Pixar to Disney: Drop Dead

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
woo hoo! pity the last two have shown a slight decline though

cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 30 January 2004 05:56 (seventeen years ago) link

last nail for eisner?

cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 30 January 2004 05:57 (seventeen years ago) link

pity the last two have shown a slight decline though

Perhaps, but maybe the closest we'll ever get to a Watchmen-style film will set things aright.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 30 January 2004 05:58 (seventeen years ago) link

hmm. looks like they have a year or two to get their distribution arm up & running.

Kingfish Funyun (Kingfish), Friday, 30 January 2004 06:14 (seventeen years ago) link

union animators are happy.


sucka (sucka), Friday, 30 January 2004 06:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Disney to Pixar: we didn't need you anyway.

Orbit (Orbit), Friday, 30 January 2004 06:17 (seventeen years ago) link

The Incredibles in 2004 and Cars in 2005?

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 30 January 2004 06:48 (seventeen years ago) link

they sound incredible and car

A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 30 January 2004 06:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Cars in 2005

Cool! An animated Ric Ocasek biopic.

Nick H (Nick H), Friday, 30 January 2004 14:14 (seventeen years ago) link

I was sorta hoping for Gary Numan myself.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 30 January 2004 14:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Disney to Pixar: we didn't need you anyway.

ha ha

When was the last time Disney put out an even barely watchable animated feature that wasn't done by Pixar? Walt Disney was probably still alive.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Friday, 30 January 2004 14:54 (seventeen years ago) link

Hercules had its moments...

Kingfish Funyun (Kingfish), Friday, 30 January 2004 14:58 (seventeen years ago) link

Emperor's New Groove!

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Friday, 30 January 2004 15:40 (seventeen years ago) link

Lilo and Stitch was pretty good, but then Disney got stupid and fired all of the animators that worked on it anyway. In fact, it has fired most of the hand drawn animation division in favor of sending the work overseas.

I think Pixar will be a lot better off without Disney at this point.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 30 January 2004 17:25 (seventeen years ago) link

chuck otm! that movie was actually pretty good

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 30 January 2004 17:39 (seventeen years ago) link

what pixar really got from disney wasn't distribution, which any major studio can do, but rather disney's extensive and really really successful merchandising arm, which is big buxx.

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 30 January 2004 17:39 (seventeen years ago) link


El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 30 January 2004 17:53 (seventeen years ago) link

Emperor's New Groove!

Really? I can't believe something with a title like this was actually watchable. What were they thinking when they named it?

Jay Vee (Manon_70), Friday, 30 January 2004 17:54 (seventeen years ago) link

If I read this correctly, this means that Disney can still soil the film universe with non-Pixar sequals to all the Pixar/Disney films??

anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Friday, 30 January 2004 18:09 (seventeen years ago) link

Yes, unfortunately. That has been one aspect of dealing with Disney that made Pixar uncomfortable.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Friday, 30 January 2004 18:10 (seventeen years ago) link

what pixar really got from disney wasn't distribution, which any major studio can do, but rather disney's extensive and really really successful merchandising arm, which is big buxx.

Surely also the Disney brand name, which is hella strong among the target audience. Toy Story was the new Disney film when it came out, rather than the debut Pixar film.

Nick H (Nick H), Friday, 30 January 2004 20:42 (seventeen years ago) link

true. I guess that doesn't really apply anymore though.

s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 30 January 2004 20:43 (seventeen years ago) link

interesting stuff on this over on slashdot. apparently the disney / pixar deal is 50/50 (usually a distributor would be lucky to get 15%) because pixar was a bit of an unknown when they were looking to get distribution for toy story. all the pixar films have gone on to flatten disney films in terms of box office but, i've heard, disney hasn't budged on the percentage. they also stiffed pixar over toy story 2, said it didn't count towards the 5 films they signed the contract for because it was a sequal...

(and the whole rest of the thread)

toy story:
> the debut Pixar film

pixar already had oscars at this point - they'd had, what 6?, shorts out by then. but yes, first feature.

(wally b, luxo jr, tin toy, knick knack, red's dream... ironically, watch the credits of some of these and you'll see the rendering machines were named 'mickey' and 'donald'.)


koogs (koogs), Friday, 30 January 2004 21:02 (seventeen years ago) link

who, other than animation-heads, gives a crap about animated shorts oscars?
I'm not saying they count for nothing, and surely they carry weight within the industry, but general movie going public doesn't care.

