Why did it take 14 years to make Incredibles 2?












11















The Incredibles was made in 2004. In the ending it was clearly shown that Disney is going to make a second part. But Incredibles 2 appeared only in 2018, after 14 years. What caused such big delay? Was it just because Disney was busy with making other movies?










share|improve this question





























    11















    The Incredibles was made in 2004. In the ending it was clearly shown that Disney is going to make a second part. But Incredibles 2 appeared only in 2018, after 14 years. What caused such big delay? Was it just because Disney was busy with making other movies?










    share|improve this question



























      11












      11








      11


      0






      The Incredibles was made in 2004. In the ending it was clearly shown that Disney is going to make a second part. But Incredibles 2 appeared only in 2018, after 14 years. What caused such big delay? Was it just because Disney was busy with making other movies?










      share|improve this question
















      The Incredibles was made in 2004. In the ending it was clearly shown that Disney is going to make a second part. But Incredibles 2 appeared only in 2018, after 14 years. What caused such big delay? Was it just because Disney was busy with making other movies?







      production the-incredibles incredibles-2






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 20 hours ago









      Napoleon Wilson

      41.7k39268513




      41.7k39268513










      asked 20 hours ago









      Ver NickVer Nick

      1,3962933




      1,3962933






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11














          For writer-director Brad Bird, it all came down to story.




          “The thing is, many sequels are cash grabs,” Bird told reporters during a recent press event to promote Incredibles 2. “There’s a saying in the business that I can’t stand, where they go, ‘if you don’t make another one, you’re leaving money on the table.’ It’s like, money on the table is not what makes me get up in the morning; making something that people are gonna enjoy a hundred years from now, that’s what gets me up. So if it were a cash grab, we would not have taken fourteen years – it makes no financial sense to wait this long – it’s purely that we had a story we wanted to tell.”



          Bird admitted that the proliferation of superhero properties in recent years has made it much harder to tell an original story; the first film debuted before Pixar’s parent company, Disney, purchased Marvel, and predated Iron Man by four years - meaning that the new film is entering a very different cinematic landscape from its predecessor.




          There's a fair bit more in the source article



          Why Did Incredibles 2 Take So Long? Brad Bird Explains the Sequel's Delay



          Some of which also relates to multiple rewrites concerning the villain storyline and trying to make I2 more unique in an ever-proliferating cinema-scape of super-hero movies.






          share|improve this answer
























          • And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

            – Mason Wheeler
            2 mins ago



















          6














          The ending of The Incredibles was never meant as a pointer to a sequel. As Brad Bird — who wrote and directed the movie — told CinemaBlend:




          How did that Pixar adventure end? The family was leaving Dash's track meet, when suddenly, a former nemesis -- The Underminer (John Ratzenberger) -- bursts out of the pavement and declares war. But, in an exclusive interview, Bird told CinemaBlend that this wasn't always his planned ending, and he explained:




          I had another ending that was kind half baked, meaning not really finished in my mind. And I knew that the way to classically end a film is show people getting back in the saddle and riding off into the sunset. But I resisted a little. And finally, my head of story on that film, a guy named Mark Andrews, said, 'Come on, you know what you want!' And I was like, 'All right, all right.' So I thought, it's a way of showing they're together, and that they're going to face whatever obstacles as a group, now embracing their superpowers. So I thought that's what was important to communicate.



          I wouldn't have set it up so everyone wonders who The Underminer is. No, no. It was just, this will be a satisfying ending to this film. And if there's never another one, we get that the family's together, they're embracing their powers, and they're fighting whatever obstacle comes their way.








          share|improve this answer































            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11














            For writer-director Brad Bird, it all came down to story.




            “The thing is, many sequels are cash grabs,” Bird told reporters during a recent press event to promote Incredibles 2. “There’s a saying in the business that I can’t stand, where they go, ‘if you don’t make another one, you’re leaving money on the table.’ It’s like, money on the table is not what makes me get up in the morning; making something that people are gonna enjoy a hundred years from now, that’s what gets me up. So if it were a cash grab, we would not have taken fourteen years – it makes no financial sense to wait this long – it’s purely that we had a story we wanted to tell.”



            Bird admitted that the proliferation of superhero properties in recent years has made it much harder to tell an original story; the first film debuted before Pixar’s parent company, Disney, purchased Marvel, and predated Iron Man by four years - meaning that the new film is entering a very different cinematic landscape from its predecessor.




