Author Topic: The Incredibles 2. 2015  (Read 17573 times)

skippy7721

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 23
The Incredibles 2. 2015
« on: June 24, 2013, 06:30:56 PM »
http://starseeker.com/2013-movies/the-incredibles-2-2013/


I figure..if this can return...so can our city!

Arachnion

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
  • Professional Cynic
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #1 on: June 24, 2013, 08:48:35 PM »
I enjoyed the first one.

:D
I'm all dressed up with nowhere to go
Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder

Waiting for an invitation to arrive
Goin' to a party where no one's still alive

goodtime

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 170
    • my videos
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2013, 09:25:21 PM »
Wow, those are some big-ass hero boots to fill, but I'll trust Brad Bird with a sequel.   (The worry is that Disney is just doing it for sequel moneys, and not being true to the original film.)

I can't imagine them re-casting Violet, it's not like Sarah Vowell was a kid when she did it.

FatherXmas

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,646
  • You think the holidays are bad for you ...
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2013, 09:26:05 AM »
Well we don't know how much of a time skip the movie will have.  Maybe Violet and Dash are now grown.  Maybe Violet even has a child of her own (Okay, too much of a time skip) but post college, Dash in high school and Jack now the all powerful elementary school student.  Have Vi or Dash fall for the child of a supervillain ...

Yeah, that's fairly tropish and I prefer Pixar to steer away from the standard tropes.  Oh, and give Frozone an eyepatch as an injoke.
Tempus unum hominem manet

Twitter - AtomicSamuraiRobot@NukeSamuraiBot

Rotten Luck

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
  • "I'd rather go out a hero than a coward."
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2013, 10:54:30 AM »
Tropish can be done if done Well.  Heck half of the original Incredables was kind of Trope.  Strong characters can carry a run of the mill story.  Me I would have made the Incredables into a T.V. show the Daily life of a family of Superhereos. 
One way or another... Heroes will fly again!

Rust

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Oddball
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2013, 12:20:48 PM »
Oddly enough...I don't want this.

The Incredibles was a great film and did the Fantastic Four dynamic better then the Fantastic Four film did. It's one of my top films and definitely ranks high on the list of "Favorite Super Hero Films" (Honestly, if it had been a period piece Super Film to boot, it probably would have been at #1. Love me some Golden Age Hero Action - hence why Captain America, The Shadow, and The Rocketeer are in my top slots).

But I feel it is a movie that is stronger by itself then as part of a franchise. Much like The Dark Knight Rises, I have a feeling Incredibles 2 will just be an unnecessary outing. Or, to put it in Pixar perspective, Monsters University. I know the age group that grew up with Monsters Inc is now going to college (Grip of old age...crushing...crushing...), so it makes a sort of sense in that respect but it's still a College Movie Prequel to a Pixar film that doesn't have anything in common with a College Movie. It just feels like someone doing a sequel to Animal House where they all work at CERN.

As a complete aside I also think it's moronic to think you can do a College Film on a G rating, but that's personal opinion.

Back on topic, I don't want a Incredibles sequel. Not only is Pixar getting sequel madness (So how long until UP 2?), but the story told in the film doesn't need a sequel. Toy Story is the only franchise I feel that merits the sequels because it dealt with the several stages of not only toy ownership (From Childhood, to Collecting, to mementos of childhood), but of development of the individual too (I was for the longest time the villain from Toy Story 2. It's within the last two years I've become Andy from Toy Story 3 and given away the good portion of my collections).
All that I'm after is a life filled with laughter

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2013, 01:16:40 PM »
The Incredibles was left wide open for a sequel, and even for expansion into a potential TV series. If you don't want it, that's fine; you can simply ignore it. I know plenty of people who express their displeasure with the Matrix II and III by mock-lamenting that they "never made a sequel" to the original Matrix.

The beauty of more things being produced is that we have the freedom, generally, to ignore the ones we don't like. I could understand griping over it if it were going to interfere with your ability to discuss and enjoy the original, but movies, unlike games and shared universes, don't have backwards-impact. They don't even cause a problem of loss-of-support for their predecessors, because there is no "support" for movies after they're played out in the DVD sales. If anything, sequels (no matter how bad) increase support for the older ones by sparking interest and thus impelling sales of new editions of the DVDs (for those who don't have their own already).

dwturducken

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,152
  • Now available in stereo
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2013, 02:03:35 PM »
It depends on how much of the band Bird is getting back together. More of the Pixar movies have been brilliant than not, and their track record with sequels isn't terrible. With the original creative team, I would have high hopes. But, given the visual style of the original, I see 3D as pointless, being done because "all movies are 3D, now." (Also pointless, though done very well, stylistically, in a few rare cases.)
I wouldn't use the word "replace," but there's no word for "take over for you and make everything better almost immediately," so we just say "replace."

