Why do I like The Incredibles better than Marvel? (potential spoilers)

[Elok]

So, I saw the Incredisequel twice on its opening weekend--once with my wife, once with my son.  The beginning and end are rushed, and the main plot is quite predictable, but I still loved it.  Partly this might be inherited goodwill from the first movie, partly it might be that the humor was outstanding, but I think a lot of it's just that straight CG plain works better for superhero stuff than live action with SFX.  Like, when I watch a Marvel movie, the plots are no more predictable--sometimes less so--and the humor is often good, but no matter how they do it, it doesn't feel like a comic book.  It feels like a weird action movie that borrows from comics.  Nothing can make Hawkeye not seem silly to me, or make guys in fancy leather suits look like the extravagantly costumed heroes and villains of comic books.  When I watch I2, the (well-done) fight scenes feel like I'm actually watching a comic unfold onscreen, with the bold colors and outlandish powers used to full effect.  A live-action version of Mr. Incredible would just look stupid in that outfit.  Think of the 1980 movie Flash Gordon.  Eww.

However, this seems like a really trivial reason to love The Incredibles, while I stopped bothering with the MCU about ten movies back.  Especially since Brad Bird has said the superhero aspect is less interesting to him than the family aspect.  Maybe part of it is that the characterization is better?  I really don't know.

[Unorthodox]

Have not seen I2, so won't comment much. 

I wonder how much of this is due to childhood. 

We grew up watching more or less comics brought to us on Saturday morning cartoons.  So, the animation is a lot easier transition for us. 

I've felt the same about Batman for years.  The movies are just NOT BATMAN to me.  I don't care who they put into the suit, or who plays the Joker. 

But today, we have a generation of kids who not only have grown up seeing this live action comics in the big movie theaters, but saturday morning cartoons no longer even try to adapt comics.  When they grow up, will they find animation a silly way to do comic adaptations? 

I do want to give a shout out to the original Hulk, however.  (not part of the MCU)

No, they butchered a lot of things here, but IT FELT LIKE A COMIC.   

! No longer available

[Elok]

Honestly, I'm a bit of a curmudgeon about modern movies in general; maybe I'm just a 34-year-old geezer, but I feel like action movies have gotten substantially dumber.  Like, has any movie come out that's even close to as good as the original Die Hard, or Aliens, or Predator?  Yes, there were a lot of dumb old movies, but even big awesome events like Avatar are plodding wads of cliche with gorgeous SFX.  I'm aware of the explanation that it's the internet's and video games' fault, or the result of the ballooning costs of production and marketing making studios risk-averse and leading to much more meddling from the money-men.  And that the growing international market is hungry for spectacle.  But Incredibles 2 was the first movie in, like, a decade or so that I've felt legitimately excited about seeing in a non-ironic way (I guess honorable mention goes to Pacific Rim, but I wasn't that excited).  That's a shame.

[Unorthodox]

I think things just go in phases. 

Horror is circling back around to where I actually like it again.  For 10-15 years there wasn't a thing come out I liked, but we're seeing something akin to the 70's horror style come back around with things like Get Out, A Quiet Place, and Hereditary hitting the theaters and being done fantastically well.  Movies that are smart, not this formulaic cash grab or wannabe action film that dominated the genre for years. 

Action has really been boiled down to pure popcorn movie/escapism of late, it's true. It's so incredibly overdone as to be ludicrous.  There's nothing wrong with that on occasion, but they are ultimately forgettable as a result in the sea of the same.  (at least what I've seen.  I'm not exactly running out to every action movie)

[Rusty Edge]

I saw it today. The opening short didn't make me laugh or cry this time. They usually do.

I think I like Incredibles II as much as the original, which is my favorite movie. I collect Incredibles stuff, so maybe I'm not an impartial judge. I do think a lot more time and thought goes into an Incredibles script than a comic book script. A big part of the delay in the sequel was Brad Bird saying he wouldn't make a sequel until he had an idea for a story that was as good. Of course other commitments got in the way, too. Postponement after postponement. For a while there was talk of a "20 years later" sequel, where Jack-Jack was grown up and under the influence of a villain. I'm really glad they didn't go that route. One of the things I love the most about the movies is what I would call the production design in a normal film. The cars, buildings, and technology in a sort of eclectic mix of mid-50s to 1970. The same with the music.


