Talk:Brave (2012 film)/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

why has it been changed to Princess Mérida is that a scottish gaelic as i looked it up as looks more spanish is there a reason for it or not really anybody no more on this films story etc.. and this may sound dum but do you known how to pronuce it right.

Your message is not clear, but I understand the idea. You are disagreeing with having "Princess Merida" being named "Princess Mérida". I fully agree with this. As far, as I know, never ever she has been officially called "Mérida". So it's not acceptable to have that writing.--65.92.143.105 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edit stating "but it's a pixar film", here's an excerpt from a business article that you can google yourself: Also on tap: adding new princesses to the core lineup that includes Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Ariel, Belle and Jasmine (more-recent characters, Mulan and Pocahontas, are largely on the sidelines). Disney plans to introduce a new African-American princess called Tiana in an animated film, "The Princess and the Frog," a response to demands for more diversity among princesses. Two other animated princess-based movies -- one starring Rapunzel and another starring a Scottish princess in a new Pixar production -- will be rolled out after that.. As to whether this confirms that THIS princess will be added to the official Disney Princess lineup or not is the question, not whether there is an issue with it being a Pixar vs Disney creation. SpikeJones (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

it says 'mythical Scotland', however, Scotland is a real place (seeScotland) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.40.182 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

lol Gregh (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been resolved or not, but I think it just means a fairytale version of Scotland. Lots of movies take real places but give them an "enchanted twist," like (coincidentally) the movie Enchanted (film). Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not any error. It's like that the official description goes.--Gray Catbird (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It must be mystical, the real scotland doesn't have Bears in it, which having watched the trailer appear to feature prominently — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.241.182 (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have searched all over the web about Merida's breast being shown (I hope that doesn't sound how it sounds) but I have yet to find anything about it. I will take it out of the article until I or someone else finds a reference about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashack (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize Jashack 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I read in the new book "Pixarpedia" that Tia W. Kratter (longtime artist at Pixar) has been doing research on clothing from the 11th century and traveling to Scotland to study the land. This is the first bit of "research news" I think I've heard for this movie and I think it's worth a mention. 76.175.116.65 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It mentions within the first paragraph that Wendy Van Der Plank is one of the actors in the film. It is unsourced and I have not heard this anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.116.65 (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I heard Cars 2 has been pushed to Christmas 2011, from which I can conclude that this movie's release date has been pushed to summer 2012. Anyone able to disprove me?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Now a moot point ... BBC revised its story. Cars 2 is still set for June 2011, so everything else is probably still in order, too. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

News broke out today that the next Pixar film, The Bear and the Bow will now have a new name. The new title for the film will be Brave. No reliable resources have supported this change as of, yet. Please discuss in the meantime. ChaosquodOrdo (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is random, but in my Internet Explorer browser the logo says BRAVE and in my Chrome browser the logo still says The Bear and the Bow. I don't know why it says that or if anyone else has this problem but can someone explain or fix this? Thanks, --Jashack (talk) 05:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe (I could be wrong) it's because the filename is still "The Bear and the Bow", even after I reverted it to the PNG which has the appearance of "BRAVE". dogman15 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what was causing it but it seems to be fine now. Thanks Dogman15. --Jashack (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A few months back, it was listed that John Powell would be composing this film. Is there a source which confirms Giacchino's involvement with the project? I know Giacchino is considered and official "Pixar composer", but I just want to make sure there's no assumption with these listings.173.28.115.207 (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Mérida meets a 21-year old prince Jeffrey and the wisecracking, and courageous alligator, Rally." Any ideas? 76.175.113.248 (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these kind of things, but i guess this is kind of important: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/exclusive-brenda-chapman-no-longer-directing-pixars-brave.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.25.182.5 (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It says here in this new article: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2011/03/28/brave-pixar-first-look/ that Reese had been replaced with scottish actress Kelly MacDonald. it also gives a slightly more detailed plot description and new concept art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.36.212 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a note on

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Brenda Chapman, Director or Co-Director?

