The Incredibles DVD

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 27, 2005, 5:58 am

If you buy the DVD, or rent it and it has the 2nd disc, watch, I repeat, WATCH the short Jack-Jack Attack. Holy fuck I was in pain from laughing afterwards.

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » March 27, 2005, 12:47 pm

Jack Jack Attack rocked. And if you watch the documentary part about the making of the movie, you can tell that the little cute blonde animator was the voice of the babysitter. She really talks like that.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » March 27, 2005, 1:49 pm

If I wanted to see an overplayed and overrated movie for the 10th time I'd watch comedy central.

Trias · Post by **Trias** » March 27, 2005, 1:51 pm

they aren't saying to watch the movie...just the short film that comes on the 2nd disc

man rellix you have nothing good to say lately =D

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 27, 2005, 1:55 pm

If I wanted to see an overplayed and overrated movie for the 10th time I'd watch comedy central.

...says the guy with a Napoleon Dynamite pic under his name.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » March 27, 2005, 2:04 pm

Trias wrote:they aren't saying to watch the movie...just the short film that comes on the 2nd disc

man rellix you have nothing good to say lately =D

You have to get the dvd (which contains the movie) to watch it though.. I'm venting I suppose -- I live with someone who has an extreme addiction to this movie, one that I honestly was "tired of" after the first viewing. Luckily he invites people over to watch it every week. This is the same person who is addicted to children's shows (such as Spongebob) at the age of 18.

And Napoloen Dynamite, while you may say it was overrated, it was/is definately not overplayed, at least around me.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 27, 2005, 6:09 pm

That's great, but The Incredibles isn't a kids show. Suicide and death aren't things you'd normally see in a kids show. I heard one kid crying in the theatre when the skeleton of that one super was found.

Anyways, the short film is hi-larious.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » March 27, 2005, 7:41 pm

You can't say that it doesn't have a child oriented theme, and it was without a doubt advertised towards children.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 27, 2005, 8:15 pm

Incredibles rocked. For true torture it would have to be Shrek 2.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 27, 2005, 10:24 pm

Eh I wouldn't say The Incredibles was really a kid movie or aimed at them. I wouldn't have taken a kid to it at least.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 29, 2005, 12:11 am

My kids watch it almost daily, but then again my 4 year old daughter's favorite 2 movies are princess bride and edward scissorhands (with ghost in the shell stand alone complex a third)... I am such a bad parent I know

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 29, 2005, 4:07 am

I'm with Rellix. I don't see what all the hype is about on this movie. The animation, granted, was excellent. But the movie itself as a whole wasn't all that special - good effects don't make a movie good. Definitely not something I'd bother watching again anytime soon.

And yes, Shrek 2 sucked. Blech.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » March 29, 2005, 5:02 am

Wowzers! The animation is so amazing, especially when it was mastered in 1995's Toy Story. You can't use the animation as the saving point for this film.

The plot is pretty dead too -- I can sum up the movie in less than a minute:

Overly large man is (SUPRISE) a super hero. His wife is a super hero. Guess what, his kid is a super hero. Most annoying character in animation EVER is angry because of the way he was disrespected for 2 minutes by the male super hero. Decides to devote his life to destruction of hero's family.

<Insert ridiculous and repetitive script here>

Amazing, the super heros win.

End.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 29, 2005, 5:14 am

Rellix wrote:Wowzers! The animation is so amazing, especially when it was mastered in 1995's Toy Story. You can't use the animation as the saving point for this film.

The plot is pretty dead too -- I can sum up the movie in less than a minute:

Overly large man is (SUPRISE) a super hero. His wife is a super hero. Guess what, his kid is a super hero. Most annoying character in animation EVER is angry because of the way he was disrespected for 2 minutes by the male super hero. Decides to devote his life to destruction of hero's family.

<Insert ridiculous and repetitive script here>

Amazing, the super heros win.

End.

You can sum up pretty much any movie with that many or less words you idiot. What the fuck is wrong with you lately?

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » March 29, 2005, 5:21 am

I'm on my period.

More seriously, this is a personal problem with the movie that has nothing to do with you guys, so I'll drop it. Sorry.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » March 29, 2005, 5:52 am

Rellix wrote:Wowzers! The animation is so amazing, especially when it was mastered in 1995's Toy Story. You can't use the animation as the saving point for this film.

That statement is just so blatantly wrong that I have no words with which to flame you.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 29, 2005, 9:19 am

The Usual Suspect was about 5 guys.

Shawshank Redemption was about 2 guys in jail and they get out at the end.

Anyways, it was a lot more than what you just described. Very good movie to watch and I'm glad I added it to the collecion. Will be watching Jack Attack tonight.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 29, 2005, 9:40 am

Lynks wrote:The Usual Suspect was about 5 guys.

Shawshank Redemption was about 2 guys in jail and they get out at the end.

Anyways, it was a lot more than what you just described. Very good movie to watch and I'm glad I added it to the collecion. Will be watching Jack Attack tonight.

