One thing that persists through both movies is that the villains have ultra-genius intellects and should rightly be considered "supers" but aren't. Both are creating machines DECADES ahead of any contemporaries, but because their power doesn't have a physical manifestation no one sees them as super.
This is the biggest issue that these counter-analyses ignore. The whole reason these villains are villains is because they're not born super. Supers are a race and Mr. Incredible openly refuses to accept Billy as a sidekick despite him giving himself the ability to fly at age 10. The movie never even interrogates how this leads to Billy's fall and instead amplifies the threat by terrifying the audience and Mr. Incredible with a world full of Billys. Meanwhile, Mr. Incredible is giving his elementary-age kids supersuits because they're part of a racial elite. Edna Mode is literally one of the most gifted minds in the world and she puts her goals toward giving superpowered people more freedom and recognition. Natural superpowers are treated as a gift to be wielded toward one's own prestige, creative superpowers are treated as a tool that must be made subservient to the naturally gifted or else you're evil.
@@MrBazBake There's a lot of logic leaps in this reply, most egregiously in claiming Mr. Incredible ONLY refused to take on Buddy because he wasn't an official Super. It's been a long time since I saw Incredibles one, but I seem to recall Buddy put himself and others in danger when he intervened the first time around, so it's possible Bob didn't want to have some kid's death on his hands for him letting the kid engage in severely dangerous behavior OR let some innocent bystander die because he had this untrained child with him who might make a mistake. He probably thought that the kid didn't realize how actually dangerous this all was and was just enamored by the fame and adoration Supers got, plus Buddy proved he couldn't/wouldn't listen to instructions which would make it even harder for Bob to keep him and others safe if he were to be in the battlefield, so Bob couldn't responsibly say yes. Reacting in the moment from a place of all the adrenaline from the fight and fear of Buddy or other bystanders getting hurt on his watch, it's possible Bob didn't articulate all these nuanced reasons when he chastised Buddy, similar to how a parent will scream at their child after they run out in traffic or something reckless like that which gets the parent's adrenaline up. So maybe he just gave Buddy an excuse of "you're not a super" or something to try to distill all his concerns into something strong enough to dissuade Buddy for his own good. Still, in the circumstances it's just as likely he would have turned down Buddy's request even if he had powers *because Buddy was still a child* and in fact one of the biggest points hammered in throughout the movie is that he and Helen also DO NOT allow THEIR children to act as supers either. Mr. Incredible IS NOT the one who gives the kids super suits, Edna Mode just takes it upon herself to make them when Helen comes to get one made for herself and she tells Edna she doesn't want them because they don't want their kids getting into that life, but Edna pretty much forces them on her anyway. The kids take the suits themselves when they sneak into the plane Helen takes to go find Bob. Mr. Incredible is also NOT the one who does eventually allow the kids to act more as official Supers, Helen does, reluctantly, and it's only because once they're already on the island and know the territory is hostile (because their plane got shot down) then she has no choice but to let them use their abilities to defend themselves. So no, it's not necessarily the case that the only reason he turned Buddy down is because he's some elitist because he clearly exercised the same caution with his own kids even though they do have super powers but because they *are KIDS* he wants to keep them out of harm's way until they can receive proper training or get old enough to decide to seek that out for themselves. Aside from those potential reasons why he may have turned Buddy down, there is the very basic one that any supporter of Rand should be a fan of I guess - he doesn't owe anything to Buddy. If he just didn't want to have a partner, or if he just didn't want to be partners with Buddy for whatever reason, that's a personal choice he has every right to make. He's not obligated to take anyone, not even another Super, on as a partner. So even if Bob had been elitist, Buddy's entitled feelings and his personal choices to create a vendetta based on someone not bending to his will instead of exercising their own free will are HIS mistake and are not at all justified. Which leads into the whole systematic oppression of non-supers thing you mentioned. In the world of the movie, non supers are in no way systematically oppressed. They're not kept from rising to international fame, mogul status, from exercising any of their civil rights, nothing. They are not forced to use their abilities in servitude of supers. In fact there's a whole system in place of having the Supers named and known and lines of contact established and a whole governmental branch created for issues of collateral damage and clean up and public relations, and maintaining the Supers' secret identities so that they can live peacefully in their off hours. Overall there are far more systems in place to actively control Supers than regular people. People like Edna and Evelyn are not just "automatically" villains if they refuse to use their abilities in service of Supers, otherwise they both would've been considered villains