Obsession with skulls?

[secondlina]

 Whew. I managed to finish the first ten pages of my printed comic Psychopompes. The first ten pages are needed for a preview magazine. So, that's a whole week to sketch, ink, shade and letter 10 pages. Didn't think I could do it, but I did. I spent my vacation on this. Tired now. I'm happy with the result.

I can't show you guys the actual pages. But here's a few select panels from those pages, just so I can show off a bit.



Aside from that, i'm loving all the Tangled (Disney's "Rapunzel") concept art all over the internet. Behold :










As always, Disney knows how to do expressions. I love it. I hope the artbook for this movie will be instructive. Pixar artbook tend to be a bit meh. I,m hoping the Disney 3D animated feature ones might be better. You can learn a lot from artbooks.

- Isa

Comments

[secondlina.livejournal.com]

Computer animation has it's own style and artistic quality. I don't think it should be boiled down to camera angles. You can stylize a 3d model just like 2D characters. Pixar knows. In any case, I like both. I'm not going to start a traditional vs 3D debate since i'm waving pompoms for both sides. It would get confusing. I'm sure the movie would have been pretty as a 2d feature, but still think 3D is an interesting choice for it. And so far, I love what it looks like.

Hair was difficult to replicate, but they now developed a lot of awesome tools to make it. Pocahontas' hair is cool, but it's a very simplified design (black blob with escaping strands, it does look cool but it's very simple). I don't think Rapunzel would have looked cool with Pocahontas hair. There's definitely something I love about the way they did her hair in 3D.

I don't think the Disney "3D studios" are as strong as Pixar yet, and you can't compare a developing studio to a well established one. So yeah, their 3D might seem a lot weaker then their 2D, but I still think they are doing good.

[ichiban-victory.livejournal.com]

The Disney 3D studio will never be as strong as Pixar seeing how it doesn't exist. When Pixar and Disney kissed and made up, part of the agreement was that it would be Pixar that handled CGI movies while Disney would return to traditional animation. It's really foolish to actively compete with yourself. Regardless, Disney always hires skilled artists. I've never had any complaints about the animation in Disney's CG movies. Bolt alone captures animal body language far too well for the artists not to have talent.

And yeah....I could chomp at this all day, but I won't. I'm not arguing about this since I was never against 3D/CGI animation in the first place. Both have strengths and weaknesses, neither is truly superior to the other.

[secondlina.livejournal.com]

It must exist in some form since the "Disney Digital 3-D" brand doesn't really seem to include Pixar. Unless they are secretly Pixar movies released under the disney branding? Or a team truly composed of half and half? But the movies do seem to have a different style then pixar. Or is that an illusion? Curse you Disney, and your various confusing brands! *shakes fist*

I'm not so well versed in the ways of Disney (not as much as you anyways), but i'm still happy about the 3D. Yeah, we could have a debate about traditional vs CGI until we are old and gray and still not resolve the debate. I'm sure Disney has a reason why they chose 3D for this movie. Snow Queen seems to still be in 2-D despite jumping in and out of development hell. Any new developments on that movie? Since the snow Queen is my favorite fairy tale I have high hopes for this one.

Hey, how about the Bear and the Bow? Are you excited about that one? I am! the main character looks like she could kick butt.

[ichiban-victory.livejournal.com]

That's just the logo they use so that we know that the movie will be offered in 3D. It's not a studio, it's the technique for theatres. Disney has its own version of a lot of things, from the 3D viewing to surround sound.

From what I read, Glen Keane pushed for Tangled to be in 3D, not for it being 3D, but because he wanted to make a movie that looked "like a moving oil painting", which is much cheaper to do with CGI than traditional animation. For one they can render it on a computer. For the other, they'd have to actually paint it.

I'm always really neutral on Pixar movies until I see them. I'm the same with Disney movies, too. Until I can see even a snippet of a scene from the movie, I try not to have any prejudice for or against the movie until it's out. I loved Toy Story after thinking, "How dumb!" when I initially heard of it, but I also didn't really care for A Bug's Life. In this rare situation, I need to "see it" before I'll "believe it". ^_-;

I've not heard anything on Disney's projects, but that's not unusual. Disney has always been secretive on what it works on. When Disney is ready to let us know what's in production, they'll let us know. When they feel they can make a worthy movie adaptation of the Snow Queen, it'll happen.

[secondlina.livejournal.com]

Apparently he did manage some kind of effect with the 3D. Pascal can't stop gushing about how unique it is. I don't see any major differences, but apparently, there is major ones. I'll take his word on it. XD