Pixar's Next Movie: The Incredibles 435
An anonymous reader writes: "The trailer for Pixar's next film, The Incredibles, is on the web. It's available from the official Incredibles site, the Apple trailers page, and Pixar's website. Lots of info on the official page as well! Enjoy!"
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adult films (Score:5, Insightful)
i-tunes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disney (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I'd say that 'Finding Nemo' was the least adult movie that Pixar have made. I've watched 'Toy Story 1/2' and 'Monsters Inc' numerous times, but have no great desire to see 'Finding Nemo' again.
Maybe this is why they quit Disney, so their movies weren't dumbed down for kids.
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
You evidently didn't see the Final Fantasy movie, to see how hard it is to produce a good adult oriented CG film.
CG is still cartoony. How many adult cartoons do you know of? Viz?
The thing most people don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're a MOVIE company. The reason their stuff is so well loved by the general populace is that they're first and foremost moviemakers. All of the stuff Ive seen from them so far is incredibly well written. That goes for not only their features but their shorts, too. Even the ones with no dialog in them.
The fact that they take these scripts and make them happen in a totally rendered environment is more than a creative choice than anything else. The script HAS to be good, and dead on, and not have a lot of slop, because the rendering proces is so time consuming and expensive (for now.) The medium in a sense culls out the shit material, because no matter how much you polish up a peice of shit, it's still going to be shit.
Films like Toy Story and Monsters Inc. COULD have been made in the traditional way, with actors and such, but by doing the whole thing as animation they get away from moments in the film where the audience would mentally break off with the thought "Holy Fuck, that's a coolass special effect."
IMHO, The fact that these are marketed and skewed towards a younger audience is mainly because, as a culture, the US isn't ready to accept animated ANYTHING as a serious medium for carying adult themes. If Pixar was a Japanese company, half the stuff they made probably wouldnt be viewable by children. Take Cowboy Bebop as an example. Anime, purely cartoon, but NOT for kids. I wont even go into things like Ghost in the Shell. This cultural disconnect in the States is why you see things like a row full of nine year olds sitting in a theater watching Terrance and Phillip sing songs about how the other likes to anally rape his uncle.
Re:The thing most people don't get... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, now. They only sang about how they like to "fuck" their uncles. Rape isn't mentioned at all in the song. How do you know the uncles in question haven't consented? =o)
Re:Torrent (Score:4, Insightful)
Your torrent lets me just ssh home, and kick off the download so it's waiting for me when I return. I imagine plenty of others would feel the same.
As I say, much appreciated.
(A bunch of posts explaining how stupid I am for not being able to do make MDK "just work" will, no doubt, follow!)
Re:The thing most people don't get... (Score:2, Insightful)
And yeah. They are a movie company. They make brilliant movies with great writing and characters. But also great is the character animation.
The character animation in these movies is simply better than anything anyone else does. The animators are roughly equivelant to the actors in a live action movie, without them, it just isn't believable. What's nice about Pixar movies is that because their animation is so good, every one of their movies is like having an all-star cast, which keeps people watching. The visual gags in those movies are so funny because of the skill of the animators. The fact that you can forget you're watching animation and just watch the characters and the movie are a testament to their skill.
This is what disney used to do, but Pixar is now the new disney. It's not about the CG vs 2d cartoons, as disney seems to think, its about the quality. Pixar is doing the best animation every done.
Finally!... an adult film (Score:5, Insightful)
This movie is for the Adult Swim crowd. It's got nothing "adult" in it (sex, violence -- well, there's explosions), but not every show on Adult Swim does either. It's the writing. Are children going to laugh at a character yelling "Where is my super suit, woman?!?" Probably not. But I laughed out loud more than a few times watching it.
Disney braves a thin line between children and adult entertainment (except for their refusal to distribute Michael Moore's latest movie, which is just dumb). Some stuff bridges the line rather admirably (like the Muppets, which they more or less acquired). Ditto on ABC after hours. A Bug's Life, though? Very little for adults to laugh at. Children will laugh at The Incredibles, but I have a feeling adults will get the most out of it.
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
And the storyline is what sets them apart, release after release.