Originally Brenda Chapman was the sole director for the film, but in October 2010 she left Pixar and Mark Andrew took over the project. The article currently lists her as co-director, and I'm not sure if this is correct. Technically she should still be listed as the director, as should Mark Andrew. They were both directors at one point, and at no point was either person co-directing. I think we should remove the co-director title from Brenda Chapman's name in the infobox, but I wanted to get some input first. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the co-director title. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No she's not. Atta? --174.114.172.181 (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Merida is Pixar's first and Disney's eleventh Offical princess, Atta is a minor princess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.186.235 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I reworked the introduction paragraph to include some plot information. I'm trying to figure out a good way to summarize the plot in one sentence, but I could only do it with two. If you have any ideas here, feel free to jump in. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. I also removed the Marketing section because it does not comply with the

The revision history for the entry on the French comic Pyrénée includes a deleted paragraph, viz:

Pyrénée is the inspiration of the upcoming Pixar/Disney animated film, Brave.

While I don't contest the deletion, it might be worth noting three apparent points of similarity between the characters of Pyrénée and Mérida (appart from the trivial observation that both names contain accents).

• Both characters have large, round eyes
• Both characters have voluminous, wavy red hair
• Both characters have a bear as a friend or parental substitute

The observation of the characters' similarity doesn't just stem from my original research, since it's also been noted on some forums:

• http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?p=13463052
• http://www.retrojunk.com/forums/index.php?view=posts&fid=1&tid=59497&page=1
• http://www.douglasadams.se/forum/viewtopic.php?p=297772

Obviously there are also significant differences, the most obvious being that Mérida normally wears clothes! I will be watching very carefully to see whether the creators and copyright holders of Pyrénée raise any kind of fuss about Brave. Lee M (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the listed forums do not count as reliable sources. Have any news outlets or major blogs reported on this item? --TravisBernard (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge, as yet. Lee M (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, having actually seen the film... Pyrénée is raised by a bear, and there's certainly a bear in Brave that fulfils a parental role!Lee M (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone has been apparently adding information about when the trailer for this film appeared with other films. Is there any source that we can find for these films? Thanks,

I've been wondering about this myself, since not all runs of a given film will have the same trailers. For example, viewers of Cars 2 in one part of the United States may see a different set of trailers than those in another part ... and that's to say nothing of the rest of the world. Instead, I would think that this should include roughly when the trailers first appeared, then giving one or two examples of films it was included with, not necessarily every single possible instance. --McDoobAU93 19:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I edit the article, there is an article about the

I would say add to this article, but we might want to wait a little bit before adding it. It seems like this is still in the "rumor" stage. CNN states that the Braves "reportedly filed an objection," but nothing official has been released by either party. Furthermore, the original source is a site called Stitch Kingdom, which is a questionable source at best. It might be better to wait, but I'm open to continue discussing the topic. I have a conflict of interest here, so I won't add or remove information related to the topic. I'll let the rest of community decide what to do. Do you think it's better to wait, or should it be added now? --TravisBernard (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There are allegations that Mr. Ratzenberger will voice an alligator called Rally but, without official word from Pixar or Disney, the alligator allegations are questionable. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Given how cold Scotland is, the implications of that are impossible. Hey, perhaps he'll voice Mordu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.47.242 (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's probably not an alligator, but a dinosaur, namely the so called "Loch Ness monster". Certainly you don't question that famous scottish national treasure exists for real? 87.97.98.94 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In the end he was a Scottish Guard. We knew he would be in the film somewhere; it was a Pixar film! AndrewJFulker (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is rumor Pixar is hoping for a later continuation if Brave is successful and they already have a little gist of script. It will show the stubborn single Merida leave the isles in a kind of exile-pilgrimage to Rome, to determine her further path in life. En route she will have a clash with the famous swiss crossbow rebel William Tell, who mistakes her for a witch due to her red hair. After a medieval "sniper duel" of kinds in the forest the two will end up together and fight to liberate the Tell's canton from a Habsburg duke's oppression, who wants to see Merida eliminated at all costs.

