Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pixar's Next Movie: The Incredibles

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the fab-five dept.

Movies 435

An anonymous reader writes: "The trailer for Pixar's next film, The Incredibles, is on the web. It's available from the official Incredibles site, the Apple trailers page, and Pixar's website. Lots of info on the official page as well! Enjoy!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pixar Memo (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150790)

You filthy linux faggots make me sick.

It's incredible (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150792)

I got first post, and Michael Eisner still sucks.

Re:It's incredible (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150816)

Slow Down Cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment. It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'. Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator. FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!F UCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FU CK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUC K!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!FUCK!!!

What the??? (1, Interesting)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150799)

I thought that Pixar split from the Disney Empire? What's up with that?

They still ... (5, Informative)

Augusto (12068) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150822)

... have to release this and their next film "Cars" with Disney. After that, they no longer have to have their films distributed by Disney.

Also Disney gets the rights to any sequels for these films, if Pixar refuses to make sequels for them. (Like Toy Story 3)

Re:They still ... (4, Interesting)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151029)

Also Disney gets the rights to any sequels for these films, if Pixar refuses to make sequels for them. (Like Toy Story 3)
But it's even more fun than that - Disney owns the rights to the characters in Toy Story, but Pixar owns the rights to the new characters introduced in Toy Story 2, so none of them will be in a Pixar-less Toy Story 3.

Also, does anyone else think it's odd from the trailer that it's like Pixar wants to disown A Bug's Life?

Re:What the??? (3, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150824)


This picture was in production before the split.

Re:What the??? (0)

norkakn (102380) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150835)

It is my understanding that this is the last film that will be distributed through disney. This was part of the last contract, they didn't get out of it, they just decided not to sign another one.

Re:What the??? (4, Interesting)

grape jelly (193168) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150840)

Pixar was never "in" the Disney empire. They merely worked with each other. Basically, their agreement to work with each other is terminated in the sense that they aren't going to make any more movies jointly. As for why, Pixar wanted more money and Disney didn't want to lose profits.

Washington Post story covering this [washingtonpost.com]

Re:What the??? (4, Informative)

Black_Logic (79637) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150854)

They plan on not renewing the contract, but they didn't break it. More info here [movieforums.com]

Re:What the??? (5, Informative)

Mateito (746185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150862)

> I thought that Pixar split from the Disney
> Empire? What's up with that?

Disney will still release one or two movies more (The Incredibles plus the next one). Pixar had a 6 film deal with Disney, but Disney contested that "Toy Story II" counted as it was a sequel. (This is one reason that Pixar don't do sequels).

So we have

Toy Story I/II
Bugs Life
Monsters Inc
Finding Nemos
The Incredibles
One more. .. and then Pixar will go with somebody who gives them more than 10% of the takings. Pixar weren't looking to "screw" Disney, just be paid a fair price for what they are now worth in the market.

Re:What the??? (0, Redundant)

fireduck (197000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150872)

They did but contractually they were obliged to release a few more movies with Disney. The Incredibles is one of them. The in-production Cars is another. And that might be it (or maybe one more). One other aspect of the split (if i recall correctly) is that Disney retains rights to produce sequels to all the films released through them (so Disney could make their own Toy Story 3, if they chose).

Re:What the??? (5, Funny)

Mateito (746185) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151030)

> so Disney could make their own Toy Story 3, if they chose.

Which they will.

And it will be straight to video.

And it will be crap.

Re:What the??? (0, Redundant)

drakaan (688386) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151165)

Where are my mod points when I need them...you're almost certainly right. They *did* do some good stuff with Lion King 1-1/2, though.

Adult films (5, Interesting)

Black_Logic (79637) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150809)

This really isn't meant as flamebait. Pixar's movies are extremely cool looking but I really wish they'd make some movies that weren't oriented towards children. I recognize that there's a lot of content in them that is geared towards adults. Besides keeping the parents mildly entertained while their kids enjoy the movie I'm it also has to do with the reason pixar's movies do so well. But even so, why no adult content? THere's definitely this pervasive attitude that animation is the domain of children only in America. (I'm probably pegging myself as an anime nerd here. :) )

And btw, by 'geared towards adults' I certainly don't mean sex and explosions, that doesn't hurt though if the plot is interesting and supports it.

Re:Adult films (5, Insightful)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150843)

No adult content? Go watch Pixar's movies again. They CLEARLY have written in content for adults in all of their movies. Pixar is obviosly gearing movies for mainstream, that involves children and adults. Why limit a movie to one crowd(adults or children)? The super success of Finding Nemo was BECAUSE it was aimed at children and adults.

Re:Adult films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150891)

I personally hated Nemo. How many damn times can he give up hope just to have something happen to restore his faith? Would have been good at about 30 minutes.

Re:Adult films (2, Interesting)

aborchers (471342) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150934)

I wish I hadn't wasted all my mod points busting down FP trolls, because you've definitely earned a boost. Finding Nemo is one of the best films I've seen in recent years and I still see new things in it every time I watch it (which happens a lot because my two year old also loves it!)

I'm no G-Rated wuss when it comes to film taste either. I'm a big fan of Quentin Tarantino, Sam Raimi, and pre-LOTR Peter Jackson, for example. Nonetheless, Pixar can make the kind of movies they want to make and I wish them success at it because they make truly excellent films.

YOU ARE A GIGANTIC FAG, SIR (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150989)

nigger

Re:Adult films (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150994)

"The super success of Finding Nemo was BECAUSE it was aimed at children and adults."

Actually, I'd say that 'Finding Nemo' was the least adult movie that Pixar have made. I've watched 'Toy Story 1/2' and 'Monsters Inc' numerous times, but have no great desire to see 'Finding Nemo' again.

Maybe this is why they quit Disney, so their movies weren't dumbed down for kids.

Re:Adult films (0, Flamebait)

haystor (102186) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151160)

Was anyone else disturbed by the fact that they killed off Nemo's mother and 399 siblings to kick off the movie?

Personally, I think it was a political statement from the left leaning hollywood tree huggers in favor of abortion. Certainly there was content directed toward adults.

Not Pixar, but still Disney:
Of course the theme of the Lion King was that every person is born into their place and should make no attempt to find another place. Sure, some people were born to be kings, but whole lot were born to be hyenas. If you're born a hyena you should stay on the fringe of society. It also was not lost on me that in serving this message they aimed to include the African American community as much as possible.

My wife doesn't like watching movies with me for some reason.

Re:Adult films (2, Interesting)

Black_Logic (79637) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151022)

Admittedly, I haven't seen Finding Nemo. I understand what you're saying, as I said in my previous post, I recognize that they've got some really talented writers working for them. Clearly we're getting into a subjective debate here, but I'd really like to see a completely CG movie geared towards adults. For instance, a whole lot of sci-fi storys could be done extremely well in this medium. A lot people complain about the special effects in movies because they're not real enough. Nobody has ever complained about the special effects in a pixar movie not being real enough. There'd be much more freedom to have big environments that fit the atmosphere of the movie well. Suspended disbelief works so much better in a cartoon. At that would really help a sci-fi flick.

Re:Adult films (2, Interesting)

XMyth (266414) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150855)

Mmmmmmm Pixar Porn......

But seriously, I think this is a good idea. Anime nerd or not (the only anime I like is Ronin Warriors, do I count?) a adult-oriented *good* cg movie would probably do good.

And no, Final Fantasy doesn't count because the story line was just plain boring. FF is good at gameplay not stories.

Maybe we could petition Pixar?

Re:Adult films (2, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151038)

Like TitanAE? Animated movies for adults ONLY appeal to the anime geek, and its not enough business to recoup the costs of making it. The only way to make a profit is to make a kids movie with adult jokes and stuff to appeal to the parents. Pixar knows this formula, and uses it perfectly.

Re:Adult films (1)

urmensch (314385) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151188)

Heh, I tried to watch that... It didn't seem adult oriented. Or maybe the dialogue just blew, who knows, not me anyway.

Re:Adult films (2, Interesting)

bentini (161979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150857)

Because of the Final Fantasy CG movie.

Re:Adult films (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151043)

"Because of the Final Fantasy CG movie."

Yeah, but the main problem with that movie was that there weren't enough nude scenes (i.e. none)... they could probably recoup the money they lost by releasing a 'Final Fantasy XXX' movie :).

Re:Adult films (1)

telstar (236404) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150868)

I've always found plenty of humor that would fly over the heads of children in Pixar's movies. The setting may be in a children's world, but the humor has always appealed to a very broad audience. I imagine that's why they do so well ... their art is suited to both children AND adults.

Re:Adult films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150870)

Not geared towards children, no sex, no explosions.

What percentage of major films fulfill that criteria these days?

Re:Adult films (0, Redundant)

alexatrit (689331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150875)

Like most other recent Disney films, Pixar films almost always include adult humor blended into the dialogue. THAT is why they do so well, because they appeal to all sorts of audiences for different reasons. It's the same reason why the Simpsons is so popular. It's funny for the kids, it's thought provoking to adults, and there's something for everyone.

One of my favorites from Finding Nemo (1)

aborchers (471342) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150995)

Gurgle: Don't you people realize we are swimming in our own ...

Peach: (interrupting) Shh! here he comes!

Re:Adult films (1, Funny)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150878)

Yeah, I can totaly see Pixar doing Fritz the Cat

I WANT SEX AND EXPLOSIONS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150879)

plz

Re:Adult films (1)

f0rtytw0 (446153) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150894)

I do believe this was because they were releasing Disney movies. They have sinced moved away from Disney so you can probally expect to find more adult content in their new films.

Re:Adult films (1)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150907)

I'd say that one of the things that all Pixar productions have in common that they can be truly enjoyable to both adults and children. Okay, maybe the plot is no Memento. But still, the characters are funny in a mature way. I bet even a lot of adults don't know the reason Dora has such a bad memory is that fish are believed to have 4 second memory span.

Re:Adult films (1)

platypibri (762478) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151080)

I think theMythbusters did a pretty good job of demonstrating the memory of fish. They trained a gold fish to swim through several holes to get food and repeted the results over time.

Re:Adult films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151192)

Why would Dora have a bad memory because of this supposed fact if they portrayed none of the other fish as having the same short memory? That makes no sense.

Re:Adult films (1)

CMRichar (610129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150935)

"There's definitely this pervasive attitude that animation is the domain of children only in America."

And that right there is the problem. if Pixar or some other American company bring out an animated feature that were geared towards adults, they would be overwhelmed by the number of complaints they recieve because "I took little Timmy to see that cartoon and it had a butt in it!! OMG!!". Simply put, a large portion of people in this country go "ooh! animated! it MUST be safe to take my kid to!" instead of actually going out and reading reviews/seeing trailers/actually researching a bit about what they're about to expose their children to.

Not that I don't agree that it would be cool to see a feature geared more towards adults in theatres, but basically it wont happen until more parents actually decide to be responsible and pay more attention to what their spawn are viewing and doing.

Re:Adult films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151009)

WHY?

Who made more money? Nemo or Spirited away?

In what would you invest the money of your shareholders?

I love animation and agree with you, but as long as everyone believes 'drawings is for kids' this will not change.

It rememminds me of a great story, some guy reading Sandman in a plane next to a literature teacher at some university. The teacher started to comment on how unsurprising it was that 'our' generation where so ignorant if we are still reading comic books in our 20's instead of the great clasics.

The young reader started a long dissertation on the social interrogations of Sandman (war, death, religion, deep beliefs, homosexuality, ... and a long list). Maybe literature teachers should read it and gain a more opened mind. The teacher had to said he was sorry for his comments.

On average 'adults' would not get caught in line for an animation movie without a kid.

Re:Adult films (1)

platypibri (762478) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151019)

Y'know, there are tons and tons of people out there doing adult oriented films. And there are fewer and fewer films out there I'd take a small child to (were talking 8 to 11 here) I applaud Pixar and yes, Disney for puting out films that I can take a child to, and yet still enjoy. Go get your own CG Studio!

Re:Adult films (2, Insightful)

Deusy (455433) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151051)

This really isn't meant as flamebait. Pixar's movies are extremely cool looking but I really wish they'd make some movies that weren't oriented towards children.

