That character story about her father, when retold by her brother, could have been the tear-jerking scene this movie needed. "He wasn't being stupid, he just wanted to protect us..."
At the end of Winston's speech he can say: "Dad didn't think he was a hero, he was a hero." She can look all confused and angery, understanding but not yet willing to change. Then Winston can reach for her and say really emotionally. "Eve, I don't want to lose you too. Not like this." And that can be what convinces her. Because The Incredibles is about family, how family can lift you up to places you could never reach on your own. And having Evelyn's brother, her only family left, be the one to succeed in reaching her would bring the family theme into every aspect of the film more organically.
With this change, the sequence of Jack Jack fighting with the racoon, makes thematic sense. Let's say that the scene of the thief on television, is about someone fighting against him, so the baby imitates what he sees.
I think his father wanted to show it off a bit to some guest or relatives, instead of putting it in a saferoom. But, why didn't he make another pair of the telephone for the saferoom??
For real, there should've been another phone in the panic room, and even though the line would've still been dead since supers had just been outlawed he would've been in the panic room and thus safe from the burglars.
Its interesting that the Incredibles films take place in the 1960s. I hadn't thought of the Screenslaver name being out of place for the period. The mid-century style is popular right now and many people would just say this takes place in a fictional retro future. -Josh
The incredibles looks more present day than 60's, they had "ipads" in the first one, and all the computers we see look more advanve that the ones of today.
@@pacoramon9468 it varies, much of the architecture and technology in the ordinary world, such as Bob's job, is designed to look dated and 60s. Most of syndromes technology is far more advanced than that so therefore looks modern or futuristic
Lol I feel like the process of him making his own movie would have far more than enough nitpicking and would make it near impossible for him to criticize anything after it's done
@@_booth7992 Roughly 150,000 views, meaning if 1% of people scroll down to my comment, and 3% of the people that scroll down like my comment, we'd get roughly that number of likes.
@@Snidbert I think he means that it's obvious or something and only dumb people would miss it, coz he's super smart and nothing flies over his head, his reflexes are too fast.
@@cabrondemente1 Definitely! But that's why you work on a team. Collectively you build and critique each other's ideas till you come up with something amazing.
Winston's speech at the end of the video was amazing. Would've made the movie 10x more compelling, considering how relevant it would feel in the Marvel-era
@Hajir Abd panic rooms are usually reinforced and locked tight so if they went into the panic room they would've been safe until the cops showed up and the worst that would've happened is some of their stuff was stolen.
That might be good point but eeh . People have attempted to kill presidents and there protected by the entire country so just because your protected doesn't mean someone won't try to take you out . unless your literally like a goku or a superman type character .
Because the events that happened, were just after the Public forced a Ban on Superheroes. A notable thing was that shortly after the Heroes were Banned from being Heroes, Crime rates Rose. It's Why in the Incredibles, Mr Incredible and Frozone were listening in on the Emergancy Radio at Night. That was the only time they could be Heroes. It also explains Why that Cop who held Frozone at Gunpoint was shaking. He didn’t know if the seeming Criminals would pull a Gun on him and shoot him before he can even pull the Trigger. Of course, the media in The Incredibles were not going to outright say it, that Crime rates were rising after the Heroes were banned. It's almost like Pixar predicted what the Media would do to stifle what doesn't benefit them...
I loved «Incredibles 2», but I have to agree the villain was weak and predictable. I would really love to se your version, but sadly that’s not an option. Keep up the great work :)
When I was watching the movie, the first time she showed up, it was so obvious that I literally thought that she would be a good guy and the rich man dude would be the villain, maybe to give the heroes a big bad to beat so that they can come back and the girl was nervous and hesitant to commit crimes just to give them a chance. But that didn't happen, did it.
This would’ve made the movie much better. It also fits with the family importance in the series. See in your version her dad did what any dad would’ve done risk his life protecting his family. Since the beginning of humanity that has been an important role for the father. It could do the same things for the movie that you mentioned and still have that family theme that is important to the series.
DragonRider1396 Nice connecting this version to the core theme of the movie! I agree, this would've been more affective in expressing this theme of family!
Well, the movie adopted that Family Values™ theme largely with feminist undertones. The big arc with Bob taking care of Jack-Jack and letting Helen do the superheroing, culminating in Violet agreeing to take care of Jack-Jack on the boat, was supposed to mean that both the job of being that formerly-exclusively-masculine, tough-guy breadwinner AND the job of being your family's caretaker were equally difficult and important jobs, and that doing either job had nothing to do with whether you were the mom or dad. It's okay that Bob takes care of the baby because it's okay that Violet can too, when the situation calls for either. If you imply that Evelyn's dad was supporting a Family Values™ theme BECAUSE he's acting in a way that aligns with being the fatherly protective figure ("her dad did what any dad would've done"), then he falls into the wrong again - he tried fulfilling the role for the wrong reason, that he was the man and that's what the man's gotta do. He WAS being practical though, because he fulfilled the hero-type role because the situation DID call for it. If you want to hammer home this theme, maybe have the mother (perhaps in an interaction Winston recalls) remember his last words being something like, "I trust you with the kids." - they both agreed that they were taking the best course of action, even though the father died a hero for it. Edit: Got some coffee, rewatched the video, removed an edit, and tweaked my last two paragraphs. Thanks for reading, and for critically analyzing the show to begin with!
I guess I hadn't made it clear, but I'm arguing against that. I said that the original comment rationalized the father's actions in a way that went against the feminist undertones of the movie, and that in reality it didn't matter whether it was the father or mother that did something to protect the children.
Oh my god....13:25...I started tearing up for real. It would have been a more emotionally tragic story, and Evelyn could have become not just the jaded cynic who has a point, but someone who is actually sympathetic for not being able to understand her father. And with BOTH Evelyn's point of people becoming slaves to fiction and Winston's the point of super hero stories boosting people's morals, the movie's story would have become more rich and complex. SOMEONE WRITE A FANFIC OF THIS MOVIE!
Yeah, and imagine Evelyn breaking down and truly let out the sadness she held in after their father's death and Winston comforting her. This fix would made the movie so much better.
For me one of my major problems was the new superheros and how they looked. They all looked to much like cartoon characters and not the slik 50s/60s estetic that the other heros looks screamed. They look like something I would expect to see in big hero six or from the classic tick comics then the incredibles
This is going to come off as dickish, but for future reference, the word is 'aesthetic.' I don't know why, just English being stupid as always, I guess. I agree tho, not a fan of the costumes.
Seriously, they looked comically bad. Like we accepted that there are some wide ranges of body types from the first film (such as Bob's boss being tiny) but we kinda got the idea that Bob was about the largest humans would probably be, being a super strength muscly hero. Yet we have that Brick character...dude is absolutely gargantuan, he couldn't possibly hide his identity because OH LOOK IT'S THAT ONE GUY THAT'S AS BIG AS A MINIVAN. Each of them except Void looked cartoonish and completely out of place.
They got Bob Odenkirk. They didn't want it to be the father or the charismatic Good(man) guy. They rewrote it to showcase what trauma can do to a person and how cynical they become if they only follow their own doctrine. It shows she is selfish, cynical, and thinks that she will succeed. Her being bipolar would explain her poor planning. I think it's just fine if not better than everyone needing to relate to it. I related to it.
. I think if you toned down the "He thought he was a cowboy and got shot" bit, and made it more simply on the lines of "He saw all these heroes and thought he could be one, because all the heroes on the stories won, right? Wrong. This is the real world, and if you treat it like the heroes always come out on top, like the bad guys can't hurt you, or end you... I can't let it happen to anyone else. I'll be sure noone ever looks at a screen again.", perhaps with a little Zootopia spice of "'It won't work!' 'Fear, _always_ works.'" Everything else about the writing is great though, don't get me wrong. Just, the dark-backstory speech at the end sounds like one of those jokes where they make a mock backstory that's overly-tragic and silly to poke fun at the tragic backstory trope.
I'm going to be honest here. The major problem I have with 'outlawing supers' is that villains, obviously, will not stop. A bunch of super villains with incredible powers and genius minds now don't have to deal with super heroes so they have free reign and normal measures wouldn't cut it against them. In fact, the beginning of this movie almost seems like people have just accepted super villainy in their day to day. I mean, when the Incredibles were arrested, the cops made it out to be that the bank was insured and that the Incredibles should have done nothing. What? Have people just accepted being at the whim of villains? Almost makes it out to be that a villain or two would have been in the midst of the hero ban.
Honestly I think the logical result of such a situation is the government cracking down on vigilantes... and at the same time setting up their own equivalent to a justice league or other meta-human task-force. The people get the reassurance that the super issue is handled, the government gets more control and those who won't work with the government either bow out of the super game or become criminals. (where upon their capture they are neutralized in the governments view.) The only thing that even vaguely lets things be as they are is that the villains somehow stopped. I think the ominous implication is that the government watched for villains and then used special forces wet works teams to eliminate them before they could do anything public. Which is beyond terrifying to picture. Until a more valid in universe explanation comes up, thats the one that makes sense to me. As you said, Villains by definition will not stop because something is illegal.
Watchmen had the same issue, except in the comics, it's implied that police took a no-prisoners approach to "super" villains. That's why we do see one or two as old men. They basically figured getting killed wasn't worth the risk any more (whereas before all they felt they had to worry about was getting arrested). Pair that up with a line/concept from Captain America: Civil War where Vision posits that the existence of super heroes "creates" super villains. I think that's kind of where The Incredibles" sits. In a realistic sense, when someone commits a crime like a bank robbery, they have a plan. Maybe not a good one, but a plan nonetheless. And that plan revolves around whether or not there's a guy with a bullet proof vest and a glock by the front door. Or whether any of the folks inside value their valuables above their own lives. Kind of like the two bandits at the diner in Pulp Fiction, talking about how no one there is going to play a hero. The employees make minimum wage doing a job they hate, they're not gonna take a bullet to protect the $50 in the register. But then think about a world where there are people who are invulnerable or super fast or can teleport or are mind readers and they make it their JOB to run around and stop burglars and bandits. Suddenly, your revolver doesn't mean jack shit. There's NO way to plan around that... unless you have a bigger weapon. A way to distract them. A way around their powers. And once you have THAT? The gun that can freeze people solid? The headband that makes you immune to telepathy while giving you telekenisis? The goggles that let you see invisible people and see through walls and track super-speeders? Well guess what, you're suddenly a super villain. Heck, this is even called out in "Batman Begins", when Gordon talks about escalation and how when the cops get bullet proof vests, crooks get AKs. And then points at Batman and says "YOU dress up in an armored bat-suit" and then hands him the joker's card. What this misses, though, is external threats. Beings that are already super and evil and would commit their heinous acts regardless, like you mentioned. Or natural disasters. Or malevolent aliens. It would have been dark for this series, but I think a Thanos-level threat would have been a big enough kick to the ass for the governments of the world to legalize heroism again. I suspect that will play out by the end of Avengers 4; the Sokovia Accords get scrapped, and the heroes are allowed to do their own thing again.
To be honest, the hole "governments makes Supers illegal" plot was always strange to me, why would anyone think treating every superpowered beings as enemies would go anywhere but bad for them. The supers would most likely snap under the pressure of being treated like monsters even if they didn't do anything wrong, and they would obviously overpower anything non-powered beings without breaking a sweat
That's the thing though. The government doesn't outlaw superheroes, they bowed to public pressure because the people didn't want supers any more. What are the supers gonna do take on every single American citizen and the army?
That also makes me wonder why we didn't have a "villain" that used to be a Super but due to the Governments making them illegal could ruin their life or something
@@Ben-fx9kx Plus the relocation program allowed for hero’s to have pretty decent jobs and lively hood, so most of them wouldn’t have too much to complain
Edit: HOLY SHIT! This is the most amount of likes I've ever gotten. Thanks for liking it, just something that popped in my head. I personally think they should have switched her brother's and father's roles. Her brother should have been the one killed in the robbery. Have the robbery take place when they were teens. The mom and the sister run to the safe room. The father tells his son to get his gun from the safe in the foyer while he calls the heroes. The heroes don't come, and the son faces them himself and he dies. The father sees this as a need to bring back heroes, so he fights to get his old company back and bring superheros back. In the process, he shuts out his wife and daughter, which leads to his daughter becoming bitter. When his wife is put in the hospital at the beginning scene with Underminer, he sees this as his opportunity to make heroes legal again, and it also sets in motion Evelyn's plan. Bada Boom Bada Bing, better story, better character relationships (she and her brother had little to none) and the movie is better for it. She doesn't hate heroes... She just wants her brother back, and she can't bring herself to hurt her father, so she hurts the heroes that didn't come. She's the one stuck in her childhood. Her trauma never let her grow up. She's just a bitter little girl who wants a family again.
@@puddingaming6462 Exactly... Stories portrayed in this 60s time period (whether a fictional version or not) tend to sugar coat things. Heck, in the last film they did an awesome job portraying real people with Syndrome not having a father and him finding one in Mr. Incredible. Showing realistic portrayal of family and life is important. Mad Men, a show steeped in nostalgia and a bright atmosphere, did it well whenever the characters were in public they acted like the perfect 60s family and behind closed doors it showed a real portrayal of broken families and broken lives.
Is that a compliment or what?, because she was one the character which i liked even when she was shown to be the villain. Her design and movement SPEAKS a very stressed and hardworking person in her first second of showtime.
My big issue with the movie was...there was no surprise with the Screenslaver. I wanted to be shocked with a big reveal, but instead I just sighed as said..."Of course it's her."
It would be more shocking if screenslaver was actually gazerbeam in disguise and he survived the events of the first movie , faked his death with a body double corpse then went to take revenge on mr incredible and the rest of superhero society.
@@NeroLeMorte YES!!!! Instantly a much better movie. In fact, the movie should proceed as normal making you suspicious of the brother first, then the sister and then BAM! Your twist hits. Although they would have to first reference GazerBeam in the movie to refresh the viewer's memory. Maybe have a small scene near the beginning of Mr Incredible visiting GazerBeam's family to tell them what happened to him and give them closure.
@@starbrand3726 or they could zoom in on the same newspaper article from the first movie that showed gazerbeam's civilian identity being missing. Although I like your funeral idea featuring his family members having closure too.
My problem with the ending was that from the world's perspective, the supers' last contact was a declaration of war. Then they landed a ship on a city street and everybody was cheering for them. Nobody outside the boat knew what was going on. That event should have been met with tempered caution.
The character ScreenSlaver had potential to be as good as syndrome(not better) and could be remembered as well as others, but instead they decided to pull that twist which didn’t really set well with me. Great Video.
Actually if they did something like Syndrome, we would have gotten Mezzmerella who is a female syndrome from the debunked Incredibles comics. Mezzmerella even has the Hypnosis powers that we later see Evelyn have
What's even greater about this version is that it echoes what the Parr family is going through. With a few tweaks. The kids can feel some abandonment from Helen cause she's gone and Bob isn't himself and mostly preoccupied with Jack-Jack. Bob in turn feels slightly left behind while Helen fights crime. Helen can also feel unneeded at home because of Bob's lies that it's all going smoothly. Feeling abandoned from parents who try and save the day, that's the cominality. But by the end the whole family can understand that the reason the person left was for them. In this situation everyone wanted to stay together. And now they can be Supers together! It's all so flawless. Props Nando.
I don't think the Screenslaver was disappointing, I loved the Fight Scene Between the Screenslaver and Helen, I just think the person behind the Screenslaver and the motive was disappointing.
Demonstrate Value Engage Physically Nurture Dependence Neglect Emotionally (in this case physically) Inspire Hope (in supers) Separate (from public life) Entirely
I feel like people keep sugar coating why the movie was bad as other things like too much hype and it being a different time with more hero movies. When really it was just poorly written in some aspects.
I like that new motivation a lot better actually-especially since its kind of realistic. Sometimes what we see on TV does have too much impact on how we see the world and how we act. I also like how its different from Syndrome's motivation. Evelyn's whole thing about how people were too dependent on supers sounded too much like Syndrome's idea that "if everybody's super nobody is". Good Work!
Woah... This would have made the movie so much better. It would have addressed a very prominent current issue, one which many people could relate to and would have made Evelyn SO much more multi dimensional and interesting. Thanks for making this!
Change it from putting cowboy stories on the radio to superhero stories and you have it perfect. Just one thing I want to correct, though. In the film, Eveline is worried that her brother's plan with heroes will make them legal again, so that's why she has enough fear to start her plan and promote Elastagirl as a trap
I think the point of having it be cowboy stories is to move the motivation away from hatred of supers specifically. Changing it to superhero stories also muddies the connection to the "inability to separate fantasy from reality" angle: you can think you're a gunslinging cowboy, but you probably won't forget you don't have superpowers. It could definitely work with superheroes, but I think the choice of cowboys has unique merit.
@@BradGreer I see your point. That would create an interesting change in theme, and focus on the delusion aspect a bit more and potentially avoid confusion with the superhero theme. Both would make a better and cleaner movie than what was the final product (though I did still end up enjoying myself thoroughly when I saw it in theatres)
Faketendo swatch right????? And before the movie played the I went to theater showed this giant hype thing where the creators were like get ready to be amazed but then showed us some dumb wacky plot
I feel like they waited WAYYY too long (and then gave a speech at the beginning explaining how amazing the movie was going to be). The original Incredibles was set in theatres in 2004...they didn't even do a "ten year later" thing.
Mr. Wezzer idk I get what he was saying but screenslaver could also just mean enslaving screens into doing your bidding instead of just a play on “screensaver”
I personally don't find the Screenslaver's plan to be that unreasonable. The reason why it was so easy for Supers to become legal again in Incredibles 2 is because enough time had passed since they became illegal that the public at large doesn't hate them any more. They're kind of neutral on the issue, and it only takes a little good PR to sway them to the "legalize supers" side. For someone like the Screenslaver, who hates Supers, this is a horrible position to be in. Why? Because without public disapproval of Supers, them becoming legal again is simply an inevitability. By working with her brother ostensibly to make Supers legal, it puts her in the perfect position to sabotage that goal and make the public hate Supers again and keep them illegal.
Sagiri ok but that wasn’t in the movie or at least it wasn’t it highlighted. She had another dumb reason that was way too “let’s just fill in these loop holes”
@@thingsicantfind9545 Well, to be fair, Batman could have become the joker. That's the shtick of things, is that a hero and a villain can be so closely related and the only thing that sets them apart is their choices on how to react to things.
@@NandovMovies I'm surprised big movie companies apparently don't have job positions for the kind of stuff you do. Analyzing the whole story, then suggesting rewritings (like you did here). With the goal to assure better coherence and sticking to a more engaging plot, _during development._ There's so many movies with weak plot points that severely hurt the story, yet that (in hindsight) could be easily fixed. I mean obviously in big projects like that, nothing can be set in stone, and there's usually already plenty of review processes and a fair share of rewriting involved; unwanted last-minute changes included. But I feel like it could help to try a more strategic approach. Have a job position _specifically_ for a literary critic providing the overarching final draft of the major plot points with detailed explanations on each change and the overall vision, and with enough leverage and knowledge to strategically avoid executive meddling from busting it. More importantly, each plot point could be modularized and shown a dependency from other plot points. That way, one could potentially even come up with substitute drafts to provide anti-fragility. (Similarly to your different suggestions of how the ending could have played out.) 'The next best thing' to fall back on in case of unexpected budget or time cuts. So that in case the original vision becomes impossible to realize, rather than being forced to butcher the plot, there'd still be a satisfying substitute. Sorry for the long tirade, haha. It might just be a naive vision on my part. But I that's a thought I come back to every time I watch a review from movie critic like you; and keep wondering why so many big movies with such a broad arsenal of people that fill such a broad spectrum of expertise seemingly seem to neglect the most important aspect for immersion and memorability in a movie - the plot itself.
