The CG Princesses and Disney Animation

Look, there's been a lot of talk lately about how supposedly similar Anna and Elsa from Disney's upcoming animated feature Frozen look in comparison to Rapunzel in Tangled. And then that statement that a Frozen animator said that has mostly been taken out-of-context. Before pressing on, I highly recommend taking a look at this article real quick - just so you can fully follow along :)

I'll admit that I felt this way when I first saw those supposed "leaked posters" - but I pulled those images from my blog once I found out that Disney was requesting various site to remove said posters as they were fakes. Unfortunately, not all of the images were taken down, and mislead movie-goers are pulling up the pictures and crying foul.

Admittedly, both images were close to the final character designs, but still, they were unfinished. The public groaned over the similarity between princesses, but really, was that fair of us?

Before we tackle this question, we need to look at the official character designs and how they are translating to the screen.

Elsa Final Sketch

Anna Final Sketch

Anna, Elsa, and for your bonus enjoyment, Kristoff ;)

CG Film

I really love the original sketches. There's obviously a strong similarity between the initial concept art and the final CG designs, but as you can tell, the transition was not seamless. Both Anna and Elsa have rounder faces, and even their eyes are slightly different.

Now let's take a look at how Rapunzel translated from concept art to film.

Concept art

CG Advertising

Final film version

Now, I could pull tons of pictures and stick them side-by-side, but have any of you noticed the huge discrepancy between all of Rapunzel's supposed "looks?" I mean, just look at the CG advertising image and compare it to the final version. Rapunzel's eyes used to be set far wider apart. The advertising image was supposed to be the final "official" version of her, and still, it wasn't.

But now take a look at the concept art again. That was how Glen Keane designed her to look. Her features were sharper. She looked a little more mature. Her chin was smaller, etc.

Do you get the point that I'm trying to make here? The animators sketch up these beautiful designs, but when it comes time to entering it into the computer, those designs have to be altered. How something looks in 2D might not necessarily work once it is switched over to the 3D format. And once you start comparing those character designs, you notice differences between the princesses.

Yes, there is certainly a similar "look" going on. Disney is known for their traditional Disney Princess looks. Merida was a huge departure from that design element, but she was created by the Pixar team, not Walt Disney Animation. Her face is also very round, so CG naturally helped that along. Should Disney try to do something different? It's arguable that they should, but whenever they have, Disney has assessed that the films do not do as well at the box office.

So here's that infamous quote that everyone is fuming about right now:

Historically speaking, animating female characters are really, really difficult, ’cause they have to go through these range of emotions, but they’re very, very — you have to keep them pretty and they’re very sensitive to — you can get them off a model very quickly. So, having a film with two hero female characters was really tough, and having them both in the scene and look very different if they’re echoing the same expression; that Elsa looking angry looks different from Anna (Kristen Bell) being angry.”

Yes, that animator wasn't as careful with his words as they should have been (at least, not enough for the internet to quote him later.) Yes, both women and men alike are supposedly difficult to animate, as the classic Disney animators will say in many interviews that no one ever wanted to animate a prince, yet they were comfortable animating characters like the seven dwarfs because they didn't feel like they had to make them look handsome or pretty.

But the quote was taken out of context because the very reason this animator even said any of that was that he was explaining the difficulty of translating the original character designs into the CG format - which is why I've been showing you all the vast difference between sketch to final film designs.

But no, I do not think that these princesses and princes and whatever other supposed ingenue leads Disney comes up with need to look beautiful all the time. If they are to represent normal human beings that we can relate to, they need to express a full range of emotions.

I blame marketing, I truly do. It's why all of the princesses (Merida included, as the internet remembers) got sparkly sexy mess makeovers. It is reportedly what Disney makes more money off of, because little girls want all of their princesses to fit into the same world where they all have a similar look and could possibly be friends, even if it disconnects the characters from their own worlds.

They're afraid to have a single frame of Anna or Elsa look not-so-pretty, because they do not want these characters to end up being "tarnished" in any way. And while I would whole-heartedly prefer that they animate their heroes and heroines in a fully realistic manner, I understand their wariness. Because anyone could take a single frame from their film, upload it online and turn it into a meme that Disney may not be comfortable with.

That's probably not their primary fear, though. Their ultimate goal of marketing is to make little girls continue to love Disney Princesses, and because of that, marketing will always be obsessive with their appearance. They want these female characters to be so beautiful that these little girls will always want to purchase the dolls, dress up like them, etc. And since marketing likes to make them a set, their looks have to be "streamlined."

While that may be somewhat disheartening, here's the good news - marketing can't go back and change how a film is animated. Cinderella's ball gown in her classic film will always be white/silver - marketing cannot touch the film and make her dress blue.

