Talk:The Incredibles/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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)

(Above section reinstated to the main talk page from /Archive2 because IP users keep overextending the Plot section. Would any future archivers please keep this section on this page. -- Korax1214 (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

I wish people (especially anonymous IP editors) would realise the purpose of the Plot section; it's supposed to be a summary of the major plot points, not a detailed blow-by-blow account of every last scene. I've just had to do a revert for the second time in under 36 hours. This is an encyclopaedia, not the IMDb. -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Um...ta-dah? I wrote it out based on the general plot points just like you said. I don't reveal too much; just enough to get the story told. I think of the plot as a one page treatment for a movie written in MS Word. Anyway, if you like it, let it stay so. If not, edit what you MUST and not what you WANT. There's a difference. -- mikecucuk 6:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have written an under 400 word plot summary and posted it, but it was removed and replaced by the original. I still have a copy and would post it again, but it would probably be removed again. If you want it back, please write to "Dagihiker@yahoo.com" with the subject "wikipedia" thanks.

Mrs. Incredible

One trivium says the following: " Mirage begins to say, 'Oh, hello, you must be Mrs. Incredible.' " But since (as this item admits) she doesn't complete the sentence, how do we know that this is in fact what she was going to say, and not "Mrs. Parr"? 217.171.129.69 (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually listen to the video, she completes the "you must be mrs incredi-and at that point she gets punched out. This is enough to prove it. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Having just watched the DVD again (a friend needed cheering up), I see (hear!) what you mean. :) — 217.171.129.72 (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack

What happened with the soundtrack info? This is probably Giacchino's most popular score and it doesn't have a section? --Surten (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Surten

DVD Extras

Some of the extras mentioned seem to be absent from the Region 2 (Europe) version of the DVD, namely:

  • Vowellet: An Essay by Sarah Vowell
  • Character Interviews, actor and actresses interview the characters
  • Boundin' With Commentary, Boundin' with commentary by Bud Luckey
  • Who Is Bud Luckey? a four-minute documentary about the making of Boundin'

Also, I for one have only seen the Region 2 version in widescreen, not 4:3. -- Korax1214 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(Please reply here as I rarely log in, let alone and never check my talk page.)

The Boundin' commentary and the Who Is Bud Luckey? documentary are on the Region 2 disc; however, the "Vowellet" essay and the character interviews seem to be missing (unless the author of the article meant the sound clips in the NSA Files), along with the supposed "Easter Egg" showing every door, button and explosion in the movie. -- 217.171.129.72 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just found the Easter Egg! Those who want to have fun searching for it themselves, look away now...
It's between the sectionmarks (§) below. Highlight that text to see it.
§On the main Disc 2 menu, wait while the animation plays and after a while an Omnidroid silhouette appears above the menu. Click on it and the door/button/explosion sequence plays, to the tune of the "Anvil Chorus".§
-- 217.171.129.72 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There are in fact several Easter Eggs, all accessed the same way. IMO the one on the main menu is the best. -- 217.171.129.72 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just been to the official Disney website for the DVD, th try and find out if the Vowellet essay and the character interviews are on the region-2 disc, and if so where; I couldn't look at it long enough to navigate it, whoever thought that having blue hyperlinks on a bright red background is A Good Idea needs to have his head examined, and his artistic licence revoked. :-) -- 217.171.129.79 (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned DVD extras don't appear on my copy of the Region 4 widescreen release. 220.253.197.112 (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that at one point, the "DVD Extras" section stated (correctly) that Vowellet isn't on the Region 2 DVD; but if so, somebody has reverted it. — 188.29.166.249 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ye gods...

I add a {verylong} tag to the beginning of the article, and a few hours later someone makes it even longer by expanding the Plot section!

Perhaps I should have added a {stub} tag instead, maybe then he would have shortened it. :-) 217.171.129.69 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that was awesome. Useight (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Year(s) in which this film is set

I've deleted the two "films set in..." category tags, because the clues indicating that the main part is set in a particular year or decade all point in different directions; e.g. Bob is reading a newspaper dated "196x", and later learns of the deaths (in the late 1950s) of two superhero friends of his who were guests at his wedding 15 years earlier; but the movie also features things such as personal computers (first introduced in the late 1970s), mobile phones (early 1980s, I think), flat-screen TVs (1990s), and (in the Jack-Jack Attack short) CDs (1983).

Hence, as per the IMDb board thread "Was this set in the early 80's?" (meeds login to view), the only thing that's clear about this movie's time period it that it's ambiguous (perhaps deliberately so?), thus "films set in..." tags are innappropriate for this article. -- 217.171.129.73 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the "Making of The Incredibles" documentary, Brad Bird says something about the movie being set in "the 1960s of an alternate Earth". I think that clinches it -- it's nor set in our 1960s, so the tag is indeed inappropriate. -- 92.40.197.50 (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No way is it set in the '70s. Like you said, there's too much modern technology in it. C Teng 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Futuristic technology in "the present" is a standard feature of the superhero setting. I think it's clear that they were being faithful to the trope by giving their alternate 1960's actual technological artifacts from 10-30 years later (as opposed to the typical way-out "super science" that showed up in actual 1960's comic books). The opening/wedding sequence has a pretty strong 1950's vibe. Markjreed (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Split off Plot section?

If the Plot section (which looks to me to be longer than the entire rest of the page) were to be split off into Plot of The Incredibles, that might solve the length problem. Trouble is of course that it would also break the flow.

