>Brad Bird was sought out as the first choice for the director's job of Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015). Bird respectfully declined the offer in order to do this film.
>film didn't appeal enough to kids or adults, tried both and failed
>it wasn't that good
>bad word of mouth from plebs too stupid to understand the ways in which it was good
disney still trying to peddle their trademark all inclusive family friendly -discount tickets if you buy now- message of love and understanding. its disingenuous and no one wants to sit and be beaten over the head with it for 2 hours.
You're forgetting the best part of the movie, op
George Clooney isn't a drawcard for kids, teenagers or young adults, the intended audience.
Disney didn't market it properly.
It was nowhere near Bird's best work.
The budget was way too high, especially for an original IP with no established audience, it was doomed to underperform
They had no idea how to market it. There is stuff in there that is like Edgar Wright for kids, great hilarious action with a fun sci fi story running through it.
The critics all hate Lindelof and decided everything bad about the movie had him to blame for it. Seriously tho I think the only problem with this movie's story is that Clooney is in love with a child for the last hour and it is very hard to see it another way.
Also, during May 2015 everyone was losing their MINDS over Fury Road, which probably stole this movie's thunder and (accounting for parents) also some of its audience.
Or, you know, that other big movie.
I can see how you might be many things in this movie, but BORED? That's unbelievable.
Also do people really walk out of movies? I will sit thru the entire thing no matter what because dammit I paid modern movie ticket prices. You can't really have an opinion on a movie you've only half seen, too.
I swear Lindelof is just really unfortunate when it comes to the critical success rate of the movies he's been involved with and their end results rather than just a plain bad writer. The things he actually completely wrote like certain episodes of Lost prove that. Most of his movie credits are co-writer roles, or rewrites for movies with 'visionary' directors like Ridley Scott who have a far larger say in the story of Prometheus than Lindelof, so it's impossible to point to which parts of the script he 'fucked up'
I thought it was good to be honest. I liked that the message was a downer, the relationships were strange and the action was quite stylised (thanks to robots). I can completely see why it tanked. Aspects of it are far too mature for younger audiences while its setting and initial optimism seems too childish for adults.
Tomorrowland and LOST both had terribly handled mythologies and unsatisfying endings.
and Bird is a great director, so I really want to blame Lindy
Except there was a completely competent draft of Prometheus by Jon Spaihts before Lindelof came on board and fucked everything up with his overly ambiguous bullshit. Lost was already a jumbled mess that clearly had no end goal in sight, but he surely didn't improve things when he took over. He worked on Tomorrowland with Bird since the film's inception, so a lot of the blame can rest squarely on his shoulders. He almost ruined the Star Trek rebooted franchise, too. And let's not forget we won't be getting anymore Tron movies because of this hack.
Lindelof should be blacklisted.
>It keeps happening
I told you bro.
I told you about Lindelof.
The movie wasn't bad...it's box office performance doesn't really have a bearing on the film's quality. I agree with most about it being poorly marketed...but I didn't hate it.
Then again I'm not a shitposting cringelord who thinks every film should be Citizen fucking Cane or Transformers.
>most of movie is not in tomorrowland
>robots want to kill people for literal reasons
>house is evil for literal reasons
>the concept of the future predicting device actually creating futures based upon the expectations of the people surrounding it, then broadcasting that future to others was kinda dumped so the movie could end with a huge CGI explosion
probably more, never want to see it again
Shit lead actress.
Britt Robertson is fucking disgusting in this role.
>The Motherfucking Iron Giant
do you even know who Brad Bird is?
it's funny though, because as i typed those I realized that it sucked dick because it wasn't animated.
>let's start the movie with a useless framing device that barely matters
>then give a flashback that wipes 85% of the mystery out of the story for a useless action scene
>then the standard Disney Protagonist Origin
It's seriously like half an hour before the movie actually starts. I have no idea why Lindelof keeps getting hired to make pure garbage.
I guess it's not all on him this time, considering the stary feels like Brad Bird played Bioshock and thought Rapture was awesome and Andrew Ryan was a pretty cool guy.
it just wasnt that good
the acting was alright but the dialogue was boring
it failed at world building to almost any extent, felt like we were dropped in the middle of a tv series that didnt bother to air the first ten episodes
the premise itself was weak some bullshit thought up quickly to try to sell to the special snowflake teens and preteens
the third act dropped quality (from a already low point) of both action, characterization, and plot. and really felt like a fmv cutscene to a shitty game
hugh laurie is tragically underused
dues ex machina time shifts out o f no where to try and creat suspense in a laughably bad way
dont actually get ot see tomorrow land except in a murderous hologram, a couple of quick flashbacks, and some broken down corridors
oh we are building a new tomorrowland with the best and brightest of our society
come on in urban graffiti artist, and you random person playing guitar on the street
>only Clooney is developed
>only Clooney has an arc
>Clooney is the hero
>Clooney set up to be protag in opening scene
>movie focuses on Mary Sue Fixit until act 2, Clooney reduced to side character
>Build your initial viral marketing campaign around the idea of Walt Disney actually being a member of Plus Ultra and all the story being pieced together from the contents of a box of weird sci-fi shit supposedly found in the archives
>Delete pretty much everything related to this from the movie except for the Small World gag because "Lol, mentioning Walt DIsney was a part of this in a Disney movie is too Disney"
The Incredibles is a faithful view of Objectivism.
Especially the quote 'when everyone is super, then no one will be' is very reminiscent of Rand's 'if you love everyone, you love no one'.
Heck, Ratatouille to a certain degree as well. Some nobody with a gift overcomes the establishment and his origins to show the world that he's the best, but doesn't get the recognition he deserves, only the best know he's the best by the end.
What's with Brad Bird and his love for Objectivism though? I swear it's the main theme of all his movies except Ghost Protocol. I even think he said in an interview that he's not an Objectivist yet he keeps making these types of movies.
I think it's the other way around, the marketing and trailers showed that it was a story of how great Tomorrowland is, with some Bioshock Fountaine type villain fucking shit up, or some possible Objectivism criticism that someone business related wanted to gain power through force because being a good capitalist isn't enough for him.
Instead, it was a road trip to Tomorowland and a boring villain. Just, meh.
Seriously? The guy is uncharismatic as fuck he just thinks he's charismatic, does he have fucking lupus or something?
I would genuinely like Clooney if he only did directing and never bothered to act.
Anyone can cook, doesn't mean they should. The message of anyone can cook, as said at the end by the ghost chef, is that a good chef can come from anywhere not that everyone can cook or become good.
Hell, I think it's even more emphasized. Rand states that she's not a racist because you're looking at the past accomplishments of a person's lineage rather than the person in front of you. That kid was the son of a very famous chef, you would expect him to be just as good, right? It's in the genes and all that bullshit, but no. He's just a kid with no talent who ends up being simply good at being waiter. The rat, with no possible hopes of becoming a chef, could cook and did. Anyone can cook, even a rat. That's the message and it's very Objectivist.
Also, I like to think that people look down on the ghost chef because he gave the tools to the plebs to become good. But I see it differently. He gave tools to the pleb so that one might rise above mediocrity and become a great chef, like how the rat did.
This prequel novel would have probably made for a more fun movie
>Takes place around the 1939 World's Fair, leads being a boy kinda disinterested in the Fair and his pulp sci-fi obsessed artist mother going to the Fair and the first WorldCon that get pulled into Plus Ultra shenanigans
>Plus Ultra historical figures major characters including Earhart (her disappearance was because of a screwy test flight to break the dimensional barrier, took a little bit time to retrieve her), Howard Hughes (whose funding much of Plus Ultra's shit and eager to capitalize on interdimensional travel), and Tesla (in charge and exasperated with having to deal with Hughes)
>Main villain is Doctor Rotwang (Fritz Lang based the Metropolis character on him), who created some of Plus Ultra's early robots but got kicked out after using a dying child as a lab rat for his cybernetic experiments. He's working for the Nazis now, but is plotting to betray them.
>Said cyborg is like a 12 year old boy trapped in an indestructable weaponized adult body. Hates both Rotwang and Plus Ultra, who he's convinced abandoned them.
>World's Fair reveal plans go off the rails in the ensuing Plus Ultra/Nazi conflict, full of robots, invisible zeppelins and all sorts of fun shit.
it about priorities anon. Trucks are important.
I actually thought it was a okay, if flawed movie. It works well till they get to Tommarrowland, then it falls apart.
