Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Incredibles

Page: 1(2)3 4 5

03:52 / 13.11.04

Or is it because his power is new and unstable?

This one. I was reading the "Art of the Incredibles" book at the store the other day and they were explaining that the characters’ powers are a manifestation of their personalities. Mr. Incredible is the strong father figure so he's strong. Elasti-girl is a house wife and mom and so is always being pulled in lot of directing so she stretches. Vi is shy so she turns invisible and puts up shields. Dash is a hyper little kid so he's a speedster... Sam Jackson is just cool so he's... um, cool. And Jack Jack hasn't developed a personality yet... so his powers are Limitless Potential. He can grow up to be anything and anyone.

miss wonderstarr

07:51 / 13.11.04

SPOILERZ
-
-
-
-
-
-
But... but

I know that might not be entirely canon Incredibles mythos, but it doesn't make sense. It even detracts from the integrity of the film.

Mr Incredible was not strong throughout the film, emotionally and ethically, but his powers remained constant. He's still immensely strong when he's been working as an insurance clerk for 15 years, and is psychologically beaten. He tells his wife he's afraid and weak, and his powers don't waver. He deceives his family to do the job for Mirage, and his powers are unaffected.

And he gained/was using those powers to their fullest before he had a family -- before he got married. In fact, he was retired almost from the moment he got married. So for his abilities to reflect his role as a family man is a bogus concept -- and the same for Elastigirl. She was at the peak of her powers on the day before her wedding, however neatly the stretching reflects the multitasking of a wife and mother.

Violet's shyness and invisibility make sense, of course -- though wouldn't a shrinking Violet (female Atom/the Wasp) be even more fitting? -- except that she gains full control over her metahuman potential when she gains more assertiveness and self-confidence. She's a changed young woman at the end of the movie, but she has more power. It's more fitting to say her hairstyle reflects her personality than does her invisibility.

Dash is a boy racer because he's hyperactive? -- so if he grows up and becomes more stable, he'll lose his Speed Force? I don't think so. And he was named Dashiel at birth, is that meant to be coincidence? Presumably when he was christened (according to the Jack-Jack model) his parents had no idea he'd develop that specific power.

If it's presented as metaphor, fine...though obvious. If this is meant to be the true story, within that fictional world, of "why they have those powers", the creators should get back to the drawing board.

13:36 / 13.11.04

You're missing the point, Kovacs, Bird thought of a typical family dynamic, with the strong father, the hyperactive kid, the insecure teen, etc, and then used those as a springboard for developing the characters and their powers. It doesn't meant to suggest that, for example, in the actual narrative Bob and Helen anticipated their son would have super speed so they named him Dashiell - Brad Bird named him Dash because it's a pun, a cute and clever name for a kid with superspeed. Violet in the narrative doesn't turn invisible because she's shy, but Brad Bird uses the invisibility as a metaphor for her insecurities.

17:01 / 13.11.04

Exactly.

04:40 / 14.11.04

The John Byrne forum has a thread that hasn't been deleted yet here.

Go and laugh at the fat stupid man.

miss wonderstarr

10:27 / 14.11.04

the characters’ powers are a manifestation of their personalities.

OK I think this is a bit ambiguous but I accept I interpreted it wrongly -- and am glad I did, frankly.

12:58 / 14.11.04

Joycore moments:

"I'm thirsty"
Dash and Ivy's ROLLERBALL OF DOOM
Frozone's Silver Surfer moment with the extendible skis
The caravan from the skies, "YOU'RE GONNA MISS THE TURN OFF!"
Dash finding out he can run on water

13:25 / 14.11.04

Sorry, that wasn't meant to be taken literally.

13:38 / 14.11.04

As for JB's article, I couldn't even finish reading it... How can someone so fat hate the idea of a fat superhero? And to call the brilliant Adam West fat is just ignorant!

miss wonderstarr

19:15 / 14.11.04

I found it hard to concentrate fully on Byrne's rant but I believe it's the case that the Adam West TV show saved the Batman comic book from cancellation, so to argue that a "pauchy" (this is a myth in my opinion) live-action superhero corrupted and betrayed the "pure" comic book is shaky from the outset. Not to mention that the comic book of the time, as well as being on its last legs sales-wise, was not remotely "dark" or "serious", apologies for all the "quotation marks" I am still a little hungover.

