|
I just rewatched the original Incredibles and, while I'm usually against these kind of things, I would love to see a remastered, reanimated version. It's still a good movie but there are parts that show the film's age.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
General Dog posted:Seemed like a classic manic depressive to me Yeah, the complaints that her plan didn't make sense really ring hollow to me. What she's doing isn't really any more or less sane than what Syndrome did in The Incredibles; if anything, this is just a better depiction of mental illness. Her plan makes sense based on a certain internal logic; that logic falls apart under deeper scrutiny, but it's absolutely supposed to - she's a cartoon villain, not a rational, functional adult. It does kind of suck that the end of the movie framed things for her in punitive rather than rehabilitative terms, but this is the only real flaw in her depiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
This movie was so much funnier than the first one, I cracked up at pretty much everything involving Jack Jack and especially Jack+Edna. I also loved them using him like a laser gun
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
It's kinda surprising how it's been over a decade since the first movie and the sequel literally picks up the moment the first movie ended and the immediate ramifications thereof.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 11:33
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:Yeah, the complaints that her plan didn't make sense really ring hollow to me. What she's doing isn't really any more or less sane than what Syndrome did in The Incredibles; if anything, this is just a better depiction of mental illness. Her plan makes sense based on a certain internal logic; that logic falls apart under deeper scrutiny, but it's absolutely supposed to - she's a cartoon villain, not a rational, functional adult. It does kind of suck that the end of the movie framed things for her in punitive rather than rehabilitative terms, but this is the only real flaw in her depiction. My main problem isn't really with the logistics of the villain's plan, the problem is more that she doesn't make an especially good case against the existence of supers. A good villain needs to be at least partially right (which is also the big problem with Thanos). Maybe the supers did make the populace complacent, maybe they didn't, but since we really know nothing about what the world was like when the supers were widespread, we don't really have enough information to know whether her point is valid. An early 30-second flashback just isn't enough to establish that theme, so it still feels out of the blue. So really all the movie allows you to see her as is a a likely unstable person with an axe to grind. She doesn't really arise out of any of the Incredibles' weaknesses or embody any of their insecurities in the same way that Syndrome did. General Dog fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Add my wife to the list of people who yelped during the opening cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
I didn't realize there was a large group of people who were utterly confused by the opening cartoon. https://www.buzzfeed.com/michellerennex/pixar-bao-white-asian-clash
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:I didn't realize there was a large group of people who were utterly confused by the opening cartoon. I assume this is less a large group and more "a few people on Twitter" Edit: Yeah it's like two or three people who were confused and then a dozen people dunking on them. That represents nothing. A True Jar Jar Fan fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Jun 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Have sympathy. They thought bao son was a snowman and it triggered memories of the 10 minute frozen short before coco
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Have sympathy. They thought bao son was a snowman and it triggered memories of the 10 minute frozen short before coco 21 minutes
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Did anyone else pick up on the fact that Insuracare probably got huge in the wake of superheroes being made illegal? When the cops were interrogating Mr. Incredible they pointed out that the bank was insured and that they had measures in place to deal with the Underminer. So now instead of having supers save the day it is the insurance agent that does this (for a price, of course). This is another vector for why some groups don't want supers coming back- if people can count on them to save their apartment from getting blown up by aliens then why fork over an extra ten grand for the xenomorph coverage on your buildings insurance? Keeping supers underground for decades was likely a boon for many industries, such as Syndrome's weapons manufacturing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 05:06
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Did anyone else pick up on the fact that Insuracare probably got huge in the wake of superheroes being made illegal? When the cops were interrogating Mr. Incredible they pointed out that the bank was insured and that they had measures in place to deal with the Underminer. ...and even more evidence for the idea of supers representing social safety nets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
What happened with super-villains when the Superheroes were outlawed? Did they all just decide to lay low for a decade as well? Did the public just decide that a certain level of unanswered super-villainy was an acceptable trade-off? Did it turn out in the vast majority of cases that the police/military/government were adequate protection for the public after all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
