BEAUTY AND BEARS IN THE FULL BRAVE TRAILER, BUT DOES IT HOOK YOU?

Sadly, I'm not getting this movie yet. Feels weird, man.

The trailer left me . . . whelmed.  I got a major Dreamworks vibe from the character design.

With the way that this trailer is cut, what had originally come across as mysterious and evocative in a teaser has become something that feels very 'average.'

That was surprisingly Disney-ish. Which isn't a bad thing, but I expect more from Pixar. I was under the impression that this was more of an epic fantasy and less of a Disney Princess story, but maybe that's just the way the trailer is cut. I can't help but notice they seem to be concealing the plot from us--it really feels like there are major elements that aren't being revealed to the audience, either here or in the synopsis.

If that trailer is any indication, 'tween girls are going to love this flick.

But I think Prankster is right...they're playing cagey with the plot and that leads me to reserve judgment. Pixar should get some benefit of the doubt, Cars 2 notwithstanding...

I don't like that the plot seems to be playing up the whole "female protagonist" thing. Guys, you don't have to make a movie about grrl power in the face of discrimination to be feminist. Why can't it just have a protagonist who happens to be a girl? Like how Flik from A Bug's Life or Remy from Ratatouille easily could have been female, without changing anything about the rest of the film.

Then again, it could just be the marketing. Or it is an unsubtle girl power film, but they manage to put a new spin on it. Or any number of things. Honestly, this is the first trailer for a Pixar film besides the ones for the Cars movies (yes, both of them) that didn't leave me goosebumpy with anticipation. It does look awfully Dreamworky. But if any studio earns the benefit of my doubt, it's the Pix.

Given how the ultimate embodiment of anti-girl power is coming to a theater near you this Friday, I got no problem with any movie in this current age blatantly telling little girls they have power beyond their imagination.

Stil, normalizing this shit *is* something that needs to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangy 

The trailer left me . . . whelmed.  I got a major Dreamworks vibe from the character design.

Sadly, I felt the same way and a bit under whelmed.  I'll see this of course, it looks beautiful and it's Pixar. (Never did nor will I ever see Cars 2)

The main characters accent was getting on my nerves during the trailer, but I'm sure once I get used to it, it'll be fine.  I wonder if they "borrowed" any of the Disney tech that was used for the hair simulations in Tangled.

Actually, considering the possibility that the less than stellar performance of The Princess and the Frog resulted in a Rapunzel movie that was retooled to be something more boys would like, it's kinda gutsy that the marketing for Brave is pushing the Girl Power aspect of the story.

Or maybe not, since this Girl Power emphasizes action and archery.

Ah, marketing. 

It's freaking Pixar, people. Cars 2 aside, they get the benefit of the doubt. And aren't full Pixar trailers always kind of funky?

I'm excited, and fully prepared for the "Yeah, this was great" that will inevitably happen upon the film's release.

Was I the only one who thought the description of the beast in the beginning of trouble was going to end up being a fluffy white bunny rather than a bear? Connolly was giving me some Monty Python vibes.  ("It had biiiiiiiig teeeeth! It could jump thiiiiiiiis high!")

The comparisons to Dreamworks are so superficial and unwarranted.  The tone is 100% Pixar.  None of the tackiness that one associates with Dreamworks...  Does anyone else remember being totally underwhelmed by the Ratatouille trailer?

Could just be my feelings of the film affecting my memory, but I actually really liked the trailers for Ratatouille.  The Incredibles got me excited for the film.  Wall-E definitely did.  Up.  Monsters Inc's had fun teasers.  Finding Nemo had cute ones. 

There is this sense of Pixar's trailers being underwhelming, but I think that's exaggerated.

The teaser for Brave was evocative.  This new trailer feels kinda random and generic.  I think Prankster was right on the money with the comparison to Disney.

It felt like it could be the trailer for a live action film....not that it looked live action, but the plots and themes and what I could see from the characters felt grounded in the real-world. I guess what I mean to say is that they were cartoons, but felt real, like the people in the Incredibles.

Yes, because Disney is *so* terrible *rolls eyes*.

