Brother Bear
I've got a theory. It could be bunnies. Or maybe midgets.
It's interesting - if you read some reviews of Pixar films (and indeed one of the preview articles I've read for Shrek 2) people do seem to fixate on the technology more than the actual film.
Toy Story 2 got lots of comments on how the people looked for realistic, Monsters Inc got lots of comments on Scully's fur. Shrek 2 is (again) getting comments on how the people will look more realistic than the first film. I can't remember any review or article remaking on the realistic run animations on the horses in Spirit - something that is notoriously hard to animate - or complementing the realistic perspective on The Iron Giant (yes, I am aware this was done with computers).
Ultimately at the moment all 3D rendering is being done based on realism - see how much care and attention there is to the lighting in Finding Nemo. All the final images are the result of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of calculations based on real-world physics. This is mostly due to it being an offshoot of comercial technology used in the real world for real-world products.
However, people are begining to experiment with none realistic cartoon animation. I saw one short where the calculations for perspective were deliberatly altered resulting in a wierd, twisting depth of field (which sort-of gave me a headache - your eyes know something is wrong, but your brain tries to correct it). Also various filters (like photoshop filters) are being applied to the rendering - resulting in CGI animation that looks like chalk strokes for example.
I think people these days don't understand "abstract" images or "stylised" animation at all. Everything from computer games to special effects in movies are pushing realism to the consumer.
For example I can't count the number of times The PowerPuff Girls is simply dismissed as cheap animation, when it has some of the most consistant and interesting designs in animation today (but I have no doubt that these designs were concieved to save money). While the animation was still limited, I honestly did think that the PowerPuff Girls movies was one of the most visually striking animated movies of the past few years.
Even disney films like Mulan and Hercules have been critisised for having "bad animation". There's nothing bad about the animation at all. In fact I'm sure that technically Hercules has much better animation than the more 'realistic' animation of - say, Cinderella - simply because the designs of the characters make it harder to make them appear to move in a proper 3D way (Check out Meg's hair for example - It works 100% in the movie, but I'm never quite sure how it works...) But people cannot see this - they just see characters with unorthodox (read "bad") designs.
It will be interesting to see what people think to the first CGI animation which doesn't feature correct perspective, realistic shadows and reflections etc. Will people be able to accept abstract CGI? I predict not.
This may appear elitist, but I fear people are loosing the ability to recognise true art due to their obession with reality. And that includes the crtitics, who presumably should know better.
It's interesting - if you read some reviews of Pixar films (and indeed one of the preview articles I've read for Shrek 2) people do seem to fixate on the technology more than the actual film.
Toy Story 2 got lots of comments on how the people looked for realistic, Monsters Inc got lots of comments on Scully's fur. Shrek 2 is (again) getting comments on how the people will look more realistic than the first film. I can't remember any review or article remaking on the realistic run animations on the horses in Spirit - something that is notoriously hard to animate - or complementing the realistic perspective on The Iron Giant (yes, I am aware this was done with computers).
Ultimately at the moment all 3D rendering is being done based on realism - see how much care and attention there is to the lighting in Finding Nemo. All the final images are the result of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of calculations based on real-world physics. This is mostly due to it being an offshoot of comercial technology used in the real world for real-world products.
However, people are begining to experiment with none realistic cartoon animation. I saw one short where the calculations for perspective were deliberatly altered resulting in a wierd, twisting depth of field (which sort-of gave me a headache - your eyes know something is wrong, but your brain tries to correct it). Also various filters (like photoshop filters) are being applied to the rendering - resulting in CGI animation that looks like chalk strokes for example.
I think people these days don't understand "abstract" images or "stylised" animation at all. Everything from computer games to special effects in movies are pushing realism to the consumer.
For example I can't count the number of times The PowerPuff Girls is simply dismissed as cheap animation, when it has some of the most consistant and interesting designs in animation today (but I have no doubt that these designs were concieved to save money). While the animation was still limited, I honestly did think that the PowerPuff Girls movies was one of the most visually striking animated movies of the past few years.
Even disney films like Mulan and Hercules have been critisised for having "bad animation". There's nothing bad about the animation at all. In fact I'm sure that technically Hercules has much better animation than the more 'realistic' animation of - say, Cinderella - simply because the designs of the characters make it harder to make them appear to move in a proper 3D way (Check out Meg's hair for example - It works 100% in the movie, but I'm never quite sure how it works...) But people cannot see this - they just see characters with unorthodox (read "bad") designs.
