What is Digg?180 Comments
- 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 ;)
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -10/+95This might be corny but I am a big fan of "The Incredibles."
- 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. :) - 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".
- BoneheadFarker, on 12/10/2007, -1/+49They'll only bury you because you can get a date.
- Bukowsky, on 12/10/2007, -4/+50that's not corny.... I actually took a date to that movie!
(here comes the buries!) - 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'?"
- 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. - dano333333, on 12/10/2007, -6/+38"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.
- tidu, on 12/10/2007, -4/+31I took a date to a movie once. It was quite delicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_palm - 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. - ZenMojo, on 12/10/2007, -1/+26Who doesn't love the Incredibles?
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -2/+26I think both of you make some good points, but I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
- Chewxy, on 12/10/2007, -5/+25Nicely written entry.
- Laughto, on 12/10/2007, -1/+19Would've been funnier without the wikipedia link.
In the words of Batman "I'm not going to bury you... but I don't have to digg you." - msaleem, on 12/10/2007, -3/+20They are both epicly awesome.
- pjdk28, on 12/10/2007, -0/+17do you see the irony in taking the time to post that?
- 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
- 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.
- jdfoote2, on 12/10/2007, -1/+16FYI - Ayn Rand is an author, not a book.
- TrevorBradley, on 12/10/2007, -8/+24I'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... :) - WiseWeasel, on 12/10/2007, -0/+16Terrorists...
- SteelChicken, on 12/10/2007, -11/+26Really? Care to elaborate?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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. - 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.
- 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.
- 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) - Rikushix, on 12/10/2007, -11/+22I disagree.
- exomni, on 12/10/2007, -0/+11Plasmids 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.
- 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, -0/+10Objectivism and objectivity are two very different things. I think you're getting them mixed up.
- 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.
- Ashkc88, on 12/10/2007, -1/+10Rapture 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?
- 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.
- 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. - 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.
- m0rn1n6s74r, on 12/10/2007, -2/+10i wish digg had more articles like this.. good read!
- smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -8/+16while 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. - 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.
- WiseWeasel, on 12/10/2007, -3/+10More 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?" - 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. - 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).
- 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? -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is