Jump to content

Neo

THE Incredibles 2 | June 15, 2018 | NO SPOILERS!!!!

Recommended Posts







Just now, cannastop said:

Uh, why?

 

Because they always happen. And the original Incredibles went for more of an intentionally simplistic aesthetic than the earlier Finding Nemo so I'm not expecting the visuals to really dazzle here compared to their last few movies.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm actually thinking this will play like a much more frontloaded Finding Dory. FWIW, both Finding Nemo and The Incredibles opened to $70M each in 2003/2004 but the latter finished with a multiplier well below sub-4.0 compared to the near-5.0 multiplier of the former, most likely because of having less "kid appeal" (it was the first Pixar film to get a PG rating), and this one's bound to be much more frontloaded being a highly anticipated sequel (especially a superhero one). Dory's total was Nemo's total adjusted to 2016 dollars. $135M opening/$380M total sounds about right for this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



8 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

 

Because they always happen. And the original Incredibles went for more of an intentionally simplistic aesthetic than the earlier Finding Nemo so I'm not expecting the visuals to really dazzle here compared to their last few movies.

I think the more simplistic animation was Pixar wanting to reduce costs. They were still independent back then, so one flop could get them in a lot of trouble. There’s a huge leap in quality from TI to Cars, CGI wise.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Goffe said:

I think the more simplistic animation was Pixar wanting to reduce costs. They were still independent back then, so one flop could get them in a lot of trouble. There’s a huge leap in quality from TI to Cars, CGI wise.

Also because Pixar had far more trouble pulling off human characters back then than they do now.

Edited by cookie
Link to comment
Share on other sites



12 hours ago, tribefan695 said:

I'm excited but I'm also prepared for the "animation looks terrible" complaints

 

If you care about what other people think you'll never enjoy anything.

 

Ignore them

Edited by Fullbuster
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites











On 11/11/2017 at 4:23 AM, Goffe said:

I think the more simplistic animation was Pixar wanting to reduce costs. They were still independent back then, so one flop could get them in a lot of trouble. There’s a huge leap in quality from TI to Cars, CGI wise.

There were constant leaps from film to film back then as the tech was new. Toy Story to Toy Story 2 (not counting Bug's Life in between) was a huge jump. Finding Nemo was a huge jump, Ratatouille was another huge jump. I'd say that one was the breakthrough moment, I would say that all their films from Ratatouille onward still look great to this day, whereas many aspects of The Incredibles and any films before that now look dated (like at the time, Boo in Monster's Inc was a big leap for animated humans, but now she looks very dated).

 

That's not to say they didn't keep improving after Ratatouille, they look better every year, but I think they broke that threshold of looking "timeless" around 2007.

Edited by Ithil
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites









Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.