Rotten Luck

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
  • "I'd rather go out a hero than a coward."
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2013, 02:18:50 PM »
In terms of sequels the Incredables I can see as being open.  It was made with sequel bait build in with the Underminer.  The idea of following the family as they play normal wile being supers have lots of opportunities.  (the thing that the latest superman movies seem not to get) Think about the original Incredables how much of it was just their normal life.  It was that even with superpowers we normal folk could relate the shy violet, the ball of energy Dash rebelling a normal family all of them just with superpowers.  In other worlds a normal sitcom family. 

Now the bad part is Hollywood tends to forget that, like in the for mentioned Superman Movies.  Heck the opening part of the original Superman where he starts learning how to use his powers running along side a train was the inspiration for the Smallvile show.  What I fear and what I believe others do too is they try to One up the original with more Flash and bang effects forgetting the human elements that made the Incredable worth watching. 
One way or another... Heroes will fly again!

Joshex

  • [citation needed]
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,027
    • my talk page
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2013, 04:20:49 PM »
the developer has spoken saying for a sequel he is not considering the underminer as the main enemy but rather the return of the last villain.

also he hints the story will be centered on Dash and Jack, their parents will be retired, NO mention of violet, from which I assume Violet will have a small spot if at all like maybe she'll be on the end of a phone call or a message on an answering machine.

over all, if thats the idea I highly suggest he take more time to think this over.

why not use the underminer?

there is already an incredibles game that deals with the underminer, it is possible that the developer may not wish to repeat the same story or a similar story in a movie format.

either way I think such a rapid jump into the future is a bad idea for this story. alot of people I know like this for the very reasons they are taking away lol.
There is always another way. But it might not work exactly like you may desire.

A wise old rabbit once told me "Never give-up!, Trust your instincts!" granted the advice at the time led me on a tripped-out voyage out of an asteroid belt, but hey it was more impressive than a bunch of rocks and space monkies.

Blondeshell

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 808
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2013, 01:45:15 AM »
I would agree that the Underminer wouldn't/shouldn't be the main villain in Incredibles 2. Why? The characters voiced by John Ratzenberger in Pixar movies never have that many lines.

Rust

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Oddball
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2013, 08:55:32 AM »
In terms of sequels the Incredables I can see as being open.  It was made with sequel bait build in with the Underminer. 

Your Mileage May Vary, I guess. To me, I took the appearance of the Underminer at the end of the film to be a signal that the era of the costumed hero had returned (Of which we saw the death of at the beginning of the film), not a prospective sequel villain.
All that I'm after is a life filled with laughter

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2013, 01:43:27 PM »
I think, Joshex, that assuming from one interview that says it will focus on Dash and Jak that Vi will be almost entirely non-present...is a bit of a stretch.

This far out from it, there's no way they're going to tell us enough information to know for certain who WON'T be in it from a prior movie, unless they expressly say, "X will not be in it."

So let's not go from somewhat wild assumptions to a scolding recommendation that they "rethink" what they're doing. You didn't mention CoH or one of the Plan Z's in your post, so it's probable that you're not even thinking of playing them if they happen or return! Rethink it, Joshex! They'll need players like you!

No, that's not really what I think you feel about CoH et al, but I write that to illustrate how not to jump to conclusions on so little information. We really need to take a bit of a wait-and-see attitude.

Lightslinger

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
  • @Lightslinger, Virtue
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2013, 03:17:32 PM »
Just because a pre-pre-pre-production rumor website says that Syndrome will return doesn't mean he's the main villain. It just means he'll be in the movie in some capacity, I seriously doubt after all these years Pixar will reuse a villain (that includes Underminer as well).

The Incredibles is one of my all-time favorite movies, definitely looking forward to this.

And for all the hate Pixar gets regarding the sequels, I don't really mind them. They're not that bad, especially by industry standards, and the money they make gives Pixar the freedom to do the REALLY cool stuff. There would not be a The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, or Brave were it not for the marketing focused sequels that funded them.


TimtheEnchanter

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,466
  • There are some who call me... Tim?
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2013, 10:27:12 PM »
Wow, those are some big-ass hero boots to fill, but I'll trust Brad Bird with a sequel.   (The worry is that Disney is just doing it for sequel moneys, and not being true to the original film.)

I can't imagine them re-casting Violet, it's not like Sarah Vowell was a kid when she did it.

Pixar was smart when they signed with Disney... a lot more than most. Or they just had more leverage for some reason. For a Disney asset, Pixar retains a lot of creative control, and I can't think of a time where they've disappointed (I cannot yet speak for Monster University).

JKPhage

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2013, 12:14:12 AM »
I absolutely adore The Incredibles. It stands, to date, as my favorite Pixar film. I can understand skepticism over how well the sequel will be done, but I'm going to cross my fingers, hope, and just keep faith that they will do it right. Hell, when I was a kid I almost started writing a fan-fic for it, and even at that young of an age I like to think that I had plenty of decent ideas, so I can't imagine that a movie studio full of people paid to tell stories couldn't think of a few good ones.

I like the idea of the time skip as it gives the kids more room to shine and also provides a new/unique setting from the original as we now aren't operating in a world that frowns on supers and tries to keep them hidden, but rather one that reveres them again. That gives you room for the young adult/adolescent Parr children to have to deal with possible fame as their super-selves while dealing with regular life and keeping it a secret, potential for plenty of new and interesting characters to be introduced, all sorts of things.

