(I have posted this also over on the aviator thread as well).

The incredibles is not an objectivist friendly movie.

The super-powers of the “incredibles” are inherited through blood, not earned through merit.

For me, the defining philosophy of this film is highlighted when Mr. Incredible says to his daughter as a morale boost. "You'll do great. It's in your blood!"

In fact, the only Objectivist-friendly aspect of the film is the evil villain. He wants, through the development of new technology to make everyone into a super hero. Quite an objectivist ideal if you ask me.

Therefore this film depicts the noble ideals of technology and innovation through reason and reality as being the ideals of a perverted and twisted villain!!! That is philosophically wrong headed!!!

I am not saying that the film is not entertaining as a comedy on a simple level. But it is basically a run-of-the-mill family sitcom film with a super-hero twist.

I was very disappointed. Objectivist-friendly it isn’t!!!!

MH,

Adam's articles is full of rationalizations.

The "villain" Syndrome had made his money thus far by selling his technology to the public.

That is completely in contrast to the leftists wish to have everyone succeed at someone else's expense, and usually to the detriment of those that do achieve.

Syndrome was morally flawed because he wanted to use force against the super-heroes in order to destroy them. This just makes the packaging of his use of force against others together with the values of an entrepreneur and innovator all the more sickening.

As for the Edna Mode character. How does she even figure into morality? She never explicitly makes a case for what she considers moral or not. For all we know, Syndrome may have also got his suit designed by her as well.

Basically she is just a character to be mocked in this film. If she too represents the innovator, then that just reinforces the immorality or moral apathy associated with her type even more.

You notice that as a regular person Mr. Incredible is completely impotent to fulfil any role as a creator at all. In fact, he is mocked and derided by all those around him including his wife and family. Without his "innate" powers he is just a self-sacrificing altruist!!!

That is the only moral quality depicted in this film from the super-heroes.

When you get down to the bare-bones of it, this film is really anti-technology and anti-innovation and anti-selfishness (in the objectivist sense).

"Peter Keating makes money by selling stuff to the public too. So what?"

You imply that Syndrome by using his own initiative must be a second-hander like Peter Keating.

Was Syndrome stealing Mr. Incredible’s ideas?

No. Mr. Incredible could hardly rub two brain cells together. He is often depicted as being a clumsy buffoon for comedy purposes.

This type of incipient sneering in family sitcoms at the Father is all too prevalent in today's culture ala' "the Simpsons". Also the luddite-type supposition of "geniuses" unchecked using technology for evil or immoral purposes.

Funny enough, Syndrome was not anti-mankind in general, he was only anti-super hero. The super hero, born with innate powers, may be seen as being the Nietzschean "archetype" in fact. (Although this statement only refers to the popular mistaken interpretation of Nietzschean ideas).

Anyway, this topic, probably deserves an entire article. And Linz is having a fit about slackers today :-)