Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«3 »
  • Post
  • Reply
lizardman
Jun 30, 2007


Hey, The Incredibles 2 is coming out in like 2 days from this post and apparently there's not a thread? If not, there is one now! It's been 14 years and the Incredibles are BACK!

Director Brad Bird is also back and that means chances are he's going to inject some heavy, uncomfortably pro-elitist themes like the majority of his other movies. For a long while it was popular to argue that his movies were of the Ayn Rand "gently caress other people" objectivist school, but I think consensus has finally cooled on that (for one, his movies aren't really pro-capitalist enough to be objectivist - in fact, a re-occurring motif of his is that capitalism breeds mediocrity!). Regardless, don't be surprised if we encounter a lot of "Society is holding me back from being special!" sentiment.

That aside, word so far has been good, if I have one reservation it's that the plot apparently revolves around Elastigirl going out and fighting crime while the rest of the family plays out a Mr. Mom-esque domestic comedy. I'm sure Pixar can make that all entertaining, but my immediate reaction is that after 14 years I'd feel a little cheated if the action set pieces mostly involve just one of the heroes.

Anyhow talk amongst yourselves!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

friendly 2 da void
Mar 22, 2018



I heard that this movie features an extended "putting body cameras on superheroes" plot line and honestly it killed any desire I had to see it.

Tenzarin
Jul 24, 2007

Let me sing you a song


Taco Defender

friendly 2 da void posted:

I heard that this movie features an extended "putting body cameras on superheroes" plot line and honestly it killed any desire I had to see it.

Holey poo poo, makes you think what they do to the mole men.

935
Jul 28, 2006

abcdefghijk
ELLAMENNO-P


lizardman posted:

That aside, word so far has been good, if I have one reservation it's that the plot apparently revolves around Elastigirl going out and fighting crime while the rest of the family plays out a Mr. Mom-esque domestic comedy. I'm sure Pixar can make that all entertaining, but my immediate reaction is that after 14 years I'd feel a little cheated if the action set pieces mostly involve just one of the heroes.

The trailers were actually really good about not blowing the plot, the whole third act isn't shown in any preview and makes up for any lack of team dynamic. Besides it's not a movie about supherheroes fighting together, it's a movie about a family being a family together whether they're doing normal family stuff or fighting bad guys.

I loved it. I was laughing out loud the whole time, even if it was pretty predictable. It wasn't as grim as the first (no one cried after they thought their family was murdered).

Golden Bee
Dec 24, 2009

I came here to chew bubblegum and quote 'They Live', and I'm... at an impasse.


quote:

friendly 2 da void
I heard that this movie features an extended "putting body cameras on superheroes" plot line and honestly it killed any desire I had to see it.

It’s not an extended plot line, it’s actually not used as much as you would think, just to justify who saw what when.

I thought the opening action scene was amazing, even more so than the closing one. The twist really got me, And a lot of the sillier moments in the film seems to be of the condition “Wow, Jack Jack is ludicrous.”

I really dug the 1960s aesthetic.

There’s no after credits scene but if you watch the credits there are a few songs that are cool.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007


935 posted:

Besides it's not a movie about supherheroes fighting together, it's a movie about a family being a family together whether they're doing normal family stuff or fighting bad guys.

This is true, but I'd say an Incredibles movie would have to feature both family ensemble interaction and fantastic superhero action to fully satisfy. The Incredibles was something of a crossover success for Pixar, notable for combining the family-friendly entertainment Pixar and Disney with strikingly top-tier action that really showcased the versatility of animation and even put its live-action contemporaries to shame (word at the time was Fox had ordered reshoots to Fantastic Four's action set pieces entirely in response to The Incredibles).

qbert
Oct 23, 2003

It's both thrilling and terrifying.

Saw it last night, really enjoyed it. There's a scene with a raccoon that was somehow the best thing in the movie.

The villain's main argument is that relying on superheroes to save you or fix your problems makes you complacent and weak. I'm not smart enough to know where that falls on the Randian scale.

21 Muns
Dec 10, 2016


IDK if we're doing spoilers but the villain's plan was faking 9/11?