Also Athena's death was awful. Not that she died, but Cloony's guy non-reaction. A tear or a kiss on the forhead would of worked.
i fell asleep at the time skipping bit, then woke up at the end where they are inviting degenerates and muslims to go live there. will probably go watch the death scene though as i was wondering where she went
Spaihts' Prometheus (which wasn't even Prometheus at the time) was going to be a TFA-level rehash of Alien and I'm glad Ridley tried to do something risky with it even if it didn't entirely work. Lindelof was tasked with putting Ridley's ideas down on paper and was constantly rewriting to fill the director's demands, and the only idea he is truly credited with was "what if the sequel to Prometheus wasn't Alien," which was actually a good idea.
As for Star Trek Into Darkness, Lindelof was basically called in to save that script at the last minute. If you think his work on it wasn't an improvement from whatever noted "Transformers" hacks Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman had cooked up, you're an idiot. And for what it's worth, JJ rightfully took the blame for not giving Lindelof and himself more time to smooth out the story.
>'when everyone is super, then no one will be'
Aren't people who want to keep down others from increasing their abilities so they could remain top dogs the kind of people Rand would vilify?
Indeed, it felt off, if they didn't want him to kiss her a tear would of worked. The whole ending fell off
>YFW we find out the writer had him kiss her on the forhead, but studio suits removed it due to worries about it being "wrong"
>Especially the quote 'when everyone is super, then no one will be' is very reminiscent of Rand's 'if you love everyone, you love no one'.
Except this is the end goal of the villain's evil plan, you idiot. The whole point of The Incredibles is that only insecure dickheads like Syndrome buy into something as selfish as Objectivism.
Note how it's reflected in the conversation between Helen and Dash:
>"Everyone is special, Dash."
>"Which is another way of saying no-one is."
The end of the movie showcases Dash's character arc, when he comes in second place in the race.
The Incredibles being an Objectivist movie is objectively wrong, and based on a complete inability to comprehend the movie.
>little girl being beaten by adults, take a bullet, and hit by a truck
HEY ITS OK SHES REALLY A ROBOT
>grown man giving her a kiss on the forehead when she dies as a fatherfigure would
THATS PEDOPHILIA YOU SICKOS
Stokes Theorem is pic related.
I hope both actresses get more roles, both did well with it. The road trip part was really good actually.
>It would of been a better film about Clooney and Laurie, old college buddies and both divorced, going on a road trip with there very different daughters in tow.
>The whole point of The Incredibles is that only insecure dickheads like Syndrome buy into something as selfish as Objectivism.
That seems backwards and baseless. How does that even make any sense. Are you saying only insecure people can be Objectivist? On what grounds or merit? What bullshit Syllogism.
>Syndome is selfish and is shit
>Objectivism promotes selfishness
>therefore the movie is against Objectivism because being selfish is shit
How does that even make sense? Not to mention the movie makes no statement about selfishness, even promotes it.
>Bob: It's psychotic! People keep coming up with new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely exceptional...
>Helen: This is not about you, Bob. This is about Dash.
>Bob: You want to do something for Dash? Well, let him actually compete! Let him go out for sports!
>Helen: I will not be made the enemy here! You *know* why we can't!
>Bob: Because he'd be *GREAT*!
>when he comes in second place in the race.
Yes, because they can't reveal he's a Special. Before the parents wouldn't let their kid even fucking compete. Did you even watch the movie? Being in second place, when he could have easily won first, shows that he uses his gifts to be the best and can show off.
Holy fuck, how can you be this dumb?
He wants to compete, show he's the best but he can't because of society. This is Objectivism 101. Superman in hiding. Holy fuck.
>Note how it's reflected in the conversation between Helen and Dash:
>>"Everyone is special, Dash."
>>"Which is another way of saying no-one is."
Also, this is probably you being an idiot since there are actual special people and they're fucking super heroes. Dash *is* more special than other people. Everyone being special is just a way to negate his gift, something Rand hated.
Why try and go to sports? Everyone is special! You're as special as the rest of the mediocrity.
You've honest made no points explaining why the Incredibles being an Objectivist movie is wrong.
Seriously, Dash could have been first easily but his family doesn't want him to show off completely as to get too much attention. Being in second place lets him show off and not blow the cover that he's a Super.
You're just dumb.
>Except this is the end goal of the villain's evil plan, you idiot.
Also, to make sure I just fuck with every one of your points and show that you're an idiot, the end goal that 'if everyone is super, no one will be' and the 'if you love everyone, you love no one' shows that collectively giving everyone the same treatment leads to collective mediocrity and shit. Rand hated that and she would have hated Syndrone. His end goal was shit. Rand promoted the idea that you must only love a single person with the most intensity with others being at a different levels of love because if you loved everyone on the same level, you didn't really love anyone.