Huck If I Know (Horace Mann), Friday, 30 January 2004 21:09 (seventeen years ago) link

People cared before the stupid movie industry decided not to make any more good animated shorts 45-50 years ago. Now the thinking is that awards are a kind of publicity thing to stimulate more interest in a struggling form. Like they just started the animated feature oscar category, and since so few are made, cheap low profile movies can be nominated.

sucka (sucka), Friday, 30 January 2004 22:04 (seventeen years ago) link

Emperor's New Groove!

Really? I can't believe something with a title like this was actually watchable. What were they thinking when they named it?

Bad title, good film. Apparently it was part of a much larger Aztec epic with Sting songs and... you've already fallen asleep. Instead, they nixed the main storyline, cut Sting down to an end credits theme, and left in the anarchic comic relief bits, which are pretty funny, in an anarchic-Daffy Duck rather than Eddie-Murphy-as-a-donkey way. Plus, Puddy from Seinfeld is a main character, therefore clasic.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Friday, 30 January 2004 22:11 (seventeen years ago) link

I never liked the Pixar animation.

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 06:47 (seventeen years ago) link


Orbit (Orbit), Saturday, 31 January 2004 06:47 (seventeen years ago) link

I think it looks weird.

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 06:50 (seventeen years ago) link

Disney films quality from past decade:
Lion King > Lilo and Stitch > Mulan > Emperor's New Groove > all the rest cuz they are crappy.

Haha Aja you are smart. Do you not like Pixar or do you not like any computer animated stuff?

I was really impressed by Toy Story, but not much else by Pixar. Their movies sort of hurt my eyes, just because I do not like the non-graphic too-realistic too-bright look of any computer animation very much. Even in video games I hate the 3D ones, I would rather play original nintendo or even pac-man, I think simple graphics are much more fun to look at. I think hand drawn animation rules- it has good looks but it also has unique motion style that doesn't conform to 3D computer models. Pixar definitely has the most superior computer animation though. Plus it's likely they might open a traditional studio so they are cool.

sucka (sucka), Saturday, 31 January 2004 07:40 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't like the computer animation. I don't like the movies either. I'm getting tired of them. All my friends tell me to go see the movie, but I don't want to. And if I end up seeing it I tell them I liked it. But I don't like it enough to buy the video.

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 16:14 (seventeen years ago) link

I really prefer hand-drawn animation in every case I've seen, even when I like the actual computer-animated movies. This wave-of-the-future computer thing makes me a little sad.

Maria (Maria), Saturday, 31 January 2004 16:28 (seventeen years ago) link

I like both, as long as they are well done. A lot of the studios think people don't want to see hand-drawn animation anymore, but the problem with the last few big hand-drawn animation movies from Disney and Dreamworks is that the plots and characters were completely abysmal. If they put as much work into their plots and characters as studios like Studio Ghibli or Pixar I have a feeling they would do much better.

El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Saturday, 31 January 2004 16:34 (seventeen years ago) link

El Diablo is quite right -- the success of Spirited Away shows clearly enough that traditional animation can work wonders still. It's as far away from the now standardized 'quick-write-a-musical-with-funny-sidekicks-since-Broadway-is-now-a-NYC-thing-only-and-we-own-the-market' Disney approach as one can imagine, that film.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 31 January 2004 16:40 (seventeen years ago) link

2D animation is fine by me.

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 16:41 (seventeen years ago) link

I like both!

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 31 January 2004 17:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Well you're a freak. ;-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 31 January 2004 17:49 (seventeen years ago) link

No. Just confused, I think.

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 17:50 (seventeen years ago) link

I was actually talking to Slocki but I can say that because he's Canadian. Wait, I love Canada, never mind.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 31 January 2004 17:51 (seventeen years ago) link

I know. I was saying he was confused.

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 17:55 (seventeen years ago) link

"the strange case of the man who liked both 2D and 3D animation"

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 31 January 2004 18:00 (seventeen years ago) link


Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 31 January 2004 18:06 (seventeen years ago) link

How about 1D?

Aja (aja), Saturday, 31 January 2004 18:09 (seventeen years ago) link


s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 31 January 2004 18:11 (seventeen years ago) link

"The Dot & The Line" to thread.

