Indeed, Rapunzel was officially inducted into Disney's highly marketable princess line in a live ceremony with a weird plastic-faced model:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111003005892/en/Rapunzel-Welcomed-10th-Disney-Princess-Watched-World%E2%80%99s
― i couldn't adjust the food knobs (Phil D.), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 21:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
rapunzel was a princess in tangled, she'd just been raised by a broadway witch her whole life and didn't figure out she was a kidnapped princess until the end.
― what the fuck does a horse know about the hero's journey anyway (reddening), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 21:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
Man I am super tired of storylines about how the world's first feminist wants to get to fight or whatever the fuck
i was going to post about this in the dark & gritty snow white thread, two upcoming movies AND the new "once upon a time" show portray snow white as this wood-dwelling badass with weapons. now, i have faith in pixar to do this well, but everyone else needs to starting mixing it up a little imo
― what the fuck does a horse know about the hero's journey anyway (reddening), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
you know what upcoming Pixar movie looks rad, is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck-It_Ralph
― sex-poodle Al Gore (DJP), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh man! drop that link into the new thread about 8-bit nostalgia and let's see what happens
― what the fuck does a horse know about the hero's journey anyway (reddening), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:13 (1 year ago) Permalink
xps Maid Marion and her Merry Men did it best:
― kinder, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Okay so we're done with all the sequel idiocy for a while? Good.
Oh thank god. The Pixar schedule was looking horribly unimaginative for a while there.
― Wilco Pump Pant (Schlafsack), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
There is apparently a Monsters Inc. prequel or something coming so fuck that but hopefully things will progress forward otherwise...
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:18 (1 year ago) Permalink
what's the point of a monsters inc. movie without boo :(
― what the fuck does a horse know about the hero's journey anyway (reddening), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
*shrug*
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/03/29/pixarmonsters-inc-sequel-is-actually-prequ/
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
“The film is a prequel that tells you a little bit about how (Mike and Sully) first met, attending Monsters University,” Hollis told theater owners gathered in Las Vegas on Tuesday for their annual CinemaCon convention. “Obviously everybody knows at this point Mike and Sully are amazing friends — the best of friends — but as it turns out, in this story, that wasn’t always the case. From the moment they met at university, they could not stand each other. This story takes you through the ups and downs, and how they overcame their own differences.”
Let hate be unconfined.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:24 (1 year ago) Permalink
speaking of fresh plotlines
― what the fuck does a horse know about the hero's journey anyway (reddening), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 22:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
another monsters inc film will be alright. at least that's a good universe with likeable characters.
fucking cars2 was so horrible I felt like I needed a brain douche after seeing it.
― akm, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
wreck it ralph is not a pixar film.
― akm, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:17 (1 year ago) Permalink
I was gonna point that out but it's probably hard to know where one ends and the other begins these days
― Number None, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
They're different studios!Yeah I'm also looking forward to the Monsters prequel. Monsters Inc is one of my favourites.
― kinder, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:32 (1 year ago) Permalink
but Lasseter is in charge of both
― Number None, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
xpost A lot of the so-called Disney princesses or whatever aren't princesses ... until they marry a prince. Belle, Cinderella, Snow White, Mulan Tiana in "Frog," not princesses. Jasmine is a princess. Sleeping Beauty is a princess. So is ... Pocahontas, I guess. And Ariel. And I guess Rapunzel. Anyway, that's a pretty fair princess rate.
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
BTW, is this the thread where we scratch our heads at Brad Bird doing MI:4?
theres an mi4 thread already iirc
― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
the joeks in this trailer were really flat
― dayo, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:39 (1 year ago) Permalink
pixar trailers usually kinda suck iirc
― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
and Andrew Stanton is doing John Carter. it's kind of weird to me that they both want to get into live action.
― the wheelie king (wk), Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Y'know what looks good? That Aardman Pirates movie
― Number None, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Damn, I had totally missed that!
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 16 November 2011 23:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
AKA The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists, in the UK, with an awesome sea-shanty trailer:
― kinder, Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
I'd be curious to see how this turns out btw - so many of the best pixar movies are very unconventional stories told in ways that really take advantage of the computer animation medium. in short, films that would never, ever work as live action films. this one it seems could probably be made as a live-action for 1/10 the cost.
