Remember how fans were going nuts when word was going around that the Fantastic Four movie was going to treat the FF like a humorous family comedy.
Well, based on the evidence of Pixar's "The Incredibles," it might well have worked, because that's essentially what "TI" is. The powers of the Thing, Invisible Girl, and Mr. Fantastic are all there (albeit switched around somewhat) as is the Fantasticar. Not to mention Iceman and Quicksilver.
Nevertheless, Ti remains wholly original and wholly fun. The first Pixar film that actually could have worked as live action, the sophistication of its script might actually some of the very youngest in the audience who are expecting "Finding Nemo II." And, frankly, they could have trimmed the script and picked up the pace (for instance, a scene involving young Dash getting in trouble at school could have been trimmed to a ten second flashback and incorporated into the dinner scene, since all the information we learn from that scene is present in the dinner sequence). So know your kid before bringing him or her.
Particularly hysterical is the voice work of writer/director Brad Bird on costumer designer Edna, who looks like the love child of Linda Hunt and Yoda, and gives a hilarious dissertation on something fans have discussed for ages: Why capes simply aren't practical. The identity of our heroes' nemesis is telegraphed early, but fortunately it's then revealed about halfway into the film, so it's not some climactic Scooby-Doo reveal saved for the end that we all saw coming.
Plus the film makes fun of everything from superhero cliches, such as a villain "monologuing," to educational cliches, such as mom Elastigirl tells her educationally-challenged son, "Every child is special," to which Dash sardonically but correctly replies, "If everyone is special, then NO ONE is special." A savvy comment on the blanderizing of America in which mediocrity can reap great rewards while quality withers on the vine.
Overall a far more "human" movie than a lot of movies with genuine human casts.
As for the FF film, I can tell you with authority (but without going into detail) that it is not at all the goofball comedy as first reported, but instead faithful in tone and style to the Lee/Kirby comics. There's some major changes in terms of the origin, but less than what they did in "Ultimate FF," and besides, c'mon--four people trying to get to the moon before the Russians? Just a TAD dated. How do I know this? Because I've been hired by Pocket Books to do the novelization of the film. So this'll be my fourth novelization of a Marvel comics movie.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at November 7, 2004 01:58 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingToo much to do this weekend so I'm taking my three girls to see it next weekend. Question, though whether there were any scenes after the credits, like they do with some animation films. Just want to see if I should stick around at the end.
Saw the film last week and was hugely impressed. I was expecting a 'comedy' and what I got was an affectionate tribute, handled with the deftness of touch and cleverness of, say, Galaxy Quest - where the film is laughing with the audience, not AT them.
Spotted most of the obvious FF references and without spoilage, the final scene blatantly owes something to that comic title and it's clear Brad Bird (who, after all, already brought us Iron Giant and The Simpsons) is on sure footing here. I can already see the possibility of a slightly inferior series being spawned from this.
Hilarious, touching, fun, dramatic... I hope this is in the running for Animated Oscars next year. I can only imagine the way they'll play that handover segment.
John
PS) Reliably informed by two fellow journos who stayed ALL the way through the credits, that there AREN'T any after-jokes.
PPS) Peter....thoughts on last week's Lost, West Wing etc yet? (Personally Lost as good as ever, WW better than last few weeks).
John
"Edna...gives a hilarious dissertation on something fans have discussed for ages: Why capes simply aren't practical."
They screened that scene at the San Diego Con this year. I found it to be exceedingly smug and cutesy. Capes on superheroes aren't SUPPOSED to be "practical"; they're supposed to be VISUAL.
Anyone who mocks superhero capes because they're not "practical" -- including, apparently, Mr. Bird -- just Doesn't Get It.
- Frank
I get it.
But I still enjoy mocking superhero capes if its doen as well as this.
Then again, I also laugh in the face of danger and then run away and hide.
John
Congrats on the FF novelization, Peter. Looking forward to reading it.
Bobby
That's cool. Have you ever wanted to write the Fantastic Four comic?
"Anyone who mocks superhero capes because they're not "practical" -- including, apparently, Mr. Bird -- just Doesn't Get It."
Frank, I say this without meaning at all to sound condescending: You're the one who doesn't get it. I can't say more without blowing some major stuff, but if/when you go see the film, THEN you will get it. Trust me.
PAD
Peter David writes:,/b>
I've been hired by Pocket Books to do the novelization of the film. So this'll be my fourth novelization of a Marvel comics movie.
Grr. I apologize. This is absolutely not a slam on you, PAD, and I of course don't begradge you picking up a contract that you're eminently qualified for.
But as a consumer I hate that the publishing industry always ends up with one "Go-To Guy" for these things.
In the 1970s, Genre novelizations were almost always by Michael Jahn. He was excellent at it, frequently doing massive re-writes on the original source material to make it work as a novel. He'd also throw in little in-jokes like tying the short-lived David McCallum series "The Invisible Man" in with "The Six Million Dollar Man." His stuff was a lot of fun. But you could hardly ever find a genre novelization that wasn't his work.
Then he was supplanted by Alan Dean Foster, who also did a great job, but also did _every_ job.
Now it looks like that's you. I like you. I like your writing. But I'd like to see some of these gigs go to Tony Isabella or Bob Ingersoll or John L. Byrne or Steve Gerber or Steven Grant or...
Well, you get the idea.
So, PAD, I offer you my heartfelt congratulations. I really do. But I wish for a more diverse marketplace for genre novelizations.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but from previews I assumed that the "Edna" character was based on Oscar winning costume designer Edith Head.
Steve Leavell
Peter:
I am another one of your fans who is not excited over the news that you are doing the FF novelization. While I am happy that you are being able to earn another paycheck, I rather you were writing more novels(including STNF). It is not that you are bad at novelization. You are quite good. Your RETURN OF THE SWAMP THING was vastly superior to the movie. I just rather see new books rather than souvenoirs.
No, there are no extra scenes after the credits but Pixar has a tendency to add more things after their movies have been out for a month or so.
My mom was cracking up at the fact that Edna looked like one of her sisters. :)
Steve Chung
I saw TI yesterday, and I'm still trying to untangle what I think of it.
In a nutshell, I'd summarize it as "The best James Bond film since For Your Eyes Only, plus with superpowers." It's really a Retired Spy film, not a Retired Superhero film.
The film completely drops the ball on its premise (superheroes retire en masse - what happens next?). After all, do all the supervillains retire at the same time? Why? If not, how does society handle them? If well, then wouldn't heroes feel genuinely unneeded? If poorly, then wouldn't society want the heroes back? The film also uses one of its best concepts - that the heroes go underground and form a secret society (heh) - as a blind for the real story, which is unfortunate.
So it ended up being two things: An action film and spy adventure, which it does well; and a film about family, which would have been more compelling had it had something profound to say.
So I guess in summary it falls into the category of "poor ideas executed well", which seems like the lot of many superhero films in my lifetime (the first Superman film and Tim Burton's Batman films definitely fall into this category).
(Well, I'll see if I can untangle this further when I write my own journal entry reviewing the film.)
By the way, did anyone see the preview of Pixar's next film, Cars? I presume the preview was a package deal with TI. My reaction to the preview was, "Gee, I have about as much interest in seeing that as I did in seeing White Chicks." It looked that bad. Ugh.
J. Alexander: Your RETURN OF THE SWAMP THING was vastly superior to the movie. I just rather see new books rather than souvenoirs.
I don't think I've bought a novelization of any film since high school (back in the days of my Star Trek fandom, probably). As an adult, I've lost an understanding of why people buy them, especially since people can just buy the DVD of the movies instead. But obviously they're just not being marketed at me, and that's fine.
Don't get me wrong, I love the movie and admire the two level thing that Pixar has mastered - one level that kids can enjoy and the other that adults can savor. But there is one thing that bothered me and this is a small spoiler....
The kids kill people in this movie.
Oh, to be sure, that bad guys are trying to do them in. And they are defending themselves using their powers. And yes, there is the possibility that the bad guys walked away from the explosions with a few scrapes and bruises.
But those were awfully big ka-booms and they didn't shy away from the topic of death in the movie. Is it a little weird to have two kids killing people in a family movie?
It's the only thing distracting me from the movie. I loved it, think it's one of Pixar's best and will likely be better than the FF movie. Still, that one point is lingering with me...
Craig, if you want to get techinal about it, the kids DON'T kill people. They don't walk up to the guys and blow their brains out with a gun, or stab them with a knife or anything like that. It's the kids outsmarting the people trying to kill them that results in the big explosions. And besides, you're complaining about what happens as the result of the kids actions, but not the adults? Lest you forget, the actions of the adults had the EXACT same consequences as the actions of the kids. But what, becuase they adults did it, it's okay? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Either it's okay or it's not.
Actually, I was wondering PAD, what makes novelizations appealing to you? As one of those who will eagerly read the next Apropos novel (whenever it's scheduled to come out) why isn't it more appealing to do work on which you have complete creative control?
Are there any Venture Brothers fans here? Did you catch that the Incredibles widely pre-publicized lower-case "i" chest emblems were parodied a month before the movie came out by the Impossible Quartet on Venture Bros.?
Is it time for a moratorium on super-hero costumes with the Image logo on the chest?
Oooh! I'm going to se the incredibles tonight. As an FF fan, I'm excited to see a similar story. I know there is some fear FF will come out and be labled a "copycat" but I think there is a general sense among the public who the FF is and that they've been around a LONG time. Especially characters like The Thing or the Human Torch.
I'm actually pretty excited about the movie. And it'll probably be the first novelization I pick up, because I'm an FF nut.
With the announcement that Waid/Weiringo are leaving FF... would it be too much to hope that you would want to throw your hat in the ring for that title. Maybe the replacements are already in place. But that would be... amazing!
As regards the "practicality" thing -
Recently caught a back issue of one of the Superman titles, where Supes is fighting somebody called Gog - whose costume includes a silly-looking horned helmet. As he's grabbing a horn, Supes comments, "A tip: when fighting someone who's super-strong, it's not a good idea to wear handles on your head."
PAD is writing the novelization?
Well then, there's a guaranteed sale to me.
There is one unexpected bit in the credits, which I don't count as a spoiler; it seems "Omnidroid" is owned by Lucasfilm. Surprisingly, there was no notification that I saw that "Elastigirl" is owned by DC.
Other than that, nothing, but the first 3 or so minutes of the credits are very nicely done animation in a good 60s movie credits style, and I recommend staying around at least while those are going; it'll be obvious from the start of those what I mean.
I just finished posting my review of the film as well on my blog. Looks like we both liked it.
Now, if only I had a Pocket Books announcement to make.
I just saw the movie this afternoon with my two daughters. We loved it. If this had been a live action film, I could see John Goodman playing Mr. Incredible.
I also am a guaranteed sale for PAD's novelization of the FF. Actually, I'm a guaranteed sale for all of PAD's stuff.
Dennis
Tom Galloway:it seems "Omnidroid" is owned by Lucasfilm
I think it's the term "droid" that they have a copyright or trademark or something on. Back in 1984, the game company FASA was forced to change the name of its giant robot combat game from BattleDroids to BattleTech by Lucasfilm.
But as a consumer I hate that the publishing industry always ends up with one "Go-To Guy" for these things.
First of all, the notion that there's only one person doing genre novelizations is silly. This year, we've had Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow by Kevin J. Anderson, Spider-Man 2 by our topic host, Resident Evil: Apocalypse by myself, Van Helsing by Kevin Ryan, The Chronicles of Riddick by Alan Dean Foster, Hellboy by Yvonne Navarro, The Punisher by D.A. Stern, and The Day After Tomorrow by Whitley Streiber.
Secondly, writing a novelization is not exactly a walk in the park. You have to be able to take a two-hour screenplay, which is maybe enough story for a novella, and turn it into a novel-length story in a way that will satisfy the movie company, who aren't always easy to please. You also generally only have a month or two (if you're lucky) to do it -- for Darkness Falls in early 2003, I had three weeks. So if you do see the same names coming up, it's because editors are going for authors who have proven themselves able to do a novelization, which is a pressure cooker situation.
---Keith R.A. DeCandido
I thought the movie was great. I'm not sure I agree about the pacing-- I liked the scene at the school-- but I can see how the movie might be a bit long for a young child. The only problem I had was Jason Lee's casting, possibly because his character looks so little like the actor. I love him as an actor, but every time his character spoke, somewhere in the back of my head I thought, "Banky?"
