TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Incredibles 2

Go To

DrDougsh Since: Jan, 2001
#776: Jul 8th 2018 at 4:46:03 PM

I thought Screenslaver's speech was very much in line with Evelyn's motivation. Her problem with supers was that they made people too complacent to act in their own self-preservation.

DrWillHatch63 Since: May, 2014
#777: Jul 9th 2018 at 4:36:13 PM

I finally went to see this last week. Awesome movie, and almost as good as the first. The plot doesn't QUITE hold up under scrutiny, you can definitely tell that there were some character and story beats that were either dropped or merged into something else, but overall the movie was a sterling success. The family bits all work perfectly, and I can't wait for a third installment.

I'm really interested in Voyd as a character, and I hope she appears again.

IndirectActiveTransport plays capoeira from Chicago (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Every rose has its thorn
plays capoeira
#778: Jul 14th 2018 at 3:56:06 PM

Neither villain's plan makes much sense, and maybe that was the point but damn!

The Underminer wants to rob banks? If you overlook Cut Lex Luthor a Check his methodology was sound, if you also ignore the part where he announces his presence to the world for no good reason(other than to allow the voice actor to show off his talent).

Now Screen Slaver, you hate inaction and superheroes for allowing people to be inactive. Fair enough, you make a good point. The part you seem to be forgetting is that the world already hates superheroes! Seriously, that's your plan? Bring superheroes out into the open so people will hate them more? The most efficient way to achieve your goal was literally to do nothing! This was a "problem" that was solving itself! Apparently this iteration of Lex Luthor is angry that someone is cutting her a check? Then I don't know, don't work for your brother! Get a job with Panasonic! Let him just be a successful salesmen who regrets that superheroes are on the way out for the rest of his days.

The Underminer's plan was the less stupid. Assuming all things go right for him, he's a man using a lot of money to steal more money while causing more monetary damage in property destruction than both sums combined, but hey he didn't seem to have any end goals beyond making other people miserable for his own amusement and letting them know he was doing it. Screen Slaver specifically wanted a minority in hiding to stay persecuted forever, but was killing a bunch of world leaders and diplomats who would have otherwise agreed with you, one of which is in the middle of ending a war, really worth the price?

Also, They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot.None of the super villains we have seen so far seem to have any superpowers. Makes sense, given The Incredibles are basically The Fantastic Four. Why not make their villains like Dr. Doom? He's the only one anyone knows about anyway. But still, you've got a technological inventor who loves superheroes, whose bumbling ends up ending superheroes. Who, instead of taking responsibility for his own failings starts killing retired superheroes who did nothing wrong to him, in order to get back at one who snubbed him.(There's a needlessly cruel plan that at least leads somewhere that makes some sense) Among the superheroes he kills are those in contact with a man who relies on them to protect him. Their deaths lead to this man's death, and in turn inspired this man's daughter to take it out on more superheroes who honestly did even less to her than to Buddy. That's a brilliant setup Pixar, one I probably couldn't have come up with. But you did so little with it, other than that speech the superheroes gave about only being pulled out from under the rug to clean up messes the stupid populace keeps making. That was irony bordering on ingenious, I admit, it's just that if I can think of more to do with that I figured you could too.

Needless to say, the first gripe I had may have been the entire point and the second gripe I had was not bad enough to ruin the movie. And what it did well, a single dad forced to admit his weaknesses, short comings, mistakes and lack of understanding, children who had to put their selfish desires aside to help their parents who were too proud or too unwitting to ask for help, concerned friends looking in, a wife far superior to her husband to the point it embarrasses her, well timed comedy, well structured action sequences, etc made up for where I felt it fell short.but Pixar fails to realize Dr. Doom does have a super power and had it before the Fantastic Four did. He just doesn't use it much because his mother's usage of the same gift left her soul in a splinter realm. Pixar gets the first psychological aspect of a powerful, rich dude who could have everything he should ever want if not for an incredibly petty grudge but it's overly simplified the other. One side relies more on tech because out of a desire not to use the superpower which is the source of family problems, the other uses powers before technology because technology led to a freak accident that would have killed them if not for their sudden super powers.

Buldogue's lawyer
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#779: Aug 4th 2018 at 3:44:03 AM

Watched the film, will post detailed review later.

But for right now...four stars out of four. Goddamn, this was incredible! It was better than the first one in almost every way, in my opinion.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
TParadox Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: The captain of her heart
#781: Aug 4th 2018 at 12:17:13 PM

I'm not sure why the four star scale seems standard, but it is.

Fresh-eyed movie blog
dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#782: Aug 4th 2018 at 10:45:03 PM

-shrugs- I looked up to Roger Ebert as a critic. Nothing more complicated than that.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
DrWillHatch63 Since: May, 2014
#783: Aug 5th 2018 at 8:11:08 PM

A Four Star rating system seems more efficient than a Five Star one personally.

Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#784: Aug 5th 2018 at 9:19:18 PM

I prefer either a two-point rating system (yes or no) or occasionally a three-point rating system (yes, no, and neutral). Anything with more points is just asking for different people to rate things differently even when they feel the same way. For example, I used to never rate anything five out of five, because nothing is perfect. Then I found out that in some cases employees can get in trouble if their rating isn't high enough, so if I rate something, it's always five stars.

But we shouldn't need to game the ratings system. Keep it simple and leave the nuance to the actual text of the review.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#785: Aug 5th 2018 at 10:06:38 PM

Even Roger Ebert didn't like the four star rating. He would've preferred 5 stars or no stars at all.

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#786: Aug 5th 2018 at 11:07:25 PM

I go with a 10 point rating system, with 5 being average. I'm comfortable labeling things as 10/10 because, for me, a 10/10 doesn't mean "literally perfection", it means "I can't think of any way to significantly improve it". Significantly doesn't mean by a large amount, it just means that I can't think of any change that would make it rate higher.

Edited by PushoverMediaCritic on Aug 5th 2018 at 11:07:50 AM

KJMackley Since: Jan, 2001
#787: Aug 6th 2018 at 1:37:07 AM

I think the Roger Ebert 4 star system worked well because it divided things relatively cleanly. 1 and 2 stars were negative of differing degrees, 3 and 4 stars were positive of differing degrees. The half stars did make things a little unbalanced, giving five possible negative ratings versus three positive ratings (0 star and no star reviews were explicitly rare and given to very few movies), but given Sturgeon's Law it at least provided a more nuanced gauge to HOW negative or positive the review is. Some said 2 1/2 star reviews often came across as positive and he says it is still officially "Thumbs Down." And, of course, being the most famous movie critic means his scale is inherently better known than others.

Once you include a fifth star or more the whole system goes out of wack, as three stars is supposedly positive but feels awfully distant from the really positive five star reviews. 10 point or 100 point ratings then start to emulate academic grades, whether intentional or not, and so a 5 feels like a failing grade even though it is supposed to be positive.

PushoverMediaCritic I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out. from the Italy of America Since: Jul, 2015 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
I'm sorry Tien, but I must go all out.
#788: Aug 6th 2018 at 2:07:17 AM

I think there's a case to be made for the necessity of an average rating. Sometimes you don't have a positive or negative opinion of a film, sometimes you just think it was meh. 50/100 shouldn't be a positive score, it should be a solid meh. Same goes for 3/5.

ewolf2015 MIA from south Carolina Since: Jan, 2015 Relationship Status: I-It's not like I like you, or anything!
MIA
#789: Aug 10th 2018 at 4:20:26 PM

Okay, back from the flim.

sweet Jesus. Like I love some aspects of the flim but a major issue I have is the whole twist villian thing which was made apprent by Evelyn. I was more caught off guard when hans in frozen was the bad guy, and that was by the last minute.not only that, they were fooled twice, twice for the exact same plot. Sure it was excuted differently, but this was 14 years in the freaking making. At least have some quality.

Sorry, like again, the flim was good. It was a major glaring flaw that I had to point out.

MIA
Whowho Since: May, 2012
#790: Aug 10th 2018 at 6:08:47 PM

Ooo yeah I want to discuss the twist

Because it's interesting to me because the film makes little effort to hide the fact that there's going to be a twist villain. There's just so much incriminating similarity between Sceenslaver and the company (they both are in telecommunications, they both know a lot about supers, the two of them turn up at each others events consistently) but the thing is, the film gives us two possible candidates for the man behind the man, who would have totally different motivations for being the screen slaver. The brother to create problems to make Helan look good, because he wants supers to return, and the sister to make Helan look bad, because she blames supers for her parents death and doesn't want them to return

During the film's intervial my fiancé and I spent the entire fifteen minuets debating which of the two was screen slaver, and we could pin either of them down. It couldn't be both of them because they had opposite motivations. And either reveal would have ensured a completely different third act, so we were really eager for the reveal.

I think it's one of the better handlings of a villain identity twist in Disney/Pixar history.

I think the interval took place immediately after the ambassador's rescue, for reference.

Tuckerscreator (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#791: Aug 19th 2018 at 2:12:27 PM

Edna Mode dresses herself up as a 20-something YouTuber and waxes spiel about Incredibles 2 and how Brad Bird's recent movies don't seem to care about refuting their villains.

(This is the same problem I have with Thanos.)

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Aug 19th 2018 at 2:20:37 AM

Pichu-kun ... Since: Jan, 2001
...
#792: Aug 20th 2018 at 8:37:33 AM

I fell for the twist villain, but because it seemed a bit too obvious. I thought either one of the twins was the villain, however it just seemed a bit too on-the-nose. I expected the twist to be that they weren't villainous.