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007


qbert posted:

The villain's main argument is that relying on superheroes to save you or fix your problems makes you complacent and weak. I'm not smart enough to know where that falls on the Randian scale.

If that's the villain's viewpoint then it's likely that the movie is presenting it as wrong, i.e. "Yes, trust and believe in the elite for they are superior to you." Obviously it'd be unfair for me to jump to any conclusions about a movie I haven't seen but it'd be entirely within Brad Bird's wheelhouse.

As for how Randian that is it's kind of like the rest of Bird's output; it shares the pro-elitist streak but not the pro-selfishness. Objectivism is all about everyone acting according to his or her self-interest and allowing the gifted to naturally rise to the top, while Brad Bird movies seem to regard the elite as almost intrinsically selfless and their villains tend to be envious haters trying to get in their way - the villain of the first Incredibles is a wannabe-Superhero trying to rise above his station.

(On that last point, it's interesting to see how Bird tackled Ratatouille, which is all about the protagonist trying to rise above his station in life - the movie presents race and class as false systems that are holding back Remy's inherent greatness.)

The more I think about Bird's movies the more it seems to me that he isn't even really trying to present an actual political ideology and is more just a big snob who loves celebrating excellence and 'the finer things in life' (hey, nothin' wrong with that) and has a rod shoved up his butt that most people are such philistines who don't appreciate quality and are complacent with cookie-cutter mediocrity. It's this last part where it gets a little weird - especially at the apparent, jealous insistence that the existence of mediocrity is some kind of active threat to the existence of brilliance. His movies always have this touch of pent-up frustration to them and he should probably smoke some weed or something and chill a bit.

sean10mm
Jun 29, 2005

Dispensing unwanted fitness advice since 2005. P.S. Squat more! BEEFCAKE!!!

One nice thing about The Incredibles is how venomous its hate is for that greedy corporate rear end in a top hat who wants old poor ladies to suffer for the almighty shareholders. Dude gets almost liquefied and the movie is like LOL REKT BITCH.

It's not an ideologically consistent movie at all, but it's not Randian jerking off of *job creators* by any stretch.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

Come on, fellas, you're losing your heads!


Just got back from seeing this. Outstanding - I honestly wasn't expecting it to be anywhere near as good as the original, but it is. I'm actually surprised it's a little over two hours because it barely lets up on the pacing. Couldn't have asked for a better audience. Everyone cheered as soon as the title came up and people clapped several times. A bunch even clapped after the intro, but it was thunderous at the end. Though, it was hilarious seeing people who stayed through the credits being let down by the lack of a stinger.

The kids seemed to love it. Which is neat because half that theater's audience wasn't even alive when the original was made.

(Oh yeah, Bao was a crowd pleaser - the laughter after the eating drowned out the next minute of the short)

Kart Barfunkel
Nov 10, 2009


The animation done with Void’s powers were insane and really well executed.

This whole movie was really well paced and well executed.

lizardman
Jun 30, 2007


Good lord this thing is probably going to make almost $200 million this weekend and this thread has like a dozen posts. Goons seem to be in that exact demographic age to miss this one apparently.

Warm und Fuzzy
Jun 20, 2006



I'm glad I'm not the only one who was disgusted by the elitism of the first one.

Diabetic
Sep 29, 2006

Type 1 Diabetic - Fuck yo' sugar


14 years ago I loved it for being a super hero movie that managed to do fantastic four right that marvel couldn't. Now, I love the sequel because I'm literally living the life of Mr. Incredible and they did a good job showing a dad that tries. My only complaint may be the main plot was a little too similar to the original.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012


I just saw the movie. While the movie has many more moving parts than the original, parts that occasionally get tangled, I enjoyed it far more than any other superhero movie I've seem this year.

Regarding the story, I was a bit surprised that Winston, the billionaire tech executive, finished the movie looking so morally pure. When he was first introduced, I expected that Screenslaver was a ploy by him and his sister to scare the world into re-accepting superheroes. Given the direction that the movie eventually goes, though, I'm not sure I like the movie trying to hide Screenslaver's identity and motivation until the third act. It seemed to lead to some odd dissonance with how she is portrayed early on.