            There's a fair bit more in the source article



            Why Did Incredibles 2 Take So Long? Brad Bird Explains the Sequel's Delay



            Some of which also relates to multiple rewrites concerning the villain storyline and trying to make I2 more unique in an ever-proliferating cinema-scape of super-hero movies.






            share|improve this answer
























            • And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

              – Mason Wheeler
              2 mins ago
















            11














            For writer-director Brad Bird, it all came down to story.




            “The thing is, many sequels are cash grabs,” Bird told reporters during a recent press event to promote Incredibles 2. “There’s a saying in the business that I can’t stand, where they go, ‘if you don’t make another one, you’re leaving money on the table.’ It’s like, money on the table is not what makes me get up in the morning; making something that people are gonna enjoy a hundred years from now, that’s what gets me up. So if it were a cash grab, we would not have taken fourteen years – it makes no financial sense to wait this long – it’s purely that we had a story we wanted to tell.”



            Bird admitted that the proliferation of superhero properties in recent years has made it much harder to tell an original story; the first film debuted before Pixar’s parent company, Disney, purchased Marvel, and predated Iron Man by four years - meaning that the new film is entering a very different cinematic landscape from its predecessor.




            There's a fair bit more in the source article



            Why Did Incredibles 2 Take So Long? Brad Bird Explains the Sequel's Delay



            Some of which also relates to multiple rewrites concerning the villain storyline and trying to make I2 more unique in an ever-proliferating cinema-scape of super-hero movies.






            share|improve this answer
























            • And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

              – Mason Wheeler
              2 mins ago














            11












            11








            11







            For writer-director Brad Bird, it all came down to story.




            “The thing is, many sequels are cash grabs,” Bird told reporters during a recent press event to promote Incredibles 2. “There’s a saying in the business that I can’t stand, where they go, ‘if you don’t make another one, you’re leaving money on the table.’ It’s like, money on the table is not what makes me get up in the morning; making something that people are gonna enjoy a hundred years from now, that’s what gets me up. So if it were a cash grab, we would not have taken fourteen years – it makes no financial sense to wait this long – it’s purely that we had a story we wanted to tell.”



            Bird admitted that the proliferation of superhero properties in recent years has made it much harder to tell an original story; the first film debuted before Pixar’s parent company, Disney, purchased Marvel, and predated Iron Man by four years - meaning that the new film is entering a very different cinematic landscape from its predecessor.




            There's a fair bit more in the source article



            Why Did Incredibles 2 Take So Long? Brad Bird Explains the Sequel's Delay



            Some of which also relates to multiple rewrites concerning the villain storyline and trying to make I2 more unique in an ever-proliferating cinema-scape of super-hero movies.






            share|improve this answer













            For writer-director Brad Bird, it all came down to story.




            “The thing is, many sequels are cash grabs,” Bird told reporters during a recent press event to promote Incredibles 2. “There’s a saying in the business that I can’t stand, where they go, ‘if you don’t make another one, you’re leaving money on the table.’ It’s like, money on the table is not what makes me get up in the morning; making something that people are gonna enjoy a hundred years from now, that’s what gets me up. So if it were a cash grab, we would not have taken fourteen years – it makes no financial sense to wait this long – it’s purely that we had a story we wanted to tell.”



            Bird admitted that the proliferation of superhero properties in recent years has made it much harder to tell an original story; the first film debuted before Pixar’s parent company, Disney, purchased Marvel, and predated Iron Man by four years - meaning that the new film is entering a very different cinematic landscape from its predecessor.




            There's a fair bit more in the source article



            Why Did Incredibles 2 Take So Long? Brad Bird Explains the Sequel's Delay



            Some of which also relates to multiple rewrites concerning the villain storyline and trying to make I2 more unique in an ever-proliferating cinema-scape of super-hero movies.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 9 hours ago









            SnowSnow

            6,63421834




            6,63421834













            • And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

              – Mason Wheeler
              2 mins ago



















            • And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

              – Mason Wheeler
              2 mins ago

















            And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

            – Mason Wheeler
            2 mins ago





            And yet somehow that's how the sequel felt: like a typical sequel, a cash-grab that wasn't as good as the original.

