Brave -- Pixar's 2012 release

xpost "Cars" was terrible on its own merits (animation aside). The NASCAR-stuff and Larry the Cable Guy were just gratuitous hedges/sops. Like, the world of "Cars" didn't even makes sense on its own terms - driverless, autonomous but still functioning cars going to tracks to watch other driverless, autonomous cars race? Going to the movies? Making fart and bathroom jokes?

Basically, want I want to know is: who built the cars? WHO BUILT THE CARS!!?!?

Hopefully they'll delve into that in "Cars 3." I still like the idea of a "Planet of the Apes" scenario, where the humans destroyed the planet and everyone died, and these cars evolved to supplant us. Ergo, "Cars 3" should be about the discovery of the last surviving human, and then go into a bunch of religion/free-will bullshit, who is the driver, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8

anyways, this is on my mind because tomorrow i am finally seeing PADAK the korean take on finding nemo in which the action takes place in a sushi tank and i think this is gonna be MUCH better than brave but if one of the fish is a princess i will report back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIFy35o1Vwg

i mean, if you wanna talk about increasing the stakes

smh at this thread taking off while I'm working! anyway xxxxxp what was the deus ex whiteperson in princess + frog? whiteperson doesn't end up saving her, True Love does.

even this news that "hey princess is just shorthand for bad work" seems sketchy

Not sure why princess = "vapid barbie adventures", or why barbie is any more vapid than a transformer.

did you click that disney princess link upthread and explore the website?
Transformers is vapid too! Who said they weren't?

forks there's a difference between feminist writers critiquing disney's princess culture and guys who think no one appreciations animation like they do using "princess" to mean shitty shit that's shitty

appreciates, rather

xpost Barbie is far worse, because there are body image issues going on, not to mention the blatant materialism/outright sexism of the very scenario. Transformers are toys, too, and designed to sell, but no one would accuse Optimus Prime of setting an unattainable standard for impressionable boys.

idk, i'm still trying to grow my shoulder-mounted rocket launchers.

Hey, you're either born with it or you aren't.

Barbie is far worse, because there are body image issues going on, not to mention the blatant materialism/outright sexism of the very scenario.

Disney Princess dolls are not exactly, uh, body-positive; and at least Barbie has actually been a doctor, astronaut and banker unlike SOME ROYALTY.

Barbie is far worse, because there are body image issues going on, not to mention the blatant materialism/outright sexism of the very scenario. Transformers are toys, too, and designed to sell, but no one would accuse Optimus Prime of setting an unattainable standard for impressionable boys.

Sorry, but I think that's horse shit. The Transformers send out a message that problems should be solved with violence and destruction. And there's a lot of materialism wrapped up in the idea of collecting all of the different action figures.

I'm sure we can agree that mass-marketed, gender-distinguished toys aimed at the lowest common denominator of attention span and leveraged to the freaking hilt by multinational entertainment industry GIANTS are horrible for everyone involved. There's probably even a thread for that, somewhere.

Definitely.

except for sectaurs

And Star Wars.

and stretch armstrong

and the bible

surprised we don't have a thread about BRATZ except for the failed movie but they are kind of the pinnacle of nu-barbie false empowerment niche marketing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjhWo7vduG4

Dolls are doll are dolls. They're all to be collected/bought/sold/marketed. But the Disney princess dolls (do such things exist? probably) are ancillary to the main property, which is the movies. Barbies, on the other hand, start with the dolls. The dolls are the main point. And the dolls themselves are materialistic - dream house, dream car, wardrobe, etc. Just the very existence of Barbie, a picture of Barbie, is innately offensive. 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.

Bratz promotes an unhealthy ideal head size.

You can't fool me, Stretch Armstrong IS in the Bible. xxxp

But the Disney princess dolls (do such things exist? probably)

Have you been in a store with a toy section? Ever?

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

like if the autobots and decepticons were just rival taxi services

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.

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?

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.

Merida is the featured character in the current Disney on Ice tour, so there's that.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/4e1176ea018140950aee88f52ecc3129/tumblr_mhc1rwj3Un1r7cp63o1_500.jpg

My daughter was Merida for Halloween. She was not the only one.

pic is less "princess" and more female protags generally tho

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.

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 ...

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.

La Luna definitely was beautiful. The story and the visuals reminded me of Maurice Sendak for some reason.

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.

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

meanwhile, in the good(?) news dept: does it seem like pixars writing department have swapped over to work at disney, where they are glitching the disney princess motif with gender bending video game characters and good dialogue and stuff in wreck-it ralph?

The other good news, after Monsters U this summer, original Good Dinosaur next year, followed by another sequel (Dory), but then followed (supposedly) by:

The Good Dinosaur will be followed by a film titled Inside Out "about the inside of a girl's mind."[45][46]

In April 2012, Pixar announced their intention to create a film centered on the Mexican holiday Día de los Muertos[47] and to be directed by Lee Unkrich.[48]

Both of which have prima facia non-sequel potential.

lol, disney certainly tried but they got shot in the face
http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/news/2013/05/17/disney-stands-behind-sexy-new-brave.html?page=all
http://www.avclub.com/articles/disney-quietly-nixes-its-gussied-up-version-of-mer,97793/

and once more for those who were unclear on the "disney princess" slam
http://jezebel.com/disney-pulls-sexy-merida-makeover-after-public-backlash-494274022

on that jezebel site, a lot of the changes can be explained by the difference between animated and static images - you don't want all the gloss and detail when you have to animate 25 frames every second.

also, disney appears to have removed merida rather than reverted the style, i just don't see her on that page. (that buggy, processor intensive page)

a lot of those changes can be explained by hypersexualizing images for children but hey whatevs

Verrrrry excited about Inside Out.
Every aspect of the character design for Merida was painstakingly thought out so to have Disney just do that had me smh

Well, the story should at least make it clear that Merida's not "another Disney Princess", if Disney themselves consider her outside the range.

Koogs - you are probably, like me, getting shunted over to the UK version.

yeah, i'm not saying it's not a travesty.

and actually, looking at the two merida images at the top (and not the traditional cell animated images at the bottom) the good merida is actually more complex than the made-over version, because she's 3d modelled and lit realistically. plus she has hairy hair.

Andrew: the point is that Disney very much intended her to be "another Disney Princess" and would certainly have pigeonholed her that way had there not been sufficient public backlash to point to diminished returns on that marketing plan