For both Pixar and Disney, the question was not if The Incredibles (2004) would have a sequel, but when The Incredibles would have a sequel. Pixar, after all, had already released one sequel, Toy Story 2 (1999) to great acclaim, and The Incredibles seemed the natural choice for the next sequel: a film/franchise with engaging characters and nearly limitless story opportunities. The film had even ended with the Incredibles gearing up to fight their next villain.
Best of all, writer/director Brad Bird was willing to do the sequel. He even had some ideas for it.
But first, Bird had a few other projects to work on—starting with his next film for Pixar, Ratatouille, then already in the initial stages of production, a process complicated by behind the scenes wrangling between Disney and Pixar regarding Pixar’s future. That wrangling may have encouraged Bird to take a brief break from the Pixar studios to direct the live action Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2011), though he was on good enough terms with Disney to write and direct the commercial failure Tomorrowland for them in 2015.
By then, it had been over a decade since The Incredibles had come out, and both fans and Disney were impatient for the promised sequel—especially after the commercial success of the other Pixar sequels. Fortunately, Bird had started work on the sequel before the box office failures of Tomorrowland became obvious—and since Disney had already promised investors a year earlier that an Incredibles sequel was on its way and in the hands of Brad Bird, Pixar left Bird in charge of the film.
Bird made one decision immediately: The belated sequel would not start off with a timeskip, but would rather take advantage of the plot hook at the end of the last film. That offered the added advantage of allowing the film to start in the middle of an action scene, immediately re-introducing the superpowers of most of the main characters. The inevitable destruction that followed also immediately introduced the film’s central conflicts.
But it also created one major technical hassle. In the intervening years, Pixar had completely changed computer systems and computer servers, meaning that every single character in The Incredibles had to be completely rebuilt and remodeled—while matching the previous film exactly. Animators pointed out that for once, they did not need to solve technical issues like “how do we get a computer to animate hair,” or “how do we animate stripes, period,” since the previous Pixar films had already solved those technical issues—as well as creating a spectacular rendering system that helped make virtually every shot of Incredibles 2 a visual delight.
Most of the original voice cast returned, with the exceptions of Spencer Fox, the voice of Dash, whose young voice had changed considerably in the intervening years, replaced by young voice actor Huckleberry Milner, and Bud Luckey, too ill to voice government agent Rick Dicker, replaced by Jonathan Banks, probably best known for his work on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Luckey died early in 2018, before Incredibles 2 was released. Pixar dedicated the film to his memory.
Other new voices included another Breaking Bad alum, Bob Odenkirk; two time Academy Award nominee Catherine Keener; and Isabella Rossellini as an ambassador from an unspecified country—possibly the United States, possibly not. Since she’s voiced by Isabella Rossellini, she sounds dignified, which is presumably the point.
As always with Pixar films, outside events impacted production—in this case, the issue that Toy Story 4 was struggling to meet its planned release of summer 2018, coupled with Disney demanding a new Pixar film in 2019, in part because of the opening of a new Pixar area at the Disney Hollywood Studios theme park in Florida. The films switched release dates, with Toy Story 4 shifted to 2019, and Incredibles 2 moved up to 2018.
That might help explain why Incredibles 2 feels somehow, how to put this? Good in parts, certainly, but overall, unpolished, and somehow just not quite as good as it could—or should—have been.
Oh, Incredibles 2 has a multitude of delights, certainly. The animation is fantastic, with Elastigirl’s train chase a particular highlight of stunt sequences, imagination, and computer animation. Indeed, in one case, the animation was a bit too fantastic: A center sequence between Elastigirl and villain Screenslaver contained a number of strobe light effects that were realistic enough to cause actual strobe light effects on people sensitive to strobe lights.
(These people include me, which is the main reason why this post is coming to you in December, after I could watch the film on my home television, instead of June, when I probably would have collapsed trying to watch it on the big screen. It is also coming to you after several horrified responses led Disney and Pixar to dampen that sequence before the film was released on streaming and DVD/Blu-ray. I can’t promise that the current film won’t make you sick—I certainly got a touch of vertigo just from my television set, and this is one film that I will never watch in movie theaters—and if you are sensitive to light effects, I would still advise caution, or at least a discussion with a doctor, before watching the film. But the lights are not quite as bright during that sequence as they were, and I survived watching it.)
