The GHZ Forum

The Incredibles was the BEST Pixar film yet!
Yay! It was even better than Finding Nemo! Not to spoil anything, but the baby has the best power. I thought it would be horrible because of 2 things:

1.) The guy on the Today show liked it and I hate everything he likes.
2.) My Newspaper gaved it 5 stars and I almost always disagree with it.

But somehow, It was able to please them AND me. GO SEE IT!

Eh.

It's just a rip-off of the "Fantastic Four". And the "Doom Patrol". But that's redundant because the "Doom Patrol" was really just a pastiche of the "Fantastic Four" and the "X-Men". But still, it's the principle (or lack thereof) of thing.

I'll just wait for the "F.F" movie next year and the nigh-inevitable appearence of the "D.P." on "Teen Titans" and/or "Justice League Unlimited". C'mon, you know it's gonna happen (Hell, if they've bothered to bring in the emm-effing Mad Mod, it better happen).

...a rip off? Have you seen it?

The Incredibles was awesome, and the animation was unbelievable.


Didn't we already have a thread about this?

Didn't we already have a thread about this?

Actually, I think it was a thread about Nausicaa that tranformed into a thread about Pixar and I only briefly mentioned The Incredibles near the end.

But yeah, The Incredibles is fucking awesome. Great story, great characters, great pacing, and the most gorgeous CG work to date. Like, I might watch it again while it's still in theaters, and that's a big thing for me.

If we're talking about the same Fantastic Four movie . . . *shudders* I've seen reviews of it. It's really . . . just kind of thrown together in a half-assed way. It's got two villains in one movie. That's the WORST decision anyone can make with a superhero movie. It's one of the reasons the Batman franchise quickly fell into a state of suckitude.

The Fantastic Four movie looks pretty lame so far.

Indeed. The Batman Begins project is looking pretty good so far, though.

Although, the suit still sucks and they are sticking with the whole using two villains thing. But it still looks like it's going to be fucking sock rocking.

Since we're now on the topic...

I actually have hope for the new Superman movie project. A year ago I actually made a bet with a friend that it was going to suck. We agreed that we could change the terms of the bet after the first trailer, so I guess I've pretty much changed my mind already. At that time, the script was awful (Beyonce as Lois? Jimmy gay? Lex from Krypton?) and McG was set to direct. Thankfully they scrapped that script and got Bryan Singer. So now I'm actually looking forward to it.

What pisses me off is that now Fox dumped Bryan Singer for X3. I loved what he did with the first two X-Men movies, and I was really looking forward to the third one, but now I'm a little scared as to what Fox might do now that they have a winning franchise going.

(Beyonce as Lois? Jimmy gay? Lex from Krypton?)

I hate the "Lex Luthor is from Krypton" version of Luthor.

And Beyonce as Lois would NEVER work.

And . . . well, as for the other one - C'mon, just look at the way he dresses and acts. It's fairly obvious.

But I kid the very gay Jimmy Oslen.

The scariest thing I've heard about the new Superman movie is that they actually considered putting in Krypto. So they could sell Krypto toys.

Yaaargh!

I hope they look to the old Fleisher cartoons for inspiration. Those are the best moving depictions of Superman ever made, in my opinion.

I'm not that fond of the character, really, just because he's too damn powerful - it makes it hard to challenge him. But I can see what his fans see in him. He's like a modern-day Jesus - powerful, heavy with responsibility, self-sacrificing, dedicated, loving.

Except we all know that Jesus' weakness was to being nailed to a piece of wood, and not Kryptonite.

I'm encouraged by what I hear of the Superman flick, too. I like that they're choosing an unknown actor, rather than a celebrity type.

Also, I guess this movie ignores Superman III and IV, too, and just picks up right where Superman II left off.

Sounds good in my book!

I'd rather have the new series stand on it's own two feet, to be honest. Since the depiction of Lex Luthor in the Reeve movies was as a bumbling, impotent, Elmer Fuddish, imbicile.

