digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at nomorequo.blogspot.com

What Does "Bioshock" Have In Common With "The Incredibles"?

nomorequo.blogspot.com — Intentional or not , both of them derive strong inspirations from Ayn Rand's work. But where "Bioshock" illustrates the downfall of objectivism, "The Incredibles" spends most of its running time advocating it, to an extent that's fairly shocking for a mainstream film. An exploration of the similarities and differences between the two.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rabeidoh, on 12/10/2007, -10/+95This might be corny but I am a big fan of "The Incredibles."
    • Bukowsky, on 12/10/2007, -4/+50that's not corny.... I actually took a date to that movie!

      (here comes the buries!)
    • ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -1/+26Who doesn't love the Incredibles?
    • kmedlin, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9I would argue that the vast majority of kids won't pick up on the bigger themes of the movie such as the dead end job, the yearning for the "glory days" that the mid-life crisis brings about. It's a great take on it when in the glory days the protagonist and his compatriots actually WERE superheroes and not just putting a spit shine on what they perceived to have been a better time.
    • humperdeath, on 12/10/2007, -4/+3Coming next time: How 'Space Invaders' and 'Independence Day" are like HG Wells' "War of the Worlds"
    • gogog0, on 12/10/2007, -11/+6I actually hated the movie. Guess I'm in the minority on this one.
    • Aiwanei, on 12/10/2007, -0/+15Actually a lot of the CG movies tend to be geared towards adults with the themes and the jokes, but they are applicable to kids as well. So many of the jokes in movies like shrek or cars goes right over a 5 years old head but adults find it hillarious. That is why these movies appeals to all ages because they have something for everyone.
      • Technoviking, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Welcome to the 21st century cartoon.
        • AxeSwinger, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9You need to go back and watch Bugs Bunny, the Marx Bros. and the Three Stooges again. They we're working on the same levels as today's modern cartoons.
          • Durrok, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3Speaking of which, good luck finding those old cartoons anymore. They just don't really air them anymore. I'd much rather watch some bugs bunny or tom & jerry then "Where is Diego". They only way I would like that show is if the answer was "INS deported him again".
    • NeoTEKK, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1That's right, stand up for what believe in!
    • BearinG, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1First time i saw it was on NBC in HD.. I was impressed.. its a pretty good CG movie.. and looked Incredible in HD.
    • Tommyhawk, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I liked "The Incredibles"... but I thought Brad Bird's earlier movie "The Iron Giant" was better.
  • Chewxy, on 12/10/2007, -5/+25Nicely written entry.
    • Sparkster185, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1http://duggmirror.com
    • aargh01, on 12/10/2007, -1/+13Nicely written, maybe, but poorly argued, definitely. This is a case of an critic coming to a conclusion and then fitting the argument to it. There are plenty of holes and misread scenes to due with The Incredibles.
      From the comments section:
      Kenneth said...

      Good try, but your analysis doesn't go deep enough. Syndrome (a.k.a. Incrediboy) is not a threat or evil because he wants to be great. It's because he wants to use his abilities for personal gain and glory ("I can fly! Can you fly?") rather than to help other people. He only wanted to "join" Mr. Incredible because Mr. Incredible was basking in glory. Syndrome would have become a villain eventually regardless.

      Robert Parr wants his son to be great, but it's a particular kind of greatness--the greatness of a hero, wherein excellence and altruism meet. Thus the final scene is not inconsistent; Dash is allowed to excel, but warned against the temptation of using his gifts for personal gain or at the expense of others. Power doesn't corrupt if you use it for proper ends.

      The article glosses over the actual context of the scene and the character involved in order to make a Rand-ian argument against it. The Incredibles glorifies heroism because heroism is a good thing! What it's saying is that people should be encouraged to use their gifts, rather than fit into boxes that don't suit them. That said, as Kenneth pointed out, those gifts should be put to their best use without harming those around you or descending into egotism. (This, by the way, is the underlying idea in Bioshock as well, where we see the negative side of individualism.) The whole idea behind the "superhero" is that they achieve greatness through their individualism, but then use their greatness for the benefit of everyone.

      Buried for letting his own ego and self-righteousness get in the way of actually understanding his subject matter.
      • Gerz1219, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2Well, I think the author's point is that The Incredibles presents a world in which the supers don't seem to abuse their power. It extolls the virtues of being super (even though being super is clearly an immutable genetic gift), without really addressing the responsibility of being super or the dangers of corruption. All Dash has to do is not run quite as fast so the other kids don't feel insecure. And the villains in the movie are all normal people who are jealous because they have no superpowers, not supers who are using their powers for selfish or immoral reasons.

        That said, I think this aspect of the film is one reason The Incredibles was so refreshing. Kids get force-fed so much crap about following their dreams and believing in themselves that The Incredibles is a cold slap in the face by comparison. It may take kids until the onset of puberty before they realize that they aren't super and never will be, but that's something everyone who isn't super has to come to terms with eventually, and it's an idea they should get used to sooner rather than later.
    • Bodhinature, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Either he has too much time on his hands, or I do.
    • MrFisty, on 12/10/2007, -4/+2Did The Incredibles really need to be mined like that? Reminds me of art critics who see all this debatable subjective meaning in artworks without even bothering to find out what motivated the actual creator. I'm not saying The Incredibles is void of deeper meaning, but sometimes films are just made to entertain.
      • jjmckay, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2You are right. There's no need to think about it so much. Blogger can't stop thinking.
      • chaosium, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3"Reminds me of art critics who see all this debatable subjective meaning in artworks without even bothering to find out what motivated the actual creator"

        You must be really fun at parties.
  • msaleem, on 12/10/2007, -3/+19They are both epicly awesome.
  • tenken, on 12/10/2007, -4/+126What's with people being ashamed of liking the Incredibles? It's one of the best films to come out of Disney in the last decade, and Brad Bird (director of the Iron Giant and Ratatouille) is one of the most talented people they have at Pixar. Just because it's CG and aimed at kids doesn't mean it can't be a good movie folks ;)
    • ApokalypseNow, on 12/10/2007, -0/+13The Incredibles was a lot of fun for kids-at-heart and comic-book fans. Unlike with the live-action movies of late, where they had to introduce the concept of superheroes to their worlds-at-large, this is a setting where, not so long ago, superheroes were not uncommon, so it took us there from a whole different angle, and one more familiar to fans of the genre. Nothing against the live-action counterparts, as many of them were quite good (Spiderman and X-men among them), but their worlds treat superheroes as something new, and the script demanded that this angle be explored, whereas The Incredibles treated it as old-hat, and could move on to different takes on super-heroes and -heroins without feeling awkward about it.
    • louiedog, on 12/10/2007, -0/+10Don't forget Brad Bird's work on The Simpsons back when it was good. He knows how to do animation that adults like.
    • carbonetc, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Before they were all pop-culture references and fart jokes, I'd say most animated movies were just as worthwhile to adults as they were to kids. After the Aladdin genie, everything changed.
  • navster15, on 12/10/2007, -6/+75The thing with Bioshock is that it kind of cheats in bringing down objectivism. Rapture's downfall and Fontaine's rise to power only happens when Ryan betrays his ideals and imposes restrictions on the market (i.e. outlawing contact with the surface which creates a significant smuggling industry). Granted, there is plenty to take Ayn Rand to task for but the argument put forth by Bioshock feels a little weak to me. Then again, maybe the argument isn't about the ideal, but about the age old "power corrupts".
    • fasda, on 12/10/2007, -9/+26Rapture was doomed the moment plasmids became available without controls. when people were free to do anything (which the plasmids let people do) they will do the most horrible things
      • navster15, on 12/10/2007, -2/+16But didn't they only begin to do those horrible things when civil war broke out among the followers of Ryan and Fontaine? Would the new years riots have occurred if Fontaine/Atlas hadn't instigated them? I would argue that had Ryan continued his free market stance, there would have been no smuggling business and Fontaine would have been a non-issue.
      • ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -17/+10Objectivism: "***** you, worship me."
        • WiseWeasel, on 12/10/2007, -3/+8More like Objectivism: "Who are YOU to tell me how to think or live?"
          Ultimately, Objectivism: "What supporting or contradictory evidence is there for any particular information, or how valuable or trustworthy is it?"
        • carbonetc, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5I don't know why you're being dugg down. That was practically Rand's unspoken mantra.

          Objectivism contains a lot of ideas worth hearing (many of which you don't have to go to Objectivism to hear), but at its core it's really narcissism dressed up as philosophy.
          • AxeSwinger, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5Objectivism is just LaVey's brand of Satanism without the ritual. I bought into the Rand philosophy but then I graduated eighth grade. By the way that comparison is not mine but I can't remember where I heard it to give credit.
      • superkendall, on 12/10/2007, -4/+30That's untrue though, people are free to drive cars into each other though most do not. The games premise that human nature means as soon as you get to light things on fire with your mind, everything will be lit on fire is disproven by the fact that any of us can take a can of gas to someones house, yet almost no-one does so.

        Humans by nature are aggressive but not nearly as self-destructive as Rapture makes it seem.
      • Ashkc88, on 12/10/2007, -1/+9Rapture always had plasmids available without control. When the civil war broke out, they started to create plasmids that were used as weapons. Didn't you listen to the diaries or watch the video in the article?
      • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -0/+10Plasmids gave anyone the ability to do great things. They meant unfretted power for everyone. Andrew Ryan didn't like that. He wanted control, complete control over his creation. He abandoned his ideals of unrestrained freedom in lieu of absolute dictatorship and control. It was this that the people of rapture rebelled against.
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/10/2007, -1/+17I concur. While I agree with many writers and philosophers who reference Rand as an influence, whatever points I may disagree with Rand herself on do not come up in Bioshock. I think the best it can do is similar to what George Orwell said of capitalism, that capitalism naturally moves towards corporatism in practice. I don't know if I agree entirely with his argument, but thats besides the point. Bioshock attacks the Objectivist theory on grounds that it has holes in practice, but that is true of all moral political systems. They only work as well as they are adhered to. Most others don't even work out in theory, so at least it has that much going for it. All this said, I still love the crap out of Bioshock.
    • Scheissen, on 12/10/2007, -2/+13This is why I hate people use BioShock as a source of why selflessness fails. In BioShock, Objectivism didn't fail because in laissez-faire capitalism there would be no prohibition and that was what became the downfall of Rapture. Andrew Ryan forbid his own citizens from reaching the surface once the sea-slug was found. This was mainly due to his idea that the "American Eagle" and "Russian Bear" would take over Rapture. I don't know about you, but I would have fought to preserve that idea than hope on secrecy being the only shield of defense.
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 12/10/2007, -6/+3i'm convinced power doesn't corrupt but that indeed, the corrupt come to power.
    • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Plasmids were not even used as weapons until the power struggle between Fontaine and Ryan erupted Rapture into civil war.

      Fontaine is the true enemy of Rapture, seeking to steal it for himself, to control all the power while subjugating its inhabitants, but Ryan's disenfranchising of the citizens in order to protect his creation FROM Fontaine was just as destructive.
    • Urusai, on 12/10/2007, -5/+3Bioshock just took the dynamic of arrogant demigod-wannabe Shodan vs. exploitive collectivist The Many from its sci fi setting and put it in an art deco setting. Don't try to read too much into it.
    • mitrovarr, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7Andrew Ryan and Fontaine represent two of the main problems with objectivism. Andrew Ryan represents the problem that objectivism relies upon unrealistically good behavior to function, just like Communism - Objectivism is all about getting out of the way of the great and letting them succeed, but people can't be trusted to do that. When Fontaine became a powerful threat to Ryan's control, he couldn't let Fontaine take power or share power as objectivism would have demanded, he turned against his ideals - just like communist leaders turned against their ideals in their countries, leading to essentially the same sort of fascism.

      Fontaine represents another problem with objectivism - when your entire society is about getting out of the way of the great and succeeded without morals or ethics holding you back, some people turn out to be great at really bad things. Fontaine, in a way, represents a success of objectivism - it is impossible to dispute he was absolutely fantastic at what he did, and he succeeded despite everyone's attempts to hold him back. Of course, his success basically destroyed society. Of course, in a society where no one else is supposed to be repressed by morality, why should he be?
  • Dumbledorito, on 12/10/2007, -18/+2Was any other comic-book geek kind of disappointed with "The Incredibles?" I mean, superheroes were more "James Bond" than "Justice League," except for Frozone, and we didn't get enough of him.

    And nobody flew except the people in the "NO CAPES" sequence.

    It wasn't that the movie was bad, not at all. I just think that the people writing it kind of forgot the classic comic book themes they were basing their movie on.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6Incredibles = Fantastic Four + The Flash. Justice League is too high-minded and abstract and the Fantastic Four is, let's face it, far more relatable than the Justice League. Perfect for a family movie (as the last two films have proven in the box office).
      • gglynn07, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4I would say the The Incredibles = Watchmen or maybe Powers.
    • thecrazyd, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Flying is a "classic comic book theme"?
  • whatthefu, on 12/10/2007, -41/+36Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy is pretty bad.
    • SteelChicken, on 12/10/2007, -10/+26Really? Care to elaborate?
    • Rikushix, on 12/10/2007, -11/+22I disagree.
      • macweirdo42, on 12/10/2007, -2/+26I think both of you make some good points, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
        • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -15/+3"it's pretty bad" and "I disagree" are now "good points".

          Ah, Digg, how you amuse me.
        • voig0077, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Hey, make sure to check the batteries in your sarcasm detector...
    • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -11/+7Somehow the Randroids have missed their usual swarming on this thread.
  • Hikimbi, on 12/10/2007, -8/+42I think a more suitable article would be "What does 'Team Fortress 2' have in common with 'The Incredibles'?"
    • TrevorBradley, on 12/10/2007, -0/+11Artistic style, and Klezmer music?

      Oh, and it's obvious that Blu is the enemy. (Even if they win more often)
    • SteelChicken, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1what doesn't it have in common?
    • gglynn07, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Mr. Incredible does look a lot like the Heavy in TF2, and the type of animation shading is quite similar.
      • Bologner, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2"Who touched Sasha? WHO TOUCHED MY GUN?!?"
    • humperdeath, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4Simpsons Did it!
    • realchris, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Or, what does 'The Incredibles' have in common with 'Watchmen'?
  • antiorblkflag9, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4They're amazing?
  • dwninjungleland, on 12/10/2007, -26/+9OMG AYN RAND?!?!?!?
    I READ A BOOK BY HER ONCE. NOW IM VOTING FOR RON PAUL LOL.
    • WiseWeasel, on 12/10/2007, -6/+3OMG, KARL MARX, I READ HIS BOOK ONCE. NOW I'M VOTING FOR KUCINICH!!!ONE!! LOL

      That's how you sound...
      • Dylan16807, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6Don't believe me? Here, I'll put you on:
        'Hellooo!'
        THAT'S YOU! THAT'S HOW DUMB YOU SOUND!
    • haroldk, on 12/10/2007, -5/+1Rand was against communism and socialism.

      The OP sounds like they were joking.
  • humperdeath, on 12/10/2007, -13/+4Is this a new age college course? I'm not that old, but when I went to college they didn't have courses on cartoon appreciation and video game relevance. Although Ayn Rand was a very hard book to read.
    • santiago1, on 12/10/2007, -5/+6 Are you kidding me? I've read most of Ayn Rand's books and found Anthem to be one of the best (if not biggest...heh..) but I really enjoyed her work. I don't much subscribe to her philosophy, but she has a very enjoyable writing skill (to me, anyway, but I also enjoy Harlan Ellison, so take that as you will....) and I've never been to college!
      I actually read Anthem for the first time when I was about 9 years old and couldn't put it down.
      • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4My uncle gave me Anthem for Christmas. I read it on Christmas night in a couple hours.

        I was ten or eleven.
    • jdfoote2, on 12/10/2007, -1/+16FYI - Ayn Rand is an author, not a book.
      • cmburns69, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Maybe that's why she was such a hard read...
    • gglynn07, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4I had a couple of classes in college that were kinda off the beaten path: Anime in Modern Society and Magic in Literature...It's amazing what Professors can get away with.
  • diggAl, on 12/10/2007, -1/+81I think the author has a flawed argument concerning The Incredibles. "Incrediboy" wasn't rejected because he was normal. He was rejected because he was a stupid kid. And when the Incredibles thought that their youngest child was normal, they didn't appear to be ashamed of it at all.

    Having said that, man Bioshock is an awesome game. :)
    • TrevorBradley, on 12/10/2007, -1/+15Dugg back up. Incrediboy was just going to get himself hurt. Being an annoying ass was 2nd. (That and back story intros are highly stylized and rushed and character development is tricky here)
    • Matt2k, on 12/10/2007, -0/+12Agreed. He was anything but normal. Rather than physical powers, he had intelligence and motivation. If you want to overanalyze the situation, the "normals" can't appreciate the "supers". And ironically the supers, when presented with someone just as different from them, also can't appreciate the difference. If this doesn't fit exactly with the Ayn Rand construct, it's explained by the director saying it was an unintentional connection.
  • MerryMortician, on 12/10/2007, -26/+6what the hell ever happened to just watching ***** and when its over moving on with your life? Why analyze everything all the damn time?
    • pjdk28, on 12/10/2007, -0/+17do you see the irony in taking the time to post that?
    • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -0/+11just as some foods are good to eat, some thoughts are good to think. some people enjoy analyzing the themes in complex stories. films have long been a popular form of media for intellectuals to dissect and debate because they lend themselves so well to complex storytelling. and now that video games have matured as an artistic/storytelling medium, it's only natural that people are inclined to analyze and discuss the various themes contained within them as well.

      i'm sorry that we're not all content to stumble through life with half of our brain shut off.
  • TrevorBradley, on 12/10/2007, -8/+23I'm not in the right place to criticize Rands work (I've not read the book, and never plan to, thanks Officer Barbrady and to my wife), but my impression is that Brad Bird advocates the "hero human" in the Incredibles, but not to the extent where they'll be a detriment to the rest of society. This isn't a boolean on (Ann Rand Objectivism)/off (Dystopian Orwellian state) kind of thing. I think Bird refined his argument in Ratatouille: "Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere".

    I've interpreted Birds message as "We are all unique, and we should embrace that."

    Bioshock on the other hand is (IMHO) a nightmare vision of what would happen if the libertarians got their way... :)
    • Scheissen, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1Really? Care to elaborate?
    • JimiSlew, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9Not sure I agree with "We are all unique, and we should embrace that". Remember Dash's line to his mother after she says "we are all special"? He replies: "Which is another way of saying no one is...".

      Sure, I believe we all have talents and are unique but let us not forget that we are all -so far as are abilities go- not equal. That said, I think we all have the potential to play catch-up to each other. It just requires effort.
      • TrevorBradley, on 12/10/2007, -2/+7Digging you back up, because this is a fair point. I meant this in the way it should be taken, not the way everyone does take it.. ;) We're each unique, with different abilities, and we as a society should accept that cause it's cool and every person should reach their individual potential.

        Maybe I should quote Marx then? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
    • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -7/+15while objectivism is completely whack, rand's books are actually kinda interesting to read--so long as you take what you read with a grain of salt. she's an excellent storyteller, which is why many people are easily deluded by the fantasy world she creates in her works. personally, i think it's important to understand any views/philosophies you are personally opposed to, if only to better understand your own beliefs and why you hold them to be true.

      my biggest problem with objectivism is that it's based on the premise that there exists equality of opportunity. rand basically tries to create a moral philosophy based on an economic theory (capitalism, of course), which is clearly a reaction to her experiences living in soviet russia. so she imagines a non-extant world where industrialists carry the weight of the world on their shoulders while everyone else leaches off of their hard work and innovation, and uses this flawed societal model to justify unmitigated greed and selfishness.
      • WiseWeasel, on 12/10/2007, -9/+2Objectivism is a scientific approach, it's not good or bad. It just means that you try to build on solid foundations backed up with supporting evidence, and try to eliminate subjective bias from the equation. It's an approach to ensuring data and interpretation integrity, used by all branches of science, not a political philosophy. The opposite of objectivism is subjectivism, meaning that your interpretation is what matters, and not some underlying truth that may be revealed in the absence of your personal bias. Don't try to redefine that word as a political philosophy, because it's something every human should strive for, or at least try to understand.
        • carbonetc, on 12/10/2007, -0/+9Objectivism and objectivity are two very different things. I think you're getting them mixed up.
          • WiseWeasel, on 12/10/2007, -4/+2You are correct that they are different, and I was confusing them. The PHILOSOPHY (it's not a political system) of objectivism still embraces the notions of objectivity, however, and they do strive for similar checks against subjectivity, which I would argue are still valuable for everyone to understand.
          • chaosium, on 12/11/2007, -1/+4"You are correct that they are different, and I was confusing them. The PHILOSOPHY (it's not a political system) of objectivism still embraces the notions of objectivity, however, and they do strive for similar checks against subjectivity, which I would argue are still valuable for everyone to understand."

            Sorry, you're still confusing Randian philosophy with actual science. "Objectivism" is as directly accurate a descriptor as "Scientology".
        • chaosium, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5"Objectivism is a scientific approach, it's not good or bad. It just means that you try to build on solid foundations backed up with supporting evidence, and try to eliminate subjective bias from the equation. It's an approach to ensuring data and interpretation integrity, used by all branches of science, not a political philosophy. The opposite of objectivism is subjectivism, meaning that your interpretation is what matters, and not some underlying truth that may be revealed in the absence of your personal bias. Don't try to redefine that word as a political philosophy, because it's something every human should strive for, or at least try to understand."

          Dude, you really have no idea what you're talking about here.
      • csixty4, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Look, I like Rand's works, but she's hardly an "excelled storyteller" by any stretch. Atlas Shrugged could have been about 1000 pages shorter and still gotten the same message across.
        • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3well, john galt's radio speech, which Rand uses to essentially dictate to the reader the entirety of her objectivist philosophy, runs over 60 pages in and of itself. so i agree that if she'd left out her philosophical views and didn't use her novels to evangelize readers, her books would be much shorter (and easier to swallow). but while a ~1000 page novel certainly tips towards the lengthy end of the scale for popular literature, it isn't unheard of. for comparison, Les Miserables is well over 1300 pages. LOTR is also over 1200 pages. and The Ultimate H2G2 sits comfortably at ~830 pages.

          and while you can complain about the length, it's hard to deny that Rand is a very compelling storyteller. i'll admit that i read Atlas Shrugged when i was very young and had a rather sophomoric view of the world, but regardless of your moral/political philosophy, her books contain very well constructed plots and fairly decent character development.

          i mean, she's far from my favorite author, but i certainly wouldn't call her a bad writer.
      • chrissandvick, on 12/10/2007, -8/+2The only thing "whack" is your description of Objectivism. There's no assumption of equality of opportunity, implicit or otherwise. Rand does not start from economics but from philosophy, starting from metaphysics as a base. And if the setting for a novel being 'non-extant" is a criticism then you might as well toss virtually every piece of fiction into the trashbin. Rand's right about the productive (not just industrialists) being leached off of and hobbled by parasitical second-handers, a truth children start learning in their first team projects in school. And she does not advocate "unmitigated greed and selfishness" at all. You are beating up on a straw-man here, not Objectivism.
    • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8Ratatouille's message is about recognizing greatness wherever it stems from. It's about the philosophy of equal /opportunity/, while decrying the philosophy of equal /status/ or equal /wealth/.