Other delights include the new super-characters—sure, all of them seem designed to sell toys, but that doesn’t take away from the fun; Bob’s touching apology to his daughter Violet; virtually every scene showcasing Elastigirl, most notably a center chase sequence in the film; and an adorable raccoon who just wants a nice snack and finds himself encountering superpowers instead. (We’ve all been there.)
The film also includes several clever nods to various superheroes not in the movie—the unseen eccentric billionaire who builds a house with multiple secret doors and entrances, including one underground (I was sorry to see the place frequented only by a raccoon and not a bat); a comment about matching superhero costumes to superhero angst (presumably that same eccentric billionaire again, although I also couldn’t help thinking of certain superhero shows on the CW network), and other sly references.
Even better than all this, Incredibles 2 is a film that, like the original, takes the concept of superheroes seriously enough to consider the consequences—and not just the economic consequences either. A sideplot, for instance, focuses on a memory wipe of a minor character—the guy Violet has a crush on—and the effect this has not just on that kid, but on others. And if I found the villain’s motivations to be, how to put this, a touch undeveloped and questionable, the reactions from the insurance companies? Spot on.
And of course, the appearance by the one and only Edna Mode, infuriated that someone else has dressed Elastigirl—the audacity—but willing to provide a bit of babysitting service and a touch of parental advice.
But all of these are attached to a film that sags in the middle, thanks to a number of different pacing issues, not to mention the need to introduce a supercar to allow it to be used in the film later. The introduction is clever enough, but left me mostly thinking, yeah, they’re going to need the car later, aren’t they? It’s also a film that often seems to be following the wrong story—not to mention creating a rather muddled message.
Which is to say, much of the film focuses on the story of Bob and Bob’s inadequacies as a stay at home father and Bob’s emotional issues with this and Bob’s not overly well masked jealousy of his wife and Bob’s insomnia, and this all could be very interesting if it wasn’t so completely overshadowed by the much more interesting story of Helen heading out to superhero on her own. Helen’s story has an amazing motorcycle train chase and elegant parties and new superheroes and betrayals and mysteries and Bob…Bob has a raccoon. It’s a very cute raccoon, but most of the raccoon’s interactions are with little Jack-Jack, and as amusing as the raccoon/Jack-Jack fight is—it’s a highlight of the film—like virtually everything in Bob’s story, it feels like a distraction from the main story, not to mention other characters.
For example: that sideplot about Violet and the boy she likes and the way his memory was wiped and the way Bob apologizes for this? As mentioned, it’s a great example of the way Incredibles 2 has thought about the consequences of many superhero tropes. But most of the subplot focuses on Bob and how this has all affected Bob. Not Violet (who, after bouts of tears, forgives her father and decides to go after the guy anyway and seems fine). Not the kid, who has had his memory erased, without permission, and then forced to endure two extremely awkward, embarrassing scenes. Not the agent responsible for the memory wipe. But Bob—the only person not emotionally involved or victimized here. All the more awkward since we’re meant to be sympathizing with Bob’s guilt here, and taking it as another example of why following the rules isn’t always right.
Even apart from wondering whether or not “No, DON’T follow the rules, kids!” is a completely appropriate message for a film supposedly aimed at children, it’s also a rather muddled message, at best, and not just because Helen is on one side of this argument (“Follow the rules!”) while simultaneously breaking the rules (in order, to, well, save the rules) and Bob is on the other (“Break the rules!”) while simultaneously largely following the rules. Yes, quite a few characters here—including one of the villains—greatly benefit from not following the rules, but the major need here, as both Helen and other characters note, isn’t so much breaking the rules as changing the rules.
The film does present an interesting and timely argument that changing the rules is best done through a publicity campaign—a surprisingly practical and realistic response. I also quite liked the film’s acknowledgement that such well-meant publicity campaigns can easily end up manipulative and/or used for, shall we say, less well-meant purposes. But the argument of “Don’t fight! Go with PR!” also becomes more than a bit muddled when the way to create PR ends up being, well, violence. And breaking the rules.
There’s a lot going on here that deserves more attention. Alas, the twin, not all that well connected plots, and the previously mentioned pacing issues, not to mention the need to introduce elements solely so that they can be used in the final action sequences (I am looking specifically at Bob’s car here), means that none of it gets the attention it deserves.
Nor do the characters—particularly Dash and Lucius/Frozone, arguably the most shortchanged characters in the film. (Some side characters might dispute this.) Dash, who spent the last film desperately wanting to use his powers at school and needing to learn how to fit in, spends this film not wanting to babysit (understandable, given that the baby in question often lights on fire) and struggling with math, when on screen. Lucius/Frozone, who faced the same superpowered crisis that Bob and Helen faced in the first film, is here reduced to a small, static part—a frozen part, if you will.
Buy the Book
Alice Payne Rides
And any deeper focus on gender roles here is kinda undercut by the reality that Bob isn’t taking care of the kids to support Helen: He’s taking care of the kids so that Helen can allow all of them—and especially Bob—to get back to superhero work. And because Bob’s superhero activities have been extraordinarily destructive, not to mention useless in some cases. (A post credit scene confirms that yes, Bob has allowed some villains to get away.) Which creates the not so minor issue that, in showing how miserable Bob is as the sole caretaker of the children right after this, intentionally or not, Incredibles 2 presents parenting and housework as a punishment. “Done correctly,” Edna Mode declares, voiced by the director, “parenting can be heroic. Done correctly.” With the hardly subtle implication that Bob, as a parent, is not heroic.
From a grownup point of view, Incredibles 2 has one more glaring problem: the villain. I am not the first or last to realize that most of the Disney and Pixar films since Frozen, and perhaps even earlier, have followed a standard pattern: In the last third of the film, a seemingly Kindly Trustworthy Person (or, well, sheep) turns out to have been A Real Villain all along. It’s not in every film—Moana and Finding Dory, for instance, decided to avoid villains at all, to the genuine benefit of both films—but it’s in enough of them that the second two Kindly Trustworthy People showed up, my suspicions were raised. Beyond that, the villain’s motive here is, how to put it, mildly questionable—and, well, kinda aimed at the wrong people. To be fair, it’s hardly the first or last time a film or superhero villain has decided to target an entire group of people because of the actions of just a few people in that group (it’s even the plot of one of the CW shows this season), but still, this robs the villain of the sort of personal, emotional connection that the first film had.
It’s safe to say that audiences disagreed with these issues. As I type, Incredibles 2 has soared to a staggering $1.24 billion worldwide box office take, making it the fourth highest earning film worldwide in 2018 so far, and one of the few animated films to earn more than $1 billion at the box office—and the film is not only still playing at some dollar theaters, it will also enjoy summer and other minor matinee releases in upcoming years, allowing that total to increase. It is also the first animated film to earn more than $600 million domestically. DVD, Blu-ray and streaming numbers are still coming in, but Incredibles 2 seems to be performing well in this market as well. Disney released the usual merchandise, which sold and continues to sell briskly. It seems fairly safe to predict that at some point, we will have an Incredibles 3.
And with this post, somewhat tardy thanks to health issues, the Pixar rewatch finally comes to an end. Thanks for taking this animated journey with me!
Mari Ness lives in central Florida.
I made a bad call thinking that I’d be OK to watch this in the theater. I’m not epileptic, so I didn’t have a seizure or anything, but the strobes induced a nasty migraine with nausea. Glad to hear that the actual brightness has been toned down for home video in addition to the obvious reduction in screen size.
Still blatant Objectivist propaganda. We no longer have the luxury, in this current age, of giving dodgy political stances a pass just because the director makes a pretty film. Brad Bird’s works need extra scrutiny, just like Tom Cruise’s do because of his interests.
I just wanted to thank Mari for the Pixar rewatch and the Disney rewatches before that. They weren’t just entertaining; they were educational, as I often didn’t know many of the behind-the-scenes processes that Mari illustrated. I look forward to whatever you choose to write next.
