• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Xun

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,316
London
Did this work for people? It just made the animation look really cheap for me. Was kinda shocked they left it in like that.
I thought it looked pretty strange too, although I saw the modified UK release so I think that largely contributed to it looking odd.

I believe (based on dealing with Harding tests at work) that it was made brighter and less contrasting, but I haven't seen the American release to compare the two.
 

ZackieChan

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,056
First movie is one of my all time favorites. This movie bored me to tears. Even the action wasn't enough to save it, and the Jack Jack stuff stopped being funny or interesting at the end of the first/in the short. Such a meh film. Hugely disappointing.
 

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,595
Yeah, I was no fan at all. The first one is my favourite Pixar movie, this was just mediocre as hell. I seriously don't understand the decision to have this take place directly after the first one. I feel a time skip would've been way more interesting. It made very little sense that superheroes were still outlawed. Elastigirl saves one train and everybody loves superheroes again. So what, in the entire time that superheroes weren't allowed, no superhero decided to save people? What about when the team stopped a giant robot from destroying the city? That doesn't count?

The movie tries to make a weak point about the media always showing the bad side of the heroes' actions, but after the train is saved, the media doesn't demonize Elastigirl at all. Everybody just decides "We love Supers again! Yay!" without Bob Odenkirk's involvement.

Even Jack-Jack irritated me, he was great for the first one or two scenes, but they just keep doing the same old "He's a baby, but he's got incredible powers" schtick throughout the entire movie. The reason he worked so well in the first was because he was used sporadically, use to much of him and it becomes repetitive.

The villain felt like she was written in three minutes during lunch break. Her entire plan made no sense. So she was helping her brother making superheroes popular again so she could make superheroes unpopular again? But superheroes were already outlawed and unpopular, so why the hell did you help your brother to make them popular again?

Plot-wise it's weak, but I'm always surprised people expected extended universe stuff for The Incredibles, and some continuing plotlines. Character-wise it's great. I think its a really great animated film, and has so much fun with the elements of an animated film. I think its honestly the best animated film since Toy Story 3.
You are surprised people expected a sequel instead of a rehash?
 
Last edited:

Benzychenz

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 1, 2017
15,379
Australia
Yeah it was pretty weak.

I'm not even sure where people are coming from when they say the action was good, all the actual fights last about 10 seconds each with the tension and drama coming from other things (like the ship as the climax).
 

Maximo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,159
I was more annoyed they recycled Tina Fey's character from Megamind

789da92f013d53f73454e9c036abe8e3.jpg

MegaMind is such a good movie.
 

hotcyder

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,861
Bit of a disappointment for me. Felt like they had more fun writing the family stuff then figuring out how to make a Super Hero film. Might of worked better as a series then a single movie?
 

J2C

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,397
You are surprised people expected a sequel instead of a rehash?

I think people wanted a new epic plot, more superheroes, and villains. The Incredibles was always character first though.

That movie dealt with martial conflicts, job/settling issues, family's being supportive of each other being the best they can be. Syndrome, killing off supers, and the omnidroid stuff was background noise and only interesting in putting that stuff in motion.

This film continues the story of the family, and in that sense I think its a success. Which is where Brad's interest always was, and he says as much. I think where people's expectations differed was they expected a better villain than Syndrome and more superhero business. A classic superhero story - bigger, more epic and creative than the first.

This film was more domestic than that though, more intimate, and more interested in its character arcs that related to the real world, for better or worse.
 

Feral

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,006
Your Mom
it's good, but not outstanding. Doesn't touch the first movie, but also not Brave levels of bad or anything like that

I just hate the baby
 

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,595
I think people wanted a new epic plot, more superheroes, and villains. The Incredibles was always character first though.

That movie dealt with martial conflicts, job/settling issues, family's being supportive of each other being the best they can be. Syndrome, killing off supers, and the omnidroid stuff was background noise and only interesting in putting that stuff in motion.

This film continues the story of the family, and in that sense I think its a success. Which is where Brad's interest always was, and he says as much. I think where people's expectations differed was they expected a better villain than Syndrome and more superhero business. A classic superhero story - bigger, more epic and creative than the first.

This film was more domestic than that though, more intimate, and more interested in its character arcs that related to the real world, for better or worse.
Sure, I can get that. Though I feel the movie was also a disappointment on the family side of things. It essentially reset a lot of the character development in the first one.

