Mangled

I came across this poster image earlier today for the upcoming Disney release, Tangled. Now, having seen both this and the recent theatrical trailer for the film, I have to say that I am not too impressed with what it's shaping up to be. As most of you know, Tangled is the new title for the film formerly known as Rapunzel. Why the silly title change? Well, it seems that the Disney brass are nervous about putting out another animated film with a girl's name as the title out of fear that it will turn off the boys in their targeted demographic. Personally, I think their decision is ill-advised.

When the trailer came out about a month or so ago, I was not very happy with what I saw (and heard). Overall, there seems to be a jokiness to the film - particularly a "cool and hip" sarcastic quality to the dialogue and expressions of the hero, Flynn Rider. Also, the trailer includes an inane pop/rock song playing over the action, which really has me worried about the mindset of this film. Interestingly, in the comments I've read on sites like Cartoon Brew and The Animation Guild blog, several commenters who claim to have worked on the film are doing their utmost to assure us all that the pop/rock song is not in the soundtrack, and that all of the music score is provided by Disney stalwart, Alan Menken. They also claim that the scene where Rapunzel traps Flynn limb by limb in her long golden locks is not actually in the film either, just animated for this "teaser" trailer. Fair enough, I suppose, although I wonder why they would spend all that time and effort to animate something exclusively for the trailer when I'm sure all of the artists are working long hours just to get the film completed on schedule. Doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid.

They go on to say that Tangled will be sincere in its storytelling, just as previous Disney fairy tales have been. If what these commenters say is true, then why is Disney's Marketing department so hell-bent on promoting this film as what it is not, instead of what it is? Because judging from both the trailer and this poster, the film seems more cynical than sincere, with all of the hip attitude that many of us have come to loathe in today's "entertainment". I'd like to believe that the film will be more in keeping with its classic hand-drawn predecessors in tone rather than emulating the schlocky Shrek saga. But frankly, I'm not convinced, and I suspect many others aren't either. And that's a real problem that the Studio is going to have to address head on.

I make no claim to know anything about the pecking order at Disney, but I'd assumed that, as head of Disney Animation, John Lasseter was the man in charge, answering only to Disney CEO, Bob Iger. If this is so, then John needs to get tough with Disney's merry Marketeers because, due to their misguided marketing they are undermining the integrity of this film and putting at risk all of the hard work of the animation staff in trying to create something of worth. John should be fighting them tooth and nail, using whatever professional clout he has (and I have to believe that's a formidable amount). And Bob Iger needs to support him on that, and not just go along with Marketing's efforts to promote this like a stupid teen comedy. Honestly, I really wonder about Disney these days.

"They just can't get my 'tude right!"

Remember The Alamo, And Fess Parker Too

Sadly, early today we lost Fess Parker, the actor who brought the character of Davy Crockett to life for Walt Disney. The role originated on Disney's Sunday night show and became a huge overnight hit, leading to Fess Parker becoming a major cult hero to the generation of kids who first watched the made-for-TV movie that was shown in 3 weekly installments. The film also led to an unexpected demand for spin-off merchandise, including the famous coonskin cap that made Disney's Davy Crockett such an iconic pop culture figure of the 1950s.

Fess only made a handful of movies for Disney after that, and a few films along the way for other studios, before he decided to pretty much retire from acting in the 1970s and devote all of his time and effort to operating his own vineyard and winery in California. Standing 6' 6'', Fess Parker was a gentle giant of a man, soft spoken and amiable to all who met him. I'm glad to know that he lived a long and happy life, passing away peacefully today at age 85. I know he has left behind a legion of longtime fans who will always remember him fondly. In fact, I'm going to dedicate this post to my good friend and former colleague in the Walt Disney world Art Department, Jim Story, one of Davy's biggest fans!

Here's a fun clip from a Disney TV special where Fess Parker reminisces with Buddy Ebsen, who played Davy's trusty sidekick, George Russel:

Happy Birthday, Wendy Liebman!

Some time back I wrote a post in reference to a documentary called The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story, which was all about the longtime Disney songwriting team, Bob and Dick Sherman. The documentary was created by cousins, Jeff and Greg Sherman, the sons respectively of Bob and Dick. While the doc covered much of their wonderful songwriting legacy, it was also notable for its rather shocking revelation that these two talented brothers were estranged from each other outside of their professional career, and avoided each other in their personal lives. I'd had no idea of this before seeing the film, nor did the majority of their fans I'd reckon, so it was rather sad to find this out.

However, there was also another revelation that I discovered while watching the film, but this was a very happy one. It so happens that Jeff Sherman is married to Wendy Liebman, the very cute and funny comedienne! Sometime after I'd posted my thoughts on the film, Jeff Sherman actually took the time to set some points straight in the comments section of my blog regarding my impressions from viewing the documentary. In my response, I mentioned how I was pleasantly surprised to find out his wife was Wendy Liebman, as I've long admired her comedy routines. I love her unique style of humour, where she continues a sentence past the point you assume it's ending, allowing the punchline to trail off under her breath. Her timing and delivery are impeccable. (In fact, I even have a clip of her from a routine she performed some years ago at Montreal's Just For Laughs comedy fest that I include in a montage of video clips that I have my Sheridan animation students sketch from, as Wendy has such a wonderfully expressive face.)

Not long afterward, I received a very nice email from Wendy herself saying how much she enjoyed the caricature of The Sherman Brothers and thanking me for my kind words regarding her comedy act. I was thrilled to hear from her and wanted to do a caricature of her someday. Though it's been awhile since that time, I have purposely waited until now to post this recent caricature of Wendy Liebman, so that I may honor this very sweet and talented lady on her birthday. So, Happy Birthday, Wendy, and keep on making us laugh!

Here is a clip from YouTube that shows Wendy at her best:

Drawing Cartoon Eyes

I came across this film still from Disney's The Princess and the Frog by way of John Kricfalusi's blog. John has been pointing out (quite correctly in my opinion) how badly designed and drawn the TV shows from the 80's were. Furthermore, he contends that those bland and soulless 80's character designs live on to this day, not only on TV but also in feature film animation. Though I might be rather more charitable towards Disney's features of the last 20 years, I can't say that John is off target in this criticism either, especially when I see an example like the following that he includes:


John's correct in his assertion that some of Disney's male and female leads are bland and generic in design. I too feel like Prince Naveen in The Princess and the Frog is highly derivative of Prince Eric and Aladdin who came before him. Ideally, I'd like to have seen Naveen designed more ethnically exotic in his actual features, rather than just his flesh colour, perhaps more like the young Omar Sharif, for example. However, despite this criticism, I will defend the actual drawing and animation of Naveen as being highly competent. He is solidly drawn, if uninspired in design.

I'm afraid, however, that I cannot say the same for the three young ladies looking so adoringly at Naveen in this particular scene (undoubtedly drawn by a different animator than the one handling Naveen). I'm sorry to say that I find the drawing of these three very amateurish - more the kind of drawing I'd equate with the aforementioned 80's TV animation. I recall thinking the same thing when I saw the village sequence that opened Beauty and the Beast. There were a lot of village folk very poorly drawn and animated in that film, though all of the principal characters were handled so well. I think things got better in subsequent films, however, and I was glad to see it. But, by virtue of The Princess and the Frog being Disney's first traditionally animated feature in six years, it looks like they're saddled with some newbie animators, likely by way of TV animation, who just aren't up to speed yet with their drawing.



As it happens, I've just lectured about the design and function in drawing eyes as part of my Character Design class at Sheridan this past week, so I'd like to offer my thoughts on that subject in regard to this particular still from the Disney film, as well as this suggested revision in some of the drawing. First of all, I find the construction lacking in the drawings of these three girls, especially when compared to the better drawn Naveen. I think the head construction on all three could be tightened up a bit, and the 2nd girl could do with a more substantial nose structure too. Mostly, though, it's the construction and direction of the eyes on all three that bothers me the most. Girl #1 has eyes that are spreading out too large and show no feeling of being spherical eyeballs behind the surrounding flesh, due to the pupils being drawn without regard to the rounded surface they exist on. Girl #2 at least has elliptical pupils, suggesting a turning of form, yet they are not even close to being directed towards Naveen's eyes in order to meet his gaze. I haven't drawn Girl #3, but her pupils, drawn as perfect circles, also show no indication of turning on a rounded surface and she appears to be looking at something offscreen beyond Naveen's left ear.

I must admit, poorly drawn and unfocused eyes are a big pet peeve of mine, as it it takes so little extra effort to draw them well. Here are a couple of notes from the lecture I give on cartoon eyes: