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:
- Recorded 14th July 2018.
- Incredibles 2 at The Internet Movie Database.
- The IMDB 250 as it appeared at time of recording.
- Read Marianne’s blog at Massive Hassle.
- Follow Marianne on Twitter.
- Read Graham’s reviews at Scannain.
- Hear Graham on Speaking Geek.
- Read Graham’s guide to Irish Gaming at Gameir.
- Follow Graham on Twitter.
- Graham interviews Brad Bird for Movies.ie.
- Jack Neff at AdAge on how Herbal Essences have toned down their advertising campaign.
- Amanda Svachula at The New York Times on the epilepsy warnings added to Incredibles 2.
- Brad Bird talks to Vulture about the production of Incredibles 2.
- Victor Luckerson at The Ringer on how Pixar became a sequel factory.
- Kirsten Acuna at Insider on how The Incredibles is set in May 1962.
- Jessica Helfand at Design Observer on the retro sixties design aesthetic of The Incredibles.
- Tom Huddleston Jr. at CNBC on how Brad Bird got his start at Disney.
- David Sims at The Atlantic on how Brad Bird’s movies are about creativity, not individualism.
- Abraham Riesman at Vulture asks objectivists what they make of The Incredibles.
- Forrest Wickman at Slate on how Brad Bird draws more heavily from Walt Disney than Ayn Rand.
- Scott Eric Kaufman at Salon on the objectivist overtones of Zack Snyder’s superhero movies.
- Abraham Reisman at Vulture on Steve Ditko, the objectivist behind The Amazing Spider-Man.
- Thom Young at Comics Bulletin on how Steve Ditko’s objectivism impacted his work within the superhero genre.
- Michael Moore and Devon Maloney at The Verge discuss the complicated relationship that exists between The Incredibles movies and technology.
- Steve Rose at The Guardian on the anxieties suggested by Screenslaver in Incredibles 2.
- Mariana Uribe at Oh My Disney on how Pixar bring an Incredibles 2 action sequence to life.
- Cassidy Ward at SyFy Wire on the physics that power Incredibles 2.
- Shannon Liao at The Verge lists all of Jack-Jack’s powers.
- Miles Surrey and Rob Harvilla at The Ringer on Mister Incredible’s parenting.
- Brad Bird and the production team talk to Variety about the timely messages of Incredibles 2.
- Holly Hunter talks to the BBC about the joy of starring in a female-led superhero blockbuster.
- Peyton Reed talks to The A.V. Club of the pressure of directing a Marvel Studios film, the pressure not to screw up.
- Follow The 250 on Twitter.
- Subscribe to The 250 on iTunes.
- Subscribe to The 250 on Stitcher.
- Listen to The 250 on Soundcloud.
Filed under: This Just In | Tagged: animated, anime april, feminism, graham day, incredibles 2, marianne cassidy, nostalgia, objectivism, pixar, superheroes, the incredibles |
the m0vie blog 
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.
That’s fair. It is a little odd.