It will be interesting to see what people think to the first CGI animation which doesn't feature correct perspective, realistic shadows and reflections etc. Will people be able to accept abstract CGI? I predict not.
This may appear elitist, but I fear people are loosing the ability to recognise true art due to their obession with reality. And that includes the crtitics, who presumably should know better.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
- Squirrel
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:54 am
- Location: Indiana farmland
- Contact:
My first post here.
Regarding Brother Bear...
I don't care what the critics say. I really loved Brother Bear (not as much as Lilo & Stitch, my favorite film; or The Rescuers Down Under). I've seen it twice now, though, last Saturday and last Sunday. And though I'm aware that, critically, it's not on the level of Finding Nemo, artistically and emotionally, it has much greater appeal to me.
I find it so much easier to latch on to, to love traditionally-animated features...than 3D ones, which leave me feeling slightly cold. (I very much admire, and am fascinated with, Finding Nemo, and I like it, but I don't love it, not like I love Lilo...or Brother Bear.) But I've liked the simpler style of this and Lilo & Stitch. I think many of Disney's films for the new decade (Fantasia 2000, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch, and Brother Bear) are underrated.
I agree that 3D animation has a lot of spark and flash, and it gives you something you can't see otherwise. The ocean has never been rendered so beautifully in an animated feature, or any feature, far as I can tell, as it was in Finding Nemo. But I don't think it's better. 3D and 2D use each other in many ways, so there needs to be room for both. But I prefer the painterly style, the traditional animation...warmer, more organic, flesh and blood. Not perfect, but neither are people...and it seems to me that 3D films aim for slick perfection, to the point where it seems mechanical. If that makes any sense...
But I already had the soundtrack, the Art Of book, and my plush Koda before the movie came out, and I did love the movie. Beautiful animation of the Pacific Northwest. The action scenes were very well-done, I thought. This was one of the more dramatic films Disney has put out in a while, though it has bits of comedy (with the moose and all). It came off to me, though, as being more of a drama than Treasure Planet, Lilo & Stitch, or The Emperor's New Groove.
Kenai and Koda were engaging leads, well-drawn...also well-voiced. I liked Phil's songs, especially "Look Through My Eyes," "No Way Out," and of course, "On My Way." Though I get the impression they're going to push Tina Turner and "Great Spirits" for the Academy Award nomination instead of Phil (though I would've hoped for him, honestly, as I liked his songs better). But he's won before. I'll support Brother Bear in all categories, though.
I think it'll be nominated for Animated Feature and Song. That would be really nice. But this was a beautiful, little film (little as compared to past "epic" films Disney has done). I loved the dynamics between the various brother (the bears, the moose, the three human brothers). And the ending was really heart-warming, I thought.
It made me smile throughout (during the song montages and at the end). I think critics are being way too hard on this. I mean, what do they want? Just because it doesn't push any boundaries, go for realism...because it's traditional in style and theme, doesn't mean it's lesser. But I loved it, my favorite film of the year, so far. But I'm not very critical, usually, when it comes to these films (though I never clicked with Treasure Planet).
Great atmosphere, animation, characters...
A sweet film with a meaning. I enjoyed it very much (and can't wait for the DVD come spring)!
Regarding Brother Bear...
I don't care what the critics say. I really loved Brother Bear (not as much as Lilo & Stitch, my favorite film; or The Rescuers Down Under). I've seen it twice now, though, last Saturday and last Sunday. And though I'm aware that, critically, it's not on the level of Finding Nemo, artistically and emotionally, it has much greater appeal to me.
I find it so much easier to latch on to, to love traditionally-animated features...than 3D ones, which leave me feeling slightly cold. (I very much admire, and am fascinated with, Finding Nemo, and I like it, but I don't love it, not like I love Lilo...or Brother Bear.) But I've liked the simpler style of this and Lilo & Stitch. I think many of Disney's films for the new decade (Fantasia 2000, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo & Stitch, and Brother Bear) are underrated.
I agree that 3D animation has a lot of spark and flash, and it gives you something you can't see otherwise. The ocean has never been rendered so beautifully in an animated feature, or any feature, far as I can tell, as it was in Finding Nemo. But I don't think it's better. 3D and 2D use each other in many ways, so there needs to be room for both. But I prefer the painterly style, the traditional animation...warmer, more organic, flesh and blood. Not perfect, but neither are people...and it seems to me that 3D films aim for slick perfection, to the point where it seems mechanical. If that makes any sense...
