THE INCREDIBLES

[Mislovrit]

nah, similar is not enough to sue over, marvel would have to argue that by showing these characters, pixar somehow weakend marvel's brand name, or deliberately tried to confuse consumers into thinking that the incredibles was a marvel product.

ya gotta think, how many "superman" type characters are out there now? archetypes are fair game.

Preaching to the choir here.

[chrono]

I'd like to point out a pretty obvious point.

If Square hadn't made 'that' type of movie someone else surely would have! It could have easly been Dreamworks, Pixar, or any of the half-dozen 'big name' graphics studios out there.

Whether people want to believe it or not company's like Pixar own alot to failures like Square studios because it clearly defines what the audience is after!

A quality balanced show.

[Jemstone]

You can have realistic characters doing unrealistic things, if by that you mean bounding between buildings like a super hero, flying over a city, pulling off Elasticgirl powers, or running from the police with a broken arm wobbling around behind them, all things that just do not look "right" with a realistic character, but they will work IF they are well animated.

You are preching to the choir here (it's kind of a little known fact I not only work in the industry but teach animation). As far as realistic characters doing unrelaistic things..... Not with a movie like Polar Express when the effect they are going for is realism throughout to make it "believable". Plus that's not even the unrealistic things I was pointing at. It's the things a human body just can't do which Polar Express is chalk full of because of it's badly animated. Realistic looking character designs or more cartoony ones like in the Incredibles won't make a difference if the exceution is just terrible. I'm gonna stop here because anything else I could say is a no brainer. Also another reason FF:SW failed is because the story was recycled and predictable crap.

I shouldn't even be debating this with you. You're an animation student and of course should know better.

Edited November 15, 2004 by Jemstone

[Radd]

It sounds to me, Jemstone, like we're agreeing. I think there must have been a miscommunication.

[EXO]

It sounds like general agreement, I think everyone was thrown off by Lynx's statement that the animation wasn't as advanced as FF:TSW. I saw Brad Bird speak before the movie was released and he stated that he asked that the realism be pulled back a couple of notches because it didn't match the look he was looking for, specially when it was written as a 2D film. So even though the realism was avoided, the technical advancements and wonders were there.

[Lynx7725]

Ah thanks Exo. The interview sorts of confirmed what I suspected.

I think people just misunderstood what I said.. I meant really that the CG was appropriate to the story. I don't think it's SOTA, but it didn't need to be. I do think Pixar paid a lot of attention to details and it paid off for them.

Whatever the case, go watch the show -- again if necessary.

[skunkobot]

I'd like to point out a pretty obvious point.

If Square hadn't made 'that' type of movie someone else surely would have! It could have easly been Dreamworks, Pixar, or any of the half-dozen 'big name' graphics studios out there.

Whether people want to believe it or not company's like Pixar own alot to failures like Square studios because it clearly defines what the audience is after!

A quality balanced show.

Uhm... are you saying that before FF:TSW animation companies didn't know that people wanted a good, balanced show? Riiight...

So anyways, a clear illustration of the "realistic" CGI issue is the Hulk. He was fairly well executed, but the brain is simply unwiling to comprehend it and starts picking it apart at the subconcious level. You know it's not real, and your brain subconciously "proves" it. In order to be fully fooled, you'd have to lack the knowledge that it IS cgi.

As for the technical level of The Incredibles - Try catching some behind the scenes stuff - they had to build entirely new ways of doing stuff. The clothing, and hair engines alone make the movie cutting edge. They also went abut the characters in an interesting way, by building them up, letting the computer create real time muscle reaction. It's pretty stuff! Pixar is the big dog!!!

As for the movie itself, my god! Best movie in a long, long time, and easily in my top five!

The opening short, was cute, but I didn't really like the message it potrayed. Do somethine else, rather than keep doing what you've been doing! It was still pretty funny.

[EXO]

So anyways, a clear illustration of the "realistic" CGI issue is the Hulk. He was fairly well executed, but the brain is simply unwiling to comprehend it and starts picking it apart at the subconcious level. You know it's not real, and your brain subconciously "proves" it. In order to be fully fooled, you'd have to lack the knowledge that it IS cgi.

