Pixar's Brave (formerly The Bear and the Bow)

[DisneyFan09]

This has always got to me why can't pixar animate decent looking humans? The characters in UP! were to cartoony and not realistic and the Humans in Finding Nemo, Ratatouille and Wall-e were so creepy looking

I agree with you. That has always been an issue that has bothered me about Pixar. Why do they have to have cartoony-looking humans in every single movie? Why can't they try to make their humans more realistic-looking for once?

[estefan]

I agree with you. That has always been an issue that has bothered me about Pixar. Why do they have to have cartoony-looking humans in every single movie? Why can't they try to make their humans more realistic-looking for once?

They intentionally do that, so they can avoid the Uncanny Valley.

[KubrickFan]

I agree with you. That has always been an issue that has bothered me about Pixar. Why do they have to have cartoony-looking humans in every single movie? Why can't they try to make their humans more realistic-looking for once?

They intentionally do that, so they can avoid the Uncanny Valley.

Indeed. I don't get these complaints. If they were trying for a realistic look and failed miserably, then they'd have a point, but they're not going for that look, and have explained their reasoning quite often. And did the CGI characters in Rapunzel look so much more realistic? They were complaining there too, since the CGI looked awful (their words, not mine) and hand drawn animation would have been so much better.

[DisneyFan09]

They intentionally do that, so they can avoid the Uncanny Valley.

Indeed. I don't get these complaints. If they were trying for a realistic look and failed miserably, then they'd have a point, but they're not going for that look, and have explained their reasoning quite often. And did the CGI characters in Rapunzel look so much more realistic? They were complaining there too, since the CGI looked awful (their words, not mine) and hand drawn animation would have been so much better.

Comparing to the humans in every Pixar films, they at least looked more human like. Sorry if it seem like I'm bitching.

[Sotiris]

They intentionally do that, so they can avoid the Uncanny Valley.

That feels like an excuse. No one said they should go the photorealistic route but less caricatured humans won't produce that effect. No one complained about 'uncanny valley' for the main characters in Tangled and they looked way more realistic than any Pixar human character. The trick is to find a balance; neither overt caricature/stylization nor photorealism.

I believe that Pixar uses more caricatured humans because - let's face it - they are easier to animate and also because caricatured designs tranlate better in CG than more realistic-looking ones.

I don't get these complaints. If they were trying for a realistic look and failed miserably, then they'd have a point, but they're not going for that look, and have explained their reasoning quite often.

When did they ever say that? Could you provide us with a source? I think people are just assuming that.

Besides, with Andy in Toy Story 3 they were going for a more realistic look and while it was descent, it still didn't look as good as the main characters of Tangled.

And did the CGI characters in Rapunzel look so much more realistic?

Yes. Both fandom and people from the industry have applauded Tangled for the design and animation of their human characters. Chris Sanders said that "the character animation in Tangled was a triumph - a new high ground in CG animation".

They were complaining there too, since the CGI looked awful (their words, not mine) and hand drawn animation would have been so much better.

I don't recall anyone saying that the CG looked "awful" in Tangled. In fact, most have said that it had the best-looking CG humans they've ever seen.

What was said about Tangled was that it could have looked even better if it was hand-drawn animated since more realistic character designs of humans don't translate in CG as well as they do in hand-drawn animation. You can clearly see that in the "Art of Tangled" book where the cleaned-up drawings, sketches, and model sheets of human characters look better than the finished CG models.

[SWillie!]

Would you really rather have had a more realistic old man and asian boy in Up? That would have made that film completely boring.

They design their characters to fit in the world that they have created for the film. In Toy Story 3, although Andy was more realistic than in 1 and 2, it would not have fit if he were even more so, because they had already established a world for the Toy Story films.

I think claiming that Pixar is only doing it to "take the easy way out" or something because cartoonier is easier is silly. We all know that Pixar has a large chunk of THE best computer artists in the world, and would be more than capable of doing more realistic animation.

They CHOOSE not to. I say let Disney go for the more traditional designs and let Pixar handle the sophisticated caricatures. And then Dreamworks can have the shitty caricatures (although as someone mentioned the humans in HTTYD were fantastic.)

[KubrickFan]

When did they ever say that? Could you provide us with a source? I think people are just assuming that.

Watch some of the bonus features on either The Incredibles, or UP. It's definitely mentioned with both movies that they didn't go for realistic human beings on purpose.

I don't recall anyone saying that the CG looked "awful" in Tangled. In fact, most have said that it had the best-looking CG humans they've ever seen.

