Commentary &Disney 16 Nov 2010 08:37 am
Tangled, indeed
- Like many others, I received a copy of Jeff Kurtti‘s book, The Art of Tangled.
I’m glad I did. It shows me that there was once a soul behind the new Disney feature, Tangled.
I have to admit to something unorthodox here. I haven’t seen this Disney film. I will see it Dec 2nd though it’s going to be a hard pull for me to go there. Yet I still have some commentary – just on all the clips I’ve seen. THere have been about seven minutes of them and none of them pretty.
Because Glen Keane was so intimately involved in the first years of this film, I was more than a little curious to see it. But, to quote Joseph Heller, “something happened”. Keane left the film as director and became an animation advisor – not even animating. The book says he had a “health attack”. The direction, thanks to the sanction of John Lasseter, went to the two responsible for the final version of Bolt, Byron Howard and Nathan Greno.
I’ve seen the clips, let me tell you I’ve seen clips. I’ve read reviews. The Variety review couldn’t be worse. (Quotes: “If the film is hardly one for the pantheon, that’s because it seems more interested in tossing off one-liners than in tapping into its heroine’s deepest desires in the tradition of the best fairy tales.”
“. . . there’s room for visual improvement, particularly a garish, unattractive underwater scene involving Rapunzel’s hair (which often resembles a very long coil of spaghetti, extra al dente). The dimming effect of the 3D eye-wear seemed especially detrimental at the screening attended, draining too much color and light from the image and causing skin tones to appear weirdly pixelated . . .”)
What we’ve seen in the clips is a macho tough guy relationship between the Prince/the thief/whatever he is and his horse. They constantly jab each other and play off each other in that sarcastic and smarmy way Dreamworks characters act. The horse doesn’t talk, but it may as well. He keeps elbowing the hero. (If only a horse had elbows.)
Originally, the story was called Rapunzel. That’s when the Brothers Grimm had something to do with it. Now the bright folk at Disney have taken a great and complex story and have turned it inside-out making the male the lead. You can’t call it Rapunzel anymore, hence the title, Tangled. All the timely gags, all the smart aleck comments make it seem ever more like a Dreamworks production. The film is dated before it’s released.
And it looks so ordinary, it’s annoying. Maybe they should have called it Megamind and changed the horse’s color to blue. He could have come from outer space to harness Rapunzel’s hair. The Variety review does say that the film settles down midway to just concentrate on the fariy tale story. That I’ll have to witness for myself.
All this would be only so depressing, if we hadn’t seen the artwork in the book, The Art of Tangled. There’s some amazing art in that book, and very little of it seems to be cgi. Plenty of animation drawings and models by Glen Keane give an indication of what the characters could have looked like. Then those background paintings. Yes, some of them look like Eyvind Earle clones, but
others look like they were watercolors painted by Rembrandt. They’re stunning.
You go through beautiful background after beautiful background, and the end result is the ordinary and dull thing they’ve put on the screen. Who’s responsible? Lasseter? Byron Howard and Nathan Greno? Glen Keane? – no, he seems to have been the guy who got the big shaft.
What a sell out, Mr. Lasseter! How sad I feel about the Disney organization. They can’t do ANYTHING with artistic merit. It’s so obvious they were going down that road, and things were stopped, pulled, and tangled.
They’ll probably get their 12 year old girl audience, and the film will go the way of the Bolts and the Treasure Planets and the Meet the Robinsons.
Here are some of the pretty pictures in the book. These don’t look inspired by other animated films, although the film certainly takes its look from earlier films.
So here’s an Art of book that seems to matter. It shows us what we’ll never see. Glen Keane may have left the directing with a “health attack” (as Jeff Kurtti informs us), but he won’t say a bad word about the company or what followed. He’s a positive guy, well invested in the organization. I just wish some of what was in his mind actually made it to the screen. Perhaps that won’t happen again now that Disney isn’t invested in their 2D division. I can’t imagine Glen Keane has animated anything on the Winnie the Pooh film.
The pictures above were drawn/painted by:
cover: Glean Keane, graphit | Ian Gooding, digital painting
tower: Douglas Rogers, digital painting
island: David Goetz, digital painting
Rembrandt sketch: Claire Keane, digital painting
island: Craig Mullins, digital painting
Rembrandt sketches: Claire Keane, digital painting
2 character models: Glen Keane, graphite
towers: Andy Gaskill, graphite | Douglas Rogers, graphite
girl in town: Craig Mullins, digital painting
on 16 Nov 2010 at 9:47 am 1.Pat Rock said …
These “Art of” books are so damn depressing. Brilliant concept art, lackluster movies. Did you ever see the Art of Bee Movie book? Lush lush lush artwork for a movie that could not have been more awfully executed if it tried.
on 16 Nov 2010 at 10:29 am 2.Richard O'Connor said …
I’ve always felt the pre-production art for Disney films to be superior to what winds up on screen, from what we’ve seen the difference here is vast.