Discuss. -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 05:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the new improved Plot section (thanks to whoever did this refactoring job) is now what a plot section (at least here) should be; a short-and-sweet covering of all the significant points, not a blow-by-blow account of every last scene in the movie (as it was). No split needed any longer. -- 92.40.197.50 (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Incredibles Sequel In The Works?

Jun 19, 2007, been a while... any more current info on this possibility that could make it into the article?

Interview with Brad Bird on possibility of sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of it, they aren't gonna make an Incredibles 2 anytime soon. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Who would want to make a sequel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benschar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Recurring grammatical error

I've at least twice found the end of the Plot section suggesting that it's Syndrome's cape, rather than Syndrome himself, that gets killed, and have corrected this; but it keeps getting put back!

I wish some people would take more care in editing. -- Korax1214 (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Pizza Planet truck again

There's an edit war currently underway on List of Pixar film references; I've deleted the nonsense about the "Pizza Planet truck sighting", only for someone to re-insert it (this has happened twice so far); apparently the other editor believes that a "vaguely seen" something for which "you have to look really hard" is enough to "prove" this myth true. (It isn't for me; to my mind, for the Pizza Planet truck to be present someone actually has to see it, not merely catch a "vague" glimpse which their imagination could conceivably twist into anything they want to see.)

There's a cite on that page where someone from the LA Times states that there's been a Pizza Planet Truck in "every Pixar movie"; but what the inserter of the cite (carefully?) omitted to mention is that the article cited was published in 2003, so should really be read as "every Pixar movie up to and including Finding Nemo". -- 92.40.122.216 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's happened again, by a different user this time; strange how those who claim the truck is there always claim a "blur" or "vague" sighting, or something conveniently unidentifiable like that. -- 92.40.122.216 (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You state "to my mind" that a blurred image doesn't qualify. Unfortunately, that also qualifies as WP:OR as you are editing WP based on your opinion of what should qualify or doesn't. The question isn't whether it exists enough for YOU to see it, but rather was it inserted at all? SpikeJones (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can point to a blurred image and say "look, that's the Pizza Planet truck / a Hidden Mickey / the ultimate secret of the Universe / whatever"; but the fact remains that if it's just a blur (and always remember the "seek and ye shall find" syndrome I've already mentioned), then that's all (short of OR) it can legitimately be said to be — a blur. For instance, how is this anything other than a light trapezoid superimposed on a dark rectangle? It's a bit like saying "Mickey Mouse appears in this scene, but he's completely hidden by one of the pillars in the background", which for all practical purposes is exactly equivalent to "Mickey Mouse does not appear in this scene". -- 92.40.122.216 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Jim Hill has been interviewing people connected to Disney films for years. His citations for the claim are Brad Bird himself. Your opinion is that you do not believe it - that's fine, you're free to believe what you wish - but when a verifiable source posts about the placement of the truck, and provides a screenshot (even a blurred one) based on interviews with the filmmakers, that's good enough for me to revert your deletions. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lee Unkrich has confirmed on his Twitter that this is the only Pixar film the truck does not appear in. The source for that is on the Pixar Film References page. This should sort things out. trainfan01 21:04, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

And thank goodness that the "the Pizza Planet truck appears in every Pixar movie" nonsense has now been corrected on the above-mentioned page by adding "except The Incredibles". When I read the Jim Hill article, I remember it also saying quite definitely that the truck doesn't appear, so why people such as TheRealFennShysa were (ab)using it to "prove" that it "does" appear is beyond me. (And there is quite a bit of hypocrisy in the above; exactly how does an image so blurred that it doesn't in the least resemble what it's supposed to resemble, or anything else for that matter, "prove" that the said object "appears" in the movie? The supposed appearance of the truck in Ratatouille suffers from the same problem; it's true that there are things moving across bridges in the background of the chase scene, but even in a PAL screen grab they're just 6x4 pixel blobs (in an NTSC grab they're 5x3), way too small to make out any detail, so the only thing that can safely be deduced about them is that they're presumably vehicles of some sort -- it doesn't follow, as has been claimed here and on the other page, that one or more of them "must be" the Pizza Planet truck, merely because they happen to be in a Pixar movie; with that kind of "logic" one can "prove" anything. I'd still like to see a screen grab from the BluRay edition, in which the vehicles would presumably be at least 25x15 pixels, good enough to actually see what they are. — 188.29.166.249 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

FF Controversy?

I remember when this film came out many people were highly critical about the possible copyright infringement in regards The Fantastic Four, re;

  • superhero team functioning as a family vs family of superheroes,
  • Mr Incredible / Mr Fantastic both being called "Mr" (team name),
  • both teams had a member with superstrenght/invulnerability (Mr Incredible, The Thing),
  • both teams had a member with elasticity/stretching powers (Mrs Incredible/Elasti-Girl, Mr Fantastic),
  • both teams had a member with invisibilty/force-field powers (Violet, Invisible Woman),
  • both teams had a younger, hot-headed, impulsive member (Dash, Human Torch)
  • both teams had a child/infant whose powers were not yet fully defined (Jack-Jack, Franklin Richards)

Agreed, the players/powers have been switched around, and Dash and Human Torch have different powers, but it was felt that this was to avoid an obvious copyright battle. I remember reading (in Comic Shop News I believe, although I no longer have the article in question) that Stan Lee sought legal advice in regards the matter, but was told that he would have to prove conclusively that Pixar knew of The Fantastic Four and so, regretably, he had to let the matter drop.