― dayo, Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah I promise that dozens of people and many thousands of dollars were spent on the main character's hair
― ooh i love my loaf n jug! (silby), Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
the hair does look amazing to be fair
― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
oh to be sure
― ooh i love my loaf n jug! (silby), Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
― what the fuck does a horse know about the hero's journey anyway (reddening), Wednesday, November 16, 2011 5:06 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark
otm
― Juggy Brottleteen (ENBB), Thursday, 17 November 2011 00:48 (1 year ago) Permalink
Thus far I've thought "The Incredibles" was the only Pixar movie that could be made live action with really barely any changes. That was my only disappointment with that one.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 17 November 2011 02:15 (1 year ago) Permalink
Of course by "live action" in that case you mean "real human actors in CG robots, superpowers, airplanes, and volcanos"
― ooh i love my loaf n jug! (silby), Thursday, 17 November 2011 02:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
yeah tbh i am not even really a pixar fan (though i like the ones everyone likes), and i have cranky indefensible old man beef over cg pretty much deading cel animation and yadda yadda, but i would actually prefer to see a lot of these cgi sfx spectaculars be totally animated in a pixar style.
getting a very vague "pixar's miyazaki fandom comes to the fore with this one" vibe off this trailer, but maybe that's just because of a.) the landscape shots and b.) the fact that it looks like more of a traditional adventure flick with a plucky heroine.
― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Thursday, 17 November 2011 02:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
well between the character designs (which display a very overt miyazaki influence) and their stated intention to tell a story 'darker and more mature in tone' i think yr probably on the right track
― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Thursday, 17 November 2011 15:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
i would actually prefer to see a lot of these cgi sfx spectaculars be totally animated in a pixar style.
agree w/this, and
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:15 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
dont really get this! art direction, character design, visual storytelling all would be diminished by a live action treatment... its a cartoon through and through!
― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Thursday, 17 November 2011 15:35 (1 year ago) Permalink
i hope the theme song of monster university is a version of this
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 November 2011 15:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
― The sham nation of Israel should be destroyed. (Princess TamTam), Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:35 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
ya i totally agree - what a weird thing to be disappointed by
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Thursday, 17 November 2011 15:38 (1 year ago) Permalink
A whole bunch of new images!http://disney.go.com/brave/#/characters/
― kinder, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 06:29 (1 year ago) Permalink
<3 "Lord Macintosh"
― kinder, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 06:33 (1 year ago) Permalink
Big Macintosh > Lord Macintosh
― Nicole, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 13:45 (1 year ago) Permalink
Between Shrek and every other Mike Myers endeavor, kind of Scottish accented out (sorry, Scots!). But this looks great and I can't wait to bring my daughters, even though I have a hunch the trailers gives everything away (monster is the bear, bear has cubs, bear not so bad after all, we all learn something).
― Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
we learn the bear likes the taste of bravado-filled redheads
― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Brave and the Bold (BBQ Sauce)
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 22 February 2012 15:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
Watch the first scene from Pixar's BRAVE now. (Deleted hyperbolic io9.com exclamation point.)
― A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Thursday, 23 February 2012 13:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
There's an article in this week's Time magazine that gives a little insight into the directors and people working on it:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2107515,00.html
(although the beginning bit about how it's a total 12-year-old-boy environment doesn't really ring true and seems to be just there for the narrative they decided on for the piece)
― kinder, Saturday, 25 February 2012 00:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
paywalled article, I fear.
Love the character design, and that clip is ace. Pretty stoked for this now.
― that mustardless plate (Bill A), Sunday, 26 February 2012 00:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
Watch the much better Japanese trailer!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8zzSqWUmlts#!
― Nicholas Pokémon (silby), Friday, 9 March 2012 22:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
http://io9.com/5899668/weve-seen-the-first-30-minutes-of-pixars-brave
That said this part really caught my eye:
Aside from the texture, the characters, and that hair, the thing you'll be talking about most when you leave the theater? La Luna, the short film that will play before Brave. We did see a final cut of La Luna, and nothing has ever made me feel so profoundly that I was watching an Italo Calvino story brought to life. I can't wait to see it again in June.
Hell yes to that!
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 6 April 2012 16:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Taking the marketing a little too far there, John:
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 26 April 2012 14:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
But a robot that turns into a dinosaur or a car? Nah. I can't say the Transformers promote violence any more than I'd say Barbie promotes mashing together invisible genitals with Ken.
this is absurd if you've ever seen a transformers cartoon or movie (also many of the toys come with laser guns) but god i would love it if literally all the transformers did was turn into cars and drive around
― da croupier, Monday, 28 January 2013 18:50 (3 months ago) Permalink
like if the autobots and decepticons were just rival taxi services
― da croupier, Monday, 28 January 2013 18:51 (3 months ago) Permalink
I'll back up again. The movies and comics, the cartoons, they all give you instruction as to what to do with the toys. But the toys themselves, which preceded the movies et al., are mostly spaceman innocent, I think. But the Barbies, even before the indoctrination of movies, books, cartoons, etc, are innately offensive to me.
