Order of Disney SE DVDs?

Post by **Ben** » June 14th, 2005, 4:55 pm

But I don't think Jack-Jack Attack works as a stand-alone short at all, which is a shame, since it really is some kind of bizarre deleted scene extension or, like DreamWorks do, a coda to the main movie.

It just wouldn't make sense to someone seeing that before The Incredibles, and would also ruin the "surprise" ending for them.

Get your point about the level of technique though!

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 14th, 2005, 5:22 pm

But I don't think Jack-Jack Attack works as a stand-alone short at all, which is a shame, since it really is some kind of bizarre deleted scene extension or, like DreamWorks do, a coda to the main movie.

Did they originally plan for that scene to be in there, or did they produce it afterwords?

It's funny: I've had the Incredibles since March and I still haven't watched JJA.

I thought the same thing about technique Meg! Score one for "animated CGI babies!"

But IMO the "best" animated baby (or at least my favorite) in a movie is Moses from POE.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 14th, 2005, 6:03 pm

And, no. Let's not let this go off into a flat/ample bosom debate!

Not to stretch this topic even more, but in the new Herbie movie they apparently digitally "altered" Lindsey Lohan's breasts because they were originally too big and not "family friendly."

Post by **Meg** » June 14th, 2005, 6:59 pm

The JJA scenes were originally supposed to be in the film, but Bird wanted to save the suprise for the ending. I wish they had a commentary for it - I really wanted to know what was going on behind it!

Post by **Ben** » June 15th, 2005, 9:07 am

Where did you hear the scenes were supposed to be in the film? There was some stuff boarded, but this got cut out waaaaaaaaay early in production to save it for the end. Interesting, as they still wouldn't have worked simply by cutting them into the film anyway, as there wouldn't have been any "intro" to JJ's powers.

Would have been cool if they'd stuck in on the film at the end, either in a box alongside the credits, or as a coda on the end. However, the different aspect ratios indicate that this was all animated "after the fact", so intended for DVD, this was.

I don't believe a word about the reducing Lohan's boobs in the new Herbie. Not only is that cost prohibitive, but she would have grounds to sue since they would be altering her personal appearance and something that adds to her drawing power. Simple answer is that they woulnd't have hired her if they thought her boobs were too big in the first place, or would have carefully shot or costume designed around that issue.

Do you have a link for this, or is it just rumors, cause I don't believe that is viable on a film like this.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 15th, 2005, 1:22 pm

Here's one link about the Lohan breast issue:

http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/article/2440957

It's been reported on different websites, but where I orignally found the link was on SaveDisney, of all places. (on the film/TV page) They link to the AP, but you have to register first. (as usual

)

Yes, I do check out SD sometimes.

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 15th, 2005, 1:30 pm

But then, it could all just be a rumor:

http://www.zap2it.com/movies/news/story ... 28,00.html

Post by **Ben** » June 15th, 2005, 4:58 pm

Yeah, I have to say that this is hog-wash.

Never heard of a film doing this, especially for a ratings issue. The size of someone's breasts hasn't stopped other G-rated movies from getting their certification.

Interesting to compare scenes from the movie with the "sizzle-reel" that has been doing the rounds on the web for a while now.

Post by **Meg** » June 15th, 2005, 5:54 pm

For JJA, I meant they cut it in the early stages.

Post by **James** » June 15th, 2005, 11:04 pm

Ben wrote:But I don't think Jack-Jack Attack works as a stand-alone short at all, which is a shame, since it really is some kind of bizarre deleted scene extension or, like DreamWorks do, a coda to the main movie.

It just wouldn't make sense to someone seeing that before The Incredibles, and would also ruin the "surprise" ending for them.

I was just watching some of the extra features on the Incredibles DVD and in Brad Bird's intro to disc 2 he specifically mentions that JJA was "created especially for this DVD". So I don't think it's really fair to compare it to a short that was created specifically to stand alone. Apples and oranges here! Maybe the best way to think of it is that JJA is more of a DVD special feature than a short.

Post by **Ben** » June 16th, 2005, 7:57 am

Yeah.

I was just pointing out exactly that, in that it shouldn't really be counted in the line up of Pixar shorts.

Now, how about Mike's New Car?

Post by **ShyViolet** » June 21st, 2005, 10:55 am

I'd say that's a stand-alone short. It's cute and funny, even if you never saw Monsters Inc.

The company play is brilliant, but I guess you have to see the movie to appreciate it.