Where do you get the idea that Syndrome is a collectivist? His viewpoint is entirely selfish. He gets pissed off that he is rejected even though his childish viewpoint gets in the way of stopping Bomb Voyage. Instead of growing up as an adult and realizing that as a stupid kid he just got in the way, he dedicates his entire life to getting revenge on Mr. Incredible and proving to Mr. Incredible how awesome he is. He wants so badly to be a super hero he creates a killer robot to terrorize a city murdering it’s citizens so that he can stop them in a bit of elaborate theatre. His plan is to rule over humanity as the greatest superman the world has ever known creating crisis after crisis murdering millions of people until finally he is done with his nihilistic fantasy, he gets bored and old, at which point he’ll SELL, remember that SELL, his inventions so that people with the RIGHT AMOUNT OF MONEY can be superhuman and he can be a gazillionaire.
He’s NOT a collectivist. That’s the POINT. What The Incredibles is saying is that people who claim to be collectivists aren’t. Syndrome talks nobly about sharing the power, but underneath he’s a sinister, moustache-twirling villain who is secretly just jealous of the Mr. IncrediGalt. This is the very claim which Objectivists make, that “altruism” is just a cover for selfish, greedy gain.
I’ve only seen this movie as an adult. I used to work in a movie theatre. We once got this movie as part of a children’s summer movie program. It was a while after it’s original release. Movies are typcally delivered to the theatre on a set of reels that hold 20 minutes. The theater builds up the movie. When we got the print, the things that identify which reel is which were not there. So we had to make our best guess putting this thing together so about about 2 AM, two of us sat down and watched this horror show.
Some of the sexual images.
The flying sperm cell.
The huge womb that the princess lives in.
Those guardian statutes that judge the worthiness of the knights. (they have huge nipples, oh and NO MAN is worthy)
The plot. A young boy’s mother has died. His father wishes to further keep the boy from her by making him give up imagining things, an activity he did with his mother. He enters a magical world via a book. The world will disappear unless someone gives her a name. The final crisis when the boy has to believe that he can change things in the book, is totally a sex scene.
“SAY MY NAME!”
He says his mother’s name and orgasm to end all orgasms happens on screen. It creates life. It is sex.
So the boy ‘kills’ his father by disobeying him and reading the book to get to his mother.
But he never claimed to be a collectivist. He claimed to be a self-centered opportunist. No part of his motivation was the collective good, and he didn’t perceive himself that way either. His goal was to become a superman and profit mightily from it, all the while achieving a sort of obtuse revenge against Mr. Incredible by creating a world of superheroes/supervillains.
Recently I read Pinocchio in Italian, and man, talk about movies having nothing to do with the source material. If they made even a slightly faithful adaption, it would have to give kids nightmares. I mean, Pinocchio gets robbed with a knife at one point in the dark wilderness and the only thing that saves him is the fact that he’s made out of wood and the knife wouldn’t penetrate. Not to mention “Mangiofuco”, Mr. Fire-eater, who wants to turn him into fire wood, or the dead girl that keeps appearing, or the fact that he’s essentially a poor orphan with a dad that’s all but dead for the entire story, in no uncertain terms.
Bambi’s Mother: Bambi. Quick! The thicket!
[they run; a gunshot is heard]
Bambi’s Mother: Faster! Faster, Bambi! Don’t look back! Keep running! Keep running!
[Gunshot is heard, then silence]
Bambi: Mother? Mother?
Great Prince of the Forest: Your mother can’t be with you anymore.
I was probably five or six when I saw it. I certainly wasn’t ready for that.
Movie I really couldn’t stand: Matilda.
I kept thinking, ‘Kids are watching these over-the-top stereotypes etc. Boy, they’re going to have great attitude about school.’
Where the Red Fern Grows was going to be my pick as well even above Old Yeller. We watched it in class and 4th grade and the whole class was traumatized. Remember there is a boy that dies in it too. I went to a rural school and lots of kids had hunting dogs at their houses so that may have influenced how they reacted, even the so-called tough kids. It is an excellent book and movie but I don’t think young kids should see it. I let my 7 year old daughter watch all kinds of movies but that one is going to be on the banned list for a few years. It may even screw me up even more for all I know.
The Incredibles wasn’t a wholesale endoresement of Objectivism, but it was too close a flirtation to be denied. Of course, I don’t see that as a horrible thing.
Y’know, sometimes one has to remind oneself that a feature being animated, or bearing the actual “Disney” imprint (as opposed to their collateral labels) and a G rating, does not automatically make it “for children”.
(Of course, American distribution houses are stuck between a rock and a hard place in that they know that in the marketplace as it stands they couldn’t give away an animated, or G-rated, film aimed at a mainstream grownup audience.)
Yeah, Gremlins came out when I was 4, and we watched it when it came out on tape, so I would’ve been about 5 when I actually saw it. I always loved that movie as a kid.
I was, however, absolutely convince that mogwais were real and my mom just thought I couldn’t be trusted not to feed it one after midnight
Pinocchio, definitely. It scared the crap out of me and freaked me out, too, when I was a kid. And I still won’t watch Dumbo. I did OK through Bambi, when his mom died, but the scene where Dumbo’s mom is fighting everybody, trying to get to him? And then they lock her up?
Not for kids, IMO, unless you are talking to kids that were taken away from their mothers by CPS or something.
The Child Catcher in Chitty Chitty bang Bang scared the living piss out of me as a kid but that was the point wasn’t it? There’s nothing wrong with kids watching and reading scary stuff once it’s age approriate i.e. I’m not saying a three year old should be watching The Exorcist but a 10 year old should have no lasting damage from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
It was balanced by lots of fluffy nice stuff as well and ended happy.
I half suspect that he was simply yanking Mr. Incredible’s chain to get back at him for that snub way back when, and has no intention whatsoever of sharing anything beyond what he needs to sell to pay the bills.
Good goddess but you’re touchy. The OP asked that we not turn this into a debate about The Incredibles, so I linked to a past thread where the topic was discussed. I thought people who were interested in arguing the subject might want to continue the debate there, or that they might find it interesting as a reference. It did not occur to me that you would think you are being repressed.
Turning back to the original subject here, if fairy tales, Disney, and these other stories aren’t appropriate for children, what is appropriate for children? The topic is interesting but I’m finding the general point of view is that death and weirdness are too much for children to handle. Don’t people around here usually hate the idea of overprotecting kids?
I have no idea. I personally don’t feel that just because a movie/book features death that it is inappropriate for kids. Where the Red Fern Grows made me cry my eyes out in the 3rd grade - but I loved it and re-read it many times. Roald Dahl books like the Witches and George’s Marvelous Medicine had awfully scary characters, but I still loved them. Scary things aren’t only for adults.
Some posters seem to be saying "that scared me as a kid, therefor it’s not appropriate for any kids.
Heh I was going to mention that the original Grimm fairy tales and the like were as wierd and horrible-grotesque as anything one could imagine; kids have more or less always liked that sort of thing …