I think a point from both movies is that if society doesn't provide a positive way for unique and gifted people to contribute they end up acting out (like literally with Dash and his teacher in the first movie).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
General Dog posted:What happened with super-villains when the Superheroes were outlawed? Did they all just decide to lay low for a decade as well? Did the public just decide that a certain level of unanswered super-villainy was an acceptable trade-off? Did it turn out in the vast majority of cases that the police/military/government were adequate protection for the public after all? In at least one case, they (literally) went underground and gathered strength, likely taking advantage of the lack of oversight to prepare bigger plots that superheroes wouldn't be around to stop. (or be sufficiently prepared for it) Otherwise, probably the police and military took over, with likely higher casualties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Maybe they dialed it back a bit so they wouldn't give the government reason to let the heroes return
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Or Syndrome used them as warmup for the initial Omnidroid designs before he moved on to superheroes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
I like that the first big hero moment Helen has on her own is stopping a train, the same thing that Bob did before getting taken to court and being forced to stop being a public super. It was a good opportunity to subtly show how her being more flexible likely meant fewer injuries during the crash as compared to Bob's bruteforce approach. For the film overall I enjoyed it but I do agree that the third act kind of fell apart in terms of arcs. Am I the only one who thinks that we still could have had more time with the adults after everyone got screenslaved? I mean it would've required a fair amount of script rewriting but what we got ended up retreading ground from the first movie with the kids and we didn't get anything new out of it
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
The development of Jack Jack's powers makes me wonder when Dash and Violet's powers must have appeared. I get the sense that the other two kids had their powers at birth and the initial normalness of Jack Jack made them assume he wasn't going to get any. Also I'm pretty sure Reflux's alter ego is Hans Moleman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
In the alternative intro to the first Incredibles, Violet could turn invisible as an infant, probably 3-6 months old or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
How did Dash's power manifest before he could walk?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Have you seen babies when they figure out crawling? Humans basically spend their first several months revving the engine
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Even before they can crawl they wiggle and roll around. He was probably pinballing around in his crib.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 03:47
|
|
|
I figure Jack Jack's powers tend to fall into plausible deniability or one-off weirdness enough times that the family dismissed it or couldn't figure out a pattern, compared to Violet and Dash's powers manifesting more obviously (and more stably). Edna Mode, who is basically likely the setting's expert on the minituae of superpowers, notes that some supers manifest an additional power or two when young (and seems implied they may not always keep it into adulthood), but Jack Jack's multiple abilities are quite unusual, and the most obvious manifestation of them, Hulking out into the little devil, only manifests under certain criteria. And yeah, the babysitter and Syndrome were the only people to witness his powers firsthand, and the former got the gently caress out of dodge while the latter was killed shortly after. On that note, some context both for the babysitter and Violet's love interest at the start of the movie is that superheroes have been banned at least long enough for Violet to grow up never knowing what it's like to actually live in a world of active superheroes, and most people of her generation would know that supers exist, but haven't ever seen them in person and are taught that they're dangerous and destructive, so no wonder when they see superpowers in person their first reaction is to get the hell away and try not to get involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
There's a cynical streak in this movie. I feel like I see hanging threads in the movie at these points, and I'd appreciate anyone else's input into unraveling them: 1. The poor bastard who is the dummy Screenslaver, when expressing confusion about "what you did to me," is gruffly told by a cop to stuff it with a "that's right, punk, blame the system." Nobody really follows up on the poor dummy. Elastigirl doesn't notice his confusion. 2. Elastigirl meets the ambassador and cheers her with a "bring peace to [troubled region]!" The ambassador laughs and shoots back "when you defeat all evil forever!" Good gravy that is dark. This is followed up when... 3. The ambassador was going to give some important speech on peace in [troubled region] but we are directly told that after she is saved she instead gives some gushing fan speech about superheroes. Hey, what about peace in [troubled region]? Anyone? No? Hm, considering the ambassador's unguarded comment to Elastigirl suggesting that peace is impossible, looks like someone was happy to deliver a sideshow PR puff piece instead. 4. At the end, Violet gripes that rich Evelyn will probably just receive a slap on the wrist. Nobody comments on this, unless you want to count that super vague stuff from Winston like "I'll take care of it." I don't count that. It just kind of lies there and we all move on. I see the suggestion of a troubled social order that is brushed over by superhero antics. I'm seeing "superheroes as distraction from real issues," which kind of backs Evelyn up. edit: is it me or did the Elastibike have no purpose because it only broke in two so Elastigirl could use her power to keep the two halves together so...how about just not breaking in two, A.K.A. being a regular motorcycle