But I already had the soundtrack, the Art Of book, and my plush Koda before the movie came out, and I did love the movie. Beautiful animation of the Pacific Northwest. The action scenes were very well-done, I thought. This was one of the more dramatic films Disney has put out in a while, though it has bits of comedy (with the moose and all). It came off to me, though, as being more of a drama than Treasure Planet, Lilo & Stitch, or The Emperor's New Groove.
Kenai and Koda were engaging leads, well-drawn...also well-voiced. I liked Phil's songs, especially "Look Through My Eyes," "No Way Out," and of course, "On My Way." Though I get the impression they're going to push Tina Turner and "Great Spirits" for the Academy Award nomination instead of Phil (though I would've hoped for him, honestly, as I liked his songs better). But he's won before. I'll support Brother Bear in all categories, though.
I think it'll be nominated for Animated Feature and Song. That would be really nice. But this was a beautiful, little film (little as compared to past "epic" films Disney has done). I loved the dynamics between the various brother (the bears, the moose, the three human brothers). And the ending was really heart-warming, I thought.
It made me smile throughout (during the song montages and at the end). I think critics are being way too hard on this. I mean, what do they want? Just because it doesn't push any boundaries, go for realism...because it's traditional in style and theme, doesn't mean it's lesser. But I loved it, my favorite film of the year, so far. But I'm not very critical, usually, when it comes to these films (though I never clicked with Treasure Planet).
Great atmosphere, animation, characters...
A sweet film with a meaning. I enjoyed it very much (and can't wait for the DVD come spring)!
- Mermaid Kelly
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1291
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 10:50 pm
- Location: Under the sea........under the sea
- Prince Adam
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1318
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:44 pm
- Location: The Great, Wide Somewhere (Ont, Canada)
Excellent post. Totally agree, we're in this "whiz bang" era, where each new advance in realism gets folks more and more excited. The parallel to computer games is perfect. In my day (I'm an old fart) game play was the thing. We even had computer games that were all text by golly! But they slowly got pushed aside as the focus became the graphics only. A recent release like Railroad Tycoon 3 looks wonderful, but the gameplay just doesn't compare to what I had in 1991 with the original Railroad Tycoon. It looks better, but it's not as fun.2099net wrote:Toy Story 2 got lots of comments on how the people looked for realistic, Monsters Inc got lots of comments on Scully's fur. Shrek 2 is (again) getting comments on how the people will look more realistic than the first film. I can't remember any review or article remaking on the realistic run animations on the horses in Spirit - something that is notoriously hard to animate - or complementing the realistic perspective on The Iron Giant (yes, I am aware this was done with computers).
I think people these days don't understand "abstract" images or "stylised" animation at all. Everything from computer games to special effects in movies are pushing realism to the consumer.
This may appear elitist, but I fear people are loosing the ability to recognise true art due to their obession with reality. And that includes the crtitics, who presumably should know better.
Unfortunately, I believe we'll have to reach the point where we can *perfectly* mimic reality on the computer, where the animated film looks exactly like it was filmed with an actual camera, before we'll get back to accepting different styles again. It's like painting, we accept all the different styles and mediums now, there is no *best* style to use.
Loved Brother Bear, by the way. Good story, gorgeous animation, great songs and score, lots of laughs and tender moments.
- Starion
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:21 pm
- Location: Near Washington, DC
- Contact:
Jim Hill says the DVD will be out on March 30.
Check out this thread for Jim's schedule:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147
Check out this thread for Jim's schedule:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=147
I saw brother bear with my daughter and she loved it! I was a fraid that there would be some scary parts (she's 5 and gets scared easy) but she didn't get scared once!
I also loved finding nemo, but I thought that it was the humor and the story that made it shine, not the fact that it was in 3D -- which actually made it a movie that my same daughter refuses to watch because it is too realistic and the baracuda and angler fish scare her too much.
I love traditional 2D style animation. I say 2D style, because nowadays all animation uses 3D. From the wildabeast stampede in Lion King, to the staircase and ship in The Little Mermaid, and on and on. In my opinion, the best use of 3D in animation, is what was done in The Prince of Egypt, or Tarzan, where it was used to make the backgrounds, that are usually painted, move in such a way that you still think they are paintings.
Remember when the coyote was handing on the edge of a cliff, and you knew the cliff was going to break because you could see the cell part of the cliff contrasting with the painted background? Well, not anymore.