I was wondering if anyone had the article I mentioned, or a similar article, and would put this in the Wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D f cornish (talk • contribs) 04:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Mr Lee has no hard feelings towards Disney, considering his recent contract with them. As always, find the article if it's citable, then add it. Otherwise, we could go down the path of where the FF group ripped off their powers from others and it would be an endless mess. SpikeJones (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I figured it was something of a hommage. "The Underminer" at the end was an obvious reference to Mole Man. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. I believe those were the very first words out of my mouth when I saw the drill come up out of the ground. LOLed. --68.183.138.63 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Another similarity is that the main villain is not a Super himself, but uses Technology to emulate such Powers (Syndrome, Dr Doom)--194.106.137.50 (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A claim in the Critics subsection about the makers of the Fantastic Four movie having to "make significant script changes and add more special effects because of similarities to the storyline of The Incredibles" was supported by a reference (http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0444,winter2,58041,20.html) that makes no mention, in any capacity, to The Fantastic Four, comics or film. For now, I have removed the reference and asked for proper citation. 24.225.106.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC).

A fresh source was easily googled in google news via "+incredibles +'fantasic four' +change" and addedSpikeJones (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Inspiration and Problems during production

I have added two new sections to this article in hopes of expanding it a little more. The first is inspiration, which is about Brad Bird and how he was inspired to write the Incredibles. The second is Problems and talks about the problems with the production. If anybody has any suggestions on those two sections, let me know. I got the info from a book called To Infinity and Beyond.Burton517 (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Why no images

Why there are no character images for Mr. incredible? Even in the separate characters pages. Thanks Yosef1987 (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

Forgive me if I just missed this, but are we not doing spoiler warnings anymore? I couldn't find the template anywhere. Or is it assumed that, duh, it's a spoiler, because it says, "Plot"? --68.183.138.63 (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No spoiler warnings. See WP:SPOILER. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Holiday Heroes

Most of the character profiles mention a short comic called Holiday Heroes. I cant find t on google. Does anyone know who wrote or published it? Bosco13

Thank you for researching this for us; it appears that every reference to "Holiday Heroes" needs to be purged from every single Incredibles-related article as being a hoax. If someone has an actual issue of this, please post copyright/publisher info when you restore it. SpikeJones (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You Only Live Twice and The Incredibles

I have noticed similarites between the James Bond movie You Only Live Twice and The Incredibles (music for example). Can someone please varify this it has been bugging me for ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.227.225.153 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi - this is not a discussion forum. If there was any official connection, it would have been documented, cited, and added to the article. If you have such citation from the filmmaker, feel free to add it to the article yourself. (Review WP:CITE for citation requirements.) SpikeJones (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did the dates come from?

I don't remember it ever being confirmed that the movie begins in 1979, and the main plot takes place in 1994-1995. I also don't ever remember it being specified that Bob visited Edna specifically on October 12th. This seems like unfounded research to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.170.74 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in the "Year(s) in which this film is set" section, these dates are not only OR but are in any case wrong; the main part of the movie was said by Brad Bird to take place in "the 1960s of an alternate universe" (and as per superhero-comic convention, it contains "futuristic" technology, in the form of things which in our universe weren't introduced in the 1960s but several years later), and the introduction thus takes place in the 1950s of that universe. — 188.29.166.249 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I come with this proposal to merge the list of characters per several reasons. The list fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability, since the characters only appear in just one film and a couple of related video games. The article has no sections dedicated to real world content, discussing the significance of the characters outside The Incredibles. For this reason, the list also violates Wikipedia:Writing about fiction. It seems that the list still exists just because a group of fans that have not managed to prove the notability of the characters to deserve a separate list. Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And as mentioned previously, the expanded Incredibles universe also includes a critically acclaimed comic series. That series easily meets the criteria for notability, and notability is not temporary. So we have a universe of popular characters with appearances over multiple forms of notable media. Consequently a list detailing the specifics of the characters as a supplement to the main page is more than warranted.
Short answer: No.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Influences

For some reason my edits linking this film to Atlas Shrugged and the Watchmen have repeatedly been reverted. My first question to whoever keeps doing this is 'have you fucking read either Atlas Shrugged or the Watchmen????' If you had read either you would realise that the fact these texts influenced the film is really fucking obvious and you would therefore not get in the way of me trying to disseminate useful information about the film. That is all. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably because you need to link to an article of a guy saying "yeah, we were inspired by Atlas Shrugged and Watchmen." You can't simply say "oh, this is like those two other things, therefore it was inspired by them" even if it probably was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R2Parmly (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Pls see the references I've added regarding the Watchmen + Atlas Shrugged influences. ☺ HTH [hope this helps] MDGx☹☺ 22:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Teaser Trailer

At The End Of Finding Nemo at Cinemas Just Before The Teaser Coming Soon From The Creators Of Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters Inc and Finding Nemo Filmed On 19th August 1999 4.00pm Phone Rings Man On Phone: Mr Incredible We Need Your Help 4.02pm Mr Incredible Puts On His Super Suit 4.05pm Elastigirl: Honey Come To Dinner 4.08pm 1.Pants Into Tights 2.Punch The Table 3.Jerking Around 4.Moving His Chair 5.Stomp His Foot 6.Sit In His Chair 7.Crawls 8.Hitting The Chair 4.10pm Belt Is On and Belt Comes Off Destorying The Lamp In The Room North America South America and Oceania 1:59 Europe Africa and Asia 1:18

