Incredibles!

[Peter Pirate]

We just saw it and I think it WAS incredible! I do believe it is my favorite of the PIXAR movies, just nudging Monsters, Inc (I know most probably won't share this feeling).

Two things come to mind in retrospect: (1) It really reminded us of Spy Kids. I'm not sure this is relevent or means anything, but three of the four of us thought this. (2) It seems obvious that this was not intended for the Brother Bear, Home On The Range crowd. It seems to be the big animated movies of late Shrek(both), Incredibles, Nemo are being aimed at older audiences. I noticed the little ones in our crowd were far less interested in Incredibles but the high schoolers were way more interested than say BB. Again I don't know what to make of this, just throwing it out.

We didn't get a preview of Chicken Little (darn it) but did get Cars, which did not look impresive in the least to any of us.

 

[BRERALEX]

I thought chicken Little sucked. I thought the song was atrocious, noone was paying attention to the story and I couldn't wait for it to be over. The sheep was cute but the it was just a terrible terrible short to me. The voices the melody everything. I didn't like one thing about it.

 

[CasualObserver]

You were talking about Boundin'. Chicken Little is Disney's first CG animated release since Dinosaur!.

Personally, I liked Boundin'. I thought it had a nice, old-school Walt feel to it.

I liked what I saw with Chicken Little. Nice look, several characters that had an angle that could work our for a funny film.

Cars --- hated it. Given that trailer, I have no interest in seeing the film.

Didn't care for The Incredibles. Go to jjewel.org to read my reasons in detail which are: weak story, weak characters. However, technically and artistically wonderful.


Casual Observer

 

[DancingBear]

Breralex, it sounds like you're referring to "Boundin'", a Pixar short, and not the preview for "Chicken Little", Disney's upcoming CGI flick, produced in-house.

Edited to add: Whoops, CO beat me to it!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Movie reviews are so interesting...I liked "Incredibles" because of the "weak" story. It was what it was and that was fine with me. I disagree about the character development as I thought the family was put together quite well.

I too thought "Boundin'" was quite good. Nice story, catchy if somewhat cornball music, and very active.

Chicken Little looks good from what I've seen, but I'm another whose tryin' not to get my hopes up too high (sad, ain't it?).

 

[CasualObserver]

I'm glad for those who really liked it. I didn't get to the walk-out-of-the-theater point but it wouldn't have bothered me to have to run to the restroom, either. Usually, with Pixar films I hate to miss a single minute. I went to see Monster's the second time because I had to step out and handle an emergency at work at the very end and missed when Sully went back to Boo. Saw Nemo a couple of times too.

This one just didn't capture me, although I liked it artistically.

Casual Observer

 

[BRERALEX]

ooops sorry guys.

chicken little sucked too!!!!! just kidding. I was indifferent about it. Better then the teaser at least.

the cars teaser just didnt hold my attention as did other Pixar previews of the past

 

[All Aboard]

I'm in full agreement with the Pirate. But, I think the story was fleshed out very well. The character development, in my opinion, was also strong. When I "feel" for a character, and care very strongly about their fate - the director has done his/her job. "Family" comes through in such a pronounced manner, and the viewer really doesn't see that coming. We think the most important thing to Bob is being Mr. Incredible. We (and he) finds out that it really isn't. The Incredibles are an awsome family.

Boundin' was unusual for Pixar. I think they were trying to grab a little old school. Left me a little flat. Didn't have the "twist" or the really clever ending or "hook" that the others had.

The Cars trailer was the least intriguing Pixar trailer yet. I couldn't seperate myself from the fact that I ~wasn't~ watching a Chevron commercial, 'cause it sure seemed like I was.

Our theater didn't show Chicken Little, but we saw it before Home on the Range. If it's the same trailer, it didn't inspire any confidence in me that medium is the reason Disney Animation has been failing lately. It looked terrible.

 

[Peter Pirate]

So what about the shift in audience target for animated films? Doesn't it seem to be a huge trend toward older kids and adults?

This can be a good thing (for us) but it kind of puts an unfair microscope on movies made for the younger, more traditional animated crowd (like Brother Bear) doesn't it? I mean the emphasis on all the technical and plot lines? Many of our past classics were basic stories told well and animated well, but they were seldom of the quality where so much across the board attention was given them.

BTW, my daughter and I wached the two trailers for Chicken Little on their website and I gotta say it looks pretty good (I'm really concerned about my expectation level).