The "new" superheroes were all very fun characters. I really enjoyed how creative many of their powers were. Void's abilities were especially cool.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 03:11

Missingnoleader
Mar 10, 2014


I really enjoyed this movie. The twist really did get me

I too thought it was the brother, who was engineering the events to get the law signed. So I was surprised it was the sister who was setting it up just to salt the earth for legalization.

DC Murderverse
Nov 10, 2016

"Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!"


Missingnoleader posted:

I really enjoyed this movie. The twist really did get me

I too thought it was the brother, who was engineering the events to get the law signed. So I was surprised it was the sister who was setting it up just to salt the earth for legalization.

i was expecting this too, which is very Watchmen.

Funnily, the first "oh this reminds me of..." moment I had was at the beginning when Helen and Bob were arguing about whether breaking a just or unjust law to save people is right, because Holly Hunter talking about government regulation and superheroes triggers my Beavis senses.

Also Void looked distractingly like Mackenzie Davis.

Wylie
Jun 27, 2005

Ever to conquer, never to yield.

Given her powers, I was really hoping Void’s name would have been Chell.

BrianWilly
Apr 24, 2007

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I thought it was decent and I'm glad people are enjoying it, but honestly it's TYOOL 2018 and I'm way past bored of "Hey check it, yo, hey what if...listen, what if...what if people......don't trust superheroes? Eh?? Ehh?????" plots in muh muvies.

The villain's motivations in this just felt particularly slapdash and skimpy in a way that I'm even now trying to process. "I'm gonna help my brother make people like you again...just so I can make people dislike you again! WITH MURDER! Because my parents trusted heroes to save them and then got killed! Because the heroes were illegal!" Wait what

Maybe my expectations were too skewed because the first Incredibles was one of my favorite movies ever because it had such interesting things to say about the superheroic genre. This one...ultimately, I don't know if it had anything to say. And not just about superheroes but about anything. The best parts of this film are when they were dealing with the family issues, but then ultimately those issues take a back seat to the weird villain plot and then never get brought up again. The tension between Bob and Helen and their insecurities is never resolved. Dash gets nothing to do. Violet's arc is...nothing. It almost felt like a random episode of a hypothetical Incredibles TV show that got stretched () into a movie-length...thing.

Also the sister character looked so much like the female lead in Megamind that I seriously thought for a while that they were crossing over the two universes.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012


BrianWilly posted:

The villain's motivations in this just felt particularly slapdash and skimpy in a way that I'm even now trying to process. "I'm gonna help my brother make people like you again...just so I can make people dislike you again! WITH MURDER! Because my parents trusted heroes to save them and then got killed! Because the heroes were illegal!" Wait what

I don't agree with your other criticisms, but I do generally agree with this.

As I said before, I wasn't surprised by the villain's identity, because the skill set and the Law of the Conservation of Characters only pointed to one person, but I was surprised by the motive. Up until the reveal, the only thing to suggest that Evelyn is bitter about superheroes is a casual, throwaway line about how her father went for the phone instead of the safe room. I enjoyed the character before and after the reveal, but there was some missing connective tissue between the two versions of her.

I wish the movie had spent more time developing Evelyn and her brother, but I don't see how that was possible with everything else going on in the movie.

Aladdin
Feb 16, 2011


Regarding the villain, I know it could easily be just because she's an inventor, but could the rolled up papers she had when she first arrives be all the blueprints and such we see at Screenslaver's hideout?

Fuligin
Oct 27, 2010

ahh..what!? what?!
huh?!

The action sequences in this were really fantastic and well paced. Loved the raccoon jack-jack death match

Gatts
Jan 2, 2001


Nap Ghost

This was wonderful. Top tier superhero movie. It's an actual movie, like it has structure, character driven motivations, arcs, plots, a lived in world, visually can tell a story, subtle nuance, etc. etc. Which already sets it apart from most disposable superhero flicks. It's entertaining, fun, family friendly, solid voice acting (though Craig T Nelson sounded like he was showing his age). Like, I love Deadpool and R rated superhero movies, but this is great on the other end of the spectrum and already does and addresses a "Civil War," in a easily digestible way.