File:The Incredibles (2004 animated feature film).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.79.93 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please translate the above mess into coherent English? Then it might be possible to see what relevance (if any) it has to this article. — 188.29.166.249 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Incredibles/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 11:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • While you await my comments, you may want to add some Best Ten lists content. Can you find something like this for 2004. If not find some lists like this. Also note that it was on at least 4 top 10 lists of the decade.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The external links tool to the right says there are at least 5 external links that are at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
    • But Compliance with the External links guideline is not a GA requirement. According to this, "Feel free to tag a linkfarm whenever you see one, but it is not usually appropriate to consider the contents of the External links, Further reading, or See also sections when deciding whether the article meets the GA criteria, because these sections are not mentioned in the GA criteria. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright i added a few lists, but what exactly am i supposed to do with the references? Koala15 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well it looks like the references have been fixed thanks to Carniolus. Koala15 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
Plot
Cast

Alright, i think i fixed it all. Koala15 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Animation
Music

Alright, i fixed it. Koala15 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Themes

It looks like someone else fixed it already. Koala15 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Release
Critical response
Box office

I cannot find any DVD sales or anything like that, but i think i fixed most of what you mentioned. Koala15 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Add {{personality rights}} to File:Brad bird cropped 2009.jpg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Koala15 (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No i did not ignore them i just can't do some of them, Like i can't find the DVD sales or which awards the score won. Koala15 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok i think i fixed most of it, tell me what i missed. Koala15 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

  • It would be easiest, if you put a single line response after each individual thing that you can't do. I am sure you can do some, so it is difficult for me to assess the situation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok to answer that i think i have covered everything that i can. Koala15 (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

At least two of the above items are not a matter of research (Travers and island).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The "island" is mentioned several times in the 4th paragraph and i fixed the Travers comment. Koala15 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that the island is a confusing referent. I got confused. Wouldn't it better to use the name of the island without the word island in later uses?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i fixed it. Koala15 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am PASSING the article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Guides to The Incedibles

I think you should tell how to beat the game The Incredibles.I also think you should lable the levels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.26.148.215 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This particular article is about the film. The article about the video game is at The Incredibles (video game). But even there you will not find a "how to" section. This is an encyclopedia not a how-to book. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Length of the plot summary

I polished the plot summary a bit and trimmed it down to 620 words. As it says in the invisible note at the top of the plot summary section, a Wikipedia plot summary is supposed to be between 400 and 700 words. Let's try to keep it short and sweet, Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hmm. I see User:Koala15 simply reverted all my changes without an edit summary and without any kind of comment on this talk page. That is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior. Let me find out what is going on. Invertzoo (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because we don't need to trim the plot anymore it should be 700 and under and it passed GA fine like that. Koala15 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
The article passed GA yes, but that does not mean it can't still be improved. Please be careful of the tendency towards Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues. Do you usually leave an edit summary or not?Invertzoo (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think i think i own it? That's the lamest thing you can possibly say. I just disagree with your edits that's all. Koala15 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, now with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you disagree with wide-ranging edits by an established editor it is appropriate to explain that on the talk page and to attempt to defend your idea that no change at all is better than this change. It is not appropriate to simply revert the entire effort wholesale, as if it were vandalism, and to do so without any edit summary and without leaving a note either. You still have not explained what it was about my edits that you "disagreed" with, except to say that you thought they were "unnecessary". Note that an article at GA level is good, but it is not FA, and even FA can be improved. I see that you have reverted a lot of changes to various articles over the last month; most of those changes were coming from IP addresses; maybe they were genuinely unhelpful, or in some cases maybe not. Did you actually read what I wrote, or did you just just revert it automatically? Did you look to see if I was an established editor before you reverted all of the changes I made? Is it even conceivable that every detail of the changes I made was unhelpful or pointless? You don't think that perhaps even by accident I might have improved something in the article? I appreciate your dedication to Wikipedia and to the articles you work on, but other editors also care very much about improving the encyclopedia, and I am one of those editors. Simply disagreeing with another person's edits is not enough grounds to revert them; the edits need to have been harmful to the encyclopedia in some way and you need to explain why you believe that is the case. Invertzoo (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That was not a personal attack in any way shape or form. And you do seem like you are new. Bottom line is the plot does not need to be shortened but feel free to improve the article beyond that. And yes i revert alot of IP's and it is all vandalism, maybe you should look before you suggest i revert good faith edits. Koala15 (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that most people would agree that "That's the lamest thing you can possibly say" is a personal attack, especially when it is expressed in writing as it is here. And "you do seem like you are new" is close to being offensive also. In two seconds anyone here can check to see if someone is an established editor; that should be done in situations where a major revert is being considered. As for saying "maybe you should look before you suggest i revert good faith edits", well, to take just one example, what about the extensive edits I made that you reverted? They were certainly good faith edits. Perhaps you are not clear about what "good faith" means. It means "with good intentions", as opposed to vandalism, which is deliberately disruptive and damaging. And only someone with ownership issues would say: "Bottom line is the plot does not need to be shortened but feel free to improve the article beyond that"; this is Wikipedia -- you cannot give me permission to try to improve certain parts of an article but not others. Wikipedia does not work that way. Invertzoo (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
You are really good at taking my words out of context i gotta give you that. I don't do personal attacks, i just said what you said was lame which is not an attack on you it was just my opinion. And i understand you had good intentions i just disagreed about shortening the plot that's all. And i wasn't giving you permission i just said "feel free" which in other words means "go ahead". I just don't think you should speculate about my intentions. Koala15 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
In this case your opinion was a personal attack; that doesn't make it OK. The adjective "lame" is a simple pejorative expressing contempt, it does not carry any useful information. Wikipedia is not a school playground; you have to be careful what you say here, it's all permanently recorded in writing. And just because you "disagree" with an edit, that does not automatically give you the right to revert it -- it is not your emotional response to an edit that counts; what matters is whether the edit actually improved the encyclopedia article or made it worse, worse in a way that is clear to most people, not just to you.
It is also meaningless to say I took your words "out of context"; the complete context is preserved right here on the talk page; it is a part of the permanent Wikipedia record, which anyone can look up at any time. Your responses to me do not reflect well on your understanding of how to behave properly on Wikipedia. For one thing, you really do need to start putting edit summaries on all your edits. I see that in a note from 14 April 2013, Dan56 mentioned that you have to "give a valid reason...in the edit summary". You were told again to use edit summaries on 11 June 2013, again on 23 June, and again on 1 July 2013, when you were also warned about a content dispute. On 10 May 2013 you were warned about using sarcasm, and also about assuming bad faith, and it was pointed out to you that those attitudes can lead to blocks. On 7 November 2013 another editor complained about your being insulting. On 16 November 2013 an editor asked you to leave a message on a talk page before reverting edits. Reverting edits with no explanation tends to lead to edit wars, which often lead to one or more editors being blocked.
I admire your enthusiasm Koala15, and I think it's great that you edit articles that are viewed a lot, and also which have a lot of editing, and I think it's great that you have helped several articles to reach GA status. However, at the same time you need to learn to use basic necessary politeness here all of the time. Edit summaries are really a very elementary thing that everyone is supposed to do all of the time. Not reverting any good faith edits without a careful explanation on the talk page is also a very basic necessity. I am trying to point out that these habits will get you into trouble on Wikipedia sooner or later. There is enough time for you to make an effort to be more polite, more considerate and more careful, and that way you will be on your way to becoming a long-term, highly valued editor who is respected by others. I am copying this part of the discussion onto your talk page, as it is no longer specifically about this article. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Writing problems in the plot summary

