Why are you trying so hard to convince people that the movie had a conservative bent?
I’m not “trying hard”. (In fact, it doesn’t take much effort to find the conservatism in the film. It jumped out at me.) I stated my opinion in the OP, and I’m backing it up when challenged. Isn’t that the way this board works? 
People seem awfully defensive about this film. Really, it’s OK to like it, even if you are (like me) a liberal.
Isn’t that more or less what Al Gore said about global warming?
Well, I suppose there’s no reason a libertarian *can’t * have an anti-gun agenda, but I’d usually call that a liberal position, if anything.
Sure, a paranoid and trigger happy 1950’s McCarthyist cold warrior. A boogeyman for liberals.
Edna Mode is a pretty obvious charicature of legendary Hollywood costume designer Edith Head .
I think both films are pretty apolitical actually, I think you have to come in with a pretty big bias to see such things in a superhero and giant alien robot story.
So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that all of this is true.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Plenty of filmmakers put political subtexts into their movies. Is it only objectionable when the subtext follows the “wrong” politics?
While I don’t think any of your observations in the OP are invalid, considering them part of an “agenda” may be a bit of a stretch. In civilian life our hero was helping victims seek justice from a heartless insurance company, personified by an evil executive putting profits ahead of people. I don’t see this as an “anti-corporate” statement, but rather as a way to define the character and advance the story.
…and if the mother didn’t like the middle-aged spread of her ass, why didn’t she simply reshape it?
This is why I don’t follow politics.
“You think I’m talking nonsense, so you must be uncomfortable with the fact that I’m right.” Yes, no holes in that implication…
If Violet is America, what country is the cute guy she has a crush on?
Ah. Found another quote from Elastigirl, warning her children:
“Villains aren’t simply villains. They’re terrorists. They’ll kill you if they can.”
Hmm.
Also, I found one observant blogger who spotted Mr. Incredible balancing the globe-shaped robot on his shoulder. Atlas Shrugged, anyone?
Menocchio, The Iron Giant was based on a Ted Hughes story. Bird could not change the major story elements. The Incredibles, on the other hand, is fully his own.
And if you’ll note, both of the articles I linked acknowledged Edith Head, and proposed (with some evidence) that the Edna Mode character is an amalgam of Ayn Rand and Ms. Head. Edna’s lecture about capes is apparently especially funny to Objectivists who know that Ayn Rand wore a trademark cape (as did many of her imitative sycophants).
Show me where I said there’s anything wrong with it.
In a follow-up post, I specifically said: “I should note that I am not criticizing the film for having conservative themes, merely observing the fact.”
As a guy trained in journalism, this is why I avoid blogs. By and large they’re merely crap from a crap-point -of-view. It’s like the concept of objectivity has just been tossed out and ‘news’ is now ‘opinion’.
spoke-, you’re overselling it, buddy. I saw the movie three times and didn’t see an overarching political agenda (or even much of a subtext) in it. AND I’m libertarian AND I’ve read most things that Rand wrote.
I can only say that a lot of people seem to have independently reached the same conclusion as I.
Though none on this board, apparently. 
I guess I’m surprised - and probably naive - to find that these are conservative views. Do liberals really embrace the message that people shouldn’t excel? I had always thought that this was a new-age kinda thing, not a liberal/conservative thing.
Is this true? Do the liberals amoung us really believe that all the kids should get awards, whether they succeed or not and no one should be shown as a winner?
Of course not. But that is a standard objectivist caricature of the liberal view. (As found in both The Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged.)
Because Hollywood types are notoriously reluctant to change plot points in adaptations.
Or anyone who read Watchmen, which was also the probable source of the government shuts down sueprheroes plot (not that Bird didn’t do good things with it).
(Note to self: Revive this thread and good-naturedly serve up some crow to fellow dopers when Brad Bird one day admits on the record that he is an objectivist and/or libertarian.)
Well, sure. But remember…this is the Internet we’re dealing with. If I wanted to it’s likely I could find a group of people who agree with anything about a movie. But using that to bolster my position in a debate is hardly useful or convincing.
Dammit. I hate the bloggers. I really do.
I’m not saying I don’t see some of the same themes you’re seeing but I do think you’re really stretching to make some things fit. For example, the line quoted above makes perfect sense in the context of Violet’s established character. (Shrinking?) Violet’s a shy girl who uses her hair and invisibility powers to hide from the world and who lacks confidence in herself. Her mother is merely giving her a pep talk while emphasizing the gravity of their situation.
AFAIC, reading geo-political subtext into that scene is awfully clunky.
Not even. I noticed the same things, but I never would’ve combined it under the term “conservative.” As much as I liked the movie (an awful lot), there was this bitter undertone to it that just didn’t sit right with me, although I couldn’t put my finger on it exactly. I said exactly that to a friend of mine, who’d worked on the movie, and she described it best. It’s the whole objectivist/Ayn Rand theme of the thing.
The main characters’ name is “Parr.” They know they’re better than everybody else, but they resent not being able to express it. The people keeping them down are over-the-top annoying bureaucrats. It was just an annoying spin on the whole concept – it’s not that everyone has something that makes them special, it was “we’re special, we’re better, and we’re not allowed to express that because you’re afraid of how great we are.”
It just seemed bitter, especially knowing that the storyline was predominantly a single man’s work. I wanted to say, “Yes, The Iron Giant was brilliant. And The Incredibles is technically flawless and just an amazing accomplishment. But get over yourself. As terrific as it is, the movie’s only possible because of the labor of hundreds of people, working together, each contributing something to it.”
And the bit with Bomb Voyage: that’s just typical “it’s funny to hate the French and mimes” stuff that’s been around for decades. Trying to get a political agenda out of that is a real stretch, methinks.
The very liberal film critic Walter Chaw cheered the movie as an anti-Bush piece. If you were trying to convince people that batting the deficit down to a mere half trillion is good enough, would you want folks watching a movie that tells them to demand “super” performance rather than settling for mediocrity? And certainly far more time is spent trashing evil insurance corporations than evil lawyers.
On one libertarian board I saw a poster insisting that the short film about the lamb is statist, pro-taxation propaganda because it tells kids that if they should happen to get “fleeced” once a year (and in the spingtime too, shockingly) they should just smile and learn to live with it. All of this probably just goes to show something, but I can’t think what…
Despite spoke-'s ribbing, I’m a liberal who ascribes to Ayn Rand’s view (and am uncomfortable at its appropriation by modern Conservatives), and the Objectivist perspective wants me to see the film.
I read about all this in Newsweek, so it must be true! 
Then again, I went to Team America expecting a pro-Bush rally and walked away thinking it was rather centrist, so it’s probably all a mix of the baggage you bring, the baggage the creator brings, and the baggage the press provides.