08:27 / 15.11.04

No worries. I get that too, "Kovacs."

Matthew Fluxington

13:42 / 15.11.04

I saw the movie yesterday, and just thought it was average. Definitely not a bad movie, but certainly nothing very special. I suppose that it might feel new and clever to some people, but those people probably haven't been reading postmodern superhero comics since they were seven years old like I have. This kind of thing is totally spoiled for me.

It had its moments, but I wish that there was more going on in the subtext.

Also, I just don't like the look of Pixar animation. It all just looks like a bad video game to me. Aesthetically, it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be - it strives too hard to make a 2-D style look realistic, which seems ugly and pointless to me. A lot of the time, I just wondered why they just didn't make this with puppets if that was the look they were going for.

15:07 / 15.11.04

Matthew, you are officially nuts.

15:48 / 15.11.04

Or is it because his power is new and unstable?

I thought Jack-Jack's power was Super Tantrum he's a wonderfully well behaved baby through out the film until his family get's into trouble. At this point he seem to throw a tantrum directed at the one who seems to be casueing the trouble. Starting with Fire (anger) then metal (stubornness) then a demon form (glee in misbehaving).

Imagine what he's be like at age 2!

Matthew Fluxington

15:55 / 15.11.04

Is that mostly in reaction to me thinking that Pixar's animation looks ugly? There's nothing I can say in response to that, really - it's a very subjective thing. I can't look at that stuff without finding aesthetically unappealing. The only part of the movie that I thought looked very good was when they were showing the old papers and switched to black and white.

I totally recognize that this is a great movie if you think that Pixar animation is attractive and the jokes and main themes were new to you. I came into that movie with way too much baggage. It was entertaining, but I've had a lot more fun at other movies. As far as animated features go, this was waaaaaaaay above average, but I really loathe the overwhelming majority of animated movies.

16:04 / 15.11.04

>>>Is that mostly in reaction to me thinking that Pixar's animation looks ugly? There's nothing I can say in response to that, really - it's a very subjective thing.<<<

True enough, it's subjective. I can't really understand your description of it as a "bad video game," though - I think as far as CG animation goes, The Incredibles is by far the most accomplished film I've yet seen. I absolutely love the design of the film from top to bottom, characters, locations, props, everything.

The Polar Express is ugly. Shrek is ugly. To me, The Incredibles is stunning.

And the themes are of course nothing new to me, but I still delighted in what was, I feel, the flawless execution. I saw The Incredibles a second time the other night and loved it even more than the first time I saw it.

I readily admit I have a hard-on for Pixar, though.

Matthew Fluxington

16:07 / 15.11.04

Yeah, The Incredibles is one HUGE love letter to superhero comics, and I have trouble understanding how anyone could think it was "disrespectful."

Right on. No one who didn't love superheroes could make a movie like this. It's totally successful in translating what's great about classic superhero comics and turning it into all-ages Family Entertainment. Which is great, especially if you're a little kid and this is all new to you.

It's no mistake that the villain is an obnoxious fanboy.

Matthew Fluxington

16:16 / 15.11.04

I can't really understand your description of it as a "bad video game," though - I think as far as CG animation goes, The Incredibles is by far the most accomplished film I've yet seen.

Well, that's absolutely true. As far as this kind of animation goes, it's the very best I've ever seen. But it's still kinda ugly to me. I just hate looking at "realistic" interpretations of a 2D look. It rarely looks graceful to me. I agree that the design was excellent, but I think it'd look better if it stuck to its 2D roots. (I also was mildly annoyed by design inconsistencies - why do some characters look like charicatures, whereas others seemed more consistent in relationship to each other? I know they were going for the joke, but I wish that they went in one direction of the other, rather than doing both at once. It was distracting.)