You evidently didn't see the Final Fantasy movie, to see how hard it is to produce a good adult oriented CG film.

CG is still cartoony. How many adult cartoons do you know of? Viz?

Adult scene NOT in trailer (1)

skinny.net (20754) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151118)

Samuel L. Jackson: Where is my supersuit?!
wife: Which one is it?
SLJ: The one that says Bad Mutha Fucka

Re:Adult films (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151139)

And btw, by 'geared towards adults' I certainly don't mean sex and explosions, that doesn't hurt though if the plot is interesting and supports it.

I have two words that would make them GOBS of fricking cash....

Heavy Metal

the first teaser of Titan AE looked as if it was going to be in the style of Heavy Metal and I was fricking GEEKED but it tanked out to be a kiddie movie.

If Pixar were to have the guts to make a R rated Heavy Metal style film they would absolutely clean up.

Re:Adult films (1)

sweet cunny muffin (771671) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151148)

"THere's [sic] definitely this pervasive attitude that animation is the domain of children only in America."

Bullshit! Simpsons. Futurama. Family Guy. South Park. Stressed Eric. 2D TV.

Re:Adult films (1)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151151)

after my daughter watches toy story 2 for about the 5th time the week I still find it funny. To me the only thing non-adult is the fact that it's animated. Even is that is arguable as far as kid vs. adult in animation.

Hooray! (4, Insightful)

alexatrit (689331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150834)

The previews make the movie out to be rather humourous. Samuel L. Jackon screaming "WHERE is my SUPER-SUIT, woman?!?" It'll make millions off that line alone, nevermind the killer renderings.

Re:Hooray! (0)

AIX-Hood (682681) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151020)

It definitely perpetuates Dave Chappelle's view of the Samuel L. Jackson as "that guy who yells non-stop in all of his movies."

Re:Hooray! (1)

the MaD HuNGaRIaN (311517) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151219)

who delivers ten times out of ten?

Old news? (0, Troll)

Erik Soderstrom (727264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150842)

Ehm... I remember seeing some teasers and stuff like that on the official homepage like 4-5 months ago, at least... whats so special about the release of another trailer, especially when the film itself isn't "new" as in "just announced".... If you mod me down I will hunt you until my teeth sink into your flesh.

WHO FUCKING CARES??? you're not five years old fag (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150845)

niggers gay poo dicks fart shit cunts

Disney (-1, Redundant)

jdh-22 (636684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150847)

Funny, I thought that Pixar seperated from Disney?

They still... (-1, Redundant)

Robmonster (158873) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150893)

... have to release this and their next film "Cars" with Disney. After that, they no longer have to have their films distributed by Disney.

Also Disney gets the rights to any sequels for these films, if Pixar refuses to make sequels for them. (Like Toy Story 3)

----

If you are going to psot the same comment as a previous poster, then so shall I.

Re:Disney (3, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150919)

They chose not to renew thier contract, but they are still obligated to produce a few films for Disney under the current contract, this being one of them. Also Disney still has rights on any sequels to the movies made under the original contract, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some some "release to video" craptaculars comming out of disney using the pixar characters.

i-tunes (5, Insightful)

Walker2323 (670050) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150856)

What's with the mandatory i-tunes requirement to see the large screen? Very annoying for those of us that don't want yet another multimedia viewer clogging the machine. Isn't Quicktime good enough?

Re:i-tunes requirement (1)

adzoox (615327) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150937)

Just download the large trailer and then use the present movie feature.

This is much easier and the screen doesn't do all sorts of automatic funny resolution switching once the trailer is over either.

The iTunes requirement is due to the fact the audio is in protected lossless AAC in the full screen trailer. Not sure if this was a ploy or a way to get the file size down.

iTunes Bug (1)

millahtime (710421) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150985)

I noticed that when I choose the full screen and iTunes open my screen went blank and stayed blank. I couldn't get out of it. Had to force a reboot. Seemed to be some kind of bug for my setup.

Quicktime? iTunes? (1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150873)

No thanks...

I think I'm going to wait until the trailer is in a video format that doesn't require me to run bloated software, before I see it. Quicktime is a memory hog and an all-around bad application, on the PC at least.