But if they're not going to go with Luthor, I say Braniac is the next best thing. Especially if they do the "Braniac was the computer on Kryptonite who screwed everyone over" storyline.

Rather than the "Braniac is a random computer from God knows where and he's here cause he's an ass" origin story.

From what I heard Bryan Singer dumped X3 for Superman sighting more money... I'm hoping for X3 that since the Phoenix is going to be a part of the plot, they do the whole Dark Phoenix saga... It would be nice to she the Hellfire Club on the big screen... As for Fox screwing it up, Marvel seems to be really tighted fisted with their characters now... They are sueing both Disney and the City of Heroes people... I'm not to worried by X3 I'm worried about the other 12 Marvel movies between now and 2006... As for Superman as long as it doesn't try to tie into that Smallville crap I will go see...

Really, it's the villains that make up most of what a good superhero movie is. If they're handled with care and a love for their characters, the rest of the movie tends to fall into place.

After Batman Returns, the franchise basically used it's villains as cannon fodder in funny suits - hence the suckatude.

No, Singer picked up Superman because it's always been some sort of childhood dream of his or he loves the character a lot or something. Fox dumped <I>him</I> because of that.

Zeta wrote:Really, it's the villains that make up most of what a good superhero movie is. If they're handled with care and a love for their characters, the rest of the movie tends to fall into place.

After Batman Returns, the franchise basically used it's villains as cannon fodder in funny suits - hence the suckatude.

The last decent Batman movie was the one after Batman 2, because they did a decent Robin story.

But I kinda liked Batman 2 more, because the Catwoman there was cool. I saw the previews of the Movie Catwoman and thought, what the hell are they thinking? Catwoman has to be blonde, people is used to a blonde cat woman.

There is no way they can screw up X-men 3 if they do they Phoenix saga because they have done it a lot of times(In the comic). Unless they are stupid…But is not like I see second parts/third parts anymore.

Segaholic2 wrote:No, Singer picked up Superman because it's always been some sort of childhood dream of his or he loves the character a lot or something. Fox dumped <I>him</I> because of that.

Well this is what I heard... And also I remember in quite a few interviews Singer claimed he never really read comics that much as a child... If he really loved the characters he wouldn't have asked Kevin Spacey to be Lex... I mean Spacey is good actor but he lacks the image that makes Luthor who Luthor is...

Delphine wrote:...a rip off? Have you seen it?

C'mon, one team member is super strong, another can stretch, one can generate force fields and become invisible, and there's a toddler with mysterious and gimmicky super powers. Two of the team members are married, too. And, as for the "Doom Patrol", the name "Elastigirl," or rather "Elasti-Girl," as she's known there, was a founding member of the D.P. Need I say more?

Amazing Grant wrote:The Incredibles was awesome, and the animation was unbelievable.

By that logic, let's try something similar...

"That Rembrandt forgery was awesome, and the brushstrokes were unbelievable."

It may be a thrill to the senses, but in the end, it's still not a real Rembrandt.

Zeta wrote:If we're talking about the same Fantastic Four movie . . . *shudders* I've seen reviews of it. It's really . . . just kind of thrown together in a half-assed way. It's got two villains in one movie. That's the WORST decision anyone can make with a superhero movie. It's one of the reasons the Batman franchise quickly fell into a state of suckitude.

Are you sure you're not reffering to the notorious Roger Corman film from about ten, eleven years ago? That flick was so awfull, it nver got an official release, even direct to video (it's only available via bootlegs, which is probably the way it's going to stay, God willing). I know it had two villains, one being a facially inaccurate Dr. Doom, another an ersatz Mole Man called "The Jeweller".

And, personally, I think all the live-action "Batman" films were pieces of shit (I take that back, the one with Adam West is strangely enjoyable, albeit in the same way as the original "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" cartoon and "Lupin III, Part II" -- cheesy, yet strangely satisfying).