xpost I swear to god, as a parent of 5.5 year old and 8 year old girls, I haven't stepped foot in so much as a Toys R Us since they were in diapers, and that was always for ... diapers. Actually, I guess that was Babies R Us. Anyway, for all you future parents worried, it's amazingly easy to avoid exposing your kids to a lot of shit. Step one: don't go to toys stores that sell the stuff. Step two: don't buy them shit like Barbies and Transformers or whatever.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 January 2013 18:55 (3 months ago) Permalink
i'm completely on board with "mass produced gender stereotype toys are all bullshit" rhetoric, full stop.
what transformers et.al. bring to the table is a continuing universe of sci-fi fan fic and endless comic book ADVENTURES whereas most disney princess stories tend to be about getting married and ruling the kingdom peacefully after your one adventure which is early brainwashing that women get one go at fun but boys can have fun forevvveeerrrrrrrrrr. cars gets sequels, how much you wanna bet we've seen the last of merida?
― an old penis drawing is now "new and notable" (forksclovetofu), Monday, 28 January 2013 18:55 (3 months ago) Permalink
Like, the Disney princess begin with the movies, so when kids play with the spin-off toys, they largely adhere to the plot of the movies. Which can be problematic, too, but I find it to be less insidious that flight attendant Barbie getting dressed to go clubbing with her buddies.
My wife's mom wanted to promote a healthy and equal view of gender, so she gave her daughters tonka trucks. Which the girls then piloted with Barbies.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 January 2013 18:58 (3 months ago) Permalink
Merida is the featured character in the current Disney on Ice tour, so there's that.
― Gollum: "Hot, Ready and Smeagol!" (Phil D.), Monday, 28 January 2013 18:59 (3 months ago) Permalink
― says a future man to his crystal son (reddening), Monday, 28 January 2013 19:00 (3 months ago) Permalink
My daughter was Merida for Halloween. She was not the only one.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 January 2013 19:01 (3 months ago) Permalink
pic is less "princess" and more female protags generally tho
― says a future man to his crystal son (reddening), Monday, 28 January 2013 19:02 (3 months ago) Permalink
Going back to what jon was saying re: La Luna, I too found it very moving, but it was almost entirely due to the visuals and sound. it was just sumptuous to experience. brave had some of that too, in merida's hair, the blue sprites that made the baby whisper sound, etc. but La Luna was just denser with it.
― says a future man to his crystal son (reddening), Monday, 28 January 2013 19:07 (3 months ago) Permalink
I do find myself in some of these movies getting almost overwhelmed by their preturnatural beauty. Story almost has nothing to do with it. Factor in looking over and seeing your kid wide-eyed, in awe ...
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 January 2013 19:11 (3 months ago) Permalink
reddening otm, i guess i should have been more clear that it was the visual aspect that i loved most about La Luna. also, otm, re: how gorgeous Brave could be. the rendering of the fur in the horses and bears was great. even in my least favorite Pixar flicks, they make me really happy to have a big HD screen to watch 'em on.
― HAPPY BDAY TOOTS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Monday, 28 January 2013 19:12 (3 months ago) Permalink
La Luna definitely was beautiful. The story and the visuals reminded me of Maurice Sendak for some reason.
― set the controls for the heart of the sun (VegemiteGrrl), Monday, 28 January 2013 19:13 (3 months ago) Permalink
Even if I've seen a movie a dozen times, looking over and watching my kids see it for the first time is almost better than me seeing it for the first time. My wife has had to explain to them the concept of "tears of happiness." Can only imagine how their rapidly developing brains process these hyper-detailed, neo-realistic movies. It's been really hard explaining CG to them.
"Is Harry Potter flying on a broomstick for real?"
"Well, no."
"So how did they do that?"
"They used computers to make a broom for him to fly on."
"So is he really flying?"
"Well, no, not really. It's just an illusion."
"How about the actor playing Harry Potter? Is he real?"
"He is in this scene, but sometimes he is not."
"How about the actor playing Dobby?"
"There is no actor playing Dobby."
And so on.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 28 January 2013 19:16 (3 months ago) Permalink
one thing i'll say is that i saw the movie in a shitty theater and that the visual nuances were lost as the film was slightly out of focus. i'd probably be a lot more forgiving if i coulda just focused on the pretty pretty hair
― an old penis drawing is now "new and notable" (forksclovetofu), Monday, 28 January 2013 19:39 (3 months ago) Permalink