Hoping we can at least get one more in the next 5 years with this family. Pretty sure Jack Jack and the kids can carry their own franchises eventually.

Davethulhu
Aug 12, 2003

Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

Jade Ear Joe

Fuligin posted:

Loved the raccoon jack-jack death match

The raccoon is the true villain of the movie.

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

Come on, fellas, you're losing your heads!


QuoProQuid posted:

I don't agree with your other criticisms, but I do generally agree with this.

As I said before, I wasn't surprised by the villain's identity, because the skill set and the Law of the Conservation of Characters only pointed to one person, but I was surprised by the motive. Up until the reveal, the only thing to suggest that Evelyn is bitter about superheroes is a casual, throwaway line about how her father went for the phone instead of the safe room. I enjoyed the character before and after the reveal, but there was some missing connective tissue between the two versions of her.

I wish the movie had spent more time developing Evelyn and her brother, but I don't see how that was possible with everything else going on in the movie.


Also, Evelyn is most likely an alcoholic.

Sentient Data
Aug 31, 2011

My molecule scrambler ray will disintegrate your armor with one blow!


A good movie, it was interesting to see that they subtly aged up everyone (mainly everyone having constant baggy eyes and dash being a lot more triangular), and I'm happy I was wrong about a plot twist. I thought the fact that there were distinctly two robbers meant that it would be the brother and sister performing a very hostile takeover of the company. I also really liked the love cures hypnosis subversion

Erotic Wakes
May 19, 2018


One of the biggest laughs my theater got was when Frozone peaced out the moment cops started showing up. The cameo of the family watching Johnny Quest was really loving cute too.

This movie's villain almost seemed like a direct response to people who completely missed the point of the first and thought that it was Randian, the villain is straight-up a genius randian ubermensch inventor and captain of industry who idolizes individual strength to the point of causing wanton havoc and death in the name of forcing people to not rely on others for help. The way that she openly struggles with understanding and relating to other people to the point of sociopathic misanthropy, looking down on her brother and being hostile towards superheroes because the idea of people not acting selfishly is so completely alien to her that she can only parse it as naivete or manipulation, also smacks of the lack of basic human empathy that embodies objectivism and other "gently caress you got mine" worldviews. The fact that Winston Deavor was ultimately blameless if not virtuous also goes against that, if the movie really was was supposed to be Objectivist then the guy who doesn't actually make anything and inherited the position through nepotism would be the villain.

friendly 2 da void posted:

I heard that this movie features an extended "putting body cameras on superheroes" plot line and honestly it killed any desire I had to see it.

Until I read this post I didn't even consider that somebody would try and draw a parallel to the way that cameras are used in the film to police body cameras. Whoever told you that is making an extremely bad faith argument, their function in the film is completely different. If anything it's more analogous to making a GoPro video to try and go viral than a cop wearing one for oversight purposes.

21 Muns posted:

IDK if we're doing spoilers but the villain's plan was faking 9/11?

When Elastigirl busts Screenslaver he sets off an explosion to cover "his" tracks by destroying all the evidence, I figure destroying all the mind-controlled superheroes and witnesses in one big explosion was just a larger scale version of that.

E. Also having Jonathan Banks do the voice of Rick Dicker this time around was a very cute nod to Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul with Bob Odenkirk being on of the main characters in this.

Erotic Wakes fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 19:38

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008



I was very entertained- the gags were great and the action set pieces were great. The story that it all hangs on is awfully skimpy, though. For all the time we spend with Helen, what's her arc? She takes on a job, it isn't what it seems, and despite that it basically works out the way it was originally intended to, I guess? Is Bob's jealousy and frustration at having to stay at home ever really resolved? Was he right to hide everything going on at home from Helen? It overall feels like this one is far less critical of the Parrs and their motives than the first one was. The villain tells Helen that they could be friends except for the differences in their values, but that 's kind of a worthless statement because we know dick-all about either of their values.

It's also a really strange move to put Bob and Helen under mind control for a good 20-25 minutes of screen time. It's absolutely been their movie up until that point; to take them off of the table and have the kids take over for half of act 3 just feels like a misstep. It finishes with the kids displaying their reliability and value, but that's well-trod ground from the first movie.