Amazing Grant wrote:Indeed. The Batman Begins project is looking pretty good so far, though.

Although, the suit still sucks and they are sticking with the whole using two villains thing. But it still looks like it's going to be fucking sock rocking.

So, what's the latest script revision for that film? First I heard it was to be based off of "Batman: Year One", then it was supposed to feature immortal terrorist mastermind Ra's al Ghul (though they probably dropped that like a rock after "September 11th")... what's the latest rumor going around?

Personally, I don't have much hopes for it, given the drastic aforementioned script revisions, as well as the fact that the actor they've cast looks nothing like Batman, and the Batmobile is an ugly, mis-shappen monstrosity akin to a Hummer with a rocket engine. Oy.

And as you said, the costume sucks too.

The final nail in the coffin has to be the fact that "The Batman", with it's young, pointy-chined Bruce Wayne, is clearly intened to market this movie. And remember, "The Batman" seems almost as though it was created by the bastard crack-baby of Tim Burton, Joel Schummacher, and an undead William Dozzier. Ick.

Of course, when you think of the most recent DC movie for comparison... need I remind anyone of "Catwoman"?

Segaholic2, Zeta, and Amazing Grant debate the new "Superman" flick.

1.) I hated the "Superman" films with Chistopher Reeve. Yes, I know, it's heresy, but they still sucked. While I think Reeve was perfectly cast as Supes, they should have started the series off by completely ditching the hackneyed, campy script by Mario Puzo and it's re-writes (which, if memory serves, were done by the makers of a notoriously bad "Superman" musical some years earlier), and gone with a script actually worth the paper it was printed upon. With a superior, serious script, they should also cast someone in the role of Lex Luthor who actually gives off a sense of menace: Telly Savalas. Hey, I think he'd be great in the role (and, appearently, the guys at the WB Animation Department agree with me, as the animation models used for Luthor on "Superman: The Animated Series", "Justice League", and "Justice League Unlimited" are charactatures of the late actor, and the man they chose to provide Luthor's voice, Clancy Brown, sound very much like Savalas, as well).

Seeing as none of that ever happened, I say we hunt down and gruesomely kill the people responsible for "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace". Okay, yeah, it's not as bad as, say, "Catwoman", "Lupin III: Nenrikichan sakusen" or "Modesty Blaise" (three of the worst comic-inspired films of all time, I.M.O.), it still sucked long and hard; certainly on par with the recent box-office turd "The Hulk". Moving along...

2.) Hoo, boy, the new Supes film. First, noted comic book writer, actor, and filmaker Kevin Smith came up with a screenplay based off of "The Death of Superman", which, in said capable writer's hand, could actually have been a good movie. Unfortunately, the director at the time was that creepy twit Tim Burton, who ditched the script in favor of a new one, which if memory serves was to have had Jimmy Olsen played by Chris Rock, among other stupidities I've since erased from my memory (Smith and Burton, to this day, still hate each other's guts because of that project). Of course, this project was shelved.

Then they got in McG, who had a new script drafted (the one mentioned in this thread), which, after it was leaked to the public on "Ain't it Cool News.Com", created such a public backlash that Warner Brothers closed down the project and, presumably, fired all involved. Now, of course, they've actually got a director who hasn't had his head lodged up his ass for as long as anyone can remember, so there may be hope just yet...

Oh, and, as for the last laugh (in regards to the "DoS" film)... while Tim Burton hasn't had a successful film in close to a decade, Kevin Smith has been taped to produce, direct, and, yes, write a film based off of the exploits of classic radio (and later television) superhero "The Green Hornet". Justice at last.

Zeta wrote:Really, it's the villains that make up most of what a good superhero movie is. If they're handled with care and a love for their characters, the rest of the movie tends to fall into place.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Zeta wrote:After Batman Returns, the franchise basically used it's villains as cannon fodder in funny suits - hence the suckatude.

