|
General Dog posted:The second one isn't from the review, though it might as well be. Boobs are very 20th century, 21 is the century of the rear end. 22 will be the century of the thermal exhaust port.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I need a twitter thread that's just clips of Ebert talking about boobs. Just google "ebert" + "decolletage"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Fun note, Mr Incredible's stubble disappears after his nap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Jack Jack took care of it with his shaving powers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Fun note, Mr Incredible's stubble disappears after his nap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Of course a crackpot theory that superheroes are actually the social safety net personified gets eclipsed by a New Yorker writer going nuts over cartoon butts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Of course a crackpot theory that superheroes are actually the social safety net personified gets eclipsed by a New Yorker writer going nuts over cartoon butts. well the butt quota is much higher than the previous film also the body cam thing is definitely calling out police forces refusing to use them cause it's framed as a good thing at all times, it's even the key piece of evidence to solving the mystery of the villain's identity
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 08:37
|
|
|
I saw it earlier today and... well, I liked it, but I expected to like it more. Am I the only one that feels that Elastigirl probably had an arc about dealing with female empowerment and gender roles, but was cutted down to a few moments of "You go, girl!", due to a certain day in November 2016? It felt that the ambassador was probably intended to be a Madame President, which narratively would help explain how Elastigirl gets a lot of goodwill for heroes by saving her, and would've upped the stakes for the final act if there were all world leaders in the boat, instead of just diplomatic people. I got the twist spoiled to me before the movie, but I was expecting that the villain's motives would be more about not getting the recognition she deserved because she's a woman, and being mad at her brother getting by solely on charm, which somehow would lead to her seeing heroes as glory hogs that don't let normal people get the credit they deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
Evelyn looks familiar. Is she visually based on someone? I thought she might be made to resemble her voice actor but I don't recall her from anything I've seen. (I have terrible taste, of course) Winston is... oh hey, looks exactly like Bob Odenkirk. I though he was meant to be Mark Zuckerberg. Also a key note on villain motivations: it is established that Screenslaver is a persona created as a plausible supervillain to antagonise Elastigirl with his own motive for wanting to discredit superheroes, which is similar to but distinct from the actual motive of the actual villain, to throw off suspicion. The anti-consumerist ranting is supposed to be a red herring, I'm fairly sure, though with the same idea that supers supposedly make people complacent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:49
|
|
|
I noticed the Jonny Quest TV show cameo, but apparently the Quest Labs building actually shows up. More evidence that this is clearly in the Ventureverse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
I'm slightly surprised that Mirage didn't appear at all, even as a cameo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
ApplesandOranges posted:I'm slightly surprised that Mirage didn't appear at all, even as a cameo. She was kinda complicit in the murder of a massive chunk of the experienced superhero population and all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Enjoyed but my biggest complaint was how weak the villain was. Kind of a watered down riff of Syndrome's whole "gently caress you superheroes we dont you im self made!" MO and the sheep from Zootopia purely for surprise factor. Felt like with Syndrome the conflicts and themes were about toxic/jaded fandoms and uh randian poo poo. With Evelyn the conflict is...superhero movie ennui, working women throwing each other under the bus and uh..randian poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
General Dog posted: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 yeah esp the end Violet is in the family business for life. Who has time for movies and boys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Davethulhu posted:The raccoon is the true villain of the movie. how? it was seizing the castoff fruits of labor that the bourgeois didn't even want. they live in such a lap of luxury even that mustn't be redistributed
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
Kal-L posted:I saw it earlier today and... well, I liked it, but I expected to like it more. Something is definitely up with Helen's arc (or lack thereof). It seems like basic storytelling would involve her decision to go to work and leave the family at home would create some sort of tension that at least eventually comes back to her. She never seems to experience any real self-doubt about whether she's doing the right thing, she's never made aware of all the trouble Bob is having in her absence, and Bob resolves his feelings of jealousy and inadequacy without her ever having to be involved. She doesn't have to learn that she should have stayed at home, she doesn't have to learn that it was totally okay for her not to stay at home. The movie just amounts to Helen having a really rad vacation. This is not me saying that Helen needs to learn that her place is in the home. If the movie wants to be about her discovering that providing for her family can take a lot of different shapes (see what I did there?) while Bob learns the same thing, then that's great. But essentially, the movie just presents us with a role reversal and then has nothing further to say about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 14:58
|
|
|
plus bob oedenkirk, it is even an arc in the sense that he was an rear end in a top hat and learned to change. He was just really naive despite good intentions and now that his blind spot is gone he will continue to have good intentions
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Evelyn looks familiar. Is she visually based on someone? I thought she might be made to resemble her voice actor but I don't recall her from anything I've seen. (I have terrible taste, of course) The Deavor father looks so much like modern Donald Sutherland in the flashbacks that I was surprised he didn't have any lines for him to voice him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
General Dog posted:Something is definitely up with Helen's arc (or lack thereof). It seems like basic storytelling would involve her decision to go to work and leave the family at home would create some sort of tension that at least eventually comes back to her. She never seems to experience any real self-doubt about whether she's doing the right thing, she's never made aware of all the trouble Bob is having in her absence, and Bob resolves his feelings of jealousy and inadequacy without her ever having to be involved. She doesn't have to learn that she should have stayed at home, she doesn't have to learn that it was totally okay for her not to stay at home. The movie just amounts to Helen having a really rad vacation. I think this is kinda glossing over a couple of points in the film, as well as misinterpreting what her arc actually is. It's not that she is conflicted about the illegality of her actions, the semi-political dinner scene is more about introducing Bob's quest for glory being disguised as selfless-ness. Nor the issue of work life balance, her conversation with void is more of a multilayered commentary about cliches regarding empowered women, noting how her arc hasn't yet paid off in the false resolution, and noting that at that moment she is still 'on' when she should be relaxed. Rather her arc is simply about her worry of stepping away from the role of mother, and having that worry expressed by her concern of her family's well being when she's not there. A parallel between Helen and Bob is that they both are workaholics, and a common symptom is that you feel the world will fall apart if you are not present. The first film was about Bob being seduced by that thinking to the detriment of his family, and this one is about Helen learning to accept that she can trust other people to resolve things without her. Now I can only really think of two moments where this is overt. First, when she calls home and instantly thinks Jack-Jack got in to trouble. Second, in the climax as her family assures her she can go after Evelyn alone as everyone else deals with the runaway ship. Now, if you think the fact this is buried pretty well into a movie that has a lot going on, then I would have to concede the point. The point of writing is to convey these themes, and perhaps the film did less to convey it as opposed to just letting it be. Perhaps the film just needed a villain who more directly opposed her arc, or would even try to convince Helen was right by placing her family in harm that she could have prevented (as opposed to having her be the first one taken down by the climax.). As is, the film is a bit of a messy theme-wise, but still generally more cohesive than a lot of films.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Thank you. I was wondering about themes and her character arc, but that answers it. I think my favorite scene from the movie was the beginning action piece. Everything involving the Underminer and his interaction with Mr. Incredible was so delightfully cheesy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Evelyn looks familiar. Is she visually based on someone? She looks pretty similar to Roxanne Ritchi from MegaMind 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
SomeJazzyRat posted:Rather her arc is simply about her worry of stepping away from the role of mother, and having that worry expressed by her concern of her family's well being when she's not there. You call that an arc?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:She looks pretty similar to Roxanne Ritchi from MegaMind That's exactly the one I was thinking of
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:She looks pretty similar to Roxanne Ritchi from MegaMind The rare female version of a character that looks like you left all the sliders at default during create-a-character in a video game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 03:37
|
|
|
Forums ate my last comment, but was surprised that making her dishevelled and untidy was such an improvement. Maybe because she contrasts all the smooth shiny neat CGI people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
She was more severe Dreamworks face than the actual Dreamworks version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
General Dog posted:She was more severe Dreamworks face than the actual Dreamworks version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:There's a word for that: Reactionary. the villain sees change on the horizon and reacts hard against it. The concept of a reactionary villain is fine, but it doesn't make sense to have the reactionary also be the key architect of the thing they are reacting against. Had she not wanted supers to be legal again she could've just....not done... anything... and the outcome would've been much more safely the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The concept of a reactionary villain is fine, but it doesn't make sense to have the reactionary also be the key architect of the thing they are reacting against. Had she not wanted supers to be legal again she could've just....not done... anything... and the outcome would've been much more safely the same. I see this complaint a lot, and it seems like people aren't getting that her goal isn't to preserve the status quo, it's to create a much more intensely regimented version of the status quo. If the boat crash plan had worked, it would have singlehandedly done vastly more damage to supers' reputation than the earlier Screenslaver business did to improve it. She wants to change supers from a legally-troubled but popular class to a loathed underclass. She's not just trying to prevent a legal change that will benefit Muslims in the United States, she's trying to fake 9/11. Presumably if she had succeeded she would have gone on to aggressively pursue super oppression and genocide where before they'd just kind of been in legal limbo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