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:edit: is it me or did the Elastibike have no purpose because it only broke in two so Elastigirl could use her power to keep the two halves together so...how about just not breaking in two, A.K.A. being a regular motorcycle The way she slingshots it with her body lets her make jumps she wouldn't be able to make otherwise. As far as the hanging threads, the cynical reading can certainly be there if you want it to be, but the story is so sloppily tied up on all fronts that it's difficult discern what's deliberately left unaddressed as an indictment of the characters and what's just lost in the shuffle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
There's certainly a contrast between the Elasticycle and the Incredimobile. Not sure that means anything major.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
As far as the pizza delivery guy goes it WAS addressed, Helen calls Evelyn out on it when she is being frozen and the reality is that he's a fall guy who may get let off post-movie because now Evelyn has been revealed as the true Screenslaver. They have evidence to get the poor guy back to his life of delivering pizzas. As for Violet's comment about Evelyn only getting a slap on the wrist, I'm more troubled by no one suggesting she be put through serious counseling. The speech she gives Helen about why she is doing it has been called out several times in the thread, she is not of sound body and mind, hell she calls her brother a child and through that explanation damns herself. I almost feel it would be more cynical if she was just thrown in a max and there is no attempt to help her
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 11:34
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:There's a cynical streak in this movie. I feel like I see hanging threads in the movie at these points, and I'd appreciate anyone else's input into unraveling them: These threads are a reflection of Brad Bird's (or rather his collective output of work's) conservative point of view. Regardless of whatever positions on government policy they might seemingly endorse, they reflect the kind of cynical world-wariness that we recognize in crotchety old folks or bitter middle-aged burnouts nostalgic for an idealistic, simpler age (note even here in The Incredibles where the heroes advocate social change for a suppressed minority, the goal is to restore a prior status quo). I think a lot of the back-and-forth about Bird's movies is that we keep trying to pin them down ideologically when the themes are much more personality driven. Earlier in the thread I described this as something like "Bird's not an obectivist, he's just a snob". To be more specific I think he's essentially retelling his life story over and over again from different angles. That story being one of a midwestern kid in the 60s discovering a talent and interest in art but finding resistance from JEALOUS HATERS ("what, you want to be better than us with some bigshot showbusiness career? I don't think so, you're working in a cubicle with the rest of us!") and PHILISTINES ("What are these useless cartoons you're doodling? You think you'll ever be respected by hoity-toity upperclass urban artistic snots? You want to be one of THEM? Forget it, you're one of US!"). It's why his movies can feel so idealistic (romanticizing his youth) while at the same time show a much more cynical sensibility - this is Bird as an adult reflecting on all the hardships that got in his way and tried to keep him down. Now, I literally know nothing about Brad Bird aside from what I can gleam from his movies, but if this isn't his actual life story, then it's a narrative he's at least obsessed with for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
Anyone else notice that the ambassador signed her name "H. Selick"? Wanna go back and freeze frame that document now and see if all the other signatures belong to animators.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
Shadowhand00 posted:I didn't realize there was a large group of people who were utterly confused by the opening cartoon. I'll admit I found myself a little disgusted with the mother's attitude in the short. It's nice that she got over herself in the end but I was put off that the film seemed to want me to sympathize with her. Part of me wanted the short to end just after she devours her food-son because it'd be a pretty good encapsulation for how terrible she's acting. I may well be culturally insensitive in this instance but it honestly kind of triggered me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
I’ve never had kids but I don’t see what’s not sympathetic about having trouble getting over the kid you birthed and raised leaving the nest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