Like I said before, I hated Burton's Batflicks as well as Schummacher's, so I don't have to go into it further.

Nova wrote:The last decent Batman movie was the one after Batman 2, because they did a decent Robin story.

But I kinda liked Batman 2 more, because the Catwoman there was cool. I saw the previews of the Movie Catwoman and thought, what the hell are they thinking? Catwoman has to be blonde, people is used to a blonde cat woman.

There is no way they can screw up X-men 3 if they do they Phoenix saga because they have done it a lot of times(In the comic). Unless they are stupid…But is not like I see second parts/third parts anymore.

Dude, Catwoman was always a brunette in the comics, it was the casting of the blonde Michelle Pfifer which was a deriviation from the norm. Also, Catwoman was/is nothing like the way she was bastardized -- I mean portrayed -- in either film. For a good overview of what she's really like, Dorian Kingsley currently has out an authoritative guide to the character; it's worth checking out.

And as for the "Phoenix Saga" being buggered up... never underestimate the horrors of Hollywood bureaucracy.

The Scarlet Scorpion wrote:C'mon, one team member is super strong, another can stretch, one can generate force fields and become invisible, and there's a toddler with mysterious and gimmicky super powers. Two of the team members are married, too. And, as for the "Doom Patrol", the name "Elastigirl," or rather "Elasti-Girl," as she's known there, was a founding member of the D.P. Need I say more?

That still doesn't answer the question. Have you even seen it? Methinks if you'd actually watched the movie, you'd realize it wasn't a "rip-off" in any stretch of the word. In fact, I dare say now that The Incredibles is a much better movie than the future Fantastic Four movie ever will be.

The Scarlet Scorpion wrote:Personally, I don't have much hopes for it, given the drastic aforementioned script revisions, as well as the fact that the actor they've cast looks nothing like Batman, and the Batmobile is an ugly, mis-shappen monstrosity akin to a Hummer with a rocket engine. Oy.

Don't knock Christian Bale. He's a great actor. And that's saying a lot coming from me, because I hate most actors and actresses. Scratch that; I hate most everyone in Hollywood.

The Scarlet Scorpion wrote:Oh, and, as for the last laugh (in regards to the "DoS" film)... while Tim Burton hasn't had a successful film in close to a decade, Kevin Smith has been taped to produce, direct, and, yes, write a film based off of the exploits of classic radio (and later television) superhero "The Green Hornet". Justice at last.

I'm pretty sure I read that Kevin Smith decided (or the studio decided or somebody decided) that he wasn't going to direct it anymore. If I recall correctly, this is really old news. Plus, it's not any justice at all if it was true, because Kevin Smith is the most overrated director of crap of all time.

C'mon, one team member is super strong, another can stretch, one can generate force fields and become invisible, and there's a toddler with mysterious and gimmicky super powers. Two of the team members are married, too. And, as for the "Doom Patrol", the name "Elastigirl," or rather "Elasti-Girl," as she's known there, was a founding member of the D.P. Need I say more?

So you're saying it's a ripoff just because they have the same powers? So the tone of the Incredibles has nothing to do with it? Or the way the movie has a distinct James Bond style? It's a ripoff because of the powers alone?

That's the stupidest logic I've ever heard of. By that reasoning, "Finding Nemo" is a ripoff of "The Little Mermaid" because they both feature main characters who can breathe underwater.

And Pixar actually LICENSED the name "ElastiGirl" from DC Comics, just so you know.

By that logic, let's try something similar...

"That Rembrandt forgery was awesome, and the brushstrokes were unbelievable."

It may be a thrill to the senses, but in the end, it's still not a real Rembrandt.

Oh please. You're just using superhero fanboy logic to make a judgement about something you've never even seen.

"Sonic is a crappy ripoff of Mario so I don't ever need to try playing a Sonic game, because I'm 100% sure they all SUCK!"