The proto-script appears to borrow certain elements from the life of Queen Christina of Sweden and the famous tomboy-empress Sissi of Austria. The story will feature an archery aiming match, where Tell and the longbow-wielding Merida will face hun (hungarian?) warrior subjects of the duke, who use shorter but more advanced reflex-type bows. 91.82.240.63 (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No. Last time I checked, Brave 2 will not be among Pixar's next few films. Pixar's next film after Brave will be Monsters University in 2013, The Good Dinosaur in 2014, Inside the Mind in the summer of 2015, a Spanish film in the fall of 2015, and Toy Story 4 in 2016. Georgia guy (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say wishful thinking on this being the plot for a potential Brave sequel. I'd also say wishful thinking on two Pixar films in 2015 and that Toy Story 4 is even close to scheduled. --McDoobAU93 13:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but some users have added info about the film being a PG rating by the MPAA over the past couple of days. Usually we do not include ratings per

What kind of bows does she use? In some preview scenes it's like a huge traditional welsh longbow with a simple arch, but in other scenes it's more like a reflex bow or a composite bow, which is smaller, elaborately retro-curved and more characteristic of the horse-riding nomad warriors of Eurasia. Did Pixar flop with their research, since I don't think huns ever reached Blighty? 82.131.210.163 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

She tried shooting her fathers bow, and then he presented her with a miniature bow of her own. Rather than being a foreign style of bow it is a cut down child's size one that was specially made for her. AndrewJFulker (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

IMDB already has a user review to say the movie is average and an uninteresting collage of already over-worn cliches, so only the added "La Luna" clip is worth seeing. The glitch is, nobody is supposed to see the entire thing until 18th June 2012? Did it leak onto brit-o-rent? Certainly if the redhead escapade flops, Dreamworks will be happy to claim the title of "animation period piece expert" with their wikingpedia. 87.97.102.31 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is not a terribly

reliable source for film information. Also, movie reviews added to a film article's "Reception" section should come from noted film critics, not from site users. --McDoobAU93

20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Came across this, which contains some facts that would be of use in the production section (don't have time to add now). Glimmer721 ^talk 01:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the conflict over this article is really about the film makers and not the film itself. While the film is not a legendary classic, most reviews are currently inclined to appreciate it outside of Pixar's ouvre. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwats (talk • contribs) 04:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/06/24/pixar-brave-gay-merida/

I doubt we need to mention this yet, as either a director's cut or sequel will set the story straight. (Pun intended.) Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, technically this is

interpretation, just as this piece was the interpretation of its author. --McDoobAU93

23:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is an enjoyable bit of fluff, but given that in Medieval Europe anyone who was openly gay would probably be burned at the stake, if she is gay she's going to have to stay deep in the closet. Lee M (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The grammar in the over view is simply abysmal. It needs to be fixed before this page can be published.

Well, be bold and make whatever corrections you feel are necessary. For what it's worth, the page has been published since it was first created, and still is. That's the nature of Wikipedia. Everything's edited in real time, so as soon as you or some other editor fixes it, the changes appear instantly. --McDoobAU93 14:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure she asked the witch for something that will change her mom and that's what the witch told her what the cake will do. And it did change her mom, to a bear, which is obviously a play of her own words "change my mom". I don't think the witch actually promised her the cake will change her fate, only that the cake will change her mom, which she assumed in turn would change her fate.--Krystaleen 14:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh I see it's been changed/removed already.--Krystaleen 03:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm prety sure it belongs in the plot section, as demonstrated in other movie articles like The Avengers (2012 film)#Plot, Captain America: The First Avenger#Plot, Iron Man 2#Plot, and many others. Krystaleen 14:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The way it was written was incredibly poor. I don't have an objection to including it, but it should at least have proper punctuation and grammar. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I've fixed it now.--

Krystaleen

14:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks/reads much better. Thanks! --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Plot sections should "only" contain the main plot points of a film and should not include unneeded scene by scene diatribe simply because someone thinks it was funny. In addition, using Wikipedia as a source is hardly a very good argument. The plot section is already way too long. Should have another 200 words, at the very least, removed. Why have non plot jokes in the section when it's already too long to begin with?JOJ ^Hutton 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we please make a consensus before reverting edits? How is it non-plot jokes? Other movie articles have them included too. I don't use them as a source I use them as examples. Besides,

Krystaleen

05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles can not be used as a sources. And per

WP:BRD this should not be added yet. --JOJ ^Hutton

05:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are using wikipedia articles as sources, please elaborate. Besides, according to