I do think that fully 3D movies have their place. I liked the style of Shrek and the way it had a style and color of a childrens illustrated book. My favorite image from shrek is when he and donkey are riding the dragon through the clouds. But please, don't make it more realistic. In my opinion, if you have to do THAT realistic, just hire actors for crying out loud! I thought final fantasy had an awful story and I just chalked it up to the fact that they were worried so much about the look of it than the storyline.
Anyhoo, that's my two cents. I don't think brother bear would have been half as effective if it was 3D. I like the line work and deliberateness of 2D animation that brings you into a totally different reality.
Watching the making-of featurettes on Finding Nemo made me realize that Pixar is doing something with their movies that Disney only does occassionally, and that is obsess over them to make the best story. That is what made Finding Nemo so great. Disney has scrutinized their movies to those levels in the past, but they are not consistent about it and as a result, put out movies that they aren't willing to do the proper marketing of to help them be successful.
I also loved finding nemo, but I thought that it was the humor and the story that made it shine, not the fact that it was in 3D -- which actually made it a movie that my same daughter refuses to watch because it is too realistic and the baracuda and angler fish scare her too much.
I love traditional 2D style animation. I say 2D style, because nowadays all animation uses 3D. From the wildabeast stampede in Lion King, to the staircase and ship in The Little Mermaid, and on and on. In my opinion, the best use of 3D in animation, is what was done in The Prince of Egypt, or Tarzan, where it was used to make the backgrounds, that are usually painted, move in such a way that you still think they are paintings.
Remember when the coyote was handing on the edge of a cliff, and you knew the cliff was going to break because you could see the cell part of the cliff contrasting with the painted background? Well, not anymore.
I do think that fully 3D movies have their place. I liked the style of Shrek and the way it had a style and color of a childrens illustrated book. My favorite image from shrek is when he and donkey are riding the dragon through the clouds. But please, don't make it more realistic. In my opinion, if you have to do THAT realistic, just hire actors for crying out loud! I thought final fantasy had an awful story and I just chalked it up to the fact that they were worried so much about the look of it than the storyline.
Anyhoo, that's my two cents. I don't think brother bear would have been half as effective if it was 3D. I like the line work and deliberateness of 2D animation that brings you into a totally different reality.
Watching the making-of featurettes on Finding Nemo made me realize that Pixar is doing something with their movies that Disney only does occassionally, and that is obsess over them to make the best story. That is what made Finding Nemo so great. Disney has scrutinized their movies to those levels in the past, but they are not consistent about it and as a result, put out movies that they aren't willing to do the proper marketing of to help them be successful.
-
- Special Edition
- Posts: 617
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:46 pm
- Location: West Palm Beach, FL
- Contact:
- Matty-Mouse
- Special Edition
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 7:51 am
- Location: UK
I'm surprised no ones posted this weeks box office totals so here they are....
1 (2) Elf .......................... $27.2 million
2 (*) Master and Commander ......... $25.7 million (this one will fall like a stone just you wait).
3 (1) The Matrix Revolutions ....... $16.3 million
4 (3) Brother Bear ................. $12.0 million
5 (*) Looney Tunes: Back in Action . $ 9.5 million
6 (6) Love Actually ................ $ 8.9 million
7 (4) Scary Movie 3 ................ $ 6.1 million
8 (5) Radio ........................ $ 5.0 million
9 (*) Tupac: Resurrection .......... $ 4.7 million
10 (8 ) Mystic River ................. $ 3.3 million
So in its third week Brother Bear just fell one place to number 4. Its total box office takings are $63 million so its doing rather well considering there were 2 big release's this week.
I think by next week it will take between 9-11 million and be either number 5 or 6 (its thanksgiving week next week right? thats when loads of films are released?) So in conclusion Brother bear is doing rather well since it really was this years underdog movie (the movie EVERYONE said would flop).
1 (2) Elf .......................... $27.2 million
2 (*) Master and Commander ......... $25.7 million (this one will fall like a stone just you wait).
3 (1) The Matrix Revolutions ....... $16.3 million
4 (3) Brother Bear ................. $12.0 million
5 (*) Looney Tunes: Back in Action . $ 9.5 million
6 (6) Love Actually ................ $ 8.9 million
7 (4) Scary Movie 3 ................ $ 6.1 million
8 (5) Radio ........................ $ 5.0 million
9 (*) Tupac: Resurrection .......... $ 4.7 million
10 (8 ) Mystic River ................. $ 3.3 million
So in its third week Brother Bear just fell one place to number 4. Its total box office takings are $63 million so its doing rather well considering there were 2 big release's this week.
