Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
June 26, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Based on what you've seen and heard about Brave, what is your perception of the film?
David Mumpower: In spite of the box office positives I mentioned in the prior answer, my personal opinion is that Pixar is in a bit of a slump. In the wake of their Toy Story 3 triumph, the follow-up projects have been lacking...and I say that as one of those people who felt Toy Story 3 was simply good, not great. Cars 2 was a merchandising Trojan horse, which we knew the instant the sequel was announced. Given my absurdly low expectations for the project, I enjoyed the movie well enough yet I rarely watch parts of it on cable. Like many sequels, it is a forgettable exercise in corporate finance disguised as "art".
Brave was a movie that our entire staff has been anticipating for years now. When I sat in the theater Friday evening and realized that it was a mash-up of Tangled, How to Train Your Dragon and another Disney animated movie whose name I cannot reveal for fear of spoilers, I was wildly disappointed. Brave is amiable enough but this feels like a DreamWorks movie rather than a Pixar one. Such is the danger of being held to a higher standard. If I were drawing a direct comparison to a recent animated blockbuster, the best title would be Megamind, a great concept that for the most part lacked in execution.
I am not the target audience for Brave; this is the difference in Pixar's most recent two titles as opposed to previous ones, though. Up doesn't divide into a movie for boys or for girls nor does Toy Story, WALL-E, Monsters Inc. or Ratatouille. The commonality between all of those titles is universal appeal. Brave and Cars 2 are divisive in this regard and while I hope Monsters University proves to be as charming as the original, I fear that it will suffer the same fate as Cars 2. Is it another way to sell more Sully and Mike toys? Probably. In the time since Pixar and Disney merged, there has been a climate shift. Disney wants the most commercially viable products possible. I worry that what has established Pixar in the marketplace is in danger of fading away. Brave and Cars 2 are titles of genial mediocrity whereas Up and Rataouille are masterpieces of storytelling. Does two in a row indicate the start of a trend or a brief run of bad luck? We won't know for certain for 360 days, but I have concerns.
Max Braden: I haven't seen the movie yet, but I was surprised to hear that it's a mother-daughter movie. Based on what I saw in the trailer, I was expecting a movie like The Little Mermaid, about the daughter who's friendly with her dad (the main driver in her life) but feels she doesn't connect with him or fit in with the the local culture. That actually made me think that the message Pixar was sending out (intentionally or not) was "your own family will always hold you back, dump them as soon as possible." While I'm interested in hearing that Brave shifts tones mid-story, it concerns me that they did this with WALL-E, and a little with Toy Story 3. I don't want to argue for playing it safe but I do want the strong central throughline in movies like the first Toy Story. Getting experimental risks alienating the audience, reducing funds for future projects, and muddling the studio's sense of purpose in storytelling.
Jason Barney: I saw it with my seven-year-old son on Saturday afternoon. Two of my brothers brought their kids. The women in our lives wanted to go and see the movie, too. The adults didn't leave the theater thinking "that was awesome", but the kids liked it. Was the movie bad? Was it as good as some of the other Pixar titles? The answer is "no" to both. I didn't see Cars 2, but that has become a punching bag of sorts because Pixar had one film that were not as good as all of the others. No, Brave wasn't Toy Story 3, or Up, or WALL-E, but that is okay.
It seems like this is a very similar situation to the early 1990s when Disney was on a hot streak. The Little Mermaid, The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin were all beloved by fans and left everyone drooling for more. Then Pocahontas came out and people weren't impressed. Then Hunchback, and again, a sigh. Quality is awesome and yes, Disney has been behind some truly memorable kids/family products. Brave may not have the magic of some of the other movies, but it wasn't bad.
Bruce Hall: Prior to Cars 2 I was well prepared for Pixar's inevitable First Disappointment. They can't all be gems, after all. I just wasn't prepared for HOW disappointing it would be, or how personally I would take it. So the best thing to me about Brave is the absence of indifference. Regardless of what you thought of the story or the execution, you'll have to admit that at least they tried. What galled me the most about Cars 2 was that it just didn't seem to give a damn. Brave may never be mentioned in conversation alongside the great ones, but it's also a different direction from Cars 2. That's a great start, as far as I'm concerned.
Felix Quinonez Jr.: To be honest, I was never that impressed by the trailers of this movie and I havent seen it yet. But someone I know, who shares my taste in movies, did see it and loved it. So I'm now pretty excited to see it myself.
Tony Kollath: 90% of the appeal for me was in the visuals. If the quality story had been anywhere in the neighborhood of how good it looked, we would have had a gem on our hands. Especially in some scenes earlier in the film, the animation in Brave was dazzling and surpasses anything else Pixar has created. Story-wise, the first half of the film hints that it will go in one direction. The second, though, makes a sharp left turn and really loses any good-will it had built up earlier.
Daron Aldridge: In a move not experienced in 10 years for me, I actually saw two movies in a single day this weekend but will be somewhat in the minority of opinions for both. I do agree with Tony that visuals are what drew me in at first and they did a remarkable of living up to what had been teased. On the other hand, the story itself felt more like a traditional Disney animated film and less like the unique, wholly creative stories that we have come to expect from Pixar. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so but rather it just didn’t live up to the expectations that we have for Pixar, which is strange since their stories typically defy conventional story expectations. So, them going with the unexpected “old-fashioned” route is just as unexpected as a movie about toys, monsters, a cooking rat and a robot with a one-word vocabulary. I will agree that I wasn’t instantly smitten with the film when it was over like with Monsters, Inc. or Up but I still think it is a very good, entertaining film that is beautifully animated.
