DVDizzy Forum

qindarka wrote:

DisneyFan09 wrote: Don't take this personally, but I'm tired of people constantly bashing Cars 2. I know that everyone are allowed to entitle their opinion, but the constant bashing of Cars 2 is becoming really boring and tiresome. While Cars 2 was far from perfect, I genuinly enjoyed it and I thought it has gotten more hatred than it actually deserves.

Agreed. It may not have much depth and the final act is poor but it is very entertaining. I sometimes get the impression that many who bash Cars 2 (not necessarily on this site) have not even watched it and are just basing it on the reviews.

Just so you know, I have seen every Pixar movie upon their theatrical releases.

I really hope people don't start getting sensitive, because I never said I hated Cars 2, just that compared to the last movie Pixar made, Brave is far better.

I really hope people don't start getting sensitive, because I never said I hated Cars 2, just that compared to the last movie Pixar made, Brave iis far better.

I'm sorry if I seemed oversensitive. It wasn't my intention, but I just wanted to state my opinion in a constructive manner.

While that being said, I actually prefer Cars 2. I had expectations to both films (I liked the first Cars movie) and after reading primarily only bad reviews about that movie, I was prepared for the worst, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised. Yes, Cars 2 was not perfect (focused too much on Mater and less on the other characters), but it was still entertaining and enjoyable. Brave, on the other hand, was good, but lacked a coherent storyline.

DisneyFan09 wrote: My problem with Brave isn't its simplicity, but how the story was executed. And it was very poorly executed and poorly written. I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.

And that's perfectly alright. Actually, in the less-than-positive reviews I've read, the critic's points are perfectly valid and I understand where they're coming from, even though I really liked Brave.

EDIT: Well, the one exception is Berardinelli's review where he thought there not being a villain and a romance was a problem. I think it's refreshing to not have thrown in a romance for Merida, plus it wasn't necessary to the story which was about her relationship with her mother.

And that's perfectly alright.

Thanks

I won't say that I disliked Brave, I liked it too, but the weak points reminded me of Brother Bear, which is a Disney film I detest.

My first reaction of Merida = Flynn's




Link

DisneyFan09 wrote:

I really hope people don't start getting sensitive, because I never said I hated Cars 2, just that compared to the last movie Pixar made, Brave iis far better.

I'm sorry if I seemed oversensitive. It wasn't my intention, but I just wanted to state my opinion in a constructive manner.

While that being said, I actually prefer Cars 2. I had expectations to both films (I liked the first Cars movie) and after reading primarily only bad reviews about that movie, I was prepared for the worst, but I ended up being pleasantly surprised. Yes, Cars 2 was not perfect (focused too much on Mater and less on the other characters), but it was still entertaining and enjoyable. Brave, on the other hand, was good, but lacked a coherent storyline.

Some of the negative reviews for Cars 2 are legit. Not just among those who didn't like the first Cars, but Pixar has raised the bar so high for themselves that when they came out with two consecutive sequels, people were genuinely afraid that they might be succumbing to the pressures of making a profit.

Some of the negative reviews for Cars 2 are legit. Not just among those who didn't like the first Cars, but Pixar has raised the bar so high for themselves that when they came out with two consecutive sequels, people were genuinely afraid that they might be succumbing to the pressures of making a profit.

Okay. But what did you eventually dislike about Cars 2?

DisneyFan09 wrote:

Some of the negative reviews for Cars 2 are legit. Not just among those who didn't like the first Cars, but Pixar has raised the bar so high for themselves that when they came out with two consecutive sequels, people were genuinely afraid that they might be succumbing to the pressures of making a profit.

Okay. But what did you eventually dislike about Cars 2?

I felt the film was kinda dull towards the middle, and was mainly unnecessary. While the first Cars isn't among my top favorites either, that film gave us enough of a fill of the cars universe (albeit one that doesn't fit well into the Pixar universe) that didn't really merit a sequel. There didn't appear to be a real demand to do another Cars film, other than the fact that the movie's merchandise has been so successful, the kind of backwards logic that plagued some of Disney's own films.