The Polar Express is ugly. Shrek is ugly. To me, The Incredibles is stunning.

When you set it up like that, I can't disagree with you. But I'm not comparing The Incredibles only to its awkward, gawky peers - I'm comparing it to 2D animation, comic book art, all other cinema. Visually, Sky Captain stomps all over this, and that's probably the most similar film to be released all year long. I had way more fun with Sky Captain too.

miss wonderstarr

22:50 / 15.11.04

I suppose that it might feel new and clever to some people, but those people probably haven't been reading postmodern superhero comics since they were seven years old like I have.

If we accept that postmodern superhero comics probably started with Miracleman or Luther Arkwright, I have, I reckon, read as many as most people: I started with Watchmen and DKR in 1986 so though I might be older than you and can't claim to have been reading them since age seven, I've still grown up with that sort of revisionist referential caper over the last 18 years.

As my linked little review off the first page shows, I really enjoyed all The Incredibles' echoes of those clever-clever comics like Watchmen and Kingdom Come. Just because I'm used to them in comic book form doesn't mean I couldn't relish tips of the hat to them in an animated movie.

Matthew Fluxington

11:27 / 16.11.04

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of Flaming Carrot, The Tick and Giffen/DeMatteis Justice League. Comedic pomo superhero stuff.

Matthew Fluxington

11:30 / 16.11.04

So to me, it isn't about "I've seen this in a comic before, waaah," it's more "these are all old jokes to me."

Yotsuba & Benjamin!

13:05 / 16.11.04

I just saw this again last night in full Digital Projection (and you've got the opportunity, you really must see it like this, practically a different movie entirely, thanks to the unfathomable amounts of increased detail in every shot [can you believe it's being projected this way on ONE SCREEN in ONE THEATER in the entire city of Manhattan? BOO TO THAT.]). Anyway, with all due respect to those who didn't enjoy the film, it's really not about its superhero trappings, or its echoes of Watchmen and/or whatever else. The real theme of this movie is individuality. It's echoed twice explicitly by Dash and Buddy (When everyone is special, no one is), and it's a pretty devestating critique on the soccer mom PC mentality (the already legendary "4th to 5th Grade" line). The superheroes are just the shiny backdrop.

Everyone who's caught up in this nonsense about belittling heroes (Byrne, Byrne, Byrne) or what was cribbed off of who is entirely missing the point. Sad, because Sarah Vowell in her brief moments in the film completely encapsulates the film's poignancy on every level. It's about demands on children, about not fitting in, about the fear of letting the people you love down.

As far as not feeling the animation, absolutely personal preference. (Although again, digital makes a startlingly enormous difference as far as believability. Nobody makes eyes like Pixar.)

Anyway. I want my DVD already.

Matthew Fluxington

14:54 / 16.11.04

The movie would've been a lot better with 60% more Sarah Vowell, 30% less Coach.

Yotsuba & Benjamin!

15:09 / 16.11.04

I "100%" agree with you! Although it was Coach himself who really nailed the Mediocrity line. His was also one of the more striking instances of a voice completely integrated with the character, to the point where I never once thought about the actor behind it, something that did happen with nearly every other role in the film.

miss wonderstarr

16:41 / 16.11.04

I don't know about pinning this movie down to one theme, but the key word that emerged for me was "family" not "individuality".

Yotsuba & Benjamin!

18:24 / 16.11.04

Individuality + Teamwork = Family

18:45 / 16.11.04

I agree with everything Dr. Birdie has said so far, everything from the theme(s) of this movie to Coach's performance. Dude, it’s creepy, get out of my head!

20:08 / 21.11.04

I feel the need to point out that the Pixar person who sat down and figured out how to achieve the 3D effect in the credits through tilting the writing and varying brightness thereof is a genius in their own right. It's little details like that which make Pixar films such a joy to watch.

Did anyone else think "YES! An evil mime artist!" upon the appearance of Bomb Voyage? Pity that they had him speak, although the French-with-subtitles thing was funny too.