I'm really looking forward to so much out of this movie. I wanna know what super names the kids picked (Because you can't be Incredible Boy and Incredible Girl forever), Did Dash become "The Dash" or did he go with something sleeker sounding? Is Violet now billed as "Ultraviolet" or was that too flashy for a demure girl like her? Perhaps she became "Shy Violet" to coincide with her invisibility? And what kind of powers did Jack-Jack end up with? Were all those crazy powers he displayed just some sort of natural genetic hiccup for supers, or does he really have powers of flight, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, phasing, changing into metal and whatever else may come of it? If he DOES have all of those powers then is he regarded as some sort of national threat? After all, even if we have a time-skip he's still going to be a very young boy, possibly around 9 or so, and with that all the tempermants and tantrums of a typical 9-year-old, but combined with the ability to level a city block.

Can you tell I've spent way too much time contemplating this stuff? Haha. Either way, I'm gonna say that Pixar always does a good job, and I'm not counting on them disappointing me this time around.

Joshex

  • [citation needed]
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,027
    • my talk page
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2013, 03:14:40 AM »
Pixar was smart when they signed with Disney... a lot more than most. Or they just had more leverage for some reason. For a Disney asset, Pixar retains a lot of creative control, and I can't think of a time where they've disappointed (I cannot yet speak for Monster University).

ok joke time; yeah I love the great move pixar made by signing with disney, now they can all look forwards to have thier positions replaced with people disney feels suit the position better this month. - I've talked to lots of people who have worked for them they say it's impossible to keep your job after the project is finished.

I think, Joshex, that assuming from one interview that says it will focus on Dash and Jak that Vi will be almost entirely non-present...is a bit of a stretch.

This far out from it, there's no way they're going to tell us enough information to know for certain who WON'T be in it from a prior movie, unless they expressly say, "X will not be in it."

So let's not go from somewhat wild assumptions to a scolding recommendation that they "rethink" what they're doing. You didn't mention CoH or one of the Plan Z's in your post, so it's probable that you're not even thinking of playing them if they happen or return! Rethink it, Joshex! They'll need players like you!

No, that's not really what I think you feel about CoH et al, but I write that to illustrate how not to jump to conclusions on so little information. We really need to take a bit of a wait-and-see attitude.

lol talk about advertising.

I know you were just illustrating your argument and it is a valid point.

as for me, I'm not sure plan Z will suit my tastes, I'm affriad the atmosphere may be too 'artistically modern' just like champions... I mean give us a rugged city; warehouses rusted powerpoles dusty contruction areas brick buildings with a few nicely designed sky scrapers, especially in the traditional style as well as the new style, but don't make the town hall look like the leagion of super heroes head quarters.. thats a bit too futuristic, like maybe you could warp far into the future of paragon and see something like that, but lets start with something more traditional.

sorry rambling. I honestly hate to be a doomsayer but i don't know how long the MMO industry will be profitable. I.. I see the number of MMOs of all sorts of different types and I cannot seem to fathom how all these MMO's of a similar shade to eachother can compete with such profits. I see financial crisises and monitary hacking being done throgh MMOs companies think they are getting more money than they really are. don't get me wrong, I'm not against plan Z. I just think that when they are all done we should hold a vote to see which one is the most liked and then can the other 2 so theres no competition. the other 2 can be incorporated into the most liked one at a later time.

but I do warn this, if the real CoH comes back, i might not play the plan Z's at all.
There is always another way. But it might not work exactly like you may desire.

A wise old rabbit once told me "Never give-up!, Trust your instincts!" granted the advice at the time led me on a tripped-out voyage out of an asteroid belt, but hey it was more impressive than a bunch of rocks and space monkies.

Arnabas

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2013, 03:01:23 AM »
I love Pixar, but I am not so sure about this.... I have wanted to see a sequel for some time, but focusing on Dash and Jack doesn't seem too smart. The best part of the first one was the family dynamic... Ditching the original concept and focusing on select characters didn't work so well for Cars 2, did it?

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2013, 03:04:12 AM »
http://starseeker.com/2013-movies/the-incredibles-2-2013/


I figure..if this can return...so can our city!

yep. Kind of surprised they didnt do the sequel sooner. But then again maybe it's a good thing. Cars 2- geesh.



SeaLily

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
  • green hair
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2013, 08:05:30 AM »
Cars 2 wasn't bad.  It was okay.  Better than the first, at least, which was Pixar's weakest by far.  But those are just money-builders.  Cars makes money.  Money they can use to make other films.

So, okay, maybe Cars 2 wasn't a good sequel.  But you know what was?

Toy Story 2.  Toy Story 3.  Monsters University.  All great films, all great sequels that build on the original and develop those characters more.

I'm confident that Brad Bird, who makes some consistently great movies, will handle this very well if it happens.
green hair

FatherXmas

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,646
  • You think the holidays are bad for you ...
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2013, 11:14:19 AM »
I read somewhere that Pixar's long term plans are to develop 2 new movies and 1 sequel every 2 years.