Kingfish Funyun (Kingfish), Saturday, 31 January 2004 18:12 (seventeen years ago) link

FUNYUN ROOLZ OK. I love both the book and cartoon version of that. Even if it's implicitly about how long-haired guys are lazy hippie beatniks, which is so not true.

*does nothing for an hour*

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 31 January 2004 18:15 (seventeen years ago) link

El Diablo Robotico = smart! Stupid big trad animation studios ran themselves into the ground by being greedy bastards, and now they blame the art form. They shipped the work overseas for quick profit, and degraded it's quality and artist's wages, while paying astronomical money to the executives with MBA's who know jack about art or making good films. Then they blame the "traditional way" for being "too expensive," and pretend computers are "more competitive" by automating artist's jobs. When in fact trad and computer animation are totally seperate art forms, and good quality has the same expense for either one, because they can't replace artists with automation, they can only cheapen the product. Saying 2D animation has some sort of inherent problem or is "expensive" or has become "unpopular" is a lie from anti-worker executives who made it happen from greed. Success really comes from good stories and quality films not fads. They want you to buy their new substitute, but it's the same scam (they are already outsourcing the computer jobs.) i can't wait for holograph smell-o-vision!

sucka (sucka), Saturday, 31 January 2004 23:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Where does claymation fit in here? (and anything alse not CGI/other appropriate computer animation term or cel animation). I don't think the medium matters in the slightest to most viewers, the thing that some people on this thread have had a problem with has been the plots of Disney films vs plots of Pixar ones.

Favourite myth about computer animation, as attempted in a badly edited end-of-the-evening-news report:

Animator Woman: Computer animation is so much quicker, I can just move this over here in a few seconds. If we'd been painting this film on cels, it would have taken months.
Narrator: In total, Finding Nemo took 6 years to make...

oscillatingocelot (oscillating ocelot), Sunday, 1 February 2004 00:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Pixar obviously has better writers than Disney, although Joss Whedon is the only one I can think of, and he might have only done Toy Story.

Nick H (Nick H), Sunday, 1 February 2004 13:47 (seventeen years ago) link

I read the Chicago Tribune one, which was 3 stars but mostly a modest review, heard the NPR one, which was pretty meh, AVClub gave it a meh B- ... Most for the same reasons - Dory is annoying, the contained setting is not as expansive as the first one - which is not reassuring.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 June 2016 22:19 (five years ago) link

Blurbs on Meteoritic - and these are the mostly positive reviews:

It’s not Toy Story or Inside Out or even Nemo. What it is is a perfectly enjoyable family film that’s comforting, familiar, and a bit slight, like one of those serviceable Lion King spin-offs that Disney used to ship straight to DVD back in the ‘90s.

In deciding not to stray far from the first film in plot or tone, it makes for a pleasant, familiar, cheerfully unassuming fish-in-her-water tale.

Even the more positive Times review strikes a similar chord:

What “Dory” lacks in dazzling originality it more than makes up for in warmth, charm and good humor.

Iirc the Good Dinosaur reviews were sort of similar, along the lines of "It's a simple story, perfect for families, nothing special, but its heart is in the right place and it's nice to look at."

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 June 2016 22:23 (five years ago) link

those serviceable Lion King spin-offs that Disney used to ship straight to DVD back in the ‘90s.

lol they were putting those lion king movies on VHS in the 90s not DVD do your fucking research you gormless noob and you call yourself a "film" "critic" you make me SICK

a simba man (Will M.), Thursday, 16 June 2016 22:42 (five years ago) link


Nhex, Friday, 17 June 2016 05:28 (five years ago) link

fwiw i thought Good Dinosaur was totally underrated. not up to the best of Pixar but still a really good children's film in my eyes

Nhex, Friday, 17 June 2016 05:29 (five years ago) link

Saw it last night, it's very very good, certainly not a trifle. It's true that resetting this story in what's basically the MOnterey Bay Aquarium takes some of the open-ended fascination of the ocean out of it, but they already did that story. It's absolutely better than the Good Dinosaur and has no dead parents. It's not as good as Nemo but most films aren't.

akm, Friday, 17 June 2016 11:41 (five years ago) link

also Dory herself is not annoying, who would say that?

akm, Friday, 17 June 2016 11:41 (five years ago) link

I think it was the NPR/LAtimes interview. Tbf they didn't call her annoying, but they did say after a while she makes you (that is, made the reviewer) a little irritable.

