Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:59:04 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Incredibles 2

Started by Norton Canes, February 16, 2018, 01:01:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mothman


AsparagusTrevor

If it's the same one SteveDave is thinking of, near the beginning Mr Incredible calls young Buddy "Brodie". The adult Buddy, AKA Syndrome, is voiced by Jason Lee who was in Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

mothman


Ant Farm Keyboard

I've seen it, as it was released in France last week.

Not as great as the first one, but there are still some fantastic set pieces, and Brad Bird has a knack to make action scenes clear and understandable.

Don't miss the short that plays before it, Bao. It has one of the most effective shots in all the history of Pixar.

Urinal Cake

It was okay. Nice action pieces but yet the same message about people being jealous of the naturally talented. Let's see a supervillain next time.

SteveDave

Quote from: AsparagusTrevor on July 10, 2018, 06:15:36 PM
If it's the same one SteveDave is thinking of, near the beginning Mr Incredible calls young Buddy "Brodie". The adult Buddy, AKA Syndrome, is voiced by Jason Lee who was in Vanilla Sky with Tom Cruise who was in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

It was that.

MojoJojo

The first one also has that Die Hard With a Vengeance reference in it, but I think Samuel Jackson just has those in his standard contract.

AsparagusTrevor

Quote from: MojoJojo on July 11, 2018, 11:05:09 AM
The first one also has that Die Hard With a Vengeance reference in it, but I think Samuel Jackson just has those in his standard contract.

You mean when Dash is wearing an "I HATE N**GERS" t-shirt?

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth


Bad Ambassador

Quote from: Urinal Cake on July 10, 2018, 11:32:48 PM
It was okay. Nice action pieces but yet the same message about people being jealous of the naturally talented.

Which is why I'm skipping it. Bird's bizarre Rand/Gervais fixation is long since out of hand.

Shit Good Nose

#40
Quote from: Urinal Cake on July 10, 2018, 11:32:48 PM
but yet the same message about people being jealous of the naturally talented.

It's not, though.  First and foremost it's about the general public recognising that a world with the supers is better than without and it's only the bureaucrats who don't want them because of the cost of municipal collateral damage, much preferring to let the crime and bad stuff happen and it all be covered by insurance.

Secondary to that, and the "villain" of the piece, is someone wanting to take revenge on the supers because of a tragedy she blamed on them, a tragedy caused by the supers being made illegal. 

I didn't see any repeat of jealousy from the first one.


Quote from: Bad Ambassador on July 11, 2018, 11:42:15 AM
Bird's bizarre Rand/Gervais fixation is long since out of hand.

What do you mean, and what does that have to do with The Incredibles?



Anyway, very good if a tad too long, and not quite as good as the first.  But a very worthy sequel which tackles some substantially different subjects.

Bad Ambassador

Maybe I muddied things by bringing in Gervais, but Bird is clearly thinking on the same lines as Ayn Rand, and most of his work is at least loosely inspired by objectivism. Tomorrowland is basically Atlas Shrugged for kids. He continues to deny any connection and claims to be a centrist, so he's either absurdly naive or a nutcase.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Bad Ambassador on July 14, 2018, 09:30:54 PM
Maybe I muddied things by bringing in Gervais, but Bird is clearly thinking on the same lines as Ayn Rand, and most of his work is at least loosely inspired by objectivism. Tomorrowland is basically Atlas Shrugged for kids. He continues to deny any connection and claims to be a centrist, so he's either absurdly naive or a nutcase.

All I can say is Tomorrowland is a big shit of a film, and Incredibles 2 is nothing like it (it's good for one thing).  It's a big proponent of inclusiveness and family and just being a good person for the sake of wanting to be a good person.

I really don't understand where Urinal Cake got his idea from.  Unless he just watched the first one again by mistake...

St_Eddie

I've never seen the Incredibles 2 but I can say with some authority, that it's a film which I have never seen.

Urinal Cake

#44
I'd say Bird is still repeating the message from the first movie. Supers innately want to do the right thing yet the  bureaucrats (monkeys with darts) not only don't trust them but can't do the job anyway. Supers are there to save the day.

