Walt Disney Studios has released a new concept art rendering and logo art from their upcoming Christmas 2010 animated feature film Rapunzel. Click on the image to see it in super high resolution. It should be noted that the image below is an older image of Rapunzel, before they revamped (the project was originally titled Rapunzel Unbraided).
Directed by Glen Keane and Dean Wellins, this new telling of the classic fairy tale, will transport audiences “to a stunning CG fantasy world complete with the iconic tower, an evil witch, a gallant hero and, of course, the mysterious girl with the long golden tresses. Expect adventure, heart, humor, and hair…lots of hair.”
Director Glen Keane wants this computer animated film to look and feel like a traditional hand-drawn Disney Classic, but in 3D. A short clip of test footage was shown at Siggraph 2005, where is gained a lot of attention. Apparently they will be using a non-photorealistic rendering technique which will make the surface look like it is painted but still containing depth and dimensions. The movie’s visual style is being based on French Rococo artist Jean-Honore Fragonard’s painting “The Swing”.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
fuck rapunzel.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Pretty sure that concept are is very old?
Like during the time the team on this project had no idea if the movie was going to even go into production. It was shelved for quite a while and I guess from the looks of it, they greenlit it.
I love the “mood” and color in the Tower image. (btw, the tower image doesn’t load up, it just goes to a list of key words?)
April 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Well, this guy’s blog post is dated 2006, so I guess it is, #2. http://theartofglenkeane.blogspot.com/2006/07/rapunzel.html
Anyone bothered that she looks like a twelve-year old girl, yet she has grown men climbing through her window at dusk?
April 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Awesome: I could be wrong, but I believe the top image is new, while the bottom image of Rapunzel is quite old. Again, I could be wrong.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Duh, sorry, the Tower image seems to be new, only the solo-Rapunzel-one that’s old. My bad.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Well, you beat me to it, Peter, I stand corrected, by both of us, apparently!
April 11th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Ah, okay.
I love the first image. It bigger version errors out :(
April 11th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
The high resolution version of the first image now works. Sorry bout that!
April 11th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Thanks Peter :)
April 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Has a touch of Mark Ryden to her, also.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Is that Gollum’s sister?
April 11th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
It’s ironic seeing Glen Keane work on a film like this. Since he’s been on projects for years trying to mix 2d with 3d. I remember one of his first projects was working with Lasseter back in 1983 to do a Disney animated film based on “Where The Wild Things Are”, Which was a mix of 2d and 3d. It never happened due to high costs.
Disney lost the film rights after not doing anything involving the property. Here’s an early animation test for the Disney version of WTWTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvIDRoO8KnM&fmt=18
April 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
The tower looks nice, but it seems kind of gross… climbing giant hair like that. Also looks like a big thing of spaghetti…
April 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Personally, I think it’s sad that an animator with abilities like GK has had to cater his talent toward the 3D sensibilities. It is what it is, and we can’t change the way the market sorted out, but we have been cheated out of a lot of great art because of this ongoing technology/market “struggle.” Why? It strikes me that you will get something that isn’t 3d and something that isn’t 2d, and the end result will be a bastard that has no home.
It’s hard to remember that a film such as Lilo and Stitch, with beautiful, watercolor BGs, was a success.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Ok…I just want to start off by saying that Pixar is great, and they make some fantastic films…But whatever happened to traditional hand drawn animation?
April 11th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
AWWW, GEEZ, ANOTHER BLONDE, BLUE-EYED WHITE FAIRY PRINCESS !!!!
Everybody clap your hands and say “yay!”
April 11th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
@ AngryBroomstick
I think that’s how the story was written…her hair is SUPPOSED to be blonde. They are merely sticking to the story. I’m sure if the story called for a brunette, she’d be a brunette.
April 12th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Peter…
THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED MORE OF!!!
Good news, containing ART. I love these fucking high res pictures, they make me smile with glee and respect you as a journalist 39242549854984 times more.
thank you, thank you, thank you.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Rapunzel, why not?
What else could Disney murks into an movie? There are no tales of the Brothers Grimm anymore!
Everythings fine, but why are her eyes so BIG?!
Is that a fuckin’ anime?
Glen Keane and his artists should watch Snow White one more time.