See, that does bring up a bit of a plot hole, though. All she would have had to do was order the supers under her control to directly kill the ambassadors the moment she had a worldwide broadcast, and that would have been the end of the public ever trusting them again.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The concept of a reactionary villain is fine, but it doesn't make sense to have the reactionary also be the key architect of the thing they are reacting against. Had she not wanted supers to be legal again she could've just....not done... anything... and the outcome would've been much more safely the same. Well, her brother is the one strongly pursuing getting supers legal again, if she hadn't done anything then they would be legal again, even without her help her brother does have a huge company that he could devote resources towards that goal. She argued with her brother to drop the whole thing but he refused, so she agreed and planned to sabotage the whole idea in the biggest way possible. So she's not 100% reactionary, she's had at least as long to plan this whole thing as her brother did to set it up. Also, interesting thing I thought about today; Elastigirl's return is backrolled by a private company while the public super program has been disbanded. Which means that while supers are now legal again, they're also private sector instead of public sector now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:I see this complaint a lot, and it seems like people aren't getting that her goal isn't to preserve the status quo, it's to create a much more intensely regimented version of the status quo. If the boat crash plan had worked, it would have singlehandedly done vastly more damage to supers' reputation than the earlier Screenslaver business did to improve it. She wants to change supers from a legally-troubled but popular class to a loathed underclass. She's not just trying to prevent a legal change that will benefit Muslims in the United States, she's trying to fake 9/11. Presumably if she had succeeded she would have gone on to aggressively pursue super oppression and genocide where before they'd just kind of been in legal limbo. Okay but..... if she had goggles that she can put on superheroes and make them do terrible things she could just.... do... that.... in the first place. SatansBestBuddy posted:Well, her brother is the one strongly pursuing getting supers legal again, if she hadn't done anything then they would be legal again, even without her help her brother does have a huge company that he could devote resources towards that goal. She argued with her brother to drop the whole thing but he refused, so she agreed and planned to sabotage the whole idea in the biggest way possible. The movie makes it pretty clear Winston is just a hollow, charismatic empty suit and Evelyn is the real brains behind the company. All the positive stuff that happens is her agenda. Without her support, Winston has nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The movie makes it pretty clear Winston is just a hollow, charismatic empty suit and Evelyn is the real brains behind the company. All the positive stuff that happens is her agenda. Without her support, Winston has nothing. Helen points out in her conversation with Eve that you can have the coolest stuff and it doesn't mean anything if you can't sell it. There's a bit of Jobs/Wozniak allegory going on with Winston and Evelyn, though it doesn't map 100%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:See, that does bring up a bit of a plot hole, though. Z. Autobahn posted:Okay but..... if she had goggles that she can put on superheroes and make them do terrible things she could just.... do... that.... in the first place. We're talking degrees of magnitude here. The plan is to trigger global and long-lasting outrage by assassinating the diplomatic leader of "every major world power" AND killing an enormous amount of civilians by plowing the ship into the city. Killing the Ambassadors would undoubtedly have consequences, but targeted killings is easier to rationalize than scores of dead bystanders. It's the same collateral damage conversation that has been going on for two movies. Regalingualius posted:The movie makes it pretty clear Winston is just a hollow, charismatic empty suit and Evelyn is the real brains behind the company. All the positive stuff that happens is her agenda. Without her support, Winston has nothing. I'm not sure the movie does a great job of characterizing Winston beyond "enthusiastic about superheroes." It's never really clear whether his sister's criticism is on-point or motivated by bitterness and jealousy. QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:I see this complaint a lot, and it seems like people aren't getting that her goal isn't to preserve the status quo, it's to create a much more intensely regimented version of the status quo. If the boat crash plan had worked, it would have singlehandedly done vastly more damage to supers' reputation than the earlier Screenslaver business did to improve it. She wants to change supers from a legally-troubled but popular class to a loathed underclass. She's not just trying to prevent a legal change that will benefit Muslims in the United States, she's trying to fake 9/11. Presumably if she had succeeded she would have gone on to aggressively pursue super oppression and genocide where before they'd just kind of been in legal limbo. It's a really dumb plan though, as evidenced by its spectacular and predictable failure. It relies on her gathering like 25 superheroes in the same place, any one of whom could single-handedly foil her plan if anything goes remotely off-script. It's a ludicrously high-risk gambit on her part, both in terms of her personal security and her political agenda. Here's a better idea: do everything you did for the first two acts of the movie, and then pin the Screenslaver attacks on your brother and make it look like Helen was in on it. Superheroes endangering the public all in the name of a publicity stunt- now that's a real scandal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
There's no room for pragmatism in literal cartoon supervillainy. Plus, the point isn't to have superheroes specifically going rogue or the idea that some of the superpowered people could turn to villainy, the point is to build on the bungled fight in the beginning; to create a disaster of collateral damage with everyone dead so there's no witnesses as to what actually happened and the first figure to talk to the media gets to write the story, that 9/11 with a boat was a disaster caused by superheroes being given an inch and they need to be suppressed for society's safety. Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
ApplesandOranges posted:I'm slightly surprised that Mirage didn't appear at all, even as a cameo. Might've been out of respect as the actress died a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:She looks pretty similar to Roxanne Ritchi from MegaMind Why did Evelyn look strung-out as gently caress in every scene?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
plainswalker75 posted:Why did Evelyn look strung-out as gently caress in every scene? Because she was drinking whiskey all the time
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:22 |
|
|
Seemed like a classic manic depressive to me
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:32
|
|