      In this, it leans far away from the left. Objectivist, Libertarian, Conservative, whatever, just not left.
      • TrevorBradley, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4Since when is "greater ability" equivalent to "greater status"?!?

        **Nowhere** in Birds work do I see anything implying the great hero or artist is of a greater *status* than the ordinary person.
    • Spoomeister, on 12/11/2007, -0/+4"Bioshock on the other hand is (IMHO) a nightmare vision of what would happen if the libertarians got their way... "
      Wait, there's a blimp in Bioshock?

      /too obscure?
  • blueangel5383, on 12/10/2007, -4/+6I also dislike the fact that the incredible seems to down play the value of hard work and attributing their "success" and life calling to simply being born with it.
    I enjoyed the reading ... quite insightful :)
  • m0rn1n6s74r, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10i wish digg had more articles like this.. good read!
  • hollywoodphony, on 12/10/2007, -9/+7Back in my philosophy classes, in every single intro course, there would be the one guy who would always pipe in, "Well Ayn Rand says..." His comments would inevitably get dismissed by the professor, who would never really elaborate on the reasons why this way of thinking wasn't even worth considering. It was only later that I actually looked into it and saw how self-serving it is. This was a really well-written article that articulated all the feelings I had in my gut as I casually watched this movie, a few years ago.
    • shcforward, on 12/10/2007, -1/+10...that and Rand's theories are largely economic (and at best, political philosophy), not really "philosopher proper," like the Profs had to study. Doesn't take anything away from her arguments, but us philosophers are snobby people.
  • Synthesize, on 12/10/2007, -5/+3Digg users go on dates? zomg!
  • dano333333, on 12/10/2007, -6/+37"The Incredible's" is NOT really pro-objectivist. The supers use their powers not in their own self interest but to commit acts of altruism, which is abhorrent to the objectivist.
    • artofwot, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5Not technically - Objectivism doesn't specifically say you can't help someone else, you just can't help them because they claim that you *owe* them. Somewhere in John Galt's 75 page speech he answers the question along the lines of, "When is it alright to help a fellow man" with something like "When he does not claim that you *owe* it to him to help him."

      I think. It's been a while since I read "Atlas Shrugged."
      • BlackStrain, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Atlas Shrugged is the only book that I've ever stopped reading 80-90% of the way through (right after John Galt shows up)
        • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1I wouldn't call Atlas Shrugged a "book" so much as a "collection of great essays poorly stitched together".
      • dano333333, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3Maybe altruism is not banned by the objectivist philosophy, but it is frowned upon. If "The Incredibles" was a pure objectivist vehicle the supers would use their powers to amass wealth and power for themselves.
        • csixty4, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Rand made it clear in The Virtue of Selfishness that she saw nothing wrong with charity and helping out a friend in need. In fact, she said that if you wouldn't help a friend who was down on his luck, you weren't really a friend at all.

          If the supers in The Incredibles valued helping other people, and it made them feel good to do so, then I'm sure Rand would have applauded it. She would have objected, though, if the people claimed a right to be saved by the supers because of their abilities. That's the altruism Rand fought against...that "from each according to his ability" philosophy.
      • modix, on 12/10/2007, -0/+5This is where most people's understanding of objectivism fails. You should sacrifice no one to you and never sacrifice yourself to anyone. She had no objection to helping others, just as long as it is in your own self-interest.

        Having your loved ones and those around you prosper IS in your own self interest. It would be stupid to claim anything else. They didn't want their city destroyed and were acting upon it.

        Altruism would require them to sacrifice themselves for the masses. Altruism was what they did whenever they became "normal".

        Forcing others to sacrifice themselves to you would be just as evil as altruism in Rand's mind.
      • LazurWulf, on 02/04/2008, -0/+0This is kind of what Terry Goodkind was trying to get across in the Sword of Truth series. The Old Empire of the south was forcing everyone to sacrifice and those who didn't were considered evil. Those of the "north" were evil because they lived free and prospered as they were able to.
    • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Not really true. There is no way to objectively (no pun intended) tell whether or not any "good" act is an act of altruism. Altruism is an UNSELFISH, even self-sacraficing act of concern for another person. You can do a good deed that would look excatly the same in substance as an act of altruism, but do it because it makes you feel good, in which case it would be done for, in the most absolute sense, self-serving reasons, and as such would be perfectly acceptable to an objectivist.
    • CamperBob, on 12/10/2007, -4/+2Rand's problem was with people forcing one another to commit acts of self-sacrifice. You have to understand that her family had barely escaped with their lives from the Communists, so she wasn't big on the whole it-takes-a-village concept. It's a stretch to see either The Incredibles or Bioshock as a commentary on objectivist beliefs.
  • Bridea, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3A very interesting perspective on "The Incredibles" that I hadn't previously considered. I'm a fan of Rand's books, undecided on her philosophy, but The Fountainhead certainly was a good read. Now I'll have to watch The Incredibles tonight...
  • gn0stik, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Excellent compare and contrast.
  • Laughto, on 12/10/2007, -6/+2I too was surprised by the kind of message the Incredibles sent out. People that mock this kind of analysis (oh they're coming alright) forget that moral messages can be implied whether or not writers intend them.
  • Enigmaster, on 12/10/2007, -4/+1More importantly, what do "quotation marks" have in common with "unnecessary grammar"?
  • gglynn07, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4Bioshock and The Incredibles need to learn, "With great power, comes great responsibility."
  • bobablob, on 12/10/2007, -5/+39The writer of this article needs to rethink some of his conclusions. He hinges a great deal of his theory on the treatment that Mr. Incredible shows to Buddy.

    According to this hack, Mr. Incredible didn't think Buddy was good enough to work with him because Buddy was born "normal". I've got a far more plausible explanation: Mr. Incredible didn't think it was a good idea to fight crime alongside an eleven year old.

    When the Incredibles thought Jack-Jack was normal, they loved him just as much as their "Super" children.

    Buried for spurious, disingenuous conclusions.
    • thefobbysystm, on 12/10/2007, -5/+0This.
    • Bridea, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2good point.
    • Dinomight, on 12/10/2007, -2/+6You nailed it. This is exactly the point i think needs to be made. The authors view that buddy was not allowed to work along side Mr. Incredible was (based on my own perspective) is that it was inappropriate to have a 11 year old (with or without powers) to work in such dangerous conditions. He wasn't trained to do so and was a big liability. Mr. Incredible couldn't have the risk of Buddy and simultaneously fight crime. The author of this article however shares the view Buddy saw as a the reason for not being accepted as a sidekick. It is a very childish view. I want to play along (but you won't let me) so i will ignore the obvious reasons and focus on some fault of you (not liking me because I'm different).
    • Spoomeister, on 12/11/2007, -1/+5Gotta disagree with you. By the end of the film, Mr. I very obviously thinks it's fine to fight crime alongside an 11-year-old. He's crime-fighting alongside his kids. He didn't give Buddy the benefit of the doubt because it didn't appear that Buddy had any powers or skills. But Mr. I's kids demonstrated their powers and ability to use them, so they were accepted.
      • Genady, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3In that way it could be seen as an awakening in Mr. I. Personally I think there was a generous dollop of bigotry against Buddy on the part of Mr. I at the beginning of the movie. You can *SAY* that he's only 11, he's annoying, make all sorts of excuses really, but in the end I think there's something to what the author of the article is saying.

        "You can't do this, you aren't super," comes through on re-examination. But then, some people really think that Frodo sailed off into the sunset too.
  • dafragsta, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5I'm certainly not an objectivist because of the notions toward altruism, but that doesn't mean I think objectivists have it all wrong either. Objectivists lay claim to something I think we should be entitled to in a free society; our individuality and freedom of choice. Objectivists also accept the self interest that all humans have, despite how unselfishly altruistic a person might pretend to be. Even Mother Theressa had lapses of faith, which meant she questioned whether there would be a big karma tally at the end of the day. I think altruism is nobile, but objectivists are not by nature evil people. In fact, by nature, they do not even acknowedge good and evil, which is probably how every other critter on this planet will assess things; not in good or evil, but risk and reward.

    There is probably too much freedom there for interpretation in that, but keep in mind that objectivists also preach honest dealing in trade, in addition to not harming other humans to gain an advantage.
    • chrissandvick, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Objectivists do not acknowledge good or evil? Completely wrong. Objectivism has a clearly defined ethics which good and evil feature prominently. "Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes, or destroys it is the evil."
  • zarex, on 12/10/2007, -4/+17The Incredibles is about as anti-Randian as you can get! The heros were all people just born with gifts, while the villain was the smart one that used his brain to invent and create things that made him super-human. In the Randian universe, HE would be the hero, not the villain.
    • bobablob, on 12/10/2007, -4/+3Well said. This fellow either never read Ayn Rand, or he didn't understand what he read. Rand doesn't foster appreciation for those who simply inherit power. She fosters appreciation and preferential treatment for those who accumulate power through action.
      • Tommyhawk, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1I'm not so sure about that there's an interview on youtube of Rand saying she believes gifted kids are the ones who should get special treatment because ultimately society is better off if they do as well as possible.
  • wedges, on 12/10/2007, -1/+12C+/B-... you really only scratch the surface of your argument. Pursue these ideas more, and back up your statements with evidence.
  • bjs3171, on 12/10/2007, -1/+6come on. he rejected incrediboy because he was 1. A kid that would most likely get in his way, and 2. trying to get this ***** done so he could GET TO HS WEDDING. He didn't need to take an apprentice under his wing just then. Then he went on his honeymoon, and THEN he got sued for doing his job, so he probably didn't have much time to write an appology note to buddy.
    please never call The Incredibles a republican movie again.
    • csixty4, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3Also, Buddy was your typical obsessed fanboy, and Mr. Incredible had shown a lot of patience with him already. When Buddy showed up as an unsolicited sidekick, on that night in particular, it was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
  • roflcopterdown, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8The Incredibles does a good job of promoting the positive aspects of objectivism, and Bioshock does a good job of exposing its flaws. Every philosophy has merits and flaws, and people need to see be made aware of them. I know Ayn Rand would probably disagree with me, but I don't think you need to follow one philosophy blindly. You can pick and choose, and that's okay. Personally, I see myself as an existential objectivist. I realize that there might be some conflicts in those two philosophies, but the nihilist in me just doesn't care.
    • wedges, on 12/10/2007, -0/+6"but the nihilist in me just doesn't care."
      you said it.
    • dafragsta, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3The internet needs to be the forge for a new cornerstone of theology that will come to dominate all theologies. The Church of the Sub-genius Pastafarian Objectivists. There would be a three drink minimum.
  • exomni, on 12/10/2007, -7/+2I never like The Incredibles. It felt very soul-less to me, and even more so considering how everyone was all bullish over "how much soul" the movie had.

    In short, I probably would have liked it more if everyone wasn't so gung-ho about it. I just didn't see what the big deal was, and was actually quite disappointed when comparing the film to Pixar's previous efforts.

    Ratatouille ruled, though, and I'd like to see his upcoming write-up of that.
    • PeauxBoy, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3So your opinion of the movie is biased on the fact that so many others enjoyed it? How is that different from liking it because so many other people do?
  • nato64, on 12/10/2007, -7/+4One of the best articles I've read on digg in a while. Thought-out, objective, well written and interesting.
  • Araxen, on 12/10/2007, -11/+1They both suck?
  • thrallie, on 12/10/2007, -4/+4I am not an Objectivist, I am a Libertarian. They are not saying The Incredibles is a republican movie. Believe me, Republicans and objectivists and libertarians are different breeds. I don't like the bashing of Objectivism simply because libertarianism is pretty damn close to it. However Objectivism is not true freedom and it's downfalls are in the abuse of power, and has more downfalls than pure Libertarianism. We need to keep the power of the people.
    • Tommyhawk, on 02/16/2008, -0/+1Where exactly do Objectivists and Libertarians differ?
  • ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -2/+8Levine's mistaken when he says there's never been a game where you could catch a grenade and throw it back. Half-Life 2 allows you to catch grenades and send them back. Even Medal of Honor: Allied Assault allowed you to send grenades back.

    Now, on the Incredibles, I have to admit that there's a ton of objectivist imagery and messages in that movie. I'm glad the writer brought up the point of SSyndrome, and rather than being an anomaly, I think the objectivist message is simply more complex than he gives credit.

    The movie does not simply or bluntly glorify objectivism. The primary message of Mr. Incredible's story arc is his frustration with a world in which his "greatness" is squeezed into the realm of mediocrity. Without super strength, he, like his daughter, IS mediocre.

    Syndrome, on the other hand, has a talent that allows him to blend into society and STILL excel. He actually does this when superheroes are outlawed. He's arguably superior to Mr. Incredible, but Mr. Incredible cannot see him on terms other than jock-like "superpowers." Syndrome is to him nothing but another mundane human, this time pretending to be exceptional.

    Mr. Incredible represents the restrained exceptional, quietly lamenting his assimilation. Syndrome represents the enraged exceptional, angrily lashing out against his FAILED assimilation while seeking acceptance, perhaps worship, from the mundane.

    In the end, it is a more pragmatic view to objectivism's idealism. The exceptional resent restraint, and if they are accepted they will merely stew, but if they are shunned they will explode. The final solution to The Incredibles is "exceptional talent to the service of mankind." It earns the exceptionals a place in society while earning them deserved respect. That's right, The Final message is actually Socialism, not Objectivism.
    • jhaks, on 12/11/2007, -0/+3I think this is a very good analysis. After reading the article it seems the blogger missed many of the key points from the movie. He used only a select few instances to show how the movie is a proponent of objectivism. However if you think about each instance that seems to advocate objectivism in the movie you see that it inevitably leads to negative side effects. When Mr. Incredible fails to see Buddy for his talent he indirectly creates Syndrome. When Mr. Incredible secretly starts to resume hero work he ends up putting his entire family at risk. The movie talks about objectivism from a societal standpoint which you address but also from a personal standpoint. There are a few key lines that detest selfish motivation. I think this is the most important line in the entire movie and which was entirely overlooked in the blog:

      Mr. Incredible (Bob): I'm sorry. I've been a lousy father, blind to what I have. So obsessed with being undervalued that I undervalued all of you. So... caught up in the past that I... You are my greatest adventure, and I almost missed it.

      Mr. Incredible has an normal self, Bob, and he finally realizes that what he had as normal Bob out weighed anything he could have achieved as Mr. Incredible and that his selfishness actually almost lost him his family. His family problems were not brought on because he was not recognized for being special but because he believed this was his path to happiness and without it would be depressed. This in turn affected his entire family and made them all mundane and depressed. How can his wife be happy with her marriage when her husband seems so preoccupied and unhappy. After Bob gained a more positive outlook after resuming hero work Helen despite not knowing this or resuming hero work herself found her positive outlook mirrored by Bob. Helen always had the right idea: she looked for happiness in her family which was the one truly important and special thing in her life. Helene uses her abilities in service to others and only when required instead of for self fulfillment.

      Also both lines from Dash, Syndrome and Bob where they say something along the lines of "everyone being special just means no one is special" may seem to support objectivism but everyone who watches the movie can feel that there is a very negative connotation to the remarks. In the end we see what Mr. Incredible and Syndrome really wanted was to be recognized for being special, to feel better than everyone else which leads to down fall. But then Bob the mediocre alter ego is the one who really has something special, a good family, while Syndrome loses his only personal friendship/relationship with Mirage for being selfish and callous.

      Mirage: He's not weak, you know. Valuing life is not weakness. And disregarding it is not strength.

      Here's another quote I found that I like:
      Helen: Put these on. Your identity is your most valuable possession. Protect it. And if anything goes wrong, use your powers.
      Identity is the most valuable possession instead of exceptional ability.

      The analysis in the blog wasn't very thorough and uses a few points in the movie to supports it argument which in fact were meant to support the opposition of objectivism. The above post is a good analysis from a social perspective but also just as important and maybe more fitting are the themes of the movie from a personal perspective.
      • Higa, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1 I enjoyed the original article, but it did make too many generalisations to supplement its point. Both these comments offer excellent counter-analysis and flesh things out a bit more. I wish I could give you more than one +digg each!
  • hollywoodphony, on 12/10/2007, -6/+1Who knew the Digg armchair quarterbacks would turn out to be secret objectivists?
  • PeauxBoy, on 12/10/2007, -6/+0You know, if I dwell really deeply on the little turd floating in my toilet, I too might find something in common with objectivism...wait, sorry...it's just corn.
  • TajesMahoney, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2found this interesting. but the incredibles do not completely glorify that view. syndrome wasn't allowed to be a hero because
    1) mr incredible was blind to buddy's abilities (which we come to see as a mistake later on)
    2) Buddy was an inexperienced kid, and he does endanger a lot of people by interfering. But Bob also didn't want his children involved. It was more of a "only adults" rule.
    3) mr incredible seems frustrated with "greatness" because his own is being oppressed. i don't think he'd be looking down on other people's kids if he himself wasn't chained. the movie does slightly show power to "normals". Mirage becomes a redeemed character. Hell Cori even does an impressive job as babysitter in the short "Jack Jack Attack" (except for giving the baby to Syndrome)
  • bigfatpaulie, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2This discussion makes me want to jump back into Bioshock.
  • Halleys5th, on 12/10/2007, -0/+5Neither represents accurate Objectivist views; any resemblance is superficial.

    Take for example, this excerpt from the article (regarding Bioshock): "The power of plasmids was too hard to resist. And some, like Ryan and Fontaine, just became addicted to power." In the Objectivist view, anyone injuring others is a criminal to be delt with by the police, not left free to wreak havoc.