General Dog fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 20:57

Z. Autobahn
Jul 20, 2004

colonel tigh more like colonel high

The action scenes were a blast and the family stuff was great, but man, that movie was just totally incoherent from a structural and thematic perspective. What's the takeaway from the gender-role reversal stuff? By the end, they're all just doing heroic things together just like they were at the start, so what's the point of anything? Why does the villain have a bunch of anti-consumerist rants... are they wrong? Right? Just random ideas hurled into the void to seem smarter than it actually is? How does anything about the villain's plan make sense? Superheroes are illegal... so I'm going to make them legal... and then make them ILLEGAL AGAIN ? What the hell does 'superheroes are illegal' even mean in a movie in which Elastigirl is openly doing superheroic things and taking public interviews about them and not being arrested? On the most basic level what is this movie ABOUT?

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008



Z. Autobahn posted:

The action scenes were a blast and the family stuff was great, but man, that movie was just totally incoherent from a structural and thematic perspective. What's the takeaway from the gender-role reversal stuff? By the end, they're all just doing heroic things together just like they were at the start, so what's the point of anything? Why does the villain have a bunch of anti-consumerist rants... are they wrong? Right? Just random ideas hurled into the void to seem smarter than it actually is? How does anything about the villain's plan make sense? Superheroes are illegal... so I'm going to make them legal... and then make them ILLEGAL AGAIN ? What the hell does 'superheroes are illegal' even mean in a movie in which Elastigirl is openly doing superheroic things and taking public interviews about them and not being arrested? On the most basic level what is this movie ABOUT?

Yeah. Though the villain is basically using her brother's sincere enthusiasm about bringing back/legalizing the supers to set up a honeypot/false flag, so the plan at least makes sense on that level.

One problem is that for all the focus on the supers' relationship to the normie public, we basically never see them interact with the public in any context other than hurling them out of harm's way. Do the Parrs even have any friends who aren't tied to the superhero/industrial complex? Other than Tony Rydinger?

Missingnoleader
Mar 10, 2014


Z. Autobahn posted:

The action scenes were a blast and the family stuff was great, but man, that movie was just totally incoherent from a structural and thematic perspective. What's the takeaway from the gender-role reversal stuff? By the end, they're all just doing heroic things together just like they were at the start, so what's the point of anything? Why does the villain have a bunch of anti-consumerist rants... are they wrong? Right? Just random ideas hurled into the void to seem smarter than it actually is? How does anything about the villain's plan make sense? Superheroes are illegal... so I'm going to make them legal... and then make them ILLEGAL AGAIN ? What the hell does 'superheroes are illegal' even mean in a movie in which Elastigirl is openly doing superheroic things and taking public interviews about them and not being arrested? On the most basic level what is this movie ABOUT?

The villains main goal is to make even the thought of super heroes being restored to legal status to be political suicide. To kill all public trust in supers. She blames supers for her parents death cause her father believed that they would save his life more then the safe room would. Screenslaver himself was the puppet to play out the whole legalization process to gather the most prominent political supporters in one place and kill them.

Supers being illegal is more in the terms of wearing the costume is fine, but fighting crime is considered vigilantism thus illegal. Being liable for property damage too as supers can be very high property damage. The way its framed, it's likely that even using powers is prohibited which is likely the major contention.

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008



I also have to admit that up until the point that Bob says "you have powers!!!", I thought that they all already knew Jack-Jack had powers. Things like Bob leaving the card table on top of the crib and Helen's line about "even taking care of a normal baby is a lot of work" seem strange if they don't know he has powers. I guess she just literally meant "taking care of our normal baby is a lot of work". Did Rick Dicker never feel the need to let them know after he debriefed Kari the babysitter?