> On his way to marry Helen (also known as "Elastigirl"), Robert "Bob" Parr, better known as Mr. Incredible

Why do these people have pseudonyms? Are they superheroes? Criminals? Pop artists?

> saves a suicidal man

How did that work out? Did the guy thank him?

> and stops an el train from a potential accident when saving his intrusive biggest fan, Buddy Pine

What does "intrusive biggest fan" mean?

> from being blown up by a bomb planted on him by criminal Bomb Voyage.

Why should we care what the criminal's name is? Does he appear again later in the movie?

> After marrying Helen, countless lawsuits ... results in the creation of a relocation program

The lawsuits married Helen?

> for collateral damage and civil unrest from their good deeds

What caused the civil unrest? Is it related to the collateral damage, or is it a separate thing that was somehow caused by good deeds?

> Rejuvenated, Bob's relationship with his family improves

Bob's relationship with his family is rejuvenated?

> Mirage is working for Buddy, now an amoral super villain called Syndrome.

Syndrome sends his robot out to kill superheroes. How is that only Amoral and not IMmoral?

> Syndrome intends to perfect the Omnidroid ... and defeat it while manipulating its controls to become a hero himself

Where? In his back yard? How will that make him a hero?

> and then sell his inventions to the public so everyone will become equally "super", making the term meaningless.

What does that have to do with the plot?

> Bob sneaks into Syndrome's base, finding a big-screen computer where he uses the password "Kronos" left scrawled on a wall by a dead Super, Gazerbeam.

  • Where is Gazerbeam? In Syndrome's base?
  • How did he scrawl the password if he was dead?
  • Where did he scrawl it? In the computer room? Wouldn't Syndrome have had it erased already?
  • Who cares what the password is?

> Mirage, annoyed with Syndrome's selfishness, releases Bob

That's it? All it took for her to betray her employer was a little annoyance at his selfishness? That doesn't sound like much of a reason.

> the Parrs find Syndrome has Jack-Jack and intends on raising him as his own sidekick to seek revenge on the family, only for Jack-Jack's own morphing superpowers to manifest.

What does "only for Jack-Jack's own morphing superpowers to manifest" apply to? Is that the reason Syndrome wants to raise Jack-Jack? Does it mean the manifestation of Jack-Jack's powers somehow thwarts whatever the Parrs were trying to achieve in finding Syndrome?

> Helen rescues Jack-Jack

Really? She rescued Jack-Jack all by herself? Bob had nothing to do with it at all?

> and Bob kills Syndrome by throwing his car at his jet

Whose car? Whose jet?

> causing Syndrome's cape to get caught in its engine, which sucks him in.

Does he get killed? Or did he invent a protective suit that saves him for the sequel? And what happens after the engine stops? Does the jet keep floating in mid-air?