In some ways this is the best superhero movie I remember seeing, partly because it displays a range of powers I've never seen before in film. Elastigirl is formidable. I remember seeing someone-- I think it was PAD, in fact-- suggest that super-speed could be absolutely devastating if used/written properly, and you see that with Dash.
"So, PAD, I offer you my heartfelt congratulations. I really do. But I wish for a more diverse marketplace for genre novelizations."
Well, Keith pointed out a bunch I didn't do, to which I should add that I didn't do the books of either "X-Men" or "X2," "Daredevil," "The Punisher," "Catwoman" (phew).
Why do I write them? Because they can be challenging, they can be fun, they pay decently, they get my name out into markets that I'm not visible in (Wal-Mart alone took a gargantuan draw on the Spidey novels), and they occasionally have interesting perks.
Or, let me put it another way:
As a direct result of the Spidey and Hulk novelizations, I've had nice face-to-face chats with Kirsten Dunst and Jennifer Connelly.
Any questions?
PAD
I successfully fought off the tempation to see the movie the first night so I didn't have to wait in long lines. Making it through the first night without seeing a movie you really want to see is the hardest part. Now I just have to wait another week or so for the crowds to die down, lol.
Congradulations on your new work Peter.
For the record, Dean Wesley Smith & Kristine Kathryn Rusch did X-Men, Chris Claremont did X2, Greg Cox did Daredevil, the aforementioned D.A. Stern did The Punisher, and Elizabeth Hand did Catwoman.
Two repeat performers, though: Von Navarro is also doing Elektra, and Kevin Anderson also did League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
---KRAD
I caught THE INCREDIBLES Friday morning, and I thought it was good but not great. The CGI was great, the voicework was fantastic -- gotta give it up to Jason Lee as the fanboy from hell! -- but the story was pretty predictable (Will the quiet daughter find confidence? Will the son get to go full tilt? Will the dad go back to the life he loves?)
Regarding the capes issue, in a relatively recent issue of JLA had Batman commenting that he wears a cape because when someone fires into a cape they don't know what they'll be hitting. Of course, THE INCREDIBLES showed very clearly how dangerous a cape can be.
I agree with Craig Welsh about the violence in the movie. No, the good guys don't shoot people or crush them to jelly. But none of them show any worry or remorse when the villains happen to get blown up -- it happens a lot -- and Mom and Dad don't even try explaining about casualties here. (Incidentally, this movie has the highest body count of any Pixar movie (unless you count the fish eggs at the start of Finding Nemo) between the minions crashing and burning, and the history of what happened to most of the other superheroes.) More than a bit creepy, especially the skeletonized Cyclops-type dude.
Knowing how Pixar likes to put characters from its penultimate films in its current one, I bet Nemo, Dory, and/or Marlin turn up when one of the Incredibles wind up underwater. So if anyone finds Nemo (heh) in THE INCREDIBLES, please post where you saw it.
So, did anyone else think Elastigirl was hot?
Great, great movie. Nobody's mentioned the 3D graphics which beat the heck out of anything previous. I'm a little disappointed the teaser trailer (with Mr. I's attempts to get into his supersuit) wasn't part of the plot, but I laughed more here than I have in many a film.
For a Disney-distributed flick, I was surprised that the crashes of the hover disks didn't include any saturday-morning-ish parachutes to safety. It *is* after all, PG rated.
There was a look of dismay on Dash's face when he took the mask off one of the goons and saw a real person there, but it could have been him seeing the cliff face approaching.
If this movie reminded me of anything besides Bond, it was Brian Michael Bendis' recent issues of Powers: super powers are illegal, heroes are in hiding, but at least there the villains are running rampant.
I did see some touches that were reminiscent of Iron Giant: the robots and machines had some of that retro-future look. Plus the retro look of the cars and home decor, and some of the facial expressions reminded me a *lot* of IG.
Questions: If Elastigirl can change her shape, why does she worry about the size of her hips in her reflection?
Why does the invisible girl (not capitalized to differentiate from Sue Storm) have force fields?
Frank Stone said:
Capes on superheroes aren't SUPPOSED to be "practical"; they're supposed to be VISUAL.
Anyone who mocks superhero capes because they're not "practical" -- including, apparently, Mr. Bird -- just Doesn't Get It.
Oh, i'd say he does "get it" -- probably (not to be nasty, but adopting your own tone) better than you do.
Years ago, when Captain America created the new identity of Nomad for himself, there was a wonderful sequence with Viper wondering aloud why more heroes didn't trip on their own capes.
Any aspect of a cliche under attack can be a legitimate target of satire.
As to the film's plot -- there is also a strong echo of the first Matt Helm novel, Death of a Citizen.
Does anyone else feel as if Edna is portrayed as "a character who knows more than she's telling", as if she is actively trying to get supers back in action? (Or, in other words, does she come across as a "Mac" or an "M" type charcter?)
The design of the cars is fascinating -- Mr Incredible's new car is mostly a '63 or so split-window Sting Ray with gull-wing doors, and his old one is a 50's Nash crossed with something.
Anyone who accuses Brad Bird of not fully understanding 60s comics and other pop culture of the era probably doesn't understand it himself; for further evidence of that, see Iron Giant if you already haven't.
In fact, even if you do see how well Bird understands the source material, if you haven't seen Iron Giant, see it anyway, just because it's great.
"Tom Galloway: it seems "Omnidroid" is owned by Lucasfilm."
"Patrick Wynne: I think it's the term "droid" that they have a copyright or trademark or something on."
'Omnidroid' is probably a non-linear editing software package developed by Lucas' people. Lucas created the first digital non-linear film editing system, called 'EditDroid' (an obvious nod to the Star Wars universe). 'EditDroid' allowed editors to load film into a computer to cut and paste a movie together, rather than cutting and splicing film negatives. They followed that up with 'AudioDroid' (a non-linear audio editor) and a few other '-Droid' software packages. I'd guess Lucas either put out a program named 'OmniDroid,' or reserved the copyright over the name with the intent to put out a program named 'OmniDroid.'
It also bears mentioning that Lucas created Pixar, but the group was soon sold off, though I believe Lassiter and most of the original staff have been there since the beginning. Lucas and Pixar still have a good relationship, and there's apparently a bit of cross-pollenization between the staffs of Pixar and Skywalker Ranch, which is why the trailers for Ep II and Ep III premiered with the wide release of Pixar movies (Ep II with 'Monsters Inc.', and now Ep III with 'The Incredibles'). Perhaps the use of the 'OmniDroid' here is an in-joke reference?
As for the cape/no-cape issue, well, how could Batman be Batman without a cape? Batman's the example I always point to when people bring up the cape thing... yeah, capes look goofy on some heroes, but with Bats its just such an essential element to his whole mythos. Besides, Batman being the driven, hyper-intense guy he is, he makes the cape's negatives into advantages (the sometimes-used glide function, the above example of shots fired lost in the mass of shadowy cape, etc). How can a cape NOT be cool on a guy like that?
I wouldn't want to put words in the Pixar guys' mouths or anything, but could it be that they were just having a little fun with the cape gag? You know, that this particular cigar is just a cigar? Anyone?
-that OTHER John Byrne
The first Pixar film that actually could have worked as live action, the sophistication of its script might actually some of the very youngest in the audience who are expecting "Finding Nemo II."
I think that sentence is missing a word.
Dear Mr. David,
I am a writer and I am very good. I specialise in writing about angst-ridden girls, a description which I think quite appropriate to a misbegotten girl who finds herself invisible. I think that you should pay me to write about her, instead of doing it yourself. You write an awful lot of books, and I think you need a rest. I love writing very much, and would love to get paid for it, even if it is only just a bit. You could just stick my name on the cover underneath yours, in much smaller letters, if you like, and give me a couple of quid.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon. I think we will make a good team.
Kind Regards,
Fiona Condron-McLoughlin
Frank Stone posted: "Anyone who mocks superhero capes because they're not "practical" -- including, apparently, Mr. Bird -- just Doesn't Get It."
Yeah, like that Alan Moore guy who mocked capes in that crappy WATCHMEN comic. He obviously Doesn't Get It. What the heck is wrong with that guy?
Yes, folks, that's sarcasm. :)
Oh, and for those that have asked: the short list of the 11 films that have qualified for consideration for the Animated Oscar nominations this year is out, and THE INCREDIBLES is indeed among them. There will be three nominees this year, and I think it's a shoo-in for one of the slots. I imagine its main competition for the actual award will be THE POLAR EXPRESS, which opens Wednesday, and a little movie called SHREK II that you probably heard about.
The other eligible films are: THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE, SKY BLUE, CLIFFORD'S REALLY BIG MOVIE, HOME ON THE RANGE, TEACHER'S PET, SHARK TALE, GHOST IN THE SHELL 2: INNOCENCE and THE LEGEND OF BUDDHA.
Me, I'm hoping Pixar repeats last year's win for FINDING NEMO. I loved TI and I'm already ready to see it again!
GWB-- Go AWAY already! Christ! A few more missives from you and I'LL be sorry Bush got re-elected!
Ahem.
here's my problem with the FF film. I'm glad they changed the "let's beat the commies to the moon" bit. Obviously, that had to go. Just as, should the Iron Man project ever get off the ground, they will almost certainly have to ditch the idea that Tony Stark made his suit from whatever he could scrounge up at a Viet Cong prisoner of war camp (Yeah THAT would be one great looking suit. What would he have to work with? Bamboo? John Kerry's medals?)
I like what I've seen so far. The Thing looks good, not as bulky as the comics version but this one has to actually move (I saw a guy at a Halloween party once with a spot-on perfect Thing costume. Poor sod couldn't move worth a lick. He eventually passed out from the heat and fluid loss and pitched face down forward onto the floor in a scene that was later described by all who saw it as "tragic yet oddly hilarious".)
But Doom...oy. An evil businessman? Boy, THAT'S a new one. You know, when it's a 4 on 1 fight you had better make damn sure that the 1 is awesome or it looks like an unfair contest. Changing Doom from the evil genius leader of a country to just Donald Trump with a very troubling skin condition sems like a major step in the wrong direction...but who knows? Maybe they will surprise me.
PAD has shown before an ability to make entertaining books out of average material so I know the book will be fun. But the movie...we'll see.
Edna's my favorite character in the movie. I used to use the "If everyone is special, no one is special" line a lot during my brief sojourn into sf fandom, so I don't really consider it a "savvy comment on the blanderizing of America" so much as the kind of logical observation any smart kid can make when confronted with the "everyone is special" line. Oh, and yes, we loved the movie.
I hadn't planned on taking in THE INCREDIBLES, but your comments have made me think again. Thanks. 8-)
As for someone's comment that you do too many novelizationsm I reply "phooey!" As I've written to you off-list, I wish the people who gave us SHAUN OF THE DEAD would opt for a novelization of that film and give you the job of writing it. I'd be first in line to get it.
My 4.5-year-old found it a little scary at times, but sitting on Mommy's Lap helped tremendously, and the movie kept her attention the whole way. As a fan of both the Justice League cartoons and my Jonny Quest DVD collection, she didn't see anything dark or violent that she hadn't seen before (indeed, the violence level was pretty close to that of JQ, and, coincidentally, there was at least one visual homage to that series in the movie).
My biggest concern over the FF movie now is how they'll manage to make the powers CG look as seamless as they did on TI.
"Why does the invisible girl (not capitalized to differentiate from Sue Storm) have force fields?"
Because it's part of the metaphor. Not only is she a teenage girl who wants to be invisible sometimes, she also has a tendency of being defensive and putting up barriers.
"The kids kill people in this movie."
Well, not quite. The kids are trying to save themselves and are fighting off the bad guys. When things go in the direction of the hover discs blowing up, the kids save themselves. They don't have time to save the people piloting those things. The kids are pretty new to the business and though they obviously have talent, they don't have too much aquired skill yet. Maybe with practice, they'd be able to get the pilots off unscathed. Remember, not even Superman can save everyone.
The fact that Mr. Incredible nearly kills someone is a different matter. He threatens Mirage's life once and proves unable to do it because of his morals, but later he grabs her by the throat and looks very much like he's going to break her neck. It shows how far he feels he's fallen and also how much his family really means to him. But still, it is pretty darn scary.