Even the normies Winston and Evelyn though both are naturally talented don't escape. Winston has a effortless charm while Evelyn works at it (developing technology, doing a business case etc) but Winston gets all the credit something Bird points out but ultimately redeems since Winston is still the good guy, Evelyn's anger at Supers and jealousy of her brother leading her down the path

colacentral

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on July 14, 2018, 08:34:53 PM
It's not, though.  First and foremost it's about the general public recognising that a world with the supers is better than without and it's only the bureaucrats who don't want them because of the cost of municipal collateral damage, much preferring to let the crime and bad stuff happen and it all be covered by insurance.

I didn't see any repeat of jealousy from the first one.

= The proles recognise that some people are just innately better than them, and regulations / red tape / tax are just holding them back from being the best they can be. If the super(ior)s could only do what they wanted then things would be better for everyone (the trickle down effect). That is very Randian.

SavageHedgehog

For me, the big difference between Rand and Bird is where the stories end up. Bird's characters are altruists, who want to help people and learn to compromise where it helps to strengthen the relationships in their lives. I don't think we're meant to identify when Incredidad says the oft-quoted line about "celebrating mediocrity" at schools, as by the end of his arc he's in a different place. At least that's how I felt about the first film and, for all its faults, even Tomorrowland, as I haven't seen this one yet.

Admittedly I might have missed some of the message of Tomorrowland during Hugh Laurie's 10 minute speech. I quite liked it up until that and Clooney's romance with a 12 year old robot. Some judicious red tape might have served a purpose there.

Ant Farm Keyboard

Bird is definitely not a Rand aficionado the way people like Zack Snyder or Michael Cimino can be, but it's safe to say that some of his views are influenced by objectivism.

Bhazor

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on July 14, 2018, 08:34:53 PM
First and foremost it's about the general public recognising that a world with the supers is better than without and it's only the bureaucrats who don't want them because of the cost of municipal collateral damage, much preferring to let the crime and bad stuff happen and it all be covered by insurance.

Secondary to that, and the "villain" of the piece, is someone wanting to take revenge on the supers because of a tragedy she blamed on them, a tragedy caused by the supers being made illegal. 

Yeah but what does the plot synopsis of the first film have to do with the plot of the new one?

Shit Good Nose

Well, I enjoyed and liked it.  Aside from it being a tad too long.  And anyone who liked the first one will also likely enjoy it. 

greenman

Quote from: SavageHedgehog on July 16, 2018, 01:37:07 PM
For me, the big difference between Rand and Bird is where the stories end up. Bird's characters are altruists, who want to help people and learn to compromise where it helps to strengthen the relationships in their lives. I don't think we're meant to identify when Incredidad says the oft-quoted line about "celebrating mediocrity" at schools, as by the end of his arc he's in a different place. At least that's how I felt about the first film and, for all its faults, even Tomorrowland, as I haven't seen this one yet.

Admittedly I might have missed some of the message of Tomorrowland during Hugh Laurie's 10 minute speech. I quite liked it up until that and Clooney's romance with a 12 year old robot. Some judicious red tape might have served a purpose there.

Yep I'd tend to agree, ultimately the story of the first film is Bob shifting from an arrogant elitist to a true family focused altruist, not to mention having a villain who has learnt a Rand like lesson from the earlier selfish Bob.

greencalx

I saw it yesterday with Child and I found it held my attention longer than I was expecting: I find the original gets a bit relentless towards the end, whereas in the sequel each sequence seems to have a point to it, beyond being yet-another-action-sequence. (Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on the original; I've only seen that on DVD, and there's always a difference when you see it in the cinema). I didn't find myself looking at my watch in this (other than very briefly about 2/3rds of the way in, and being surprised that the time had passed so quickly!)

The plot twist I saw from quite some distance away, although this being a kid's film you can hardly blame them for that. Didn't stop me enjoying it when the "reveal" came, anyway. Great soundtrack. Would recommend.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: greencalx on July 16, 2018, 03:03:13 PM
although this being a kid's film

Well, yeah - one easily forgets, being Pixar and all.  I'm sure Little Nose was picking out all of the Randian aspects and tutting under her breath...

Bhazor

I so wish Pixar could shrug off the kid centric stuff the way Disney's live action stuff has. Pixar always feels likes its being held back. I remember when the original teaser for Brave came out and it looked like a dark atmospheric fantasy film. Then the first proper trailer came out and it was basically Shrek with better graphics. Its a tragedy that the best paid animation studio in the world has spent most of the last decade working on Cars sequels.

