• Following Us

  • Categories

  • Check out the Archives

  • Awards & Nominations

90. Incredibles 2 – This Just In (#183)

Hosted by Andrew Quinn and Darren Mooney, and with special guests Graham Day and Marianne Cassidy, This Just In is a subset of The 250 podcast, looking at notable new arrivals on the list of the 250 best movies of all-time, as voted for by Internet Movie Database Users.

This time, Brad Bird’s Incredibles 2.

At time of recording, it was ranked the 183rd best movie of all time on the Internet Movie Database.

Show notes:

3 Responses

  1. The Incredibles is not about Objectivism. Not in the slightest. For one thing, the director himself said it was nonsense, and not what he intended. The most objectivist characters in the first film were Dash, a sullen pre-teen, the main villain, and midlife-crisis Bob. Syndrome wanted to become a hero to inflate his own ego, because Mr. Incredible hurt his feelings. Helen, the closest thing the first film has to a moral conscience, believes everyone has something to contribute to society, which is why she understands Bob’s frustration. He feels held back not because he thinks himself superior, but because saving people is his purpose. It’s what he’s good at. He wants to use his power for the greater good, which is also said by Frozone in one of the movie’s most famous and hilarious scenes. The film celebrates those who use their exceptional talents for the good of society as a whole like Bob and Frozone (basically the opposite of Objectivism), while condemning those who use them to assuage their own egos. It actually resembles Rawl *far* more than Rand.

    If your argument is that it’s Objectivist because it’s a world where people born with special gifts are celebrated more than ordinary people, you could say that about any piece of superhero media. Is Superman Objectivist because people give him special treatment? No, it isn’t. If they did a story where he was forced to stop being Superman and saving people, he’d probably have the same reaction as Bob, and start spewing nonsense as a way of getting his frustration out.

    Sorry for the long post, but this particular comment invoked this response from me because “Brad Bird is Objectivist” because of one or two lines taken out of context is not only provably false, but also such a surface-level and shallow interpretation. (No disrespect to you of course. I know you didn’t say that statement directly, but an annoyingly large number of other people have.).

    • No worries, Joe. I did point out that it can’t be a rigid definition of objectivism, particularly because it’s selfless and in service of the greater good rather than their own perceived greatness, although I should have been clearer in that. Maybe “elitism” is a better description of my issues with it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: