# Conservative agenda in The Incredibles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 12, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506 "2004-12-12T22:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/141 "2004-12-16T20:38:26Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > After 9/11 (notably many months before filming began), he saw the opportunity to modify the film somewhat to include the terrorism themes. Note that this would have required only slight modification: make the name of the villain Syndrome (terrorism being a syndrome of sorts, no?), add the line about using full powers and about Syndrome wanting to kill people, and _voilá_, you have added another layer of meaning to the film. You really don’t understand how a computer animated (or cell animated) feature film is made. [iYour\* homework assignement is to find out how it’s done. When come back, bring knowledge, not opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/142 "2004-12-16T20:50:11Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > **Marley23** didn’t use the term at all. He was essentially taking the position that a cigar is just a cigar. (Or “A is A” if you like. 😉 ) > > I merely pointed out to **Marley23** that there is such a thing as allegory. > > Sometimes A is more than A. You have an interesting approach to reading comprehension. > [@](#): > > (And **Miller** , quibbling over whether it’s technically an allegory or a metaphor is a silly exercise in semantics that misses the point.) Hey, you asked me to explain the difference. Don’t whine at me because I pursued a tangent you expressly brought into the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/143 "2004-12-16T21:02:52Z")
I’ll note that, AFAIK, Pixar and Brad Bird have admitted making _one_ change to **The Incredibles** in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks: Remember when Mr. Incredible and Frozone were hanging out, listening to the police scanner, and eventually saved those people from a burning building? That wasn’t in the original script – instead, Mr. Incredible would take out his frustrations by finding a condemned building scheduled for demolition, tear it down himself, then hang out afterwards in a bar with Frozone. This was changed in storyboards in direct response to the 9/11 attacks; a reference to the change can be found in the book **The Art of _The Incredibles._** Now, if they’re not shy to admit _that_ plot point was made in response to 9/11, why would they be oblique about all the other stuff **spoke-** keeps alleging? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/144 "2004-12-16T21:12:12Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > I’ll note that, AFAIK, Pixar and Brad Bird have admitted making _one_ change to **The Incredibles** in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Which nicely disproves **The Gaspode** ’s opinion that it would have been impossible to make script changes after 9/11. > [@](#): > > Now, if they’re not shy to admit that plot point was made in response to 9/11, why would they be oblique about all the other stuff spoke- keeps alleging? Because Bird doesn’t want to explicate his allegory (and potentially alienate anti-war viewers)? (Do you have a cite for your quote, by the way? Not a hostile question. Just asking.) ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/145 "2004-12-16T21:19:21Z")
No it doesn’t. Your roriginal claim was that the movie was hailing conservative values, being in tune with how America’s going conservative. Hindsight is always 20/20 and this is easy to say efter the election, after TWAT, Iraq 9/11. Re-doing one scene, takes an incredible amount of work and costs a boatload of money. You’re claiming that several scenes, the name of the villain, the over all theme of the movie was changed. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/146 "2004-12-16T21:44:53Z")
> [@The Gaspode](#): > > Your original claim was that the movie was hailing conservative values, being in tune with how America’s going conservative. I never said anything about the film being tailored so as to be “in tune” with political trends. I just said the movie had conservative themes. Presumably it has conservative themes because the writer genuinely holds those beliefs, not because he is going after a target audience. > [@](#): > > Re-doing one scene, takes an incredible amount of work and costs a boatload of money. You’re claiming that several scenes, the name of the villain, the over all theme of the movie was changed. According to [this site](http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/incredteam.html), “[t]he Incredibles story went through quite a few changes.” Hell, not only was the name of the villain changed, they changed principal villains altogether and made multiple scene changes in the process. Your argument doesn’t make sense. Bird first brought this story to Pixar in 2000. 9/11 happened a few months later. Filming didn’t begin until the following year, and the film wasn’t released until two years later. Are you saying the work they did in the few months prior to 9/11 couldn’t have been modified in the three years which followed? If you are making that argument, you are wrong, as the cited evidence demonstrates. ---