I don’t think Pixar was trying to be all that subtle when they named the character Evil Endeavor.
Unfortunately, I watched this on an airplane (with correspondingly spotty audio), so I wasn’t able to catch the name of Edna Mode’s competitor. Would someone here please fill me in on that?
@2 I don’t see the evidence that Brad Bird is an Objectivist, as opposed to a person whose films revolve around a critique of American society’s tendency to homogenize people but which do not denigrate altruism. I really don’t agree that you can be an Objectivist without rejecting altruism. The Atlantic has a well-written article on this. Vulture also interviews actual Objectivists, who don’t think that their whole belief package is represented in Bird’s films.
I enjoyed the movie it’s not as good as the first one and it does sag in the middle. I thought Bob Odenkirk’s character would turn out to be the villain not his sister but it had to be one of The Kindly Trustworthy People. Thanks for all the hard work on the re-watch I leaned some new and interesting things each time I read an article. Good Work! I look forward to whatever comes next.
I recall thinking, after seeing the trailers, that Winston Deavor seemed like the obvious villain, so therefore he probably wasn’t. While watching it, I was sure that either he or Evelyn was the villain, but I wasn’t sure if it was a bluff, double-bluff, or triple-bluff. I don’t know if that level of confusion is the same as not being able to guess who the villain is, but it worked for me.
This film was not quite as well-constructed as the original, but was still one of the better animated films I have ever seen. My favorite character in both was Edna Mode, who steals every one of her scenes.
Thanks for this rewatch; as with all your columns, it was a pleasure to read from beginning to end.
I haven’t seen this yet, but I also wanted to chime in and thank Ms. Ness for the excellent Disney and Pixar re-watches.
I rewatched the original film the day before I went to see the sequel, and I was astonished by how primitive the animation in the first film looked by comparison, since when it came out 14 years ago, I found it amazingly lifelike. At the time, it was miraculous that Violet had thousands of computer-simulated hair strands that moved individually and were subject to gravity and such, but in retrospect, they don’t look like strands of hair, they look like computer-graphic lines. In I2, the hair actually looks like hair.
I’m not sure picking up immediately after the end of the first film was the right choice, at least not the way they did it, because it didn’t really mesh well with the closing scene of the original. When the Underminer emerged at the end of the first film, he said, “I hereby declare war against peace and happiness! Soon all will tremble before me!” But when we see the rest of the incident at the start of I2, the Underminer… robs a bank. And leaves. And isn’t heard from again for the rest of the movie. That just doesn’t make sense. Also, it’s kind of a downer to pick up with something that was played as a moment of triumph and turn it into a failure, and to erase the feeling of progress and renewed openness at the end of the first film and recapitulate the secrecy beats of the first film. It felt like one step forward, two steps back. Same with going from an ending where the whole family was united as a team to a sequel where they’re divided once again and Helen isn’t even in the new costume. In some ways, the story felt more like it belonged between the climax and the Underminer finale in the first film, given how much it seemed to walk back the status quo in that finale.
Also, the scene with Dicker wiping Tony’s memory ends with almost exactly the same lines as the equivalent scene with Kari the babysitter in the Jack-Jack Attack short from the DVD — “I wish I could forget” followed by “You will, kid, you will.” If they cannibalized the short, does that mean the short isn’t canonical anymore? Or was it supposed to be a coincidence or recurring pattern?
“To be fair, it’s hardly the first or last time a film or superhero villain has decided to target an entire group of people because of the actions of just a few people in that group (it’s even the plot of one of the CW shows this season)”
I’d say it’s the plot of at least two of the CW DC shows this season — Agent Liberty vs. aliens on Supergirl and Cicada vs. metahumans on The Flash. There’s even a hint of it on Arrow (the anti-vigilante law) and Legends of Tomorrow (the debates over the treatment and rights of magical creatures).
I’m fine with critiques for the Incredibles’ films ideology. The first film ends up suggesting that expansion of opportunity to more people is wrong, and is an offense against those who currently have power (“When everyone is super, no one will be!”). The second one comes close to supporting the idea that non-supers should be dependent on supers rather than being proactive.