I worry if they can keep the quality up.
Tempus unum hominem manet

Twitter - AtomicSamuraiRobot@NukeSamuraiBot

JWBullfrog

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 605
  • I didn't leave Paragon City. They threw me out!
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2013, 12:52:57 PM »
Your Mileage May Vary, I guess. To me, I took the appearance of the Underminer at the end of the film to be a signal that the era of the costumed hero had returned (Of which we saw the death of at the beginning of the film), not a prospective sequel villain.
The underminer was also a(nother) shout out to Fantastic Four, popping up just like the Mole Man in the first issue.
As long as somebody keeps making up stories for it, the City isn't gone.

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2013, 04:08:28 PM »
I read somewhere that Pixar's long term plans are to develop 2 new movies and 1 sequel every 2 years.

I worry if they can keep the quality up.
depends. If they can make money off crap, they will, especially if it makes the goal of 2 new movies and 1 sequel every two years easier to obtain.

Arachnion

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
  • Professional Cynic
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2013, 05:13:41 PM »
Cars 2 wasn't bad.  It was okay.  Better than the first, at least, which was Pixar's weakest by far.  But those are just money-builders.  Cars makes money.  Money they can use to make other films.

So, okay, maybe Cars 2 wasn't a good sequel.

I disagree.

Cars 1 is a moving, great film.

Cars 2 is weaker, by a good amount, still I enjoyed it.

IMO, they pushed the whole "spy flick" angle too far in 2, then couldn't backup/buildup the other aspects of the movie.

My two cents.

:)
I'm all dressed up with nowhere to go
Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder

Waiting for an invitation to arrive
Goin' to a party where no one's still alive

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2013, 02:44:53 PM »
I admit to not having seen Cars 2, so take this as the second-hand analysis it is.

What I have heard of its plot sounds like it has little to actually do with the first movie, and shoehorns an excuse to get the main character from the first into it. It then makes the grave mistake of being an anti-business paean to the theory that oil is evil and profits are evil and good and noble government agencies (possibly international government agencies) employ secret agents to fight these monsters who profit from poisoning the planet.

So, it's basically Fern Gully or Captain Planet done as a Cars-setting movie.

(The fridge logic of the fact that oil to that setting should be what agriculture is to our real world only makes it worse.)

In short, yes, Cars 2, from all I've heard, is somebody's anti-business, anti-oil screed given a veneer of Cars's setting and branding to try to sell it. From what I heard, it did well opening weekend, then word of mouth made it flop overall. So it's not even a well-done screed.

FatherXmas

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,646
  • You think the holidays are bad for you ...
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2013, 08:22:39 PM »
Then you really need to see it because it's not like that.

Have you ever seen any mistaken identity spy spoofs before?  That's the fundamental basis of Cars 2, the spy who isn't a spy but everyone believes is a spy.  Most notable example of the genre is the French film "The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe" which was remade in the US as "The Man with One Red Shoe" with Tom Hanks in the lead role.  The original French film is funnier.

Have you ever seen any Bond films before?  How many Bond villains are trying to control some industry?  Try not to read anymore into it than that.  If you insist on drawing analogies remember fuel is food in the Cars universe so what saves the day was "organic" fuel so if any business was being bashed it's big aggro.
Tempus unum hominem manet

Twitter - AtomicSamuraiRobot@NukeSamuraiBot

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2013, 08:45:15 PM »
I might give it a look, but I still think "spy movie" is not a logical sequel to Cars. (I did enjoy The Man With One Red Shoe.)

And I tend to dislike bashing industries in general. ("Organic" foods are such a scam.)

*cough*

Anyway. I'm excited to see an Incredibles 2. I liked all 3 Toy Stories, and Incredibles, unlike Cars, was left wide open with hooks for sequels.

Rust

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Oddball
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2013, 09:27:52 PM »
Cars 2 suffers not for plot (or lack there of) or changing up the story. Cars 2 suffers because it makes the comedic relief character the central focus.

Basically, Cars 2 is The Ewok Adventure.
All that I'm after is a life filled with laughter

Arnabas

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2013, 01:08:10 AM »
Cars 2 suffers not for plot (or lack there of) or changing up the story. Cars 2 suffers because it makes the comedic relief character the central focus.

Basically, Cars 2 is The Ewok Adventure.

This.

I liked Mater just fine in the context of the first movie, but switching roles so that he is the lead and McQueen is basically the sidekick just doesn't work for me.


I have this odd feeling that with all the sequels, we are moving into Pixar's Silver Age.

Rust

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Oddball
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #29 on: July 02, 2013, 03:59:06 AM »
I can't blame Pixar for going for the low hanging fruit of Sequels. It's easy money for them, and that makes them look good to their Disney overmasters. Disney's "doing it right" by not ransacking the management of the companies they buy (Thus being relatively "low impact" across the board and making their monopoly a generally accepted one), but Pixar still has to be really pressed to show positive growth to keep things that way. If that means drinking from the sequel cup, then that's what will happen.