I will say that the character models look dreadful to me. It’s the same Little Mermaid, Beauty and The Beast doe-eyed damsel with spunk and a dream. You can see the acting in the drawing -not because they’re so expressive -but because you’ve seen the drawing and the animation in so many Don Bluth films.
on 16 Nov 2010 at 10:44 am 3.Michael said …
Those model sheets are Glen Keane drawings. I hate to say I agree with you. We’ve seen all of these poses before and they have just a bit too much attitude. I don’t think we’d have seen anything like this out of Milt Kahl or Frank Thomas. Animation really is in a sad state.
on 16 Nov 2010 at 1:09 pm 4.Charles K. said …
Your post makes for some sober Tuesday morning reading, Michael, and it is all the more appropriate in light of your thoughts on the “Art of” book.
I will also try and see the film, if only to draw my own conclusions. I have been surprised in the past by films that have been said to be awful and yet somehow I end up enjoying them.
“What a sell out, Mr. Lasseter! How sad I feel about the Disney organization.”
I concur wholeheartedly. It is almost painful to see a studio that is capable of so many great artistic achievements slip into mediocrity. Your comparisons with Bolt and Meet the Robinsons are all too apt. We constantly recall great films, we don’t recall those.
on 16 Nov 2010 at 2:55 pm 5.Eric Noble said …
Interesting post. I think you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head. I might go see this, just to make up my own mind, but I have serious doubts about this film. I would have liked to have seen a good retelling of the story with genuine, unique characters. I’m thinking I’m not going that here. I think this will be another one of those bumps for Disney that will quickly pass and be forgotten.
on 16 Nov 2010 at 6:07 pm 6.Matt D said …
Have none of you read any of the 99% of reviews that are saying it’s outstanding? And not at all the Dreamworks type film it’s being portrayed as?
Trust me, I agree with parts of what you’re saying. From what I’ve heard of Glen Keane’s vision, it was much more intriguing than anything that ended up in the final film. Unfortunately. But what we’ve ended up with, in my opinion, still looks fantastic.
And why do you say you doubt Glen animated anything for Winnie the Pooh? I’ve heard he animated Christopher Robin. Nothing for sure, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see…
I say you hold off judgment until you see the film.
on 16 Nov 2010 at 6:21 pm 7.Oscar Grillo said …
In the 30′s the French called Disney “The Raphael of Bad Taste”
on 16 Nov 2010 at 7:05 pm 8.Aleks K. said …
Although I fully agree that released previews/clips cause general disappointment, especially to those who have kept an eye on the production, I’d like to remind you that judging aesthetics of the movie and comparing them with conceptual art that preceded is nothing short of an assumption that a whole dimension more, makes no difference whatsoever. I know Michael concentrated on the idea of a strong, meaningful storytelling that seems to have been rolling behind the preproduction faze but somehow got “tangled” along the way, but dont begrudge the studio simply because it doesnt “look” as good as two dimensional art of book.
I blame them more for the fact that they are desperately trying to gain the appeal of, and replicate current cultural and subcultural values, thus stay relevant in this day and age, but as some of you pointed out, that is extremely short-lasting and degrading in any traditional sense.
Well, when you have more suits than artists on the board, you know what you’re in for.
Quite an irony, though. They, Disney, often cannot AFFORD the experimentation and adventures spirit that made them what they are…
on 16 Nov 2010 at 7:22 pm 9.Pat Rock said …
Its not that the movies don’t resemble the “Art of” books. I get the process of how we move from VisDev to finished product. It’s that at some point some serious hours are burned creating brilliant, unique, and original pre-work, but at the end of the day you get the exact same schlock that you’ve been getting for the last 30 (more?) years.
That’s the heartbreaking thing.
And I’ve just got nothing to say about the story because that’s even worse and more predictable than the finished animation work.
on 17 Nov 2010 at 12:07 am 10.Larry H. said …
Please reserve your judgment for the movie before you see it. I’ve seen the movie at a pre-screening myself, and let me just tell you that EVERYTHING you expect in a classic Disney fairy tale movie WILL be in this movie.
