|
I thought the plot with the Devours was going to end up being a critique on Disney basically using peoples attachment to IP as a means of making giant corporate acquisitions palatable to the public ("if this goes through, the X-Men can join the MCU!!!"). I figured before the reveal that bro and sister were in on the Screenslaver thing together, and that they'd use the superhero law as a pretense to get the world leaders all in one place before brainwashing them General Dog fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jun 17, 2018 |
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
I feel like the claims of being elitist and randist are a bit undercut by how the series consistently infantilizes the rich. The truth is that Evelyn was right that her dad was being an idiot and people shouldn't blindly just trust superheroes. But that's never really been the point of Incredibles. The first film is about how family, friendships, and our ties to one another strengthen us. This sequel builds on this and even critiques the original film. While Incredibles builds the importance of family, it also casts family as a reflection of its male protagonist. The sequel is about Bob learning how he supports his family, specifically Helen, and how that means sometimes taking a step back. What makes Everyln the bad guy is her belief that if you can't just blindly trust the superheroes then you can't trust them at all. There is no in-between for her. I once again find the elitism complaints weird because the heroes are shown constantly to be fallible. The inability to see both good intent but fallibility is what makes the villain the villain. Both films aren't championing elitism. They're championing humility and cooperation. With that said, there is a LOT going on in the film that doesn't really pay off. The police body cameras might be more incidental than trying to say anything, but the film seems to be saying things about mass media that never really adds up to much. For people who have not seen the movie yet, stay for the credits! The theme songs are wonderful. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Screenslaver is a bad name because it's a pun based on a word that wasn't invented until decades after the time period The Incredibles is set in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Was there anything in the original Incredibles that made it clear that it was literally the 1960s and not just a film with a retro aesthetic?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:What makes Everyln the bad guy is her belief that if you can't just blindly trust the superheroes then you can't trust them at all. There is no in-between for her. I once again find the elitism complaints weird because the heroes are shown constantly to be fallible. The inability to see both good intent but fallibility is what makes the villain the villain. Both films aren't championing elitism. They're championing humility and cooperation. If there's a case to be made of elitism in The Incredibles, it's not because the supers are portrayed to be perfect, it's because they're shown to be the only people who matter at all. They save people's lives at great risk to themselves, but both movies focus much more on their work as a form of self expression, rather than an act of altruism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Was there anything in the original Incredibles that made it clear that it was literally the 1960s and not just a film with a retro aesthetic? Also all of the TV they watch is dated. At first I figured it was just Dash loving old monster flicks but all the programming is from around that era.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:Dash is learning New Math, which schools adopted in the 1960s. But it parallels the frustration modern parents have with Common Core mathematics so it's easy to miss.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
They have 16x9 TVs, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Erotic Wakes posted:Screenslaver is a bad name because it's a pun based on a word that wasn't invented until decades after the time period The Incredibles is set in. a good post Z. Autobahn posted: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. I'm not sure the movie views it this way. Bob ends up doing the unglamorous grunt work of breaking the rudder and monitoring his children while Elastagirl gets to pursue, confront, and save the villain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 01:28
|
|
|
I think Mr. Incredible spending the finale turning the boat around instead of doing the glamorous work of punching out the bad guy was a good sign of how far he had come. He always seemed to miss superheroics for the personal glory that he derived from them, and now he's doing work that you literally can't see because he's out of the public eye. As for the Supers situation, I figured Supers were still trusted and held in high regard. There was media based on them, down to catchy theme songs. People cheer them in the streets instead of shunning them. Even when the Underminer situation was completely botched, the cops still apologized to The Incredibles when taking them away, and actual arrest didn't even seem like it was on the table. The ban on Supers, at least in this movie, seemed more a precaution than actual hatred or fear. Evelyn wanted to change that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
