You may have seen this on Tumblr recently. If not, Claire Hummel has something to say to the folks at Pixar regarding their upcoming film, Brave. Click to enlarge.
Via: Shoomlah
On The Presence of The Corset in Brave Read More »
The ReelGirl blog, written by Margot Magowan, recently featured a post that discusses Pixar’s upcoming film ‘Brave’ in the context of Pixar ‘firsts’; this case being their first lead female protagonist. Margot sums it up thusly:
Wow, a female hero is as rare and remarkable as a rat who can cook.
Which is basically the truth, strictly in terms of Pixar films.
Can this be held against Pixar? I’d say not. They’ve only released a relatively small number of films, and a good chunk of them were knocked out during just one lunch! It’s a natural progression that they would get around to doing a girl-centric film eventually. Besides, The Incredibles had an actual female hero in Elastigirl. OK, granted she wasn’t the lead, but she was effectively the co-lead and equal partner in the film.
I agree with Margot in that it is a tad unfair to be crowing about a film that is supposedly a ‘first’ and that also features something that should, and has, been a given in animated films for quite a while.
ReelGirl Sums Up What Pixar’s ‘Brave’ Really Signifies Read More »
Yes, it is the season and coming tomorrow is a list of Six Traditional Pieces of Christmas Animation, but today’s post is about four, non-Traditional pieces of Christmas animation.
What could that possibly mean?
Well, on TV around Christmas, the normal programming schedules get scrapped in favour of showing films, and lots of them. Less so in recent years, but still quite prevalent (at least in Ireland and the UK), these films are a great mix of family fare and films that you wouldn’t normally see at other times of the year, such as Spinal Tap and pretty much any Mel Brooks film. I once tried to explain to the fiancée that Irish people’s favourite Christmas film was almost consistently polled to be Back to the Future for the very reason that’s it’s a Christmas staple. She called me weird.
So, without further adieu, here’s the top four non-Traditional Christmas films:
Mary Poppins
Via: ItThing.com
Any Pixar Film (more so A Bug’s Life and Monster’s Inc. but always at least one premiere)
Via: The Pixar Times
Shrek (including the various sequels)
Via: DreamWorks on Wikia
Studio Ghibli (that wonderful channel, Film4, can be relied upon to broadcast plenty of Studio Ghibli films around Chiristmas, the early mornings are well worth it).
Via: Cartoon Brew
Four Non-Traditional Pieces of Christmas Animation Read More »
Hilarious image shamelessly yoinked from Filmdrunk
I’m really not quite sure what to make of this. According to /film (who got it from Stitch Kingdom), the Atlanta Braves baseball team have filed an objection to Disney/Pixar’s use of the word “Brave” as a trademark for the upcoming film, Brave.
Trademark law make a distinction between singular and plural versions of a word, but that has not stopped the baseball team from claiming that:
that damages will occur as a result of Disney’s trademarks being approved as they have used the singular form before on merchandise and insist it is common for fans, media, et. al. to use the singular form when referring to a single player, whereas the pluralized form refers to the entire team.”
Long story short, they’re saying that by Disney trademarking ‘Brave’, poor Joe Public might get confused between a baseball player and a red-haired Scottish heroine who lives in the middle ages.
Yup, that sure is real confusing, especially as one is an actual, real-life team of people playing sports for money and the other is a fictional character who only exists within the film (and on related merchandise).
There’s no way this objection should fly although, as ever, “discussions are ongoing” between the two parties. So expect an “agreement” to come eventually.
Just what a waste of resources though and it doesn’t exactly put the Braves in a good light either, what with the pettiness of their claim and all.
The Atlanta Braves Oppose Pixar’s ‘Brave’ Trademark Application Read More »
Via: John K. Stuff
Is the “brain trust” the modern version of Disney’s 9 Old Men, and if so, are we doomed to see the same results when they retire? Here’s four reasons why history may repeat itself.
1. They’re both small groups
You can count the members of both groups on one hand. The respective members are innovators and experts in their fields.
2. They’ve been together since the beginning
Or near the beginning. Both groups were established as their respective studios were trying to find their norms and their tight-knight as a result of the challenges they faced at the start of their existence.
3. They’re THE Source for Ideas
Both groups were/are the go-to places for ideas. The 9 Old Men were experts at animation. The Brain Trust are renowned for their ability to create superb stories and films.
4. No New Permanent Members
The 9 Old Men began as 9 old men and remained that way throughout their existence. No-one ever joined and the only time anyone left was as a result of natural causes. The Pixar Brain Trust is eerily similar, there doesn’t seem to have been any permanent changes made to its makeup at all since its inception. Yes, Brad Bird and Brenda Chapman were members, but they have since moved on, and there is little indication that anyone has managed to get themselves “promoted” to fill their places.
