Frozone’s three-hour radio address at the end is the dead giveaway, if you want my opinion.
I just read about half a dozen interviews with Bird so far, and here’s what it got me. In several interviews, Bird says the germ of The Incredibles idea is 12 years old and he started working with Pixar on it in 2000. All of which is a bit early if he wanted to bring in these themes about terrorists.
In this interview, asked about the inspiration for Enda, Bird says, "You know, she has come up, other people have mentioned Edith Head, and people have mentioned that she looks like Patricia Highsmith, you know, we just sit there and draw it and draw it over again. If you get The Art Of Incredibles book you will see some of our other attempts where she is fatter and older and thinner and we tried a lot of things and we arrived at that and then people make their own connections and you kind of go, ok, that is valid, that is valid too, yeah, I kind of like that, I also like that. "
I wonder what will happen the first time someone synchs up The Incredibles with Dark Side of the Moon.
Over here, we get this question: What was the inspiration for the title characters?
“The goal was to make the family based on archetypes. If you’re going to have superheroes and it’s a family, what are the family archetypes? The dad is always expected to be strong, so I made him really strong. Moms are always pulled in a thousand different directions, so I had her stretch. Teenagers in general and teenage women in particular are self-conscious and kind of defensive when they’re going through that point between being a kid and being an adult, so they’re like, “Don’t look at me!” So she’s invisible and has force fields. 10 year old boys are hyperactive energy balls that ricochet off the walls, so I had him have super speed. And babies are unrealized potential. So that was kind of what drove me to do it that way.”
Maybe he just won’t admit the truth. This has probably gone on past the edge of pointlessness. You know, I heard Mike Reiss (a Simpsons exec producer) give a speech a few weeks ago, and at one point he mentioned all of the books and essays that have started coming out about the show, like The Gospel According to The Simpsons. He said once in a while, he tries to read one of them, but he always gives up quickly because the things are so completely and totally wrong. I think that’s what happens when you try to read too much into things.
I always thought lawyers were universally disliked.
He was also competant and what isn’t funny about a mime named Bomb Voyage?
Maybe, though I have to admit I don’t consider Ayn Rand to be all that conservative.
Or a message that you’ve got to put in 100% when the brass tacks are down.
Which I applaud. I’m sick of children’s movies that have a lot of violent action only to end up with nobody getting hurt at the end. Good for The Incredibles for showing that there are consequences to their actions.
Marc
The “libertarian” theme in The Incredibles—what I saw of it, at least—just seemed more of a reflection of some themes I’ve been seeing in comics for a few years. You know, with the “common people” fearing and resenting superpowered people, even when the supers are honestly just trying to help people. (You see that a lot in the everyday Marvel universe. And in things like “Marvels” or “Dark Knight Returns,” you can see a backlash against that kind of attitude.)
So, maybe it’s more of a “modern comics” theme than an attempt push a political view.
Or maybe it’s just a movie. 
Huh? I’m pretty darn sure that quote isn’t in the movie. The line you’re thinking of goes like–
“Remember those villians from the shows you watched on Saturday morning TV? These guys aren’t like that. They won’t hesitate to kill you because you’re children.”
Not one peep about terrorists, sorry. And while I don’t have a copy of the script to compare against, I’ll wager good money my recollection is closer to the celluloid (or the MPEG, in this case ).
Really, watching conservatives trying to claim The Incredibles as a “red state” movie gets silly after a while. One critic insisted it had a Republican message just because it showed a family with two parents! Gasp! :eek:
You may not have had preconceived notions of the film, but certainly seem to have an overinflated desire to ascribe political motivations to nonpolitical situations. Is that a preconcieved notion?
From what I’ve read [liberal intellectualism], Byrd based the film on his own life [Moore-style self-centered liberalism]/mid-life crisis, combined with his love of comics [Smith-style liberalism]. The fact that it’s a positive [conservative battery lobby], family-centric [conservative revisionists] film [standard liberal message forum], makes it simply [red state] that.
Many of the themes present are almost standard in many comics/comic-based mediums. Saying that the film is conservative says more about you than the film. For example, let me show you just how liberal [liberal] this film is!
So only conservatives are allowed to mock the “I-spilled-coffee-on-myself-where’s-the-nearest-deep-pocket?” mentality? It seems like a critique of American society overall, which is were liberals usually excel.
(Did he surrender? I don’t recall… ;)) Liberals tend to be angry/disappointed about how silent (politically) most Americans are. Taking down a mime is a symbol of the liberal desire that everyone should have a voice.
A very common theme in Superman/Smallville. There’s a difference between doing your best in a competition of a level playing field and using powers/steroids/nanites to beat out your competition. Liberals have always been against those who use their (cash) powers to beat down the normal individual.
Seems like a natural explanation for kids who have only seen these type of battles in the comics. Usually, it’s the conservatives who are accused of hiding the truth from the nation, and it’s the job of the liberals to expose and enlighten people from their childish “I can do no wrong/I cannot die” mentality.
Doing everything you can to defend yourself and those you love? Sounds more like FDR than Bush to me.
Funny. Usually it’s the more conservative people who tend to want to censor the more grisly events in life, not liberals.
Well, the fact that they were of a different sex is what makes it a Republican Message. :rolleyes:
I’ve heard some conseratives lament the fact that in many Cartoon movies, a kid usually only has one parent and it’s the mom. I don’t lament it but I have noticed it.
I definitely picked up an Objectivist vibe during the film, although I think at least some of it’s purely secondhand – the film is a tribute to golden- and silver-age comics, a genre that’s rife with Objectivist themes (Absolute good verses evil, individualistic “supermen” who single-handedly protect or threaten the masses).
Plus, the movie was stylistically grounded in the architecture of the period: mid-century Modernism, which, as a result of the Fountainhead, will always be associated with Rand and Objectivism.
If Bird did consciously inject some Objectivist themes into his movie, I salute him for it – I’m no disciple of Rand, but I think it’s cool when a film strives to be something more than simple entertainment and offers thoughtful, well-presented ideas, even if I don’t agree with them.
Correctamundo. IMDb’s quotes aren’t always 100%, but this matches how I remember it (I saw it Tuesday):
“Remember the bad guys on the shows you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys aren’t like those guys. They won’t exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance.”
You obviously haven’t read the book. They have similar elements in the beginning, but vastly differing middle and ending segments. The Iron Man ends with the giant outwitting a planet-sized alien who’s come to destroy the Earth.
Adam Reed, from one of your links, may be making the common mistake of seeing a hidden agenda where there is none. For example, he goes to great lengths to show how the design of costumes with fabrics that adapt to the wearer’s powers and without capes is somehow related to objectivist philosophy. What I saw was a wholesale lift of the capeless, adaptable fabric costumes designed by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby for the Fantastic Four in 1961 (make the uniforms blue with a big 4 instead of red with an !, and those are FF uniforms), or the Broome / Infantino costume designed for the Flash.
Another example: Reed sees the “Capes are out” speech as evidence that the movie is espousing an objectivist philosophy. I saw it as a reference to Watchmen, in which one hero eschews a cape because it’s impractical, and another is killed as a result of his wearing a cape, which in turn results in all heroes giving up on the idea altogether.
Are these references to the comics I’ve read, or am I interpreting them this way because of the ideas I come to the movie with regarding superheroes and the comics from which they come ? Just because I see Fantastic Four uniforms in those that Edna designs doesn’t mean that that was the intent; I may be imposing my perceptions onto the material. Perhaps your libertarian/conservative deconstruction of The Incredibles wasn’t actually there in it’s construction.
The theme in The Incredibles is more or less Randian; I don’t think anyone seriously disagrees with this. Whether and to what extent this was intentional is debatable (and largely unknowable). The rest of the OP (which tries to link the movie to various modern conservative policies in the U.S.) seems, to me, a huge stretch.
ITR champion:
Hahahahaha! Apparently I’m the only one, but I thought that was hilarious.
I’d hesitate to say that the themes in The Incredibles is ‘Randian’. That’s giving a bit too much credit.
It would be like saying that anything that espouses the theme of ‘The individual’ vs ‘The Group’ is by definition ‘Randian’. It’s possible to have similar themes without deriving them from Ayn Rand.
Why are you and others trying so hard to convince people that it doesn’t?
At any rate, I still do not see how The Iron Giant is supposed to be inconsistent with an objectivist worldview. The villain is a government bureaucrat, who brings a jack-booted army to bear against our heroes. Right in the groove of early-90s anti-government paranoia from the Right. Waco and Ruby Ridge and all that. (And yes, that anti-government paranoia had formerly been the property of the Left.)
I didn’t go into The Incredibles looking for Randian themes. They jumped out at me. (And not me alone, apparently. See that NY Times review, for example.) It might be that it was obvious to me because I have several objectivist friends who have been spouting this stuff at me for many years.
Now, once I caught wind of some Randian themes, I will grant that I may have started looking for other conservative elements. (Maybe I am reading too much into the French character, for example). But I think anyone who denies the Randian themes are there is flat wrong.
And I do think that some of my fellow Democrats really resist the idea that they may have enjoyed a movie with Randian subtext.
i went looking for images of the Incredibles (OK, Elastigirl) online, & found a review in French.
A Babelfish translation rendered this–
There’s an interesting thread at IMDb regarding philosophical themes in The Incredibles. (In the IMDb thread, as here, there is heavy resistance to the idea that The Incredibles has Randian elements.)
Yet another person who sees Rand in the movie. Odd that so many of us viewers seem to have arrived at the same “delusion.”
Consider the possibility that you (those of you who still don’t see it) may be resisting seeing Randian themes that are really there.
I checked out Rand on Wikki, & her ideas seem to be a sad mish-mash of, well other people’s ideas.
Maybe you’re giving her concepts too much credit. :dubious:
No argument here. But Rand (like her or not, and whether or not her ideas are a rehash) has been very influential over the past few decades.
“Randian”? On the surface, it’s self-evident! 
Although perhaps more accurately described as “meta-Randian”: a wiser, more balanced and reasoned Rand largely mitigating all the Manichaeism and frustrated lust. I think of it as “Rand à la française©” 'cause I love pissing off self-described “conservatives” who use objectivism as a shield.