—Coder Dan (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to address most of these points. Some we can't answer (eg what is Syndrome's fate as there's no visual or spoken lines exactly about it). Also naming certain names like Bomb Voyage, is because they are noted cast members so that's used to flag them in plot relevance. --MASEM (t) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
MASEM i understand you want to improve the plot but the plot is supposed to be under 700 words. Is there a possibility you can improve without adding any words? Koala15 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, consider before revisions the plot was at 750 words. And while 700 words is a highly recommended target, it's not a hard target either - if it takes more words to describe the plot with proper grammar, that's fine, and this film does have a lot of complex aspects to it. There is a way to do this by eliminating most of the first paragraph. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, well i know they take the 700 word limit strictly but if you think there's an exception for this then that's fine. I'm just trying to maintain the article. Koala15 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, here's a sub 700 word version:
"Supers"—humans gifted with superpowers—are forced into civilian relocation programs after facing several lawsuits from peripheral damage caused by their crime fighting activities. Fifteen years later, Bob and Helen Parr, formerly Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl, and their children Violet, Dash, and Jack-Jack live as a suburban family. Bob, is unsatisfied with suburban life and his white-collar job and longs for the glory days. On some nights, Bob and his old friend Lucius Best, formerly Frozone, perform vigilante work, unbeknownst to Helen. One day, Bob loses his temper at his supervisor, who refuses to let him stop a mugging, resulting in him losing his job. Returning home, Bob finds a message from a woman named Mirage, who convinces him to become Mr. Incredible again and gives him a mission to destroy a malfunctioning robot called the Omnidroid, promising a substantial reward. Arriving on Nomanisan Island, Bob is able to defeat the robot by tricking it into ripping out its own power source.
Bob is rejuvenated by being able to use his powers freely, improving his attitude and relationship with his family, and he begins rigorous training while waiting for more work from Mirage. Discovering a fresh tear in his suit, Bob visits superhero costume designer Edna Mode who decides to make him and his whole family suits, unbeknownst to Helen and the children. Leaving for Nomanisan once again, Bob discovers that Mirage is working for Buddy, a former fan shunned by Mr. Incredible and now identifying as the super-villian Syndrome. Syndrome intends to perfect the Omnidroid and defeat it in public in Metroville while manipulating its controls to become a hero himself, and then sell his inventions so everyone will become equally "super", making the term meaningless. Bob sneaks into Syndrome's base and finds Syndrome's computer. From it, Bob discovers Syndrome murdered countless retired superheroes with previous Omnidroid prototypes to improve its design. Meanwhile, Helen visits Edna, finds out what Bob has been up to, and activates a homing beacon to find him, inadvertently causing Bob to be discovered and captured.
Helen borrows a jet to head for Nomanisan, but finds Violet and Dash have stowed away wearing their own costumes, leaving Jack-Jack in the care of a teenage babysitter. Syndrome picks up Helen’s radio transmissions and destroys the jet, but Helen along with the children survive and make it to the island, though Bob thinks they are dead. Helen proceeds to the base to find Bob, discovering Syndrome's intentions to send the Omnidroid to Metroville in a rocket. Later, Mirage, distraught by Syndrome's true plans, releases Bob and informs him that his family is alive. Helen appears and races off with Bob to find the children when they are spotted by security. Dash and Violet use their powers to escape their captors and are joined by their parents, only to be captured by Syndrome, who then heads off to initiate his plan.
With Mirage's help, the Parrs escape, and use a security van and a rocket booster to pursue Syndrome. In Metroville, the Omnidroid proves to be too intelligent, and knocks the remote that controls it out of Syndrome's grasp, knocking him unconscious and rampaging through the city. The Parrs and Lucius team up to fight the robot, until Bob uses Syndrome's remote control and one of the Omnidroid’s detached pincers to make it tear its power source out, destroying it. Returning home, the Parrs find Syndrome has Jack-Jack and intends on raising him as his own sidekick to seek revenge on the family. As Syndrome tries to escape to his jet, Jack-Jack's own morphing superpowers start to manifest and distract Syndrome. Helen rescues Jack-Jack, and Bob kills Syndrome by throwing his own car at the jet, causing Syndrome's cape to get caught in its engine, which sucks him in. The jet explodes and destroys the Parr's house, but Violet's shield ability protects the family.
Three months later, the Parrs have readjusted to normal life, but the city is attacked by a villain called the Underminer. The family dons their superhero outfits, preparing to face the new threat. --MASEM (t) 01:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It definitely reads well. Koala15 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
> I've tried to address most of these points.
It's a little better now.
> what is Syndrome's fate as there's no visual or spoken lines exactly about it
He gets sucked into the engine and the jet explodes in a humongous fireball. I would say he's dead.
> 700 words is a highly recommended target
Where did you get that idea? The recommended range is 400-700 words (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot), and endpoints of recommended ranges are usually just barely acceptable, not highly recommended. The WP page doesn't say anything else about the range, but the middle is 500-600 words, so I would expect the highly recommended lengths to be in that range. The Incredibles is longer, faster, and more complex than average, so 700 words is probably okay for this particular film, but your target for most films should be closer to 600 words.
> Bob is rejuvenated by being able to use his powers freely, improving his attitude and relationship with his family, and he begins rigorous training while waiting for more work from Mirage.
Too long. Summaries need to be much more concise.
—Coder Dan (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

February 2015

How about I send this as a request:

"One day, Bob loses his temper at his supervisor when he refused to let him to foil a mugging, dismissing Bob as a result. Rick leaves Bob to fend for himself and then offers Bob a chance to relocate, which Bob sadly refuses."

Anything to alter it. I'm not making you to do this. It's just a request 81.97.18.158 (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Falsified information about the sequel

Lg16spears, you added information on The Incredibles 2 being announced for a Summer 2016 release and provided a source for this news.

However, I did further research into this and uncovered this article at Ecumenical News which is mentioned by the source you linked and found the Ecumenical News article cites its source of information from a KpopStarz article ("KpopStarz spilled plot spoilers") which takes its synopsis of the film from an "Ideas Wiki" on Wikia that anyone could add made-up ideas to. It is of my opinion that the information across the three articles is false, and is just the result of the writer of the KpopStarz article (somehow) mistaking the made-up fan ideas for The Incredibles 2 on the Ideas Wiki for legitimate information. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DAMN YOU WIKI IDEA, YOU GOT US FOR THIS. Lg16spears (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Incredibles promo DVD

No listing of The Incredibles: Achieving the Incredible pre-theatrical release promo DVD; I believe it was packed in with Variety Magazine - no packaging, plain paper sleeve. Includes a 20 minutes feature of same name, Incredible Press (images of various newspaper articles about the upcoming movie), Incredible Art Gallery, and Incredible Music. The disc volume label is "THE_INCREDIBLES" with a creation date listed as 10/23/2004 3:10:23 AM, Single-Sided Single-Layer DVD (1.26 GB), regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and no copy protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.59.189 (talk) 12:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Incredibles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

American Film Institute recognition

The reference of the infomation about AFI's 10 Top 10 nomination is not valid yet. Please, allow me to change it to this link: [1]. 