i keep reading the title as "thread for incredibles 2 and arguing over whether it's ramadan or not" and imo, it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:i keep reading the title as "thread for incredibles 2 and arguing over whether it's ramadan or not" and imo, it is. Ramadan's over, motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
While I stand by my criticism that Helen basically has no arc, I do appreciate the movie essentially hangs a lantern on it by having having her completely ignore Void as she asks her how she balances work and family
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
The soundtrack was good as hell as Giacchino always is but I love that the track title for the song during the airplane bit at the end is "Looks Like I Picked the Wrong Week to Quit Oxygen"  Timeless Appeal posted:Was there anything in the original Incredibles that made it clear that it was literally the 1960s and not just a film with a retro aesthetic? I mean it's obviously not set in the "real" world but the setting is very much of the 1960s even if it is a comic book superscience version of it; Bob's office in the first movie does have computers instead of typewriters but they're a 1960s vision of them and the term screen-saver wasn't even invented until the 1980s.  I forgot how great the gag of most of Bob's cubicle being taken up by a pillar is. A lot of superhero media does use intentionally vague and anachronistic retrofuturism, like Batman: The Animated Series using a lot of art deco but also featuring laser guns and talking computers or Superman Returns having cell phones alongside old models of cars and newspapers being important, but Incredibles seems much more keyed into a specific time which makes a small clash like that more noticeable. It kind of reminds me of a short-lived Comedy Central cartoon called Moonbeam City that went to a lot of trouble to make the show look like a Patrick Nagel painting hosed a Trapper Keeper and model everything off of 1980s pop culture but then has everyone riding segways and going to raves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Maybe the term "screen saver" was a play on "Screenslaver", a well known figure in the early computing world
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Thinking back one thing the movie was missing compared to the first was a good Dash-centric action scene. 100 Mile Dash was probably my favorite action scene in the original and this time Dash didn't really get to do much aside from summon the Incredimobile and let it carry them (figuratively and literally) until they're reunited with their parents. Violet got a good scene in fighting Void since since her portals directly counter-acted Violet's shield ability but Dash was just kind of there, especially considering that one of his big moments in the first movie was the revelation that he can run on water it seems like they could have found a better use for him on a climax that takes place on a boat in the ocean. Speaking of vehicles, Elastigirl's motorcycle was very cool in that her powers played heavily into its use with the way that it could split apart and rejoin. It made it feel more like a logical extension of her abilities than just some gadget to make a toy out of or excuse to put a car chase in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Other things to note: Smart: developing the relationship between Evelyn and Helen by having them commiserate about being women who are often less appreciated than the men they work with but not at any point making that incredibly obvious with some sort of "GIRL POWER, Y'ALL" dialogue. The friendship between the two was really cool until the obvious. Less Smart: literally naming the villain Evil Endeavor Also Smart: Multiple times we saw characters who told the heroes how much they meant to them and it was very obvious that it was a "being able to see someone who looks like me as a superhero and not just some lame white guy is important," again without explicitly saying it. It's a very strong statement about how much representation matters, and Mr. Incredible being a whiny little bitch about it after they come out and say "Elastigirl is gonna get us better publicity" mirrors white guys being whiny little bitches whenever a movie starring a black person/woman comes out. (also it was cool seeing that Usher was the voice of the guy who geeked out over meeting Frozone. Something I'm still turning over in my head: The movie clearly thinks it has something to say about the culture's obsession with the media and the idea of a villain using screens to take advantage of people seems kinda incongruous with the very 1950s setting, but also since Evelyn ginned up the villain just to get Elastigirl to do what she wanted I can't decide if Bird really does have a bone to pick with Screengrabber's agenda or he thinks the whole thing is a false narrative. More turning over in my head stuff: Is the movie's "you shouldn't follow unjust laws" message a really explicitly anti-Trump message? Things I was the only person in the theater to laugh at: "the public has more trust in a monkey throwing darts than congress," Mr. Incredible stopping just short of saying "you're a credit to your gender" to his wife. Also a thing: after the trailer for Teen Titans Go! to the Movies, my mom (who doesn't watch many movies, and in theaters pretty much only watches Disney/Pixar movies) turned to me and asked me "and people are actually going to watch that in theaters?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:Dash is learning New Math, which schools adopted in the 1960s. But it parallels the frustration modern parents have with Common Core mathematics so it's easy to miss. Some weirdly out of place buildings. I basically got around this by assuming it is 1964-1965 and it just takes place in the same universe as the Venture Bros.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 10:31