The first one ended with the entire family working together for the first time and embracing the kids as part of the superhero family and the end scene was literally everybody suiting up to battle the Underminer, for the first time as a whole family. Incredibles 2 however opens up with the family once again fractured, because apparently the kids were still regulated to the less important tasks (watching Jack-Jack instead of fighting the Underminer).

Mr. Incredible is still the macho dude who wants to play the hero and he shows this when Bob Odenkirk wants Elastigirl instead of him. Sure he gets something different to do than in the first (looking after the kids), but that plot quickly devolves into another retread of the well known "big, manly man needs to learn to be a family man" (again, something that was already less obviously done in the first one, with him realizing he can't save the world on his own).

Elastigirl literally just mirrors Mr. Incredible's plotline from the first one, saying yes to an offer to become a big hero again and getting lost in it. It's only less well done, there's nothing like the scene in the first one where Mr. Incredible finds the corpses of the Supers that came before him and realizing how irresponsible he's been. Nope, she's just a big hero. Her only "mistake" is figuring out who the real villain is too late.

Violet's plot is literally reused by Tony being brainwashed. In the first movie she wants to be less insecure and ask Tony for a date and in the second one she also wants to be less insecure and ask Tony on a date.

Dash's development is also reused, but less obviously. In the first one he learns to be less off a showoff, but in the second he's still a major showoff who just wants to get the nice car and run around really fast in their huge house.

Then there's Jack-Jack, who is still the funny OP baby, only now the joke is reused twenty times during the movie instead of only one or two times.
 

Raonak

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
2,170
I was greatly disappointed that the story didn't have a timeskip of any sort.

I get it, kids movie and all. But damn, what a hugely missed opportunity.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,814
I agree with those that said it was mostly a rehash. It felt like "Incredibles: The Force Awakens" in terms of retreading plot lines.

I was definitely disappointed with the villain because it was just so obvious who it was, so everything was very predictable. Considering the long wait, I thought they could have done better.
 

Sgt. Demblant

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,030
France
The recycled plot was disappointing, yeah. But the execution was far better than in the original. To me at least.
My favorite Pixar film since Inside Out.
 

WrenchNinja

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,733
Canada
Yeah, I thought it was really mediocre. I think it was a huge mistake having Bob and Helen separated for so long again, and making it a direct sequel at all.
 

Deleted member 31817

Nov 7, 2017
30,876
I liked it. The baby humor surprisingly never got old for me, the bike scene was stunning, the c-tier side heroes were amusing... It wasn't as good as the first but I still really enjoyed watching it, even if the twist was obvious.
 

LosDaddie

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,622
Longwood, FL
My family and everyone I talked to about I2 loved the movie

/shrug

Can't wait to watch it again at home.
 

HomokHarcos

Member
Jul 11, 2018
2,447
Canada
And they completely wasted a plot with Violet by erasing Tony's memory and having them at the same situation as the first movie.
 

WillyFive

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,976
Fantastic movie, but the villain was not as good as the first.

Yeah it was pretty weak.

I'm not even sure where people are coming from when they say the action was good, all the actual fights last about 10 seconds each with the tension and drama coming from other things (like the ship as the climax).

That's what makes the action good, and defines a great action movie.
 

Psychotron

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,683
The villain was predictable and a poor choice, but I loved the rest. As a parent, there was so much humor geared toward us. My wife and I were laughing more than the kids. I just don't know why they would recycle the villain storyline.
 

sherpajosh

Member
Nov 5, 2017
66
It was a weak sequel to one of the best superhero movies ever made. Overall like a 5/10. Up there with Finding Dory.

so far only Toy Story has had strong sequ els.
 

Cipher Peon

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,799
I agree completely.
Very disappointing, barely manages to scrape a 5/10 for me.

The villain, story, action, setting, and climax were all super weak. That characters backpedalled from their progression from the first movie made it even worse.

Worst of all...it's just kinda not fun.
 

Wogan

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,071
It felt like it was spinning it's wheels a bit. Like the film ends with the same status quo as the first with the only appreciable difference being they are now 'officially active'. Which the first film kind of suggested was the case anyway. I think we all expected that to be the case. The family just ignoring the political ramifications and heroing together. Instead they spent the sequel legitimising the ending of the first film.

I liked the film. But I think the audiences was ahead of it narratively.
 

CloudWolf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,595
It's a movie for children
That's not an excuse for weak storytelling and reusing the same basic plot of the first movie. The first one was also a kids movie, but that was great. Recently, you had the Paddington films, both made for kids, but they are also amazing, smart and above all, original movies that both kids and adults can love.
 