I think this is just Pixar doing something different, and we're having to adjust a bit. They haven't really done a fantasy adventure like this before.

I meant Disney marketing, Chris.

In fact, everything I'm talking about it just about marketing.  Not about the films themselves.  This doesn't make me any more interested in the movie than I was already.  I'm going to see it regardless.

I don't know what it says about me, but I never even bother reading the text cards that BOOM/FLASH/ZOOM their way through trailers.  Like Mr. Voice, they just end up spouting the same thing across so many movies that they don't even register in my brain.

There are cute creatures cutely screaming, an ass flashing joke, a bait-and-switch scrawny guy joke, and an an old lady running into something all in one trailer. Not saying Pixar is above this stuff, but there's just not the same chewy panache one expects from their non-Larry The Cable Guy shit. It looks to me like they could have cut a really mysterious and moody trailer out of this material, without entirely sacrificing levity. Then again, this armchair PR department stuff is pretty much the most useless part of online film punditry, so I'll leave it there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I meant Disney marketing, Chris.

 

In fact, everything I'm talking about it just about marketing.  Not about the films themselves.  This doesn't make me any more interested in the movie than I was already.  I'm going to see it regardless.

 

I don't know what it says about me, but I never even bother reading the text cards that BOOM/FLASH/ZOOM their way through trailers.  Like Mr. Voice, they just end up spouting the same thing across so many movies that they don't even register in my brain.

Oh! Oh, sorry, man. And I totally get the complaints about marketing, believe me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

There are cute creatures cutely screaming, an ass flashing joke, a bait-and-switch scrawny guy joke, and an an old lady running into something all in one trailer.

Yup. Smells like Shrek.

Fuck, it even sounds like Shrek.

Winky face.

Though I feel the need to point out that the Dreamworks movie this most resembles, How to Train Your Dragon, was great and pretty much Pixar-worthy in ad of itself, so there's that. I really think Dreamworks has earned the right not to be used as a pejorative at this point.

I'm completely confident in Pixar, but it's a bit of a muddled trailer is all. I'm pretty much convinced it's the marketing people trying to make it look like Shrek or a Disney Princess film, when there's more to it. But who knows. The first bit is actually excellent.

Pixar HAS produced some weakish trailers in the past. The Finding Nemo teaser was incredibly lame. Monsters Inc. I remember being a bit blah. I can't remember if Ratatouille's second trailer was particularly good, at that point it was more of the usual Pixar momentum (and Ratatouille is arguably my favourite Pixar movie).

I will say this, there is a bit of a danger here that Disney buying Pixar might have a negative effect. Back in the day, when Disney was knocking hit after animated hit out of the park, they suffered from a dogpile of producers, all trying to "make their mark" on these sure-fire winners, and that's what slowly turned them into chaotic, formulaic jumbles. Animated movies tend to be decentralized productions, without a single strong viewpoint they can be subject to meddling from the suits, even when they have a proven track record. I'm hoping we're not about to see the same kind of "death by a thousand cuts" that chipped away at the classic animated Disney films.

Yeah the whole assumption that Pixar is always pure unfiltered genius and Dreamworks is always lowest common denominator shit is a bit lazy and innaccurate at this point.

That said I find some of the criticisms of this trailer a bit oddly harsh. It looks nice, the characters seem good. My main problem with it is it seemed to get halfway through setting up the premise but didn't bother telling us what the actual drive of the story is.

I don't really get the criticisms about the 'girl power' aspect. Any story with a strong female protagonist in a medieval setting is likely to have some element of that if only because they didn't exactly have progressive gender roles back then, and reading the synopsis it doesn't sounds like it's an overtly feminist story on the whole. You guys are weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Yeah the whole assumption that Pixar is always pure unfiltered genius and Dreamworks is always lowest common denominator shit is a bit lazy and innaccurate at this point.

 

That said I find some of the criticisms of this trailer a bit oddly harsh. It looks nice, the characters seem good. My main problem with it is it seemed to get halfway through setting up the premise but didn't bother telling us what the actual drive of the story is.

 

Yes and yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Yeah the whole assumption that Pixar is always pure unfiltered genius and Dreamworks is always lowest common denominator shit is a bit lazy and innaccurate at this point.