As far as the shift in storytelling that has been mentioned, the cited examples of WALL-E and Toy Story 3 show such a precedent exists already in many Pixar films. Consider that Up took a different and well-executed turn once they got to Paradise Falls and Charles Muntz. I also remember people complaining Cars shouldn’t haven’t shifted from the Piston Cup world to Radiator Springs (yet, they stayed in that world for Cars 2 and see how that worked) or vice versa with more Radiator Springs and less Piston Cup. Yet, I didn’t feel a similar dramatic shift in Brave. (I will concede that the triplets and maid bit was unsuccessful comic relief.)
Jay makes a valid comparison point about the late '80s/early '90s Disney heyday and subsequent drop off with Pocahontas, Hunchback and (I must add) Hercules mirroring Pixar but I don’t feel that Brave is comes close to the drop in quality that those three films did on the heels of Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Also, I summarily disagree with Brave being equated in the same breath quality-wise to Cars 2.
Kim Hollis: I'm going to echo Daron here and perhaps be the lone person here to say that I think this was a pretty terrific little movie. Maybe it's because I'm the only female. I don't know. I felt like this was a traditional story told very well, and with absolutely gorgeous animation. I found the comic relief amusing and the heroine very likable. I believe that as time passes, this will be a movie that mothers watch with their daughters in a very happy way.
I don't wanna miss a thing.
Kim Hollis: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World opened to $3.8 million, barely beating Moonrise Kingdom, which had roughly a quarter the number of playdates of the Steve Carell film. Why do you think it failed to connect with audiences?
David Mumpower: Premise. Premise. Premise. We speak from time to time about the intrinsic nature of cinema. People want to escape from their daily lives and be entertained for a couple of hours. SEE STEVE CARELL AND KEIRA KNIGHTLEY DIE!!! That's a hard sell for anyone. I happened to see the movie this weekend; it's wonderful and I highly recommend it to people who enjoy Steve Carell in Dan in Real Life/Little Miss Sunshine mode. The surprise popularity of Crazy, Stupid, Love provided at least some hope for a sleeper hit. The exhibitors' selectivity with venue count for Seeking a Friend for the End of the World spoke volumes, though. These people are generally great at their jobs and they correctly deduced that if people watch this movie, it will be on home video where the viewer has the ability to fast forward through anything sad. As an aside, BOP's Reagen Sulewski once tipped me off about a Canadian film with a similar premise called Last Night. That's the darker take on the subject matter while Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is largely an exercise in positivity and closure.
Edwin Davies: I'm in complete agreement with David that the premise of the film was its biggest problem. No matter how good the film turned out, ultimately not a huge number of people would be willing to put good money down to see a film about the end of the world unless it involves people trying to save it. A film, even a comedy, even a really good comedy, about people coming to terms with the coming apocalypse and trying to eke a last bit of joy and closure from it is not everyone's idea of a good time. It's basically Melancholia with gags.
Having said all that, the film only cost $10 million to make, so it's not going to lose anyone too much money, and it's exactly the sort of film that is going to have a good afterlife on home media.
Max Braden: Like Will Ferrell, general audiences only want to see the Steve Carell monkey dance in loud and brash roles. David's comment about premise is right (though I don't think death is the problem), because the premise splits the only market it has left. A project like this is obviously too thoughtful and sensitive to be a Due-Date-type roadtrip movie, but also too silly to capture a strong response from the film festival crowd. It really takes word-of-mouth to sell. Plus I think it would have been a better sell in wintertime.
Kim Hollis: Boy, Max, I may be in the minority, but I like sweet Steve Carell *much* better than noisy, annoying Steve Carell (and for the record, I like Will Ferrell in both kinds of roles). My favorite films of his *by far* have been The 40 Year-Old Virgin (where he is actually quite subdued), Little Miss Sunshine, Dan in Real Life, Crazy Stupid Love and now this one. There's something that is really relatable when it comes to his vulnerability. I honestly don't believe his "type" of role here had anything to do with the box office here, but rather agree that it all comes down to the depressing premise. But it's a sweet movie that is well worth watching, folks.
Jason Barney: I wasn't aware of the budget numbers for this one, but if Edwin's $10 million is correct, I can't imagine the studio had high expectations. They put a little bit of money into a movie that is going to be released during the heart of the summer movie season. It may not have had a start, but I think that is okay. With the relatively low number of screens it was on, the ceiling was pretty visible from the beginning. It will play for the next several weeks, and the studio will be hoping for positive word-of-mouth. The budget wasn't huge, so a low opening shouldn't be too concerning.
Bruce Hall: If my reaction a while back upon seeing the movie poster and reading the synopsis was typical, David couldn't be more correct. This might be the sweetest, most endearing movie in the world, a lot of people are never going to know it. The premise is intriguing, just not to the kind of people you'd imagine flocking to Steve Carell's films. But as has been mentioned, there is a lucrative market in the home video space called "Movies for Bored Suburban Couples", and this film fits right into it. The same story could have been told direct to video or in a series of quirky home made webisodes edited on a laptop. But having such lovely people in the leads ensures both a healthy return on investment, and that Chet and Vanessa Hutchens of Peora, IL will not have to talk about their disintegrating relationship for one more night.