Reservoir Dogs was a vehicle for Tarantino's theory that Like a Virgin is about huge cock.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » March 29, 2005, 10:10 am

lol

I'm glad Mr. Pink lived.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » March 29, 2005, 12:48 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:
Rellix wrote:Wowzers! The animation is so amazing, especially when it was mastered in 1995's Toy Story. You can't use the animation as the saving point for this film.
That statement is just so blatantly wrong that I have no words with which to flame you.

How am I wrong? Don't misunderstand me - the animation is good, but it's no different from animation 10 years ago.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 29, 2005, 1:18 pm

I haven't seen this but was going to purchase it for my son (who is 2)... maybe I won't do that. However I have to say that while Shrek 2 wasn't a great movie it's not THAT bad... it could have been worse.

Marb

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 1, 2005, 5:52 am

How am I wrong?

Let me count the ways.

You claim animation was mastered 10 years ago. This statement is absurd in the extreme so I have to assume you're misrepresenting your opinion due to a poor vocabulary.
If you mean "the CG techniques used to render the film were mastered 10 years ago" you would be slightly less preposterously incorrect. But still wrong. Technically, The Incredibles is far superior to Toy Story but you have to be something of a connoisseur of the techniques of CG animation to appreciate advances in sub-surface scattering and hair to name but two.
These, however, do not make the film great. Nor to they have anything to do with animation.

For the record, animation reached its peak of perfection in the 1950s with the work of Chuck Jones

The animation in The Incredibles is great but not breathtakingly so. There are a few superb touches. Elastigirl must have been challenging and the fact that she doesn't noticably suck when in motion is a triumph.
For me The Incredibles wins because the characters are engaging and sympathetic, the story is fun and well executed (I don't look to family-oriented cartoon movies when I want something challenging or unusual), the action set-pieces are brilliant (Dash's island chase and the final showdown especially) and cos superheros rule. Personally I loved the movie's art-direction style too - the dated/futuristic James Bond movie vibe.

Some may have developed a dislike of the film through overexposure or because someone they dislike claim it rules. But most of the rest of humanity thinks it rules. And it does. It's certainly way better than Shrek2. I'd personally put it in the top 3 with Toy Story and Shrek 1.

Mr Bacon · Post by **Mr Bacon** » April 1, 2005, 12:37 pm

You again? /sigh

vn_Tanc wrote:
How am I wrong?
Let me count the ways.

I count two in this ramble of your's, but you don't even support one of them.

You claim animation was mastered 10 years ago. This statement is absurd in the extreme so I have to assume you're misrepresenting your opinion due to a poor vocabulary.

I fail to see how that has anything to do with my vocabulary. Misrepresenting my opinion? No, my opinion was stated loud and clear. The animation used in this film was mastered ten years ago with Toy Story 1.

If you mean "the CG techniques used to render the film were mastered 10 years ago" you would be slightly less preposterously incorrect. But still wrong. Technically, The Incredibles is far superior to Toy Story but you have to be something of a connoisseur of the techniques of CG animation to appreciate advances in sub-surface scattering and hair to name but two.

When you sit in a theater (or since this is a DVD thread, in front of the television) do you ever pause the film and turn towards a fellow viewer and say "Wow, the advances in sub-surface scattering in this film is simply amazing. I've grown to appreciate this film at a much higher level purely based on this fact. The great part about it is that I can't even tell without being a complete computer animation professional."
Guess what, I'm not a GC animation connoisseur, I can tell you aren't a connoisseur, and 99% of the population aren't connoisseurs. So why honestly, should a minor improvement such as sub-surface scattering matter? (It doesn't)

These, however, do not make the film great. Nor to they have anything to do with animation.

Finally, a sensible thought!

For the record, animation reached its peak of perfection in the 1950s with the work of Chuck Jones

Sorry, when did I mention hand drawn animation?

reading comprehension.

The animation in The Incredibles is great but not breathtakingly so.

Right.. we already went over this point.

There are a few superb touches. Elastigirl must have been challenging and the fact that she doesn't noticably suck when in motion is a triumph.

I fail to see how this is a triumph. Go slowly frame by frame, just like you would in hand drawn animation. Ta-Da! It doesn't noticably suck.

For me The Incredibles wins because the characters are engaging and sympathetic, the story is fun and well executed (I don't look to family-oriented cartoon movies when I want something challenging or unusual), the action set-pieces are brilliant (Dash's island chase and the final showdown especially) and cos superheros rule. Personally I loved the movie's art-direction style too - the dated/futuristic James Bond movie vibe.

I can see your point about sympathy from Mr. Incredible. He's got a lousy job and has been aching for a blast from the past. Good deal. The wife? No - she's the normal TV housewife who doesn't approve, so no sympathy there. Dash? Oh no, he can't play sports at school, how horrible! Violet I can understand to an extent. She's the unnoticed school girl who just wants some attention and a boyfriend. While all too common in films today, they did her role well. Jack Jack? Please.