earlier on. Edna started out as a regular fashion designer and achieved great success with that, but *she* thought it was boring so *she chose* to get into the business of designing super suits. Evelyn talks about the various innovations she made for the company she and her brother run that made the company grow, which had *nothing to do* with supers. She says her brother has been obsessed with Supers for a long time but that his idea to act as PR for Supers is a project he only *recently* finally got started on. All those years she's been inventing new and better tech that grew their company and its influence so big that she and her brother could have lived comfortably as billionaires for the rest of their lives, all on innovations made for people in general, not just contracted work for a few specific supers like what Edna does, and yet she was never considered a villain until she actively put people's lives in danger, kidnapped people, and tried to kill a bunch of people. Both Buddy and Evelyn were geniuses, veritable Technomancers, they could have used their abilities to be heroes to millions of people but they chose instead to focus on their personal suffering and lash out at the world. And with Evelyn it was totally arbitrary; the Supers her father called never showed up because Supers had already been made illegal at that point, so she could have become a character who hated the legal system for holding back people who could have saved her family. This is only my speculation but I think she just got angry at Supers because she was jealous of the attention she always saw them getting, from society and her father and brother, where of course nobody involved in the legal system has hordes of adoring fans. Anyway neither of them have any excuse. They're exactly the same as Tony Stark. No super powers but genius level intellect, incredibly wealthy, capable of creating things that can benefit millions of people - Tony lost his parents as a boy, struggled with addiction and nearly lost the family company because of it. Same thing with Batman, no powers, pretty much a genius, incredibly wealthy, had his parents killed right in front of him, watched his city degrade day by day with crime running rampant. So why is it that Iron Man and Batman are seen as heroes even though they're both so similar to Buddy and Evelyn? Because even though they had hardship, even though they made mistakes, *even though they have no powers,* in the end they chose to use what they had and do what they could to help make the world a better place instead of choosing to be destructive for their own personal catharsis. Bob may have done some selfish things, he may have made mistakes, but in the end he committed to helping people and keeping his powers in check instead of just doing any old thing he may wish to do. Bad things may have happened to the two villains, or things they perceive as bad, but they both had the option of proving to the world how valuable they were even without powers, or proving that you don't need powers to be a hero on their own, but they chose to hurt people instead and brought about their own downfalls.
I think the villians are prefect objectivist villians. Buddy is a classical but screenslaver is the prefect randain villian on an exstensial level. It can strip people of free will and reason.
@@darkeimp555 boy, that was a mouthful... maybe a bit much, but I do *think* these two along with bruce and tony fit in the same category. They are all well above genius level. When you look at someone like Rick Sanchez, it's obvious that he is considered a "super" and to a lot who know what he is, probably a "god". Where in the scale of someone like Hawking to Rick does one be officially considered a "super", barring that Buddy, Evelyn, and tony aren't technomancers.
@@darkeimp555 "It's been a long time since I've watched The Incredibles one" you say before typing 76 lines of text about... I don't even know because I'm not going to read 76 lines of text talking about The Incredibles
@@ZoanBlade90 not very. Because the MHA world points out exactly how that idea isn't particularly true. The My Hero world values not just power, but image, and prestige. And then it points out how those things can never be the same for everyone and how society itself has baked in biases.
@@LupineShadowOmega So, if anything, he would be a follower of Stain? And since we're here, I'm curious: what do you think Magneto would think of the MHA world? Would he be a pro hero, a supporter of vigilantes, or a supporter of those forgotten in their society?
@@ZoanBlade90 I doubt it. Stain's allure was that he shined a light on some of the ulterior motives of heroes and painted them as selfish or lacking, which then gave villains courage to confront those heroes for whatever reasons they had that could be played as being in the right. By comparison, Syndrome is obsessed with inequality of society. Which still very much exists in MHA, and that he'd be a prime candidate for himself seemingly not having powers and still wanting to be a hero. Basically he'd be a cross between Gentle and Izuku. Magneto, would be in his dream world. Heck, any of the X-Men would be in their dream world. All of the mutant growing pains are done, mutants are the dominant species on the planet and more or less this is the world that has been built to accommodate being a mutant. With baseline humanity just popping up from time to time. If we're talking who Mags would support, its probably a toss up of him wanting to help those that fall through the cracks in the system or just living a rather ordinary life without having to hide who or what he is.
One major distinction between the worlds of Incredibles and MHA is the prevalence of powers. That matters, because one adresses superhero "problem" via powers, and the other adresses it through the role of superheroes in society. Syndrome would be a reverse Stain, if anything. Stain seeks to remove those with power who don't have the right outlook. He sees himself as the judge, the one who decides who can be a hero, while having no problem with powered individuals living a normal life. Buddy, in contrast, has a problem exactly WITH this "judge", who decides who can and cannot be a hero, be it genetics, God or Stain. Also, Magneto would be a pro hero in my guess. His main drive is to protect mutants, and mutants are a.not a minority and b.not prosecuted in MHA
I feel dumb. I just put the play on the sister's name together... "Evelyn Deavor..." Evelyndeavor... Evel yndeavor... "Evil Endeavor." A little on the nose I guess... but clever. :)
Syndrome was a Super, just look at what he was able to create with the power of his mind... I like how in the Avengers infinity war, Thanos asks Tony Stark if he think he's the only one who can see, giving the idea that his Intelligence is his superpower. I love that because nerds are the biggest part of the superhero fan base and they may not be the Fastest or the Strongest but they can still be the smartest and that sort of encouraging positivity is exactly what kids need!
hot take: syndrome is literally blaming mr. incredible for something that was his own damn fault. i mean, yeah mr incredible told buddy off. but imagine being a surgeon who in the middle of a tense session of surgery, some punk kid bursts in and yells "i can help too!" would you be polite or would you snap at them telling them to go home? mr. incredible gave the appropriate response. he had a dangerous supervillain nearly captured, but buddy kept him distracted long enough for the villain to plant a bomb on the little brat so he could get away. bomb voyage knew the bomb wouldnt do much to mr incredible but knew that mr incredible would drop him if he endangered the nearest civilian, in this case buddy. and the accident caused by said bomb could be further blamed on buddy. buddy basically helped the law that forced supers underground. and in the flashback scene when syndrome explains his motives, notice how bomb voyage isn't shown at all. he warped and twisted what was, a stressed out superhero wanting you to go home for your safety into something purely about himself. and all this, he blames on mr incredible for snapping at him during a tense moment. what buddy should have done is: attach something that can track mr. incredible, have buddy discover his secret identity during a less stressful situation, and have a friendship build from mr incredible training buddy. but instead, he did literally everything wrong. and this isnt even touching the numerous supers he lured to his private island and killed one by one like some kind of serial killer.
I mean yeah, that's the point. He's the villain. Dealing with people like Syndrome is more of a message that the superheroes can't please everyone on their own and Syndrome tries to eliminate that possibility by giving everyone the power to please themselves whenever they want. This is wrong in the end though, as it would just lead to people using their powers for selfish reasons, but of course Syndrome wouldn't notice this because he's salty over not being able to help and is too focused on his goal.
You ignore the additional encounters with Buddy that came beforehand, in which Mr. Incredible rejected Buddy in a much more direct and less understandable way. The conversations indicate that he does not see value in Buddy's support at all.
@@zinkheroofyoutube8004 not saying I wouldn’t be upset but you have to know your audience. He’s a kid for gods sake and you’re his hero. In his eyes, you’re a perfect beacon everyone should look to aspire being. We know how supportive this kid is. Mr incredible already mentioned signing autographs and whatnot. Who knows if mr. Incredible handled it differently syndrome might not have been created.
Counterargument: see Chris Hadfield's TedTalk "What I Learned From Going Blind In Space". His argument is that fear and danger are not the same, and you can overcome fear. (Though it all does depend on the definition of fear being used: fear->panic or fear as in respect for a danger.)
Incredibles 2 is underrated, it’s become very popular to hate on it within the TH-cam film critic and philosophy community. It catches a lot of flack for repeating story beats from the previous movie - which is admittedly true - but doesn’t get enough credit for expanding the scope and depth of the philosophical analysis started in the first movie, which is what every good sequel should strive to do.
Totally agree, but some critics I respect, like the 3 dudes on Sardonicast, have a good point when they criticize Incredibles 2 for spending WAY too much time on Jack Jack for the purpose of marketing. The lack of time skip between the two films was likely because Jack Jack wouldn't have been a baby anymore and they wanted to sell him to audiences. Also if you're sensitive to audio changes the voice actors sound distinctly different, which is another good argument for a time skip. Finally, a lot of people saw Bobs jelousy for his wifes success as rooting against her, in an unsettling way. I disagree with that point but I can see someone interpreting it that way. personally enjoy it, but I see these points as very valid. The scene where Elastagirl swung to find Screenslaver and we heard a monolog about tech/meaning being served on a silver platter had me teary eyed. If the movie would have been more of that, it would have been much better I think. But instead we had to have 15 minute scenes made purely for children of Jack Jack playing with an animal Tom and Jerry style.