The signs are ominous. The Pixar Brain Trust has had fantastic success, but it is resting on its laurels. Relying on the same people is a recipe for trouble. Disney began a protracted period of malaise in the 1970s, and as of now, history appears poised to repeat itself in Emeryville.
Four Signs That We’re Seeing A New Version of the 9 Old Men at Pixar Read More »
Just a while ago over the twitter-waves
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/#!/davidoreilly/statuses/136888431501524992″]
[blackbirdpie url=”http://twitter.com/#!/tommmoore/statuses/136890423162576897″]
David OReilly & Tomm Moore on Pixar’s Brave Read More »
You already know who this post is about, even before you’ve started reading it
That’s because Steve Jobs really was a leader.
I may not have bought any of his products, or even agreed or liked his way of doing things (too locked-down, too expensive) but that’s not to say I didn’t have a lot of respect for him.
Clearly the animation landscape would be very different if Steve Jobs hadn’t taken a bit of a gamble back in the 1980s. Which is the reason for today’s post:
Who will lead us now?
Plenty of people are calling Steve a “visionary”. Yes, he had vision, but he was much more of a leader. He had the ability to envision things, but he also had a huge ability to get others to work towards that vision with passion and excitement.
That’s why Pixar is such a success. While Steve undoubtedly got a good pitch of sorts from Ed Catmull and John Lasseter, ultimately, he could see that the technology they were developing was irrelevant to the story potential that Lasseter offered the output. Steve guided them towards their first deal with Disney, and was instrumental in helping them re-negotiate it after the success of Toy Story.
Steve’s position on the board of the Walt Disney Company (and largest individual stock holder) ensured that that firm took a slightly different approach to online content than the other Hollywood studios. That’s no easy task.
As of right now, there is no one, clear individual who could be said to be a true leader within the animation community.
There are plenty of leaders such as Jeffrey Katzenberg and Fred Seibert and Ed Catmull is probably the closest thing to Jobs in light of his determination to see Pixar make animation instead of hardware. Although they are all leaders in a different capacity than Steve.
We need a leader because they can see the way forward. They may not know for certain where they are taking us, but at least they’re willing to take a bet on it. That can’t be said for the vast majority of people, which is why leaders are so rare.
A new leader will emerge, that is a certainty.
Until then, we’ll continue to inhabit the aimless space that’s left behind.
RIP Steve
Who Will Lead Us Now? Read More »
Caution: This post deals with mature themes (but in a mature way).
On Sunday, while searching for a suitable picture of Mr Potato Head for that day’s post (yes, really), I managed to stumble across the rather intriguing blog that is ANIMadams, which focuses exclusively on women and females in general and how they’re portrayed in animation (and a few related markets).
Sadly in hibernation since this past June (2011), the blog would take what many would consider to be a feminist view/approach and while I’m no masculine feminist (Jerry Springer can keep that title), I’ve come to appreciate what the three contributors have to say (to a certain extent).
Which leads to today’s post concerning The Incredibles, a film that remains firmly within my top 3 all time favourites. The post from ANIMadams deals with Violet in particular. Now Violet is certainly my favourite characters in that film for many reasons. Chief among them is that I see a lot of myself in her and how she struggles with her shyness.
Entitled “Let’s Talk About Sex-ualization” the post discusses how the writer views the transformation of Violet during the course of the film from an insecure teenager to an assertive super hero:
It’s not until Helen can be honest with herself and the family, being the superhero she loves to be, that she can properly model for her children. She has a heart-to-heart with her daughter after which Violet strikes a stronger pose than the audience has become acclimated to. It is after this that she begins to be much more active, coming out from behind the veil of her own hair.
It’s safe to say that yes, Violet is portrayed in a different light after this talk with her mother, she’s more assertive, she no longer hides away from real life and she can see clearly with both her eyes the challenges she faces. It’s partly why the film is so fantastic; it exhibits the power of individuals to change themselves for the better.
Then, we get to this line:
Violet is then inadvertently sexualized and objectified. While suggesting to her parents – taking charge like an adult would – a way for them to escape, Violet’s rear is placed directly in the foreground of the camera as her parents bicker in the background. Her entire rear and only her rear.
Here is the offending shot:
And here is the argument:
Let me emphasize: I do not believe this is intentional. But I do find it to be a very odd coincidence that once Violet has decided to step up and into adolescence, she is immediately sexualized, even for a few seconds.
No, it is intentional, just not in the way youbelieve. Brad Bird is one of the best animation directors out there at the moment and he’s the kind of guy who knows exactly the kind of shot he wants. This one in particular is meant to be seen from a low angle because the rocket has to be shown in the background. It is where the family are ultimately heading. Placing the Incredibles above the level of the viewer also suggests that they have regained/attained their status as superheroes, they’re not superior, but we do look up to them.
