I just saw The Incredibles and it was very good!

So anyway.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/we-ve-seen-the-power-packed-first-footage-from-the-incr-1796939620

Talks one isolated scene shown in particular but the key points:

* Starts immediately where the first film left off with the Underminer.

* "will largely focus on Elastigirl, leaving Mr. Incredible at home to watch Jack-Jack."

Updates updates updates:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/one-of-these-new-incredibles-2-characters-is-totally-th-1822303947

New characters per Disney PR stuff and who plays them:

WINSTON DEAVOR (voice of Bob Odenkirk) leads a world-class telecommunications company alongside his genius sister, Evelyn. Ultra-wealthy, savvy and suave, Winston goes big in everything he does—including his infatuation with Supers. He has been a supporter of Supers returning—all he needs is a hero (or three) to help him change public perception and bring them back into the sunlight.

EVELYN DEAVOR (voice of Catherine Keener), the brilliant brainchild behind her brother Winston’s telecommunications company, knows her way around tech. She loves tinkering with tech, and has never met a problem she can’t solve.

VOYD (voice of Sophia Bush) is a young, overeager “wannabe” Super and a mega-fan of Elastigirl. Her superpower is the ability to divert and manipulate objects around her by creating voids that allow the objects to appear and disappear, and shift in space.

The Supers find an advocate in a dignified foreign AMBASSADOR (voice of Isabella Rossellini) who is committed to the support and legalization of Superheroes.

And tickets for II on sale etc.

Dear critics who are chagrinned by the upcoming Pixar film The Incredibles 2, may I suggest using one of the following in your review:

The Uncredibles
The Inedibles
The In-crud-ibles
The Incredibles...At Actually Being Terrible

And sequel seen. Totally great, unsurprisingly. Plays around with a slew of the same themes but feels like a natural progression nonetheless, and otherwise you got your perfect 60s/Bond/Mission Impossible/etc pastiche on lock once again, set pieces galore, Edna Mode rules all.

Ned what was the last major sequel you thought sucked, just so I can calibrate expectations here

I saw The Incredibles and Incredibles 2 in a double feature last night. Incredibles 2 is much better.

“Evelyn Deavor”

oh man i'm looking forward to this

Yeah I might have to go with Silby here.

I thought this was OK, mostly, and at times disappointing. I liked the creativity of the set pieces, even if they were almost all built around runaway vehicles hurtling toward their doom, but other aspects I found very lazy. Maybe my biggest disappointment was in its apparent lack of self awareness, given the cliches and predictable stuff. The first one is not my favorite Pixar, but I like it better. Clearer theme. This one was all over the place.

That weird short cartoon, though, What the fuck?! The dude next to me leaped up in his chair and exclaimed "Well, that went dark pretty fast!"

Idk what’s the theme of the first one, tort reform?

Wait what’s not to get about the short?

does she just miss her grown son? to the point of tears? the reaction in our theater came to her eating the bao child.

theme of the first one if I recall correctly was one of identity, I am a superhero, that is who I am, if you take that away, what am I?

the theme of the first one was if you are great you are born to it, and if you are not born to it but you aspire to greatness, then you are a creep and a pretender , iirc

You know what else kind of irked me about this one, besides the tedium of watching them first stop a runway drill, then later a runway train, then later a runaway boat? (Again, with no self-awareness - which would have been funny). Clearly Jack-Jack is the crowdpleaser character, but the baby was already the subject of a Pixar short, so not only did we already know the baby had powers, we already knew the baby had a huge range of powers. And yet that's played as a punchline reveal again and again and again in this. "Wait, Jack Jack has powers!?" Dad doesn't know, mom doesn't know, the siblings don't know, Edith doesn't know, Frozone doesn't know, the villain doesn't know ... They should have just found a way to make the movie about the baby. At the least baby vs. raccoon would have made a great short.

this seems like...an oversight

for anyone watching the Incredibles 2!! pic.twitter.com/HuIS1A6qc6

— valentine (@METlCHE) June 15, 2018

interesting. I do know that every time I see a concert these days most the time they have a notice posted if there are strobe lights involved, for that very reason.

