Incredibles 2

[Ace Pace]

That was incredible!

Aside from effusive praise, I think this is one of the more fun movies I've seen lately from Pixar. The plot was pretty predictable, but very good and good execution. Bonus points for a villan who makes sense and doesn't monologue before our heroes are defeated.


BAD ACE! WRONG FORUM!! -- Moved to Fantasy -- LadyTevar

[The Romulan Republic]

Hmm, I kind of want to see this, even though I'm not a huge fan of the first. A more light-hearted movie makes a nice change of pace now and then.

[PhoenixKnig]

I saw it twice and it's really great

[Eternal_Freedom]

I saw it last weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it, definitely up to Pixar's usual standard.

One thing that did moderately annoy me was the reveal of who was Screenslaver. Can we have one action/superhero film where the main character's don't get betrayed by someone they trust early in the film? It's getting old.

[madd0ct0r]

Two things I noticed.

1) the 1950's mid cent imagery was really ramped up in this film compared to the previous. It was there already since they are supposed to relate to silver age comics, but this time around they were channeling 'futureworld zone' at disneyland a lot harder. In the credits, one of the cartoon scenes is dedicated to mid-cent furniture. I liked that
This informed some things - there's a few nods to the setting for why a man at home is rare, and how being a superheroine allows you to avoid certain societal expectations. There does not appear to be a cold war. At all.

2) Across the two films, I don't think there's been a single willing villian who was not a gadgeeter. It dosen't feel intentional, it dosen't fit the 'future!' theme where technology was optimistic. and yet: Bomb Voyage, Syndrome (very explicitly), the Underminer, Screenslaver - they are all technological geniuses who do not have explicit super powers. In fact, out of dozens of allies, only Edna Mode is a gadgeeter. All the others have non-tech superpowers.
It feels weird, and unintentionally caste based. It dosen't play on contempory fears or 1950 atomic fears, it just feels like it happened.

[Tsyroc]

I'm starting to think Edna Mode is a tech based super who just likes to focus on fashion, and perhaps making stuff for others to use. Just think how useful the fabric she uses for the Incredibles outfits would be for anyone in a dangerous line of work? Did she design the materials used in the Jack-Jack "containment room"?

[madd0ct0r]

I'm starting to think Edna Mode is a tech based super who just likes to focus on fashion, and perhaps making stuff for others to use. Just think how useful the fabric she uses for the Incredibles outfits would be for anyone in a dangerous line of work? Did she design the materials used in the Jack-Jack "containment room"?

Not only that, I think she designed the containment room too!

[PhoenixKnig]

I was wondering about that; I think she designed her whole facility

[The Romulan Republic]

Two things I noticed.

1) the 1950's mid cent imagery was really ramped up in this film compared to the previous. It was there already since they are supposed to relate to silver age comics, but this time around they were channeling 'futureworld zone' at disneyland a lot harder. In the credits, one of the cartoon scenes is dedicated to mid-cent furniture. I liked that
This informed some things - there's a few nods to the setting for why a man at home is rare, and how being a superheroine allows you to avoid certain societal expectations. There does not appear to be a cold war. At all.

In a setting with high-end super humans, I don't think the cold war as it happened in real life could work. Any self-respecting high-end super could stop a nuclear attack. You could have a stand-off between opposing nations' superheroes, but traditional superheroes tend to be somewhat... anti-authority in their approach to dealing with things, basically vigilantes, and they'll probably be a lot harder to control than nukes, frighteningly enough. So it just ends up being another superheroes vs. supervillains conflict, that doesn't necessarily conform to government policy or national boundaries.

[FaxModem1]

2) Across the two films, I don't think there's been a single willing villian who was not a gadgeeter. It dosen't feel intentional, it dosen't fit the 'future!' theme where technology was optimistic. and yet: Bomb Voyage, Syndrome (very explicitly), the Underminer, Screenslaver - they are all technological geniuses who do not have explicit super powers. In fact, out of dozens of allies, only Edna Mode is a gadgeeter. All the others have non-tech superpowers.
It feels weird, and unintentionally caste based. It dosen't play on contempory fears or 1950 atomic fears, it just feels like it happened.

Considering Brad Bird's history with Objectivism, and a lot of his films, especially The Incredibles, about the normies holding the specials back from doing what they want, it may be intentional.

Seeing the film in an hour, will comment my thoughts afterwards.

[The Romulan Republic]

Aaaand... there goes any desire to ever watch his films again.

Objectivism is sociopathy turned into political philosophy.