I don't expect this to be bad at all, but given the original "Nemo" (which I love) is not terribly ambitious by Pixar standards, this sort of redux seems not particularly compelling. It's curious, my kids have loved all those recent Disney-proper cartoons, even the older daughter, but neither wanted to see Inside Out, both actively refused to see Good Dinosaur (to my disappointment) and neither has mentioned Finding Dory at all.

I am curious about the animation. Nemo was, what, a decade ago? 15 years ago? A while ago, anyway, and I think it still looks gorgeous. Have there been any significant advances in computers that make this one look any better/different? I don't know where the animation can go from the first one. A lot of computer tech lately is going to fur and flowing hair and other hyper-detailed stuff. Computers seem to have nailed water stuff years ago.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 June 2016 12:45 (five years ago) link

the surfaces of the fish look very tactile in this, like you could just pick them up and touch them (and I saw it in 2d). And the water itself is mindblowing, particularly at the end credits where there is a scene that's held for about 10 seconds of the bay and the dock and it's utterly, completely photo realistic; if you didn't see the Good Dinosaur, there are scenes of wind through grass that are similar, where you can't believe this is animation. That's amazing, but it's also a bit...if it just looks completely real, then why is it better than actual film of a real place, you know? Luckily that kind of realism is left to the background textures and the character animation itself is just very very good. The way the octopus moves around, for instance....it's cartoonish, almost loony-toonsish at time, but somehow it's very believable.

for all the fuss (or, well, one article anyway) about there being a same sex couple in this, they are there for all of about 1 and a half seconds.

akm, Friday, 17 June 2016 14:05 (five years ago) link

It's funny, the uncanny valley doesn't really apply to natural imagery, does it? Just people? Because there's a driving scene in Zootopia, too, where everything looks photorealistic (except for the characters). Even back in Life of Pi, the tiger is as real as can be; likewise the bear in The Revenant. I think that's why these movies stay cartoons, because they still can't do people, and thus go the opposite direction with cute and/or stylized protagonists, or talking animals. Though new Jungle Book was all CG, more or less, except for the kid, right? I wonder how far we are from a movie with photorealistic CG creature protagonists. Or how they would sustain a film in that mode, narratively. I guess a movie like Babe did it with a combination of real animals, puppets and CG.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 June 2016 14:22 (five years ago) link

Not really interested in photorealism in art, generally speaking. It's basically a magic trick (albeit one that that involves a lot of skill and technical mastery). But the extent to which movies like this are able to more fully and realistically realize an imagined universe is pretty amazing (the aesthetic of Zootopia was just gorgeous in this regard).

Manspread Mann (Old Lunch), Friday, 17 June 2016 14:34 (five years ago) link

I pretty much agree with this review: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Finding-Dory-brings-the-fish-tale-to-a-new-8133528.php

akm, Friday, 17 June 2016 21:24 (five years ago) link

Dory is annoying

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:19 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Can't believe JiC wants to fuck a fish

, Friday, 17 June 2016 21:32 (five years ago) link

watching good dinosaur tonight; i guess they scheduled it to premiere on cable in concert with Dory's release?

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Friday, 17 June 2016 22:00 (five years ago) link

while i don't really love cgi animated movies -- actually i kinda hate them -- pixar had the right idea from the beginning with regard to keeping the human characters (or just the characters in general i guess) relatively cartoony. (thus avoiding the uncanny valley shit.) the "realism" of the backgrounds is just kind of standard animation technique applied to cgi. animation (at least in the traditional disney style or stuff like studio ghibli, not so much classic looney tunes where it was much more stylized) has always been about contrasting vibrant and less "realistic" characters against hyper-detailed backgrounds.

a basset hound (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Friday, 17 June 2016 22:10 (five years ago) link

Scott McCloud had a decent explanation of why this method works in Understanding Comics, but I can't find a full scan of that page