And i am a huge anime fan myself - it's fun that there is blood and gore (impossible not to mention tentacle rape) etc and a lot of them are art in their own right.
But Pixar has a great story, every time, and then the story is well told. Despite all the high tech and geekery involved, that is one of the oldest skills in the world: the art of story-telling. A great story doesn't need to be targeted at a certain age group, and it doesn't need sex and explosions to make it work - it can stand by its own.
That's also the reason Pixar doesn't make more than 1 movie per year: They "can't find talented enough story tellers", according to Steve Jobs.
tries to get people into iTunes 4.5 (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple finally figured out "full screen" wasn't enough to get people to buy Quicktime Pro. However, it will probably be more successful at getting users to install iTunes, update to the latest version, or open it if they've never opened it before.
It is pretty stupid, but in a twisted way makes sense from a marketing standpoint.
Re:Stupid Flash requirement (Score:2, Insightful)
I saw comments similar to this several times already for this article. It seems a lot of people complain about the lack of availability on non-Windows machines for these websites without actually checking to see if their OS is capable of playing it first.
Re:Adult films (Score:1, Insightful)
look at their filmes, see how mny have orphans or parents getting killed off.
Bambi anyone?
Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i-tunes (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us gave Apple $30 for a Quicktime Pro license specifically to get access to full-screen Quicktime movies.
Just another reminder why deciding to pay any company for a license instead of a product is a pathetic leap of faith.
Re:What the??? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know about that--you can't tell me Jobs hasn't gotten a fair amount of pleasure over having Michael Eisner over a barrel. I mean honesty, who on this planet wouldn't enjoy the chance to really put the screws to that guy. Who knows what motivates Steve Jobs these days, but he's clearly in an extremely powerful position right now--with a company full of insanely talented people who are creating movies millions of people just can't seem to find their wallet quick enough to see.
It will be very interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.
Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
> But even so, why no adult content?
I think it's 99% due to the personalities *behind* the movies. Have you ever watched the behind-the-scenes stuff on Pixar dvd's or listened to the commentary? Pixar's core is John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and a couple of other guys, and they've been the driving force behind each and every Pixar movie. It's not like 20th Century Fox where they'll put out 50 movies a year and each one is directed by someone different. Pixar's library is entirely representative of a tiny handful of personalities, and there's not an ironic, detached, black-clad cyberpunk fan among them. I agree with you that it would be *awesome* to see an adult-oriented CG film with Pixar's skills behind it, but that would be like asking George Romero to direct the sequel to "You Got Served." Plain and simple, they just don't roll like that.
Re:Pixar is no different than anyone else (Score:5, Insightful)
Pixar are a Western firm, and have to live with the Western idea that all animation is for children. Ghibli are Japanese, and things work differently there.
But Pixar's kids' films bring parents into the cinema too. And they see that the films are in fact good, despite being 'for children'. And then the next time a Pixar film comes out those parents use the children as an excuse to go and see it. Pretty good business for Pixar, eh?
I remember seeing the start of A Bug's Life, watching this film for a while and then sitting up with a jolt because I realised that I was in fact watching Seven Samurai. Blimey.
Spirited Away you mention as an example, but I think it's more of a child's film than, say, Mononoke or Nausicaa. It reminds me of the books Through the Looking-glass or The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - certainly intended for children, but not limiting itself to what is normally supposed to be 'childish'.
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
For me Monsters Inc was the most child-oriented (simplistic) of the bunch. That's not to say that Pixar's worst isn't still above average, but I was disappointed compared to the other movies Pixar had produced, and relieved to see Nemo raise the standard again.
-chris
Re:The thing most people don't get... (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think there is something about animation -- especially non-realistic looking animation -- that appeals to kids more than it does to adults. However, the lines are blurring between animation and live action. Many movies (new Star Wars movies, Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, etc) are heaviliy CG to the point that soon nothing but the actors will be live action (or, in the case of Dinosaur, nothing but the backgrounds). And while Final Fantasy was probably before its time, soon photorealtic humans will be possible, allowing fully animated movies that don't "look" animated. As that happens, I think you will see a lot more adult fare that is fully animated.
Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (Score:2, Insightful)
* five november
* fifth of november
* november the fifth
* november five
Frankly though, I don't think that the "write it the way it's said" reasoning makes for a good justification. After all, when you talk about time you might say "a quarter past four", but you'd always write that 4:15
I can't think of any other countries which use mm-dd-yyyy (except for Canadians, who I've heard use both dd-mm and mm-dd!) or the reverse being yyyy-dd-mm. Nevertheless, when I write a date down I'll put 5/Nov/2004 for clarity - doing it that way avoids any more y2k-like issues also
Re:Pixar is no different than anyone else (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the audience; it's the director. Try picking a few fansubbed anime at random and watching a few episodes. You'll find that what they pump out in Japan is every bit as worthless as American children's shows/movies. Spirited Away was a great movie because a brilliant man created it, not because it was released in Japan.
Re:Pixar is no different than anyone else (Score:4, Insightful)
And that does not diminish their quality in any way. I'm an adult with no children and I go to every Pixar film as soon as it comes out. They are among the best written movies being made today in America.
But they ARE designed/written for adults (Score:3, Insightful)
Pixar understands how to write, how to make wonderful artistic settings, and how to blend those two together.
I wonder if the folks who find Pixar films the most unsettling might be adolescents who are disturbed by the simultaneous response of both child and adult within themselves.
I don't miss Pixar films. They have always been worthwhile. And their shorts are pretty darn wonderful also! And they certainly rate as "serious film" even though they have a G rating.
Seen proto-Incredibles; loved it (NO SPOILERS) (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer:
A lot of the CGI work was half done (and parts of the movie were storyboards), so I haven't seen the whole finished thing. So I am not sure how those parts finished up.
All of that said...
The pacing even of the half done version was excellent. The plot held together, the characters were thought out and had depth, they developed throughout the film. Pixar knows how to make movies; it's quite something to be watching a scene that's half storyboards still and still feel it's gripping.
This movie is aimed at both adults and kids. There are child characters, who help save the day, but the adults character development is the main theme of the film in my opinion.
I liked. I expect the finished product is going to entirely live up to the promise of the half done version I saw.
Uh...are you serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole film is about parenthood. You seriously didn't get that? To a kid, it's a fun flick about colorful fish, but to an adult, it touches on adult emotions as well. I thought Finding Nemo was the most strangely tragic of all their films--the guy loses his wife, all his other kids, and has to raise one all by himsef, and he's freaked out about anything happening to him.
Toy Story 2 touched on growing older and losing childhood. I mean, come on. Pixar's movies aren't really "geared" toward anybody. They just are what they are. An adult film doesn't mean it has guns, blood, or serious drama. It can just as well be a comedy with a bunch of CG animated fish and still be adult-enjoyable as ever. People who think otherwise are just embarrassed that they watch movies with CG animated fish and want to be cool.
Re:Adult films (Score:3, Insightful)
the deal with disney was kinda like a deal with a record company. disney provided seed cash, in return for "ownership" (technically speaking, exclusive monopoly rights in perpetuity; legal ownership remained in pixar's hands) of the films, plots, and characters for distribution and merchandising purposes. it also set a specific royalty rate for how much of the gross pixar would get (and that wasn't very high).
worked fine when pixar didn't have any cash, and didn't know if their films would be hits or not.
now, with pixar having more than enough cash from the IPO and the gross profits on monsters and nemo, pixar simply doesn't need that kind of relationship anymore. pixar has the seed capital it needs to fund its movies directly, and has no interest in any deal that sees it give up its rights under such terms.
pixar could reasonably accept a deal where buena vista distributes the movie, disney home video sells the dvd/video, and disney's toy department does the merchandise, IF the deal puts the majority of the gross into pixar, as they deserve for coming up with the material.
eisner refused to see it this way, and would only approve a deal that kept the lion's share of the profits to disney.
I see pixar in the right here. for disney to claim that they should take the majority of the profits simply because they did the manufacturing and distribution is absurd.
You are a trendy counterculturalist (Score:3, Insightful)
Any person who calls the cultural differences of another society stupid is ignorant. Stop being a trendy counterculturalist.