This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
: I want to see the actual source where this came from so I can be sure this is not something some troper made up one day.
: So would I, but it's still worth keeping up until then.
: How about a characters page so we can move all the character-specific tropes there? (the page is getting kinda long...)
: I cut some responses to the Family-Unfriendly Aesop
entry, since they amounted to "but look how evil Syndrome is!" which is not a point anyone's arguing. Kept the one that implied he might be lying about empowering the world, since it actually addresses the issue.
: This here is the discussion page. It is for discussing things. Discuss the following concepts, if you must, and if you come up with a concise
version that people won't try to argue with
, stick it back on the main page:
- Alternate Character Interpretation: This Troper has read a deconstruction of The Incredibles as a triumphant Objectivist fantasy where the heroes (a special, better class of people) foil the villain's plot to ... make everyone equal. Utopia Justifies the Means, and all that.
- The villain's self-admitted master plan is to sell said super powers to after he's lived a life of being worshiped as a savior by the world he fooled. Not a true effort to induce equality in the masses, it's just a way to make himself richer.
- I read that article too. Here it is, for anyone who wants it.
- I found two more similar articles, with a little digging. I'm sure there are more. Here are links:
- Number 1: "The deeper message turns out to be something quite different, namely, that you ought to be satisfied with your own assigned place, your mediocrity. Unless you happen to have inherited some real special powers, don’t try and be super. We mortals are just meant to be like the neighborhood kid on the tricycle, eyes wide, mouth open, bubble gum popped all over the face, awed by the spectacle of power."
- Number 2: "Some claim that Ayn Rand could have written this, but I don't agree; ... she was a plutocrat, not an aristocrat. Rand would have been on the side of the movie's bad guy, Syndrome, who through his boundless ambition and ruthlessness manages to turn himself into the Incredibles' arch-nemesis despite having no powers of his own. To the creators of The Incredibles, however, Syndrome is nouveau-riche and should know his place. As Elasti-Girl contends, being superhuman "is in your blood." You know, like nobility. Worst of all is when Syndrome announces his evil plan — to give everyone superpowers.... That's right: here's a movie that considers it the height of evil to empower the masses, because what fun is it being powerful if you aren't surrounded by throngs of the powerless?"
- Syndrome was also trying to kill every superpowered superhero as well. I don't think we can fault the Incredibles for protecting their own lives.
- In fact, it's arguable that Syndrome is the biggest Objectivist in the movie. Superpowers for everyone might not be the most objectivist thing, but Syndrome's doing it to make a profit! Doesn't get much more Randian than that.
- You're kinda missing the point, though. Rand's typical "villains" were people who made personal gains while trying to make themselves look like altrustic individuals. Objectivism doesn't boil down to just profit, it boils down to profit which is EARNED, rather than profit gotten through trickery, aka what Syndrome is trying to do throughout the whole movie.
- The hero of the movie helps ordinary people leech money out of a giant corporation. Profit by trickery, or profit earned through knowledge of how to game the system?
- I'd say neither, in all cases their policies DID cover their claims, it is just that the buisness went to great lengths to obstruct people from getting what they are rightfully entitled to. In an objectivist stance, the people in the wrong would be the insurance company, for trying to "trick" people out of what is rightfully theirs(the various claims).
- The article in question is hilarious, because it keeps trying to shoehorn an Objectivist ("neo-Objectivist") message into what is really Conservatism.
- This troper (who actually is an Objectivist) can attest that there are two rival interpretations of The Incredibles that Objectivists tend to believe in. One interpretation is that the film is primarily an attack on "levelling-down" egalitarianism, i.e. "if everybody is special, then no one is." On the other hand, some Objectivists argue that the film promotes a relativist-subjectivist concept of "super," i.e. "super = better than other people," and that the film lauds natural skills as superior to acquired skills. Canonical evidence exists for both interpretations.
- Family-Unfriendly Aesop: The central theme of the film seems to be (to some) that some people are just innately special (read: better) than everyone else. The only characters in the film who actually had to put any effort into gaining their abilities are villains. Even worse, the ultimate goal of Syndrome's plan is to give everyone superpowers. The film even presents this in a way that implies that it's worse than all of the death and destruction he's planning to get there. Talk about Values Dissonance.
- Really, the Family-Unfriendly Aesop only works if the viewer believes Syndrone's word on his motivations... and everyone knows how honest bad guys are, right?
- Well, there is Dash's similar view on things as well as Mr. Incredible's take on celebrating mediocrity. In addition to the apparent fact that all the villains cheat their lot in life by using gadgets.
- Hollywood Law: Debatable, but, many states have Good Samaritan laws which would have protected Mr. Incredible from being sued by the passengers on the train, and most cities classify suicide as a crime, meaning even though Mr. Incredible injured the jumper, he did so to prevent a crime, which is also (usually) protected.
- Moral Dissonance: It Just Bugs Me! that Mr Incredible got yelled by his wife because he decided to go to the building on fire, granted, they must protect their identity, but without Mr Incredible's help those civilians would have surely died, something that doesn't even cross Ms Incredible's mind.
- To be fair, she didn't know about the trapped civilians. All she heard from Bob was that it was a burning building that was about to come down.
- Then its also a case of Poor Communication Kills.
- Also, you have to remember that Bob has done something similar many times before, always to the detriment of his family. After a while, Helen probably just doesn't care about the civilians (in an abstract sort of way), and just wants Bob to worry about his own family for once.
- What Measure Is a Non-Super?: Society in the movie goes against Holding Out for a Hero to paranoid degrees, insisting that the common man with their quiet lives is more beneficial to society. While they have a point, the "celebration of mediocrity" as Mr. Incredible put it, was psychotic and suffocating society. Epitomized by Syndrome wanting to take that mediocrity to super levels by giving everyone powers rather than goals to reach for and achieve. It's a tad Objectivist...esque.
- Except, Syndrome doesn't say he'll be giving his high tech powers away... he'll be selling them, after he's gotten enough of the world's adoration. And killed a few thousand innocents to top off his already slaughtering dozens of superheroes. Many viewers seem to not hear that tidbit during his speech about how no one will be super.
- Also, technology like that is not going to be cheap. I mean, how much do you think those bladed hovering things his mooks use would cost if it could take a middle class person a year or more to pay for a car while maintaining their living standards?
- See Family-Unfriendly Aesop, above.
- I noticed the mooks never reloaded although they were firing full auto. For instance - the sustained-fire without reloads discharged when Vi had a field around her and Dash...