Your comparison isn’t even legitimate, since you’re comparing the concept arts to the film’s final look (which HAS to be different since it’s in CGI) then call the movie “bad” because of the fact that it’s in CGI. Did you think Toy Story 3 was a bad movie because it’s in CGI? Stop blaming the medium for the quality of a movie.
For your information, do some more research and know that Flynn is NOT the main character, nor did they turn the tale of Rapunzel upside down. It is as different from the fairy tale as the original tale of Beauty and the Beast and Disney’s version.
The only reason why they changed the name “Rapunzel” to “Tangled” is because the idiots of the marketing department think The Princess and the Frog’s failure was due to the word “Princess” in the title, so now they’re trying to appeal to boys so they would go see this movie. I still hate the title, but the movie is wonderful so I can ignore that detail.
on 17 Nov 2010 at 5:29 am 11.slowtiger said …
I’ve seen some of the clips as well, and since I’m not sure what to make from them I’ll wait for the final film. But!
One thing is for sure: I’m fed up with princesses and fairy tales. OK, I’m not the target audience, but why oh why is one of the most talented studios of the planet sentenced to do children’s stuff forever? Have a look at the tower design. Does it have a bathroom? How does food get up there? The children I know ask those questions, so why create just another crippled excuse for a world? There’s a lot more going on outside, and children know and care about that. “Lilo and Stitch” was a step into a promising direction, unfortunately the only one.
on 17 Nov 2010 at 9:06 am 12.Elliot Cowan said …
“let me just tell you that EVERYTHING you expect in a classic Disney fairy tale movie WILL be in this movie”.
Sounds like exactly the reason never to see it (and possibly part of the point Michael was making).
on 17 Nov 2010 at 11:53 am 13.Dave Levy said …
I totally agree with Elliot’s last comment. I was about to write the same thing myself when I saw he beat me to it! : D
on 17 Nov 2010 at 3:21 pm 14.Pete said …
Can anyone clarify on this – I swear that Rapunzel was going to be a hand drawn animated film? I also remember Keane talking about “Sculptural drawing” years ago.
Then almost a 6months ago, I begin to see “Tangled” posters and full CG images. Whats the deal?
Great Blog by the way, I really enjoy reading your posts!
Pete
on 17 Nov 2010 at 4:12 pm 15.Michael said …
I also remember Glen Keane talking about “sculptural drawings” and doing the film a new way for cgi. In the end, it looks like every other cgi-puppet-like-film. Boring and unoriginal despite the fact that they spent the time doing Rembrandt-like paintings. A waste of time and money.
on 17 Nov 2010 at 4:32 pm 16.Jason said …
No wasting my time or money on this.
on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:04 pm 17.Larry H. said …
“Sounds like exactly the reason never to see it (and possibly part of the point Michael was making).”
Then obviously this movie is not marketed towards you (and I’m assuming you hate/dislike other Disney musicals from the 90s as well based on that comment). The point Michael was making is that Disney made a movie that tries to be like Shrek without having even seen the movie yet. If you’re not interested in it, then don’t see it, but I don’t understand your reasons for why you’re spending any amount of effort expressing your irrational hate for it. Seems like nobody here is happy with anything.
on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:36 pm 18.John Schnall said …
I hate to say it but I have to agree with Larry on this. We haven’t seen the film yet; while I fully expect it’ll live down to my lowest expectations the truth is we just don’t know yet. I’m rather famous/infamous for not wanting people to judge my work before they’ve seen it in it’s entirety; wouldn’t it be wonderful if this film thwarted our expectations (as does sometimes happen, no? “Fantastic Mr. Fox” anyone?)
OK, perhaps the cards are more stacked against this one… But hey, I can dream, can’t I?
on 19 Nov 2010 at 8:52 am 19.Elliot Cowan said …
Larry H –
I don’t have an irrational hatred for Tangled, or any of the Disney musicals.
Mostly I have no interest.
But you left a comment that I thought worth following up.
It took very little effort to do so.
So I’m saying I have more interest in your comment than the film.
To me, you’re saying “You know the last time you fell down the well? If you fall down it again it’s exactly the same”.
I have no interest in falling down the well again.
I’m actually happy with a lot of things, even you : )
on 19 Nov 2010 at 12:58 pm 20.Pete said …
Yes – if you don’t like it, don’t go see it. Yes you can say this, but when the film is full blown in your face everytime you switch on the tv, or when you drive past a billboard, etc. I think anyone should be able to use their freedom to express their frustration over exactly the very point that Mr Sporn was expressing in the first place.
Disney as well as the other massive studios such as Dreamworks and Pixar have the power and have literally the best artists worldwide to push the medium and try something new like Disney did back in the “Golden Era”. But they don’t. Thats my fustration too.