Nhex, Saturday, 18 June 2016 07:38 (five years ago) link

I always thought it was not jut about contrast but because the main characters have more changes and action than the backgrounds, and take more work, so the less something moves or needs to change, the more detail it can have. I guess the advance in CG is stuff like hair (or water, or plants in the wind or whatever), detailed things with automated natural motion, but that's still background and sort of designed to be random, vs. directing lead characters, which is hyper specific.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 18 June 2016 13:23 (five years ago) link

xpost Yeah, McCloud calls it the "masking effect" and asserts that we identify more easily with simply-drawn characters (smiley face could be almost everyone on earth, photograph could basically be one person)... so we can sort of put on the 'mask' of the simply-drawn character. He also gives the example of a prop like a sword - drawn simply when the character is swinging it, as an extension of you, the reader - but becoming hyper-detailed when the character notices some mysterious writing on the hilt, shoving it back into the alien, not-you space of the world.

I still basically buy it but I think it's probably a little more complicated and non-universal than he's suggesting. Great book, though, would get a kick out of flipping through it again. Was my Bible for years after it came out.

Harvey Manfrenjensenden (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 18 June 2016 14:24 (five years ago) link

yeah mccloud was probably who was thinking of (in the abstract) when i wrote that. i don't know how well the book holds up since i haven't read it cover to cover in more than a decade-- i think he was a little too interested in a grand unified theory of comics, and too much has happened in comics in the years since that some things probably not longer ring true -- but i still have my original tundra copy somewhere. he was also super gracious to me when i was an annoying 17 year old pestering him with questions that i would in no way apply to my life or career once i woke up to the fact that i can't draw.

a basset hound (strongo hulkington's ghost dad), Saturday, 18 June 2016 14:40 (five years ago) link

Yeah, at this point I'm pretty sure part of the book's appeal would be as kind of a period-piece glimpse into what would have existed, and been on the radar of a particularly enthusiastic consumer of American, European and Japanese work, at the turn of the 90s. The grand unified theory stuff might have some holes in it, but on the other hand I think some of the stuff it draws your attention to probably still obtains... like really focusing on what "happens" between panels, or how time can also pass within a panel, etc. Brain-expanding, at least for 12-year-old me.

Harvey Manfrenjensenden (Doctor Casino), Saturday, 18 June 2016 14:44 (five years ago) link

Not to stray too far off-topic, but McCloud has written two follow-ups that address in part some of the changing landscape of comics.

Manspread Mann (Old Lunch), Saturday, 18 June 2016 16:10 (five years ago) link

Still haven't seen "Dory," but my wife tells me there is a slightly more than simmering parent revolt, or at least a lot of parents warning certain parents and kids away. Apparently "Dory" has been weirdly traumatic for younger kids, especially kids who have been adopted? Don't know what that's about.

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 June 2016 14:10 (five years ago) link

Interesting. Also interesting that like 90% of Disney movies begin with the death of a parent/loved ones, and afaict that's never proved particularly traumatic for little kids. Maybe it's the specifics of this scenario?

Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 23 June 2016 15:20 (five years ago) link

My almost 6yo is seeing it this weekend as part of a birthday party and I'm a little worried for him. He wept through most of Paddington because he could sense that Paddington was lonely and scared (but also refused to walk out because he didn't want to miss anything).

early rejecter, Thursday, 23 June 2016 15:35 (five years ago) link

Finding Dory is better than most Pixar sequels. I'm convinced they had Dory's story all worked out when they made the first movie -- nothing feels like a retcon.

My 4yo non-adopted niece liked it. Not sure how much she understood.

remove butt (abanana), Thursday, 23 June 2016 20:07 (five years ago) link

The sea lions in Dory were String and McNutty.

Nicholas Nickelback (Leee), Wednesday, 6 July 2016 20:53 (five years ago) link

Ha! Didn't notice that.

how's life, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 21:36 (five years ago) link

three weeks pass...

Finally saw "Dory" and thought it was a lot better than I expected. I can definitely see how it could be traumatic or at least troubling for kids who have been adopted, though I was surprised how well the film worked as a parable of special needs kids and hard it can be for them to navigate (or be allowed to navigate) the world. You've got Dory, of course, and her condition, you've got the sea lion and bird with some sort of intellectual disability, you've got a legally blind whale shark, traumatized beluga, an octopus missing a leg (and of course even Nemo has his tiny flipper). Without saying it a lot of "Dory" is about these characters overcoming their disabilities.