04:31 / 23.11.04

Saw this. It's magnificent. Perhaps, as Flux has suggested, a bit derivative at times (the "monologuing" joke we've seen in everything from Austin Powers to Jerry Seinfeld's old stand-up act) but the movie was fabulous in its execution. I daresay there's no need for them to make a Fantastic Four movie because this one captured the mad FEEL of it perfectly.

For that matter, this is our Watchmen adaptation (because you know if they make it now, it will be interpreted as "a dark version of themes established in the lighter Incredibles" rather than the other way round). My favorite subtle Watchmen-ref was why you shouldn't have capes on a costume. Remember what happened to Dollar Bill?

Things to love about this movie:
- The henchman drinking game
- A flaming baby
- Mr. Incredible's ACE original costume
- Craig T. Nelson being PERFECT for a role
- Bomb Voyage: with a name that great, you'd think he was a character in Alan Moore's run on Supreme
- Mallrats reference. "...Brodie?"
- It makes John Byrne mad, and anything that does that must be awesome.

miss wonderstarr

16:11 / 23.11.04

Yeah, whenever I see a reviewer creaming their trunks about the "cape" joke I get mildly annoyed that it's actually some 18 years old and lifted from Watchmen #1.

Matthew Fluxington

17:51 / 23.11.04

I daresay there's no need for them to make a Fantastic Four movie because this one captured the mad FEEL of it perfectly.

Have you ever read the Fantastic Four? Like, the old Kirby stuff? The key element to any good FF is the high concept sci-fi stuff. There was none of that in The Incredibles. And therefore, it's a pretty crap substitute for the FF.

Matthew Fluxington

17:54 / 23.11.04

If anything, The Incredibles is the Fantastic Four without Reed Richards. And Reed Richards is the best thing about the Fantastic Four by a billion miles. It's the FF as a dumbed-down sitcom.

21:14 / 23.11.04

Have you ever read the Fantastic Four? Like, the old Kirby stuff? The key element to any good FF is the high concept sci-fi stuff. There was none of that in The Incredibles. And therefore, it's a pretty crap substitute for the FF.

Yeah, but is the proper FF movie gonna have high-concept sci-fi either? It looks to be just a family of superheroes in matching costumes against a megalomaniac, which is what this movie's done already. FF at its Lee-Kirby finest is a little more akin to Star Trek with superpowers, and I don't think that's the movie the studios think audiences want to see. Incredibles, meanwhile, gives you that Silver Age fun feeling you get from reading black-and-white Essential FFs.

So it's not an exact parallel or anything, obviously, but it's reasonably good, and I bet this movie is closer in tone to the old FFs than the contemporized version is going to be.

Who knows, though, the new movie could be great and I would be forced to eat my hat.

Matthew Fluxington

18:45 / 25.11.04

I would think that the failings of the Fantastic Four movie have little to do with the actual Fantastic Four comics and more to do with the fact that they've got a bunch of inept hacks working on the film. There is no reason why a Fantastic Four film shouldn't be vastly superior to The Incredibles. The FF is one of the five best superhero concepts ever (along with Superman, Batman, the X-Men, and Spider-Man) and if Hollywood fucks that up, it's their problem. There were a lot of shitty Spider-Man adaptations before Sam Raimi came along and nailed it.

Yotsuba & Benjamin!

02:26 / 27.11.04

You'd really think that people who read comics so religiously would see that powers in any super-hero comic have always been a form of metaphor and, let's face it, there aren't that many good ones. There's flying, strength, ice, stretchy, blah, blah, blah. The Incredibles has as much to do with the Fantastic Four as the FF has to do with Green Lantern, etcetera.

And Mr. Fluxington is 110% right. The FF concept is airtight (even translating quite will in the present day and the hands of Mr. Warren Ellis). The movie's undoubted bombing has nothing to do with Brad Bird and everything to do with everyone involved in the making of the film. Especially anyone in the movie who is not John C Reilly and playing The Thing.

Yeah, I said it. Again.

Page: 1(2)3 4 5