I think by next week it will take between 9-11 million and be either number 5 or 6 (its thanksgiving week next week right? thats when loads of films are released?) So in conclusion Brother bear is doing rather well since it really was this years underdog movie (the movie EVERYONE said would flop).
Dust? Anyone? No?
Dust? Anyone? No?
Dust? Anyone? No?
Well thats actually low in fat so you can eat as much of that as you like.
Dust? Anyone? No?
Dust? Anyone? No?
Well thats actually low in fat so you can eat as much of that as you like.
Since most everyone is saying how much they liked the movie ( and I do too, don't get me wrong ) I thought I'd post some of the things that I didn't like so much about it, but I would definitely see it again. I see some of these things as minor and I would like to see if there is anyone else who agrees.
I wasn't crazy about the whole "one with nature" thing about it and there is a framing sequence that introduces the movie that confused me more than set me up for the story. Also, the movie is set back when the Wooly Mammoths were around, which didn't really seem necessary to me because all of the other animals could've just been around with the indians. One thing that confused me is that the old man in the framing sequence ends up being one of the brothers in the story and I seem to remember that he said "when the mammoths were here" which made me think that the story he was going to tell was taking place thousands of years ago and the Mammoths are now extinct.
I wasn't crazy about the whole "one with nature" thing about it and there is a framing sequence that introduces the movie that confused me more than set me up for the story. Also, the movie is set back when the Wooly Mammoths were around, which didn't really seem necessary to me because all of the other animals could've just been around with the indians. One thing that confused me is that the old man in the framing sequence ends up being one of the brothers in the story and I seem to remember that he said "when the mammoths were here" which made me think that the story he was going to tell was taking place thousands of years ago and the Mammoths are now extinct.
I'm shocked LT:BIA didn't do better. It's Dante people! Dante, one of the few people who haven't sold their soul to hollywood.
Right, on to a more serious point - I've a question about these figures. Do the figures include or exclude 'free' tickets?
I ask because every of the recent Looney Tunes DVDs contained a free ticket to see LT:BIA. I also understand that some American cereal packets contain tickets.
By my calculations thats about 600,000 free tickets from the DVDs and probably abother 200,000 to 400,000 (at least) from the cereal promotion. In short it could be 1M free tickets.
If each ticket on average is $5 that's $5m dollars to the box office total! (or potentially $5 off the box office if these free tickets are not counted).
I hate using the box office income to judge how successful a movie is. It's pretty pointless when all the adjustments are made. I would rather they just count admissions.
Right, on to a more serious point - I've a question about these figures. Do the figures include or exclude 'free' tickets?
I ask because every of the recent Looney Tunes DVDs contained a free ticket to see LT:BIA. I also understand that some American cereal packets contain tickets.
By my calculations thats about 600,000 free tickets from the DVDs and probably abother 200,000 to 400,000 (at least) from the cereal promotion. In short it could be 1M free tickets.
If each ticket on average is $5 that's $5m dollars to the box office total! (or potentially $5 off the box office if these free tickets are not counted).
I hate using the box office income to judge how successful a movie is. It's pretty pointless when all the adjustments are made. I would rather they just count admissions.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
- Squirrel
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:54 am
- Location: Indiana farmland
- Contact:
A continued, steady showing for Brother Bear. Very nice. I still think it could just reach 100 million. That would be wonderful if it did...and I'll love the film, regardless, but I want to see it succeed. I loved Master and Commander, so I'm hoping it has solid legs throughout the weeks...enough to get some major recognition at Oscar. As for Looney Tunes, I was a bit surprised...but not shocked, when I saw how it sank to Brother Bear.
I agree that Brother Bear is the underdog. Though it's still running with steam, it gets no mention in any box office articles. Nor did it last week. I think critics/people wanted it to do bad (I understood some of the criticisms in many of the weak reviews, but some struck me as Disney-bashing, maybe), and now that it's not...they're not saying anything. That's my conspiracy theory, anyway.
I agree that Brother Bear is the underdog. Though it's still running with steam, it gets no mention in any box office articles. Nor did it last week. I think critics/people wanted it to do bad (I understood some of the criticisms in many of the weak reviews, but some struck me as Disney-bashing, maybe), and now that it's not...they're not saying anything. That's my conspiracy theory, anyway.
Meega na la queesta.
static & silence and a monochrome vision
static & silence and a monochrome vision
- Starion
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:21 pm
- Location: Near Washington, DC
- Contact:
I remember reading some where that people don't like singing characters any more. I don't know why though. I didn't mind hearing characters singing in La Belle Et Le Bette (French version of Beauty and The Beast) and Le Roi Lion (French Lion King).
