First trailer for Pixar's "Brave"

Recommended Videos

SomeBritishDude

New member
Nov 1, 2007
5,081
0
0

The first trailer for Pixar's first fantasy film "Brave" is here. It already looks better than Cars 2.

It feels really weird that when this comes out this is going to be the first Pixar movie that isn't a sequel in 3 years. I mean I fucking loved Toy Story 3 but I'm still glad that we've got another original property coming.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,242
0
0
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
 

JustJuust

New member
Mar 31, 2011
151
0
0
I'm sorry, but how exactly was Cars or Cars 2 bad? I'm starting to think that all these people saying Cars and Cars 2 are bad are the type of people saying DNF is bad although they've never even played it.
This "Brave" looks like a movie about a generic rpg game world with an unlikely hero. Also, why is it that female characters are most times portrayed as an archer or at least a ranged dps in generic rpg games?
 

imnot

New member
Apr 23, 2010
3,914
0
0
Cheesus333 said:
That looked pretty good. Scottish voiceovers make everything better.
What if Ascotish guy and Stephen Fry both did voiceovers!
I think the universe would explode.
 

SomeBritishDude

New member
Nov 1, 2007
5,081
0
0
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
I think Pixar are the best people working in the film industry today. With the exception of the Cars movies they've never made a bad film.

I do agree that I'd like to see 2D animation brought back regularly but as far as story telling goes Pixar have done much better than Disney even in their hay day.
 

Forgetitnow344

New member
Jan 8, 2010
542
0
0
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
How do you rationalize that taking away a dimension restricts animation less?

OT: It says Pixar and doesn't say cash-grab. No way I'll miss it.
 

SomeBritishDude

New member
Nov 1, 2007
5,081
0
0
JustJuust said:
I'm sorry, but how exactly was Cars or Cars 2 bad? I'm starting to think that all these people saying Cars and Cars 2 are bad are the type of people saying DNF is bad although they've never even played it.
The concept is weird and doesn't look right, the characters are 2 dimensional, nearly every joke is a pun and when compared to any other Pixar movie it's just embarrasing. Dreamworks are putting out better movies than this on a regular basic now a days, Pixar really don't have an excuse.
 

Cheesus333

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,523
0
0
imnotparanoid said:
Cheesus333 said:
That looked pretty good. Scottish voiceovers make everything better.
What if Ascotish guy and Stephen Fry both did voiceovers!
I think the universe would explode.
First, the whole of reality would tremble as if seized in a mighty quake. Then Morgan Freeman's voice would boom across the universe: "WHAT DID YOU DO?"

If the Scottish guy was Liam Neeson, then you may as well just abort yourself from time because I don't even know what consequences that would invoke.
 

General Vagueness

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
Berethond said:
I don't think there are bears in Scotland.
not any more there aren't, but they figure into a bunch of English stories IIRC and if they were there they would've been in Scotland too, and this is set in a vague past
EDIT: yep, Wikipedia says so [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland#Flora_and_fauna], and I'm not qualified to argue
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,242
0
0
ilovemyLunchbox said:
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
How do you rationalize that taking away a dimension restricts animation less?

OT: It says Pixar and doesn't say cash-grab. No way I'll miss it.
3d animation restricts the amounts of artistic style. 3d animation and animators strive to be fairly realistic but 2d allows the animators to show of person styles of animtion unique ways of looking at things. I am not saying 3d is strickly stuck to trying to replicate reality but it has alot harder of a time getting away from realism than 2d does.

Like for example 2d animation can look digital, water coloured, inked, penciled, markered, painted, vectored and it goes on n on but 3d will always just look like 3d
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,242
0
0
SomeBritishDude said:
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
I think Pixar are the best people working in the film industry today. With the exception of the Cars movies they've never made a bad film.

I do agree that I'd like to see 2D animation brought back regularly but as far as story telling goes Pixar have done much better than Disney even in their hay day.
mmmm that's debatable but I am not going to disagree I liked alot of what dreamworks was producing so much talent there but then the sorta followed suit with what disney(pixar) and went 3d
 

General Vagueness

New member
Feb 24, 2009
677
0
0
aba1 said:
ilovemyLunchbox said:
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
How do you rationalize that taking away a dimension restricts animation less?

OT: It says Pixar and doesn't say cash-grab. No way I'll miss it.
3d animation restricts the amounts of artistic style. 3d animation and animators strive to be fairly realistic but 2d allows the animators to show of person styles of animtion unique ways of looking at things. I am not saying 3d is strickly stuck to trying to replicate reality but it has alot harder of a time getting away from realism than 2d does.

Like for example 2d animation can look digital, water coloured, inked, penciled, markered, painted, vectored and it goes on n on but 3d will always just look like 3d
I guess you've never heard of cel shading-- also I defy you to make a 2D animated piece of any real length that looks like a 3D animated piece without making some poor animator's hand fall off

captcha: colote answered
I guess Inglip is out today
 

Forgetitnow344

New member
Jan 8, 2010
542
0
0
aba1 said:
ilovemyLunchbox said:
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
How do you rationalize that taking away a dimension restricts animation less?