[FaxModem1]

I rather enjoyed the film. And in the words of MovieBob, would someone at Disney please tell Brad Bird that he is a very special boy and that we all appreciate all that he does as a great artist in this mundane world?

Okay, I rather liked the family dynamics. Seeing a stay at home Dad and his struggles at keeping his kids functional and happy, especially when they have superpowers, can tire out any father. Wish we had had more than one scene and a half with Edna, as she felt criminally underused. It was great to see actual superpower fights, something that was sorely lacking in the first one.

Now, for the Objectivism stuff. Superheroes main road block to saving the day is the governments of the world making it illegal for them to do so. It's only at the behest of a telecomm giant's president supporting them that anything comes of it. He even gets a hero moment where he rescues all the mind controlled ambassadors and heroes. There is no such thing as an evil super, only good ones under mind control. Rick Dicker is the sole contrary voice to that, and his age is apparently over as he retires in his first scene, and is only seen once more to apologize for ruining Violet's love life.

So, it's definitely there. But whether it'd due to Brad Bird's personal views, or the needs of doing a superhero story, I don't know. It does make me wonder if his next film, like The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Tomorrowland, and The Incredibles 2, it'll be about the mundane holding down the special.

[madd0ct0r]

Now, for the Objectivism stuff. Superheroes main road block to saving the day is the governments of the world making it illegal for them to do so. It's only at the behest of a telecomm giant's president supporting them that anything comes of it. He even gets a hero moment where he rescues all the mind controlled ambassadors and heroes. There is no such thing as an evil super, only good ones under mind control. Rick Dicker is the sole contrary voice to that, and his age is apparently over as he retires in his first scene, and is only seen once more to apologize for ruining Violet's love life.

There is another scene. Post underminer the Parrs being interviewed -
"Did you achieve X?"
No
"Did you achieve Y?"
No
"Did you at stop Z escaping?"
No.

"The banks were insured, we have systems for this. It would have been better if you had left alone"

And i found myself nodding. Many public cultural parallels - if my store is robbed are mugged i pull a gun like a hero vs i shrug, insurance will cover it.
Same for someone giving emergency first aid being at risk of being sued. Old barbarian vs beaurcracy stuff.

But the film is very *objective* "we ran a cost-benefit on your hero interference work and the numbers dont lie".
Its like theres a edge of the modern globalisation cutting in. Time and motion studies replacing individual workers with abstract replaceable resource. Heros are nostalgic but not necessary. The 'system' has no need for them.

[FaxModem1]

Now, for the Objectivism stuff. Superheroes main road block to saving the day is the governments of the world making it illegal for them to do so. It's only at the behest of a telecomm giant's president supporting them that anything comes of it. He even gets a hero moment where he rescues all the mind controlled ambassadors and heroes. There is no such thing as an evil super, only good ones under mind control. Rick Dicker is the sole contrary voice to that, and his age is apparently over as he retires in his first scene, and is only seen once more to apologize for ruining Violet's love life.

There is another scene. Post underminer the Parrs being interviewed -
"Did you achieve X?"
No
"Did you achieve Y?"
No
"Did you at stop Z escaping?"
No.

"The banks were insured, we have systems for this. It would have been better if you had left alone"

And i found myself nodding. Many public cultural parallels - if my store is robbed are mugged i pull a gun like a hero vs i shrug, insurance will cover it.
Same for someone giving emergency first aid being at risk of being sued. Old barbarian vs beaurcracy stuff.

But the film is very *objective* "we ran a cost-benefit on your hero interference work and the numbers dont lie".
Its like theres a edge of the modern globalisation cutting in. Time and motion studies replacing individual workers with abstract replaceable resource. Heros are nostalgic but not necessary. The 'system' has no need for them.

Those scenes are undercut due to it being pointed out that it's all about Perception, and the fact that the Incredibles saved lives, and prevented City Hall from being destroyed, but all anyone saw was the Incredibles leaving the villain's vehicle and some destruction. So, the heroes were right in stopping the Underminer, and the government was wrong in the film.

[Crazedwraith]

I mean are the insurers going to not pay out because the Incredibles got involved?

[Elheru Aran]

I mean are the insurers going to not pay out because the Incredibles got involved?

There's an argument to be made, I suppose, that a.) they don't insure for superheroes and the damage the fight causes, and b.) if the superheroes had left well enough alone, minimal damage would have resulted and thus it's the superheroes' fault. Alternatively, they do pay out, but then they sue the Incredibles for damages.