            – Mason Wheeler
            2 mins ago











            6














            The ending of The Incredibles was never meant as a pointer to a sequel. As Brad Bird — who wrote and directed the movie — told CinemaBlend:




            How did that Pixar adventure end? The family was leaving Dash's track meet, when suddenly, a former nemesis -- The Underminer (John Ratzenberger) -- bursts out of the pavement and declares war. But, in an exclusive interview, Bird told CinemaBlend that this wasn't always his planned ending, and he explained:




            I had another ending that was kind half baked, meaning not really finished in my mind. And I knew that the way to classically end a film is show people getting back in the saddle and riding off into the sunset. But I resisted a little. And finally, my head of story on that film, a guy named Mark Andrews, said, 'Come on, you know what you want!' And I was like, 'All right, all right.' So I thought, it's a way of showing they're together, and that they're going to face whatever obstacles as a group, now embracing their superpowers. So I thought that's what was important to communicate.



            I wouldn't have set it up so everyone wonders who The Underminer is. No, no. It was just, this will be a satisfying ending to this film. And if there's never another one, we get that the family's together, they're embracing their powers, and they're fighting whatever obstacle comes their way.








            share|improve this answer




























              6














              The ending of The Incredibles was never meant as a pointer to a sequel. As Brad Bird — who wrote and directed the movie — told CinemaBlend:




              How did that Pixar adventure end? The family was leaving Dash's track meet, when suddenly, a former nemesis -- The Underminer (John Ratzenberger) -- bursts out of the pavement and declares war. But, in an exclusive interview, Bird told CinemaBlend that this wasn't always his planned ending, and he explained:




              I had another ending that was kind half baked, meaning not really finished in my mind. And I knew that the way to classically end a film is show people getting back in the saddle and riding off into the sunset. But I resisted a little. And finally, my head of story on that film, a guy named Mark Andrews, said, 'Come on, you know what you want!' And I was like, 'All right, all right.' So I thought, it's a way of showing they're together, and that they're going to face whatever obstacles as a group, now embracing their superpowers. So I thought that's what was important to communicate.



              I wouldn't have set it up so everyone wonders who The Underminer is. No, no. It was just, this will be a satisfying ending to this film. And if there's never another one, we get that the family's together, they're embracing their powers, and they're fighting whatever obstacle comes their way.








              share|improve this answer


























                6












                6








                6







                The ending of The Incredibles was never meant as a pointer to a sequel. As Brad Bird — who wrote and directed the movie — told CinemaBlend:




                How did that Pixar adventure end? The family was leaving Dash's track meet, when suddenly, a former nemesis -- The Underminer (John Ratzenberger) -- bursts out of the pavement and declares war. But, in an exclusive interview, Bird told CinemaBlend that this wasn't always his planned ending, and he explained:




                I had another ending that was kind half baked, meaning not really finished in my mind. And I knew that the way to classically end a film is show people getting back in the saddle and riding off into the sunset. But I resisted a little. And finally, my head of story on that film, a guy named Mark Andrews, said, 'Come on, you know what you want!' And I was like, 'All right, all right.' So I thought, it's a way of showing they're together, and that they're going to face whatever obstacles as a group, now embracing their superpowers. So I thought that's what was important to communicate.



                I wouldn't have set it up so everyone wonders who The Underminer is. No, no. It was just, this will be a satisfying ending to this film. And if there's never another one, we get that the family's together, they're embracing their powers, and they're fighting whatever obstacle comes their way.








                share|improve this answer













                The ending of The Incredibles was never meant as a pointer to a sequel. As Brad Bird — who wrote and directed the movie — told CinemaBlend:




                How did that Pixar adventure end? The family was leaving Dash's track meet, when suddenly, a former nemesis -- The Underminer (John Ratzenberger) -- bursts out of the pavement and declares war. But, in an exclusive interview, Bird told CinemaBlend that this wasn't always his planned ending, and he explained:




                I had another ending that was kind half baked, meaning not really finished in my mind. And I knew that the way to classically end a film is show people getting back in the saddle and riding off into the sunset. But I resisted a little. And finally, my head of story on that film, a guy named Mark Andrews, said, 'Come on, you know what you want!' And I was like, 'All right, all right.' So I thought, it's a way of showing they're together, and that they're going to face whatever obstacles as a group, now embracing their superpowers. So I thought that's what was important to communicate.



                I wouldn't have set it up so everyone wonders who The Underminer is. No, no. It was just, this will be a satisfying ending to this film. And if there's never another one, we get that the family's together, they're embracing their powers, and they're fighting whatever obstacle comes their way.









                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 38 mins ago









                BCdotWEBBCdotWEB

                27.7k482124




                27.7k482124















                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What are all the squawk codes?

                    What are differences between VBoxVGA, VMSVGA and VBoxSVGA in VirtualBox?

                    Hudsonelva