This whole situation is pretty ironic. As I've noted here before, just a few weeks before Tangled was to be released, another Disney employee made a statement that was taken out-of-context. That Disney was supposedly never going to make another fairy tale again. That's not what he actually meant - what he was trying to say was that Disney had no interest in pursuing the little girl demographic with princess films, because apparently princesses didn't do well at the box office because Princess and the Frog was released at the same time as Avatar and the economy was in the middle of its nasty downturn. And then Tangled did well and the "boys club" (as Brenda Chapman aptly puts it) ate their words and pulled the Snow Queen project off of the shelf, which had been an on-again off-again production for a long time at Disney.

As hard as the boys club works, they still seem to not understand why Disney has become the powerhouse that it has. The two films that saved the Disney animation studio from closing were Cinderella and The Little Mermaid - and let's not forget the very first Disney animated feature film that starred Snow White, which was a huge success for the Disney company. They need to understand that it's so much more than just having pretty princesses make a nice doll set.

It's about having any female character to have a story center around her. Because most forms of entertainment star a male character, the male-to-female character ratio is generally 3-to-1, and at best, the female is just in a supporting romantic role, only there to romantically engage the male hero.

Traditionally, boys have had their superheroes. Yes, Marvel and DC have female superheroes as well, but do they get big-budget movies starring just them? Marvel's Avengers set, which has done tremendously well at the box office, only has one female heroine that has not even had her own movie. And let's face it...while Black Widow is awesome, her story is still greatly shrouded in mystery and her costume is a basic black leather catsuit which more than likely doesn't really help her all that much in combat. Over on DC's side, they've been working on a Wonder Woman film for years, and at this rate, it's just never going to happen because all of these big male executives are too chicken to finish the job.

So where does that leave female movie-goers, especially ones of the younger variety who wants toys and costumes to pretend that they are those characters because there is something inside of them that they aspire to be? Disney heroines often enter the picture, and these women generally emulate great compassion, dedication, dreams and fulfilling them. The female underdog that somehow, despite all of these obstacles thrown in her way, achieves her happy ending because she chooses to be brave and takes a risk to get there. Yes, they're beautiful and have wonderful dresses that many of us want to wear, but it's their story and their heart that connect with people all over the world.

But these marketing folks that are aiming to sell as much product as they can - and to a certain extent, many of the higher-ups at Disney - well, I don't think they realize that. Maybe the little boys want the toy cars because it gives the boys a sense of action and the cars are shiny, but personally, I connected with Cinderella because the world was often cruel to her and she continually responded with kindness and her goodness granted her a happily ever after - not because she had a big ballgown and danced with a prince.

In any case, if marketing has this much control over the creative process - and believe me, they do certainly have some clout - then we as fans need to speak up. We can't just say that a statement is misogynistic (even when it is), because that's not going to change the creative process in animating these characters. We need to say that we want to see real human expressions, even if that means that a character is suddenly unattractive. That we want to see more realistic portrayals of humanity, even along with the nitty-gritty.

And maybe, just maybe, we need to stop untagging ourselves or deleting pictures where we ourselves do not feel that we look "perfect." Maybe we all need to recognize that perfection is truly in the eye of the beholder, and that perhaps it is time to practice what we preach when we tell little girls that they do not have to look a certain way to feel good about themselves. Because until that happens, quite honestly, none of this is going to change.

The Oft Frozen Journey of the Snow Queen

EDIT: Due to the fact that those supposed Frozen posters of Anna and Elsa were fake, and that Disney has requested their removal in many places online, I have chosen to remove the images that I originally used of them in this article. From what I have heard, the actual models were rather close to what the final character designs were, but I guess we'll have to see - Disney has to release some sort of teaser trailer soon, right?

Not too long ago, Disney gave us a first look at a piece of concept art for Frozen.

Ominously (at least that's how I felt at the time), Elsa, the Snow Queen, was left out of the image while we got a look at Anna (her sister) and Kristoff.

I suppose I've had high hopes for the Snow Queen's design. This animated film has been a long time coming, so there's quite a bit of old concept art out there.

My favorite.

The majority of the old concept art for the Snow Queen shows a very beautiful yet cruel-looking character, or at least someone that you might not feel too comfortable having dinner with. Which is probably part of the reason why this project has been so plagued with problems story-wise.

This film has had several stops and goes...going all the way back to the 1930s, believe it or not (though back then it was supposed to be part live-action and part animation). The project was once called "The Ice Queen" as well as, of course, "The Snow Queen." I'm fairly confident that the project is now called "Frozen" because of how well Tangled did. Those guys in marketing must be convinced that due to the name change for Rapunzel's story and somehow "hiding" the fact that the film was a princess story, instead of making it obvious with The Princess and the Frog, Tangled did better than they thought it would.

In fact, when Princess and the Frog didn't do quite as well as they wanted, that's when Disney chose to rename the Rapunzel film. Disney has wanted to make as much as it did when The Lion King came out ($312 million). Never mind that the film was competing with Avatar at the time and that that's when the economy truly went down the tanker...