The films’ ideology isn’t objectivist, though. Objectivism is based around the exhaltation of selfishness and the rejection of altruism. Both the Incredibles films are based around the idea that people with exceptional abilities should be allowed to use those abilities to help others. Both films are focused on the protagonists fighting for their right to be altruistic. That’s very far from objectivism.
@11/KatherineMW: The film is not saying that expanding opportunity is wrong; it’s saying that enforced conformity and the suppression of individual differences is wrong. Syndrome may superficially appear to be trying to level the playing field, but his real motivation is to get revenge on Supers by rendering them irrelevant, by eradicating them as a distinct subculture. I mean, the film doesn’t dwell on it, but Syndrome has already systematically murdered dozens of Supers. He’s a prolific serial killer. He doesn’t care about empowering the masses; that’s just the smokescreen for his genocidal vendetta against Supers as a class. And for making tons of money while he’s at it.
After all, the Supers are not “those who currently have power.” Yes, they have physical power, but they’re an outlawed minority, subject to legal penalties, persecution, and even murder if they dare to express their true identity in public. The Incredibles may be a riff on the Fantastic Four, but their situation is more like the X-Men.
I heard about the strobe effect and decided to stay away. I’ve always hated strobes, they tend to make me dizzy. Nice to know they were toned down on dvd. I’ve found that if I have other sources of light the strobe effect on me is much reduced. So I’ll watch this one with the living room lights on
Do the Objectivist criticisms of the first movie come only from the “When everyone is super, no one will be!” line? Because if so, it’s important to remember it’s the villain who was saying it. And a lying, egocentric, disgruntled, murderous villain at that.
The propaganda didn’t sway me.
This was a great series Thanks Mari for all your hard work!
@mari
i have little to add to the review, it covers most of my complaints – but just wanted to give a huge thanks for all the reviews and backstories so far, it has been an absolute thoroughly researched delight. I hope the fairy tale series has some more legs, you’ve been one of the main reasons for visiting Tor for me for several years now.
@14/Wez: Actually, the sentiment is expressed twice. When Dash is pouting over not being allowed to use his speed, Helen tells him that “to fit in, we just gotta be like everybody else.” Dash says, “Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of. Our powers made us special.” Helen replied “Everyone’s special, Dash,” to which he muttered “Which is another way of saying no one is.” So when Syndrome later says “When everyone’s super… no one will be,” it’s a callback to that thematic statement.
And it’s Helen’s line about fitting in that’s the key. That’s what establishes that it’s not about Objectivism or superiority or whatever — it’s an allegory for the way minorities and eccentrics are pressured by society to conform and “be like everybody else” rather than being themselves. It’s not by accident that the film is set in 1962 (according to the date on a newspaper Bob reads). That was a time when American society prized cookie-cutter conformism and not making waves, when people weren’t free to express unconventional lifestyles or identities.
#17
Okay, thanks. I didn’t remember the earlier line.
Her name is litereally Evelyn Deavor. It’s hardly subtle that she’s the villain.
I saw this film for the first time less than two hours ago and would agree with the title of this article. It was……fine. Which was let down after all the hype.
Also @@@@@#10 re your comments about one step forward two steps back. See every Hollywood sequel. If you are ever in a position to do so – tell every writer you meet that having character unlearn the lessons of the last story just so they can learn them again…is lazy writing.
Her name is litereally Evelyn Deavor. It’s hardly subtle that she’s the villain
A female villain is pretty unusual for Pixar, though. I think they’ve never had one before. That probably surprised quite a lot of people.
@21/line: It’s not every sequel. The best sequels move forward and tell a new story rather than just rehashing the old one. And to be fair, Incredibles 2 did tell the next logical story after the first film’s main body — it’s just that the tag scene of the original pushed things farther forward in order to give it a happy ending, since it wasn’t made with a sequel in mind. And for the sequel, they decided instead get the characters and the world to that ending more gradually. So it’s not like the sequel undoes the whole first film, just its tag. I can understand the story logic of doing that, but I wish they’d made the transition smoother and more consistent (especially with regard to the Underminer).