**Author:** ![Charlie\_Tan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/charlie_tan/32/12582_2.png) [@Charlie\_Tan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Charlie_Tan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/147 "2004-12-16T22:30:34Z")
:sigh: The animation process takes about two years. That means that the story and all elements therein must be decided before that date. There must be a vary good reason to change a scene after the animation process has begun. With so many elements involved, it’s not like with live action movies (which BTW is very expensive too). The production company can’t just set up a camera and re-do a scene with Craig Nelson. Changing the smallest thing, like Syndrome’s name, leads to a lot of other changes - the design of his suit, meaning all scenes where he’s wearing said suit. All voice work, where “Syndrome” is spoken. And even if animation lip movements is not that hard with stylized characters such as these(they basically open and and close the mouth, no sibilants, for instance), if it’s change from Bob to Syndrome, there’s going to bit a whole lot of work to re-do. Prior to animation most, sometimes all, voice acting is done. While the actors don’t have to be on set at the same time, there’s still scheduling to take care of. So re-doing the voice work entails delays and higher costs. This is what’s done when the script is greenlighted. My WAG based on normal procedures say that the animation process started late summer 2002. But to get the project greenlighted, they first do a rough animation of the storyboard and show it to the execs. This takes time doing too. And it was probably during this stage that the above mentioned scene was changed. It wouldn’t surprise me if the bean counters at Disney had something to do with that. Check out the credits for a modern animated feature and realize just how many people are involved in the project. Then tell me that things where changed on a whim. BTW, you’d have a bigger chance of selling me Heinlein as the inspiration. He’s a better writer, has a larger humanitarian streak than Rand, and it’s a lot easier thinking about a young Brad Bird reading Heinlein and getting influenced, than a young Brad Bird reading Rand - or an adult Brad Bird scheming evilly in his lair to subtly sell conservative, libertarian, randian, objectivist, anti-terrorist and anti-french ideas as an allegory in a family movie. Occam’s razor, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/148 "2004-12-16T22:35:25Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > According to [this site](http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/incredteam.html), “[t]he Incredibles story went through quite a few changes.” Hell, not only was the name of the villain changed, they changed principal villains altogether and made multiple scene changes in the process. They did make some changes. You still haven’t managed to show that any of those changes were to inject new themes, be they terrorism-influenced or conservative or Objectivist (did we ever decide which one the movie is?) into the movie. The edits specifically mentioned don’t seem to have changed the themes of the movie at all. And yet again, we hear that Edna’s accent is Japanese+German, which has nothing to do with Rand. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/149 "2004-12-16T22:39:29Z")
> [@Bird](#): > > “I think it’s about being okay with yourself and not feeling like you have to cut yourself to fit some big conceived notion of what you should be. It was very liberating for me when I figured out that I could define who I was and that it was okay. If people liked that, then it was great and if they didn’t, sorry but I’m not going to change. I think it’s something like that.” That’s pretty typical kids’ movie stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/150 "2004-12-16T22:51:00Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You still haven’t managed to show that any of those changes were to inject new themes, be they terrorism-influenced or conservative or Objectivist (did we ever decide which one the movie is?) into the movie. Scratch an objectivist and you’ll find a conservative. All the “objectivists” I know tend to vote Republican. As I explained above, my impression is that the movie began as an objectivist piece, and had a few minor changes made after 9/11 to add a “war on terror” subtext. So there was no need to “edit in” objectivism. That was the foundation of the film, IMO. And only a couple of minor edits would have been needed to add the “war on terror” subtext after 9/11, as I’ve pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/151 "2004-12-16T23:23:37Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > As I explained above, my impression is that the movie began as an objectivist piece, and had a few minor changes made after 9/11 to add a “war on terror” subtext. > [@spoke-](#): > > \*Evil trial lawyers bring down the super heroes. > \*Our first villain is French. > […] > \*On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people. She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn’t hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?) > \*Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don’t get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens’ films. They get killed. In large numbers. These are minor changes? There are whole scenes and themes in there. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/152 "2004-12-16T23:27:55Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > I’ve seen at least one suggestion that the movie’s portrayal of all supers as good guys (the three villains we saw were normals using tech – very explicitly so in the case of Syndrome) reflected Nietzsche’s idea of the “superman” (he saw the “superman” as **morally** superior, not merely stronger and smarter). I wish whoever you heard suggest that were here, so I could correct their error – they’ve confused Nietzsche’s “superman” of the future with his description of the “master races” of the past. This is an unfortunately common mistake, particularly among people who only know Nietzsche’s work secondhand, but it’s a major one. I was going to write that none of the characters in **The Incredibles** come close to embodying Nietzsche’s ubermensch ideal, although upon reflection I realize that one of them does. I’m not talking about Mr. Incredible or Syndrome, although both have some ubermensch characteristics (and Syndrome would probably claim that he is one). No, I mean Edna! I’m sure this is coincidental, since Edna is portrayed as a humorous character rather than one to emulate and I see nothing in the movie to indicate that Nietzsche’s work was a direct or conscious influence. However, like a proper ubermensch Edna does devote herself to creative work, strives for greatness within her field, and takes pleasure in exercising her talents. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/153 "2004-12-16T23:30:52Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > My guess would be that Bird originally conceived this movie as a purely Randian allegory, where society’s overachievers were being held back, but then ultimately prevail (the central theme of Rand’s works). That may (roughly) be the premise of Rand’s _The Fountainhead_, but the basis of her larger, more important book _Atlas Shrugged_ suggests the overachevers were being held back, _then voluntarily “went on strike”, opting out of society until it collapsed_, then decided to come back and rebuild it. Had the movie folowed that line, the supers would have been inclined to _let_ techno-villians like Syndrome trash the place, then rebuild their ideal society from the rubble. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/154 "2004-12-17T00:14:38Z")
I’ve started a discussion of intent and political meaning in popular film (including a detailed anlysis of **Con Air** [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5618866#post5618866) / ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/155 "2004-12-17T00:25:13Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Because Bird doesn’t want to explicate his allegory (and potentially alienate anti-war viewers)? :dubious: > [@spoke-](#): > > (Do you have a cite for your quote, by the way? Not a hostile question. Just asking.) I saw it in an interview a few weeks back, but can’t remember which one. I do know it’s in the **Art of** book, though – they even have several storyboard scenes and a color test for the “bar chat” scene. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/156 "2004-12-17T17:33:55Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > That may (roughly) be the premise of Rand’s _The Fountainhead_, but the basis of her larger, more important book _Atlas Shrugged_ suggests the overachevers were being held back, _then voluntarily “went on strike”, opting out of society until it collapsed_, then decided to come back and rebuild it. Had the movie folowed that line, the supers would have been inclined to _let_ techno-villians like Syndrome trash the place, then rebuild their ideal society from the rubble. Well, yeah, but I am not saying The Incredibles is a point-for-point animated reiteration of Atlas Shrugged, but rather that the movie pointedly pursues Randian themes. (And I again point to the image of Mr. Incredible as Atlas, with the globe-robot on his shoulder. You really think that wasn’t a knowing wink?) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/157 "2004-12-17T17:36:13Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Well, yeah, but I am not saying The Incredibles is a point-for-point animated reiteration of Atlas Shrugged, but rather that the movie pointedly pursues Randian themes. (And I again point to the image of Mr. Incredible as Atlas, with the globe-robot on his shoulder. You really think that wasn’t a knowing wink?) You are aware that that imagery pre-dates Ayn Rand, right? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/158 "2004-12-17T18:03:55Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > You are aware that that imagery pre-dates Ayn Rand, right? Brilliant. Of course you can take any single point I’m making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it. But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole. Sorry you can’t see it. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/159 "2004-12-17T18:07:07Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > Brilliant. > > Of course you can take any single point I’m making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it. > > But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole. > > Sorry you can’t see it. So that’d be a “no” then? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/160 "2004-12-17T18:38:40Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > So that’d be a “no” then? Disappointing. You know, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Are all the implied insults really necessary to this discussion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=9)