The biggest issue I have is Pixar doesn't seem to understand the idea behind "sequel" for their other properties. Cars 2 was a radical departure in style and tone from the first film, and Monsters University just flat out confuses me (It's a Prequel that is also a College Movie...about people that scare others for a living. I'm not able to marry Animal House to Ghostbusters no matter how hard I try). Heck, Toy Story - if I'm going to be brutally honest - shifted tone in each of its sequels too. Toy Story 3 is a very, very bleak story even compared with the eminent destruction of Woody and Buzz in the first film.

It's almost like Pixar itself doesn't understand what magic these properties had that grabbed our attention. I fully anticipate the inevitable Wall*E Sequel to involve another Cruise Ship returning to Earth and the clash between they and those that came before in a sort of twist on the Alien Invasion story.
All that I'm after is a life filled with laughter

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2013, 01:01:39 PM »
Shifts in tone are not necessarily bad; in Toy Story, they worked. Pixar has always been a bit of an envelope-pusher, not in the actually-quite-safe-nowadays sense that Hollywood "pushes the envelope" by being increasingly raunchy or otherwise inappropriate (or pushing a political agenda popular in Hollywood that they pretend makes them mavericks), but by actually trying new things, artistically.

Pixar also actually, to my understanding, has an incredibly sweet deal in terms of their liberty and self-control. Recall that Pixar was originally a sub-division of Disney that then later was successful enough (but not quite the direction Disney thought they wanted to go) to split off. When they re-merged, it was because Disney was back in an acquisitions cycle, and Disney saw Pixar as doing really well. Pixar was asked to come back, and got elevated beyond being a sub-division. It's called "Disney-Pixar" for a reason, now. I don't think Disney has quite the level of control to arbitrarily move management around that they might with other properties.

That said, Pixar making sequels is not a bad thing; their design model is CGI, and so re-use of actors and sets is an enormous money- and time-saver. And pushing the design envelope to try out other "feels" that their settings can give is fine, so long as they don't go so far off kilter that it's "just weird." As, apparently, Cars 2 and MU are. (Notably, it could be that some of these will become favorites of different audiences who found the originals to be not to their taste, so it's an interesting approach.)

In short, I think Pixar knows what they're doing, and are not doing it cynically but with an eye towards being originators of new models of movie-making.

Lightslinger

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 277
  • @Lightslinger, Virtue
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2013, 05:43:27 PM »
I really don't get the Cars hate, but I think its because I'm practically from Radiator Springs.

The town I live in is nothing more than an abandoned Main Street and farms now. It used to be one of the main roads into Nashville, but the interstate changed all that.

Cars was all about slowing down and enjoying things like we used to, not constantly looking to go faster like we've been taught. It's an important lesson and I think people miss that and think it's just a race car movie. Cars was just as good as any Pixar movie to me.

I didn't like Cars 2 at all, felt like a cash in to me, but like I've said before I absolutely don't blame Pixar at all for that. If Cars 2 means we get an awesome Incredibles 2, so be it.

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2013, 06:33:18 PM »
I admit to not having seen Cars 2, so take this as the second-hand analysis it is.

What I have heard of its plot sounds like it has little to actually do with the first movie, and shoehorns an excuse to get the main character from the first into it. It then makes the grave mistake of being an anti-business paean to the theory that oil is evil and profits are evil and good and noble government agencies (possibly international government agencies) employ secret agents to fight these monsters who profit from poisoning the planet.

So, it's basically Fern Gully or Captain Planet done as a Cars-setting movie.

(The fridge logic of the fact that oil to that setting should be what agriculture is to our real world only makes it worse.)

In short, yes, Cars 2, from all I've heard, is somebody's anti-business, anti-oil screed given a veneer of Cars's setting and branding to try to sell it. From what I heard, it did well opening weekend, then word of mouth made it flop overall. So it's not even a well-done screed.

Well, it was kinda hard for them, as Avatar had recently knocked the same message out of the park.
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

Rust

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Oddball
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2013, 06:43:44 PM »
Dancing with Smurfs was nothing the likes of Ferngully and Princess Mononoke hadn't done before, though.
All that I'm after is a life filled with laughter

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2013, 06:47:08 PM »
Dancing with Smurfs was nothing the likes of Ferngully and Princess Mononoke hadn't done before, though.

They just didn't have an insanely egotistical tyrant of a director to turn them into a pop culture sensation :P
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

FatherXmas

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,646
  • You think the holidays are bad for you ...
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2013, 07:27:44 PM »
Shifts in tone are not necessarily bad; in Toy Story, they worked. Pixar has always been a bit of an envelope-pusher, not in the actually-quite-safe-nowadays sense that Hollywood "pushes the envelope" by being increasingly raunchy or otherwise inappropriate (or pushing a political agenda popular in Hollywood that they pretend makes them mavericks), but by actually trying new things, artistically.

