Rolling Marvel Cinematic Universe thread (+ a poll: Classic or Dud?)

There's no rule that says a dog can't play basketball you can't run track with superpowers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIjQ_hBiZxQ

Why do you have to bring race into this?

I feel like indiscriminately giving everybody superpowers without warning would be bad.

Lol JiC

every response to any movie involves people "bringing things to the movie"!

The race isn't quite what I remembered, there's no speed force blur or anything, I couldn't really say "well this is his 'natural' speed" - it looks like anything other than really fast probably takes the same amount of effort.

xpost I usually bring in a falafel sandwich from the shop next door to the theatre.

Morris, how do you think metaphors work, if you on the other hand thinks Doctor Casinos interpretation of the metaphor is something he himself brings to the movie?

I think they work in a way where you have to make your case if you claim a bunch of extreme metaphors exist in a movie, not just state it as a fact and expect ppl to agree.

would it REALLY be a good idea if everybody had superpowers? The wrinkle for The Incredibles is that they were wise enough to use it fir good deeds

I feel like indiscriminately giving everybody superpowers without warning would be bad.

another thing you can't trust normies with is the vote. maybe later when they're prepared

Uh

Everyone feeling really optimistic about democracy these days?

there have to be a few people who are much more powerful than everybody else. otherwise we'll have chaos

when did i state any of this as fact?

Sure, let's equate being able to turn a building into rubble with your eyes to voting.

An incel going to bed one night with a dad bod and waking up with the ability to rip someone's heart out of their chest , can't see that going wrong

imo the "powers" represent "talent" or "greatness" or "genius" --- the stuff that all those sheeple are jealous of. the metaphor, which i think we've been beating into the ground, is of Randian politics, meritocratic ideology, opposition to affirmative action, opposition to taxing the rich, etc.

My problem with this reading is that the kids' powers are rooted in character traits (hyperactivity; introversion) that cause them trouble in situations that require conforming to social norms. Violet's power doesn't translate so easily into genius--it's more the banal message of 95% of all animated films: consider how your weaknesses/differences might be strengths and embrace/be yourself.

Also, I get that you're extrapolating from a principle you think this movie is committed to, but affirmative action and progressive taxation are way too embedded in specific histories and social contexts to be so easily reduced to an extremely vague "Randian politics" represented in a fictional world whose connection to those histories is not part of the narrative unless I'm forgetting something crucial.

xp It worked out pretty well in Chronicle.

He and his entire family and innocent people died!

My daughter's math teacher looks exactly like Mr. Incredible in office drone mode. It's uncanny.

An incel going to bed one night with a dad bod and waking up with the ability to rip someone's heart out of their chest

the person whose heart they want to rip out now also has superpowers

so it's not rly any easier to hurt them than it was yesterday

unless of course this unworthy vermin happened to hold any power at all yesterday-- like if he actually was a little bigger or stronger than some of the people he wanted to hurt; or could draw on the resources of some general hierarchy he enjoyed benefits from despite his dad bod; or had the contact information of, say, a group of invincible and unaccountable vigilantes he might be able to manipulate into doing harm to his enemies as part of their daily routine of doing harm to bad people in the name of paternalist righteousness. because in that case it would actually be a lot harder than it was yesterday

and one can imagine some of those potential victims choosing superpowers of their own, and the dangers of anarchy, over continuing to try their luck w a world where some people can vaporize you with their eyes and there's absolutely nothing you can do

Everyone feeling really optimistic about democracy these days?

the useful thing about these conversations is you get to find out who is and who isn't

I seem to recall Supes with powers dying st the hands of the only active supervillain so... nah

if i've taken rhetorical shortcuts i apologize but partly that may be because "the Incredibles has Randian/libertarian subtext" is maybe one of the most widely-circulated takes on any pixar movie and i sort of assume that after fifteen years of people arguing about it, it's not necessary to reinvent the wheel. maybe also a bit of laziness of my part.

i've tried to point out the parts of the movie that i think raise these flags, for me - which ideas/views are characterized as bad, vs. good. i've pointed to specific filmmaking choices like the use of music. i've suggested that i think the characters' viewpoints have real-world analogues. i've pointed out elements in the director's next film that can also be read as consistent with the ideology i'm seeing here. i've used words like "sheeple" as a shorthand to summon to mind the discourses of grievance from those in real life who imagine themselves to be super-talented and surrounded by the average, as a way to suggest that this movie was not created or received in a vacuum. i feel i've done as much as an aging, overcaffeinated ilx poster can do to support the way the film came off to me. which in short is: Buddy's motives are portrayed as suspect, in a way that is, imho, more or less the way libertarians in 2004 (or now) caricature socialism or affirmative action. i could go around gathering a bunch of reactionary tweets and editorial cartoons and news-article comment-box posts to further sustain this but surely you have some kind of idea what i'm talking about.

Also presumably not everybody would be granted powers. He was selling his weapons to the highest bidder. Who might decide not to share powers with everyone.

Or...some people might not want them.

I can't believe this convo but

Also, I get that you're extrapolating from a principle you think this movie is committed to

I Am Not A Doctor Casino, but it seems pretty clear to me that he's not claiming it's an intentional Political Message, as much as the natural result of the film being written and directed by one guy, some of whose other work seems to share the worldview.

xp yeah what he said.

An interesting question is whether there was a draft where Buddy was just going to release the powers for free.

Also presumably not everybody would be granted powers. He was selling his weapons to the highest bidder.

rest assured i am against this

some people might not want them

apparently!

the person whose heart they want to rip out now also has superpowers

so it's not rly any easier to hurt them than it was yesterday

You are making a bunch of wholly unsupported assumptions about the nature of superpowers

For example, if you have the ability to generate fire, how does that make it harder for a telekinetic to rip your heart of of your chest?

there is still conflict and violence in the world where everyone is some form of god; that doesn't make it the same as the world where a dozen people are and everybody else is either running or beseeching. i am scared of the telekinetic either way but i'm more scared if i can't even generate fire.

also the statement everyone is fighting about is "when everyone is super, nobody will be". i'm assuming this statement is true and that what's at issue is how we feel about it. wildly variant powers would seem to falsify it.

important work being done itt

sometimes somebody exceptional has got to shoulder the burden

yeah i mean it is conceivable that Syndrome is wrong in his methods, morally wrong in his goals, and a terrible judge of whether his methods would in practice achieve his goals.

btw whether or not the film has a Randian element was discussed in its original 2004 ILX thread (including by one "morris pavilion" - is that you morrisp?). takes seemed to range from "yes" to "no" and included "maybe a little but you can read it other ways and it doesn't spoil the film" so again, i don't think we're treading wild new hot-take ground here. there is also reference to affirmative action, "apparently" voiced by the National Review, but i can't actually find that on the internet.

also the statement everyone is fighting about is "when everyone is super, nobody will be". i'm assuming this statement is true and that what's at issue is how we feel about it. wildly variant powers would seem to falsify it.

So you are explicitly assuming everyone is going to end up with the same powers at the same strength and the same level of facility with them, despite that not being true of literally any pre-existing human characteristic.

in our world, people are collections of abilities

in the world where superpowers are restricted, most people are collections of abilities, and some people are collections of superabilities

in the world where everyone has superpowers, people are collections of superabilities

two of these worlds are v similar except for one of them having a lot more spectacle. the remaining one is an authoritarian nightmare

also i lied about which one's ours

What is a superhero? A miserable collection of superabilities!

The Man Without Superabilities

I really don't know how to have this conversation. Syndrome literally says 'when EVERYONE is super', I've posted the clip of him saying 'when EVERYONE is super. That clip is called 'EVERYONE'S SUPER'. So i just don't know how to keep arguing with 'presumably not everybody would be granted powers'. Like... How do we find common ground here?

everyone will be equal but some will be more equal than others

the problem is that we all have posting powers. distribute them more responsibly and this conversation woulda been over hours ago

i think at this point we're just kinda riffing on the inconsistent and not-thought-through aspects of the plot. he says "everyone" but he also plans to sell the powers for profit (if we're remembering correctly?), which means not everyone would get them, and also anyway if everyone got them it wouldn't necessarily mean an end to some people being more super or more dangerous than others, as DJP is pointing out.

i don't think any of that matters much, because i'm more interested in what motivates the guy and what he's trying to say, and what the film is saying by casting those motives as blinkered and petty. but the political debate itself has run out of gas after 15 years and more recently after 150 posts so y'know it's time to goof around a while and then start actually getting some work done with this misbegotten wednesday

Yea i feel bad for my poor training class that i abandoned while having this debate.

I probably should have checked in with them.

my work's at an important stage! it seemed unnecessary to...

I really don't know how to have this conversation. Syndrome literally says 'when EVERYONE is super', I've posted the clip of him saying 'when EVERYONE is super. That clip is called 'EVERYONE'S SUPER'. So i just don't know how to keep arguing with 'presumably not everybody would be granted powers'.

Frederick, he's a madman. Watch the rest of the movie beyond that YouTube clip.

Also all superpowers aren't the same.

Also these are not real people

now do Frozen

Do you want to destroy a proletariat?

Frozen is sapphic incest propaganda