The nature of the scene dictates that Violet propose the solution to the family’s problem. Now you could say that having her voice her opinion could easily have been conducted off-screen, however that would result in some jerky direction of the kind that Brad Bird isn’t known for. Having Violet appear in the scene reminds the audience that she’s present before she makes a suggestion. Based on the alignment of the shot mentioned above, it would seem natural that we would not see her head but the lower part of her figure instead.
What the ANIMadams point alludes to is the rapid maturing that Violet’s character leads to her “sexualisation” in this scene. This I disagree with on the grounds that while she does a lot of growing-up in the course of the film, she isn’t sexualised in the slightest during any of it. She is interested in Tony Rydinger before and after the events of the film. The only difference is that she gains the courage to actually talk to him.
Having her butt on-screen for a few seconds does not constitute turning Violet into an object. If anything, the viewer’s attention is focused on Bob and Helen and is only vaguely aware of Violet’s intrusion until both parents turn around, at which point we immediately cut to Violet’s face. Besides, we’re more concerned at this point in the film with how the family is going to stop Syndrome anyway, right?
The ANIMadam’s post over-simplifies the rather complex developments that teenagers undergo in course of a number of years down into a single shot, and not even a long one at that. While it’s completely fair to say that Violet does begin her path to womanhood during the film, it is completely unfair to say that she was thrust down that path without her consent by the director.
Do you have any thoughts comments? Feel free to leave them below. 🙂
Violet Parr Does NOT Grow Up Within A Single Scene Read More »
This week’s character is one of the most beloved of all in the Toy Story franchise (yup, at this stage of the game, it’s a franchise). Voiced to perfection in all three films and beyond by Don Rickles, Mr. Potato Head is the on-screen epitome of the ever-suffering husband.
As a character, Potato Head is introduced well before his spouse, and from the very beginning, it is clear that he has a rather sardonic sense of humour. He jokes and laughs at other’s expense and becomes somewhat upset when he gets some of his own medicine given back to him.
Although not the smartest potato in the pot, he does manage to give the audience some laughs while simultaneously adding to the bewilderment of his fellow cast members.
Via: Amanadahugandkiss.tumblr.com
Arguably it is this feckless attitude to the world that makes Potato Head such a funny character. He’s not quite duped by the world in the way that early Homer Simpson was, but he does live his life in a way that suggests that the rest of the world finds him a spectacle.
All of that changes when he gets himself a missus at the end of the first film. This has the rather happy result of setting him up for all sorts of marriage jokes in the second and third outings. He is now not only the guy who casts a dim view on the world but also the suffering husband who must bend to the whim of his wife’s every wish!
This setup naturally results in a whole host of rib-tickling and wink-wink jokes about tying the knot and being shackled for life. We see Potato Head as the stereotype of the suffering husband. He puts up with the nagging and criticism with only the slightest hint of honesty in his voice.
Ultimately both Potato Heads exaggerate and play-up the many facets of marriage for the enjoyment of the audience and that’s what not only makes them so great but also adds to the juxtaposition of their composition, their kid’s toys! Their lives aren’t supposed to be this complicated and yet here they are, with all the ups and downs of your average couple bearing down on their silver anniversary.
Heck, even Potato Head’s composition of many parts leads to jokes about him falling apart or missing pieces. I’m sure there are plenty of middle aged fathers that could relate to losing parts of themselves (hypothetically) along the long road of life and matrimony. Ultimately though, the scene below where both Potato Head’s lose all their parts best sums up their marriage as they mutually help each other back into one piece. It’s not lost on older members of the audience that for all their differences, they are both one and the same.
Via: the ANIMadams blog
All of this makes Potato Head on of the most important characters of the Toy Story films: he gives parents in the audience someone to relate to and sympathise with. He represents them in a world otherwise filled with quote/unquote “kids”.
Mr. Potato Head is a perfect character for the Toy Story universe that embodies all the pitfalls and benefits of a healthy and loving marriage, and that’s why we love him.
Character Sundays: Mr Potato Head in Toy Story Read More »
Found via Reddit, here’s four hedcuts of the style that is popular with the Wall Street Journal. Created by Randy Glass, they all appear to be the real deal. In other words, there’s no digital explanation behind them so the skill is so much easier to appreciate.
Interestingly enough, even though these are animated characters that would traditionally lack the same level of details as a real person would, these portraits are given the same level of detail as a person and, in a way, almost makes them seem almost as real.
Either way, be sure to click through for the full series of celebrities as well as these four animated characters who managed to make it in there.
UPDATE: The man himself was kind enough to write in and has forwarded two more images that are currently not up on his Behance site; Remy from Ratatouille and Mr. Incredible. Thanks Randy!
(UPDATED) Some Handsome Cartoon Hedcuts To Start Your Day Read More »
Is well worth a look if you like your funny bone tickled and don’t mind some sardonic humour at the expense of one of the best directors around at the moment.
And just remember:
“Never be afraid to laugh at yourself. After all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century.”
– Dame Edna Everage
The F**k Yeah John Lasseter Tumblr Read More »