Dr.saze (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hum Hain Lajawab Redirect?

Why does "Hum Hain Lajawab" redirect to this article? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with this film, and instead should go directly to Hum Hain Lajawab or Hum Hain Lajawab (1984 film). The film is right now is featured in the "if you're looking for" section at the top of this article, although the phrase is not. Who knows? Maybe there's a reason for this I'm not aware of. Cheers! Luthien22 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The film link now goes to the Hum Hain Lajawab (1984 film). However, the phrase Hum Hain Lajawab still directs here to The Incredibles article. Does anyone know how to fix this? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Franchise article proposal

Is it alright if we create a franchise article for The Incredibles the same way we have one for Finding Nemo and Monsters, Inc.? The series definitely has enough material to qualify for one. I would gladly contribute to the article if one was made. Zucat (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Incredibles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Incredibles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary of reception

@Geraldo Perez: regarding this edit, how are the reviews just "mostly" positive? The reception section quotes a couple negative reviews, but if there are very few negative reviews that exist and many positive ones, then the reception is poorly summarized by "mostly positive". It also received some pretty prestigious awards; doesn't that indicate "critical acclaim"?

Also, I think #Themes is a large enough section to have a few words about it in the lead. It was previously tied to critical reviews, but it doesn't need to be. Rhinopias (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rhinopias: "Praised by critics" just means some critics praised it and gives no real indication of anything about the general reception. "mostly positive" is a well-supported statement of fact. "critical acclaim" is WP:PUFFERY and is a WP:OR opinion of wiki editors. It is unnecessary as well as the information that could lead to that conclusion is presented directly following in the section and the reader can make their own conclusions so we don't need to do it for them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
"Critical acclaim" attributed to Metacritic's explicit use of Universal [critical] acclaim is not PUFFERY, because it's summarizing verifiable information and still leaving out "universal". If the word acclaim is the issue, how about "received widespread approval from critics"?
Saying mostly positive reviews also gives no indication of its reception from audiences. How about "The film received widespread approval from critics and audiences …", including the highest possible CinemaScore rating in the summary. Rhinopias (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks OK for lead but I still think introducing a summary in the reception section is unnecessary when the exact information from RT that says basically the same thing directly follows. It is an unnecessary redundancy and I don't see the value. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that stats and text verbatim from sources follow the lead directly. How many people get to the 6th major section of an article they start reading from the beginning? Unless they're looking for a specific section. But the point of a lead is redundancy… it's a summary of the article. Just beforehand the lead says "grossing $633 million worldwide" which is a very quick overview of #Box office.
I'm just not convinced that "The film had mostly positive reviews" is an accurate summary of the article's section on critical reception when the section includes "97% approval rating", "universal acclaim", "A+", and two critics with dissenting opinions while two paragraphs focus on positive reviews and notable inclusions on lists like "best animated movies ever" and "favorite animated film[s] of all time". All from very reliable sources, so I don't think it's outrageous for the lead to reflect this. Here's a use where I think "mostly positive" is perfectly appropriate, in numbers a bit above 50%: This Boy's Life (film)#Critical reception. Rhinopias (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The film received widespread approval from critics and audiences …", including the highest possible CinemaScore as you proposed, looks fine for lead section of article. I still don't think it necessary in the reception section to add anything beyond the facts already presented as that is sufficient to get the point across. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed the lead to the first part. I just said the bit about the CinemaScore to indicate I was including audience reception in the sentence, which wasn't there before. I agree that the reception section is fine – just wanted to summarize it in the lead. Rhinopias (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed at Talk:Violet Parr/GA1

Hi there. I'd like to ask for an experienced GA reviewer to comment on whether the length of the Violet Parr article poses a barrier to GA status. See Talk:Violet Parr/GA1 for more information. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Teaser campaign??

I've removed a line from the end of the plot summary about the final scene serving as a "teaser" (linked to teaser campaign) a couple times now, but it has gotten re-added repeatedly. Rather than edit-war, I'd like to hear whether other interested editors feel it belongs or not.

My position is that (1) it doesn't fit the definition of a "teaser campaign", and (2) even if it did, and the scene were added in anticipation of a potential second film, it's still more or less a production note, not part of the plot, and so it still doesn't really belong in the plot summary. The article has an entire section devoted to discussing the sequel - there's no reason it needs to go in the plot section, and it seems out of place there to me.