General Dog fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 21:24

Erotic Wakes
May 19, 2018


General Dog posted:

I was very entertained- the gags were great and the action set pieces were great. The story that it all hangs on is awfully skimpy, though. For all the time we spend with Helen, what's her arc? She takes on a job, it isn't what it seems, and despite that it basically works out the way it was originally intended to, I guess? Is Bob's jealousy and frustration at having to stay at home ever really resolved? Was he right to hide everything going on at home from Helen? It overall feels like this one is far less critical of the Parrs and their motives than the first one was. The villain tells Helen that they could be friends except for the differences in their values, but that 's kind of a worthless statement because we know dick-all about either of their values.

The Incredibles is all about filtering family dynamics through comic superheroes. In the first movie Bob returning to superheroism is shown as analogous to a mid-life crisis including infidelity, there's even a deleted scene in which Helen outright accuses Bob of cheating on her. In this one Helen becoming a super is a direct parallel to their conversation in the hotel about how she could get a job while Bob watches the kids, it's about her desire for independence and Bob struggling with the feelings of emasculation and worthlessness that come from it. There's a lot of talk in the movie about how Elastigirl is better than Mr Incredible both as a superhero (at least when it comes to collateral damage) and as a figurehead for the movement to legalize superheroes and Helen being torn between enjoying her newfound freedom and recognition and her devotion to her family is the core of the movie.

The first movie similarly had a big chunk of time where Mr Incredible is being held in bondage and the rest of the family has to operate as supers without him, this movie ups the ante even further by having the mom be captured as well as the dad so you get the children having to act on their own while also caring for their infant sibling.

General Dog posted:

One problem is that for all the focus on the supers' relationship to the normie public, we basically never see them interact with the public in any context other than hurling them out of harm's way.

I actually really liked that so much of the big action scenes was dedicated to the supers trying to save innocent bystanders and stop collateral damage. It really emphasizes that these are people who are trying to do good and not just beat up bad guys. When Helen shot Evelyn Deavor out of the jet I thought they were doing a quick and brutal cutaway death like Syndrome being sucked into a jet engine in the first film but then they have her risk her life just to save the villain, something that is still very much in the minority in contemporary live-action superhero movies.


Missingnoleader posted:

The villains main goal is to make even the thought of super heroes being restored to legal status to be political suicide. To kill all public trust in supers. She blames supers for her parents death cause her father believed that they would save his life more then the safe room would. Screenslaver himself was the puppet to play out the whole legalization process to gather the most prominent political supporters in one place and kill them.

Supers being illegal is more in the terms of wearing the costume is fine, but fighting crime is considered vigilantism thus illegal. Being liable for property damage too as supers can be very high property damage. The way its framed, it's likely that even using powers is prohibited which is likely the major contention.


I took it that she was unable to persuade her brother not to pursue his dream of bringing superheroes back and loved him too much to kill him to stop it so she settled for the next best thing and worked to sabotage his plan from the inside in a spectacular fashion.

Z. Autobahn
Jul 20, 2004

colonel tigh more like colonel high

Missingnoleader posted:

The villains main goal is to make even the thought of super heroes being restored to legal status to be political suicide. To kill all public trust in supers. She blames supers for her parents death cause her father believed that they would save his life more then the safe room would. Screenslaver himself was the puppet to play out the whole legalization process to gather the most prominent political supporters in one place and kill them.

But in theory, that's already where we are the start of the movie. Supers are illegal. The pubic doesn't trust them. The villain's entire motivation boils down to THE CURRENT STATUS QUO BUT EVEN MORE SO which is just super weak, and all the moreso when the villain is made the mouthpiece of all the movie's most interesting philosophical elements (the anti-consumerist rants, the questions of pursuing your vision), none of which have anything to do with their actual plan or agenda. It's just.... super muddled and sloppy at best.

Missingnoleader posted:

Supers being illegal is more in the terms of wearing the costume is fine, but fighting crime is considered vigilantism thus illegal. Being liable for property damage too as supers can be very high property damage. The way its framed, it's likely that even using powers is prohibited which is likely the major contention.

Okay but at the point when it's illegal, we see Elastigirl openly using her powers, making no effort to hide her affiliation with Deveraux, and even going on national TV to talk about it. So in what meaningful way is it illegal if you can do it openly all the time with no consequence?

