Incredibles 2 (and 3!)

[ShyViolet]

Clip of the Parrs fighting The Underminer!


http://ew.com/movies/2018/05/29/incredi ... iner-clip/

[EricJ]

Latest class-picture all-marketable-characters final poster for I2:
http://www.impawards.com/2018/incredibl ... ver11.html

...And I'm sure it's only a coincidence that Jack-Jack is blasting away at a raccoon. No hidden messages there.

[Dacey]

You're right. There are no hidden messages there.

[ShyViolet]

Awesome that it’s 93% on RT! Will probably see it in a couple of weeks.

Also very interested to see how they work the whole stay-at-home dad thing into an animated superhero film. Only a Pixar/Bird film would take a chance on a premise like that, even if they don’t portray it 100% positively, (I haven’t read any reviews yet so I don’t yet know how it comes off. I guess we’ll see for ourselves ).

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles_2/

[James]

Boom! Incredibles 2 review is online! (It's hard writing a review without spoilers!)

http://animatedviews.com/2018/incredibles-2-film/

Vi, as a stay-at-home dad of 17 years, I completely approve of the way they handled the stay-at-home dad stuff!

[ShyViolet]

Aw, that’s great to hear James!

[EricJ]

Part of the problem is the villain is not fleshed out very well so motivations are shallow and what they actually want in the end isn’t spelled out satisfactorily.

...Ohhh yah--Knowing Pixar's (and Lasseter-Disney's) style of creating villains, I sat there taking bets on which of the three most obvious characters it would be. And when we got the reveal, I heard someone next to me say "...Yyyyep." before I could. (Although, to be fair, it wasn't the character I was betting on after the final trailer.)

The problem with Why The New Villain Isn't Syndrome is that Syndrome in the first movie was tied in with that "secret ingredient" of all classic-era Pixar stories, the "Not a Flying Toy Moment", when the hero realizes it was his own old-fashioned thinking that caused all the problems, and now he's got to change it--Ie., that the villain turned out to be the same fan Mr. I was rude to all those years ago.
Here, in addition to the villain becoming more and more obvious the more scenes we get with Elasti-Girl, the motivations come out of literally nowhere--

Evelyn's problem is her wrist-slitting female cynicism, and her technology being overlooked by her brother's corporation, neither of which has the slightest thing to do with "Television" or "Relying on supers".

We essentially get two movies, the Elasti-Girl action movie and the Mr. Incredible-Mom comedy, that while they don't really seem to meet up until the end, they check in with each other by phone. It ends up feeling like an episode, which would have been nice if Pixar was making spinoff TV series back then, like Big Hero 6 did.

Still, the opening "Thank you for being patient" PSA did get a big cheer from the audience.
(And given the sheer non-stop "When are you doing Incredibles 2 yet?" nagging every single time Pixar announced a movie since 2004, you don't know the freakin' half of "Patience". )

[ShyViolet]

Disney issues seizure warning; apparently a certain scene with bright lights flashing might affect epileptics:


https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/mov ... 708879002/

[droosan]

So, the short attached to The Incredibles was Boundin' ..

.. and the short attached to Incredibles 2 is Bao ..

.. therefore, the short attached to Incredibles 3 will be B.

[ShyViolet]

Interesting article examining the “Pixar Slump” issue.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmende ... toy-story/

(Still haven’t seen I-2. I’m sure it’s a very enjoyable film. However, just thought I should comment on the fact that he only describes its financial performance and mentions nothing on its storyline/creative qualities, other than to say that it got: “rave reviews.” Again, I haven’t seen it yet, and it sure as heck looks like a whole lot of fun. Still, I couldn’t help but notice that. )

[EricJ]

However, just thought I should comment on the fact that he only describes its financial performance and mentions nothing on its storyline/creative qualities, other than to say that it got: “rave reviews.”

It's Forbes, so I don't think he noticed anything else, and he's a mainstream grownup fan, so I assume he just assumes ALL Pixar movies are tearful Oscar-winning hits, and anything else is a rare unexplainable planetary alignment.
The article's pretty much there to kiss up to I2's box office (now on video and digital! ), even though most critics were already saying that Inside Out "broke the sequel slump" back in '15.

Again, most of the "Slump myth" is still trying to get payback-closure not just for Cars 2, but for Cars 2 breaking the string of Oscar Best Picture nominations--We came so close with Up and Toy Story 3, and then that idiot Mater had to go and mess the whole thing up!

Like you say, my problem with Pixar sequels isn't that they make them (even for those who do or don't know about the Circle 7 days), just that so far they haven't made very good ones. Sequel projects seem to be forced on them from elsewhere, and they get so caught up in the idea that Story department finally came up with an "innovative" idea to pay tribute to the first movie, they lose track of whether it was an appealing or interesting one we would remember ten years later.
Monsters U was pleasant enough, and TS3 had some moments to keep it from being a TS2 retread, but Finding Dory missed the point of the character by a hundred miles, Incredibles 2 was the Long-Distance-Romance Avengers, and...I still have no idea what Cars 3 was about. I'm always on the verge of figuring out what point it was trying to make, and then it just escapes me.

[Ben]

Isn’t he late to the party? I thought Coco broke the doomed Pixar scenario, with almost no-one anywhere that I read taking the view that the studio had taken a step back by releasing an Incredibles sequel. Indeed, the popular opinion was that - if it was even mentioned at all - this was Pixar's best follow-up ever, supposedly continuing the new creative streak they’d "rediscovered" with Coco.

That’s pretty much what I got from the blanket coverage, so ironically this guy is only dragging out his own Pixar is doomed theory even more, and way past it’s sell-by date! Move on...it seems the rest of us have, two movies ago...!

[James]

Don't know the guy and didn't read the piece, but seeing that it is Forbes just a heads up that they have a very liberal policy when it comes to accepting submissions from just about anyone. So unless it's a staff write for Forbes, the author could just be some schmoe like us writing what would normally be a forum post of his opinion but given a higher profile!

[ShyViolet]

Wow, I didn’t even know that. Yeah, there was kind of an “amateurish” feeling to the main piece as well as the one he linked to. He seemed to state the obvious, (as you said, Ben) not once but over and over again.
(Definitely not the mark of a professional journalist, where you’re usually encouraged to write brief but nuanced prose.)

Also the writer of the article he linked to obviously has no real knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes at Disney/Pixar...if he had any inkling of it he definitely wouldn’t state the Pixar’s films were in a slump because they were being “micromanaged by Disney.” Anyone who has the slightest bit of info on how WDAS/Pixar is run knows how ridiculous that statement is. He’s obviously not much more than a fanboy (as is the writer of the original piece, as you said James.)

EDIT: Oops just realized that the article he linked to was actually from The Atlantic. Oh well, from what I’ve heard, that magazine isn’t exactly known for its “scholarship” either.

[Dacey]

Brad Bird is handing the reins to Elemental director Peter Sohn:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 236260365/

However the big news here seems to be that THR may have accidentally revealed that Disney is letting Bird finally make 1906.