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Something I'm still turning over in my head: The movie clearly thinks it has something to say about the culture's obsession with the media and the idea of a villain using screens to take advantage of people seems kinda incongruous with the very 1950s setting Well, The Incredibles is a pastiche of the early 60s (space-age but no hippies), so it makes sense given that the percentage of tv-owning households had gone from like ten to ninety percent in the last decade and change - consider the levels of cell phone ownership from 2000 to now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I know that, but I was talking more about the first film. It looked like the 1960s, but I don't remember anything so explicit as Violet seeing Dementia 13. Some dates are mentioned by Edna when she talks about heroes getting thwarted by their capes (Thunderhead, November 58, Stratogale on April 57). However, since Incredibles 1 takes place 15 years after Supers are "banned" the movie has to take place at least in the 70s. A 70s that hasn't yet hit a malaise era.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
There's also the newspaper Bob is reading the first one that explicitly says "1962" on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Well, The Incredibles is a pastiche of the early 60s (space-age but no hippies), so it makes sense given that the percentage of tv-owning households had gone from like ten to ninety percent in the last decade and change - consider the levels of cell phone ownership from 2000 to now. And TV was a target of moral panic as soon as it became popular, it was constantly commented on that people spent too much time watching TV, that it made you go blind and rotted your brain, etc., etc. edit: This reminded me of Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which lol 
sean10mm fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Jun 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
I swear there was a "please clap" reference somewhere in this movie, but I can't remember the context now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 20:56
|
|
I don't even know how anyone could argue The Incredibles wasn't a Randian film with a straight face, that's like saying there's no fascism in 300.Erotic Wakes posted:A lot of superhero media does use intentionally vague and anachronistic retrofuturism, like Batman: The Animated Series using a lot of art deco but also featuring laser guns and talking computers or Superman Returns having cell phones alongside old models of cars and newspapers being important, but Incredibles seems much more keyed into a specific time which makes a small clash like that more noticeable. It kind of reminds me of a short-lived Comedy Central cartoon called Moonbeam City that went to a lot of trouble to make the show look like a Patrick Nagel painting hosed a Trapper Keeper and model everything off of 1980s pop culture but then has everyone riding segways and going to raves. Batman The Animated Series didn't have color televisions in its universe, only black and white ones.  I loved that show's aesthetic, and I hate The New Adventures of Batman and Robin for abandoning it.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I don't even know how anyone could argue The Incredibles wasn't a Randian film with a straight face, that's like saying there's no fascism in 300.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Because the Randian material people find is pretty broad and not exclusive to Rand's work. Incredibles can also easily be compared to Harrison Bergeron written by a Socialist author. Like I'm not blind to what people are pointing out as Randian, but it's always seemed superficial. And it's kind of grown into this meme that sidesteps the actual story the film is telling. People weigh one line by Syndrome over everything else that happens. I don't know if it qualifies as Randian or not, but the first Incredibles absolutely and uncritically portrays the Supers as "better than" an unappreciating world. When do we ever meet someone outside of the Supers' circle who isn't portrayed as conniving, stupid, or cowardly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Between the dropped motifs of "make supers legal again" and police body cameras, I got the distinct impression that the final draft of the script was written in mid-2016, and it shows. Don't get me wrong, the movie was great and any sequence with the Portal super--Voyd---was an incredible, but the politics and muddled ethics of the villian were pretty tenuous. Still, a great Pixar movie. Solid structuring, solid action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
I think the movie is a lot more interesting if it entertains for even a second the idea that maybe the supers actually have historically caused more damage than they're worth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
