*** Official THE INCREDIBLES Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[ThomasC]

Yeah, I caught that the first time, and I think I didn't post about it here because I didn't want to search the whole thread, post about it, and have someone mention that it was mentioned before. I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it before, though.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Reading this thread again 14 years later was a trip and a half! The intrigue about what would happen when Pixar and Disney parted ways (before Disney bought Pixar!); the controversy over Pixar making a PG movie with more intense situations and some more adult themes (buckle up for the end of the world three pictures later!); the desperation to find a screening with digital projection (now you probably can't find a screen with 35mm projection, since the studios don't even make prints!)...

I just finished watching this again for the first time in years, in preparation for the sequel in theaters -- hopefully tomorrow. The movie remains an exceptionally disciplined product, saying and accomplishing what Brad Bird wanted to with elegant efficiency. And because this came out before the market became saturated with superhero movies, it wasn't influenced by the bad habits of the genre that have emerged since.
.

Loved the Incredibles, from the impressive design work creating a world permeated by the 50's and 60's mod esthetic. The wonderful warmth I got as the island base reminded me so much of 2001's set designs.

Even though this is pretty rudimentary now compared to the current state of the art, the design work holds up completely. Its period influences are on full display, something that the sequel has really embraced as well, judging by the trailers and commercials. The opening sequence on Bob and Helen's wedding night is set in 1947, and the "present day" bulk of the movie is set in 1962. But it's a 1962 that feels like what postwar America might have imagined 1962 would be like.

So were there any advances in the art of computer animation? The sheen of fabric or wetness? Hair? Wet hair? (Shrek 2 had the raindrops; didn't see the last one with the fish....)

The handling of water movement in the way he ran across the water was sheer; the managemetn of fire and more realistic physics were nice; there were quite a few advances.. Violet's hair was a unique little trick, however they pulled that off.

One of the smartest decisions Brad Bird made was to bring in Tony Fucile and Teddy Newton, who'd worked with him on The Iron Giant, to do the character designs. They came from that traditional 2D animation background, and the characters trigger the same response that 2D animated characters do. The trailers for the new movie, with all of the advancements in computer animation, still have the same character designs -- because the things that made them work are timeless. The uncanny valley is sidestepped completely, because they weren't trying to create photorealistic humans.

This was the first movie I can remember to get human hair right, something we take for granted in all the CG animated movies since.

Where it really shows its age is the textures; they're just not nearly as high-res or as detailed as we expect now. The other thing is the cinematography. Since The Incredibles came out, CG movies have gotten much better at lighting like live action movies and using selective focus like live action movies. This has motion blur, but otherwise everything is in focus all the time. And while there are some beautifully lit shots in the movie, the light just doesn't interact with its environment with anywhere near the sophistication it does now. You look at the gameplay parts of the trailer for The Last of Us Part II, capable of being rendered in real time, and it's stronger in those last couple areas than this film, where each frame took hours to render.

And back to Incredibles along that line, my favorite thing about the film is that it's beautiful to look at. As I was telling Tino the other day, I wasn't sitting there this time thinking "wow, look at how good the CGI is" but rather "wow, what beautiful looking shots". The CGI has become so good that I tuned it out and generally just believed that I was watching some form of great stop-motion, ie I felt like these were tangible 3D items on screen and I was very impressed with how creative and beautiful the designs were.

And that's where Pixar sets itself apart. The tool is CGI but the craft is still animation art. I think that's probably what Ernest is getting at most of all. Some projects feel like the entire point is cooly technical, merely the opportunity to push the tool to its limits. Others, like Pixars stuff, feel like the desire to get ideas about animated stories on screen and CGI is the tool they chose for whatever reasons.

The use of the full cinematic toolbox was really strong here -- especially in the composition of shots. There are aspects of Brad Bird's movies, both animated and live action, that feel old-fashioned in the best way. There are lots of moments in this film that feel straight out of a Connery- or Moore-era Bond film.