I think this movie was pretty darn good. It's a good movie about family and about letting people be what they are. The family's primary problem is that they're not normal but society tells them they have to pretend they are. That's where the stuff about "If everyone's special then no one's special" or Mr. Incredible's comment about "celebrating mediocrity" come in.
The scenes with the kids on the island were my favorites. It never even occured to me that they were doing anything but defending themselves. Then again, I might have been too caught up in finally seeing a "Flash" fight sequence in motion when I've been reading them flat on a page for decades.
Re: supervillains running rampant
The movie does hint a couple of times at stuff that makes this less of a problem (not gonna spoiler, though).
Re: Elastigirl's butt
Sure, she can change shape, but her relaxed form still has been packing on the posterior padding.
Oh, and on the subject of weight, I liked that even after trying to get back in trim, Mr. Incredible was still a bit paunchy.
Anyway, let me close with: BEST CHASE SCENE EVER.
"Frank, I say this without meaning at all to sound condescending: You're the one who doesn't get it. I can't say more without blowing some major stuff, but if/when you go see the film, THEN you will get it. Trust me."
If capes are good enough for Superman and Batman (both of whom get plenty of use from them)...
"If capes are good enough for Superman and Batman (both of whom get plenty of use from them)..."
I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that Frank seems to be under the impression that the whole "no capes" sequence highlighting the disastrous consequences capes can entail was there purely to trash a superhero trope...and I'm saying, No, that's not the case, and if/when he sees the film, he'll understand that.
PAD
"As a direct result of the Spidey and Hulk novelizations, I've had nice face-to-face chats with Kirsten Dunst and Jennifer Connelly."
Peter...that reason works for me.
Just another enthusiastic thumbs up for The Incredibles.
For parents concerned about violence, my four-year-old son loved it, though he got fidgety during the "boring" scenes with adults talking. ;-) The violence is about the same as with the original Star Wars movie -- if your child can watch the animated Batman series, or enjoyed the Pirates of the Carribean ride, they'll be fine.
JamesLynch: "Knowing how Pixar likes to put characters from its penultimate films in its current one, I bet Nemo, Dory, and/or Marlin turn up when one of the Incredibles wind up underwater. So if anyone finds Nemo (heh) in THE INCREDIBLES, please post where you saw it."
I hear they were in the fish tank in Edna's office, but I couldn't see 'em.
JamesLynch: "So, did anyone else think Elastigirl was hot?"
Hoo yeah, though Mirage was scorchin'! :-D
Michael Rawdon: "By the way, did anyone see the preview of Pixar's next film, Cars? I presume the preview was a package deal with TI. My reaction to the preview was, "Gee, I have about as much interest in seeing that as I did in seeing White Chicks." It looked that bad. Ugh."
Hey, it's Pixar; have faith in the talent. How many people dismissed Finding Nemo and The Incredibles because they thought the first teaser was boring?
mike weber: "Does anyone else feel as if Edna is portrayed as "a character who knows more than she's telling", as if she is actively trying to get supers back in action?"
She's just tired of working with anorexic models. ;-)
--R.J.
mike weber: "Does anyone else feel as if Edna is portrayed as "a character who knows more than she's telling", as if she is actively trying to get supers back in action?"
She's just tired of working with anorexic models. ;-)
Makes you wonder how she'd get along with Mirage...
Be funny if they started out hating each other, then becoming best friends....
I enjoyed "The Incredibles" immensely, but I couldn't help turning to my friend in the next seat after Dash's big chase scene to whisper, "That ten-year-old kid just killed six people!"
That said, they were trying to kill him (not showing restraint, as his mother had warned him earlier) and he really hadn't had a lot of opportunities to try things like, oh, jumping onto a moving object with blades spinning around its perimeter at high RPM. It didn't shock me nearly as much as the apparent killing-off of the principal recurring villains in the first-season finale of "Megas XLR."
I'd still highly recommend the movie, just maybe not for really little kids...although they might miss some of the messier things that are implied, judging from the kid two rows behind me who loudly suggested a title for the sequel that the climax of the film would seem to rule out.
And, in case anyone cares, Metroville's streets were occupied by 1964 Ford Galaxies, 1966 Thunderbirds, 1960's-vintage Mercedes 280 sedans, 1959 Cadillac DeVilles and late-50's-early-60's vintage British sports cars of some kind (I wanna say Triumph TR3s melded with Austin-Healey Sprites). Bob and Helen's cars (before the 'Vette-like thing)were pretty generic, although Bob's had kind of a weird European thing going on with the turn signals up on the roof.
Paul
Doesn't know how to use Spoiler text.
Paul 1963 said:
Bob and Helen's cars (before the 'Vette-like thing)were pretty generic, although Bob's had kind of a weird European thing going on with the turn signals up on the roof.
Actually, Bob's first car (as i said) is either a Nash or a "Nash Metropolitan" (the lower body and front end) mated with Something Else (the greenhouse). ("Nash Metropolitan" is in quotes as it was actually an import built by Austin with a Nash-style body shell; the chassis has quite a bit of commanality with the Bugeye Sprite...)
[b]PAD wrote (with much glee, the bastard): "As a direct result of the Spidey and Hulk novelizations, I've had nice face-to-face chats with Kirsten Dunst and Jennifer Connelly."[/b]
Dish, dish, dish, man. Was it just at-a-comic-con-say-a-few-words or were you trying to get into the character's heads when you were writing and decided to ask the actresses themselves what they were getting at? Helpful? Non-helpful? Enlightening? Aggravating? What?
Not tryin to be gossipy, just wondering about the process.
Ok, a little gossipy. But only a little.
As a direct result of the Spidey and Hulk novelizations, I've had nice face-to-face chats with Kirsten Dunst and Jennifer Connelly.
Well, I'm doin' something wrong. I've novelized both Resident Evil movies and Darkness Falls, and I haven't any manner of chat with Emma Caulfield, Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez, or Sienna Guillory.
Fooey.
---KRAD
JamesLynch [a.k.a. me]: "So, did anyone else think Elastigirl was hot?"
[Robert Jung] Hoo yeah, though Mirage was scorchin'! :-D
Yeah, but there's something about the costume, and the voice talent... Elastigirl could wrap her legs around me again, and again, and again...
"Yeah, but there's something about the costume, and the voice talent... Elastigirl could wrap her legs around me again, and again, and again..."