That was also one of the instances when the Snow Queen project was shelved. A princess and traditionally hand-drawn film? Oh no, that simply wouldn't do! In fact, mere days before Tangled was released, Ed Catmull stated that Disney was done with fairy tales for a while (though I will emphasize here that after nearly everyone freaked out from what he said, he went on record saying that he didn't mean that Disney would never churn out a fairy tale film ever again). But he and John Lasseter, who oversaw Disney animation, canned not just the Snow Queen film, but also a version they were planning of Jack and the Beanstalk. It's kind of ironic, considering that, once upon a time, John was very eager to actually direct the Snow Queen project, actually wanting to direct a princess film.

Then Tangled was released and earned over $200 million domestically, and the big boys that scoffed at fairy tales and princess stories were reminded why Disney became a powerhouse in the first place. Yes, it helped that Flynn/Eugene was an actually interesting character and the film had some action and adventure - but that never changed the fact that the film was still a fairy tale centered around the story of a princess. The Princess and the Frog had an interesting male character (and was just all-around solid with great word of mouth) as well, but perhaps featuring Flynn more prominently for Tangled's promos helped.

There is something to be said for setting the bar too high for your own good, though. Disney/Pixar cannot expect to get the same set of numbers at the box office every time. Instead of focusing so much on how much of a box office blockbuster they create, they should be more focused on the creative quality of their films (not that quality has gone awry yet per say). And as we all know, Disney makes the majority of its money from their films in the long-run, not simply the time that their films are out in theaters. Merchandise is a huge money-maker, especially where the princesses are concerned. 

Anyhow, Tangled proved that the world still wanted to see Disney princesses and fairy tales, which is why the Snow Queen project made a comeback. But perhaps Disney is trying a little too hard to replicate Tangled's success. Besides the name change, the new Disney Princess Anna looks an awful lot like Rapunzel.

So what if they gave Anna blue eyes and strawberry blonde hair instead of green eyes and regular blonde hair...they still look like they could be sisters.

Is this the price of doing this film in CG? Are all of the girls are going to have the same head shape, eyes and nose? People have noted how similar Ariel and Rapunzel are in design, but honestly, after seeing Anna I feel it a bit less. If Disney took the film in a more unique art direction, it would not be so obvious. But at least all of the snow will look luminous...

The original Hans Christian Andersen story actually features children (Kai and Gerda) as main characters. I'm not sure why Disney decided to drop this idea...perhaps they were hung up on creating a romance. But they did toy with the idea. As for the name changes, while I have heard some criticism regarding the matter, I do not see a big problem with it. As someone who has family from that part of the world, I can safely say that all of their names are very Danish.

I am happy to see that Kristoff is a slightly burlier man. While not quite a Bastion (a shelved concept for Rapunzel's beau), he's not as thin as he was in his original concept art.

They have strayed quite far from the original fairy tale, and that is their right as creators of entertainment. But they do seem to be pushing further and further away from the original fairy tale and original concept. The Snow Queen, or Elsa, looks like she came straight out of one of the CG Tinkerbell films or even from Dreamworks. Here's the brand new poster of her (sorry about the awkward logo).

It's true that once Disney decided to toy with more serious animated features, their box office revenues began to dip. Somehow The Lion King, which took the plot of Shakespeare's "Halmet," was able to find a strong balance between comedy and tragedy, and without feeling like it was some sort of formula. But once Pocahontas and The Hunchback of Notre Dame were released, audiences dropped from the numbers they had built from earlier in the Disney Renaissance.

It's a shame, really. I actually love Pocahontas and Hunchback. They both have sweeping scores, beautiful animation and I felt that Disney made some bold choices with those films. Perhaps part of the problem was that they weren't dedicated to being serious enough...the moment where they would try to implement comedy or cut certain songs were possibly where things went wrong. But in any case, trying to make a film for everyone is shooting yourself in the foot. 99% of the time you just can't please everyone.

Disney is definitely leaning towards a comedic feel, however. Besides a one-antlered reindeer, there will also be a talking snowman named Olaf. He's a snowman, and this film will be released for the holidays, which means a bunch of Christmas merchandise tie-ins. Not quite sure how I feel about him yet.

I still have high hopes for this film, regardless of all the changes it's gone through. Part of what can help ensure that this film isn't just about some cold-hearted [insert derogatory female term here] and coming across as woman-hating, Jennifer Lee, who co-wrote the script for Wreck-It Ralph, will be co-directing this film alongside Chris Buck, as well as contributing to the film's script.

Besides the script and direction, the music and casting sounds promising. Kristen Bell will voice Anna, and Idina Menzel will voice Elsa. Both have great musical theatre chops, though obviously the latter is more well-known for it than the other. While we saw Idina in Enchanted (and was even animated as a fairy tale version of herself), playing a leading role in a Disney animated feature must be a dream come true.

As for the score and lyrics, Broadway vets Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez (a married team, aww) are taking care of it. You can bet that the lyrics will be very clever and probably quite funny.

So while Frozen may not be the film we all expected it to be from the beginning, it will probably be successful in that it will entertain audiences. And that's really the most important aspect in all of this, right?

And in the meantime, I'll be anxiously awaiting that secret 2D animated film that Ron and John are working on for (I believe) 2014.