By the way, did you know that you don’t have to read the blog if you don’t want to hear about people’s frustrations? Haha sorry don’t wanna annoy anyone, but I just wanted to say I really agree with Michael’s points and I look forward to the day animation is taken to a new level. I hope as a young artist, I can maybe do this myself.
Pete
on 19 Nov 2010 at 6:27 pm 21.Steven Hartley said …
Andy Gaskill started off as “animator” on The Rescuers.
on 22 Nov 2010 at 2:38 am 22.Jeff Kurtti said …
Michael,
Not only have you not seen the film you despise, you apparently have not read my book either. What in hell is a “health attack”? Do you mean the “health setback” I refer too?
It is so called not for the sake of obfuscation, but because the nature and detail of Glen’s very real health problem was private and immaterial to the thread of the story, since Glen ultimately remained with the production in an important (many on the production team would say “irreplaceable”) supervisory role.
Your contempt for the marketing and management of Disney is simultaneously and cruelly dismissing the work of scores of talented, passionate, and sincere artists and craftspeople who have made a commitment to create an excellent film, worthy of a Studio whose legacy they deeply understand and respect. While the people who sell this film may very well deserve your derision, for any number of reasons related to this film or not, the team behind the film is only deserving of admiration and encouragement for their efforts.
This and several of your other criticisms might be defused by a careful reading of the book–or actually seeing the film.
on 22 Nov 2010 at 8:30 am 23.Michael said …
I did read the book. My point was that the artwork in the book did not make it to the film. Were there any stills from the final film in the book?
I will see the film no later than Dec. 2nd, and I will apologize if all of the trailers and commercials I’ve seen have given me the wrong idea of the movie – that they are doing everything possible to emulate Dreamworks’ sarcasm. Otherwise I will agree with what I’ve written here and say so.
When the film’s story seems misguided, and the Exec Producers direct the film and the directors in ridiculous ways, my saying that does not dishonor any of the craft people or technicians that worked on the film. Nor does it dishonor or discredit the writer of the book promoting the film.
on 22 Nov 2010 at 11:54 am 24.Jeff Kurtti said …
“My point was that the artwork in the book did not make it to the film”
Not exactly. You use that premise to go into a lengthy diatribe about a film you have no eyewitness experience in the making of, and that you have not even seen.
“When the film’s story seems misguided, and the Exec Producers direct the film and the directors in ridiculous ways…”
Based upon what? Gossip? Rumor? Trailers? TV spots? You are talking through your hat about something you have not even seen, and already have an axe to grind about what it is (or is not), and about Disney in general, and John Lasseter.
You cherry-pick the Variety review to buttress your negative opinion. Look what I can do with the same review:
“Tangled” is snappily paced and easy enough to get wrapped up in, propelled by a set of jaunty, serviceable songs from venerable composer Alan Menken and lyricist Glenn Slater.”
“…the long-gestating fairy tale does demonstrate the sturdy narrative carpentry and musical pizzazz that have always been the studio’s stock-in-trade, boding well for its prospects with a primarily but not exclusively girl-centric audience.”
I don’t care about being dishonored or discredited. I wrote a book about the making of this film, and feel that what is presented within the book can stand on its own merits.
The film itself deserves the respect of being reviewed, especially by an informed and erudite person such as yourself, after having actually been SEEN, and without the baggage of its creation story.
on 22 Nov 2010 at 12:38 pm 25.Michael said …
As I said in my commentary, the trailers, commmercials and spots are pickled with all the 21st Century jabs and pokes and sarcasm. Endlessly. One expects this to be part of the character of the characters and the film, itself. If I’m wrong I’ll say so. However, these nasty bits are so attached in the video available that it’s hard to see how they could not overwhelm the “fairy tale” aspect and color the film.
on 24 Nov 2010 at 2:11 am 26.Henry Lowengard said …
Michael:
My tweenage kids saw the trailers and other promotional material and were kind of repelled by it. They actually don’t mind the models as much as you do, but think little of the situations, jokiness, etc. I think the technology is here that could bring life to these concept art drawings without taking as long as it’s taking Norshteyn to finish THE OVERCOAT.
In case you want to try another modernized Rapunzel, take a look at Shannon Hale’s “Rapunzel’s Revenge” and “Calamity Jack”.
It’s clear that animation that maintains its own logical story world and lives in it will have that classic quality that will make it worthy of its unreasonably long copyright.
on 11 Jun 2011 at 3:20 pm 27.Olivia said …
I’ve just found your post, so, yes, obviously I’ve read it after watching the film, which I liked… a lot. But, thank you so much for the note about the book, I think I’m getting it… for sure.