Not sure I was into the broad gag of the octopus driving a car (I just read Soul of the Octopus and know they're smart but come on), but I was willing to go with it.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2016 20:22 (five years ago) link

Oh, also, the opening short "Piper" was cute, and was scored by Adrian Belew!

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2016 21:10 (five years ago) link

Not sure I was into the broad gag of the octopus driving a car (I just read Soul of the Octopus and know they're smart but come on), but I was willing to go with it.

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, August 1, 2016 3:22 PM (55 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

just fyi it's a movie abt talking fish

Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Monday, 1 August 2016 21:18 (five years ago) link

I guess that was just photorealism run amuck, I thought they actually had an octopus driving a car, suddenly it all makes sense!

One of the great things about the first one is how the characters, while anthropomorphic talking sea creatures, generally behave and act according to the species/physiology or whatever, so there was some ... internal logic? But I guess I do draw the line at an octopus starting up a car and leading the police on a high speed chase. Not just starting a car that rolls down a hill into the ocean, but steering, making screechy u-turns, etc.. I expect that from talking toys, but not from talking octopuses.

Seriously, Soul of an Octopus is a super-cool read.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2016 21:38 (five years ago) link

Well if we're going to nitpick, that wasn't an octopus, it was a septapus, and the missing arm was probably its reproductive arm, and by Seinfeldian logic, that lack would make him a cognitive and spatial genius.

Pleeesiosaur (Leee), Monday, 1 August 2016 22:44 (five years ago) link

It's a philosophical quandary. If an octopus loses an arm, is it still an octopus? If a twin loses its twin, is it still a twin?

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2016 22:54 (five years ago) link

I'm talking biology!

Pleeesiosaur (Leee), Monday, 1 August 2016 23:02 (five years ago) link

I thought a kid tore one of his arms off?

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 1 August 2016 23:13 (five years ago) link

two months pass...

The Good Dinosaur was a snooze. Weak characterizations, a poorly defined story universe and a disappointingly standard American Tail-style lost child narrative. And couple of lovely autumnal visuals towards the end notwithstanding, even the animation was barely better than average.

rhymes with "blondie blast" (cryptosicko), Friday, 14 October 2016 19:18 (five years ago) link

yeah. worse than brave in my opinion.

Einstein, Kazanga, Sitar (abanana), Friday, 14 October 2016 22:34 (five years ago) link

I couldn't get my kids to watch it when it was literally the only thing on TV. 50% of "Brave" is great, then it turns into My Mother the Bear.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 14 October 2016 22:50 (five years ago) link

that was the better half imo

Nhex, Friday, 14 October 2016 22:58 (five years ago) link

my expectations for the good dinosaur were sufficiently low that i actually kinda liked it for what it was: a feature-length demo reel for pixar's amazing new digital grass and water effects

Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Monday, 17 October 2016 06:42 (five years ago) link

one month passes...

I thought "Moana" was great, easily one of the best looking Disney, etc. movies, sort of made me think of "Brave" if "Brave" was better.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 November 2016 23:23 (five years ago) link

Is this one Pixar or just Disney?

rhymes with "blondie blast" (cryptosicko), Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:06 (five years ago) link


Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 26 November 2016 00:11 (five years ago) link

four years pass...

Is the new one Pixar or Disney? Doesn't really matter anymore, I guess. Anyway, "Encanto" was absolutely gorgeous. It was also perhaps more patient than most Disney animated films, and perhaps just slightly more cliche-averse. That said, I don't think it made much sense, and my daughter immediately thought of a better ending, but it's worth it for the bright colors alone. Also, caught the trailer for this:


Looks like it could be fun.

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 24 November 2021 21:39 (one week ago) link

(Also some "Teen Wolf" vibes.)

Josh in Chicago, Wednesday, 24 November 2021 21:40 (one week ago) link

whole lotta dreamworks face in that trailer

When Young Sheldon began to rap (forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 24 November 2021 23:07 (one week ago) link

trailer is manic af

more difficult than I look (Aimless), Wednesday, 24 November 2021 23:18 (one week ago) link

This is the one set in my old Toronto neighbourhood! Can't wait to see it. The short by the same director was a lot mellower, hopefully this was just trailer'd up

Chuck_Tatum, Wednesday, 24 November 2021 23:37 (one week ago) link

I literally lived opposite this house!


Chuck_Tatum, Wednesday, 24 November 2021 23:39 (one week ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.