Tristan Neal Oh I totally agree. It’s still a great movie! Keeps true to the themes the first film set up so well that exceptional people should us their talents for the benefit of society and is certainly not short on action and humor. I would say however these themes are not nearly as well executed as they where in first film, plus it get a bit preachy at times with espousing media theory that is relevant to todays world. I always thought the Incredibles existed in it’s own universe, whats this stuff about todays politics doing in my family friendly cartoon feature? Also maybe it’s just me but this movie didn’t feel like it was as much of an adventure like the first film. Where before they had to travel to a mysterious island and here they’re in the city the whole time not a much at stake since these characters can go home and take a nap after the hero work is done. I still like the movie. Just perhaps the movie could have kept it self focused on it’s larger narrative more rather than be distracted by all the sub plots that pad out the run time. From Bob and the kids, to Jack Jack, to Edna, to Frozon, it is not bad at all but it’s a lot happening at once and can distract from the larger narrative. This is The Incredibles! I shouldn’t feel like they had to pad out their runtime. I expect that from the b-list movies from Dreamworks or Illumination, not from Pixar! Anyway thats all, still a fun movie regardless!
Great video wisecrack. Now I desperately NEED you guys to break down the Coen brothers latest film: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. That movie has so many themes and is very philosophical as well in the Wild West setting. The whole film was like a bunch of stranger missions from rdr lol, with all the bleakness, dark humor, and satire included.
I love that line " when everyone is super...no one will be" except I switch out super for special, because it works so well in today's world. Everyone is trying to be special, but when everyone is special, no one is.
I'm glad you guys agree! It's be way too easy to just pass the idea of the ideal men and women as those who are "Super". Almost in a similar sense to The Good Place, it's not what you do, but your intentions behind an action that make you a better person
Let me start by saying, I love this channel. I have yet to see one of your videos that didn't make me think or look at something in a new light. This one is no exception. The problem I had with it is the presenter's basic misunderstanding of objectivism. For example he, posits that, by objectivist standards, Mr. Incredible should be on the side of the insurance executive because at the beginning of the first movie, simply because he was "trying to make a profit." This leads me to believe that, like most critics of Rand in the media, he has either never actually READ any Rand, or read very little and allowed his perception of her philosophy to be informed by her other critics. The main misconception he promulgates is equating "selfishness" with "self-interest". Selfishness is the mere gratification of whims and desires without thought to consequence or virtue. Self-interest is long-term goal of improving the quality of your life. Selfishness may cause you to eat whatever you like at the moment, where as self-interest will tell you that the long term benefits of watching your diet will make you happier in the long run. Going back to the example of the insurance executive, his selfishness causes him to defraud his customers by breaching the contract of the insurance policy he sold them. Bob (if you believe he is an objectivist hero) is simply applying that bit of objectivist reasoning and rationally deciding he should quit and justly chuck the lying little twerp through several walls on his way out. The presenter also claims, incorrectly, that objectivism somehow forbids its adherents to ever act for the benefit of others. Again, this is either a misreading of Rand or simple ignorance of what she actually said. What Rand actually railed against was "sacrifice." Giving up something of value in your own life for others while getting nothing in return. Mr. Incredible might come to the conclusion that fighting crime (a dangerous occupation) will make Metro City a safer place in general which gives him a safe place to work and raise a family. "Value for value" is one of the main tenets of Rand and, often, the best way to get something of value is to offer something of value to someone else. That way everyone wins. Last, the presenter gives us the philosophy of Aristotle as somehow a contrast to Rand. This made no sense to me. Any knowledge at all of Rand's early life shows that her philosophy was largely based on Aristotelean principles. Presenting it as the opposite is simply not logical. So, a bit of advice. Go back and actually read "Atlas Shrugged"(or, at the very least John Galt's big speech at the end of the book). Granted, it's a tough read. She was a much better Philosopher than a fiction writer. Also read ABOUT Rand. I would recommend Stephan Molyneux's You-tube biography, which you can find here: th-cam.com/video/t-2c7Keic_A/w-d-xo.html
I consider The Incredibles an improvement upon objectivism. It is Randian in its insistence that the expectational person be allowed to be so. “If everyone’s super, no one will be” and all that. But it improves upon Randian thought by recognizing that the expectational person has a duty to his fellow man. Which is distinctly anti-Randian.