Oct 26, 2017
735
New York
I thought it was a blast. Maybe not as good as the first film overall, but it had plenty of improvements anyway. I thought the balance of family drama and superhero spectacle was handled better. We actually get to see the at home parent trying to tackle the individual problems affecting each child, while the other parent is off on the adventure. The first film leaned a bit too heavily on Mr. Incredible in the first half. I loved Bob losing his mind figuring out Dash's homework, Violet's boy troubles, and Jack Jack's developing powers, and the satisfaction of him working it all out. Dash was underutilized, but given his exposure in the first film, that didn't bother me too much.

I also liked the optimism in trying to bring back Superheroes, and the P.R. campain to do so. After the darker story of Syndrome killing off the last of the older heroes, it was neat to see the Dawn of a new generation with Elastigirl being the inspiration. If they do make a third film, Id definitely like to see that explored more.

And the spectacle was fantastic. I've seen so many superhero films this year, but none of the action sequences were as creative or well directed as the third act with the kids on their own, as well as the boat finale.

If there is a flaw, it's in the villain that you could see coming a mile away, if only because of the similar plot in the first film. Deavor also isn't as memorable as Syndrome, but given the lighter tone and strengths in other areas of the film, that also didn't bother me. I did like her motivation and plan to kill off a new age of Supers at least.

Just a fantastic film. It certainly satisfied me more than I was expecting after 14 years.
 

Nocturnowl

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,083
It was okay, a safe sequel for sure.
But of all the plot gripes to pick, Violet wanting a date with Tony is one you go for? the movie takes place immediately after the end of the first so I'd be pretty puzzled if they dropped that whole angle.
 

Lady Murasaki

Scary Shiny Glasses
Member
Oct 25, 2017
680
I was more annoyed they recycled Tina Fey's character from Megamind

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't recycling but a convergent evolution since all female characters from Pixar/Disney animations are looking identical since Tangled, which the same face structure with big eyes and cute moe-esque faces, and meanwhile the male characters facial features vary wildly. Elastigirl and Violet are a little bit more distinct and original but they are reminiscent of an older time.

Thinking about now, Evelyn really seemed out of place. She looked nothing like her brother and this was also a little weird, not to mention her lame ending.
 

Kaz Mk II

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,635
I'd be more disappointed in the ending.

On top of the final setpeice and fights being solved so easily, the whole superhero legalization thing was also solved because Elastigirl did some superhero shit for a week.

Wasn't it an important thing in the first film when Mr. Incredible saved that guy and broke his neck while also happened to be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of Superhero collateral damage. The government was right to make vigilante superheros illegal, even if they saved the day at the end of the first film, and Elastigirl does some shit in the second. I dont know how they got world leaders to just repeal that law because they saved the day. Potential collateral damage is the problem along with them being vigilantes.

Also it makes the main vilains plan way worse because superheros were already illegal. But I guess she wanted them illegal "forever" so that entails making them seem like a good idea, and getting them close to getting legalized only to kill a bunch of world leaders and make them SUPER ILLEGAL.

God Incredibles 2 is such a letdown compared to the first one. I honestly didn't expect this but I think I like Finding Dory more.
 

Stat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,158
I didn't love it. I figured the villain out within meeting them which was kinda awful. I also thought the Dad was awful - super dis-likable and the only one who had real growth was Violet (you could argue a little bit of Dash too but still)
 

hotcyder

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,861
Thinking about now, Evelyn really seemed out of place. She looked nothing like her brother and this was also a little weird, not to mention her lame ending.

This also annoyed the hell out of me.

In fact Bob Odenkirk's character was the only thing that kept the film routed in the psuedo-sixties hyper-stylized look they went from in the original (even his character felt time appropriate writing and performance wise).
All the new characters looked like post Toy Story 3 Pixar Humans - and that clashed with the angular designs of the returning cast.
 

Ehoavash

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,232
Yeah as someone who was a Superfan of incredibles 1, ( probably rematched this movie 5 times ) this movie really disappointed me. Everything in the plot was recycled -_-

Come on Brad bird
 

hotcyder

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,861
Anyone think Pixar should go back and do BluePoint style remasters of their old stuff? I mean they'd need the old Maya files kicking around - but the OG Incredibles with better Global Illumination would look rad.
 

Garlador

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
14,131
First off, I REALLY enjoyed Incredibles 2. It was fun, frenetic, and had some great moments that took the "recycled plot" in some surprising and satisfying directions. I enjoyed Helen having more of a spotlight, while Bob was humbled a bit by the responsibilities of being a home-maker.