I thought this one was not as good as the first probably slightly, but still pretty fun (esp. the raccoon sequence) and I could kind of watch these characters do anything.

Short OTOH featured someone in the audience out loud saying "What the fuck??!?!" I mean okay the theme at the end is fine (had my wife in tears) but what a weird/dark turn.

And yeah it's a short sequence I could see it being problematic. Definitely got the full warning at A Place To Bury Strangers earlier this week so yah weird oversight.

Nobody told me this was the fucking animated adventures of Better call Saul

Ermantrout sounds like he’s on the verge of death

I’m taking kids to this later in the week. How nervous should I be about the opening short?

(the kids are 5 and 8, btw)

Arrive 30 minutes past the starting time and miss nothing.

Fuck John Lassiter, fuck the Opening short. No one gives a shit about your fucking clever crap. There were audible groans in the theatre today that echoed my sentiments.

The theatre I saw this in had a warning up in the lobby

About strobing, or about the short?

There's no way the short gets a warning, as fucked up and weird as it is. I bet we're talking about the strobing.

More I think about this movie, less I like it. Just kind of a predictable mess, albeit a ... highly competent mess? Would have been satisfied with Jack-Jack v. raccoon standalone short.

there was a note about the strobing.

the short: it's just a metaphor. I agree that moment was ... shocking but also funny? yeesh you guys.

She missed her son, so she imagined a life with a bun-son ... and then eats him, the relationship ending (metaphorically) the same way as her relationship with her real son? I guess what makes it awkward/confusing is that her real son still looks like a bun-son, and also that we never find out what left them estranged. Might have needed a beat at the beginning to establish her son was MIA.

Maybe I missed it. I miss a lot. Like the plan/motive of the villain in "The Incredibles 2."

jesus calsters why did you even see this movie?

i don't believe it was that she missed her son. you see the life of the son growing up with him as a dumpling because that's how she perceived him. the 'eating' him moment was just the point where her over-protectiveness reaches it's peak.

So why were they estranged? I almost got the impression that it was because he brought home a westerner! They make a point of showing them bonding at the end, when the son makes messy bao and his wife makes perfect bao.

Anyway, I didn't like it. And the eating was a fucked up metaphor made more fucked up by the fact that the actual son looked exactly like a bun. Would have been better if the bun-son left and the short flashed back to her at the table, staring at the suddenly mundane bun, then sadly eating it. Then the husband seeing her sad and making a phone call and the *real* son showing up to comfort his sad mom. Something like that. The way it is, too jarring and weird and unnecessarily elliptical. Imo. Obviously my audience was not the only one that reacted in horror.

having seen Dementia 13 three days earlier, I enjoyed the "Dementia 113" joke.

Apparently the 113 is a reference to a classroom in the California Institute of the Arts? Apparently there are lots of references to "113" in this and other animated shows and movies.

A-113 is the like classic Pixar Easter egg yes.

OK really who cares about Bao, because the main attraction is GREBT. Unfortunately, noticeably unwoke, too.

Better than the Randian sociopathy of the first one!

can't believe a Pixar movie is unwoke

First one isn't fully fleshed objectivism, though, as it characterizes private corporations as inclined to evil (Syndrome, Bob's insurance company) and the government as sympathetic (the G-man who's a decent guy just doing his job). That said, I can buy that Bird probably has inchoate views that veer toward social Darwinism.

It's not about them being coherent Randians, just having general shitty instincts

Lisp of adult elastic girl was so grating

can't tell if that is a joke or not.

Not

That's just how Holly Hunter talks.

She has been appearing in successful, internationally-distributed films for 30 years, and also played "adult Elasti-Girl" in The Incredibles.

Ha, I thought he was talking about Sarah Vowell, who has one of the most famous funny-sounding/annoying voices.

Was it a joke someone made here? Anyway. Someone noted that Holly Hunter's two most famous roles are now for one where she appears and does not talk and one where she talks but does not appear.

I didn't love the first Incredibles, but I'm tentatively excited about this one because - is this the first Pixar movie in 10 years that won't make me bawl like a shithead?

I fucking love a good cry but Pixar movies make me nervous now because I'm always waiting for *that* scene