"Must there be a Mr. Incredible?" "There is." Bob is the archetype of a DC hero whose degree of powers make him ill-suited for dealing with collateral damage and is constantly forced to answer difficult questions for which there are no simple answers. Helen is equivocal with a Marvel hero for whom crimefighting always goes smoothly, but will also always 100% have to deal with someone who she thought was a good person turning out to be bad. In this essay, I will
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
f#a# posted:Between the dropped motifs of "make supers legal again" and police body cameras, I got the distinct impression that the final draft of the script was written in mid-2016, and it shows. Don't get me wrong, the movie was great and any sequence with the Portal super--Voyd---was an incredible, but the politics and muddled ethics of the villian were pretty tenuous. I don't really see the similarities between police cameras and the superhero ones in this movie. The idea behind police cameras is that they would exist as a measure to protect people because if they're being watched they won't do scumbag poo poo. In the movie, the camera functions to make superheroes look better by showing exactly how much good they do. It's the same idea taken to the two opposite ends, one meant for public consumption to help the camera wearers because they do more good than the public sees, and the other meant to help the people the camera wearers interact with because they do more bad than the public sees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I don't know if it qualifies as Randian or not, but the first Incredibles absolutely and uncritically portrays the Supers as "better than" an unappreciating world. When do we ever meet someone outside of the Supers' circle who isn't portrayed as conniving, stupid, or cowardly? Rick, for one, the boy on the tricycle for another. There was also going to be a pilot character, Snug, though he got cut from the finished film.* Really though, I just fail to see either movie as having any kind of Randian ideology. The core conceit of superheroes is individuals using their gifts for the good of society, with no expectation of personal gain, and that just goes completely against Rand's ideals. If anything, Syndrome is the character closest to a Randian superman-he abandons superheroes and their ideals when they hold him back, he uses his natural talents to become a successful inventor by himself, and he plans to use his technology not for the betterment of mankind, but for personal wealth and fame-and he's the villain. Rand would have loved Syndrome and his ruthless individualism, and it's no accident that he's defeated through teamwork and selflessness. *Originally, Snug was going to fly Helen to Syndrome's island, and was killed by the missile attack. He ended up getting cut for time, however, with his role being replaced by Helen piloting herself. E: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfDgqEWdCp8 Acebuckeye13 fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jun 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 07:37
|
|
|
I mean, the entire basic conceit of the superhero genre is having gifted individuals who choose to behold themselves to the world for nominally selfless reasons, instead of using their gifts for personal gain or worse. Just look at Bob in the first movie when he’s stuck in his insurance job. For all his desire to reclaim his glory days, he still has the basic guiding principle to want to help the helpless people he encounters both in his professional and private lives, instead of growing weary of helping them without any compensation and ultimately abandoning them to their fates like a Randian protagonist would.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 09:22
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted: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. There's a word for that: Reactionary. the villain sees change on the horizon and reacts hard against it. I thought you could maybe look at it almost as an anti-socialist motivation; she hates the idea of people receiving hand-outs and not having to work for things, and to take away the social safety net because it didn't benefit her once, which is almost basically Ayn Rand herself thinking about it. Given all the 'supers' seem to be superheroes whenever they can and all the villains we see are mad scientist/gadgeteer types or otherwise non-powered, the supers are possibly psychologically driven to protect people and society, and it's painful for them to stand by and watch people suffer. They're forced to work menial jobs for predatory corporations and raise nuclear families rather than work for the benefit of society.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
Why are we throwing randian when the proper word we should be throwing is Nietzschean ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Easier to spell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
What the gently caress https://twitter.com/amandawtwong/status/1009141022041837568 like https://twitter.com/MKupperman/status/1009167118624018440 Bonus: https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/817244514557382658
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:What the gently caress 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
The second one isn't from the review, though it might as well be. Anyway, it reads sort of like an Ebert review, except Ebert was much more a boob man than an rear end man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:28 |
|
|
I need a twitter thread that's just clips of Ebert talking about boobs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:16
|
|