Are you sure you're not reffering to the notorious Roger Corman film from about ten, eleven years ago? That flick was so awfull, it nver got an official release, even direct to video (it's only available via bootlegs, which is probably the way it's going to stay, God willing). I know it had two villains, one being a facially inaccurate Dr. Doom, another an ersatz Mole Man called "The Jeweller"

Ay, that's the one I was talking about.

Of course, when you think of the most recent DC movie for comparison... need I remind anyone of "Catwoman"?

That's pretty different. They purposely ignored everything that's already been established about the character because they didn't think audiences could HANDLE a thief as a hero. Idiots. That's most of the appeal of Catwoman.

So, what's the latest script revision for that film? First I heard it was to be based off of "Batman: Year One", then it was supposed to feature immortal terrorist mastermind Ra's al Ghul (though they probably dropped that like a rock after "September 11th")... what's the latest rumor going around?

Well, as far as I know, there weren't a whole lot of script revisions for Batman Begins. What you're thinking of is that at one time there were a few different Batman projects floating around, one of which was a direct adaptation of Year One, another being Batman vs. Superman and then there was something else too.

Batman Begins hasn't changed much over it's production, and the leaked script is reportedly very close to the shooting script. I have very high hopes for it, and if it's even half as cool as the leaked script was, it will be very pleasing.

Also, yeah, Ra's al Ghul will be in the film, as well as the Scarecrow. Also, mobster Carmine Falcone will play some sort of role and there's currently rumors that somewhat obscure Bat-villain Mr. Zsasz could make a small cameo. At this point, someone is going to say that this is way too many villains for a movie and how nobody should go see it because there's no way it could be good with that many villains. Keep in mind, though - this time, the movie is actually about Batman and not the enemy.

Anyway, I hope the Zsasz rumor is true, because he's one of my all time favorite villains in Batman's rogue gallery. He's just a sick serial killer that carves a notch into his skin for each victim he kills. A character like that would be right up director Chris Nolan's alley.

By that logic, let's try something similar...

"That Rembrandt forgery was awesome, and the brushstrokes were unbelievable."

It may be a thrill to the senses, but in the end, it's still not a real Rembrandt.

That analogy doesn't work and Zeta explained why. But, furthermore, The Incredibles isn't trying to rip off Fantastic Four at all.

It uses that as a means of trying to depict them as your average superheroes - they're meant to be caricatures of popular super heroes. It's not like the film is saying, "Ha ha ha ha! We invented this superhero family idea and we're the geniuses!"

Of course not. The movie is all about showing super heroes do ordinary things and how people that are different are forced to conform. It's not about the powers, trust me.

The best Batman movie ever was Mask of the Phantasm. It's the only film that actually made Batman an interesting character, as well as the featured villain.

As for The Incredibles, I agree with Grant. The characters powers needed to be stereotypical archtypes for the story to work. Besides, if they each had some amazing, never before seen power, I think it would maybe be kind of distracting. This way, they don't need to waste a lot of time establishing the powers of the characters, and can instead focus on the elements of them that are important to the plot of ze film.

Esrever wrote:The best Batman movie ever was Mask of the Phantasm.

Concurred.

You know, whenever someone is pointing out flaws with the Batman mythos, a common complaint is that the character is too difficult to relate to. He's moody, antisocial, and perhaps even a bit psychotic (okay, so the GHZ forumers could relate - but most people can't).

But that scene in the rain at his parents grave site in Mask of the Phantasm when he's begging his dead parents to forget about his childhood vow because he "never counted on being happy" .. very powerful. Chokes me up every time, I admit.

Still, I do have very big hopes for Batman Begins to surpass even MotP.

Well shit, I complety forgot about Mask of the Phantasm. God, it's been so long since I've seen that film. Have they shown previews for Batman: Begins? I didn't even know it had a name yet, I had only heard of it a few weeks ago on a cover of Entertainment Weekly.