Have a thing for Holly Hunter, do you?
PAD
About 5 minutes after my last post, I saw a commercial for Tide that had Elastigirl as the, well, spokesperson for using Tide.
Does this bother anyone else? They're using a cgi character (heck, the whole commercial is done as cgi!) to promote a real product. This is like Ford using a car from Grand Theft Auto to promote its latest car, or Lara Croft posing for Victoria's Secret, or Wonder Woman endorsing Maybelline.
"Does this bother anyone else? They're using a cgi character (heck, the whole commercial is done as cgi!) to promote a real product. This is like Ford using a car from Grand Theft Auto to promote its latest car, or Lara Croft posing for Victoria's Secret, or Wonder Woman endorsing Maybelline."
Or Superman promoting "American Express."
Or the Hulk used in a commercial for Sears pants.
Sorry, but this has just been going on for way too long to bother me at all. For that matter, let's face it: If there really WERE an Elastigirl, she might very well accept endorsement opportunities. She's got bills to pay, same as anybody else. For all we know, that'll be part of the inevitable sequel film.
Now I'll tell you what DOES bother me: You apparently having a problem with Lara Croft posing for Victoria's Secret. In what alternate universe could that be considered a BAD thing?
PAD
Playboy actually ran an issue in October that featured all-CGI "babes of video games."
No Lara Croft in that one, I'm afraid, but it had to have been some sort of precedent in the marketing world.
Some Incredibles spoilers...so if you're worried, just skip this post!
This whole "kids killing people" thing just reminds me how sanitized our entertainment has become. Does anyone remember the "A-Team"? Thousands of rounds of ammo and pounds of explosives used, and no one is ever hurt. The old GI Joe cartoons. No bullets, but lasers firing thru metal, and every time a plane or tank is hit, there's always a shot of the pilot jumping out before the explosion. Both shows were about war of one kind or another, but neither showed any of the results of war.
Dash didn't "kill" anybody. Some people were killed as a result of their pursuing and attempted murder of Dash, but I don't remember a scene where anything he did acutally caused a death. I was more shocked when Elastigirl flung the goon off the fortress and down the mountain without any sign of remorse. Somehow, I don't think the goon survived his decent. It did fit into her character of someone that's lived the life of conflict, and when forced back into it, slips back into the role completely by instinct and training.
I found the capes deal very funny. Yeah, it was a lot of slapstick, but I'm a sucker for slapstick. Especially the heroine (can't remember her name...only seen the movie once) that saved the airplane, only to have her cape (and I presume her) sucked into the jet engine. So much for saving THAT plane! But, maybe she was invunerable and managed to recover with only a costume malfunction and was able to save the plane again. : )
Finally, for children, I found the violence in the first several minutes of "Finding Nemo" worse than anything in "The Incredibles". Nemo's mother and siblings were more personal to the audience than the goons in Incredibles.
Peter, congrats on your FF novelization work! Please keep us posted on if the movie sucks as much as some fans are expecting, or if we'll be pleasantly suprised (based on the script).
PAD said:
For all we know, that'll be part of the inevitable sequel film.
Unfortunately, according to the 11/8 "Studio Briefing" on IMDB.com:
(A) Pixar has no plans in the works for a sequel (so says Brad Bird, who ought to know)
and
(B) After the Disney/Pixar deal expires next year, apparently the right to make sequels resides with Disney (with Pixar getting just an 8% royalty), whose ability to make a proper sequel to this film i sincerely doubt.
As to the "kids killing people" question: If someone sets out to harm or kill another and winds up dead or harmed as a result of his own actions, then he has no kick coming.
As Keith Laumer once wrote in one of his "Retief" stories: "Ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead troublemaker."
OK, I saw the movie yesterday, and I think I understand the contextual reason for the cape-related fatalities -- though I still have to wonder why the superheroes should have had cape mishaps at all. None of them thought to include some sort of "safety detach" feature?
Ah, well. That aside, I thought the movie rocked.
"Yeah, like that Alan Moore guy who mocked capes in that crappy WATCHMEN comic. He obviously Doesn't Get It. What the heck is wrong with that guy?
Yes, folks, that's sarcasm. :)"
Well, a prominent subtext of WATCHMEN was "the traditional conventions of superhero comics are totally ridiculous and would never work in the real world" -- which rather ignores the point that superheroes were created to exist in a FANTASY world where outrageous propositions (like gaudy costumes with capes) are part of the territory. If it's reasonable to ask the audience to believe that a character could have super-powers, then it's surely no less reasonable to ask them to believe that a superhero would NOT get himself killed by getting tangled up in his own cape. That's why the cape scene from INCREDIBLES irked me -- it seemed like another instance of "clever" Moore-esque deconstructionism.
Think of it this way: would anyone insist that the heroes in LORD OF THE RINGS shouldn't be wearing capes because "realistically" they'd get in the way during a battle?
- Frank
Saw it last night at the Regal in Union Square right after we conducted a research screening John Turturro's writer/director debut, Romance and Cigarettes (produced by the Coen brothers). When my duties were over, I just walked into the theater next door.
Wow.
Edna was HILARIOUS (Brad Bird really did a great job doing her voice), and the action was just GREAT. I loved it. I know Bird has stated they have no plans for sequels (Pixar split with Disney, but Disney owns primary rights to those characters, and woudl therefore have to be dealt with for sequels, with Pixar gettting 8% royalties), but man, it would be SO worth it.
Thank God I'm not the only one who thought Elastigirl was a hot momma. And what an ass! :-) And yeah, Holly Hunter's nice.
Peter David: The first Pixar film that actually could have worked as live action, the sophistication of its script might actually some of the very youngest in the audience who are expecting "Finding Nemo II."
Luigi Novi: Did you miss a word or two in between "actually" and "some"?
Craig Welsh: The kids kill people in this movie.
Luigi Novi: Can you refresh my memory? I remember that guy in the "razor craft" who fly into the side of the mountain, but that was his fault, not Dash's.
Joel Finkle: If Elastigirl can change her shape, why does she worry about the size of her hips in her reflection?
Luigi Novi: Because that's her "natural" state, and perhaps using her powers is something she cannot simply do continuously without strain.