As for the other observations-


I liked both 1930s(?)  Flash Gordon and the 1980ish one. A theater serial remade as a movie seemed fair to me, but I suppose a tv series would have been better the more that I think about it, particularly since I first saw the 1930s Flash Gordon as a tv series, multiple episodes back to back weekly.


I first knew Batman from the Adam West tv series. I loved the movie, didn't know the Dark Knight comics. I guess I'd put it in the category of Jack Nicholson star vehicle, same as Pirates/Johnny Depp, or Iron Man/Robert Downey Jr. I'm really watching for the stars indulging themselves. That can be really fun.


I do agree Die Hard, Aliens, & Predator were great action movies. I'd add Terminator. They each had an interesting idea. But I don't know if modern movies action are really worse, because I see so few of them by comparison. A big reason for that is that these popular action computer effects and camera angles ( think Transformers & Avatar ) give me motion sickness. I'm more involved with not losing my balance/ not throwing up than the subtleties that may or may not be part of the story. But kids who grew up on Transformers seemed to love them.

I did go to see Thor, he was my comic book hero because Viking mythology. I thought the actor was well cast, but yes, the movie approach didn't seem to do the comic book justice the way Pixar or other animation might have. Asgard and what-not didn't seem the same to me.

I was introduced to Superman in comics and 1960s cartoons. That seemed like an easy transition. Again, while I think Christopher Reeve was well cast in the movies, I disliked them, except for Sarah Douglas and Valerie Perrine ( who have long, sexy legs ).


While we're on the topic- Star Wars as a movie is awesome. As a TV special it sucked. As a cartoon it didn't appeal to me either.


There have been any number of novels that didn't succeed as movies in my mind- so I guess that the idea of first exposure influences expectations a great deal. It would be interesting to raise the issue with my nephew, who is an avid comic book reader and movie goer.

[Elok]

The original Incredibles was certainly my favorite Pixar movie.  The sequel was superior comedically, but in most other respects it was good fun but not fantastic.  I saw the "I strongly disagree!" bit and thought, "okay, one of those two is the villain."  Certain scenes, most notably the Happy Platter, were predictable as well.  And too many of the action scenes involved stopping a large vehicle from smashing stuff.  I'd have rather seen more involvement from the new supers at the expense of, say, the helicopter scene.

(still totally going to buy the DVD)

[Elok]

Also, does anyone know why Elastigirl's butt doubled in size for this movie?  Like, she went from typical shape for a late-thirties American housewife to a Kim Kardashian impersonator.  And the camera angles seemed to emphasize it at points, so it got distracting.

[Unorthodox]

Tell me you're joking.  I mean I haven't seen the second, but she had a stupidly exaggerated ass in number 1 with a scene of her checking it out. 

I think she may look normalish outside the suit, but in suit she chooses to have a big ass and pencil waist. 

[Elok]

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I recall that scene from 1, and I don't recall her butt being all that enormous in it.  Not going to fire up the DVD just to confirm cartoon-character booty in one scene, though.

[Buster's Uncle]

Her butt was pretty pronounced in the first one...

[Elok]

I recall her being larger on the bottom than on the top, but in a way that's typical for women her age.  I don't know, maybe it's just the shiny outfit combined with camera angles and advances in animation technology, but in this one her butt sometimes looks like it might be shifting the tides somewhat.

And now like half the posts in this thread are about a fictional character's butt.

[E_T]

but.. but.. but...

[Elok]

All right, I watched the original with my son today (because he was bored, not just to ogle a cartoon, TYVM), and I'm reasonably certain the Elastibuns are significantly bigger in the sequel.  Call it 80% certainty.  It's possible that it's just an artifact of the three factors in reply ten, but without comparing the two films directly, interrogating animators, appealing to Lori to crunch numbers on angular surface vector model whatchimas, etc., I'm going to say provisionally, yes, the Pixar crew has been listening to Sir Mixalot.

I'm sure you were all eager to have the case files closed on this mystery.

[E_T]

:lol:

[Buster's Uncle]