Pixar also actually, to my understanding, has an incredibly sweet deal in terms of their liberty and self-control. Recall that Pixar was originally a sub-division of Disney that then later was successful enough (but not quite the direction Disney thought they wanted to go) to split off. When they re-merged, it was because Disney was back in an acquisitions cycle, and Disney saw Pixar as doing really well. Pixar was asked to come back, and got elevated beyond being a sub-division. It's called "Disney-Pixar" for a reason, now. I don't think Disney has quite the level of control to arbitrarily move management around that they might with other properties.

That said, Pixar making sequels is not a bad thing; their design model is CGI, and so re-use of actors and sets is an enormous money- and time-saver. And pushing the design envelope to try out other "feels" that their settings can give is fine, so long as they don't go so far off kilter that it's "just weird." As, apparently, Cars 2 and MU are. (Notably, it could be that some of these will become favorites of different audiences who found the originals to be not to their taste, so it's an interesting approach.)

In short, I think Pixar knows what they're doing, and are not doing it cynically but with an eye towards being originators of new models of movie-making.

Actually no, Pixar wasn't part of Disney and then escaped. 

Pixar was part of LucasFilm who sold them off to Steve Jobs and other investors in 1986.  They created one of the foundations to professional 3D ray trace rendering with RenderMan in 1988.  They became a big name in raytracing, showing off various short films at SIGGRAPH, displaying new capabilities they had been adding to Renderman.  But the market at the time was very small, computers weren't very powerful and it didn't pay the bills.  They eventually got a three movie deal with Disney in 1991 from the notoriety from SIGGRAPH shorts and some commercials they had done.  After Toy Story's success the company went public in 1995.

They did have problems with Disney after the original three movie deal was over until there was a change in Disney's upper management in 2005.  In 2006 Pixar was sold to Disney for a stupidly large amount of money and Pixar senior management essentially took over running Disney's entire animation group, which had been dying off due to neglect by the previous Disney management.  Pixar itself is treated as a hands off subsidiary to preserve the atmosphere that made Pixar Pixar.
Tempus unum hominem manet

Twitter - AtomicSamuraiRobot@NukeSamuraiBot

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2013, 09:06:09 PM »
Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks for the history, FatherXmas!


And if Avatar (by James Cameron, not "The Last Airbender") "knocked [its] message out of the park," then its message requires a ludicrous amount of author on board and different reality of nature and physics to make it work, and demonstrably cannot on Earth.

I somehow doubt that's James Cameron's intent, but hey. (The animation WAS beautiful in it, though. It could have used a little tighter plotting to avoid certain elements of fridge logic that honestly hurt its message, such as the fact that he never actually tried to make an offer, at all, or even remember to mention the impending mining until it was too late to make it anything but a fight.) But that's plot nitpicking.

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2013, 09:19:13 PM »
A message about evil corporations doesn't need to be set on Earth - just look at the Trade federation :P
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

Arnabas

  • Minion
  • **
  • Posts: 48
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #38 on: July 03, 2013, 02:41:53 AM »
I really don't get the Cars hate, but I think its because I'm practically from Radiator Springs.

I liked Cars. I was surprised that my wife loved it. My son loved it, too. I never understood the hate either.

FatherXmas

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,646
  • You think the holidays are bad for you ...
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #39 on: July 03, 2013, 04:23:25 AM »
I liked Cars. I was surprised that my wife loved it. My son loved it, too. I never understood the hate either.

NASCAR is popular in the south.  And since all southerners, according to liberal northerners, are all uneducated, bigoted, homophobic, gun toting, religious zealots, NASCAR suffers guilt by association.  And therefore any attempt to have a main character of what is a family film being a NASCAR racer, well that's endorsing the uneducated, bigoted, homophobic, gun toting, religious zealotry of the south.

Yes that is an exaggeration.  However I know a lot of people who think NASCAR is the roller derby or professional wrestling of auto sports, strictly blue collar.  Real auto racing is Formula One or Le Mans style duration racing where you turn both left and right and are watched by people in fancy suits and dresses, sipping wine or mix drinks and arriving there by private jet or yacht.  Definitely not beer drinking folks in motor homes who listen to country music.



I feel that this kind of knee jerk dislike for the sport happen as politics in the US became more polarizing resulting in the red/blue state divide.  When Tom Cruise did "Days of Thunder" aka "Top Gun with Wheels" in 1990 that movie was fairly popular even with non-NASCAR fans.  Now NASCAR racing has to be a butt of a joke like "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" for it to be popular for non-NASCAR fans.

For full disclosure I live in a small town with a half mile oval that has racing every weekend in from late spring to early fall and is the towns primary tourist attraction besides a few camp grounds.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 09:18:51 AM by FatherXmas »
Tempus unum hominem manet

Twitter - AtomicSamuraiRobot@NukeSamuraiBot

JKPhage

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #40 on: July 03, 2013, 08:35:06 AM »
Dancing with Smurfs was nothing the likes of Ferngully and Princess Mononoke hadn't done before, though.

Or even further before that, Nausicaa, which I think did the environmental thing even better than Mononoke, but that could just be my personal preference.