Does the MPAA have some kind of deal with Apple? It's disheartening to see so many movies choosing to release their trailers with this horrible format.

Re:Quicktime? iTunes? (1)

Tarantolato (760537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151066)

Quicktime sux0rz, but you can see all the clips on Flash at the Disney site.

Seems to be a takeoff on the old Captain Marvel [imginc.com] (I guess there's no shame in ripping off the world's most generic superhero franchise).

Shazam!

Re:Quicktime? iTunes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151087)

Duh, could it be that Pixar has some kind of deal [apple.com] with Apple?

Craig T. Nelson (2, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150874)

Looking forward to this one, with the underrated Craig T. Nelson providing voice talent for one of the main characters.

Re:Craig T. Nelson (1)

Tarantolato (760537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150926)

And Holly Hunter too. Grrrowll... Okay so she's a little old, but her voice is the best part and that's all their using! w00t!

Holly Hunter (1, Funny)

Tarantolato (760537) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150943)

But-wait-there's-more!

She plays Elastigirl!

So.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9150899)

...how is this one going to be Microsofts fault?

Torrent (3, Informative)

AIX-Hood (682681) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150920)

Don't know if people care since Apple is fast, but here's a torrent: http://www.filerush.com/torrents/the_incredibles-t lr_m480.mov.torrent [filerush.com]

Re:Torrent (4, Insightful)

GlynDavies (692080) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151154)

Very much appreciated. With all the use of flash and embedded players these sites insist on using these days, it's non-trivial to find an actual download link for the .mov file, at least using my bog-standard MDK9.1 KDE install at work.

Your torrent lets me just ssh home, and kick off the download so it's waiting for me when I return. I imagine plenty of others would feel the same.

As I say, much appreciated.

(A bunch of posts explaining how stupid I am for not being able to do make MDK "just work" will, no doubt, follow!)

Looks like it will be a fun :) (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150922)

Pixar have not failed me with Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo, I hope they will rock this time again. And let's forget about commerciality, Disney, or whatever - it's cinema, it should entertain, at least from Pixar.

iTunes (1, Troll)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150948)

Okay...why the hell is iTunes required to watch a video now? Must be taking a page from the MS tie-in book.

Re:iTunes (1)

fireduck (197000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151003)

its not. This confused me as well. But I was able to open and play the "incredisize" video from the offical site just fine with no iTunes installed on my machine.

Re:iTunes (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151012)

iTunes is only required if you want to take advantage of the largest (fullscreen) size. You can still open up the others in your browser.

Re:iTunes (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151161)

That would be the requirement I'm talking about. Wasn't that way before...used to be they'd all open up just fine with quicktime, just some were embedded, some weren't.

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151079)

I thought the same thing... gooo Apple.. make people happy then piss them off with that stupid pop infront of QuickTime.. hence the reason i use QuickTime alternative. Now Itunes will become the same.

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151227)

Recall that previously, full-screen trailers required Quicktime Pro. You just saved yourself $30.

Tech? (3, Interesting)

KaiserZoze_860 (714450) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150957)

Aside from the fact that this looks like it'd be just as funny as Toy Story, Finding Nemo, etc... What are they running for web services - seriously?

The 2 trailers loaded extremely fast (on the main site) and the Flash loaded faster than I could click "Skip Intro." Over all, a very well made site.

Disney without Pixar is going to be like Apple without Steve Jobs... Oh, wait...

Re:Tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151174)

Not sure about the Flash stuff, but all of Apple's trailers are hosted on Akamai's servers.

Stock position (1, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150961)

I don't care if they make films for kids, films for teens, films for old age home dwellers. I got in to Pixar in the summer of 2003 at $53/share. The rumors were already flying that trouble with Disney was brewing, but I thought they'd mend ways for a larger percentage. Instead, that bonehead Eisner cut them loose. He also cut Michael Moore's new film loose, even though that will also do huge business. Never let politics interfere with business, what a shmuck.

I just want these films to come out and be big, smash hits. So, when Pixar goes to Sony or somebody else for distro rights, they get a blockbuster deal and the stock shoots up to $80 or beyond. My $10k in should return well if that happens. I'll take 35% over two years, for my annualized rate of return, thank you very much.