I'd go with Gollum. His over the top actions helped mask that CG " I can't stand still" look, but when he was in his subtle moments, the acting was hard to believe.

[KingNor]

The opening short, was cute, but I didn't really like the message it potrayed. Do somethine else, rather than keep doing what you've been doing! It was still pretty funny.

heh.. these things are always funny like when you're parents tell you to just be yourself, it doesn't mater what others think. then the next day the INSIST you dress nice for dinner at grammas. what kind of message is that sending?

If people laugh at you for looking silly, then say so-what to them? while its good to be confident in yourself. its also good to always think about improving yourself.

what if it wasn't looking funny, but instead smelling really bad. hmm, kinda changes then don't it?

[KingNor]

The opening short, was cute, but I didn't really like the message it potrayed.  Do somethine else, rather than keep doing what you've been doing!  It was still pretty funny.

heh.. these things are always funny like when you're parents tell you to just be yourself, it doesn't mater what others think. then the next day the INSIST you dress nice for dinner at grammas. what kind of message is that sending?

If people laugh at you for looking silly, then say so-what to them? while its good to be confident in yourself. its also good to always think about improving yourself.

what if it wasn't looking funny, but instead smelling really bad. hmm, kinda changes then don't it?

hehe, and yes i'm quoting myself right after i posted!

now that i think about it, the short before the incredibles had a completely opposite message than the incredibles itself did:

bouncy sheep movie: you're good how you are, if things don't go your way just keep doing what your doing and things will work out.

Incredibles: If you don't change you'll stagnate and will be unable to function. If you try to do things the same way forever you'll never win.

i just noticed that.

[eugimon]

Hmm, I disagree on the incredibles thing.. I thought the movie was more along the lines of: don't hide what makes you unique, celebrate it.

[do not disturb]

haha, i just watched it at my friends house yesterday.

[areaseven]

As The Incredibles passes the $200 million mark here in the U.S., Japan is gearing up for the film's release on December 4. Strangely enough, the film will be known there as Mr. Incredible ( Mr.インクレディブル ).

Also in Japan, Suntory is currently promoting The Incredibles with bottlecap figures and magnets on specially-marked Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Twist and Diet Pepsi Twist bottles.

Get! Mr Incredible

Pepsi's Official Get! Mr. Incredible Campaign Homepage

Edited November 29, 2004 by areaseven

[UN Spacy]

Also in Japan, Suntory is currently promoting The Incredibles with bottlecap figures on specially-marked Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Twist and Diet Pepsi Twist bottles.

Get! Mr Incredible

That's GREAT news A7.

I wish PEPSI would do bottlecap promos in the US.

[Max Jenius]

I thought the cg in Hulk was good. I fail to see how he "looked like Shrek." Why, because he's green too? Yeesh...

People feel so smart when they can tell what is special effects and what is not.

Funny thing is that so many movies are CG enhanced and you wouldn't even realize it because its so subtle.

[Agent ONE]

I finally saw this movie last weekend. Best superhero movie ever. I loved it.

[Blaine23]

I'll just throw in that it was wicked awesome. I expected alot, loving the Iron Giant as I do... and man, it was even better.

[ewilen]

I enjoyed it, too. But some elements struck a sour note with me. The deaths (cape flashbacks with Edna Mole, dead superheroes on the island, and the ending) didn't quite fit with the rest of the movie in terms of tone. The underlying message about "being super" vs. "being mediocre", which is touched on at several points, also comes off as half-baked, even though it supplied some good jokes. Ditto on related issue of the villain's motivation.

Just a few nitpicks. Overall, I loved the movie, as did the other people who saw it with me.

Edited November 29, 2004 by ewilen

[bsu legato]

Ditto on related issue of the villain's motivation.

What was wrong with the villain's motivation?

[ewilen]

What I got from the movie is that he:

a) Wants to be a super hero by any means possible.

b) Hates super heroes (because he doesn't have real powers, and in particular, he was rejected by Mr. Incredible). So he wants to take revenge on them by killing them.

c) Wants to eliminate the concept of being "super" by selling his inventions. ("When everyone is super, then nobody will be.")

d) Seems to generally want to get rich by selling his inventions to various countries.