According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, Brother bear has made $63,057,769 USD so far. That's not bad. I wonder if families are listening to the poor reviews of Brother Bear?
I read that the Region 2 DVD will be out in September, at least in France.
IGN posted a 4 page analysis of Brother Bear. I haven't read it since I haven't seen the movie yet.
The article may contain spoilers:
Peter takes an in-depth look at Disney's Brother Bear.
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/440/440448p1.html
Later
According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, Brother bear has made $63,057,769 USD so far. That's not bad. I wonder if families are listening to the poor reviews of Brother Bear?
I read that the Region 2 DVD will be out in September, at least in France.
IGN posted a 4 page analysis of Brother Bear. I haven't read it since I haven't seen the movie yet.
The article may contain spoilers:
Peter takes an in-depth look at Disney's Brother Bear.
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/440/440448p1.html
Later
- Matty-Mouse
- Special Edition
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 7:51 am
- Location: UK
Here's this weeks box office chart....
1."Dr. Seuss' the Cat in the Hat," $40.1 million.
2."Gothika," $19.6 million.
3."Elf," $19.1 million.
4."Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," $15.2
million.
5."Love Actually," $9.1 million.
6."The Matrix Revolutions," $6.7 million.
7."Brother Bear," $5.5 million.
8."Looney Tunes: Back in Action," $4.1 million.
9."Scary Movie 3," $3.3 million.
10."Radio," $2.6 million.
That takes the total of "Brother Bear" up to $68.5 million, still doing rather well. Its one place lower than I perdicted but I doubt it will drop next week. My guess is that it will stay at number 7 next week and take its total up to around $73 million.
1."Dr. Seuss' the Cat in the Hat," $40.1 million.
2."Gothika," $19.6 million.
3."Elf," $19.1 million.
4."Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," $15.2
million.
5."Love Actually," $9.1 million.
6."The Matrix Revolutions," $6.7 million.
7."Brother Bear," $5.5 million.
8."Looney Tunes: Back in Action," $4.1 million.
9."Scary Movie 3," $3.3 million.
10."Radio," $2.6 million.
That takes the total of "Brother Bear" up to $68.5 million, still doing rather well. Its one place lower than I perdicted but I doubt it will drop next week. My guess is that it will stay at number 7 next week and take its total up to around $73 million.
Dust? Anyone? No?
Dust? Anyone? No?
Dust? Anyone? No?
Well thats actually low in fat so you can eat as much of that as you like.
Dust? Anyone? No?
Dust? Anyone? No?
Well thats actually low in fat so you can eat as much of that as you like.
- Squirrel
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 436
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 7:54 am
- Location: Indiana farmland
- Contact:
I think the Thanksgiving weekend will help its domestic take...keep it steady for another week or so, before it starts to really drop off. I predict it'll finish between 85 and 90 million, perhaps...which would be good. But we'll have to wait and see. Looney Tunes was not a problem for it, as I kind of feared it might be...honestly, I think audiences appreciated Brother Bear so much more than critics wanted them to. And I'm glad.
On another note, I really hope Haunted Mansion takes down Cat in the Hat, or at least dents it...and I hope Master and Commander can float for a while. It needs to do better to solidify any big Oscar chances...
On another note, I really hope Haunted Mansion takes down Cat in the Hat, or at least dents it...and I hope Master and Commander can float for a while. It needs to do better to solidify any big Oscar chances...
Meega na la queesta.
static & silence and a monochrome vision
static & silence and a monochrome vision
Re: Brother Bear
Thinking about the Disney Villains Funko Pops and the characters that still need to be made.
I always thought Brother Bear didn´t have any villains but...Is Denahi one?
Think about it...You could say that by that same logic Kenai was also a villain...but not. Yes, he was the first to go after Koda´s mom to kill her but when her death happens you see that he didn´t mean to kill her in the end. He was defending himself. However, Denahi had the intention to kill Kenai without regrets. He even tried to drop the log where he and Koda were walking in. So, he didn´t even care to kill a cub if it meant to get to Kenai.
I always thought Brother Bear didn´t have any villains but...Is Denahi one?
Think about it...You could say that by that same logic Kenai was also a villain...but not. Yes, he was the first to go after Koda´s mom to kill her but when her death happens you see that he didn´t mean to kill her in the end. He was defending himself. However, Denahi had the intention to kill Kenai without regrets. He even tried to drop the log where he and Koda were walking in. So, he didn´t even care to kill a cub if it meant to get to Kenai.