"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150973)

Apparently, this movie was released three days ago.

Why are we just hearing about it now?

Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (0, Redundant)

xirtam_work (560625) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151039)

That doesn't mean 11th May 2004 like you think it does.

US date format mean that 11-5-2004 is 5th November 2004 (guy fawkes night akak bonfire night) here in the UK.

Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (0)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151047)

OMG LOL!!!!1

Another month-day switchup post, none of which are funny and all of which are annoying.

Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (1)

CrazyBusError (530694) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151131)

Oh go on then, let's feed the troll:

It means 5th November, hence the 170-odd day countdown at the bottom.

I'd let you off with a 'I'm European/British, these dates confuse me' excuse, except even *I* figured that one out...

Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (2, Informative)

shadow303 (446306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151171)

On the off-chance that you are being serious, that would be November 5th, since Americans list month before day when writing dates.

Re:"In Theatres 11-5-2004" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151184)

What the hell?
We weren't supposed to hit Mars for another 6 months?!?

Whhuummpppppphhhhfffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hold still (2, Funny)

ejort79 (654456) | more than 10 years ago | (#9150990)

ok ok already, I'm holding still

The thing most people don't get... (5, Insightful)

slappyjack (196918) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151052)

...about this mediu is that Pixar isn't simply a digital rendering company.

They're a MOVIE company. The reason their stuff is so well loved by the general populace is that they're first and foremost moviemakers. All of the stuff Ive seen from them so far is incredibly well written. That goes for not only their features but their shorts, too. Even the ones with no dialog in them.

The fact that they take these scripts and make them happen in a totally rendered environment is more than a creative choice than anything else. The script HAS to be good, and dead on, and not have a lot of slop, because the rendering proces is so time consuming and expensive (for now.) The medium in a sense culls out the shit material, because no matter how much you polish up a peice of shit, it's still going to be shit.

Films like Toy Story and Monsters Inc. COULD have been made in the traditional way, with actors and such, but by doing the whole thing as animation they get away from moments in the film where the audience would mentally break off with the thought "Holy Fuck, that's a coolass special effect."

IMHO, The fact that these are marketed and skewed towards a younger audience is mainly because, as a culture, the US isn't ready to accept animated ANYTHING as a serious medium for carying adult themes. If Pixar was a Japanese company, half the stuff they made probably wouldnt be viewable by children. Take Cowboy Bebop as an example. Anime, purely cartoon, but NOT for kids. I wont even go into things like Ghost in the Shell. This cultural disconnect in the States is why you see things like a row full of nine year olds sitting in a theater watching Terrance and Phillip sing songs about how the other likes to anally rape his uncle.

Re:The thing most people don't get... (2, Insightful)

wheresdrew (735202) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151135)

"This cultural disconnect in the States is why you see things like a row full of nine year olds sitting in a theater watching Terrance and Phillip sing songs about how the other likes to anally rape his uncle."

Now, now. They only sang about how they like to "fuck" their uncles. Rape isn't mentioned at all in the song. How do you know the uncles in question haven't consented? =o)

Re:The thing most people don't get... (2, Insightful)

Jonas the Bold (701271) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151179)

Um, its more than that. Animated movies are different from live action movies in that nothing is real to begin with, so doing rediculous things is much more easily accepted. If toy story had been live action, and the toy soldiers were live action actors, for example, it would have been dumb. Same with the rest of their movies, none of them would have "worked".

And yeah. They are a movie company. They make brilliant movies with great writing and characters. But also great is the character animation.

The character animation in these movies is simply better than anything anyone else does. The animators are roughly equivelant to the actors in a live action movie, without them, it just isn't believable. What's nice about Pixar movies is that because their animation is so good, every one of their movies is like having an all-star cast, which keeps people watching. The visual gags in those movies are so funny because of the skill of the animators. The fact that you can forget you're watching animation and just watch the characters and the movie are a testament to their skill.

This is what disney used to do, but Pixar is now the new disney. It's not about the CG vs 2d cartoons, as disney seems to think, its about the quality. Pixar is doing the best animation every done.

Looks like a comic ripoff (0, Flamebait)

strredwolf (532) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151053)

Okay, lets see now...