How the fuck did you think
>hmm this is exactly what Ayn Rand hated, therefore this person who promotes something she hated proves that he's into Objectivism
How do you rationalize that?
at it's core it a movie about the wonder of scientific discovery. starring a 10 year old girl.
Despite people being all about pop science on the internet most people could really give a shit about science and they didnt cast a boy to appeal to young nerdy kids.
It also tried to be a time travel movie and those are more often than not stinkers.
I think it's a bit too easy to just always blame Lindelof for the movies he wrote. Most of the things that were retarded in Prometheus were things added by Ridley, and I guarantee Tomorrowland went through dozens of rewrites and writers. It really had the feel of a script that at one point probably was pretty good and got fucked over by Disney frankensteining shit together. Not to mention lame the premise of making a fucking movie about some attraction that nobody gives a shit about and doesn't make sense.
Copypastaing what I said when it came out.
When I saw the trailer I was excited.
It started excellently. The children were good actors. That sequence of boy-Clooney discovering Tomorrowland and falling through the sky was amazing.
The chick was a shockingly unlikable protagonist. She lied, stole, vandalised, etc, etc. The two-wolf shit was retarded.
Then it's an entire fucking movie about trying to reach this place, when it was advertised as being a movie set within the place. Also at the end
I'm pretty sure all of those people across the world would be dead - many of them were standing very near train-lines and cliffs.
If they had just marketed it in a way that made it a quest to find this place, that would've worked.
Imagine if the trailers didn't show Tomorrowland.
Imagine if the movie didn't start with the little boy Clooney. It starts with the next scene, and the whole movie is just them trying to reach this place that the audience has no idea what it looks like.
Then they finally reach it, and it's deserted.
Little girl dies.Movie ends the same way but then when the camera zooms in on Clooney, instead of ending it shows the opening scene of the boy finding Tomorrowland in its hey-day, which was easily the best scene of the movie.
All you'd need to do is remove all instances of Tomorrowland from the trailer and move the first scene to the end of the movie. It would require so little work and make the movie so much better that it hurts me.
Gave it a 5/10 - when ranking it against every film that comes out of Hollywood, this was definitively average.
Marketing can do amazing things.
Like how they showed Bridge to Teribithia to be a LotR successor instead of being a cruel, emotional gut punch. Or that Iron Man 3 would be the long-awaited battle of wits between Tony Stark and The Mandarin instead of following a guy without armor having a breakdown.
>Fucked everything up
The guy sucks but you faggots have to remember;
All those changes were RIDLEY'S ideas.
Ridley is just as bad with script meddling and fucking things up as Lindelof.
Just look at the fucking train wreck he turned Robin Hood into. One of the most bizarre hack jobs ever.
I remember reading an article or interview with some writer where they were talking about why Kurtzman, Orci and Lindeloff get tons of work despite being "bad", and it's apparently because they're fairly decent writers who are good at taking every single stupid, idiotic note sent to them by the studio/director and making it fit into the film.
Apparently this is why Spider-Man 2 was the way it was. Instead of saying;
>Wow, no. That's fucking stupid.
>Well...okay. We can make that work.
So they keep getting hired over and over.
Brad Bird has been shat on pretty heavily by the SJW brigade in the last couple of years. I feel bad for the guy, since his POV is pretty fucking safe and normal and far from some bunker dwelling survivalist hoarding gold coins.
Clooney is an insufferable douche
Women only loved him cause he was a single aloof playboy
Now hes married and is not a single aloof playboy
Lost more than half his fans by getting married after establishing himself as le playboy man for 20 years
He's going to try to atone by making a film in which The Incredibles adopt a transexual African American cripple who shows them that when given the chance, he's just as incredible as they are, despite having no powers.
what's this sort of neo noir fantasy artstyle called? And are there any other movies that use it??
Art Deco Retro-Futurism.
Pic related is sort of the standard film response.
>keep warning people about lindelof
>lindelof keeps putting out pure shit
>people keep making and watching lindelof shit
Though I'll admit, he does better in serial formats, because he can hide the fact hes an incompetent hack for longer. Personally can't wait for the turnaround from the 3-4 leftovers fans when season 3 hits.