Lazy and Inaccurate are my middle names. So is Weird.

Haha man reading my recent posts I really need to lay off the grumpy snark for a bit.

"Cars" changed Pixar. When you're making $500 million a year with great movies, not everyone's happy. When you make that one billion dollar movie, "Cars," expectations change. Now $500 million every time out isn't enough. You're also going to need the toys, the merchandise and the replay value.

Previous Pixar trailers often emphasized the timelessness of the movie, and the need to see it in the theater. I'll bet "Brave" is great, but the marketing seems to hit the "disposable" sweet spot that parents and kids crave, i.e. you will consume this repeatedly like product because of the familiarity, and because of the coming toys. It's a note you don't really need to hit, but it's a sign that "Cars" made the marketing guys at the studio pretty craven about this sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Haha man reading my recent posts I really need to lay off the grumpy snark for a bit.

You were pretty much right though Paul, the general tone of conversation lately has been that while Pixar is still top dog Dreamworks' best is better than Pixar's worst. The work these studios have produced lie over spectrums, they don't sit at constant quality levels.

That's why my post compared it specifically to Shrek. I was half joking at the Scottish accent, but it's also that similar disposable vibe Gabe was talking about as well as a few broad "cheap" gags like Renn pinpointed.

And it's not like Pixar doing broad gags is a new thing. They love their physical comedy. I agree, however, that the trailer makes it look "disposable".

First of all, let's not act like How to Train Your Dragon somehow suddenly gives Dreamworks Animation as good a track record as Pixar.  The good to bad ratio still comes down pretty hard on the bad side, and I'd watch Cars again any day before I'd sit through Madagascar or Shark Tale.

Second, I think what's jarring about this trailer is that it almost seems like a completely different film than what was indicated by the earlier teaser.  Note that I didn't say it looked like a bad film.  But that teaser was all mists and wonder and magic, and anyone hoping for more of the same from the full trailer was bound to pull up and say, "Huh?"

Eh, I still think the first Madagascar was a fun, breezy comedy. But you're correct that their track record is pretty uneven otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Second, I think what's jarring about this trailer is that it almost seems like a completely different film than what was indicated by the earlier teaser.  Note that I didn't say it looked like a bad film.  But that teaser was all mists and wonder and magic, and anyone hoping for more of the same from the full trailer was bound to pull up and say, "Huh?"

Do we have any idea what thrust of the story is, aside from the main character wanting the freedom to make her own choices in life?  Everything we're shown in the trailer looks like it's form the first act.

Apparently the story involves the young girl making a deal with a local witch to conjure up some defeatable monster so she can prove her worthiness to everyone, but then the monster gets out of control. So she dabbles in some dark stuff and makes sort of a Faustian pact, hence the shadows and fog of that earlier teaser.

But, of course, Pixar is always changing their stories late in the game. Netflix cases for Ratatouille still feature the original concept, which was about a rat named Ratatouille who lived under a restaurant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JuddL 

Do we have any idea what thrust of the story is, aside from the main character wanting the freedom to make her own choices in life?  Everything we're shown in the trailer looks like it's form the first act.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

Apparently the story involves the young girl making a deal with a local witch to conjure up some defeatable monster so she can prove her worthiness to everyone, but then the monster gets out of control. So she dabbles in some dark stuff and makes sort of a Faustian pact, hence the shadows and fog of that earlier teaser.

I hadn't heard about that aspect.  What gave me a little pause is the shot of the three bear cubs in the trailer, which makes me think we're getting the old "the bear's not a monster, she's just protecting her young!" trope.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Eh, I still think the first Madagascar was a fun, breezy comedy. But you're correct that their track record is pretty uneven otherwise.

It most certainly is, but the old, simplistic Pixar = Perfection, Dreamworks = Dopey type shorthand equations haven't been true for some time.

You're correct in that, Bucho, though I still think Pixar's only real potholes so far have been the Cars movies.

