

    I look rather at original, small films like “Secret of Kells”, which was more original than anything turned out by Disney in the last ten years and Cartoon Saloon’s Teaser Trailer for their new Project looks great too.

    Next thing im looking forward to is Silvain Chomet’s “Illusionist”. I think those are the films that deserve much more attention, but maybe that’s just me.

    But i think animation does well and i’ts an exciting time, you just have to look at the right movies and they seem to come from corners that weren’t in the spotlight before ;) But that’s just me.

    Weren’t there plans to make a new Winnie Pooh Feature by Disney by the way?

  • Joel,
    Winnie the Pooh is currently in production. It will be their next 2D release.

  • Akbar Shahzad

    Winnie the Pooh will be 2D? That’s some small relief, I suppose: the Yogi Bear models are horrific, and I wouldn’t want to see the same thing happen to Tigger.

    I agree, Joel, that Disney is probably not the best place to look for great hand-drawn animation anymore–people like Sylvain Chomet and Tomm Moore, to name two independents who have made quality features, may not have quite the same quality of animation, but their films are easily better than what Disney has done in the past decade. I’m even more impressed by the short films of Michael Dudok de Wit and Bill Plympton (not to mention “Happy Hour”).

    The reason I’m still so eager for Disney to succeed, however, is that a certain kind of animation REQUIRES a big budget and a studio production. Live-action doesn’t have the same problem–if you have good actors, you can make a live-action indie film dirt cheap. It’s not easy, but it’s been done many times. Animation is not the same. Quality is expensive.

    In light of that, Disney is STILL your best bet for beautiful drawings acting fluidly on a movie screen. “The Princess and the Frog” wasn’t all that great, but it was promising.

  • ekuska

    The older I get, the less magic Disney ‘has’…

    Their stories have become 90 minute madlibs.. (Bolt being a recent and wonderful exception). Im not sure if its the recycling of gestures and jokes, or the overly familiar yet at times inbred designs, or once again being man-handled by crash cutting, goofy sound effects underlining lackluster punchlines, and musical tempo gear shifts that feel like someone learning to drive stick while having a seisure.

    I understand that they are after the kids, not the adults. But I still imagine what incredible stories all of those wonderful Disney artists could be sharing with the world, but the bosses in charge dont seem to trust the talent they have. Frustrating for all of us. TG4P. (thank god 4 Pixar)

    On that note, this site is just the opposite of that. Sharing wonderful new (and old) pioneers of animation, that are venturing on their own creative paths. Thank you Cartoon Brew for all of the leg work you do for us frustrated animation fans. You give me great hope that there are some monster talents out there, and that great things are to come!

  • AkiChan

    Glen Keane has not left the project, he’s still very much involved with it. He’s serving as directing animator and executive producer and has been working very closely with directors Byron Howard and Nathan Greno, so I don’t think that necessarily means that all of the hard work he’s put into making the visual style look like an oil painting has been completely thrown out of the window.

    I’ve also re-watched this trailer billions of times and I started noticing so many inconsistencies: like how like how the characters seem a lot more shinier and 2D in some scenes than in others, how some of the rendering doesn’t even appear quite finished and look more like plastic, how some of Rapunzel’s trademark paintings don’t even appear on the wall in the background through 0:50 – 1:11 that were there in other scenes. And it just doesn’t make any sense how Pascal (the lizard) appears on her shoulder at the end when he was never even there in the first place. Even the backgrounds Rapunzel is standing on changes in a couple of scenes, and they’re not even consistent. Just watch the trailer yourselves and you’ll notice.

    It seems like most of what we’re seeing here are just test footages that aren’t even in the actual movie. I don’t even think this IS the final look of it. There’s probably a lot more to it than what we saw here.

    Though I have to agree with everybody else with how Disney is marketing this movie. I know their target audience are teenagers, but I can’t help but cringe when I read the, “She’s been grounded, like… FOREVER” part. I’m pretty sure this trailer doesn’t even actually represent what the movie actually is though.