That said... the first is still better, and it's not for being first or being more original either. It's because, for me, it had so many scenes that really "grounded" the heroes as a family with real problems, real struggles, and it benefited by having the family TOGETHER more often. There's nothing in the sequel that measures up to these moment. The way they integrated Helen's heartbreak at thinking her marriage was falling apart and Bob was having an affair is something I'm shocked Disney did, and it really humanizes their relationship, because marriage can be painful. Even though he wasn't having an affair, his lies and behavior still hurt her, and the audience sees that.


640

th


1428799920303

p-analysis-incredible-elastigirl2.png


The scene of Helen telling Bob she loves him as he drives off to his new job, at this point thinking he's being unfaithful to her, her voice quivering as she fights back uncertainty as he just goes through the motions of "I love you too" and speeds away from her is painfully real and it's not something the sequel ever truly recaptures.

That's fine. Incredibles 2 was a blast, but the original just hit me harder.
 

Deleted member 11008

User requested account closure
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
6,627
It's not at the same level of the first, but damn it was funny. The interactions between Jack Jack and Edna were gold.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,696
The villain felt like she was written in three minutes during lunch break. Her entire plan made no sense. So she was helping her brother making superheroes popular again so she could make superheroes unpopular again? But superheroes were already outlawed and unpopular, so why the hell did you help your brother to make them popular again?

You missed the point - it was to destroy Winston. It's clear he harbors a long standing resentment towards the Act as it was demonstrably responsible for his Father's death.

Multiple times during the movie Evelyn throws shade at her Brother AND Father, and it's their infatuation with the Supes which has turned her bitter.

There's a lot of nuance in this movie a lot of you are missing.

Brad is also on record about the compressed production time, which in actuality was about 2 years.
 

Deleted member 3815

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,633
I liked it due to the kids having a bigger role in the movie, Jack Jack being a riot and the villain.

As for it being a recycled plot, I disagree. The first movie theme was about Bob trying to reclaim his glory days only to realise that he's nothing without his family. The sequel theme is about civil right and creating a world where Supers don't have to hide themselves.

And also Mr Incredible is a piece of shit with the most fragile masculinity I've ever seen

You're looking at it wrong. The movie is set in the 1960s in an era where men like Bob existed and the landscape was changing with more and more women fighting for equal rights.

and he does the absolute least as a father and yet the film politely pats him on the head like "there there big guy,

You need to rewatch the move, Bob agreed to let Helen be the spoke person for superheroes as she was a better person when it came to crime fighting, Bob also set aside his ego and gave up on trying to reclaim his car because he realised that he was being selfish and would screw up his kids' future.

Bob is a good father, but he's a flawed person and is trying the best he can.

even though you literally left your baby at some tailor's house because you can't handle simple shit"

Simple shit? Ha ha you're funny. Jack Jack had multiple powers, something that no-one in the family knew till recently and he was running ragged as baby are a handful, something you would know if you had kids.

Bob clearly needed a break and he asked Enda to babysit Jack Jack for one night and she did along with creating a suit to help the Parr family to manage Jack Jack powers.
 

Maurice Hamblin

User Requested Ban
Banned
Apr 6, 2018
667
That's not an excuse for weak storytelling and reusing the same basic plot of the first movie. The first one was also a kids movie, but that was great. Recently, you had the Paddington films, both made for kids, but they are also amazing, smart and above all, original movies that both kids and adults can love.

Have you seen Kung Fu Panda? It's a movie for children but it advances the plot and character with every movie.

This is all well and good but it's still a movie for children.. You can wax poetic about these things all you want in an effort to discuss them but it's still a movie for children. There's SO much content out there for kids and if you were to do an honest assessment of it all, most of it (to us) is complete crap. Yes there are some gems here and there but overall it's not really meant for you. It's just a nice bonus when you happen to like it.

Incredibles 2 is dumb. A toddler gets into a fist fight with a rodent. Ultimately funny but it's meant for children. There are plot-lines about a girl being embarrassed by her parents. Those one dimensional secondary heroes are one dimensional because one dimension is funny to kids. They recycled a plot from 14 years ago because 14 years ago the same children weren't watching this film. So the idea was for some of you to watch this film on your own because you liked the first one and for the rest of you to take your kids so they would enjoy it.

Because this is a movie for children.
 