Thoughts? --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be some way to describe that the final scene leads into the next film as that appears to be one of the main reasons to have that scene. We can't link to the next film without mentioning it or we get WP:EGG problems. That scene looks like a teaser for the next film, might not be part of formally created campaign at that point but it still is meant to lead into and create interest in the next film in the series which is what teasers do. "Teaser campaign" is the closest link for the concept. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
But why does there "[need] to be some way to describe this", and why would it need to be in the plot section? Plot sections describe what is shown, not what we think it represents. The second film was barely more than an idea, if that, when the first film was made. You say "that appears to be one of the main reasons to have that scene" - I saw it as just a funny ending, not a teaser for anything. You also say the scene "is meant to lead into and create interest in the next film" - I think that's pretty unlikely given the time between films, and the quote from Bird himself later in the article from 2013, many years later: "I am stroking my chin and scratching my head. I have many, many elements that I think would work really well in another Incredibles film, and if I can get ‘em to click all together, I would probably wanna do that." It seems clear to me that the scene isn't anything close to an actual teaser campaign. And again, I would question why it's so important to explicitly link the end of this plot to the sequel. Any reader can read in the plot for the sequel that it continues where this one left off. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Reasonable points. Probably doesn't have to be there then. Only real reason I added it was there was a bit of an edit conflict with people who wanted something there and kept linking to the next film in the series off random words. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough - WP:EGG links are a pet peeve of mine. :) I will wait to see if any other editors weigh in. It's not something I'd go to war over, but it seems a bit misleading, and a bit too much interpretation for me, I guess. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Fru1tbat. It is not a teaser which would require there to be an contemporaneous extant (if maybe not yet complete) target; it is rather a cliffhanger - which at the time may or may not be resolved later - more like The Italian Job. Captainllama (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Anecdote

I have no skill to know how to do it, but I think that this anecdote should be added somewhere. See below.


Brad Bird told The McKinsey Quarterly in 2008[2], “The Incredibles was everything that computer-generated animation had trouble doing. It had human characters. It had hair. It had fire. It had a massive number of sets. The technical team took one look and thought, ‘This will take ten years and cost $500 million. How are we possibly going to do this?’

“So I said, ‘Give us the black sheep. I want artists who are frustrated. I want ones who have another way of doing things that nobody’s listening to. Give us all the guys who are probably headed out the door’. A lot of them were malcontents because they saw different ways of doing things, but there was little opportunity to try them, since the established way was working very, very well.

“We gave the black sheep a chance to prove their theories, and we changed the way a number of things are done here (at Pixar). For less money per minute than was spent on the previous film, Finding Nemo, we did a movie that had three times the number of sets and had everything that was hard to do. All this because the heads of Pixar gave us leave to try crazy ideas.

“One of those ideas was that we didn’t have to make something that would work from every angle. Not all shots are created equal. Certain shots need to be perfect. Others need to be very good. And there are some that only need to be good enough to not break the spell.”

References

  1. ^ "AFI's Top 10 Animation Nominees". Retrieved 2016-08-12.
  2. ^ "Animation Anecdotes #212". Cartoon Research. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
Done! (finally). Captainllama (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Back then"

I disagree with this reversion. Between 2000 & 2004 is itself a considerable period of time, during which progress was made in animation. I can't find it right now, but I'm also pretty sure there's a policy which says vague dates should be avoided as well. Clarification in an encyclopedia is a good thing, and reversion when such clarification is asked for is a bad thing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Keeping the Characters and Major Themes Sections?

Hello. I am new to editing Wikipedia pages. For one of my assignments, I was tasked with taking a look at a Wikipedia page and looking through its contents as well as contributing an idea that may help the page. I was just researching through this page's older edits, and was wondering why the Character section was deleted? I think that having a personality description of the Incredibles characters would be beneficial to new and returning fans of the series. It could also help to understand the returning characters that reappear in the second film, or it could give some interesting facts about the personality traits of everyone in the movie. I also noticed that the Major Themes section was deleted as well? I think that maybe it could be interesting to talk about the philosophy behind all of the mature themes in the film. I think that these could be added back to the page to give more information about various elements of this beloved story. Just a simple suggestion. Thanks! :) T.J. Reviewer (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Syndrome's Death

Hello. While the plot section should follow WP:FILMPLOT, I'm thinking we should find a reliable source to support Syndrome's death (i.e. audio commentaries, articles, interviews, etc.), since the guideline does mention "secondary sources must be used for all other cases". Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Just describe what was seen in the film. Let reader make their own judgment. What is stated by even the production people outside of what they actually put in the film doesn't really change what they decided to present. A sort of meme is if they don't show the actual body, the character might turn up alive in the future. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I see. Here's a way of looking at it: imagine if there's a scene where we see a fatally wounded character being visited by their friends and family or a scene where a character is trying to work on a malfunctioning plane to no avail. In the next scene, we see the character in the coffin at a funeral. While we didn't see the death in either scenario occur, it wouldn't prevent us from including the basic interpretation that the character died in a plot summary. In this film, we are led to believe the threat with Syndrome is over after Bob sends the villain into one of the plane's engines. The threat wouldn't be over if the death didn't occur, much like we wouldn't witness to a funeral in the examples I gave. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Presumably Syndrome was killed due to the cape but film viewers did not see that clearly, just the explosion. Fandom wikis say he was killed by the plane but those are, of course, user generated.
In another two examples: viewers who watched near the end of A Bug's Life who can brave the really scary elements of the giant orange bird and night at the same time would have seen from Hopper's view that he was going into the beak of one of the bird's newly-hatched chicks so we can say that Hopper died because of that. Viewers who watched Ice Age: Continental Drift near the end would only hear the Gigantopithecus Captain Gutt saying "ow" numerous times but did not know if that was a kill and is not mentioned on that plot.
I agree that the current version of this article should be seen as it is re Syndrome's death and not some previous versions back. However, I think it is unlikely he would have survived the plane explosion and/or the fall from quite high up. cheers, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
So it seems the plot summary will probably use the more ambiguous wording. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Brad bird did not voice edna

It was Ewa Fröling 173.198.62.73 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 21:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incredibles/Archive_3&oldid=1204137872"