Now, one thing you didn’t mention, and I must confess I haven’t read all the comments so I might be repeating someone’s else opinion, is… the costumes. I know, I know, beautifully done. But they get into my nerves! So much incoherence! Rapunzel and Mother Gothel’s are medieval-ish, Flynn’s are more like XVI century, pirate type, if you know what I mean. The king’s one is like XV century? Maybe XIV? The queen’s are in between Rapunzel’s and the king’s. The soldiers are XIX century! I know it’s a fairy-tale, and I know one might take artistic licences here and there. I must say I’m not an expert in costumes through history… but that’s exactly why I’m so concerned. If I notice it… imagine the ones who truly dedicate their lives to getting it right: we are talking about ca. 700 years of difference between what Rapunzel and the guards wear. That’s a little bit much of a lincence, isn’t it? Or is it just me?
Thank you again for sharing about the book.
on 11 Jun 2011 at 3:52 pm 28.Michael said …
Olivia, how can you complain about the costumes when all of the characters act with mannerisms from the 20th (if not the 21st) Century? I didn’t like the film after I saw it. Some of the animation of the horse was good, but it was done better – and as more of an original – in Sleeping Beauty.
on 12 Jun 2011 at 11:29 am 29.Olivia said …
Because you’ve complained about everything else? (Just kidding!).
I complained about the costumes because they called my attention, since the wardrobe is a mess.
About the 20th/21st century mannerism, you are right. And I must confess I couldn’t stand Rapunzel in many scenes because the way “they” made her act.
In the original fairy-tale she gets pregnant and he is a prince who ends up getting blind (temporarily)… Should I be disappointed because they changed it so much? Well, it’s Disney, they’ve been destroying all the fairy-tales and legends they’ve touched so far to bend them to their idea of how they should be.
I’m grateful because they changed the name to “Tangled”. It’s like they recognised they put some distance between the real thing and their interpretation. So, let’s pretend it’s not based on any known story, then I can appreciate the artistic quality in many details. I haven’t bought the book you mentioned yet, so I cannot compare the art beyond what you have posted, and I concur: it is beautiful. But I still believe the artists behind this film did a great job. I have a problem with the eye-balls, but maybe it’s just me. And… the baby-face/huge eyes for adults is getting a little bit of annoying. But I guess it’s the easiest way to get you attach to the character without developing too much of his/her personality.
Said that, I like the landscapes and architecture, the embroidery on the clothes, and the scene when the lanterns lit. Oh! And the song by mother Gothel, although it reminds me of another one, but I couldn’t tell which one.
Oops! What a long reply! Sorry…
Kind regards.
on 04 Jul 2011 at 11:10 pm 30.Jess said …
I have to say I disagree with pretty much everything you’ve said here, unfortunately. I am well outside the movie’s target range (though I’m a huge sucker for kid’s movies) and I though the animation was beautiful, the jokes fairly witty, and the storytelling fun and compelling. I do respect your opinions and I’m not bothered by them, but it seems like you were making some ENORMOUS assumptions about the film’s quality just from the trailers and TV spots. I never saw the spots, my daughter told me she wanted to see it. I can’t judge what the humor was like in them, but I certainly didn’t get a Dreamworks feel at all. And since the film is marketed to and for children, you can’t expect them all to act like they are from the Middle Ages or speak in sonnets. It wouldn’t sell. To answer Olivia’s question, I don’t think this is supposed to take place in a set year at some point in history, sort of an ‘alternate dimension’ theme going on, if you will. Your point that Tangled isn’t the classic story of Rapunzel – no, it’s not. Though the film may have once been titled Rapunzel, no one ever promised it was going to be the original Brothers Grimm tale. Disney has often taken their liberties with old kid’s stories like this, however, it never felt like they were ruining them. They were – and are – taking their own spin, re-imagining them into stories that are fun, entertaining, and just as good as their centuries-old counterparts. Overall I though this was a wonderful, beautiful film and some of the comments are really shocking me; I can’t believe so many people disliked Tangled this much! And they hadn’t even seen the film when they wrote these!
(And I did quite enjoy Treasure Planet.)
on 05 Jul 2011 at 6:48 am 31.Michael said …
If you folloed my blog, you’d have known that I did see Tangled twice. I didn’t like it either time for many varied reasons.
I’m glad you did like it. Many people did. That doesn’t change my mind about the film. It leaves a bad taste in my memory. (Not as bad as Cars 2, but bad just the same.)