Talk:The Incredibles/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

I move for a motion

To put on top of the article in big black bold letters “The greatest film of all time”. All agreed say Yay. All opposed, get the hell outa here.

It's insane how well acted and animated this film is.

-G

"It's insane..."? As an old British proverb points out, "it takes one to know one". :-)
G, do you have any idea what "encyclopædic" means? From such an inappopriate suggestion, I would say not. Besides, everyone knows that the greatest film of all time was 2001: A Space Odyssey. ;-) 217.171.129.69 (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Villians: Apogee and Blazestone

The names of these two villians share a very striking resemblence to a long gone gaming company, Apogee (now owned by 3D Realms) and one of their later released games, Blake Stone: Aliens of Gold. Just thought I should point that out, as it seems to be a reference. IndigoAK200 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Apogee isn't "owned" by 3D Realms, it became 3D Realms. Check out their website. 217.171.129.73 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters page suggestion

I suggest that a seperate page for all of the characters in The Incredibles be made. Kanjilearner55 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am splitting of Chararcters from The Incredibles as a daughter article because of size. Eluchil404 05:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What has happened to this section? It has dissapeared, and the link to the daughter page is dead. Can someone relocate the cjaracters page and put it back, so at least no info is lost, and then try to rewrite it or something? - Redmess 21:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Incredibles Supposed "Danger Sense"

What is the basis for claiming Mr. Incredible has a danger sense like Spider-Man or enhanced senses like Wolverine's? The latter might be possible, but the former strikes me as ridiculous.

  • I think the way the Omnidroids take him by surprise repatedly is proof enough that he doesn't. For an example, the scene where he shouts "Hey!" at Frozone being thrown into a car, or when he blindly charges at Syndrome, unaware of the ZPE. - SkarmoryThePG 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Sequel - speculation?

This section seems to be complete speculation - should it not be removed? Or is it cited from anywhere? --midkay 06:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) p

I agree. The "possible sequel" section has no citations and is pure speculation - and as Nqnpipnr says in "Syndrome's Death" below, there's no chance that Syndrome could be alive, so why is it saying that he could be? —Edward Tremel 22:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

MSN Superheroes

I got the notion about the movie being fourth best in superhero movies from an MSN Movies arttcle on Superhero Movies.

The ten best:
10. The Rocketeer
9. Spy Kids
8. Hellboy
7. The Super Inframan
6. Darkman
5. Superman II
4. The Incredibles
3. Spider-Man
2. Batman Returns
1. X-Men

The five worst:
5. Hulk
4. Fantastic Four (2005)
3. Catwoman
2. Daredevil
1. Batman and Robin
--Kanjilearner55 12:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to link to specific article since I didnt see it when I looked at MSN myself, but I have found it and added it. Eluchil404 05:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of deaths?

What is the basis for saying that the Incredibles had the most number of on-screen and implied deaths of any Disney movie? (This is also being cited in the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest article which states that POTC has now taken over that distinction). What is the actual number? Where did this information come from? One needn't go back any further than Finding Nemo for a film that might have shown more deaths (think of the opening sequence when all of the eggs-save for Nemo's are eaten (or implied to be eaten-along with Mom). Surely that number was in the hundreds, which doesn't seem to come close to the numbers in the Incredibles and POTC. This "fact" either needs a notation or should be removed, it sounds like a bit of internet-lore that sounds good but doesn't have any basis in fact. --65.120.75.6 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Figment

Does the TV show exist?

I tried to find a citation for the Incredibles tv show listed in the article but I can't find any evidence of it ever being considered to be turned into a tv show anywhere, not even imdb. If anyone agrees I would like to remove it from the article until come actual sources are presented to prove its even being made. Throw 18:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I say remove it. I haven't seen anything either. NickCharbuski 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to Split Video Game Information into new article.

Support. Cars has a separate article for its own games, so it would make sense to apply the same standards to all the Pixar movies. RMS Oceanic 09:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. There is enough material eligible to be split into a new article. --Emc² (contact me) 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Feature Article

What are anybody's thoughts on trying to improve this article to FA standard? Naturally, the first step would be a peer review, then we can work on it. It would be nice to emulate the success of the Final Fantasy articles and have several Pixar articles featured. RMS Oceanic 09:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

YOU KEEP SAYING THIS!!! My thoughts are, "EMAIL WIKIPEDIA OR DO IT YOURSELF!!!" Guys, if you're reading this, see that he did this over and over again here and here and here and here and here!!! --ANNAfoxlover

Picture

Why have we switched to the DVD cover as the picture? Although it's a matter of opinion, I prefer the movie poster. Is there some policy that it has to be the DVD/Video Cover, where appropriate or something? RMS Oceanic 19:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Plot

The plot description is WAY too long, with numerous non-essential details. This is an encyclopedia article, not Cliff's Notes (sp?). I first read this article right after watching the movie, and found it extremely tedious. Not only was virtually everything I saw in the movie present here, but even stuff I didn't notice. I think this article has everything needed to become a Good Article, but it has way too much of it.  :-) Mdotley 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the plot. I agree; it was way too long, had far too many details; even worse than the original Dead Man's Chest article. Hope this helps. Nqnpipnr 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The new plot section is a much more reasonable length, but it doesn't seem much easier to understand - the sentences are kind of awkward. I rewrote it to try and make it flow better without adding too much detail. —Edward Tremel 20:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but while it's better, it still could be a lot better. I don't know; for some reason, animation film articles get the most rambling of plot summaries, and while this is far from the worst out there, it still could be better. I'll try and clean it up later today. Nqnpipnr 14:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

In light of Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, the Trivia section of this article needs to be seriously scaled-back. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I most heartily agree. The "trivia" section is waaaay too long and contains mostly irrelevent items of questionable authenticity. Someone with more free time than me needs to go through and eliminate all but the most important facts. —Edward Tremel 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Way too much speculation and cruft.

This whole article is ridiculously large, and virtually everything in the Trivia section needs a {{cn}} tag. *sigh* I don't hav ethe time to mess with it, however. Mdotley 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm seeing some cruft sprout up again in the trivia section. The fact that Metroville includes parts of town names from the Superman universe isn't all that remarkable, since 'metro' and 'ville' are hugely common prefixes and suffixes. Is there any citation that indicates this is specifically a nod to Superman, or are we just including coincidence in the trivia section?

The Corruptibles

Should we mention EFF's anti-DRM parody somewhere? - Sikon 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Just about everything has been parodied at some time by somebody, so just the fact that it's a parody of the subject doesn't warrant inclusion in the subject's article. If the parody was another feature film it might deserve mention (i.e. Spaceballs, a parody of Star Wars), but this is just a little Flash movie. --Edward Tremel 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps for the "In popular culture" section? Nqnpipnr 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Syndrome's Death

Please stop with this nonsense that there's even a slight chance that Syndrome is alive. He's dead, and all this "Could he be alive?" ridiculousness is just from fans who really, REALLY want there to be a sequel. The fact is, Syndrome is dead, and just because we didn't see him being ground to bits in this PG-rated film doesn't change that. I guess Coral and the other 300 fish eggs in Finding Nemo are still alive, too. We didn't see them actually get chewed on, did we? And the stuff about that robotic Syndrome is nonsense as well, since that's not even part of the canon. Does that mean Frollo is alive beacuse he was in Fantasmic? Give it a rest. Nqnpipnr 00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. If characters are implied to have died, well they are dead and gone. And By the way Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion about an article's subject. Internetcrazy 10:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Operation Kronos Section

It seems a little odd to me that there's an entire section devoted to "Opertaion Kronos," especially since that section does not provide all that much more detail than can be found in the plot summary. If it contained more details it might explain its reason for existance, but right now it seems like unnecessary over-labeling of one part of the plot. —Edward Tremel 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I took out the section heads to that it's simply incorporated into the plot. Not sure the Kronos section adds anything, considering the gargantuan length of this article. --~DBS Talk/Contribs 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sentry pods: more like You Only Live Twice than 2001

Someone included that the sentry transport pods look like the "pods" in 2001: a space odyssey. I beg to differ ... they look much more like the little monorail cars[1] in Blofeld's volcano hideout in You Only Live Twice. Any objections before I remove this erroneous fact? --David Spalding 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, however it is a matter of perception. Might I suggest adding your fact instead of removing the other one? --Aquatics 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion, thanks. I'm actually watching it tonight, there are "elevator cars" that do look like the 2001 pods (a shot with Bob/Mr. Incredible in one, with two headlinghts and an oval windows in the upper half), and the outer perimeter "sentry cars" are the ones that look like Blofeld's[2] . So ... there's room for both. David Spalding 03:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: removing excessive trivia

I'm going to help this article go on a diet for the holidays. The Trivia section is just huge, and has some background info that is

  • in the film clearly visible,
  • on the DVD as an extra.