OT: It says Pixar and doesn't say cash-grab. No way I'll miss it.
3d animation restricts the amounts of artistic style. 3d animation and animators strive to be fairly realistic but 2d allows the animators to show of person styles of animtion unique ways of looking at things. I am not saying 3d is strickly stuck to trying to replicate reality but it has alot harder of a time getting away from realism than 2d does.

Like for example 2d animation can look digital, water coloured, inked, penciled, markered, painted, vectored and it goes on n on but 3d will always just look like 3d
Pixar is the actual antithesis of that. Their human characters have always shown the same creative style that a 2D character would have. Just think about Up. Carl was essentially box-shaped, and he even managed to maintain his emotional gravity despite having such ridiculous design aspects. Then if you look at their other movies, most of the characters aren't even human. The ones that are always have their own unique design that reflects exactly what you're supposed to feel about them, which is how 2D animation works. Mr. Incredible has an eternally robust chin, and a helmet-like straight line connecting his forehead and his nose. These are traditionally heroic facial structures that immediately identify the strongman protagonist, and they are maintained dutifully while also keeping that same emotional gravity from scene to scene without him looking absurd out of costume.

To get out of that design and talk about things that aren't people, Up is another good example of straying from the norm. Dug is a ridiculously shaped dog and his structure is a clear definition of a lovable, dopey character. However, this design is maintained when he shows signs of sorrow/weakness or strength/bravery, never once looking awkward or out of place.

Then for scenery, that's where Pixar truly shines. You know why? BECAUSE of the vivid realism. We as people like to see a background we can visualize actually existing in the real world. It lets us know that what is happening onscreen is serious business, and lets the audience maintain their focus without ever having to stop and say something about how interesting the movie looks. They forget they're watching a movie and allow themselves to enter this world and connect with the characters, even if they're a giant blue goat bear or a quirky little robot. That's exactly why Pixar shines so much. They know what they're doing with their animation, and they've never released a movie that didn't at least LOOK absolutely fantastic, no matter the style.
 
Dec 14, 2008
1,038
0
0
SomeBritishDude said:
aba1 said:
Never been a fan of pixar I wish they would bring back 2D animation looks so much better and its far less restricting only problem is its harder to do and therfore more expensive.
I think Pixar are the best people working in the film industry today. With the exception of the Cars movies they've never made a bad film.

I do agree that I'd like to see 2D animation brought back regularly but as far as story telling goes Pixar have done much better than Disney even in their hay day.
The Cars movies weren't exactly bad films, just average.

This is looking up to snuff with pixars other movies, but I can't help but being a little reminded of some Dreamworks movies.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,242
0
0
General Vagueness said:
aba1 said:
ilovemyLunchbox said:
aba1 said:
3d animation restricts the amounts of artistic style. 3d animation and animators strive to be fairly realistic but 2d allows the animators to show of person styles of animtion unique ways of looking at things. I am not saying 3d is strickly stuck to trying to replicate reality but it has alot harder of a time getting away from realism than 2d does.

Like for example 2d animation can look digital, water coloured, inked, penciled, markered, painted, vectored and it goes on n on but 3d will always just look like 3d
I guess you've never heard of cel shading-- also I defy you to make a 2D animated piece of any real length that looks like a 3D animated piece without making some poor animator's hand fall off
How do you think 2d movie were made for so many years?
How do you think flash games and movies are made?

and cell shading is just 3d animation made to try and replicate the feel of 2d animation by harshing the shading into different colours rather than a blend. Even if you do include cell shading its all of what 2 colouring styles to the dozens of colouring styles of 2d. Not to mention my arguement of different styles of motion that 2d brings out while 3d generally remains the same since 3d is based around a solid model that is simply manipulated while 2d is a ever changing shape alowing alot more flexability as far as the changing of the shape goes
 

StBishop

New member
Sep 22, 2009
3,249
0
0
JustJuust said:
I'm sorry, but how exactly was Cars or Cars 2 bad? I'm starting to think that all these people saying Cars and Cars 2 are bad are the type of people saying DNF is bad although they've never even played it.
This "Brave" looks like a movie about a generic rpg game world with an unlikely hero. Also, why is it that female characters are most times portrayed as an archer or at least a ranged dps in generic rpg games?
Males generally have larger muscle mass, this means that they generally are stronger, giving them a distinct advantage over females.

It would be easier (and therefore more common) for a female to be proficient with weapons that require skill over strength.

Therefore ranged DPS.

InB4 sexism, if you have a problem with anything I've said I can forward your complaints onto a number of physiologists and biomechanists who will back me up.

Edit: It looks good.
But then I'm not a movie person. I like movies that most people don't and I dislike "great movies" eg. I liked Cars. I loved both the Transformers movies. I didn't like GI Joe. I hated Cloverfeild.

My tastes are strange,