It seemed to go beyond "having trouble" to me? Maybe I'm wrong but I got the impression that her son becoming an independent westerner in general was already more distressing for her than is reasonable, and that his moving out with his girlfriend was at least partly motivated by his resentment over her smothering him. She's focused entirely on her own heartbreak and does not appear happy for or proud of her son until he comes home and makes things right with her (as if that's his responsibility in this situation). I get that having to reconcile cultural expectations is the whole point of the cartoon and I understand that it was not made for me first and foremost. Honestly I don't think I'd have any issue with the short if at any point there was an acknowledgement that she was making her son's life all about her, because that's just being a self-centered drama queen at best and straight-up emotionally abusive at worst.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
lizardman posted:These threads are a reflection of Brad Bird's (or rather his collective output of work's) conservative point of view. Regardless of whatever positions on government policy they might seemingly endorse, they reflect the kind of cynical world-wariness that we recognize in crotchety old folks or bitter middle-aged burnouts nostalgic for an idealistic, simpler age (note even here in The Incredibles where the heroes advocate social change for a suppressed minority, the goal is to restore a prior status quo). I think you're projecting a whole lot. Independent of Bird's own actions going out of his way to hire "black sheep" who were otherwise rejected for being too unconventional a big part of his movies is about old people who are more entrenched in success and the establishment going out of their way to enable and learn from younger people with new ideas instead of becoming set in their old ways. The entire climax of Ratatouille is about how critics and other gatekeepers have a responsibility to uplift and support the new and the entire thesis of Tomorrowland was that Galt's Gulch was doomed to failure in part because its inherently conservaitve worldview would exclude the next generation of creators while also leaving them and the world they inherited much worse off by denying them ability to learn from and be nurtured by their predecessors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
lizardman posted:It seemed to go beyond "having trouble" to me? Maybe I'm wrong but I got the impression that her son becoming an independent westerner in general was already more distressing for her than is reasonable, and that his moving out with his girlfriend was at least partly motivated by his resentment over her smothering him. She's focused entirely on her own heartbreak and does not appear happy for or proud of her son until he comes home and makes things right with her (as if that's his responsibility in this situation). Eh, I got the sense that she really just wanted some company while picking out watermelons and cooking and stuff. When a person is a baby, their parents are their whole world, and some parents get really attached to this point in time. Having to come to terms with the fact that babies grow up can be really difficult. There's also the issue that the father is no saint here either. All we see of him is when he eats his food without even looking at his wife and leaves, then at the end when he shoves his son into the room with his mom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
lizardman posted:It seemed to go beyond "having trouble" to me? Maybe I'm wrong but I got the impression that her son becoming an independent westerner in general was already more distressing for her than is reasonable, and that his moving out with his girlfriend was at least partly motivated by his resentment over her smothering him. She's focused entirely on her own heartbreak and does not appear happy for or proud of her son until he comes home and makes things right with her (as if that's his responsibility in this situation).
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
Erotic Wakes posted:I think you're projecting a whole lot. Independent of Bird's own actions going out of his way to hire "black sheep" who were otherwise rejected for being too unconventional a big part of his movies is about old people who are more entrenched in success and the establishment going out of their way to enable and learn from younger people with new ideas instead of becoming set in their old ways. The entire climax of Ratatouille is about how critics and other gatekeepers have a responsibility to uplift and support the new and the entire thesis of Tomorrowland was that Galt's Gulch was doomed to failure in part because its inherently conservaitve worldview would exclude the next generation of creators while also leaving them and the world they inherited much worse off by denying them ability to learn from and be nurtured by their predecessors. yeah i think if you watch Tomorrowland you will disabuse yourself of any thoughts that Bird might be a Randian. He certainly believes in the inherent superiority of some people over others, and is a big fan of Walt Disney (and probably shares more than a few of his opinions about the duty of great men), but he also believes in creating for people and that said great people should use their greatness for others. (see also: Snyder, Zack)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
His belief seems to boil down to “if you can do something exceptional, you should a: be encouraged to develop your skills and b: use those skills philanthropically”, which comes with the necessary flip side of “if you can’t do anything exceptional, accept and encourage those who can”, and both elements fly in the fundamentally selfish and anti-altruistic face of Randian objectivism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Calling everything Randian is the new calling everything Lovecraftian, I've noticed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2018 17:04
|
|