It's a mishmosh of motivations, some of which are at war with each other. The worst of it is (b) and ( c), both of which tie into the "mediocrity" vs. "superness" theme--partly lifted from Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and perhaps Mills & O'Neill's Marshall Law, but unlike other borrowed comic book elements, the theme doesn't lend itself particularly well to parody or humorous tribute. What's so bad about wanting to give people super powers through technology? Is it better to hope that a limited population of "supers" will always use their inborn talents for the good of the human race? If you take the matter seriously, it's too serious for the movie. On the other hand it's vaguely disturbing if the movie wants us to see Syndrome's plan to "democratize super powers" merely as comic villainy.

Edited November 29, 2004 by ewilen

[Kin]

It's all fun watchin! The dude with ice powers is funny

It's funny... the hair of the badguy makes me think of that streetfighter figure...

[Skull Leader]

this movie was hella tight... easily the best pixar film I've seen to date. And I agree with many others, I feel that much more gay for watching the video short... it was well animated, but the story was a total fruit-job.

[ewilen]

I liked the short.

[Radd]

What I got from the movie is that he:

a) Wants to be a super hero by any means possible.

b) Hates super heroes (because he doesn't have real powers, and in particular, he was rejected by Mr. Incredible). So he wants to take revenge on them by killing them.

c) Wants to eliminate the concept of being "super" by selling his inventions. ("When everyone is super, then nobody will be.")

d) Seems to generally want to get rich by selling his inventions to various countries.

It's a mishmosh of motivations, some of which are at war with each other. The worst of it is (b) and ( c), both of which tie into the "mediocrity" vs. "superness" theme--partly lifted from Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, and perhaps Mills & O'Neill's Marshall Law, but unlike other borrowed comic book elements, the theme doesn't lend itself particularly well to parody or humorous tribute. What's so bad about wanting to give people super powers through technology? Is it better to hope that a limited population of "supers" will always use their inborn talents for the good of the human race? If you take the matter seriously, it's too serious for the movie. On the other hand it's vaguely disturbing if the movie wants us to see Syndrome's plan to "democratize super powers" merely as comic villainy.

I didn't see any conflicting motivations, considering the timetable he had for them. I mean, it's not like he wanted to do them all at once.

When he was young he wanted to simply be a super hero.

Being brushed off my Mr. Incredible eventually put him on a revenge trip. He wanted to both get even with heroes everywhere and replace them. He wanted to be a superhero for the wrong reasons, to be in the spotlight, adored by millions, and basically to be a big show-off, and he didn't care who got hurt or killed on his way there.

He was already rich selling his inventions to various countries.

He only wanted to sell his inventions to everyone after he had had his fun, and was ready to retire. One would assume that again he would still keep the best to himself.

Where's the conflicting motivations here?

[ewilen]

Yes, it could be done in that sequence, but it's complicated to the point of muddiness, and the line about "when everyone is super" then loses its impact and becomes a distraction. Let's go beyond his plans and look at what they say about his motivations. Greed--okay. Revenge--okay. Hunger for celebrity--okay. And then there's this heavy philosophical underpinning of not only wanting to kill superheros, but to actually destroy the concept of superherodom. The scene where Buddy reveals his plan builds this up as if it were acme of his evil. It echoes the important themes from early in the movie, so I know I'm not barking up the wrong tree: mediocrity and the denial of "specialness" is a key theme. But just as the seriousness of the theme gets ratcheted up, it's undermined by the fact that a megalomaniacal techno-genius is claiming to champion "non-superness" by carrying out a typical supervillain-type attack on a big city. If anything, Buddy is far less of a threat to the concept of superheroes than Mr. Incredible's boss at the insurance company.

(The theme of specialness struggling against democratic mediocrity is handled much better in the other works I mentioned; I should also have mentioned X-Men.)

[EXO]

hmmm I think you're putting too much into it than you have to. the fact that it made you think so much about his motivation and lack of focus convinces me that it left you a lot more than you bargained for, and should be thankful for it.