What was said about Tangled was that it could have looked even better if it was hand-drawn animated since more realistic character designs of humans don't translate in CG as well as they do in hand-drawn animation. You can clearly see that in the "Art of Tangled" book where the cleaned-up drawings, sketches, and model sheets of human characters look better than the finished CG models.

Some may have used more hyperbolic terms, but there were definitely people who thought the CGI didn't look as good, as opposed to drawing the characters. To me that would seem that those people didn't think the CGI was good, then.

[singerguy04]

I was just considering Merida's design, and how I dislike her almost perfectly oval head when I realized that Disney is probably going to attempt including her in the princess franchise. At first I was upset by the idea. There is no way she will look right (even hand drawn) next to the other princesses! Then I realized that maybe due to her design she wont be included, and that maybe Pixar has done this on purpose to keep her out. In that kind of light, her design is genious.

Still, I'm not a fan of Pixar's charicature human designs. I'm not opposed to using charicature, but I feel like they could've created something more appealing. Afterall, Jasmine and Ariel are not realistic but their designs work and feel realistic.

[magicalwands]

Still, I'm not a fan of Pixar's charicature human designs. I'm not opposed to using charicature, but I feel like they could've created something more appealing. Afterall, Jasmine and Ariel are not realistic but their designs work and feel realistic.

I do not think it is fair to compare traditional drawings to 3D.

I agree with some of your points though. At one point while watching The Incredibles for the first time, I remember thinking, "Whoa! Violet and Elastigirl's feet are so small and they're wearing heels!" But then the story was so good I didn't notice anything else.

[singerguy04]

Still, I'm not a fan of Pixar's charicature human designs. I'm not opposed to using charicature, but I feel like they could've created something more appealing. Afterall, Jasmine and Ariel are not realistic but their designs work and feel realistic.

I do not think it is fair to compare traditional drawings to 3D.

I agree with some of your points though. At one point while watching The Incredibles for the first time, I remember thinking, "Whoa! Violet and Elastigirl's feet are so small and they're wearing heels!" But then the story was so good I didn't notice anything else.

I don't really mean to compare hand drawn and 3D, more the idea that a more visually appealing charicature of a human is possible. A better example of these characters would be the CG versions of Jasmine and Ariel in Mickey's Philarmagic at the Magic Kingdom. They maintain their original designs, and are beautifully done in CG.

It's come to my belief that Pixar knows they are perfectly capable of creating more human/appealing characters for their humans, but they've kind of created a signiture human look. I feel that all of their human characters could exist in the same world, and that you can almost instantly tell when a human is a Pixar character vs. a non-Pixar character. I worry that they have become ancored to this look, and will not stray away from it.

[LySs]

I don't recall anyone saying that the CG looked "awful" in Tangled. In fact, most have said that it had the best-looking CG humans they've ever seen.

I remember a friend/former classmate of mine, who's now getting work in the comic book field (I won't name names, but here is an example of his work http://i52.tinypic.com/28uoa42.jpg), say on facebook he thought "the animation in Tangled looked like play-doh. Rango looked 1000x better".

Then again, he was always a bit... pretentious. He also said Bridesmaids was the year's most overrated film.

[magicalwands]

"the animation in Tangled looked like play-doh. Rango looked 1000x better".

He does draw with extreme details; it looks like he aims to make his drawings to be the the least cartoon-y as possible. Rango (compared to Tangled) goes for realism...so don't take his opinions too seriously. He's just one who probably finds Disney's style to be "less". IMO, animation is about believability. So, whatever style you take, as long as your character is not just pencil marks or pixels.

[sunhuntin]

i watched rango at my bosses house a few weeks back and i found the animation to be too perfect, the snake especially. i much prefer the style of disney/pixar cos at least you know you are watching a cartoon. rango felt like it had bits of actual animal footage included. very weird.

[singerguy04]

yeah, I don't see how just because Rango's design is a bit more realistic means it's any better than Tangled's. I liked both films, but I think I preferred Tangled's animation better because I enjoyed it's design more. Tangled featured such a lush and beautiful environment, and that made it better IMO.

[DisneyDude2010]

I just released Kelly Macdonald was in Nanny Mcphee


She was my fav' character in that movie

I can't wait to see what she brings to BRAVE

[Sotiris]

*Spoiler Alert*

Review of Early Work-in-Progress Brave Print
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51667

It's quite a disheartening review.

[DisneyDude2010]

Sotiris It says the article has been unpublished?
Could you please recap what the article said?

[Sotiris]

Sotiris It says the article has been unpublished?
Could you please recap what the article said?

Somehow I anticipated that, so I copied and saved the review in its entirety.