I do adore Pixar, and I think any of us who are fans have worried a little bit about their sequels, but hey, no movie studio is perfect, and there's bound to be a bad one here and there. They had a stretch where they literally did not have a bad film out, and that was absolutely ASTOUNDING, but hey, I'm not gonna write them off as sell-outs or washed up just because they may put out a bad film, or even a bad sequel/prequel every now and then. I haven't seen Cars, though it's on my list, but I've already written off it's sequel just from all the "not good" I've heard about it, and I'm not even considering Planes, which really just makes me roll my eyes and go "You're trying too hard, guys." In the long run they've given us Finding Nemo, Toy Story 1-3, Up, Ratatouille, The Incredibles, Monsters Inc., A Bugs Life, Wall-E and Brave, and John Lasseter was largely responsible for the success of Meet The Robinsons (Which I honestly treat as basically a pixar film as it uses a lot of their style and was guided along by suggestions and input from Mr. Lasseter), not to mention all the delightfully charming little shorts they've released. That's more or less 18 years as a production studio without ever releasing a truly awful movie. I'm gonna give them the benefit of a doubt and see where they go. Even if they put out something that just doesn't really do it for me, you also have to account for personal taste. As amazing as I thought Wall-E was, there were plenty of people out there who thought it was awful. I think those people missed the point of the film entirely, but again, that's just my opinion.

If they release something that just isn't my cup of tea, oh well, I don't like every flavor of ice cream either, but that doesn't mean I stop eating a certain brand because they make a flavor I don't like. Now, if Pixar starts making consistently bad movies then we'll have a problem, but they are subsidiary to Disney again now, and if they have to crank out a certain quota to appease company bigwigs then I won't hold it against them. If I have to ignore a bad sequel here, or a less than stellar film there, that's alright, I'll just appreciate the masterpieces even more when they're released. It's when those bad sequels and lackluster films become the norm and those masterpieces become something we only see once out of every ten films that we'll have an issue to my eyes. Pixar set the bar extremely high for themselves and they've gone nearly two decades without really messing up much at all, but nothing is perfect, nor does anything last forever, so if I have to just say "Eh, I just won't watch that one" every three or so films, I won't call that a failure on their part.

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #41 on: July 03, 2013, 01:19:06 PM »
A message about evil corporations doesn't need to be set on Earth - just look at the Trade federation :P
That one at least had less obvious "the pure and innocent natives are awesome for living in harmony with nature...because their nature works in a way that naturally gives them advantages similar to what humans need to use modern technology to achieve" idiocy. That's what I'm talking about with Avatar: Yes, Avatar shows that an alien people who can psychically link with "nature" can achieve dominance and stewardship of it in a 100% non-invasive way (or at least, deceive themselves that they're being non-invasive, as stewardship ALWAYS involves some level of invasion as it involves changing the "natural" order to one that is more healthy for the system overall through intelligent guidance).

In fact, in order to make the point that Evil Humans are "ruining everything" with their Evil Corporate Greed, James Cameron had to create, in essence, God (of Pandora, at least) as a being that guides things, so that the Evil Corporation could attack God.

A bit of a strange thing for a movement that usually decries belief in God as part of what makes the Judeo-Christian America, run by Evil Corporations, so evil.

Or even further before that, Nausicaa, which I think did the environmental thing even better than Mononoke, but that could just be my personal preference.
Naussica also had some silliness, but it was much, much better done. Especially if you, I understand, read the manga, which details how nature can, if nurtured properly, cleanse itself of pollutants.



Personally, I tend to find the environmentalist movement to be two things: a front for stealth communists (look at how just about everything that is somehow harmful to the environment according to these movements is capitalist in nature, and how things they support as "eco-friendly" suddenly become the next destroyer of the environment when somebody finds a way to make them work profitably and spread it to mainstream use), or a perverse narcissism. How narcissism? Think about it: Man is so almighty and powerful that we can utterly destroy the environment of an entire world, when we occuply less than 20% of it. And most of our occupation thereof is concentrated in an even smaller area, with a ridiculously thin spread around the rest of the space. And yet, we can destroy it. And, further, environmentalists believe that they, through their actions (which rarely actually impede their lives, even though they demand activities or restrictions thereof that would impede others' greatly), save the world. How important that makes them! How righteous! How noble! How powerful! Bow down before these tiny gods, who hold in their hands the salvation or destruction of the Earth!

No, they don't put it in those words, but the hysteria associated with some of the pushes, and the images of how much we "change" the world by just not doing as these prophets of global desolation command in all their fiction, does tell that same tale.

(And no, not all who believe in that false religion are fanatics or preachers; many are just swept up in it. But I do wish people would critically examine the claims and consider the motives of the claimants; ever notice how environmentalist leaders get very wealthy selling the cure for the ailment, and often at government expense that they persuaded people had to happen?)

Golden Girl

  • One Liners and Winky Faces
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,242
    • Heroes and Villains
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #42 on: July 03, 2013, 07:08:21 PM »
You're harming the environment by using that much tinfoil :P
"Heroes and Villains" website - http://www.heroes-and-villains.com
"Heroes and Villains" on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/HeroesAndVillainsMMORPG
"Heroes and Villains" on Twitter - https://twitter.com/Plan_Z_Studios
"Heroes and Villains" teaser trailer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnjKqNPfFv8
Artwork - http://goldengirlcoh.deviantart.com

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #43 on: July 03, 2013, 10:18:25 PM »
What tinfoil? I'm not the one who thinks corporations are all massive eldrich horrors out to use secret rituals to turn destruction of the planet and its people's souls into money. :P


More seriously, there's no conspiracy theory here. It's just how these people are.