@14 Wez I also got that feeling from the film, so at a minimum that particular message is muddled. The reading I got was that you aren’t allowed to be made super, you can only be born super. This isn’t explicitly expressed by the heroes of the film, but that’s what I got from watching it overall.
@24/vinsentient: Again, though, the Supers are presented as an oppressed minority. I guess that could be read as an Objectivist sort of message — the privileged whining about equality as if they were being oppressed by it — but I always saw it more as an allegory for racism and religious persecution, in the same way the X-Men are, or aliens in the Supergirl TV series.
Again, it’s reading far, far too much into that one line of Syndrome’s to interpret him as some kind of populist wanting to level the playing field. What he actually said, leading up to the line people keep quoting out of context, was, “I’ll give them the most spectacular heroics anyone has ever seen! And when I’m old and I’ve had my fun, I’ll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes.” When I’m old. Syndrome was maybe 25 or so when he said that, since he was a preteen when we saw him as Incredi-boy 15 years earlier. So he was talking about something he’d allegedly do 30-40 years in the future (going by what people in the early 1960s would’ve considered “old”). His stated intent was to spend most of his life hoarding his technology for himself, using it to glorify and indulge himself. And if he actually did go through with his stated plan, he wasn’t going to give superpowers to the masses — he was going to sell them. Which meant that, no, not everyone would be superheroes — only the people who could afford it would be super. His interest wasn’t egalitarianism, it was making himself rich and making everyone dependent on his inventions. He was the Randian character, the one who wanted to use his superior reason and achievement to serve only his own happiness and power. The villain of the film was the Objectivist, not the heroes.
This is why you can’t just rip a single sentence out of its context and analyze it in isolation. Context matters.
My favorite moment in the movie: Two people have strongly held, completely opposite opinions about how a very real problem should be dealt with and they talk about it like adults.
@17: Yeah, it’s Dash’s line – and the way the film treats it – that I find more troubling, particularly in context.
‘Everyone’s special’, to me, is an admonition to look past your own abilities, and to see and value what your peers are good at. And it’s especially important for people who are exceptionally talented, but arrogant about those talents – which Dash absolutely is, with him using his super-speed to harass and gaslight his teacher.
But this message got a lot of pushback – not just from the “Harrison Bergeron” stories, but from people who felt they were special and thus entitled to be arrogant. And that pushback got coded in language very similar to what the movie uses, particularly in the nods to ‘celebrating mediocrity’. So even with the explicit references to attacking/tearing down truly gifted people, and putting the same lines in Syndrome’s mouth to signal that they’re bad, it still makes me uncomfortable to see the movie visibly sympathizing with Dash.
One thing I think would have made the movie better would have been to make an explicit callout to a theme I think they use implicitly – after Syndrome’s rant about his inventions making him a ‘real hero’:
– Bob had responded with something like ‘Powers don’t make you a real hero. What you do with them does.’
ChristopherLBennett @@@@@ 25:
His stated intent was to spend most of his life hoarding his technology for himself, using it to glorify and indulge himself.
And in fact he’s already been doing that: he boasts about getting rich inventing and selling weapons to various countries, and then a few seconds later remarks, “I save the best inventions for myself.”
He was the Randian character, the one who wanted to use his superior reason and achievement to serve only his own happiness and power. The villain of the film was the Objectivist, not the heroes.
Yes, exactly. Very well put.
Thank you for the Pixar Rewatch. I’ve looked forward to and enjoyed each article.
The villain of the film was the Objectivist, not the heroes.
Rephrase this: what the villain wants to do (in this one aspect) is something an Objectivist would find villainous–tear down those who are special. This aspect of the villain’s plan is described as resulting in an egalitarian end. Mind you, among people who are anti-Objectivist, I don’t see them calling for Harrison Bergeron-style pulling down of the talented or athletic…that’s a fear that the Objectivists/”naturally superior” types seem to have which no one is actually calling for (though it can be taken as a metaphor for redistribution of wealth, which folks do call for).
