Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: 42 on November 05, 2004, 04:49:59 PM
-
This is a ultra-cool movie.
It's just a lot of fun and it shows Pixar brancing out a bit.
Yes the animation style is still very Pixar-like but it shows hints of the Square-Soft style in some of the scenery and F/Xs. It's great fun.
It is violent in parts, like Tom and Jerry violent. There are some extra/red-shirt characters that die.
It also has many great lines.
-
Cool. I hope to see it this weekend. Look for my review next week.
-
just saw it. Yay Incredibles! They were certainly unabashed about being thematically Fantastic Four. I was pleased.
-
Excellent. And judging by how fast shows are selling out here, I hope Pixar makes LOTS of money and will continue to make EXCELLENT movies.
-
ohmygosh.
Violet is voice-acted by Sarah Vowell ???
I'm sure I"m the only one who even cares, but she's a GREAT author.
-
she did a great job voice acting too
I really like Edna and Elastigirl's voice acting as well.
-
Edna Mode was voiced by Brad Bird who is also the director. I found Edna to be hilariouos.
I've also had that Boundin' song in my head all evening.
-
Got to give it to Pixar, this movie was,well...Incredible. I hope it dose better then Nemo, wich is a decent movie, but not as good as this.
-
Saw it with Karen tonight. Loved every minute of it. Some parts I just could not stop laughing. It was fantastic.
-
my brother-in-law comes home from his mission tomorrow. I've decided I'm taking him to see thsi movie on Saturday.
-
It's on the list of movies to show when my sister and bother get back from their respective missions too.
-
Saw it with Karen tonight. Loved every minute of it. Some parts I just could not stop laughing. It was fantastic.
Ok, driving me crazy.
Karen?
-
His pet rock.
-
See the Anti-Rant thread in Rants. And I think he mentioned it somewhere else, saying he may not be on as much.
-
I saw it. My question was the same as EUOL's. It's all answered now though. Life is good.
-
Well...this was the first time I mentioned her name in a thread, but...yeah, see the other thread. >_>;;;
-
I went out and saw this one by myself. It was pretty good. I felt that Violet's character was kind of lacking. Sure she had her moments, but... what? And I wanted more supers! Why Syndrome, why have you killed so many!?
-
Hm, I thought Violet was just fine...had that whole insecure angsty teen thing going, and once she accepted herself and proved her usefulness she started actually smiling. I remarked on her first smile when I saw it.
-
I'm finally going to see it tonight! Yay!
-
Wahoo! My mom is coming up to spend the night on 12/2 to watch Mathias (he'll be sleeping), so my husband and I can catch this movie.
-
Never wear a cape, that's what I've learned today. Great movie. I was laughing the whole way through. It took me forever to realize who was doing Mr. Incredible's voice. The Coach himself, Craig T. Nelson. I think he did a great job. The best voice would have to be Edna, though.
So many surprises. I went in not really knowing what the plot would be, so I was pretty much surprised at every turn.
-
You know this might go in the thread about movie critics and how worthless they are, but no....
Incredibles has 96% on Rotten Tomatoes. Which is pretty good. But that still means there were 7 people who didn't like it. Which boggles me. I mean you read a review like "An unfortunate use of Pixar magic to tell a tired story in a typical world," and I think "Did they see the same movie that I did?"
-
So four critics disagreeing with you means that all critics are worthless?
(Sorry, but I know how much you love semantic dissections of exaggeration and sarcasm.)
-
No.
*sets Fellfrosch on fire*
-
you know, there were people who didn't like The Fellowship of the Rings as well. Some on our own site (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=42). People just ahve differnet opinions.
Of course, in teh case of The Fellowship of the Rings and teh Incredibles, if they don't like them they're WRONG. but still.
-
Technically I didn't say they were wrong. I can't believe they saw the same movie that I did. I postulate that their theater was near some sort of vortex and they slipped into a parallel universe in which the movie sucked.
-
Well there are lots of generic things in the movie, it's not that original. It's just well done.
-
and you say Dreamworks is a better studio? sorry, that movie was pretty brilliant. They had some really creative uses of powers and ideas. No, it wasn't the most original movie ever. If it was, it wouldn't be a superhero movie. But it still held it's own against many other movies.
-
I finally saw this the other night and came out of the theatre with a big smile on my face. I loved every minute of it. Sure, it starts out slow, but when the action hits, it hits hard. Very impressed. Makes me want to try out CoH now...