I'd have much preferred if Gazerbeam and Fironic had been shown to be secretly helping the Deavors even when illegal and it was Syndrome's involvement in killing both those heroes before the events of Incredibles 1 which caused the Deavors family incident. It would be like a domino effect of Syndrome's tampering with the superhero order that indirectly caused further villains to appear in the future. Screenslaver's motivations I thought were solid, if just a bit poorly detailed/explained.
I think it's fairly certain that this was implied seeing as how they specifically chose Gazerbeam to be a part of this event as he is the only super given by name as a confirmed death in the original as well as several scenes with his corpse. Although if they were kids when this happened it doesn't really fit the timeline. I'm not sure when their dad dies because he looks so old in that scene I assumed they were older. And Syndrome had been killing off supers for years that when you see Gazerbeams corpse he's basically a skeleton suggesting he had been dead for years prior
@@PsypherWolf Oh, aye for sure the parent's death would have to have been shifted forward considerably. That would probably be required anyway to show that they could still depend on their heroes in secret.
I had a theory when I saw the trailers that Winston was the screen slaver, the reason why he did it was because he wanted to bring supers back so bad that he created a villain. Created a reason for supers to need to be back. I wish that was what happened , I feel like that’d be more interesting than an idiot who got himself and his wife killed cuz he wasn’t up to date with the news of his idols.
I've heard some other improvements, like making Winston the Screenslaver: he creates the situations, to make the supers look good in the public eye. This, however, is a really great improvement as well. It manages to fix the whole story, without needing to change too much; it's literally just changing a bit of dialogue.
I also had another idea for the villain of the movie. Instead of becoming the screen slaver to ban heroes why not become a villain to make heroes legal again? Here me out, if they just had Elastigirl fighting normal thugs or something similar it wouldn’t exactly encourage the government to immediately unban supers, sure it’s helpful but not exactly major enough to undo the ban. But if they were to intervene in potential tragedies or fight seemingly dangerous villains it might convince them otherwise I believe this would cause conflict between the family once discovered as what would they do? Would they stop her at the risk of supers never becoming legal again or simply go along with it to ensure that one day they can use their powers for good? It can even lead to a mini civil war if they truly wanted the other heroes involved. And besides what’s a superhero without a super villain to fight. As it seems there aren’t any around at that time except underminer I’m open for improvements on this but I believe something like this would have made a far greater villain.
Maybe Screen Slaver uses her hypnosis tactics to make stronger villains in order to carry out the plans to cause as much damage as possible. She could even make those villains as distractions for her own personal goals (in the original movie or Nando's rewrite.) Nobody is going to question a villain's motivation, even if they're hypnotized. Maybe a hero could be framed for making the hypnosis tech when they're discovered, thus creating the scenario where a hero is plotting to bring superheroes back by making super villains hard to deal with the military alone.
I'm pretty sure this is an early draft of the film; also the siblings working together. Not sure if Evil Endeavor (seriously her name is literally Evil Endedavor) was always meant to be the bad guy, I can see the brother being the final boss because he gets mad at the heroes or something; but this was definitively the original intent
@CrimsonGear15 isn't that the plot of that movie "Unbreakable"? Also, @@MakiPcr I believed her brother to be a red hearing instead of a leftover script version
My issues were her motivations. She didn’t have any motivations. You could argue that her parents died so she was driven by that, but she insulted her parents and hated them. Even if she did care, she didn’t seem connected to her motivations
@neutral name someone else who has dealt with real issues in the comments I see. The world is irrational. A lot of movies are pointing that out right now. It's like how Thanos plan is a good one until you factor in how horrible the thing he is doing is. But HE feels justified. So nothing else matters in his mind and anyone who doesn't get it is wrong.