I'm also wondering if we should spin all the DVD information off to a The Incredibles (DVD) article so that this page is JUST about the film. Ideas on this? --~DBS Talk/Contribs 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts here. While I do agree that the Trivia section is excessively lengthy, it may be hard to draw a line for what is "in the film clearly visible"; for example, I didn't notice that the storefront to the right of Lucius's car was the "Luxo Deli," but someone else might think that's clearly visible. A separate article for The Incredibles DVD would be useful to contain information available exclusively from the commentaries and make the article shorter, although it might be a little counter-intuitive at first to have to go to a separate article to learn more about the same movie in general (as opposed to a separate article for something specific like a character). Finally, it may be possible to reduce the "Trivia" section significantly if some of the more dubious, uncited claims were proved incorrect and deleted (i.e. "The scene where Elastigirl warns her children that their opponents are a deadly threat who will not show mercy to anyone, regardless of age, was a deliberate attempt by Bird to subvert the typical atmosphere of minimized jeopardy in Saturday morning cartoons"). --Edward Tremel 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Another dubious (indeed downright bogus) "trivium" which keeps turning up is the statement that the Pizza Planet truck makes an appearance in the section near the end of the movie, where the Incredibles are driving their stolen minivan down the freeway (it's usually said to appear at about the time when Bob says "I take Seventh, don't I?"); this has been denied by several posters on the IMDB Incredibles boards, and I've minutely examined every frame of this sequence so can confirm that the truck does not appear. 217.171.129.78 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I Object to Blanket Deletion

If anyone's noticed the article looking a lot shorter recently, it's because the entire "similarities/allusions to other works" section was summarily deleted by the unregistered user 193.61.234.6, with absolutely no explanation whatsoever - not even an edit summary. While I do agree that the trivia section was excessively long, arbitrarily deleting an entire section without bothering to see if there are salvageable nuggets of good information or even explaining why the deletion was done is not the right way to go about it. Therefore I am going to restore the entire section, not because I think the article should be that long, but because I think there should be more consideration before so much information is deleted. Just a heads up. --Edward Tremel 22:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was a very careful and judicious deletion. The only elements removed were non-referential observations and specious conclusions. That was, unfortunately, the bulk of the section.
Case in point: "The Omnidroid moves in a way very similar to that of Marvel Comics' Doctor Octopus, including climbing buildings, throwing cars, etc." How is that trivia? One could cite a dozen other comic/sci-fi characters that behave similarly. There is nothing that connects these two characters specifically. Similiarly someone conjected "In the scene where Bob Parr accidentally breaks the car door and begins to mutter to himself, you can briefly hear him saying "Oh geez." It was a phrase of frustration commonly used by Craig T. Nelson's character on the TV sitcom Coach." Perhaps, but this is a phrase uttered by millions of people every day. Where -- outside the original posters mind -- is the proof that these two occurences are linked? And the poster who said that "The plot of the movie is significantly similar to that of Alan Moore's seminal graphic novel, Watchmen" would do well to learn the difference between the 'plot' of a story and its 'backdrop.' Besides the fact that that the supposed 'significant similiarities' are such widely common themes as heros who rescue people from burning buildings, or villians who are 'super intelligent,' the idea of superheroism being outlawed is nothing new; from Frank Miller's 'Dark Knight' to Marvel's recent 'Civil War' series.
I hate to see such a good article cluttered by some many personal opinions. "Mr. Incredible recalls both the Golden Age version of Superman, with some Batman (the high-tech cars and gadgets) and The Incredible Hulk (the strength-through-anger theme) thrown in." Really? Because I could add my own list of characters I think influenced his design, but it would be just that...MY list. I hardly think it belongs here as fact.
Since it's relatively easy for you to reinstate this section, I will once again attempt to cull out the unsubstantiatable and non-objective material. If you think I've overreached, please return it to its previous state and I will defer to your judgement.
Nice response, albeit a few months late. Upon re-examining the old trivia material, it does appear that you are correct. The "fact" that the Omnidroid's arms look like Dr. Octopus's, for example, does seem an awful lot like an opinion. Your latest round of deletions does seem to be more judicious and has left in place the more substantiated items (such as Buddy being accidentally referred to as "Brodie," the same actor's character in another movie), so I will let it stand. --Edward Tremel 01:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

New plot

I have written a new plot for this article, which is shorter than the previous one. I have left out all of the unnecesssary details. Please tell me what you think of it. ANNAfoxlover 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete Operation Kronos

It's totally unnessecary, as you could pretty much create such a section for any villanious plot or action for any film in the world. I think it should definitely be deleted. Nqnpipnr 14:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see my Pixar survey

I need some help with figuring out which characters are more or mosrt or least likeable when it comes to Pixar films, long and short. Please see my survey at User:ANNAfoxlover/Pixar. Thank you. ANNAfoxlover 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged/The Fountainhead

I've read various things on the internet that postulate similarities between the movie and the works of Ayn Rand, even going as far as saying that it was a foil to bring Ayn Rand to children. It might be worthwhile to include a short note about that. --Cwiddofer 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Those similarites probably have more to do with the plot's resemblance to Watchmen than any concious decision to "bring Rand to the children". Disposable Rob 16:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Associated Short Films