    Also from the article (regarding The Incredibles): "You have to just have "it" in you (i.e. in the "Republican" analogy, "it" would be wealth, power, or an overriding desire for those things) and if you don't, you're looked down upon." Objectivism does not advocate being impolite to or disrespectful of others. However, it does acknowlegde that some people are more moral, skilled, or wealthy than others--only in politics should everyone be the same, deserving the same rights and the same freedom.

    Fully understanding and living by what amounts to several thousand pages of abstract, technical writing often takes more work than people are willing to do, and as such there are some who get it wrong, even in games and movies.
  • boot20, on 12/10/2007, -6/+2Superheros are anti-Objectivism because they use their powers to help other, not just help themselves. Flawed and strange argument (esp the screenshot of Mr. Incredible "looking" like Atlas...Of course he does...he's holding up a huge heavy object...that's what humans look like when they do that...)

    Jeez...Read much into stuff?
  • SeePage87, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5I don't like any article that colors its points with the authors opinions. It's fine to demonstrate the related themes in the two media, but don't say that The Incredibles is loathsome for saluting Objectivism while Bioshock is sending the "right" message. Leave that to the reader.

    That being said I'm not writing an article so I'll color this post all I want. I've never met someone with a solid argument against Objectivism. The common refrain is that it's too self-serving, but even this logic is flawed. Objectivism's position isn't one of "leave me alone to do what I want because I want to." Objectivism holds the position that were people permitted to do so, society as a whole would greatly benefit. Because Objectivism's goals are not for the Objectivist, but for society as a whole, I wouldn't call it self-serving. Objectivism uses Man's selfish nature to benefit society by advocating an environment in which one serves one's self by producing for others. Being an Objectivist then amounts to two things: working to obtain whatever one wants through honest means, and not feeling guilty for it.
    • dafragsta, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1The only problem I've ever had with objectivism is the removal of charity and public services from the equation. We can have social services without socialism. We just need to keep it down to the bare minimum. Stimulate people by making them not want to settle for the bare minimum, but let that minimum be truly bare for when they do. Humanity has enough resources to look out for it's own. We shouldn't encourage complacency, however.
      • jjmckay, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1Charity and public service are part of the Objective equation. Charity has existed out of kindness of heart for thousands of years. Is charity by the strong-arming of government charity at all? I say no.

        Isn't it possible to do something in public service outside of government? DIGG is a public service isn't it?
  • theshizzler, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Ratatouille had strong objectivist overtones. The Incredibles? Perhaps... the author makes some good points.
  • teethman, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1If Bioshock does really have a message, maybe its that free market capitalism really can be the "anarchy" we all were warned about in school. Hey, we're all on this crazy world together, so when we really do have free market capitalism after we evolve a little more and advance as a society, lets be considerate of others. Group hug?
    • teethman, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3I don't agree with myself 6 minutes ago.
  • NeoTEKK, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3That's incredible.

    ~Sorry, I had to. Seeing as how nobody else did. It just wouldn't be a digg thread without it.
  • carbonetc, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3This was on Digg a while back (regarding the problems with Objectivism). It's worth another look.

    http://home.att.net/~bob.wallace/rand1.html

    If you've ever wondered why so many academics consider it pseudo-philosophy, this begins to explain it.
    • CompIsMyRx, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1He doesn't begin to explain anything. He spouts out his opinion without reasoning, and some of it is just wrong. The whole Ayn Rand and Objectivists are libertarians by nature, not "leftists".
      • quaunaut, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1Yeah. Hell, if anything, they are ultra-right: Capitalism to the max.
  • haroldk, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4The blogger, Mr. Chen said:
    Those that are smarter, more talented, or just plain better should be allowed to pursue their own interests without interference from government, religion, or anyone/anything else.

    If Mr Chen had read and understood Rand's books, he would know all people would be free to pursue their lives without state interference, not just the smarter, more talented, or just plain better. To do otherwise would be unethical. Being ethical was a Randian ideal.

    I believe Mr. Chen is either confused, or trying to confuse people about the philosophy by using a movie and video game in popular culture as representing objectivism.

    Rand came from Soviet Russia, where the Marxist-socialist system was a parasite on productive people's motivation. Also, the Marxists let non-productive people share disproportionally to their contributions. Look at the philosophy in that frame of reference.

    I believe Mr. Chen's religious background belies a prejudice about Rand, who was an athiest. As such, I don't see how he can be objective..... (get it?)
  • charlie55, on 12/10/2007, -0/+5 from the article ....(objectivism)" This, coincidentally, is the exact same principle that Andrew Ryan (whose name is a play on Rand's name), one of the main characters from Bioshock, lives by."

    incorrect. ryan controls people, which an objectivist does not do, and is violently against. an objectivist is more opoposed to ryan than anyone else could possibly be. ryan is a dictator, a fascist. he couldnt be less objectivist. bioshock is not about objectivism, it is about a fascist who gained power by claiming to be objectivist.
    • Singularitarian, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Exactly right. It's ridiculous to claim that Bioshock illustrates the downfall of Objectivism. Half of what Andrew Ryan says and does flies in the face of Objectivism.
  • timbo1138, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Fascinating essay, and certainly very astute. I feel like I should point out, though, that all superhero fiction embodies this to some degree. These people have powers, and hence they are a cut above the rest and can do what they like, dispense vigilante justice, etc etc. Look at Heroes, and characters like Sylar, who believe that people without "gifts" are meaningless and shouldn't be interfering with obvious greatness, and that those who have gifts and refuse to use them to their full potential are weak and stupid.

    I agree that thematically The Incredibles is stronger in that regard, but it's hardly unique in the superhero pantheon. (And just for the record, I'm a huge Pixar fanboy and The Incredibles is my favourite of their films.)
  • maiku00, on 12/11/2007, -3/+1Personally, I always thought The Incredibles was a pretty ***** movie. I don't understand why its so well liked.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.