Ant Farm Keyboard

What are you saying? Between 2008 (WALL-E) and today, Pixar has released 12 films. Only two of them are Cars sequels.

You may be thinking of the Planes franchise. They are, technically, spinoffs from Cars, but they were actually produced at another studio, DisneyToon, which has just shut down.

Also, Brave was significantly retooled after original director Brenda Chapman was fired from the project. The teaser may still be influenced by her work, but the trailer was definitely something put together after some committee was put in charge and pushed the material towards a more consensual direction.

Clownbaby

Anyone really underwhelmed by Inside Out? I felt like it way oversimplified the emotions. I get what they were trying to do but it felt a lot more childish to me than other approaches to a similar thing they've done in other Pixar films. Wasn't absolute shit or anything but it could've been a bit smarter with the idea I thought.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Clownbaby on July 16, 2018, 05:09:32 PM
Anyone really underwhelmed by Inside Out? I felt like it way oversimplified the emotions. I get what they were trying to do but it felt a lot more childish to me than other approaches to a similar thing they've done in other Pixar films. Wasn't absolute shit or anything but it could've been a bit smarter with the idea I thought.

Not underwhelmed, but I find it to be incredibly depressing, even with its (relatively) happy resolution.  Took Little Nose to see it at the cinema twice, and then we got it for her on blu ray, and after those three viewings I was about ready to flush my head down the shitter.

Finding Nemo massively underwhelmed me and felt to me like the overly kid-centric stuff Bhazor complained about above.  I thought Finding Dory was a huge improvement.  Also made my eyes leak a little bit.  Think the pollen count was very high that day.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Ant Farm Keyboard on July 16, 2018, 04:52:48 PM
What are you saying? Between 2008 (WALL-E) and today, Pixar has released 12 films. Only two of them are Cars sequels.

You may be thinking of the Planes franchise. They are, technically, spinoffs from Cars, but they were actually produced at another studio, DisneyToon, which has just shut down.

A little bird whispered in my ear and told me that you don't like Cars.

mothman

Saw this yesterday, and I have to say I didn't enjoy it very much. It felt rushed, perfunctory; maybe that's a result of it being brought forward a year to give the Pixar crown jewels, a Toy Story sequel, more time. I guessed the baddie straight away; I said to my wife after, calling the character "evil endeavour" was a bit of a giveaway: she said that the film was aimed at kids - but is it, really, just for kids? The first one wasn't. I thus spent most of the film wondering if the brother was in on it too and wondering about the meaning behind "winst endeavour!" When I wasn't being distracted by him being voiced by Bob Odenkirk, anyway. Also, a BB/BCS link, having Rick Dicker voiced by Jonathan Banks? Now, I'm a huge JB fan, but again it ruined it: how can they find someone who sounds so like Bud Luckey, but ends up sounding totally wrong? There seemed to be very few quotable lines in this, a lack of any no-capes or greater-goods. And my 8yo (who has issues, granted) spent the whole Elastigirl-vs-Screenslaver sequence hiding under a blanket crying because it was too loud and scary.

We'll probably end up with it on BR/DVD and maybe a second watch will help it click with me. But I'm dissatisfied, overall.

And I utterly LOATHED the short film beforehand. Found it actually quite disturbing actually, and I'm an adult; Christ knows what some children must have thought. I realise it's all allegorical, and makes sense once you;ve seen the whole thing, and it's great that it's got a female writer/director and is celebrating ethnic diversity, but I was still, ugh. Totally lacking in charm or innovative animation like some of the truly great Pixar shorts.

SteveDave

Quote from: Clownbaby on July 16, 2018, 05:09:32 PM
Anyone really underwhelmed by Inside Out? I felt like it way oversimplified the emotions. I get what they were trying to do but it felt a lot more childish to me than other approaches to a similar thing they've done in other Pixar films. Wasn't absolute shit or anything but it could've been a bit smarter with the idea I thought.

I was warned (by a father) before going in that it'll leave you a wreck but I only teared up at "Take her to the moon for me!" when the imaginary friend sacrificed himself. If Happy had kicked Sad's arse into the void that kid would've been set for life. Until the breakdown at 35.