There is a teaser online for Pixar’s next film, Brave -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYg0VgPy6Uk
People in the comments are freaking out that the heroine is a redhead. I don’t really get what the big deal is…
It’s a beautiful teaser, but there isn’t enough of a hook. It doesn’t give enough indication of what the story is to pique my curiosity and want to find out more. It’s pretty much all about the setting.
I think it looks unbelievably stupid and unoriginal. When are they going to stop using the same overwrought orchestra-and-choir swell music and sound effects (the eagle call) that have been used in 9,000,000 other movies and movie trailers? I hate Pixar. I hate them so much.
Years ago, there was a game for PS2 called Shadow of the Colossus. This game was one of the best, most original, creative and awe-inspiring stories told visually in the past decade. This was a work of true genius that combined a very spare plot with incredible sense of open space, haunting surroundings and majestic creatures. And never once did it try to be “cute”.
I’m waiting for another experience like that one to be animated with Pixar technology. But instead they keep shitting out the same silly shit.
It’s very painterly, though. I’ve wanted to see a CG movie try to capture that kind of “brush stroke” imagery, and this might be the one that does it.
The rendering technology of the girl’s face looks 15 years ancient. Haven’t we progressed beyond simple spheres for heads?
Well, I don’t know how you based your entire judgement of the movie off a 30 second clip, but at least you’re not biased.
Too realistic and you end up in the uncanny valley. The tech is fine, I think they’re just going for a more “cartoony” look.
Unfortunately, I think the cartoony face clashes harshly with the ultra-realistic environment. It’s jarring.
I also have to agree with Argent Towers that the trailer had some annoying clichés. However, it’s just a trailer - the movie itself might be great. It’s hard to tell much from such a short trailer.
I’m pretty sure that it’s hopeless to actually argue with you about this, but… in what universe do Ratatouille, Wall-E, The Incredibles, Finding Nemo and Up collectively qualify as “that same silly shit”? I mean, that’s 5 incredibly different movies set in incredibly different settings and environs. I’ll give you that Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 are both sequels, one of which was fantastic and one of which seems to be Pixar’s first semi-blunder, but Pixar has a track record of truly stunning originality and quality.
What I mean is, with the unbelievable and unprecedented visual power of their unique animation technology, they never even try push the envelope. They don’t go for the truly surreal; they could do amazingly trippy or scary stuff if they wanted to, but they keep making what are basically kids’ movies or at the very least “all-ages” movies that The Whole Family Can Enjoy. Could you imagine what a Terry Gilliam or David Cronenberg could do with this animation technology?
Does it ever occur to you that maybe Pixar are not making movies for you personally but for the millions of people who appreciate them?
Millions of people appreciate Coca-Cola, but that doesn’t make it the best quality drink.
Pixar’s movies are made for mass consumption. They’re not deep or daring in any way. Hey, I’m trying to explain why I don’t like Pixar movies.
Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the trailer was TRYING to evoke cliches. Sort of … “What’s this? The Hobbit? Oh… It’s Pixar!” That sort of thing.
Anyways I’m an unabashed Pixar apologist. Like 'em all. Except Cars 2 because I haven’t seen it yet.
Right. Making a movie aimed at kids that has no dialogue for almost thirty minutes is not daring or innovative in any way. Or maybe you just don’t have any clue what you’re talking about.
Almost certainly, nothing that would make back the cost of the film. Terry Gilliam’s highest earning movie, 12 Monkeys, earned just south of sixty million in its theatrical run. The average cost of a modern Pixar movie is about 200 million. And Gilliam is Stephen Spielberg, compared to David Cronenberg. The reason Pixar doesn’t do “surreal” or “trippy” films is that very few people are interested in “surreal” or “trippy” films, and Pixar can’t really stay in business if it’s making films no one wants to see.
Wasnt that what ‘9’ was supposed to be - a bit more adult and somewhat trippy - I don’t recall it making big bucks -
Yeah - i’d love to see what Pixar could really do around some less kid friendly topics - but I’ll still enjoy, and have so far, everything they’ve put out.
Really? Not doubting you, but where’d you hear that?
(For all I know, it’s common knowledge – this trailer is the first I’m hearing of the film)
I think he was referring to Wall-e.
Yes. In hindsight I probably should have been clearer about that, but it was often mentioned back when the movie was released.
Or a movie which takes largely a fine dining restaurant… or a movie one of whose two main characters is a grump old guy. Pixar thinks outside the box and pushes the boundaries. They could probably think a lot MORE outside the box and go a lot more nuts than they do, but on the scale of how safe various companies play it, Pixar is definitely on the dangerous end of the curve.
Ugh, you guys, let’s not let AT steal the show. He wants to see an acid flashback version of Hogg on the big screen.
I thought the teaser looked intriguing. I am fond of Pixar movies, so I will certainly give this one a go. But, the main thing for me was-- IS THAT A FEMALE HERO!!! Pixar never has a female lead! So, if it is, that’s interesting. I wonder what the story is about… 
I thought it looked like it might be interesting until they showed the little girl. That means it will just be another insipid kids’ movie. It would be nice to see this technology used for something more adult and edgy.