Good news:

Maintaining its perfect record for No. 1 domestic openings, Disney-Pixar's 13th animated feature to hit Stateside plexes, "Brave," scored an estimated three-day take of $66.7 million from 4,164 locations, the widest berth for the toon shop, as well as its fifth-highest opening domestically. Overseas, the Pixar toon grossed an estimated $13.5 million from 10 territories, a modest take considering it opened in major markets for 3D toons like Russia ($5.6 million) and China ($2.2 million). The weekend success for "Brave" -- only slightly better than Pixar's "Cars 2," which earned $66.1 million this same frame last year -- points to the consistent playability of Pixar pics beyond families. Pic marks the second-highest Stateside June opening for an animated film, behind "Toy Story 3" ($110.3 million).

Bad news:

The weekend's two widest Stateside releases saw disparate 3D results: "Brave" earned a poor -- even for lowered family-film standards -- 34% weekend 3D share, while "Abraham Lincoln" did somewhat better in stereo, with 45%.

"Brave" in 3D did even worse than "Cars 2," which had last summer's opening 3D low point of 40%. Moreover, "Brave" had nearly 300 more 3D locations than "Cars 2."

The poor 3D showing for "Brave" has Disney execs stumped, especially since the format seemingly had been gaining ground of late. "I don't have a line yet," admitted Disney distribution exec Dave Hollis, who added that the studio will be conducting exit polls specifically addressing the pic's 3D in repeat frames. "It'll be a wait-and-see thing for me."

Source: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118055903?refCatId=13

The reason? It was a conversion and most conversions the 3D is 'subtle.' Which basially means its not really 3D at all, it usually just has a little depth. When people hear 3D, they expect crazy effects, things flying out of the screen. If it really adds nothing to the experience, why pay the extra money?


I saw Brave in 2D. Most reviews online said that the 3D did not add much and that the film was too dark to benefit from it.

I think it says more against 3D than it does for Brave.

I've only seen the movie once, and it was in 3D...but I plan on making any subsequent visits in 2D, as I think I am just becoming underwhelmed by 3D in general.

Maerj wrote:The reason? It was a conversion and most conversions the 3D is 'subtle.' Which basially means its not really 3D at all, it usually just has a little depth. When people hear 3D, they expect crazy effects, things flying out of the screen. If it really adds nothing to the experience, why pay the extra money?

This was not at all a conversion. They knew it would be 3d from the start, and rendered with 2 different cameras within the computer. How does that at all fit the definition of conversion? Conversions are the movies where they take what was originally 2d and add depth later, often haphazardly.
The first 2 toy stories and the upcoming Nemo are conversions. Brave, Cars 2, Toy Story 3 are not.

And even their "conversions" don't fit the usual definition that applies to previously released live action/stop motion, since normally you don't have the luxury of going back and essentially re shooting the movie with that second camera. Usually creating that second image requires a lot of manual guess work. Not the case with most 3D conversions. They can go back and add it as if it was there from the start, adjusting depth of field blur and even framing as needed.

And I disagree about about not adding much if its subtle. Sure, some movies are so subtle its not even worth it. I believe pirates of the Caribbean was like this, and it wasn't even a conversion. They simply didn't separate the cameras enough to warrant doing it. But Pixar always chooses the right amount of depth imo. Even if we're just talking about the original Toy Story (the most subtle of theirs I think I've seen).
Why does it have to be all in your face to add to the experience? That's the opposite of adding to it. When Surround sound first came out that was abused as well. Color too. Its only when they learned to use these more sparingly we ended up with better experiences.

The 3d in Brave is fine. The only downside deals with the current limitations of the way 3D is presented, ie the tint. Once they can eliminate that, (and in an affordable way to the masses) we're gold.

