On rewatching, the biggest problem with the film is that it establishes a pretty huge and explorable world and we only get to see a small part of it. It cried out for sequels and we haven't gotten any (yet). Instead we got sequels to lesser Pixar films like Cars and Monster Inc.
Is The Incredibles overrated?
- Thread starter suarezguy
- Start date
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
It was announced by Bob Iger last march as being in development, but no confirmation on Brad Bird directing it.
And the risk is that too much time will have gone by between films. Actors "age out" and fans "age out" or just lose their interest after a while.
For instance, I was itching for a sequel to Enchanted but it's been in development-hell for ages and they still haven't locked down a script as of last summer. It's insane sometimes how a film can end on a note where there seems to be plenty of room left for a sequel and then it doesn't happen, and stuff that doesn't deserve sequels get 2-3 in rapid succession.
For instance, I was itching for a sequel to Enchanted but it's been in development-hell for ages and they still haven't locked down a script as of last summer. It's insane sometimes how a film can end on a note where there seems to be plenty of room left for a sequel and then it doesn't happen, and stuff that doesn't deserve sequels get 2-3 in rapid succession.
This thread made me rewatch it two nights ago and really... no, it's not.
The 60's sci-fi aesthetic and music alone are simply gorgeous plus it has alot of heart and tells a story that is truly engaging no matter the age of the audience. Normaly the phrase "...for the whole family" makes me a bit worried, The Incredibles actually manages that perfectly!
The 60's sci-fi aesthetic and music alone are simply gorgeous plus it has alot of heart and tells a story that is truly engaging no matter the age of the audience. Normaly the phrase "...for the whole family" makes me a bit worried, The Incredibles actually manages that perfectly!
Just to add my voice to the overwhelming chorus: no. Not remotely even overratred.
To this day it's one of the best animated movies ever. One of the best superhero films ever made (possibly *the* best in it's time) Plus, this scene is to me one of the most tense and terrifying action scenes ever put to film. It may be difficult for someone without kids of their own to fully comprehend the desperate fear that comes from seeing children in danger and a parent seemingly powerless to do anything, but it certainly scared the piss out of me!
Incidentally, I've always considered "overratred" a nonsense term as it's based wholly on subjective a concept, making "Is X under/overratred" an inherently loaded question. Typically what I've found is it's a way for someone to say "I don't like this thing other people like" or "not enough people like this thing I'm into" without actually saying it.
To this day it's one of the best animated movies ever. One of the best superhero films ever made (possibly *the* best in it's time) Plus, this scene is to me one of the most tense and terrifying action scenes ever put to film. It may be difficult for someone without kids of their own to fully comprehend the desperate fear that comes from seeing children in danger and a parent seemingly powerless to do anything, but it certainly scared the piss out of me!
Incidentally, I've always considered "overratred" a nonsense term as it's based wholly on subjective a concept, making "Is X under/overratred" an inherently loaded question. Typically what I've found is it's a way for someone to say "I don't like this thing other people like" or "not enough people like this thing I'm into" without actually saying it.
I find it hard to reconcile the movie invoking that terror and trumpeting the kids' participation in the fighting a few scenes later. And then the last scene implies that the whole family, baby included, is ready to don masks and risk their lives fighting anytime and at a moment's notice. There's a term for that: child soldiers, and the mother is rightly appalled at the idea earlier on.
Of course, a large part of the intended audience is kids, and kids don't tend to be bothered by or even really grasp concepts of that level of consequence. So having the kids suit up, and especially again at the end, is pandering to the youngest common denominator, plain and simple.
As a kids' movie that adults can enjoy, aye, it's a pretty good flick. But when people call it "one of the best animated and/or superhero movies ever"... yeah, I call that overrating.
Its the superhero genre. Batman had a twelve year old dress in bright colors at night to fight criminals more vicious than the ones in Incredibles. Marvel comics had a whole comic (Power Pack) about a group of siblings, of which the oldest was maybe 10, being a superhero team and fighting crime. Calling kids who fight crime "child soldiers" might be a bit extreme, especially in the context of The Incredibles.
Now, there have been comics that have talked about/examined the idea of what that stuff does to a kid, at the time and as they grow up. Its not a bad idea for comics to use. But its one of those things that, generally speaking, probably shouldn't be taken so seriously, unless the tone of the movie calls for it, and in The Incredibles I really don't think it does.
"The Incredibles" is one of my favorite films....so 'no' it's not overrated.
Helen Parr is my favorite character and, IMO, embodies the perfect woman: Attractive, perceptive, independent, warm or tough depending on the circumstances, always stands by her man no matter how stupid he acts...etc...etc...etc
Michael Giacchino's soundtrack that mixes John Barry's Bond-like sounds with bossanova is also awesome...
It mixes stuff like infidelity (assumed infidelity) with death (e.g. Gazerbeam and many other supers, even the villain Syndrome) with kids in danger and middle-age crisis. While there were things for the kids, there were also many things for adults.