>Brad Bird has been shat on pretty heavily by the SJW brigade in the last couple of years.
SJW, as a whole, is the exact bullshit collectivist Rand was talking about. It's really weird how basically everything she talks about parasites, seeking to drag people down, destroying people's worth 'for the greater collective good' is exactly what SJW are. So, honestly, if his movies are heavily Objectivist themed, it's natural for SJW to hate it that much.
I honestly never really believed her villains bullshit in her books but the way SJW act make me think she was right on the money in her depiction of them to a scary degree.
Surely, a hidden city where the best gathered from the rest of the world is not something Ayn Rand came up with, no? Surely it's European psychopathy at play, yes?
It's not comparing as much as obvious similarities and themes.
It's a metaphor for an alternative world which isn't driven by capitalism and personal greed.
Your comparison is not a metaphor but a literal one-to-one comparison of an isolated enclave in each fiction, but the philosophy behind the two things is diametrically different.
I said American very specifically because I've never read Rand being brought up in discussion of this film except by Americans.
Meh, I personally don't care about Tomorrowland and whether or not it's connected to Objectivism.
To be fair, Rand is very popular in murrica so it's natural that comparison are made between the two. However, simply because capitalism and personal greed are not shown in the movie to be the driving force for why the city was built, does not preclude the concept coming from Objectivism. A city 'filled with the world's smartest and best people' is something Rand promoted a lot and is well known.
The film failed because of bad promotion.
The poster looks like a fey, young adult piece of shit.
When I saw the film, after a recommendation, I was surprised by the action content. I really enjoyed it.
I do think it slowed in a couple of scenes and could have had a few minutes of editing but no-one could know that before seeing the thing.
That's not really special. It's essentially the same message as Ratatouille where anyone can cook (as I explain here >>65133838). I personally think it's a misconception that Objectivism inherently is elitist, even though a lot of Rand's characters are smug elitist who pride on being good. Objectivism states that anyone can become good so long as you put the effort in it. You can come from wherever, be born from whatever slut or whore, be black or white, so long as you have the will and the talent to push yourself to the best you can be.
A closed off society is good in Rand's utopia but it should be noted at the end of Atlas Shrugged (which is just good for 200-300 pages and then becomes a horrible bore), Galt says that anyone who still thinks and has talent should seek his hidden city out.
So really, I don't see it as being anti-Objectivist.
The movie isn't saying, imo, that the elite smart should be brought down to the plebs, but that the plebs, if they can show themselves to be competent, should be allowed in. It's elitist with a crack in the door invitation.
Indeed, there was some talented people trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit, and in all seriousness, the frustrating thing is that it almost worked. I think that is why it so fustrating as a movie. That and the SJW ending.
Though I keep it on the hard drive for
hey, fun fact, studios know how something is going to perform before it is released, hell, before you even see a trailer. There are these things called "test marketing" and "test audiences." When the product is finished or close to finished, it is test marketed, and test audience reaction the determines the amount the studio will spend on marketing. If it tests well, tons of marketing and a summer or holiday release. if it tests poorly, low-to-no marketing and an "off-season" release.
so, while you youngsters may think there is a direct cause-effect relationship between marketing and box office performance, what you're actually seeing is an after-the-fact correlation. Studios only heavily market what they already know will perform well and leave to freeze in the fall/winter months what they know no amount of marketing will save.
Otherwise they're in a situation where they're throwing good money (marketing budgets) after bad (money already spent on a shit film) which would result in even more people learning to distrust marketing.
So, saying "WONT MARKETED ENUF/RITE" is not only wrong, its moronic.
>that scream Hugh Laurie lets out when his legs get crushed
>The movie isn't saying, imo, that the elite smart should be brought down to the plebs, but that the plebs, if they can show themselves to be competent, should be allowed in. It's elitist with a crack in the door invitation.
The problem is the movie starts with tomorrowland at that point. Then for, lindelof reasons, decides to stop that. Then once the embodiment of the lindelof reasons are killed/destroyed, they go back to that.
>>the concept of the future predicting device actually creating futures based upon the expectations of the people surrounding it, then broadcasting that future to others was kinda dumped so the movie could end with a huge CGI explosion
Disappointing third act aside
except the loli's death, I really loved this movie. Maybe its the message of individualism and progression of humanity. Maybe its the great acting. Maybe its the balant product placement. Idk. 8/10.
where have you seen this before anon? i'd like to see it myself!