Kyle wrote:

Maerj wrote:The reason? It was a conversion and most conversions the 3D is 'subtle.' Which basially means its not really 3D at all, it usually just has a little depth. When people hear 3D, they expect crazy effects, things flying out of the screen. If it really adds nothing to the experience, why pay the extra money?

This was not at all a conversion. They knew it would be 3d from the start, and rendered with 2 different cameras within the computer. How does that at all fit the definition of conversion? Conversions are the movies where they take what was originally 2d and add depth later, often haphazardly.
The first 2 toy stories and the upcoming Nemo are conversions. Brave, Cars 2, Toy Story 3 are not.

And even their "conversions" don't fit the usual definition that applies to previously released live action/stop motion, since normally you don't have the luxury of going back and essentially re shooting the movie with that second camera. Usually creating that second image requires a lot of manual guess work. Not the case with most 3D conversions. They can go back and add it as if it was there from the start, adjusting depth of field blur and even framing as needed.

And I disagree about about not adding much if its subtle. Sure, some movies are so subtle its not even worth it. I believe pirates of the Caribbean was like this, and it wasn't even a conversion. They simply didn't separate the cameras enough to warrant doing it. But Pixar always chooses the right amount of depth imo. Even if we're just talking about the original Toy Story (the most subtle of theirs I think I've seen).
Why does it have to be all in your face to add to the experience? That's the opposite of adding to it. When Surround sound first came out that was abused as well. Color too. Its only when they learned to use these more sparingly we ended up with better experiences.

The 3d in Brave is fine. The only downside deals with the current limitations of the way 3D is presented, ie the tint. Once they can eliminate that, (and in an affordable way to the masses) we're gold.

Okay, well thanks for the info, I was unaware that it was not a conversion. ( Pssst, take it easy, I didn't know! )

Its fine to disagree but in my opinion, if the 3D isn't doing *something* what's the point? I've seen some that are so subtle that it doesn't look 3D at all. I've even taken my 4 year old to 3D movies and she has said "This isn't 3D at all!"

Being subtle is fine but if they want people to spend extra money they should make it worth your while. I'm not saying that everything has to be right in your face the entire time but audiences do enjoy a few suprises like that. Otherwise you are watching a 2D film with a little depth in the background that you don't even notice by the end of the film.

I chose not to see Brave in 3D as people here and elsewhere said the film was too dark for it and that it really didn't add much to it. I enjoyed the film very much and glad that you did too.

How much are the little brothers in the movie, totally?

Not too much. They are just supporting characters.

Well, I managed to finally see the movie and I was pretty much impressed. It's not the usual type of Pixar film you'd expect, but it was an excellent movie nonetheless.

A+

Oh, and I think the bit where the broom was moving on its own just as Merida takes notice and the witch zapped it to make it stop made me think of a similar scene from Sleeping Beauty.

FlyingPiggy wrote:How much are the little brothers in the movie, totally?

They're not in the movie a lot, but they are annoying and add little to nothing to te overall movie. However, sometimes (rarely) they can be funny.

I have a feeling they sacrificed a number of Brenda Chapman's more meaningful parts with Merida and her mother to make room for the brothers. They defineitly went overboard with them. They weren't even characters as much as plot devices and mood lighteners.

^exactly, they just helped merida get from point A to B. And unfortunatly they disrupted the tone of the film. Not solely their fault, but they are a key factor in making the film very childish.

While the story WAS probably re-worked to feature them more (nobody but the creators can know for sure), but I at least appreciate that they are essential to the plot. They are the ones who got the key for Merida to get out of her room and save her mother.

Also, I was BLOWN AWAY by this film. Maybe the trailers misrepresented it but I did not come in expecting much from this movie, and I was truly astounded. I found it incredibly moving (yes, this 20-year-old guy was crying at parts!), engaging, and exhilarating.

I think part of my enthusiasm comes from the weight this movie seems to bear; the discussions of fate/destiny paired with the (albeit fictional) historical context brings a greater sense of meaning and importance IMO. The prologue was especially powerful, right up there with The Lion King in knocking you flat in about 5 minutes.