Here it is (highlight to see):

*SPOILER ALERT*

First and foremost I need to say that this was a very early test screening. Only about 15-20% of the animation was finished. About 40% was just storyboards. The rest were animatics, unfinished animation, and finished animation without lighting. The release date is a ways off, and I’m sure they’re planning to make many changes, regardless of what sort of scores they get back from these screenings. But I thought people might be interested to know what the film is like in its current state.

Brave is Pixar’s first journey into the fairy tale format that makes up most of Disney’s library. However, this is where the problems begin. We’re quickly introduced to Merida, a young rebellious princess who lives for those moments when she doesn’t have to learn proper princess etiquette from her mother, and instead roam the Scottish countryside and practice her archery. This trope of the rebellious princess, done so many times before, feels stale here. It hits every beat it needs to and never in a new or refreshing way. It just felt like scenes from The Little Mermaid, Mulan, Aladdin, or The Princess Diaries blended together and sprinkled over a Scottish setting.

We quickly follow this stereotype by another. Merida soon learns that she is to be married to one of the suitors from the realm’s three other clans. Oh, how rebellious princesses hate those arranged marriages! And Merida is no different. Again, I was able to predict nearly every coming beat, from the introduction of the less-than-stellar suitors, Merida’s flawed plan to disrupt tradition, her and her mother’s argument, where they both do and say things they quickly regret.

Now the second big problem with the movie is the structure of the plot. Everything I’ve described thus far occurs in the first 30-40 minutes. And, like I was at the time, you may be thinking the movie is about these suitors trying to win Merida’s hand, and her doing everything she can to prove that she’s her own person and should be allowed to live her own life. Not so much. About halfway through the movie, we finally reach the second act where we learn that the plot actually hinges on yet another fairy tale trope, the hasty magical wish with disastrous consequences. I won’t say exactly what befalls our fair Scottish kingdom, but suffice it to say that Merida and her mother have to flee the castle and are forced to deal with each other on new ground, in a bizarre new situation.

This is where the heart of the story lies, and the potential for the movie to be great. Merida and her mother have a few wonderful moments in the wilds of Scotland, their relationship and understanding of each other dealt with in Pixar’s subtle, moving style. But this section feels so rushed due to the overlong first act, and hampered by the baggage of the aforementioned clichés, that it never has a chance to fully develop. Not to mention that we’re then introduced to yet more sub plots that I was never really sure what the story was supposed to be about. When the resolutions come, they feel rushed and forced, plus the consequences of Merida’s actions are never really addressed.

And this brings us to the third problem. The film is called Brave. The poster shows a young girl with a bow, walking into some mysterious setting. The film is obviously about some adventure, or journey right? The whole setup in the beginning about Merida’s love and skill of archery must have some pay off! But not so. There’s no real journey or adventure. Just Merida and her mother wandering around, hiding in the woods. Merida never does anything especially “brave.” She helps her mom in the woods out of a sense of guilt for having caused the problems in the first place. I suppose she puts herself in harm’s way a couple times near the climax, but it feels more that it’s out of desperation, not so much any noble or honorable sacrifice. And though she fires a few arrows in the course of the movie, nothing ever hinges on her archery skill. It’s her mother who gets things done in the end. In fact it’s her mother who has the greatest character arc and does anything that can be considered especially “brave.” So maybe that’s the fourth issue I have with the film, confusion over the protagonist.

Now not all is lost! I do want to mention what I liked. The parts of the film that were fully finished were stunningly gorgeous. The Scottish culture and countryside are on full display from bright and jovial to dark and mysterious. Just look at the poster and know that every frame of this movie is likely to look as beautiful. Pixar’s humor is also intact with a slew of fun and interesting characters filling in the supporting slots. Merida’s father and younger brothers especially are a joy to watch whenever they’re on the screen. The voice acting, by and large, is top notch as to be expected (there was one significant exception, but I have to believe that it was a temp track). And again, there is the makings of a great mother/daughter story here.

Remember, this was a test screening, meant to find out what audiences liked and disliked about the film. They’re planning to make changes, to fine tune it, and make it better. That’s the filmmaking process. Hopefully many other people felt the same way I did, and said so on their score cards. Shortening the first act, enhancing the second, and finding a fresh approach to such well-traveled fairy tale tropes could make this yet another great Pixar film. But it does worry me that a company who is usually so focused on story, began production with one that was so inherently flawed.

Source: http://74.6.117.48/search/srpcache?ei=U ... 82l7IJIg--

[ajmrowland]

Pixar's made last-minute script changes before.

[DisneyFan09]

Pixar's made last-minute script changes before.

I really hope they do it this time as well. The film looked really promising and spectacular, so I'll hope they'll make a good movie out of this.