You really don’t understand how a computer animated (or cell animated) feature film is made. [iYour* homework assignement is to find out how it’s done. When come back, bring knowledge, not opinion.
You have an interesting approach to reading comprehension.
Hey, you asked me to explain the difference. Don’t whine at me because I pursued a tangent you expressly brought into the conversation.
I’ll note that, AFAIK, Pixar and Brad Bird have admitted making one change to The Incredibles in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
Remember when Mr. Incredible and Frozone were hanging out, listening to the police scanner, and eventually saved those people from a burning building? That wasn’t in the original script – instead, Mr. Incredible would take out his frustrations by finding a condemned building scheduled for demolition, tear it down himself, then hang out afterwards in a bar with Frozone. This was changed in storyboards in direct response to the 9/11 attacks; a reference to the change can be found in the book The Art of The Incredibles.
Now, if they’re not shy to admit that plot point was made in response to 9/11, why would they be oblique about all the other stuff spoke- keeps alleging?
Which nicely disproves The Gaspode’s opinion that it would have been impossible to make script changes after 9/11.
Because Bird doesn’t want to explicate his allegory (and potentially alienate anti-war viewers)?
(Do you have a cite for your quote, by the way? Not a hostile question. Just asking.)
No it doesn’t. Your roriginal claim was that the movie was hailing conservative values, being in tune with how America’s going conservative. Hindsight is always 20/20 and this is easy to say efter the election, after TWAT, Iraq 9/11.
Re-doing one scene, takes an incredible amount of work and costs a boatload of money. You’re claiming that several scenes, the name of the villain, the over all theme of the movie was changed.
I never said anything about the film being tailored so as to be “in tune” with political trends. I just said the movie had conservative themes. Presumably it has conservative themes because the writer genuinely holds those beliefs, not because he is going after a target audience.
According to this site, “[t]he Incredibles story went through quite a few changes.” Hell, not only was the name of the villain changed, they changed principal villains altogether and made multiple scene changes in the process.
Your argument doesn’t make sense. Bird first brought this story to Pixar in 2000. 9/11 happened a few months later. Filming didn’t begin until the following year, and the film wasn’t released until two years later. Are you saying the work they did in the few months prior to 9/11 couldn’t have been modified in the three years which followed? If you are making that argument, you are wrong, as the cited evidence demonstrates.
:sigh:
The animation process takes about two years. That means that the story and all elements therein must be decided before that date. There must be a vary good reason to change a scene after the animation process has begun. With so many elements involved, it’s not like with live action movies (which BTW is very expensive too). The production company can’t just set up a camera and re-do a scene with Craig Nelson. Changing the smallest thing, like Syndrome’s name, leads to a lot of other changes - the design of his suit, meaning all scenes where he’s wearing said suit. All voice work, where “Syndrome” is spoken. And even if animation lip movements is not that hard with stylized characters such as these(they basically open and and close the mouth, no sibilants, for instance), if it’s change from Bob to Syndrome, there’s going to bit a whole lot of work to re-do.
Prior to animation most, sometimes all, voice acting is done. While the actors don’t have to be on set at the same time, there’s still scheduling to take care of. So re-doing the voice work entails delays and higher costs.
This is what’s done when the script is greenlighted. My WAG based on normal procedures say that the animation process started late summer 2002.
But to get the project greenlighted, they first do a rough animation of the storyboard and show it to the execs. This takes time doing too. And it was probably during this stage that the above mentioned scene was changed. It wouldn’t surprise me if the bean counters at Disney had something to do with that.
Check out the credits for a modern animated feature and realize just how many people are involved in the project. Then tell me that things where changed on a whim.
BTW, you’d have a bigger chance of selling me Heinlein as the inspiration. He’s a better writer, has a larger humanitarian streak than Rand, and it’s a lot easier thinking about a young Brad Bird reading Heinlein and getting influenced, than a young Brad Bird reading Rand - or an adult Brad Bird scheming evilly in his lair to subtly sell conservative, libertarian, randian, objectivist, anti-terrorist and anti-french ideas as an allegory in a family movie.
Occam’s razor, you know.
They did make some changes. You still haven’t managed to show that any of those changes were to inject new themes, be they terrorism-influenced or conservative or Objectivist (did we ever decide which one the movie is?) into the movie. The edits specifically mentioned don’t seem to have changed the themes of the movie at all. And yet again, we hear that Edna’s accent is Japanese+German, which has nothing to do with Rand.
That’s pretty typical kids’ movie stuff.
Scratch an objectivist and you’ll find a conservative. All the “objectivists” I know tend to vote Republican.
As I explained above, my impression is that the movie began as an objectivist piece, and had a few minor changes made after 9/11 to add a “war on terror” subtext.
So there was no need to “edit in” objectivism. That was the foundation of the film, IMO. And only a couple of minor edits would have been needed to add the “war on terror” subtext after 9/11, as I’ve pointed out.
These are minor changes? There are whole scenes and themes in there.
I wish whoever you heard suggest that were here, so I could correct their error – they’ve confused Nietzsche’s “superman” of the future with his description of the “master races” of the past. This is an unfortunately common mistake, particularly among people who only know Nietzsche’s work secondhand, but it’s a major one.
I was going to write that none of the characters in The Incredibles come close to embodying Nietzsche’s ubermensch ideal, although upon reflection I realize that one of them does. I’m not talking about Mr. Incredible or Syndrome, although both have some ubermensch characteristics (and Syndrome would probably claim that he is one). No, I mean Edna! I’m sure this is coincidental, since Edna is portrayed as a humorous character rather than one to emulate and I see nothing in the movie to indicate that Nietzsche’s work was a direct or conscious influence. However, like a proper ubermensch Edna does devote herself to creative work, strives for greatness within her field, and takes pleasure in exercising her talents.
That may (roughly) be the premise of Rand’s The Fountainhead, but the basis of her larger, more important book Atlas Shrugged suggests the overachevers were being held back, then voluntarily “went on strike”, opting out of society until it collapsed, then decided to come back and rebuild it. Had the movie folowed that line, the supers would have been inclined to let techno-villians like Syndrome trash the place, then rebuild their ideal society from the rubble.
I’ve started a discussion of intent and political meaning in popular film (including a detailed anlysis of Con Air here /
:dubious:
I saw it in an interview a few weeks back, but can’t remember which one. I do know it’s in the Art of book, though – they even have several storyboard scenes and a color test for the “bar chat” scene.
Well, yeah, but I am not saying The Incredibles is a point-for-point animated reiteration of Atlas Shrugged, but rather that the movie pointedly pursues Randian themes. (And I again point to the image of Mr. Incredible as Atlas, with the globe-robot on his shoulder. You really think that wasn’t a knowing wink?)
You are aware that that imagery pre-dates Ayn Rand, right?
Brilliant.
Of course you can take any single point I’m making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it.
But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole.
Sorry you can’t see it.
So that’d be a “no” then?
Disappointing.
You know, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Are all the implied insults really necessary to this discussion?