Krystaleen

05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are using the

other stuff exists argument, which is hardly the strongest argument. Just because its barely under 700 words does not still make it okay. 90 minute films should have plot sections closer to 400 words, while longer films can be around 700 words. Th plot section is already too long for the films short length. Stuff has to go, especially minute scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. And as far as BRD is concerned, I reverted an addition to the article and reverted that revert. That would be BRRD.--JOJ ^Hutton

05:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. But in that article

Krystaleen

05:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jojhutton - being that your primary, and valid, argument seems to be that the plot section is too long, why not trim the body itself - it appears to be far too detailed. Having not seen the movie myself I cannot determine what should stay and what should go, but I can say that the use of post-credits scenes are on the rise and are therefore likely to be appearing on wikipedia.--Williamsburgland (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, another "Other Stuff" argument. The use of post credit scenes is not on the rise, or do you have proof of that? And why should a scene that is not part of the major events of the film be included? especially when the plot section is too long as it is? Yes the plot is far too detailed and was well over 700 words at one time. The problem with films that are still in theaters is the fly by fans. They come to Wikipedia and think that there are no rules to editing and that they can add anything they so desire. This has been a problem for years.

That being said, The question is, is this scene a major event of the film and why?

And as far as BRD goes, here is the evidence: IP makes a The bold addition, the then addition gets The Revert, then Krystaleen does Another Revert. Thats BRRD, nor BRD.

This scene is not a major event of the film.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're complaining about IP's, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Indeed, a film's initial popularity upon release brings an influx of IP's, some that add useful content, some that don't. It's our job, as experienced editors, to keep non productive edits to a minimum. Now, as to this issue, I don't need "proof" that post credit scenes are on the rise; I'm not adding that observation to an article. I'm simply stating a probable fact - that in the wake of Marvels use of them they're likely to continue finding their way into Wikipedia article. Sometimes they are pertinent to the plot, ie Iron Man, sometimes they don't matter, ie the last one in The Avengers. With that in mind, the consensus on the latter article was that the scene belongs there, and frankly it's taking up very little space on this article. Your issue seems to be that the plot section is too long - my advice, again, is to trim it in entirety. If the scene is what's pushing it over 700, then let's address that, but I doubt it will be. Again, I'd do this myself if I'd seen the film.--Williamsburgland (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First, when did I complain about ips? I linked the Bold addition by a single ip, which was reverted, but was then re-reverted against BRD. Second, if you haven't seen the film, why are you adding scenes without any reference to the source? Alos, why do you feel that this scene is a major plot event of this film. If you are going to reference the Marvel films as a reason to keep the post credit scenes here, I have you note that those scenes usually foreshadow a future film or something that might happen in those films. I don't agree with their inclusion there either, but I at least respect the logic of it. That is definitely not the case here. All this post credit scene is, is a funny end joke for the people who decided to wait for the credits to end, but the scene is not a major part of the plot. And yes, when all the hype and oohhhh and ahhhh of the film dies down, I or someone else will most likely trim it. I did once, but people keep adding irrelevant information that has little to do with the major plot of the film. Until that time, at least get rid of the obvious irrelevant non plot end credit joke. JOJ ^Hutton 15:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm involved in Wikipedia, and I want to improve articles. Further, I didn't add this, I actually removed it initially due to the poor wording. After the other editor involved in this discussion took the time to reword and add it, I simply helped keep it while the discussion plays out. Again, the fact unneeded information is being added to the article isn't a reason to simply give up on keeping it trim - I spend much of my time here cleaning up article and deleting unnecessary information. I understand that you don't want it there, but I don't see a whole lot of effort on your part to clean up the section over all, I do see that from the other editor involved. Therefore I feel the last section should be kept. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually flabbergasted by that response. Basically you are saying that since the other editor has made more edits to the article, you are basically taking their side even though you have no source for whether or not the information, added only two days ago and was not in the article for quite a while, is even true or not? The other editor does not

WP:FILMPLOT, why do you consider this to be part of the plot? You added it this morning in violation of BRD, so you must have a justification as to why it's part of the plot.JOJ ^Hutton

15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is teetering on the edge of civility, so I'll likely walk away for a bit after this post. I did not say the other editor owns the article, I explained the thought process that lead to my position. As to my having seen or not seen the film, that's completely irrelevant. I assume good faith, and I have no reason to suspect that Krystaleen is adding a scene that isn't in the film. While you're right that FILMPLOT excludes scene by scene breakdowns I don't feel this counts as such - it's simply a one sentence description of the post credits scene.