Now for the "evil" side, the bad-guy (I'm drawing a blank for his name right now) and his assistant are... annoying at the least. She (assistant) is simply unamusing. And he (bad guy) is quite possibly the most annoying and irritating character ever created in the history of (GC =)) animation. First of all, his voice just pisses me off, and beyond that ever single move he makes is way too predictable. Who the hell holds a grudge for YEARS to the point of homicide, for simple rejection as a child. Rejection is something we all go through at some point, but you don't see 99.9% of us flip out years later.

The characters are not a saving point of the movie. The majority of them have already hit movie screens more than enough times.

Some may have developed a dislike of the film through overexposure or because someone they dislike claim it rules. But most of the rest of humanity thinks it rules. And it does. It's certainly way better than Shrek2. I'd personally put it in the top 3 with Toy Story and Shrek 1.

I'd like to see data stating "Most of the rest of humanity thinks it rules." Do this, and I will gladly eat one of your turds.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 1, 2005, 12:45 pm

A little too much thought is going into the discussion here.

The movie was entertaining. It had nice animation and the storyline was timely with all the superhero movies that had been released.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » April 1, 2005, 1:39 pm

Dude, it won an Oscar. What more proof do you need!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 1, 2005, 8:36 pm

I really enjoyed it, what can I say. The music was well matched, the characters were well designed, the voice overs were great (I do part-time voiceover work so I normally hate everything heh), and the action was pretty damn cool. The scenes were cut well(such as the brief one where the fam started to click together fighting in the rain forest), the angles of action were approached well, and there was more than enough dialogue to give someone a chuckle

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 1, 2005, 8:44 pm

Chidoro wrote: (I do part-time voiceover work so I normally hate everything heh), and the action was pretty damn cool.

Do you do voiceover work for animation or is it for import movie type stuff?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 4, 2005, 3:27 pm

I count two in this ramble of your's, but you don't even support one of them

No that's just you UTTERLY failing to understand my point. Because you are a retard.

Animation is _how things move_. Whether they're hand-drawn or CG rendered makes no difference. That's my point. To quote you:

reading comprehension

When you sit in a theater (or since this is a DVD thread, in front of the television) do you ever pause the film and turn towards a fellow viewer and say "Wow, the advances in sub-surface scattering in this film is simply amazing. I've grown to appreciate this film at a much higher level purely based on this fact. The great part about it is that I can't even tell without being a complete computer animation professional."

Funnily enough when I'm sitting watching with my computer animation professional friends (who have worked on every major effects picture you can name in the last 6-8 years between them), yes I do. Only I don't sound so much of a cock. I guess that must be your style showing through.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 4, 2005, 3:29 pm

My favorite thing on the bonus DVD was Mr Incredible and Pals, followed by the comentary version. It was extremely funny and well done.

Frozone: Look at me, I'm white!
Mr Incredible: You're not white....you're tan.

Frozone: That bunny is getting on my nerves.

Ogbar · Post by **Ogbar** » April 5, 2005, 6:36 pm

Lynks wrote:My favorite thing on the bonus DVD was Mr Incredible and Pals, followed by the comentary version. It was extremely funny and well done.

Frozone: Look at me, I'm white!
Mr Incredible: You're not white....you're tan.

Frozone: That bunny is getting on my nerves.

Agreed. I like how they used the syncro-vox system made famous in Clutch Cargo (and seen regularly now on Late Night with Conan O'Brien). Minimalistic animation at its extreme.

I thought the animation was great: I don't recall seeing wetted hair done so well before. But I think the style of the film (almost old-school James-Bondsian) was the more dominant element - which is how it should be anyway.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » April 7, 2005, 5:44 pm

If you want to see CGI that makes stuff 10 years old look extremely ancient, watch Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocense. Absolutely beautiful. Unfortunately, also pretty damn boring. I notice that Pixar movies look better than they used to, but arguing about it is kinda pointless. Definitely better than anything Dreamworks has done though! /duck

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 7, 2005, 5:56 pm

It's the story not the animation that's important! Look at Speed Racer... That cartoon rocked and had like 1 frame every 5 seconds.

Sartori · Post by **Sartori** » April 7, 2005, 6:25 pm

LOL
I actually thought the story was ok, but the movie was boring for the most part - if that makes any sense...

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » April 7, 2005, 7:13 pm

Lol, i just saw the Sock Puppet easter egg on the DVD. That one rocked. I SO want a For the Birds doll like that.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 7, 2005, 9:09 pm

Winnow wrote:
Chidoro wrote: (I do part-time voiceover work so I normally hate everything heh), and the action was pretty damn cool.
Do you do voiceover work for animation or is it for import movie type stuff?

I do voice work for radio commercials and, because I have zero free time in the day so I feel like filling up even that, I read newspaper coupons at a radio station that broadcasts to blind people. Some at the station read novels, some, the news, I read coupons. Gave me a portfolio of tapes to get commercial work. Once the voice-over guy doing Lexus commercial kicks the bucket, I'm jumping in

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » April 7, 2005, 9:56 pm

Chidoro wrote:Once the voice-over guy doing Lexus commercial kicks the bucket, I'm jumping in

isn't that Donald Sutherland?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 8, 2005, 1:27 pm

Jeez, if it is, they must have sent his voice through some clean-up in the studio.