First villain: I destroy the heroes and create my own superpowers Second villain: I control the heroes and repurpose their superpowers Third villain: I take away the heroes superpowers and redistribute them (?)
Hey I'm an up and coming filmmaker. I recently just put out a short film about A young African American husband who has to deal with dire consequences after losing his job and benefits. I'm looking to start a base, if you would please check it out. th-cam.com/video/Y0DVRtESscQ/w-d-xo.html
I think you're a bit off when it comes to the power part. Syndrome wasn't seeking power, he was seeking to destroy the ideals and meaning of the hero that he once idolized and felt betrayed him. Everything that he did was toward seeking revenge, not power. He just needed technological power in order to obtain that revenge.
I had never thought about it that way. Every time I considered The Incredibles, I only saw that Randian reading. But if thematic truth of the franchise is that with great power comes great responsibility and that being great does not mean being good. Syndrome could have used is superior intellect to help the world, instead of for a grudge. Thanks Wisecrack.
After watching this I think that you all should do an episode about "My Hero Academia". The story has a very deep undertone about morality, ideology and what it means to be human.
This video makes me think of what I'm doing in my life, what I'm chasing after, if it's okay to do so, if I should be doing so. It makes me think that maybe the best way to do things is to strive for a place where both sides can get what they want. Where I can be a good friend, creating a happy and fun place to hang out, joke, tease, and play games, while also getting the same for myself. A win win where everyone is happy.
People who are born into greatness and harness their power and people that start in mediocrity but become great through their work are both sides of the objectivist coin
I know the shows not all that popular but could you do the philosophy of Wilfred. It’s a real interesting show and I feel like there’s something there. I think a video on it would be really good.
About the factor of pleasure, that depends on what you're referring to. What gives ME the most pleasure are books. Whether writing them or reading them, indulging in literature NEVER gets old for me
I think doing an episode on Archer might lead to the same philosophical mindset, but maybe I'm just being too much of a _jaded nihilistic sociopath._ ;-]
What I always wanted to know is where the hell were Syndrome’s parents? The whole movie can also be taken as a plea for better parental responsibility.
You also forget Aristotle’s definition of “justice” was knowledge of one’s place and enforcement of the status quo. I imagine that might add an unintended tinge to your definition.
My mind is blown... never thought there would be such philosophy behind that. Honestly can't argue the logic though. How many of us will do quests in a game without a promise of a reward after? Fits for this philosophy as an example.
you mean the philosophy of using sex appeal totally unrelated to the character arch (eg. Faye Valentine, Jessica Rabbit, ect.) in animation? That's actually a really good topic.
The most interesting thing from a philosophical standpoint about The Incredibles is it is a world where superpowers make you inherently good. Every person with superpowers is a superhero, and every villain or crook is a regular human or one who uses technology.The movies are seemingly so definitive in this idea that not only is the government's entire argument for Supers that their do-goodery causes property damage instead of even a worry about whether they'd go bad, but the second film features a seemingly pointless scene where the baby super Jack-Jack fights a raccoon; a creature that is synonymous with robbery and theft.
The way I see, objectivism is definitely finding true happiness in life, but also self-respect. Like, don't do things because others tell you, but do it for yourself. Be a man that's taking charge of your life and making a path for yourself. Don't be a yes man and do everything tell you to do 100% of the time. Yes, you can take some life lessons from others, but you don't have to let all of that dictate everything in your life.
I always felt that the "rand" heroes didnt look for money but looked for ways to achieve there goals without compromise and would even give up money and power in order to achieve there goals
My biggest issue with the Incredibles 2 was that the villain complained about people being ridiculously hooked on tv yet the movie takes place in the 60s. Unless I've been VERY misled by literally everyone I've met that lived at that time, that was not the case.
This video was one of the things that finally pushed me to read Atlas Shrugged. Looking back, I think there are a lot similarities between James Taggert/Cuffy Meigs and Syndrome that a quick video doesn't have the time to dig into. While the movies don't play out exactly like the book, a more detailed review would probably reveal this movie does more or less play by the rules of Rand's objectivist framework
I think screneslaver is an interesting villain because if you think about it, while they do seem to have a modern angle to them. They also fit pretty well in the 1960s when the incredibles take place. Funny how things seem to go in circles like that.