Mike Weber: Anyone who accuses Brad Bird of not fully understanding 60s comics and other pop culture of the era probably doesn't understand it himself; for further evidence of that, see Iron Giant if you already haven't.
Luigi Novi: Ironically, the movie where Vin Diesel showed the most range. :-)
You apparently having a problem with Lara Croft posing for Victoria's Secret. In what alternate universe could that be considered a BAD thing?
Well, it's always wonderful to see those characters out there that are so top-heavy they should be tipping over.
I mean, seriously - I knew a woman who was overweight, but her breasts were so naturally large that, when she tried to run, she had to hold them in place otherwise they could bounce around enough that they could knock her out. :)
So, Lara Croft must've gotten some state-of-the-art metal implants or something.
Anyways, in the end, it comes down to realism - something that Victoria's Secret, video games, and comic books all lack when it comes to the female figure.
It suddenly occurred to me that Edna might have been modelled after Linda Hunt's character Regina Krum in Pret-a-porter (Ready to Wear) -- she played a clothing designer in that movie, and looked very similar to Edna. Would have been perfect if she had done the voice as well.
But, that being said, I have to give a very enthusiastic thumbs up to the movie... loved just about every minute of it.
After my lascivious comments about Elastigirl, PAD wrote: "Have a thing for Holly Hunter, do you?"
Not inherently, though I did like her voicework here. I thought the character just looked really good; and her character's body type was also realistic, not the typical top-heavy comic book heroine.
[about using cgi to promote real products]
"Or Superman promoting "American Express."
Or the Hulk used in a commercial for Sears pants.
Sorry, but this has just been going on for way too long to bother me at all. For that matter, let's face it: If there really WERE an Elastigirl, she might very well accept endorsement opportunities. She's got bills to pay, same as anybody else. For all we know, that'll be part of the inevitable sequel film."
Call me old school, but I think commercials for actual products should feature those products. Even with the way commercials can slant their products, commercials should still be based on their reality. If a commercial shows how Tide removes a stain, you have some idea what it can do; if you think Tide does well because someone made a picture on their computer showing how good it works, that tells nothing (unless we're all in the Matrix and the computer is the reality).
[PAD}
Now I'll tell you what DOES bother me: You apparently having a problem with Lara Croft posing for Victoria's Secret. In what alternate universe could that be considered a BAD thing?
Same issue: I don't think real products should be represented by fake endorsements. If someone wants to post some Internet pics of Lara in the entire Victoria's Secret line of products, wonderful. If Angelina Jolie wants to recreate her Lara role in sexy lingerie, I'm there so fast there'll be a James Lynch-shaped cloud of dust where I was where I heard the news. (In the meantime, gotta love the recent ESQUIRE where Angleina's in a wet t-shirt.) But I wouldn't buy a real product based on a fictional version of the product. (I may be a pervert, but I'm a pervert with standards!)
Doug Burton posted: "It suddenly occurred to me that Edna might have been modelled after Linda Hunt's character Regina Krum in Pret-a-porter (Ready to Wear) -- she played a clothing designer in that movie, and looked very similar to Edna. Would have been perfect if she had done the voice as well."
Actually, Edna's based on the famous costume designer Edith Head, who has previously been paid tribute in comics and They Might Be Giants tunes.
I know Bird has stated they have no plans for sequels (Pixar split with Disney, but Disney owns primary rights to those characters, and woudl therefore have to be dealt with for sequels, with Pixar gettting 8% royalties), but man, it would be SO worth it.
No, it wouldn't.
I would trust Pixar to do a sequel, but Disney has racked up an impressive and depressing pile of poorly-crafted straight-to-video sequels. There will be Incredibles walking around Disneyworld and tons of marketing and a Saturday morning carton show that tanks after one season. Oh, and an Incredibles Ice Capade.
Just back from a second viewing (took Kate along who doesn't go to movies much -- last theatrical film she saw was the original release of "Lilo & Stitch").
I now note at least two places where they apparently rewrote/recut after the animation was finished or mostly finished -- one relating to Mr Incredible's visits to Edna (this relates to the sequence with the belt in the teaser footage and to Edna's first dialog), and one where a flashback shows an encounter in Mr Incredible's den/trophy room that we never saw. Be interesting to see those scenes as originally visualised.
As to the cars -- Mr Incredible's "transformer" car in the beginning appears to be a Studebaker -- a Hawk, i think, and his sportscar has an early Jag E-type nose, the rear end of a mid-60's split window 'Vette coupe and the doors/midesction of a Mercedes gullwing coupe. (The emblem on the Jag-type nose is a blank Lotus logo, BTW.)
Oh, and on the subject of weight, I liked that even after trying to get back in trim, Mr. Incredible was still a bit paunchy.
Well, look at how much weight he gained in the 15 years after he retired. He's only been back at the superhero thing for 2 months. Even with all the working out, you do not lose that much weight that fast. I know. I've done the up and down weight thing. It's a nice little touch of subtle realism.
Besides, I find the realism of the weight issue to nicely set off the sheer unreality of his ankles. Incredibly BIIIIIG body, itty-bitty ankles.
PAD: "Now I'll tell you what DOES bother me: You apparently having a problem with Lara Croft posing for Victoria's Secret. In what alternate universe could that be considered a BAD thing?"
Depends -- are we talking Angelina Jolie, or low-polygon-blocky-image-bad-texture-mapping-Playstation-One Lara Croft?
JamesLynch: "Call me old school, but I think commercials for actual products should feature those products. Even with the way commercials can slant their products, commercials should still be based on their reality."
So how do you feel about those old computer-animated commercials (done by Pixar, no less!) featuring bottles of Listerine swinging through the jungles and rolls of LifeSaver Gummis doing the conga?
As for the "kids kill people" bit, all I can say is that while I grew up loving safe-for-kids-violent cartoons like [i]G.I. Joe,[/I] I'd have been really pissed if we spent more than 0.05 seconds showing a Generic Goon(tm) safely parachuting after a crash or whatnot. This is Pixar and Brad Bird's baby; they shouldn't have to compromise their artistic vision just to placate some Nervous Nellies. The PG rating is there for a reason...
--R.J.
Posted by JamesLynch at November 9, 2004 12:27 AM
JamesLynch [a.k.a. me]: "So, did anyone else think Elastigirl was hot?"