His reason for villany seems clear cut. Boy wanted fame and adoration and was rejected by the very example of his goals, so he as revenge constitutes, he goes after the dream crusher and all associated with it. It's very natural for someone with focused hate to become unfocused and starts to blame eveything else on that one reason, so with one fell swoop all his problems would be gone. or so he thinks.

As much as it seemed hokey to you, the Incredibles still had some of its morals directed towards a younger audience, but I'm glad it wasnt carefully laid out as some of the other kiddy fare. The theme about being special was brought up earlier when Elastibootymom told Dash that "everyone" was special, to which he answers "it's just another way of saying that no one is special". But at the end I believe the true moral was you have to use what you 'have' to make you stand out. Syndrome could have proved that he was a great superhero to Mr. Incredible, instead he used his genius and wealth for useless things. Fame and power is not an end result, it's a bonus.

now excuse me... I'm gonna go hug myself...

[ewilen]

hmmm I think you're putting too much into it than you have to. the fact that it made you think so much about his motivation and lack of focus convinces me that it left you a lot more than you bargained for, and should be thankful for it.

I'm sorry, I respect your opinions, but I disagree. The movie employs a thought-provoking issue as part of the plot. It could handle the issue comedically, or it could engage it seriously, but ultimately the movie just turns it into a muddle and discards it. This is similar to the uneven tone with regard to death: much of the movie is presented as light family fare and a loving parody of four-color comic book conventions, but there are numerous gruesome (albeit off-screen) deaths, some played as dark comedy, which is mildly jarring, others as straight-on post-80's action movie kill-or-be-killed, which is disturbing. There are even scenes where kids and mom kill bad guys then cheer each other with bright shiny smiles. Even modern grim 'n gritty action movies generally give a sense of the protagonists' fear and horror at the nightmare they're going through. The Parr family on the other hand zigzags unevenly between happy comic book crime fighting and real death-dealing, giving the impression that they enjoy not only fighting for truth justice etc., but offing bad guys. To me, this unevenness means, at best, that the screenwriters didn't think their material through and/or were victims of writing-by-committee. (We know that the movie was originally intended for 2-D animation; maybe there were even more changes forced on the creative team due to marketing, etc.) At worst, they're aware of these issues and really intended to convey the message that (as one critic unkindly put it) "the family that slays together stays together". Or possibly, possibly, there is a degree of satiric intent (along the lines of Verhoeven's Starship Troopers), but if so it's buried so deeply as to be practically invisible--again, Watchmen or Marshall Law (at least the original GN) are far better critical/satirical takes on the basic concept of the superhero.

[IAD]

Rant warning!

First off, I don't see what your problem is... This isn't real life, this is a movie, and it is accepted fact that deaths of bad guys in non-serious movies are not lamented. They are BAD GUYS.

(Personally, I prefer 'high-lethality' solutions to bad guys in movies. Ideally one inflicted by the good guys, and not a Batman Begins 'I won't intervene' solution. Thus, I enjoyed the end of the Incredibles quite a bit.)

Aside from that, I'd list any casualties inflicted on the goggle-guys as self-defense. It wasn't even a case of Mr. Incredible trying to hunt down a long-time criminal. They brought him there, and tried to kill him. He (shame on him) was determined to stay alive. To do so, he engaged the goggle-guys with lethal force. Because the movie was never meant to be 'serious' the good guys were not required to have any regrets for enemy casualties. (Did anybody here think that Peter Pan and the Lost Boys should have wrung their hands and wept bitter tears when Cpt. Hook was eaten by the crocodile at the end of 'Hook'?)

Second, and (in terms of 'age suitability') more importantly, from what I saw, even the non-supers were quite durable, as it were. The the film was executed in such a way as to definitely allow for almost all of the goggle-guys to survive their various encounters with the Incredibles. (Even the guys who got hit by the thrown monorail pod apparently survived.)

Granted, the Viper pilots fared a lot worse, but generally, their deaths were a result of their own ineptitude, and not some violent act by one of the Incredibles. Crashing into your wingmate is stupidity. (The only exceptions to this is when Mr. Incredible fireballs the Viper in the clearing, and one could argue likewise, when Dash hits one with a tree.) In any case, their deaths should still be attributed to self-defense. Notice who was doing the chasing/shooting.

