I think they did an excellent job with Jack Jack and Mr. Incredible… they came close to topping Mr. .Incredible experience. They did very well with all the characters really except… well dash was just kind of there, and they gave Frozone more to do. I just think it… sagged a little whereas the other one flowed more freely for me and the villains were a step back. Still very good though.
And massive over performance.
“This is one of the biggest over-performances I’ve ever seen,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst for comScore. “To over-perform by $40 million means everyone underestimated the power of animation to draw huge audiences.”
Superhero fatique… bah. What’s better than superheroes, animated superheroes!
This really is a stellar summer for superhero movies (he said, a few weeks before Ant-Man and the Wasp…)!
I really liked Incredibles 2! In terms of action, I feel like it topped the first one, but of course it couldn’t match the original story! (How many kids’ movies are a metaphor for a husband having an affair?!?)
My major complaint was that the villain was a little too predictable, and telegraphed way too early. I saw the big reveal coming a mile away, but I would have appreciated at least a few head-fakes to make it seem less plausible.
I wouldn’t even put The Incredibles in the same category as what people consider “superhero movies”, any more than I would, say, Chronicle, or for that matter, any more than I’d call Finding Nemo a fish movie. It’s a Pixar movie that happens to feature superheroes.
It’s literally an animated superhero movie, but okay. If it makes you feel better to say Pixar makes all the difference, go ahead and say that. All i can say is the topic and theme made it more fun for me, and that topic and them is… superheroes.
“Evil Endeavor”, who could’ve seen that coming?!
Ha, yeah, also… as Samuel Jackson knows very well…
The hero and the villain are usually friends!
But “Pixar” is a studio, not a genre. And for that matter, “animated” is an artistic decision and not a genre. It’s the same problem that comics get into, where people assume that “comics” equals “for kids.” You can have an animated western, or a live-action drama, or a black-and-white comedy, or even a Pixar animated superhero movie. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
It’s not one or the other, but still, the tone and narrative beats of The Incredibles (I’ve only seen the first, if the sequel is materially different, I recant) are those of a Pixar movie, not a Marvel or DC movie. In fact I’d turn your point around and say that Pixar movies are more of a genre than movies that feature superheroes (as opposed to Marvel movies) are. To take it away from Pixar, Chronicle has more in common with Cloverfield than it does with Spiderman.
I wasn’t aware DC movies had narrative beats (I could say the same for some of the Marvel ones too).
As for Incredibles, thanks to @Nesrie for the flashing warning, though I suspect the scene that bothered me the most (the tv studio) was not the one you were thinking of (the fight).
Don’t think this has been posted yet:
You’re welcome. i was thinking of the fight scene but the that pattern Itself could be a cause. It’s hard to say, and I am not sure anyone is actually reporting strong reactions to it it just seems like a possibility, and Disney, for some reason, didn’t check.
We don’t know if they considered it or not. As you said, I’m not sure anyone has actually had a reaction to it. Disney could’ve tested, believed it wouldn’t be a problem, but now that there’s a discussion about it, decided the warnings can’t hurt.
I believe the articles have said they did not consult which is why they have to send the warnings to the theaters themselves because the movie itself does not have the warning. In this date and age, it seems a minor thing to reach out to organization and just ask or post a warning digitally.
I changed test to consult because I don’t know there is a test really so much as just caution.
Variety’s report didn’t mention that, and it seemed thorough, but I didn’t go looking for more info. I missed it if that was reported.
I am not sure I fully follow but my point is…
Disney doesn’t have to wait until after people see the movie to reach out to the The Epilepsy Foundation to see if they have concerns with a particular scene. I’ve seen the movie. it’s obvious, very obvious, one scene, and apparently others, could be a problem. Waiting until someone online says hey I think this is a problem seems like an unnecessary risk. They could have done this ahead of time, before the showings. It’s just a warning.
Nothing in the reporting I’ve read indicates Disney didn’t adequately test the film.
As far as I’ve seen reported, there have been no reports of anyone actually suffering from an epileptic or similar reaction to the film.
So it’s possible Disney never even considered it could be a problem (so they didn’t warn anyone), but it’s also possible Disney did consider the effect of those scenes and determined through their own testing or contact with the right resources that these particular scenes would not be cause for concern (so they didn’t warn anyone).
I just cited the Variety article as an example of high profile reporting on the subject that doesn’t offer any additional info or speculation regarding what you said:
And then I conceded I haven’t done additional research into this. I’m just not ready to assume there’s an actual danger to the film just because viewers are (understandably) concerned. They’re not wrong to raise the question, and Disney responding by sending warnings to the theater can’t hurt now that there’s a perception out there that their could be a problem.
But without personally seeing reporting to the contrary, I find it hard to believe the army of lawyers and legal experts in Disney’s employ just didn’t consider the health risk.
I think you’re misunderstanding. Most the people who deal with this problem have had to rely on word of mouth in the past. It’s not a legal thing. It just seems unnecessary for them to have to do that. They got some advice to put out warnings and the foundation asked them to do it digitally too… there is no reason why they couldn’t have done that ahead of the release.
This has nothing to do with people getting sued, just giving viewers information. I am not saying Disney is legally responsible for doing this. There is just no reason why they can’t.
I guess I still don’t understand what you mean when you said this, specifically, what did Disney “not check”?
It reads to me like you’re saying there’s some due diligence Disney did not do. I don’t see any evidence that they were negligent in that regard, I only see concern that they may have been negligent.
Because all things being equal, no one’s going to put a warning on their film that’s not necessary. That’s where I was going with the legal angle. Somewhere some legal bean counters must’ve looked at this and said “can we get sued if someone has a seizure?” and determined the risk was sufficiently low that no warning was necessary.