Did anyone here knew, that Rapunzel is an salad?
April 12th, 2008 at 5:05 am
needs bigger boobs.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Um, Disney needs to stop. That Rapunzel looks so bad. It would be better if she was made to look like the old school princesses instead of a Bratz doll. GROSS
April 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Norman,
In english please.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
sari,
Big eyes have been around since Betty Boop. Hence where the japanese took their influence from in terms of anime and character design. This isn’t a new thing, even in cinematic animation. Usually it’s used to show young age. If you go back you will see the big eye design used in their old films. Ranging from children, to animals, and even teens.
But to compare it to those horrible Bratz dolls is stretching it. Rapunzel isn’t dressed like a whore.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The tower picture looks fine, but the title character needs to hit puberty before audiences will buy into this. The painting-type render isn’t perfect, but there’s still time to tweak that. It’s a fairy tale who’s time has come, so as long as they don’t butcher it in updating it, it’ll be fine.
-Ara
April 16th, 2008 at 12:10 am
The picture of Rapunzel is a few years old. She doesn’t look like that anymore. I too found it disturbing (Glen’s stylized design+photo-realistic super-detailed rendering = weird) and am happy to say the new version looks to be much more appealing.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Despite Language, I wondered with Adam E regarding eyes. Ever since the Little Mermaid, with eyes nearly 1/3 her face size (plus big head with big hair), I wondered if Keane was regenerating the other big eyed puppy dog Keane art, when seeing stills. Until I saw the movie, with great personalityand touching interaction Mermaid appeared repulsive–also she wouldn’t die. Rapunzel, however, is no Bambi or Dumbo, and Jazmine and Belle had big eyes. I wish for something more realistic like Snow W or Cinderella, not generic use of big, Bratz eyes. Also wasn’t the story about a person who made a deal with a mother to be take and raise an her unborn child (foster parent?) as payment for her eating raddishes. Then Rapunzel wound up pregnant with her one night tower triste with her prince. As a payment for this deed, the foster parent/witch blinded the lad, caste him out far away from the girl, cut the girls hair and caste her out of the parent’s tower/home protection. But after wandering, the girl with her child, finds the blinded prince and cries tears into his eyes, curing him. Maybe big eyes for big healing tears. A marvelous tail of adventure, humor and action that speaks to modern times–bug eyed pg teen and all. It likely will be pulled off, but when are we going to get normal eyed heroines, with somewhat less Pocahontas sexy goddess female proportions as well. The Logo was majestic.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Sorry, but one last hope. Although Matel makes the dolls, pleassse No Barbie puff Magic Dragon companion to replace flounder–please, please.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 am
What is THAT? Rapunzel? Back from the undead, or? Disney-people, you’re very funny. As KenD said, the story is not very friendly for the little moneybags…aah children. Brothers Grimm wrote some good and dark fantasy or olf myths from the folks, I’d like to say. This little, harmless puppy-eyed child is not the independent young heroin Rapunzel. Man, I shure would like to hear how you speak out her name in english.
Anyhow. Disney shipped back to the old format of a woman. Patient. Calm and virgious. We’re in the future, guys!
April 27th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Independent young heroine? Even though I love this story, in most versions I’ve heard, she grows up all alone in the tower, never questions that the witch is her mother, basically has sex and gets pregnant (or at least falls in love) with the first guy she ever lays eyes on, and never manages to make it out of the tower before the witch figures out what happened (in some versions, she’s basically dumb enough to mention him out loud - in others, the witch notices her growing belly!) and gets banished to a wilderness, where the blinded prince happens to find her! If Disney stayed completely faithful to that version, she would be pretty weak, naive, and passive. But I think you might be pleasantly surprised with the Disney version.
So I’m guessing English is not your first language. How do you pronounce Rapunzel? (in english, it’s rah-PUHN-zull, like ” a FUN bell”)
June 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I have wanted Disney to do the story of Rapunzel for years as it is one of my favourites! I just hope they begin and end the tale with the storybook opening and closing just like the classic Disney princesses. They need to get back to the basics of a good fairy story and stop trying to update everything. Everyone knows animated characters aren’t real so why try and make them look that way with ‘actual moving flesh and bone’ as I have read in other reviews. Bring back the classic heroine!