@Zimmit's Fabulous Wonder Hoagies what do you think about the video? Do you think that has substance enough to be a great sequel? And how would you have had the Underminer fulfill a greater role in the incredibles 2? I personally feel like the Underminer is more of a Saturday morning cartoon villain than anything significant. I can't really see him taking center stage in the movie. Although I agree it felt lackluster to end off with him just getting away with no real mention after to who the heck he was. Maybe a short can be made where they try and find him after with a set of other heroes. Either it occurs after or meanwhile the whole screen slaver event. I guess you can write in that they are endorsed by or work for the government. Since having supers in your country but not using them is one of the dumbest things. If we can make theories of how the government could have funded syndrome's work I think we can have secret agent Super 1.
I liked the suggestion that Greg from Armoured Media made in his review of the film of having Winston be the main villain. I like the idea of a villain who is so obsessed with super heroes that he goes out of his way to create these situations that only a hero could resolve.
I always felt disliked when I voiced my issues with Incredibles 2. It was entertaining, but the motivations were weak. I love your notes! Couldn’t have said it better myself!❤️
I really thought this movie was going for the Unbreakable twist, and it honestly would've been a way better twist even though it's been done before. Where the villian sets up tradjedies that the supers can make less bad but then the heros find out that it's them causing the tradjedies and have to stop the villian even though the villian isn't "against" them
Disney needs to let go of its fetish for 'shock value' or twist villains for their animated films. Just establish the villain and their motivations in the beginning, and continue from there.
@@cosmicdream17 I both kind of agree and disagree. Screenslaver in this movie is established from the beginning, and their motivations are pretty clear in the monologue they give. The only twist is their identity, which was done for dramatic purposes. I get that is the part you disagree with, the twist where u find out who they are. Personally I kind of feel the case for doing both, you can have amazing villain right from the start like Thanos or the Joker, but you can also have great villains which are introduced as a surprise, like Screenslaver. Just getting rid of the idea of having twists with the villians seems to just be something that would dumb down movies to me.
My take on Evelyn's plan was not to get super's banned, but start a war. She's playing the long game, effectively. She thinks supers murdered her parents, so she wants to murder all supers. While perhaps she could do this by just hypnotizing them and making them fight to the death, that route could fail. Instead, she wants to make the entire world turn against them and demand their death or incarceration for declaring war on normals. Basically, Evelyn is being Magneto. Though unlike in the X-men, the war between super and normal is not set up as an inevitable. So in forcing it to happen, it's not something bad done for noble motivations, it's just bad for the sake of vengeance. In other words, Evelyn is a sociopath, she doesn't care how many people, super or not, have to die to get rid of all supers for good. There are definitely room for improvements though, even keeping the aesthetic that Evelyn is a genocidal sociopath. Having her acting independently of the supers returning to try and get rid of them "once and for all" would be a good touch to tie up bringing the supers back for a happy ending. Rather than it being a focus on hating screens. It's possibly less of a happy ending, given the implication is that the super and villain cycle is already going, and cannot be ended, and people welcome supers back accepting that banning the supers doesn't ban the villains they may have already created.
Thats not a bad idea and would have made her motivation better, but the movie doesn't really ever imply this is her plan hardly so it mostly only works as a head canon
@@BubblesZap Part of a work is how you interpret it, something that seems a lost art in the information age and beyond. In the past a lot was left up to individual interpretation for books and film. It's a lost art to give the audience _just_ enough to get them thinking, and elaborating. The fact people dismiss this now with 'that's just head cannon' is a big part of the issue. If you notice, works that explain every little last thing with tons of exposition are some of the least engaging things out there. Most people like being able to mentally engage with a story to _some_ degree.
I thought they were going to have it turn out that Evelyn was under the control of her brother, who created the Slaver so that the heroes would have a villain to fight, thus showing the public why heroes are needed.
EPM 101 Too obvious. You should read the Rules of Pixar. One of them is: Think of the first thing to expect and then throw it out the window. Always go for the option that you don’t immediately expect but still makes sense.
Rainpooper Well they clearly broke that rule because they went with the most obvious twist I’ve ever seen. The only part that surprising was the fact that they went with it.
@@epm1012 See, I thought Evelyn's brother creating the slaver for heroes was going to be the twist. I didn't expect Evelyn, since I was more focused on her brother the entire time.
1st time I've heard of you and seen any of your videos. This was a great first impression. That "speech" you gave in place of Evelyn's monologue to Elastagirl left me speechless. All I could say was "wow". I'm so glad this came up on my recommends. Keep it up dude! 👏👍
I love what you did with Winston's speech. With the overabundance of superhero movies, great to forgettable, it's nice to be reminded why these kinds of stories resonate and stay with us. The cut the MCU at 13:52 was touching.
The Xplodenator yeah I thought it was Winston or Roxan Ritchie but then it got more obvious when Elastigirl Was catching on because I figured out screensaver was innocent the moment he was unmasked
Even though it was obvious u have to remember their target the kids not adults weather it was obvious or not u have to know if the brother was in on it or not
@@rebornjm It's actually not angled towards specifically kids. Brad Bird himself stated he found it frustrating that places like iTunes classified it as "Kids and Family" when it should've been classified in the same category as Starwars and Marvel movies. There are swear words in the movie as well, it's definitely angled more at a "family" than it is for "kids." I can understand where the confusion come from though since animated movies in the west usually target kids.
You misunderstand what I mean I mean that they didn’t want it to be an Uber complicated mystery they wanted it to be something that kids could also follow. syndrome was also very obvious with his what he wanted y else would they show him at the beginning of the movie, but these two villains have something that made them different ones motives was purely selfish, the other was because she people to completely rely on people that are super powered. She also hated the role that women were looked at having which was the support role. In a way people immediately believed that screenslaver was in fact male instead of the villain actually being a female, because of the time frame the movie was based in. In truth you see the villain from the 1st time you meet them however you don’t see if the brother was in on it as well because they had different thoughts about the night their dad died but that could have been a lie about how he felt about the situation also he could have been the one to tell his sister what to do to the point where she overthrows her brother, like they wanted you to see all the possibilities along with the older audience knowing who the villain was and having the kids to figure it out.
Oh it's not just you. After I recorded the video, I realized that I had accidentally said "Screenslayer" about half of the time and had to rerecord everything.
I totally thought that was his name, too, and it felt really weird hearing it "correctly" upon seeing the film. The misheard name arguably may even make more sense.
I thought that too, when I heard the character's name for the first time in the film I thought the actor had just tripped over their words and added a letter or something, but then I realized I was dumb and the character's name isn't that cool.
This would have made The Incredibles 2 such a better movie. The plot was all over the place and the ending wasn't that great. In the first movie, we had an awesome chase scene with Dash and great character development from Violet. In the sequel, they were barely used. I wanted to see them in action with more control of their powers. We saw a little of it in the beginning with the Underminer, but that was it...
This...this is amazing. I wish so much that you were a professional screen writer because all of your proposals are well thought out and make almost every movie you covered like 1,000,000x better. If given the chance I swear you'd be as great as or better than Kevin Fiege.
That sounds fantastic! I would love this to be the actual Screenslaver. If only this was what they went with. Even if this isn’t what the villain for The Incredibles 2, this is still a great video, with great ideas. Keep up the amazing work!!!
"Action scenes were well thought out and fun" Literally 3 scenes where the characters have to stop a big vehicle from crashing into a building, and the vehicle is stopped at the very last second before crashing.
I like your edits, it plays to a much more structured theme which overarches both movies: that superheroes are flawed but necessary symbol. The buildup in the first movie with syndrome staged what happens when the image is warped by one ignorant fan and the second could’ve expressed another concern by Evelyn, (who’s father would slightly parallel syndrome in his innocence and fascination of supers) in fear of what the image does for the community, the negative effects. That’s what I feel 2 lacked, a core to the story. Not to mention the model swap for Evelyn from megamind