Again, I strongly advocate a rewrite first and foremost.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

JOJ - are you aware this article is under the 700 word limit? --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've chopped it down by 100 or so words... it could still stand a full rewrite for flow by someone more familiar with the topic, but I think this version is alright now.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, very aware that it is slightly less than 700 words, by about a sentence. Films can run in length anywhere from 90 minutes or less, like this one, to upwards of over three hours, like Titanic. Plot sections of films that run closer to 90 minutes should not come anywhere near 700 words. Three hour films shgould be close to 700 words. There is so much unnecessary diatribe in many of these plot sections. Thats why there is an MOS on the proper way to write them. I never understood the reasoning that if a plot section is 699 words, regardless of the films length, it somehow is within guidelines. --JOJ ^Hutton 17:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Still not seeing any justification or MOS rationale for having non-plot non-major scenes in the Plot section.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I know Brave video game has a separate page, but should we add a little bit more detail information? --James9888 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Where does this come from? It's not stated in the film, and what with the anachronisms of woad-painted warriors, Romans and Vikings, and forks(!) placing it in any sort of timescale is ludicrous. Halmyre (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. See the "Anachronism Stew" entry on the film's TVTropes page. Lee M (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise about the Shire horse. Although, being set in Scotland, it's probably a Clydesdale. In fact, (putting my nitpicking hat on) how do we know the film's set in Scotland? OK, they've got Scottish accents, but I don't recall hearing the words "Scottish" or "Scotland" or "Scots" at any time. Everyone assumes it's set in Scotland, but is that acceptable in Wikipedia? Halmyre (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Official synopsis of the film say it's set in Scotland, so this "officialy" takes place in Scotland, although it's true it's never explicitly said in the movie. But there's no reason to think it's not set in Scotland; this isn't a documentary, so it's fairly normal they make anachronisms. From where does it comes that it takes place at the 10th Century ? Here is a reference: http://www.slashfilm.com/11-learned-pixars-brave-d23-expo/ . I also recall reading Mark Andrews commenting they set it loosely between the 9th-12th centuries, but he also said elsewhere that their goal really wasn't to make a documentary but a "love letter" (hear by that they took everything they found of characteristic in Scotland and made a mash-up)...--Gray Catbird (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We should maybe talk about how scary some parts of this movie are, especially the bear fights, my kid was paralized by fear when he saw the viscous bear fight, not the first one but the latter one in the dark cave, this movie should be something like PG8 at least just for that scene. Many comments have been posted online about the too agressive and viscious bear fights, and many moms finding this objectionable, matter of fact as an ADULT dad i was scared by just the mother bear, I enjoyed seeing the mom human, an honorable woman, but her black animal bear version was not OK and I was 'hoping that she would turn back into a human ASAP' to stop my own fear, so I imagine kids could be even more scared, the cave bear fight was totally not appropriate for small kids, shame to disney for not editing this out, or for not issuing warnings or proper MPAA classification 'violent bear fights may scare kids and some adults'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.246.2 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted, but there's some problems with that. First, one individual's opinion doesn't really affect how the article reads, as I could also find an editor who's a parent who had no issues with the given scenes, either themselves or for their own children seeing them. The film's PG rating does carry two descriptors - "scary action and rude humor" - that should prompt parents to inquire further into what's going on in the film, especially if their children tend to be skittish, and that's above and beyond the "Parental Guidance Suggested" meaning for the PG rating itself. Next, forums are places for people to discuss their opinions on a given subject;

that is not the purpose of either this article or this talk page. --McDoobAU93

04:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The template does not include those occupations. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Since these are two of the five key creative roles in a film production can they be included in the template? Where is the place to discuss this?