Two rips from the Fantastic Four. (ElasticMan, Invisible Girl)
Another two from Superman and/or Shazam. (Superman/Shazam and Luthor)
Fifth from The Flash.
Sixth from Iceman (X-Men?)

I think the only origonal character is... Edna.

Re:Looks like a comic ripoff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151140)

uuummmm ....it's suppose to be

It's a satire about superheros

Becasue, you know, comics havent been... (1)

slappyjack (196918) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151191)

...ripping themselves off for years now.

Let's see now...

Lobo - rip of Wolverine
Badger - rip off of Wolverine
Vindicator - rip off of Batman, with Iron Man tossed in
Quicksilver - Flash ripoff
Thor/Loki/Odin - Norse ripoff
Wolverine - rip of every legendary antihero since the aincent Greeks
Blade - The Punisher ripoff cooled by making him half vamipre
The Punisher - ripoff of everyones primal urge to fucking kill everyone that does them wrong

I think the only original character is... Stan Lee

I think the word you're looking for is "homage"... (1)

alispguru (72689) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151205)

... or maybe "satirical tribute".

co3k (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151063)

thes3 rules will

Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151070)

Movie hits too close to home for comfort... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151086)

I don't really want to see a movie about a guy who used to be great but got fat and old...

Stupid Flash requirement (0, Troll)

calidoscope (312571) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151129)

Unfortunately, this is like the other fsck'ing Disney sites that only allows entry if you have the latest and greatest in Flash players - which don't seem to be available in anything but WindBlows.

Re:Stupid Flash requirement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151225)

Eh? I've got it running on SuSE and Debian unstable.

mo3 Up (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151155)

AM@ERICA) might be 4 BSD over other example, if you

Dude - where's my schlong? (0, Flamebait)

destinyland (578448) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151164)

It looks cool - but how come Samuel L. Jackson has no crotch bulge whatsoever? Neither does the other male character. And all the women are flat-chested.

They've deliberately de-sexualized every character. I can understand that, I guess, but...

When Pixar included a trailer for "Finding Nemo" (on the "Monsters Inc" rental) it showed a scene that ultimately wasn't even in the movie.

The movie's not out until November anyways...

Pixars Next Movie:The Incredib[Sc0re:-1, OffTopic] (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151170)

New Peter Pan movie in the works. They are coming out with a new Peter Pan movie sometime in the next 2 years. It's going to be the shizNITE! I hope my mom will take me to see it. Living in my parents basement rules!

I'm rick james bitch! ...

Pixar's Next Movie: The Incredibles (Score:-1, Offtopic)

Michael, your worthless.

Teaser and new trainler look like two movies (2, Interesting)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151193)

I saw the teaser trailing a while ago on the Finding Nemo DVD. Looks hilarious - superhero coming out of retirement.

However this new trailer makes the movie look completely different - a superhero team all very much in the now.

Either way,it's PIXAR so I'll be seeing it and when the kids get the DVD, I'll be seeing it again and again. About the only thing that may make this different is the characters are people as opposed to talking animals and toys etc...

Finally!... an adult film (4, Insightful)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 10 years ago | (#9151215)

I looked at the trailer than read through the comments before I got here, and was surprised to see a +5 saying Pixar only writes for children. Did he even watch the trailer?

This movie is for the Adult Swim crowd. It's got nothing "adult" in it (sex, violence -- well, there's explosions), but not every show on Adult Swim does either. It's the writing. Are children going to laugh at a character yelling "Where is my super suit, woman?!?" Probably not. But I laughed out loud more than a few times watching it.

Disney braves a thin line between children and adult entertainment (except for their refusal to distribute Michael Moore's latest movie, which is just dumb). Some stuff bridges the line rather admirably (like the Muppets, which they more or less acquired). Ditto on ABC after hours. A Bug's Life, though? Very little for adults to laugh at. Children will laugh at The Incredibles, but I have a feeling adults will get the most out of it.

stop advertising MPAA garbage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9151221)

When the first CGI movies came out this might have been newsworthy but do we need to hear about it everytime some mega corporation squirts out another computer generated cartoon?

The MPAA is the enemy remember?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?