If you want to talk about disturbing: How about the number of implicit casualties inflicted on the innocent population of (judging by accent) an American city, by Syndrome's weapon-system? Casualties inflicted the tank crews? Why this concern only with the [very few] deaths caused by the Incredibles?

Lastly, on an interesting historical sidenote, you speak of comic-book crime-fighting. In the 1940s, that included The Bat-Man kicking a murdering executive into an acid vat, and throwing his accomplice off the roof of a three-story building, all in the name of justice. (Of course, personally, I think that this was a better serving of justice than the non-lethal turn-them-over-to-the-corrupt-police tactics used in Batman Begins.)

Bat-Man wasn't shown in the next frame trembling with fear and horror. Instead, he hunts down the last of the bad guys, and eliminates them.

Capt. America likewise terminates sniveling Neo-Nazis with maximum prejudice.

It would seem that the implying that 'real death-dealing' and 'comic book crime fighting' are opposites isn't a very accurate assessment.

~Luke

[myk]

The Incredibles. I didn't get too much into it because I was doing the Incredibles with some girl...After this thread, I just may have to go back and actually watch it, though...

[jonwayne]

i'd seen this movie 5 times (3 times on a flight). and i won't mind watching it again.

[Agent ONE]

Rant warning! 

First off, I don't see what your problem is...  This isn't real life, this is a movie, and it is accepted fact that deaths of bad guys in non-serious movies are not lamented.  They are BAD GUYS. 

(Personally, I prefer 'high-lethality' solutions to bad guys in movies.  Ideally one inflicted by the good guys, and not a Batman Begins 'I won't intervene' solution.  Thus, I enjoyed the end of the Incredibles quite a bit.)

Aside from that, I'd  list any casualties inflicted on the goggle-guys as self-defense.  It wasn't even a case of Mr. Incredible trying to hunt down a long-time criminal.  They brought him there, and tried to kill him.  He (shame on him) was determined to stay alive.  To do so, he engaged the goggle-guys with lethal force.  Because the movie was never meant to be 'serious' the good guys were not required to have any regrets for enemy casualties.  (Did anybody here think that Peter Pan and the Lost Boys should have wrung their hands and wept bitter tears when Cpt. Hook was eaten by the crocodile at the end of 'Hook'?)

Second, and (in terms of 'age suitability') more importantly, from what I saw, even the non-supers were quite durable, as it were.  The the film was executed in such a way as to definitely allow for almost all of the goggle-guys to survive their various encounters with the Incredibles.  (Even the guys who got hit by the thrown monorail pod apparently survived.) 

Granted, the Viper pilots fared a lot worse, but generally, their deaths were a result of their own ineptitude, and not some violent act by one of the Incredibles.  Crashing into your wingmate is stupidity.  (The only exceptions to this is when Mr. Incredible fireballs the Viper in the clearing, and one could argue likewise, when Dash hits one with a tree.)  In any case, their deaths should still be attributed to self-defense.  Notice who was doing the chasing/shooting. 

If you want to talk about disturbing:  How about the number of implicit casualties inflicted on the innocent population of (judging by accent) an American city, by Syndrome's weapon-system?  Casualties inflicted the tank crews?  Why this concern only with the [very few] deaths caused by the Incredibles? 

Lastly, on an interesting historical sidenote, you speak of comic-book crime-fighting.  In the 1940s, that included The Bat-Man kicking a murdering executive into an acid vat, and throwing his accomplice off the roof of a three-story building, all in the name of justice.  (Of course, personally, I think that this was a better serving of justice than the non-lethal turn-them-over-to-the-corrupt-police tactics used in Batman Begins.)

Bat-Man wasn't shown in the next frame trembling with fear and horror.  Instead, he hunts down the last of the bad guys, and eliminates them. 

Capt. America likewise terminates sniveling Neo-Nazis with maximum prejudice.

It would seem that the implying that 'real death-dealing' and 'comic book crime fighting' are opposites isn't a very accurate assessment.

~Luke

359520[/snapback]

Too much reading, gimme the executive summary.

[bsu legato]

You didn't just post a one liner, I'll give you that.