And my finace and I had the theme played at the end of the movie in our heads all night.
-
If it was, it wouldn't be a superhero movie.
Sorry, I disagree. One of the things I LIKE about superhero movies is their originality. Sure, they follow a common plot structure. However, the powers, the way they use them, the visuals, the personalities, the backstories--these are generally creative and interesting. Original, if you will.
I loved THE INCREDIBLES. However, I'll admit that I was disappointed that the powers presented were all so generic.
You could make that same comment about fantasy. "If it were original, it wouldn't be fantasy.' Just because a lot of the genre is repetitive doesn't mean it all has to be.
-
no, you mistake my meaning.
I was very specific in saying "the most original movie ever." movies in established genres can be very original. But if they're in an established genre, they're already assuming a set of already generated ideas, and therefore cannot be the most original EVER.
-
Wait. You expect me to believe that you meant that statement literally? Why say it then? It has no meaning. Of course it wasn't the "Most original movie ever." It would be insane to expect that--in fact, I doubt the most original movie ever is even accessible to a normal viewing audience.
I put fort that you're now backpedaling and trying to find an argument to explain your statement. In the colloquial vernacular, the statement you used implies a weakness or an opposite meaning. For example:
"He's not the smartest man I ever met." Does not mean, literally, that you expected him to be the smartest man ever. That statement is a euphemism for saying "He's not very smart." That's how we use the language.
So, when you said "It wasn't the most original movie ever," your statement meant "It wasn't very original." Then you proceeded to say (essentially) "If it were original, it couldn't be a superhero movie."
And so I quibbled. I didn't mistake your meaning. You may not, however, have said what you meant.
-
no, you mistook my meaning. I said it that way because i was arguing against Spriggan. Sprig said the Incredibles wasn't original. I said it was. I wouldn't make the literal argument that it was the most original ever, y'know, in the history of cinema. it borrows heavily from, to state only the most obvious, The Watchmen and The Fantastic Four. But despite not being the MOST original, it had quite a bit that was unique and creative about it.
-
Obviously you don't know the meaning of "Original", either something is or it isn't. There's no somewhat or "parts of" here SE. So I win, you loose.
Also you've got the fact that the director said the biggest hangup with the movie was getting permission to use all the names and some of the storys from comic book people since about every thing in the movie has been done before. Heck, the big robot's name was lincenced from Lucas. There is no Originality when to make your movie you have to lincence the right to use that name with those set of powers in a superhero movie.
-
Obviously you don't know the meaning of "Original", either something is or it isn't. There's no somewhat or "parts of" here SE. So I win, you loose.
That's a fallacious argument, on so many levels. I think you know it, too, so I'm not going to address it further.
Yes, they borrowed a lot. But they made some very creative applications of the ideas, like I said before. not every line was stolen. Not every character was stolen. Part of the lisencing is that Marvel and DC will sue at the drop of the hat. The mere fact that there's a young speedster probably gets the panties of execs over at DC in a bundle because they happen to have a young speedster named Impulse. Does that mean that Dash and Impulse are the same character? Hardly. But it's not the powers that i'm focussing on. It's how they use them. and it's how they work the story. No, you haven't seen that story before. You've seen elements of it before in several different places, but you've not seen it put together that way.
-
Maurice Sendak once said (http://www.advance.uconn.edu/2004/040927/04092706.htm), "The difference between a bad artist and a good one is, the bad artist seems to copy a great deal. The good one really does copy a great deal."
"I'd like to place myself in the latter category," he added. "Where does it come from? You steal it. It's a very simple thing. It's what I've been doing all my career. Pictures, music, ballet, street scenes, anything is there to take. There's no such thing as an original."
Another time, he said: (http://www.bookpage.com/9905bp/maurice_sendak.html)
"I've always been a vigorous thief, but I've always felt that if you steal, you've got to turn it into you. If you just steal, then you're nothing but a lousy crook."
He borrows--or as he says, steals--motifs and compositions all the time. If you look at Outside Over There or Where the Wild Things Are, you've got some great originality combined with some very classic looks. I think originality and borrowing can happen at the same time.
I've just always liked how open Sendak is about how he "steals."