I'm not trying to be accusatory here, but I was just wondering what the point of the "Associated Short Films" section was. All it seems to do is restate a bit of information from the "DVD Extras" section without providing any more detail. Granted, it doesn't make sense to provide more detail because that short film has its own article already, but in that case why devote a section to Jack-Jack Attack in the first place? The only reason I could see for doing this is if there's a Wikipedia policy somewhere that says "Associated Short Films" is a standard section for this kind of article. Is that the case, or should this section be deleted? —Edward Tremel 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast Section

Is there much point in having the cast of all the different languages the Incredibles was dubbed in on the English page? Shouldn't these be moved to that language's respective article? RMS Oceanic 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly where it belongs, but I don't like it here either. I checked WP:FILM and didn't find any existing guideline, so I opened a talk page thread. --Fru1tbat 14:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Last" Disney-Pixar collaboration? Pfft...

Wasn't this supposed to be the last time Disney and Pixar would ever work together on a movie? If that's the case then what about Ratatouille? What's the deal here? --I'm Kinda Awesome... 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

After Michael Eisner left Disney in 2004, Disney reconciled with, and then bought Pixar. Pixar is now wholly owned by Disney.

The List

We should make a character list. Also I think we should the Toy Story, Monster Inc, bugs life, cars, and all othe pixar related character list combine to make one long page and history of Pixar chararcters. From User:4444hhhh

Why stop at Pixar? If you're going to create such a page, why not make it a list of all characters from every movie ever made?
(In case anyone's wondering, the above was sarcastic — ISTR there's an official policy to the effect that "Wikipedia is not The Book Of Lists", and I agree with that; perhaps someone could provide a WikiLink to that policy?) 217.171.129.78 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

spoiler tag

A section titled "plot" better talk about the plot, and people who don't want to learn the plot had better avoid it. There isn't any reason to use a spoiler tag on such a section, as the tag is completely redundant. As an encyclopedia, we are supposed to describe the plot, not try to keep people away from it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then what, pray tell, is the spoiler tag for? Mdotley 00:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
For sections of articles not named Plot or Synopsis where spoilers are revealed but not expected by the typical reader.AUTiger » talk 03:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, fine. I was going by the usage I had seen before, not the actual policy. Mdotley 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Royalty Free Music?

In Disc Two of the DVD, there is an easter egg featuring every button, door and explosion in the film, cut to Verdi's "Anvil Chorus". The title of the song isn't mentioned anywhere in the credits or anywhere else in the DVD(s). Is this because the song is royalty free? Also, I would like to know who performed the version of the song featured in the DVD, as that isn't mentioned anywhere either.


The Clever Bear 00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

SAMUEL L ZUES!

In a trivia section i think we should add the refrence to Die hard with a vengeance. The bit where frozone is at gunpoint trying to get a drink in the jewlry store is the exact same premisis as when zuez carver is trying to awnser the phone in the subway.May i add that frozones voice actor, Samual L Jackson, is zuez carver in the film. Lord Cuthberton

Original research?

Since there is not a single reference in the section "References to Marvel, DC and other comic books", it smacks distinctly of original research. As such a long list, it also seems intended to brand or establish the movie as derivative. It would be much better if there were references to published comparisons to support the list. AUTiger » talk 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I took out most of the really obscure comparisons and changed the title of the section to something a bit more general (References to other Comics and Superheroes). Hopefully it's a bit more coherent and shows that parts of the movie are similar to some things in Superhero comics, rather than derivative of them. Geckoneves7 07:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Goofs

These are pretty trivial. Should they really be in a Wikipedia article rather than where they belong, among all the other boring continuity errors on moviemistakes.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.216.66 (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, on the other hand, I have a possible goof to add. During the limo ride, Dash makes a remark about Mr. Incredible throwing a car. The only point shown in the movie matching that description comes after when Mr. Incredible throws his car into Syndrome's jet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.134.193 (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not necessarily a goof; we probably aren't shown every last detail and incident of the final fight, so Dash could be referring to something which happened off-screen. Novelists and moviemakers always know more than they use in the finished product. 217.171.129.78 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Section

I removed the entire References to other comics and superheroes section [3] as it was completely unreferenced and seemed to be made up only of original research and synthesis. The section was also not written in an informal tone (e.g. "although judging from appearances Quicksilver is the most probable prototype for this kid)") not suitable for an encyclopaedia. I don't think that any part of the section as it was should be reinserted and if something similar is recreated then it should be based on appropriate sources, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Guest9999 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.