 

[CasualObserver]

I'm quite concerned for the industry with the trend towards making animated films more "grown-up" or "edgy". I think they producers are forgetting their core audience. So why would they leave their core audience behind?

I think the answer is that there is a trend to be accepted by the mainstream entertainment community. Developing kids fare isn't considered, in general, to be "real" entertainment products. It's called "fluff" or "cheesy", etc. There is a desire to be considered "legitimate" that is driving this move. It's not because the audience is waiting for the offering. There hasn't been a successful animated film targeting the 14+ audience.

When someone decides to develop children's entertainment they must go into it with the understanding that their peers in the entertainment community are not going to give them accolades. They must accept that fact and, instead, focus on the accolades of their target audience. I'm sorry to say that I see many searching for the accolades of peers instead.


Casual Observer

 

[raidermatt]

My problem is more the slippery slope theory than what's been out so far.

Movies like The Incredibles and Lilo & Stitch do target an older audience, but they are still subtle and simple enough that the majority of kiddies are still "down with them".

For example, there's a bit of adult humor near the beginning of the Incredibles, but its done with such subtlety that its not a problem at all for kids. But I fear that not all filmmakers will do so well with it, and I'd hate for it to begin to permeate all animated films.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"For example, there's a bit of adult humor near the beginning of the Incredibles, but its done with such subtlety that its not a problem at all for kids."***

They remind me of old time movies. The dialogue was so well written that mom & dad could give each other a little wink but Jr. thought the movie was about a slumber party. Now days, any sexuality in a movie is displayed so freely that ones imagination isn't required.

For the time being at least, we can look forward to some creative writtng in feature animation. Very Walt-like actually, something the whole family can enjoy.

 

[dcentity2000]

To start with The Incredibles looked a tad dull to me; then came the big trailer, which was more than just Mr. Incredible and his belt. Now I cannot wait to see this movie!

Having seen the initial trailer for Cars, I cannot say I am that interested - but given the change around seen in The Incredibles (and indeed, Finding Nemo) from initial teaser to full blown trailer and movie, I don't think that Cars should be confined to room 101 just yet...



Rich::

 

[CasualObserver]

My problem is more the slippery slope theory than what's been out so far.

My point is that your slippery slope is going on. Look back at quotes from directors of recent animated fare. They have used they words like "edgy", "grown-up", etc. They have made statements disparaging traditional Disney storytelling. I'm not saying that we should put the traditional Disney model up on an alter and burn incense. However the traditional Disney model did recognize it's target audience and appealed to it.

Disney's 2nd Golden Age was built upon the foundation of returning to that model. Then, around ENG, there was a change in the wind.

So, your slippery slope has been greased up for a long time. I can't control other's output, but I can control mine.

Casual Observer

 

[rocketriter]

I'm quite concerned for the industry with the trend towards making animated films more "grown-up" or "edgy".

This trend has been going on for a long time. I sometimes think I'm the only one on this planet who thinks the original Star Wars (now Episode 4) was far, far away the best in the series. It had a wide-eyed growing up theme like the best of the Heinlein novels, and it wasn't ashamed to touch the heart. As soon as it was successful, people started telling Lucas to make his sequels more "edgy." His films have gotten colder and colder, more and more mean-spirited (wait until you see how mean the last one is going to be!), and the human resonance has pretty much been sucked out of them.

I, for one, didn't think The Incredibles was edgy at all. Sure, it had a theme aimed at boomers (mid-life crisis) and a funny sense of irony. But it was solidly rooted in the value of people caring about each other--the same thing that gave Nemo its tremendous emotional punch.

 

[CasualObserver]

rocketriter, I would agree with you. Although the final Star Wars episode is the best script of the lot. I think Ep 4. had all the things that made great entertainment.

The Incredibles isn't "edgy" as much as "older". I realize I'm in the minority on this. I didn't think it was awful, I just thought it was weak. It was weak primarily because it tried to be an action film and left character in the dust. They are just thin characters and a thin plot - typical of action films where the stunts keep the audiences interests.

Bond films have also been sagging lately because they have been losing the character and turned the franchise into a predictable action film albiet with a very well known character name. Older Bond films were much better, in my opinion.

Casual Observer

 

[Peter Pirate]

I agree and disagree...I don't think Incredibles was edgy but aimed at an older audience. unlike CO, I liked the simplicity and thought they hit the mark with the story (simplistic), characters (family values) and humor (to each their own).

It is interesting that we actually seem to have somewhat of a consensus on feature animation though.