General Dog posted:

I also have to admit that up until the point that Bob says "you have powers!!!", I thought that they all already knew Jack-Jack had powers. Things like Bob leaving the card table on top of the crib and Helen's line about "even taking care of a normal baby is a lot of work" seem strange if they don't know he has powers. I guess she just literally meant "taking care of our normal baby is a lot of work". Did Rick Dicker never feel the need to let them know after he debriefed Kari the babysitter?


Yeah, wait, Helen totally heard the voice message from the babysitter in the first one freaking out about all the crazy things Jack-Jack was doing, didn't she?

Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 21:27

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008



Erotic Wakes posted:

The Incredibles is all about filtering family dynamics through comic superheroes. In the first movie Bob returning to superheroism is shown as analogous to a mid-life crisis including infidelity, there's even a deleted scene in which Helen outright accuses Bob of cheating on her. In this one Helen becoming a super is a direct parallel to their conversation in the hotel about how she could get a job while Bob watches the kids, it's about her desire for independence and Bob struggling with the feelings of emasculation and worthlessness that come from it. There's a lot of talk in the movie about how Elastigirl is better than Mr Incredible both as a superhero (at least when it comes to collateral damage) and as a figurehead for the movement to legalize superheroes and Helen being torn between enjoying her newfound freedom and recognition and her devotion to her family is the core of the movie.

I understand that dynamic, but it never really goes anywhere other than "Bob is frustrated at first, but he learns to deal with it pretty much on his own", and the plot thread is basically abandoned by the end of act 2. Contrast that to his midlife crisis/pseudo-infidelity story which is the heart of the first movie from beginning to end.

As far as Helen, I'd argue that she has no arc at all. There's never much indication that she feels that torn about her new job. Whenever she talks with Bob she pretty much takes him at his word that everything is fine, and there never really comes a point where she has to make a choice between the two.

Z. Autobahn posted:

Yeah, wait, Helen totally heard the voice message from the babysitter in the first one freaking out about all the crazy things Jack-Jack was doing, didn't she?

She heard the message but was unclear what was going on. It's also plausible that Jack Jack and Syndrom were too far away for them to see what was happening at the end.

General Dog fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 21:34

General Dog
Apr 26, 2008



Jack-Jack is basically Legion

Egbert Souse
Nov 6, 2008

Come on, fellas, you're losing your heads!


I actually got some Night of the Hunter vibes from the whole bit of Dash and Violet escaping the house.

QuoProQuid
Jan 12, 2012


Bob's Mr. Mom subplot is seemingly resolved by him learning to accept his own weaknesses, whether that be in getting Edna to babysit, learning the "New Math" to help his son, or accepting that he cannot fix his daughter's romantic life..

The message does get a little muddled by the rest of the action, though.

QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at Jun 17, 2018 around 21:44

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Z. Autobahn
Jul 20, 2004

colonel tigh more like colonel high

General Dog posted:

I understand that dynamic, but it never really goes anywhere other than "Bob is frustrated at first, but he learns to deal with it pretty much on his own", and the plot thread is basically abandoned by the end of act 2. Contrast that to his midlife crisis/pseudo-infidelity story which is the heart of the first movie from beginning to end.

As far as Helen, I'd argue that she has no arc at all. There's never much indication that she feels that torn about her new job. Whenever she talks with Bob she pretty much takes him at his word that everything is fine, and there never really comes a point where she has to make a choice between the two.


Yeah, the weird thing here is that like... the movie sets up all these interesting questions and ideas constantly (a reversal of gender roles! a husband jealous of his wife! Elastigirl's moment to take the lead! Media as a means of control! Consumerism and ease vs quality!) and then does... nothing with any of them.

QuoProQuid posted:

Bob's Mr. Mom subplot is seemingly resolved by him learning to accept his own weaknesses, whether that be in getting Edna to babysit, learning the "New Math" to help his son, or accepting that he cannot fix his daughter's romantic life.. The message does get a little muddled by the rest of the action, though.

Yeah, I thought this is where it was going, but then like having Bob do the much more important heroic thing in the climax really undercut that. The more I think about, the more it feels like the whole third act is just awkwardly grafted on starting from the twist reveal and undercuts/muddles everything that came before it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«3 »