The Incredibles isn't about a super powered couple trying to get their powers back, or trying to get the ability to use those powers back. It is about a super powered family trying to protect people (stick with me, here) while remaining a family.

Mr Incredible becomes a hero for hire on the understanding that stopping the death machine will help people, will protect people. The fact that he doesn't see people being threatened by it isn't noticed by him until later when he sees the files of dead heroes, but he is fighting it under the belief that he is protecting others.

Mrs Incredible goes to save him, at first to chastise him, but also because she believes that he needs her.

And, in the end, even though their status as public heroes is reinstated, the movie really ends (aside from the Mole Man cameo to further establish the FF reference) with them at a track meet, as a family.

Compare this with America of 1994 (when the movie came out). We, as a country, decided that stopping gay marriages was more important than stopping war. Just as the Incredibles decided that being a family was more important than actively hunting down super villians.

CNN, the voice of American News Media, reported that the most important thing that happened on Election Day 2006 was that K-Fed and Britney filed for divorce (the election taking second place). Just as the Incredibles were using their powers to win at a sport event, and intentionally taking second place.

Now, this may seem too political, but any comparison between society and art is going to involve politics. Especially in a democratic nation where the society determines political outcome.

I will agree that there is a contingent of people who would like to see a return of idealistic heroes. I think that a remake of "Mr Smith Goes To Washington" set in the present day would sell a lot of tickets. But, that would be a remake. I think that a re-do of the same movie would pprobably be combined with another Jimmy Stewart movie, and the audience would find out that the only reason Mr Smith was elected was because he took the credit for a vigilante-style murder of a known criminal.

In a truely modern fashion, he probably actually would be the Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance, as well.

The information age has caused a demand for heroes with feet of clay the likes of which we have never before seen. It isn't a new concept, we've just managed to blow it way out of proportion. Instead of a Spider-Man who can't save Gwen Stacy, or even Capt DeWolf, we have a Spider-Man who sides with Iron Man against Captain America, betraying pretty much everything he's ever inspired in his readers.

Maybe there is a way to fix it. But, outside of fleeing American comics for manga, I haven't seen a way suggested.

Theno

Foo Fighters are generic "rock"; Bill Haley was ahead of his time despite being over the hill. Uncanny X-Men sucked in every possible and imaginable way; "Flash of Two Worlds" was among the most important comics stories every done.

You clearly smoke crack.

even the good book has more than its share of protaganists with shady actions.

in a coined phrase- "you can't go home."

Although Superman doesn't share it. Nor does Mr. Incredible. Can't tell about Carrot; Carrot hasn't really put a foot wrong yet in the Discworld books, and Pratchett doesn't let us inside his head much.

I disagree, and I don't see it as growth, either. If anything, it's a retrograde step. Eradication of self-doubt and total self-acceptance means that you no longer question yourself or your actions. You won't listen to anyone who calls you on your bull because you don't (or can't) doubt yourself. You will do what you want, whenever you want, cheerfully unfettered by the protests of others, because - hey - you're right, and they're wrong. No point listening to them - they aren't the 'movers of the world'! YOU know best. YOU know what's right for people. YOU know what needs to be done.
EVERYONE is wrong sometimes. Lots of times, even. No-one is even close to being perfect, but a person that you described would never believe that. That isn't growth, not by a long shot.
Actually, read the description of the person that I listed above. Does that sound like a superhero, or a supervillain? I know which one it sounds like to me.

[i]I think the problem is that most students and teachers of literature don’t like that type of growth because it borders on arrogance. Intellectuals and academics don’t feel like you grow unless you question yourself constantly. I think that’s why Rand’s books get so much flack, because they deviate from the script a lot.[/i]

Subtle touch, trying to dismiss critics of Rand as 'intellectuals and academics' (for we all know they are lofty elites.)
But again, you're wrong. They aren't the only ones who have problems with such 'growth'. Pretty much any major western religion requires that you question yourself on a regular basis. Any friend worth their salt makes you question yourself when you're full of s**t. Anyone will make you question yourself when you mess up, be they boss, coworker, or family.
Humans are imperfect beings. If one is to improve oneself, then you have to question yourself. Once that's gone, true growth is impossible. That's why objectivists are so unpopular (true ones, that is) - they're so wildly arrogant and unpleasant - and they can NEVER back it up. Every single one I've ever met is deeply convinced of their own superiority, and deeply ignorant of their flaws (and they always have plenty).
At least, IMHO anyway.

But to me, the eradication of all previous self-doubt and the achievement of total self-acceptance is probably the most profound life-changing experience anyone can have. I think most people would kill for that kind of personal growth. I think the problem is that most students and teachers of literature don't like that type of growth because it borders on arrogance. Intellectuals and academics don't feel like you grow unless you question yourself constantly. I think that's why Rand's books get so much flack, because they deviate from the script a lot.

When you go back to Action Comics #1, all the situations Superman enters into in that issue are morally ambiguous and his approach is "fuck that shit." He does the right thing and if anyone gets in his way he treats them like the irrelevant garbage they are. Superman was a pure revenge fantasy for the idealistic.

The fact that he's not this nowadays isn't due to "paradigm shift" or that there's no one out there capable of writing this way any longer, it's just that a Superman written this way would be too abrasive and controversial to be a good business decision.

1. Galt and Howard Roark. They don't really change. Dagny Taggart and Rearden, and, for that matter, Dominique Francon, change a little, but really they stay the same but accept positions that are more consistent with the way they were behaving all along.

2. Rand wrote in several places that her goal was the portrayal of an ideal man. Didn't say anything about character development.

I'm not criticizing when I say it wasn't high on her priority list. I'm just saying that she had other things that she was up to.

Getting back to Superman, who is after all supposed to be the subject of discussion... where was it I read a comparison between Superman and Terry Pratchett's character Carrot Ironfoundersson? I think it's an excellent one. The thing with Carrot is that he's big and strong and handsome and incorruptibly good and seemingly naive, but when you read for a while you realize that he's acting good on purpose, and isn't necessarily that nice a guy. Which doesn't mean he's secretly a bad guy; he's not. He has no dark side at all. He knows that he could theoretically have a dark side, but he's sincerely not interested. He intends to be a good guy, and so he is. I think partly this is because he wants to stay on the same side as a lot of other people he respects (Vimes, Vetinari, Angua), but in any case it's pretty clearly something he's conscious of. I wonder, how much of this is also true of Superman?

Character: I'm not sure if I really am totally awesome.
(Stuff happens)
Character: Wow! I really AM that awesome. Great!

Very, VERY wrong. The protaganists are all fundamentally changed at the end of Atlas Shrugged. The whole book is about them learning not to be ashamed of their accomplishments and embracing the greater destiny that John Galt claims they deserve as the movers of the world. For example look at Hank Rearden's epiphany during the courtroom series where he comes to a major realization and reveals his accusers' true motives. Or Dagny Taggart's growth and self-realization after meeting John Galt and being exposed to his philosphy. I'd say development is near the top of her list because she's trying to sell her personal philosophy, and she does so by showing characters starting out as skeptics and becoming converted to her real-life way of thinking. How can you say they don't learn anything when pages and pages (too many even) are dedicated to them getting lectured and swayed by Objectivists?

You made some very good points about the role of superpowers in 'The Incredibles' and I can't find a place to disagree. Now, when it comes to characters having to learn to become heroes... frequently, for comic book heroes, this learning takes place in the origin issue and not as much subsequently. (This is one of the things I like about the new version of the Legion: they're _still_ learning, and it looks like they're going to be at it for a while.) Mr. Incredible does learn a lot through the course of his movie, but it isn't related to being a hero; it's related to being a family man and a hero at the same time. (And Rand's protagonists don't tend to learn much, because character development was pretty low on her priority list.)

This discussion seems to be approaching several points of the many DC/Marvel comparisons that have been posted over time at absorbascon.blogspot.com.

And I will deny to my dying day that the Incredibles were a Fantastic Four analogue. They were not. Yes, both groups have four characters. Yes, some of the superpowers match up. But didn't Kevin just finish explaining to us that the superpowers aren't the defining factor? And the personalities, both of the individuals and the groups as a whole, are totally different.

But that's where The Incredibles fails for me as a superhero story - what makes superhero stories special for me is that power ISN'T the most important aspect. Nobility is one of them, yes, but that's not something that's granted by powers. There are plenty of non-superpowered heroes that still fit the criteria. Heck, whenever heroes lose their powers - most don't give up. They still try to do good. Power is a secondary characteristic, not the most important one. Character, morality, values - that's the most important possession of a hero. And I felt that The Incredibles missed that.
The Incredibles almost tries to make the point that non-powered people shouldn't even try to be heroes, because they aren't worthy. When Bob and Helen are censured, they pretty much give up. If they can't be BETTER than the masses, it isn't worth it. If they can't bask in the adoration of the masses, forget it.
Sure, Bob and Frozone (Lucius, was it?) still help out, but in a non-flashy, low key way. Compare that to the many times Batman's been declared a criminal, or when Superman falls out of public favor. They don't give up - they don't tone it down. They keep doing what they're doing because it's the right thing to do, no matter if the ignorant masses don't appreciate them. They don't need your gratitude, nor do they need your praise. It would be nice, yes, but if it isn't there , they won't quit in a huff. Why? Because they're HEROES! That's not why they do what they do!

>Just like the enemies in Atlas Shrugged wanted to force >the the protaganist to share their power with the common >people and redistribute their wealth and power, Syndrome >wants to force superheroes to be no more powerful than >anyone else by giving everyone power.

Not that I'm sympathizing with Syndrome, since he's a mass murderer, but I don't think the plot to a superhero story should be one where the heroes are trying to preserve their own superiority...shouldn't they be saving innocent bystanders or something?
Again, I feel it misses the point. Superheroes exist to save people, to fight evil. They shouldn't be fighting primarily for themselves...
A hero does share his power. A superhero exists by default to share his power. Superman uses his powers, not for himself - NEVER for himself - but to save people, to fight for truth, justice, and the American way (from 1955 to 1978 only ;>) He shares his power, because to keep it for himself would be selfish. Same with most heroes.

>School bureaucrats, who try to suppress what makes Dash >special, his speed.

Another thing that felt wrong. I find it strange to be agreeing with John Byrne, but Dash shouldn't have been using his speed that way. Look back to Superman: The Movie, where Clark complains that he can't use his speed and strength to be a football star. Pa Kent tells him that he is here for a reason, not to score touchdowns. There wasn't any such scene in The Incredibles, and I felt its abscence.

>Being self-made is not necessary to be a Randian >protaganists, plenty of her protaganists inherit their >wealth.

But I argue it IS necessary for a superhero, but not in the way that you perhaps think I mean. Some superheroes are given their powers, others are handed them by accident, some have none. But all shape their own destiny - heroes aren't born, but made - through their actions, through their upbringinging, that sort of thing.
Superman was born with powers. Batman has none. But both had a journey to take before they could become heroes. It was not an overnight thing - they had to learn to use their respective gifts, their sense of morality was shaped and formed, their mission was made clear to them. Heroes are like that. They don't simply pop out fully formed - they have to grow, mature, learn from mistakes.
And I don't see that in either Rand's works, or The Incredibles. But this is just my opinion. I could be wrong
Kevin

I disagree. Syndrome shouldn't be the objectivist hero because in the world of The Incredibles because money isn't the most important possession, power and nobility are, in particular superpowers and superheroic nobility. And that's what Syndrome wants to take down. Plenty of the people who try to take down the protaganists in Atlas Shrugged are rich also, but they still envy visionaries like Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden because they are noble and unapologetic about flaunting their nobility and power. As I said, it's a more sympathetic version of objectivism because the heroes are not as self-interested as Randian heroes, but they are much closer to a Randian hero than syndrome could ever be.

Ayn Rand's family lost all it's wealth and stature in Russia due to communism, and as a result hated people who followed an "eat the rich" philosophy or advocated the forced redistribution of power that radical egalitarianism calls for. Just like the enemies in Atlas Shrugged wanted to force the the protaganist to share their power with the common people and redistribute their wealth and power, Syndrome wants to force superheroes to be no more powerful than anyone else by giving everyone power. This is forcible redistribution at its worst, it's similar to communism,which is something antithetical to a Randian protaganist and the epitome of what Rand despised. Look at the other villains of the movie: trial lawyers (another example of people who forcibly redistribute wealth, ostensibly in the name of "social justice") and school bureaucrats, who try to suppress what makes Dash special, his speed. Sure the Incredibles didn't earn their power, but that's no prerequisite. Being self-made is not necessary to be a Randian protaganists, plenty of her protaganists inherit their wealth. What differentiates them from others and makes them targets is that they follow their sense of integrity rather than follow blindly and prefer larger-than-life individuality to anonymous collectivism.

go ahead with your bad self!

And so the beauty of the famous ACTION COMICS #775...