-
I have to say amen to Stacer's/Sendak's comments. Stealing happens in all art, often the person doing it is not even aware of it. "Original" ideas are few and far between and, frankly, are usually not a very good or polished example of the root idea the first time they're trotted out into the light. Making an idea yours, as Sendak talks about, is just as creative and difficult as popping up with a new idea in the first place.
I think the word "Original" is often misused as a universally good modifier. An original movie is often not a good movie. Old ideas used in original ways and combinations are usually far better and more satisfying than the tired old "avante gard" "like nothing you've ever seen before" "challenging" films/books/songs.
The same kind of paradigm operates in science. The cutting edge of experimentation is necessary but usually not immediately useful. Most of the really innovative and useful (useful in science being used as a parallel for good in movies) discoveries are nifty combinations of old ideas. Post-it notes, velcro, teflon etc... all came as a new application of old ideas and techniques.
So blah. Original is not necessarily good and good is not necessarily original.
-
OK, well, Skar's review (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=903) has been posted.
-
I would have to agree with Skar and Stacer. Originality is really not that important.
Usually, when someone says something is original, it means that they have not persoanally seen something like it. But when you start nit-picking, you can usually find plenty of unoriginal elements.
And still, alot of it is based on what your personal background and experiences had givin you. On of the great things about the children's market is that they see almost everything as original. Just look how they are bringing back toys from fifteen years ago. To the kids getting these toys, the new versions are the original ones and the old versions are the copies.
Every once and while, something truly original shows up, but it's not worth holding your breath for it. One theory of Aesthetics says that nothing is original, everything stemming from some premortal existance.
For everyday criticism, orignality kind of needs to take a back seat to things like craftsmanship, social relevence, and market demands. Bad critics get so focused on finding originality, that they tyically end up jaded and dissappointed almost every time.
-
hrm... thought I'd linked this already, but I guess not. our review (by skar) is up (http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=903).
-
Edit question: Skar, do you mean self-conscious, or subconscious?
-
subconscious, as in the audience being viscerally but not consciously aware that the person speaking is really standing in a studio behind a microphone rather than streaking through the sky in a private jet or lifting a monster robot in his arms.
-
you mean, he WASN'T tossing around giant robotic monsters? All my illusions are shattered!
-
And good riddance too. Toss the shards in the dust-bin along with your ninja monkeys.
-
I'm sorry. I take back what I said about the stupid ninja... hey. cut it out, that hurts...about the RADIANT ninja monkeys. They are obviously real.
-
SE. In the review the links to Holly Hunter and Craig Nelson's bios on IMDB just point at the review page. fixie?
-
there are no links in teh review. we can add them though. send me the URLs so I dont' have to stop writing and find them
-
wait, they're there. they just were coded wrong
it's =, not :
I shoulda caught that when I edited.
-
Thanks.
Maybe I should be made an admin, at least of the movies section, so I can just fix that stuff instead of having to bother you.
-
it's not a big bother, except during NaNoWriMo. And actually, even them I usually allow any distraction that comes my way.
Anyway, I have no problem with you being an admin. I thought that was something we'd talked about before. I don't need to do all the edits, though I'm glad to work on it, I see my main focus as controlling content release, ie, making sure we get content and that it shows up when we need it.
-
does anyone know the Boundin' song (the short film in The Incredibles) please send it to me!! thanx :D
-
Y'know, as Pixar shorts go, I didn't think that was a very good one. I mean, better than some, but not really good.
-
It was horrible. It was technically good, good CGI etc... but the theme was boring and painfully, even predictably, PC. Orson Scott Card points out that the reason the audience found the sheared sheep funny was not because he was pink but because he was naked. Big difference, interesting moral message to the short when viewed in that light.
-
Yeah. I thought it wasn't even CLOSE to thinking about being near as good as the other Pixar shorts. No neato factor at all. It had a jackalope (woo!), but just wasn't funny. The previous ones have had a slice-of-life sense to them, but not this one.
-
This one kind of scared me. That Jackolope thing was creepy. As well most of the other critters were too. Who would of thought you could make such cute creatures look so dang creepy and ugly by giving them human-like features.
-
"For the Birds" still is my favorite. I can't get over the fact that when the birds start to bicker at the beginning you can actually tell what they're saying because they're so expressively animated.
And again - naked birds= funny.
-
I'm gonna back up Fuzzy on this one with a large contigent of Ninja Monkeys. "For the Birds" it the best Pixar short ever.