To put it another way, the bad guy in the film is a bad guy in lots of ways, but in this one specific line, he comes across as an Objectivist’s view of what a bad guy is. This is why the line is in the mouth of a bad guy–it’s supposed to be a bad goal. When the similar line is in Dash’s mouth, it’s from the other side of it–it’s a good guy who views it as a bad thing. In both cases we’re supposed to see “when everyone is special, no one is” as true and as a bad thing.
@30/FourDs: “Rephrase this: what the villain wants to do (in this one aspect) is something an Objectivist would find villainous–tear down those who are special.”
No. He wants to elevate himself as special. He wants to put himself above everyone else, not just the Supers. He has murdered dozens of Supers in order to build his ultimate weapon, which he then unleashes on the city to cause rampant destruction and probably the deaths of many innocent civilians, all in order to make himself look heroic. He is a mass murderer serving only his own malignant narcissism. Everything else is just an excuse.
“This aspect of the villain’s plan is described as resulting in an egalitarian end.”
It is described as such only by the villain himself, and therefore it is a lie. Villains lie — that’s what they do. They pretend to stand for causes that are just smokescreens for their own ego or greed.
“In both cases we’re supposed to see “when everyone is special, no one is” as true and as a bad thing.”
But I don’t agree that that line is an expression of Objectivist belief. As I said, you have to consider the lines in context in order to understand their real meaning. The context, i.e. the overall story of the film, is clearly a condemnation of conformism and the persecution of difference. The mentality that’s being condemned is not the idea that everyone has worth — it’s the idea that everyone has to have the same worth, that everyone has to fit in and conform to approved norms in order to be deemed worthwhile. The film isn’t arguing that some people deserve to dominate others — again, the Supers are presented as an oppressed and outlawed minority, so they have less societal power than other people in the context of the story, not more. They are the ones being dominated. The film is arguing that people have the right to be different, to take pride in their own distinct identity rather than living in the closet and being ashamed of who they are.
Not to go too far off topic here, but wasn’t the same said of Brad Bird and his Tomorrowland movie? I seem to recall the bad guy, played by Hugh Laurie, saying some Objectivist things there too. Though I could be misremembering that.
Anyway, I get the feeling this is something of interest to Bird. Has he ever said anything about it in interviews?
While I’m hardly a fan of pure Randian Objectivism, or the policies that current right-wing politicians employ in its name, it seems to me that there might be some flavor of Objectivism that can be reconciled with the altruism of superheroes. After all, Steve Ditko was an Objectivist, and he co-created many great superheroes from Spider-Man and Doctor Strange to Squirrel Girl — although some of his heroes, like The Question and Mr. A, were more overtly Objectivist than others. Ditko’s heroic Objectivism didn’t take the form of “self-interest above all else” — it was more like a very black-and-white sense of right and wrong, and a desire for heroes to be pure and untainted by moral ambiguity or personal failings. He was okay with Spider-Man being flawed when he was still a teenager and had the excuse of inexperience, but Stan Lee’s desire on keeping Spidey flawed well into adulthood was part of the reason Ditko left the book, IIRC (according to an article I read after Ditko’s passing earlier this year).
And just because a given creator adheres to a certain philosophy, that doesn’t mean that everything they make is intended to promote that philosophy, especially if they’re collaborating with other creators. While Ditko’s solo-created heroes were often Objectivist mouthpieces, his collaborative creations were a different matter (and so were some of his solo creations, like the Creeper). And The Incredibles may have been both written and directed by Brad Bird, but he did collaborate with other Pixar creators in shaping the story and characters, and had to get the approval of the studio heads.
I didn’t mean to imply Brad Bird adhered to Objectivist philosophy. I said it seems to be of interest to him, as in he wishes to explore its positive and negatives effects in his work. Because The Incredibles and Tomorrowland seem to suggest he has mixed feelings on it.