Shark Tale was, what, six years ago? Meanwhile, they've produced Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon, which are definitely Pixar-worthy, and Monsters vs. Aliens, Kung Fu Panda 2, and Megamind, which were solid enough. Haven't seen Madagascar, but it sounds like it had some points of interest. The only exceptions to a general run of quality are the Shrek movies, which are actually done by another studio, PDI (or at least, it used to be a different studio, maybe they've been absorbed by Dreamworks at this point). I don't think it's unfair to say that Dreamworks has been stepping up its game of late, probably to respond to Pixar.

And since Pixar's last two movies were sequels, with another on the way, they may not be able to keep their freight train of quality running. This movie needs to be a return to classic Pixar quality to correct my worries that they're starting to rest on their laurels. Fortunately, I remain convinced that this trailer doesn't represent the film accurately at all. As has been pointed out, it looks mostly like first act stuff, the giant monster bear that I know for a fact is a big part of the story is barely in the trailer, and I'm pretty sure there are more fantasy elements than we're seeing. On the other hand, this movie's gone through a change of director and some major revamping, which, while it's happened before at Pixar, is still worrisome. I can easily see the film's original director, Brenda Chapman, having pitched it as more of an adult fantasy with darker tones (as per the original teaser) and Disney--who, let's remember, now owns Pixar completely--putting pressure to turn into another film that feeds the "princess" brand. However, Googling around, the new director, Mark Andrews, is quoted as saying that this is a little "darker" and "more intense" than Pixar usually goes, so hopefully it's a case of a nervous marketing department rather than a serious change to the movie itself.

EDIT: For what it's worth, Chapman was one of the directors on Prince of Egypt. Mark Andrews directed One Man Band but has never helmed a feature-length movie before. Also, Kelly MacDonald is replacing Reese Witherspoon as the voice of Merida (the lead girl), which I didn't know. That actually seems like an improvement.

On the flip side, this is their 13th movie. Bad omen.

But when you say something like "solid enough," it really smacks of damning with faint praise. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Quote:

 

 

I hadn't heard about that aspect.  What gave me a little pause is the shot of the three bear cubs in the trailer, which makes me think we're getting the old "the bear's not a monster, she's just protecting her young!" trope.

My theory is that the three little red-headed boys (brothers?) are turned into bears by the witch. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

But when you say something like "solid enough," it really smacks of damning with faint praise. 

I mean they were entertaining movies that don't rise to the level of greatness that most Pixar movies, and some Dreamworks movies, do. It doesn't mean they were mediocre (depending on your definition of mediocrity, I suppose.)

My point is that there's been a definite upswing in quality at Dreamworks in the last few years. It's not fair to lump everything they've ever produced together.

Mark Andrews has also done work on shows like Samurai Jack, so we know he's familiar with action.

As for whether or not Pixar is resting on their laurels because of sequels, Toy Story 3 was pretty damn brave in some of the stuff it confronted, and Cars 2 (whatever faults it has elsewhere) took a risk with it's anti-big-oil plot.

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but I don't think Pixar have done a front-to-back great movie since The Incredibles. Since then, they've made movies with brilliant sequences - bits so powerful that they're enough to excite people into hailing a pretty good movie as yet another Pixar masterpiece.

Wall-E was technically impressive and an admirable attempt to do something different. But through the first stretch I felt I had to keep reminding myself how wonderfully clever and bold and daring they were for pitching a sci-fi movie in the quiet tradition of 2001 and Silent Running to kids, as if to distract myself from the fact that, if I'm being totally honest, I was finding it slightly dull. And then there's the problem of it essentially being a half hour short film with a couple of relatively forgettable extra acts tacked on.

Ratatouille and Up both showed increasing maturity, but were mixed in with flat out wacky cartoon elements that felt out of place and made it feel like they couldn't bring themselves to fully commit to the direction they were pushing in. The intro to Up is a masterpiece of a short film that is, again, attached to a relatively disposable main story full of talking dogs and wacky road runner throwbacks.

Then there's Toy Story 3, which has a wonderful moving ending that has nothing much to do with the film itself and everything to do with paying off the emotional investment and goodwill gained from the previous two films. You could cut it down into a 15 or 20 minute coda to Toy Story 2 and it would work every bit as well. The rest of it is hardly bad, but is basically Toy Story by numbers.