[Robert Jung] Hoo yeah, though Mirage was scorchin'! :-D
Yeah, but there's something about the costume, and the voice talent... Elastigirl could wrap her legs around me again, and again, and again...
Actually, I think Elastigirl does for female cartoon booty what Jessica Rabbit did for female cartoon bits.
And, already, on an adult auction site, someone is selling a nude portrait of Elastigirl.
Or so a good friend of mine told me. Yeah, that's the ticket, a good friend told me about it.
Hands up, who saw this coming?
http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3021&PN=1&totPosts=8
Hands up, who saw this coming?
*chuckle* Maybe they should call it the John Byrne Airport.
Cause, you know, if idiots were airplanes...
Well, first of all, I think the irony of a man who trashed everything from "Spider-Man 2099 #1" to "Fallen Angel" to "The Incredibles" without having read or seen the works in question now claiming that *I* didn't do my research, pretty much speaks for itself.
Second, the FF's origin was malleable even in its first year. In the first issue, it merely says they're trying to get "to the stars." In the second issue, it's scaled back to "Mars." By issue 13, it had been scaled even further back as the FF were "determined to win the space race and beat the Russians to the moon" (where they encountered the Watcher." This, of course, was not to be confused with FF #98, I think it was, when they made it to the moon...for the "first time." (And let's not even get into the fact that the Negative Zone was a barrier created around the Inhumans while Subspace was this explosive other dimension, and somewhere along the way Stan started calling Subspace the Negative Zone and it stuck.)
In any event, as anyone who is not John Byrne or a blind Byrnebot could be able to tell, what I was talking about was an origin motivated by a determine to beat the Russians to the moon. It was the cold war mentality, not the ever-changing destination, that dates the origin. For instance, keep in mind that Reed was in such a hurry to beat the Russians that he didn't put sufficient shielding on the ship to keep out the cosmic rays. That "we're on the clock 'cause the Russkies might get there first" way of thinking was fine for the early 1960s, but would just seem odd now.
So all I was saying was that some changes to some aspects of the origin are pretty much mandatory no matter what.
Of course, anyone there could have just come here and asked me if they were confused, especially since you don't have to jump through hoops to post here. That they chose not to tells you something.
As for John, perhaps he'd like to actually read or watch some of the stuff he's talking about before opening his yap again.
PAD
I don't usually post on these things, but I enjoyed this movie and don't have anyone to talk with about it.
Questions: If Elastigirl can change her shape, why does she worry about the size of her hips in her reflection?
Presumably, because she can only change her shape when she is actually using her power. I imagine it's like flexing a muscle; she can't go around all day holding the shape of a twenty-year-old model any more than you can spend every conscious moment with your gut sucked in.
What I thought would be a much more interesting variation of that scene would be for her to discover that white strand of hair on Bob's suit, worry that she's losing her husband, try to mould her shape in front of a mirror, only to have to drop it back to her "default" form when something intrudes.
I enjoyed "The Incredibles" immensely, but I couldn't help turning to my friend in the next seat after Dash's big chase scene to whisper, "That ten-year-old kid just killed six people!"
Okay, as a former military member and self-defense instructor, let me tell you my position on this, fantasy-movie-environment notwithstanding: Those goons were trying to kill those kids. In that case, ANYTHING those kids did to protect their own lives was justified, and if those actions result in the attackers' deaths, it is NOT murder. They (the thugs) brought it on themselves. As far as the fact that it is just a movie for kids, lst me ask you how what these kids did was any morally worse - or emotionally damaging to the youngsters of the audience - than any number of westerns or cop'n'robbers movies we all grew up on? If a given child might be to sensitive or unstable for the scenes in this movie, than the adults who are responsible for those children shouldn't let them see it. That's what I thought "parental guidence" meant.
Well, Keith pointed out a bunch I didn't do, to which I should add that I didn't do the books of either "X-Men" or "X2," "Daredevil," "The Punisher," "Catwoman" (phew).
I just wanted to say something for one of my all time favorite writers: Chris Claremont wrote "X2" and evidently due to script changes over the course of his writing it, there are some glaring continuity/editorial/[whatever-term-goes-here]errors. If you can work around that, you will enjoy this book, fan of the movie or novelizations in general or not.
For a hysterical take on the FF origin, check out Twisted Toyfare Theater (I forget what the story's called; it's in volume 3) where The Thing recounts the FF's origin. After their transformation, the Thing comments "We decided to fight crime, which was kinda ironic considering the enormous federal crime we'd just committed." Or, after the naming, "They called me The Thing... I shoulda killed them all in their sleep." It's crude and a whole lotta fun!
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage5.asp
There are apparently those who now see The Incredibles (along with Team America) as being part of some right wing republican mindset...boy, for some folks politics is not just a big thing, it's the ONLY thing. (And it's obvious that the writer hasn't read any of the DC books lately).
I've heard some kooks ponder whether The Incredibles has a liberal slant as well, to the point of trying to compare Elastigirl's looks to Hillary Clinton... O_o
Sometimes a kick-ass movie is just a kick-ass movie, folks.
Ya know, in the controversy about "children killing people" i've been seeing in various places, no-one has even mentioned that Mirage, an accessory (at least) to multiple cold-blooded murders, apparently walks away clean.
Wow. How did that happen?
Anyhow, I just read this: http://www.datelinehollywood.com/showarticle.php?articleID=340
Mmmmmm, that's good satire.
I just want to make clear that the Craig Welsh who posted above is not me, Craig Welsh the Aussie who works as a lighter at PDI/Dreamworks....in case any of my mates read that post & thought I was going soft in my old age. Personally, I'm sick of everything being so sanitized. When I was a kid, there was plenty of spirited violence & mayhem in cartoons, and I'm only marginally psycopathic as a result.
Oh, and "Incredibles" rocks, even if it is the competition's film - well done you Pixar people.
Damn yo ! - Elastigirl got booty like J-Lo. Seriously fella's she's the bomb diggy and I don't even get down with white women or cartoon characters - but Elastigirl!, I would hit that in a second despite the fact her husband could kick my ass.
The part in the movie where she's stuck between security doors and bent over - come on fellas you're not telling me that wasn't hot. Mirage is pretty hot too, she could use a little more booty, but I wouldn't pass it up. Holla if you feel me.