I probably commented more in depth on the original review, but as a mom who works full time, with a stay at home dad, I don’t totally mind the dynamic. Being a stay at home parent is hard, and while I hate the bumbling dad stereotype, for me I think they hit a good balance of showing that it was hard and some of the initial growing pains, while still able to show that yes, he COULD be good at it. And honestly, the jealousy and mixed motives he has ring true of the human conditions. He wants his wife to be successful for her own sake, but also wishes it could be him, and has other selfish motives for wanting it too (such as his own desire to legally relive his own glory days). It’s hard, and I’m glad I’m not the one doing it, to be quite honest. That doesn’t make it a punishment, it just makes it…hard. He doesn’t look any more ‘miserable’ than any overwhelmed new mother does (even though we’re not supposed to admit that we feel that way). But they work through those issues as a family which to me is key. He’s doing what needs to be done to make the family work and function, even if it’s not always his first choice or the most fun/glamorous.
This doesn’t negate your criticism that in some ways we neglected Helen’s more interesting story (I honestly find all the stuff with Jack Jack to be the least interesting part of the film and the whole raccoon sequence to be needless filler. But I find Jack Jack to be way too powerful anyway). However, to me the story is mainly about Bob and Helen, so I don’t really mind that Violet, for example (much less Tony) doesn’t really get the sub plot focus.
My isuse with this is more that it honestly beggars belief to me that they would still vote to allow supers after all that. Yes, they were brainwashed, and we (the audience) know that – but would everybody really be so quick to believe it? I don’t even think it’s ‘right’ to outlaw it, I’m just not so sure people would be so quick to put aside their fears especially after seeing how easy it would be to subvert a whole group of them. And the villain in some ways does make a good point about how their powers don’t automatically make them more moral, more trustworthy, more whatever. Then again, in some ways, that’s probably a good reason to make them legal (aside from the fact that they have an inherent right to exist) – so that there can be some semblance of accountability. It also bugged me that really, her blame in the end was misplaced. Even if her father had called the police, he still would have been dead. His problem was that he didn’t put a phone INSIDE his panic room.
“Also, it’s kind of a downer to pick up with something that was played as a moment of triumph and turn it into a failure, and to erase the feeling of progress and renewed openness at the end of the first film and recapitulate the secrecy beats of the first film. It felt like one step forward, two steps back.” – honestly, this seems to be a trope a lot of sequels make. I get why they do it, from a storytelling perspective. Interestingly, I didn’t see this one as doing it quite as strongly as some others, perhaps since so little time (storywise) had passed and it just showed there was still a bit more work to be done.
@11 – CLB@12 says most of what I would say, but I’d also point out that in addition, Syndrome really was not expanding access to power. He admits he was keeping all the best stuff for himself. He’s not out for equality – he just wants to be the one on the top of the power structure. (Ah, never mind, CLB already goes there at @25 ;) )
As for Dash, I always saw that as Dash being an immature kid. And when Syndrome says something similar you are also supposed to make that connection. Dash is rightly frustrated, and maybe one of the flaws in the movies is that we don’t really get to see any addiitonal character development from him since he was ALSO arrogant, and his behavior with his teacher really bugged me, to be honest.
Anyway – Mari, I’ve loved this series. Will you keep covering new Disney/Pixar movies?
Given Jack-Jack’s devestating powers it seemed to me the indestructible Mr. Incredible was the only safe caretaker.
No rewatch for Toy Story 4?
I had been hoping to see evidence of Syndrome’s inventions in law enforcement in the new movie. Why would supervillians stop their activities when Supers were forced to stop saving the world? The fact that the world wasn’t destroyed or conquered by them shows the countries of the world had ways to defend against them. The fact that Syndrome was insanely wealthy also showed he had been highly successful with his inventions. So I had this little fanfic-like scenario in my head for a long time in which the sequel starts where the first movie left off, but before the family can cut loose on the Underminer, a big special ops vehicle zooms in, a crack team of agents armed to the teeth with Syndrome tech leaps out and makes short work of the Underminer, bundles him and his minions into the vehicle in special restraints, and the last agent to get back in looks over at the Parrs and gives them the exact same “move along, citizen” order that the policeman had given Bob regarding the criminal on the motorcycle in the previous movie before slamming the door and zooming away again, leaving the family dumbfounded in the street. :D