So I guess my problem is they're either inconsistent in tone and focus, and/or they have oddly choppy, episodic stories. The synopsis for this one sounds potentially solid, but the fact they switched directors yet again makes me worry a bit about how focused it'll be.

Eh, I can't say I agree with that at all, Paul. I didn't much like the Cars films for various reasons, but Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3 are still some of my favorite animated films of the last decade.

Wall-E, Ratatouille and Up work precisely because they don't simply adhere to one genre.

My thoughts are very similar to Paul's, except that I absolutely love the first 40 or 50 minutes of Wall-E and think that even Toy Story by-the-numbers was a brilliantly made film. (I also have never seen the English language version of Ratatouille, so my view on that is skewed compared to other Chewers.)

I still enjoyed them all to a greater or lesser extent and I'll rewatch most of them but they didn't maintain the heights of Pixar's best for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Wall-E, Ratatouille and Up work precisely because they don't simply adhere to one genre.

What he said. Hell, you could say the same thing about most Pixar films. For example: The Incredibles is a superhero movie, a family comedy, AND a spy flick.

I mean, let's look at Up.  What's left for that film to do if Carl doesn't go off on his adventure?  I suppose it could have simply been the story of Russell slowly bringing him out of his shell, but then all the resonance of the adventure idea is lost.  There's nothing to tie the story back to the scenes of Carl's childhood that the film starts off with.  It might seem like silly adventures with talking dogs, but thematically, it's a perfect fit.

I think Ratatouille is flawless.  I'm curious what you mean by,  "couldn't bring themselves to fully commit to the direction they were pushing in."  If it's merely the presence of slapstick comedy, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.  Personally, I didn't find any of it out of place or tonally inconsistent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

This probably won't be a popular opinion, but I don't think Pixar have done a front-to-back great movie since The Incredibles. Since then, they've made movies with brilliant sequences - bits so powerful that they're enough to excite people into hailing a pretty good movie as yet another Pixar masterpiece.

 

Wall-E was technically impressive and an admirable attempt to do something different. But through the first stretch I felt I had to keep reminding myself how wonderfully clever and bold and daring they were for pitching a sci-fi movie in the quiet tradition of 2001 and Silent Running to kids, as if to distract myself from the fact that, if I'm being totally honest, I was finding it slightly dull. And then there's the problem of it essentially being a half hour short film with a couple of relatively forgettable extra acts tacked on.

 

Ratatouille and Up both showed increasing maturity, but were mixed in with flat out wacky cartoon elements that felt out of place and made it feel like they couldn't bring themselves to fully commit to the direction they were pushing in. The intro to Up is a masterpiece of a short film that is, again, attached to a relatively disposable main story full of talking dogs and wacky road runner throwbacks.

 

Then there's Toy Story 3, which has a wonderful moving ending that has nothing much to do with the film itself and everything to do with paying off the emotional investment and goodwill gained from the previous two films. You could cut it down into a 15 or 20 minute coda to Toy Story 2 and it would work every bit as well. The rest of it is hardly bad, but is basically Toy Story by numbers.

 

So I guess my problem is they're either inconsistent in tone and focus, and/or they have oddly choppy, episodic stories. The synopsis for this one sounds potentially solid, but the fact they switched directors yet again makes me worry a bit about how focused it'll be.

Just wanted to say you've summed up my thoughts exactly, though I'd like to add that HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON is over rated, and suffers from many typical dream works animation issues

I don't think it's wrong to critique that element of the trailers at all. I myself have grown tired of the whole "tomboy who doesn't want to wear dresses" type of character in general, and I kind of find it slightly agitating in this trailer here.

At this point I wish I could have a funny female character who likes to wear dresses, and likes to be physical, and there doesn't seem to be some binary choice made between those two elements.

Well, for what it's worth, Merida does appear to wear dresses all through the film, and also be a tomboy who uses weapons.

I'm with Judd, Dickson and Chris, Ratatouille is probably Pixar's best film, and Up is pretty spectacular as well. I'm not sure I even get Paul's criticism of them. They're cartoons, but it's not like they're wall-to-wall fart jokes.