DVDizzy Forum

I just realised that "Brave" will probably be dedicated to Steve Jobs, much like how Cars was dedicated to Joe Ranft and Finding Nemo was dedicated to Glenn McQueen.

that would be very fitting.

estefan wrote:I just realised that "Brave" will probably be dedicated to Steve Jobs, much like how Cars was dedicated to Joe Ranft and Finding Nemo was dedicated to Glenn McQueen.

Really? How come?

Because Steve Jobs helped found Pixar.

Tristy wrote:Because Steve Jobs helped found Pixar.

Okay. I didn't knew.

estefan wrote:I just realised that "Brave" will probably be dedicated to Steve Jobs, much like how Cars was dedicated to Joe Ranft and Finding Nemo was dedicated to Glenn McQueen.

Well, they should!

They probably will, but I'm not sure it would be as fitting as the Joe Ranft one. I mean, Joe actually had the idea for Mater, Jobs had nothing to do with Brave to my knowledge. Not directly. You could put a dedication for him on any of Pixar's movies.

Kyle wrote:They probably will, but I'm not sure it would be as fitting as the Joe Ranft one. I mean, Joe actually had the idea for Mater, Jobs had nothing to do with Brave to my knowledge. Not directly. You could put a dedication for him on any of Pixar's movies.

it'll be the first Pixar dilm out since his death. So no, you can't put a dedication on just any Pixar film.

Well, Cars was the first Pixar movie out since Joe Ranft's death, and the same case with Finding Nemo for Glenn McQueen.

Mmmadelon wrote:Found this on Tumblr:

She looks dangerously similar to Ariel and Tarzan's mum.

Maybe not the exact likeness to Ariel, but still... you know how particular Disney are about making each of their heroines very unique looking from any others.


I know it does look like she's channeling E.T a bit in her final design, but at least she'll be very unique and unusual. Which is always a good thing.

WarriorDreamer wrote:She looks dangerously similar to Ariel and Tarzan's mum.

That's fan-art.

Oh, had she only looked like that fan art. I have said it before and I say it again; Pixar can't animate a good looking human even if John Lasseter's life depended on it. Some exeptions looks decent (some of the humans in The Incredibles), but most of their humans looks really weird. Just like all the DreamWorks humans do. Pixar's toys, rats, animals and robots looks really good though, but Disney animation's average human looks much better than the average Pixar human.

@Prince Edward: Totally agree!

Sotiris wrote:@Prince Edward: Totally agree!

Perhaps because Pixar have done mostly movies about toys, rats, cars etc, and therefore are not used to animate humans? I find Pixar's humans comical and weird, none of them look "normal" in a way ("normal" might sound a little weird, I know;)

Cinderella, Aurora, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Frollo, Mulan etc all looks good, and even Disney's CGI humans (Rapunzel, Flynn etc) looks better than their Pixar counterparts. Perhaps because Disney has taken a less "comical" and more "realistic" approach to their humans than Pixar has so far. Disney humans are more esthetic in a way, in my opinion that is.

Prince Edward wrote:Perhaps because Pixar have done mostly movies about toys, rats, cars etc, and therefore are not used to animate humans? I find Pixar's humans comical and weird, none of them look "normal" in a way ("normal" might sound a little weird, I know;)

You probably mean that Pixar's humans are more caricatured and less realistic/naturalistic-looking in their design. Yeah, I think so too.

Sotiris wrote:

WarriorDreamer wrote:She looks dangerously similar to Ariel and Tarzan's mum.

That's fan-art.

Oh, well I thought it was concept art.

Sotiris wrote:

Prince Edward wrote:Perhaps because Pixar have done mostly movies about toys, rats, cars etc, and therefore are not used to animate humans? I find Pixar's humans comical and weird, none of them look "normal" in a way ("normal" might sound a little weird, I know;)

You probably mean that Pixar's humans are more caricatured and less realistic/naturalistic-looking in their design. Yeah, I think so too.

Yes, thank you, that's precisely what I meant to say! To be honest, I think many of them look, well, ugly. It's something about their design that is not appealing to me.

Prince Edward wrote:Yes, thank you, that's precisely what I meant to say! To be honest, I think many of them look, well, ugly. It's something about their design that is not appealing to me.

I don't mind more caricatured designs for secondary or comic characters but for the protaginists I need a more naturalistic design.

It also depends on the type of the story, I guess. The caricatured design of the main human characters works in Up but doesn't in The Incredibles or Brave, in my opinion.

I think they intentionally do that with the human characters, so as to avoid the Uncanny Valley feeling one gets with making computer-generated humans look realistic. I think Pixar has done a fantastic job with humans, ever since Boo from Monsters, Inc.

However, I think the most impressive computer-generated human beings have been in How to Train Your Dragon and Tangled, in my opinion. I'm also impressed with what I've seen of the digital makeup applied to the actors on the upcoming Tintin feature.

I have to agree with Prince Edward! When I first heard Disney were making Rapunzel in CGI I was so worried Rapunzel would be some dreamworks, pixar human but when the movie was released Boy was I wrong!

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.

And when I saw this image


I was extremely shocked! Could Pixar Really have a Human Character this realistic?

Well, No I must be wrong! We have an E.T looking young girl with a hideous looking, The only thing I like about the new design is the hair...