Helen Parr is my favorite character and, IMO, embodies the perfect woman: Attractive, perceptive, independent, warm or tough depending on the circumstances, always stands by her man no matter how stupid he acts...etc...etc...etc
Michael Giacchino's soundtrack that mixes John Barry's Bond-like sounds with bossanova is also awesome...
It mixes stuff like infidelity (assumed infidelity) with death (e.g. Gazerbeam and many other supers, even the villain Syndrome) with kids in danger and middle-age crisis. While there were things for the kids, there were also many things for adults.
I'm pretty sure Helen Parr, if she existed, would be annoyed that you listed "attractive" as the first quality.
Children whose caretakers encourage and lead them to risk their lives in combat are child soldiers, period. And you can belay calling upon other comic books for backup, because they're not the tiniest bit relevant.
Nice try, but The Incredibles itself raises the issue when Helen is appalled by the fact that Edna's designed costumes for her kids, and then puts a blaring siren on the issue with her speech to the kids about how dangerous and lethal their enemies are, and then it plays up her anguish when the jet is attacked, as the good Reverend noted. The movie wants to have the issue both ways.
Again, I think it's a good movie. I'm just not a zealous, shouting-from-the-rooftops devotee.
A child soldier is anyone under the age of 18 taking part in hostilities during a military conflict. So if we're to argue semantics, I'd say that Violet and Dash aren't technically child soldiers.
Not really, because there's an arc there. The scenes you mention happen when the kids are just the kids -- they have powers, but they've never been tested in action, so Helen sees them merely as vulnerable innocents she has a duty to protect. But once they go into action, they prove they're able to use their powers to protect themselves and others, that they're more capable and self-sufficient than she -- or they -- had recognized. It's not a contradiction for a character to go through a learning curve.
Sure, certainly in real life child endangerment is a more serious matter. But this is fiction. It's not trying to convince real people that they should send their children into danger. It's presenting a wish-fulfillment fantasy for children, one of many, many children's adventure stories that show young people facing danger successfully. The film's acknowledgment that this is dangerous adds a degree of nuance and verisimilitude to the fiction, but it's still fiction, so nobody's actually being endangered. Don't mistake verisimilitude for an obligation to be exactly like reality. It's more about using the impression of realism to heighten the dramatic effect of something that is still fundamentally imaginary.
You say "presenting a wish-fulfillment fantasy", I say "pandering". Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to...
I don't think any of my childhood authority-figure/parental heroes (Picard, Gwydion, Tintin - well, he'd be more of a big brother) would encourage minors, especially preteens, to go into battle no matter the circumstances; they'd sooner fight and, if necessary, fall without them.
And I'm well aware of the distinction between fiction and reality, thank you very not.
Picard encouraged children to go up against armed Ferengi renegades. Even if we discount the "not really children" children, he also drafted Alexander Rozhenko.
Violet and Dash weren't children going into battle. They were superchildren. The film's text on children going into battle was quite clear: for Buddy it was a bad idea, and his overeagerness for it was a trait that helped give birth to Syndrome.
On the other hand, there's Batman and Robin, Green Arrow and Speedy, Captain America and Bucky, Professor X and the X-Men (who were initially teenagers, and whose later roster often included teens like Kitty and Jubilee), Dumbledore and Harry Potter, etc. Not to mention all the teen heroes who operate without adults along, like the Pevensies in The Chronicles of Narnia, Spider-Man in his early years (or the Miles Morales Spider-Man today), the Teen Titans, Buffy Summers, Kim Possible, countless young-adult novel heroes, etc.
Really, you're taking it too literally, because you're not looking at it from a child's perspective. Young readers/viewers need to learn confidence, to believe they can cope with the challenges the world offers. Of course they wouldn't really try to go out and battle evil, since that's just allegory and children are better at recognizing metaphors than adults often are; but the message that young people can be smart and strong and resourceful and can handle the problems they face in life is empowering and inspiring. Children need to grow up into independent, capable adults, and part of learning adult skills is practicing them through play and imagination.
I mean, yes, to us as adults, the risks of facing a supervillain's robot army is far more intense than the risks of taking a difficult exam or trying to make friends at a new school. But to a child, all those risks are equally profound. To children, all stakes are life-and-death stakes, because the world is new to them and they haven't yet learned to take things in stride. And so stories about young people facing life-and-death stakes are relevant to young audiences. They know they're not actually going to face such crises in real life, but the crises they do face feel just as important to them, and using play and imagination to rehearse problem-solving strategies is healthy. There's nothing "pandering" about it. On the contrary, it's better for kids to rehearse those strategies and skills through harmless entertainment than through having to face real life-and-death crises like children growing up in a war zone.
I'm pretty sure Helen Parr, if she existed, would be annoyed that you listed "attractive" as the first quality.
I'm sure she would call me on it, but in jest.
We humans tend to look at the physical first before we look inside when looking at potential or hypothetical significant others.
Similar threads