On "Template:Infobox film" you can discuss and see which parameters are included in this template. Cinematographer can be added to the "cinematography" parameter. --Carniolus (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious but I wonder what Merida meant by "changing" her mother? I think she meant changing Elinor's attitude toward her. Any ideas? Visokor (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My favorite song associated with the movie is 'Tha Mo Ghaol Air Aird A' Chuain' sung by Julie Fowlis. There is no mention of the song in the article and it may have only appeared in a trailer, not the movie. Unfortunately, the song apparently is not even on the soundtrack, unless it is under a different name. Perhaps the song was not even part of an official trailer. Very pretty song, nevertheless, and a very nice movie.

Mark W. Miller (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

While this really isn't

fun., but the song is not in the film itself, nor is it on the soundtrack. --McDoobAU93

06:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo says that it grossed $538 million. The Numbers says it grossed $554 million. Which site are you following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.103.163 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently, as you can see, The Numbers is referenced for the box office. Template:Infobox film instructs that both, Box Office Mojo and The Numbers can be used for that. But, since they have conflicting numbers, which probably won't change anymore, I think we should include both grosses.--Carniolus (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The plot section is already far too long for such a short film. Plot sections for a film of this length shouldn't come as close to 700 words as this plot section is now. It was well over 700 words but I cut some of it last week, but another user continues to insist on adding excessive plot detail. Any comments?JOJ ^Hutton 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that unless a film was released with a certain title, that "working titles" shouldn't be placed prominently in the lead paragraph. Only titles in which the film was actually released should be so. JOJ ^Hutton 13:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then how about a note in the Production section? Alandeus (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course it deems to be mentioned in the article, but the lead is too much.JOJ ^Hutton 15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Since my edition keeps getting reverted under claims of "original research", I will now quote directly from the article mentioned in the reference:

"It's interesting that you mentioned “Brave,” a Pixar film, in the midst of talking about Disney films. Is the line blurring between what could be a Disney film and what could be Pixar?"

John Lasseter: "No. No, I don't believe that. It's two different studios and two different groups of artists. But I'll be honest with you: “Brave” got started when Disney announced that they weren't going to be dong any more fairy tales. This was before Disney had bought Pixar, and we said, “Well, the audience still wants these.” So there is a little connection there."

So there you have it straight from the horse's mouth; Brave went into production because Disney back then told the world they would no longer do fairytale movies. 2A02:FE0:C900:1:BC9B:9137:3EFD:A42D (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted initially - the edit looked suspicious to me, for several reasons. It made it harder that you put a [presumably unintentional] line break between the '[' and the ref link, which confused the diff engine, making it very hard to make sense of the change in the first place. Though, to User:McDoobAU93's point, if Disney made that statement after production began on Brave, Lasseter might not be saying that the film was made because of that decision. Maybe it could be phrased a little differently: "According to Lasseter, Pixar believed there was still a market for fairy tales, though Disney had made a decision to stop making films in the genre." Or something. Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The version, prior to my revert, was presented not as a statement attributed to John Lasseter and thus would be construed as original analysis as it's presenting something that the article itself doesn't say. If we were going to include this, I think we should include Lasseter's quote in total instead of trying to paraphrase it. Honestly, there's something about it that doesn't seem correct or in proper context, so instead of trying to figure it out, maybe we should just include what he actually said and let that be the end of it. --McDoobAU93 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, too. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as long as the content in a sentence doesn't change, the words shouldn't matter that much. It's my impression that Wikipedia encourage contributors to rewrite the information they add instead of using the cut and paste approach without changing the actual information itself. (It does seem a bit strange that they decided to continue Disney's tradition of fairytales before Disney made their announcement, but Lasseter returned to Disney in 2006, so perhaps he knew something the rest of us didn't.) 2A02:FE0:C900:1:BC9B:9137:3EFD:A42D (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're directly quoting someone, of course you can include the exact text of their statement, since it's what they said. In this particular case, that would seem like the best option to make sure this is what Lasseter himself said, not what we think he said. --McDoobAU93 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of us firmly believe the whole bear thing is Merida's fault. I think that technically, Elinor only brought it on herself (on account that she realised the bow she burnt was the one Merida recieved when she was a child). Anyone else think so? Visokor (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)