Environmentalists  - at least, the prominent ones - are anti-capitalist more than they are pro-environment, and all you have to do to recognize it is watch how they behave. Of course, they're also hypocrites, by and large (e.g. Al Gore and his massive fortune off of carbon credits which he uses to fund massive mansions and jets and SUVs, and who sold his failing TV network to Oil Sheiks...obviously no qualms about accepting oil money!), so it's not surprising that they love making money off of their artificial crises.

Again, it's no conspiracy theory. They're not some cabal getting together with secret decoder rings and mind control rays. It's just a movement that has been co-opted by greedy people.

But this is really getting off-topic. We can hurl anti-eco-wacko and anti-corporate and anti-capitalist and anti-communist and other political and pseudo-political rants back and forth all day, and we'll not convince each other. Let's focus on the Incredibles 2, which will be great fun, I'm sure, and is something to which I greatly look forward. ^_^

Rust

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
  • Oddball
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #44 on: July 04, 2013, 12:56:57 AM »
Environmentalists  - at least, the prominent ones - are anti-capitalist more than they are pro-environment, and all you have to do to recognize it is watch how they behave. Of course, they're also hypocrites, by and large (e.g. Al Gore and his massive fortune off of carbon credits which he uses to fund massive mansions and jets and SUVs, and who sold his failing TV network to Oil Sheiks...obviously no qualms about accepting oil money!), so it's not surprising that they love making money off of their artificial crises.

Don't forget Greenpeace's massive Diesel Chugging Flagship.
All that I'm after is a life filled with laughter

JaguarX

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,393
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2013, 02:12:22 AM »
Don't forget Greenpeace's massive Diesel Chugging Flagship.

Of course. But that dont count as pollution, because it's Greenpeace.  :p

Segev

  • Plan Z: Interim Producer
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,573
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #46 on: July 08, 2013, 12:52:04 PM »
It's awful, but every time I see "Greenpeace's" name, I want to write a parody set to "Greensleeves."

ag88t88

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Ice_Wall
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2013, 10:19:32 AM »
I'm all for it, Brad Bird knows how to tell an interesting story with interesting people, I've always felt the first Incredibles was a great introduction to a family and a world (Not to dissimilar to CoH in the prevalence of it's hero community and it's classical comic book inspired atmosphere)  that deserved some follow up.  Once the family of supers is joined, what are they going to do? They say in the sequel mom and pop would be hanging up their tights but I think that's almost a shame because I think a true Super Hero family could be an interesting take on Super Hero Mythos in general.  That said I'd watch any Incredibles 2, and I think Pixar could do great with it,  I love basically anything they've done so far with the exception of the Cars\Planes Franchise.

Felderburg

  • Ask me how I got this title!
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,615
  • Personal text? What's that?
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2013, 10:19:10 PM »
Your Mileage May Vary, I guess. To me, I took the appearance of the Underminer at the end of the film to be a signal that the era of the costumed hero had returned (Of which we saw the death of at the beginning of the film), not a prospective sequel villain.

Yeah, it seemed like the Underminer was more of an ending joke, showing the start of a new costumed era, rather than a serious villain. He basically had the one punchline: "I am under you, but nothing is beneath me!" It's amusing, sure, but not enough to make a whole main character out of. I mean, it's basically making fun of people that will do anything to make others look bad. But I wouldn't want to try to stretch that out into something more.

Besides, given the masks being put on at the end of the film, he was most likely defeated rather quickly.


Edit: I should add, that I will be wary about an Incredibles sequel. I think it stands VERY well on its own.
I used CIT before they even joined the Titan network! But then I left for a long ol' time, and came back. Now I edit the wiki.

I'm working on sorting the Lore AMAs so that questions are easily found and linked: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Lore_AMA/Sorted Tell me what you think!

Pinnacle: The only server that faceplants before a fight! Member of the Pinnacle RP Congress (People's Elf of the CCCP); formerly @The Holy Flame

Mantic

  • Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 172
Re: The Incredibles 2. 2015
« Reply #49 on: July 18, 2013, 12:40:31 PM »
Pixar was smart when they signed with Disney... a lot more than most. Or they just had more leverage for some reason. For a Disney asset, Pixar retains a lot of creative control...

Yeah... Pixar is definitely not Disney Studio.


...and I can't think of a time where they've disappointed (I cannot yet speak for Monster University).

I can. More and more until I've finally completely fallen out of love with them. They do make pretty pictures, but the movies are vapid and insulting on a level Disney Animation Studio films never sunk to. I'd say Brave was my breaking point. Very pretty movie, but that's all I can say for it.

Incredibles was back when I didn't hate Pixar. Incredibles 2... worries me.