Whowho Since: May, 2012
#793: Aug 20th 2018 at 9:37:17 AM

Arguing that Incredibles 2 doesn't refute the villain's viewpoint is interesting to me.

Because, like, the heroes and the villain are facing completely different conflicts. Helan and Bob are doing this because they want to give their kids a world where they don't have to face being a legal entity. The villain's questioning of if superheroes make populations complacent and the two arguments are mostly irrelevant to each other.

Like, the heroes don't need to defeat the villain's argument, because that argument isn't important to their character arcs; defeating the villain's plan is.

In fact, there's no reason why after the events of the film the good guys and the villain couldn't work together on drawing up legislation that would satisfy both concerns.

TargetmasterJoe from Velocitron Since: May, 2013 Relationship Status: I like big bots and I can not lie
#794: Aug 20th 2018 at 12:45:27 PM

Haven't seen Incredibles 2 yet, but I really wanted to ask an Incredibles-related question:

How do superpowers work in a genetic sense?

Because Bob and Helen have super-strength and flexibility respectively. But then, Dash and Violet have super-speed and telekinetic and invisibility powers when it should be more likely for the kids to have superpowers similar to their parents, and Jack-Jack has a huge array of powers that are not even close to being similar to his siblings or parents' powers.

It didn't bug me back in 2004 and it might be one of those "don't worry about it" moments, but I can't stop thinking about it...

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#795: Aug 20th 2018 at 12:48:59 PM

Maybe it's just a general "super gene", and the powers vary based on who they are as...people?

Or maybe that's bullshit.

Oh God! Natural light!
KnownUnknown Since: Jan, 2001
#796: Aug 20th 2018 at 12:52:31 PM

Edna mentions that most young supers go through a period of wild and divergent abilities (though Jack Jack is still a special case even so), so presumably there's a super gene that flares up at a young age and taps into a whole bevy of reality warping effects, until they settle and coalesce into a single Personality Power.

Edited by KnownUnknown on Aug 20th 2018 at 12:54:47 PM

KarkatTheDalek Not as angry as the name would suggest. from Somwhere in Time/Space Since: Mar, 2012 Relationship Status: You're a beautiful woman, probably
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
#797: Aug 20th 2018 at 12:54:49 PM

Mind you, the original opening of the first movie had Violet have invisibility powers even as a baby, but that's a deleted scene (and definitely not canon), so it's cool.

Oh God! Natural light!
Discar Since: Jun, 2009
#798: Aug 23rd 2018 at 7:46:55 PM

When Edna was explaining the multiple powers in babies thing, Bob was very confused, so I definitely got the impression that Violet and Dash only displayed one power, and from a very early age. Edna says it's common for babies to have multiple powers, not that they all always have multiple powers. And again, Jack-Jack is exceptional even by that standard. I would assume he's eventually going to settle into having a smaller rotation of powers when he grows up.

Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
VioletParrfan1989 Since: Mar, 2018
#799: Aug 30th 2018 at 3:54:21 PM

Went to see this film last month on the 16th (I'm a month late to the party), wore my custom made Violet Parr T-shirt and brought my adorable Violet plushie with me to see the film.

Overall review and opinion:

It's just as good (if not better) than the first film (in some areas, mostly the family dynamic which was better here than in the first film), more or less I mark it as an equal to the first film.

Action:Was way better (Elastigirl stopping the train was probably the best moment).

Humor: Funnier than the first film by a lot (Violet had a few funny moments that are pure gold (and one her lines from the sequel is now my official catchphrase) as did Dash (him pressing buttons was a good laugh), but Jack-Jack stole the show as expected of the little guy (him vs the raccoon was by far the best fight in the whole film).

As for the B-plot: Bob is definitely the MVP when it comes to fatherhood (and hilariously enough, let's just say that he did the parenting job way better than Helen did in the first film alone, Violet also got some nice character development (even though it was pretty short) and Dash got shafted badly (was Math really intended to be his character arc of him getting smarter and less cockier? and Jack-Jack got the most development for a baby).

Only major gripe that I had was the way the main villain was handled (Screenslaver was a way better designed villain than Syndrome was, but that plot-twist with him just literally ruined him (the only plot-twist villain that I didn't fall for, unlike in Big Hero 6 and Zootopia where there twists were handled pretty well.)

Hopefully they make a third film, because there's some hints near the end of the 2nd film that might just warrant it.

If anyone happens to see this post, anyone mind helping me out with adding tropes to this post? I'm kind of new here and don't post here very often!

Edited by VioletParrfan1989 on Aug 30th 2018 at 7:23:37 AM

doomrider7 (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#800: Sep 3rd 2018 at 6:43:39 PM

[up]

The math thing is that it's New Math which was introduced around this time period and was universally disliked do to being overly complicated. It's an actual reality nod since parents complained that they couldn't understand the material and thus couldn't help their kids learn it.


Total posts: 974
Top