Gustaf

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
14,926
after Mr-Joker mentioned the civil right angle above, i remember that i thought the same when i was watching 2, the first movie ending is idiotic, like really, oh wow you saved the city from a giant robot, why do you think supers are suddenly legal again?

this movie dealing with that was great and more realistic.
 

Dartastic

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,779
I mean, yeah, the big bad was fairly predictable, but it was a very enjoyable film. Jack Jack v. Raccoon for best fight 2018.
 
OP
OP
Calm Waterfall
Oct 28, 2017
1,228
This is all well and good but it's still a movie for children.. You can wax poetic about these things all you want in an effort to discuss them but it's still a movie for children. There's SO much content out there for kids and if you were to do an honest assessment of it all, most of it (to us) is complete crap. Yes there are some gems here and there but overall it's not really meant for you. It's just a nice bonus when you happen to like it.

Incredibles 2 is dumb. A toddler gets into a fist fight with a rodent. Ultimately funny but it's meant for children. There are plot-lines about a girl being embarrassed by her parents. Those one dimensional secondary heroes are one dimensional because one dimension is funny to kids. They recycled a plot from 14 years ago because 14 years ago the same children weren't watching this film. So the idea was for some of you to watch this film on your own because you liked the first one and for the rest of you to take your kids so they would enjoy it.

Because this is a movie for children.
Oof, i mean there are plenty of children movies that have good plot and engaging characters.
 

PlatStrat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
564
This is all well and good but it's still a movie for children.. You can wax poetic about these things all you want in an effort to discuss them but it's still a movie for children. There's SO much content out there for kids and if you were to do an honest assessment of it all, most of it (to us) is complete crap. Yes there are some gems here and there but overall it's not really meant for you. It's just a nice bonus when you happen to like it.

Incredibles 2 is dumb. A toddler gets into a fist fight with a rodent. Ultimately funny but it's meant for children. There are plot-lines about a girl being embarrassed by her parents. Those one dimensional secondary heroes are one dimensional because one dimension is funny to kids. They recycled a plot from 14 years ago because 14 years ago the same children weren't watching this film. So the idea was for some of you to watch this film on your own because you liked the first one and for the rest of you to take your kids so they would enjoy it.

Because this is a movie for children.
I really hate the whole "This movie is for children" argument. It's flawed on so many levels.

1. This movie was NOT made EXCLUSIVELY for children. It was made for all audiences including, but not limited, to children. They kept people who saw the first movie in mind when they made this and those people would've grown up to be teens/adults by the time the sequel came out. And the first movie dealt with infidelity, suicide, and mid-life crises. The movie is rated PG which means parents are more than likely going to watch this with their kids. Parents deserve to not be subjected to mindnumbing media just like kids.
2. Even if it were made for children, we should still expect effort to be put into the media that our children consume. Not everything is going to meet that expectation but I would prefer kids watching something that makes them think rather than something that just entertains them. Being funny and being thoughtful are not mutually exclusive.
3. Being created for children is not an excuse for being uncreative and repeating the same ideas. Children can notice that more than you would think. They get bored and move on to the next thing that is more interesting. Especially in this day and age where they have access to way more options of ways to spend their time or things to watch.

Children deserve better than just the table scraps of leftover plots and ideas and lack of creativity. And so do the rest of us.
 
OP
OP
Calm Waterfall
Oct 28, 2017
1,228
I really hate the whole "This movie is for children" argument. It's flawed on so many levels.

1. This movie was NOT made EXCLUSIVELY for children. It was made for all audiences including, but not limited, to children. They kept people who saw the first movie in mind when they made this and those people would've grown up to be teens/adults by the time the sequel came out. And the first movie dealt with infidelity, suicide, and mid-life crises. The movie is rated PG which means parents are more than likely going to watch this with their kids. Parents deserve to not be subjected to mindnumbing media just like kids.
2. Even if it were made for children, we should still expect effort to be put into the media that our children consume. Not everything is going to meet that expectation but I would prefer kids watching something that makes them think rather than something that just entertains them. Being funny and being thoughtful are not mutually exclusive.
3. Being created for children is not an excuse for being uncreative and repeating the same ideas. Children can notice that more than you would think. They get bored and move on to the next thing that is more interesting. Especially in this day and age where they have access to way more options of ways to spend their time or things to watch.

Children deserve better than just the table scraps of leftover plots and ideas and lack of creativity. And so do the rest of us.
Yeah, making this excuse for copy paste plot is not a good argument at all. And since when Pixar films was kids only and not family movies?