General Discussion

So Brave comes out this weekend and I've been following the reviews, only to see that it is a super polarizing film. I really liked it but some people are downright angry with it, and I noticed more than a few negative reviews of the movie saying something along the lines of "What we get would be fine from another studio," or "We expect more from Pixar."

So my question to pose to the Screened community is this, should you judge a movie based just on the movie itself as an individual entity, or should you factor in the previous works of the creator/studio? If the creator/studio had been doing amazing works up until now then should you give a movie negative points for not living up to its previous movies, or on the other end of the spectrum if the creator/studio has done poor work then should you give them more credit if they just do an okay movie?

Both, yes, and yes. I think recognizing legacy (if you're aware of it, anyway) and admitting potential bias is absolutely part of appraising movies. It doesn't excuse bad movies on either side, but there's always going to be a tilt to how you as a viewer approach things, because none of us watch movies in a vacuum (nor should we).

No I don't think you should. A film's creator can sometimes guide your expectations going into a film but it shouldn't reflect so heavily on a reviewers expectations.

If you go into Brave expecting Pixar to dazzle and impress and end up with an alright movie but nothing groundbreaking then who's fault is that? The movie is still good, still a good story, but isn't perfect so does that deserve a mostly negative review?

I think we hold content creator to unholy standards sometimes always expecting the best to stay that way and the worst to never rise above cheesy action movies. We think Michael Bay will never make a good movie but he made Heat. Pixar can never make a bad film but they made Cars and Cars 2.

@FinalDasa: Wait, in which Bizarro universe did Michael Bay make Heat? It's not this one. :p

@litrock: I knew that >.> Michael Mann, Michael Bay, we're all Michaels at heart!

I think the thing about Pixar that we have been seeing with Cars 2 and now Brave has more to do with expectations than actual appraisal of the movies. I dont think what people are saying in these reviews is meant to be seen as if for example Brave would be getting better reviews if it was a Dreamworks movie. Most of the reviews would, and should, be the same no matter the studio/creators. Expectations can of course fuck with our thoughts on any movie, but in this case reviewers simply seem disappointed that Pixar couldnt deliver another fantastic movie, but I would hope that most reviewers would still give it the same scores no matter who created it.

@The_Patriarch: To be fair, while I think my text would differ a bit, I'd assign Brave the same score if it came from Dreamworks or Disney. It's still funny and a decent enough romp through that genre of fantasy storytelling. The talk about message and theme is very much a result of Pixar's efforts to set that up, though, so there it is.

Who's that director who is a child molester? Polanski? Yea, I'll judge his films into the ground.

No I think you have to judge each movie on its own merits within the broad spectrum of all known movies. I can get excited by the prospects of seeing a new film from my favorite director, but the movie itself should be appraised free of any assumptions. If a critic reviews Brave and says it does not meet the standards of earlier Pixar movies and rates it a 3 out of 5, he or she is saying that they have a different set of rules for Pixar films which does not apply to other films such as Disney Animation proper, Dreamworks or Studio Ghibli. Perhaps then the writer should have two ratings; one versus the Pixar library and another for all other movies in general. I think some critics wanted one thing from Brave and got something else, something unsurprisingly much more classic Disney. I've read reviews which compare Brave to Kung-Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon, so in light of the success and critical praise of those movies, shouldn't the film be judged on a more broader perspective than just its studio's own past works?

I guess if you want to have your cake and eat it too, you could say "As a family movie it's pretty good, as a volume in the Pixar canon, I found it lacking the same innovation."

Ultimately what I am saying is either Brave is a good movie, a fair movie or a bad movie all on its own. You should be able to say I liked it more than Prometheus but less than The Avengers. And you can say I liked it more than Monsters Inc but less than Wall-E just as you can say I liked South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut more than A Bugs Life but less than the Incredibles. I understand it's hard not to take a studios past works into consideration, but to enter into a film expecting to be overwhelmed as you might have been for Up!, Finding Nemo and any of the Toy Stories is setting the bar too high.

@litrock: Exactly my point, and how I think it should be.

Of course you should; judging completely objectively is impossible - films do not exist in a bubble, neither does your mind, and context is highly important when writing film criticism. Litrock's first reply said it best. @litrock said:

Both, yes, and yes. I think recognizing legacy (if you're aware of it, anyway) and admitting potential bias is absolutely part of appraising movies. It doesn't excuse bad movies on either side, but there's always going to be a tilt to how you as a viewer approach things, because none of us watch movies in a vacuum (nor should we).

Ain't really more I can add.

It always affects my opinions and I think its fine just as long as the reviewer mentioned it in his review

Yes our knowledge of the previous studio or creators works always effects my expectations. If we know someone can make great things why shouldn't they continue to make them? Most of the time how do we rank or claim something to be great? By comparing them to other (hopefully) related things. We view movies in the context of other movies in that genre,dircetor,studio. You can and probably should judge a movie based on relate able items, but you should also look at it as an individual piece of art.

I saw Brave last night. It was a good movie. Not spectacular but not terrible worse than Cars 2 bad. It was a good kids movie in the purest sense. Wah I didn't get some sorta shadowy reference to Ayn Rand or some other commentary. What I did get was an enjoyable theater experience.

In the end Internet is going to Internet. The same thing seems to be going on with The Newsroom, though I haven't really followed any pilot reviews.

I think, in Pixar's case, the answer is no. Cars and Cars 2 were not terrible. In fact, they were still entertaining movies to watch. However, those two movies did not live up to the brilliance that was the studio's other movies, and that was disappointing to me. Brave looks like a slight improvement to me, judging by the trailers, and I plan to see it next week.

I think its a perfectly legitimate way to frame an opinion about a film. Honestly, film criticism is so subjective, there are a great many ways to approach it, and looking a a particular film though the lens of a studio's past films is one of them. We all have our canon of films we've watched and liked, so everyone approaches the same movie a little bit differently. No artist or studio bats 1.000 with everybody and that's OK.

Sure, one way to review Brave is to say "It's a perfectly good tale that will delight young and old alike. Take the kids, it's the best animated film you'll see this month". That'll boost the aggregate review score on Rotten Tomatoes and make all of the Pixar fanboys happy. I'm more interested to see if a film does anything new and adds to the canon of Pixar's achievements. I KNOW it'll be a good two hours of entertainment.