I know I am more than an entire year late, but Ayn Rand philosophy isn't just simply that everyone has the right to be happy, rather that everyone has the right to act selfishly in order to be happy
@@j.lucido9536 I wouldn't say it's simplifying much considering that nearly every philosopher out there also boils their ideas down that everyone should be happy.
Most people believe objectivism is selfish. And most people equate selfish behavior as evil or a bad thing. Not realizing that you only help others because it makes you feel good there by making it a selfish act.
Exactly anyone who has read rands works knows the heros are inherently objectivist . Their primary desire is to establish success through value in their beliefs. Though their nature is not malicious nor goes against the grain of any man . Selfish desire to obtain happiness through their own means as no compromise to their true desires and goals .
Thats fair . I share jordan Petersons views on her works . I enjoy her literature but it doesnt make the best example of philosophy. Yet my point was if one was to argue how to apply her philosophy the examples and the reasoning in the argument dont aline
"Look, I don't know what an ideal man looks like, but I sure as hell know he wouldn't say feelin' sorry for others is bullshit, or that bein' generous to others is for bitches." -Sparky Sweets, PhD
Exactly. Fuck Ayn Rand her ideology has made america lag behind western europe, canada, australia, japan in terms of quality of life. Americans work too much and get paid too little.
@@TonyMacFarlane well good point mate. Excuse me, I shouldn't have made such a political comment in the first place. Theres already enough division in the world. We dont need the internet to be more fierce, do we?
8:14-8:31 I can agree with pleasure becoming eventually boring, money being for other things and not really making me happy, but WHOA! Obtaining power depends on factors OUTSIDE our control? Can you explain that in a future episode? Thanks!
@@Brittow If you find irony here then perhaps it's due to you not really knowing about or understanding Randian Objectivism don't you think ? That or she was a bumbling moron we just keep talking about for no reasons, of course
I've read some people who thinks incredibles is randian and I've read some who thinks it isnt . My conclusion is the writers are either unaware of objectivism or didn't care to comment on it in the film. Because the movie has both con and pro objectivistic arguments, I think that these arguments are unintentional Those who think that the movie has any comment on objectivisim is are no different than those who think frankestein is a commentary on communism.
I don't think this analysis has a proper understanding of Rand's views. Objectivism is not so silly that one can't save or love other people. It's basically all about pursuing what you value without being enslaved or otherwise molested by others. So, if Mr. Incredible values his family, it is perfectly in line with objectivism that he would sacrifice playing hero in pursuit of a higher value -in his estimation. Violet's "final critique of Randian thought" is a criticism of a failure of the government to provide law and order -something Rand believed was one of the few legitimate functions of government. No conflict there. The Objectivism presented in this video is a common caricature that ignores the valuable insights of Rand's philosophy in favor of vilifying her as a cold, advocate of selfishness (and her misuse of that word throughout her work didn't do her any favors).
damn son. deep and thorough. concerned about my ability to kill time with TH-cam subbed vids amid the growing and changing platforms online, there's a genuine fear every information-well has been tapped. thank you for dropping knowledge bombs on my doubt and dishing extra helpings on things I love. ...oh, and I can Wix for cheap? 2 for you Wisecrack, You go Wisecrack!
What surprise me, is that the Supers in The Incredibles... didn't just become movie actors. I mean, they can do their own stunts, have powers... you could make a Marvel movie with them.
Bioshock (the original) is created as a cautionary tale about objectivist capitalism gone berserk. To see it as a rebuke of objectivism is pure reductio ad absurdum. When people tell me if you've played Bioshock, you'll learn why capitalism is bad and Communism us good, I always ask, "Have you played Bioshock 2?"
One of the things about both films Is that the villains give really insightful critiques of modern society. Both Syndrome and Evelyn have compelling and deep arguments. And neither is wrong. They are just evil and mess the arguments up. The heroes mess up. They have uninspiring and unconvincing arguments like “we just have to fit in” or “I can be really great, really incredible!” But in their muddle, they are not wanting to be evil, but good, and they can tell the difference when the chips are down. They have a humanity that allows them to not be evil, even when they aren’t brilliant philosophers. It isn’t enough to be right, but the villains are still worth listening to when you separate their arguments from their obsessive vindictiveness and the evil that stems from their self righteousness. To my own mind and taste, this saves the films from being schmaltzy “good and family always triumphs” tropes. Brad Bird’s brilliance is couching the hero story arc with a happy ending cliche with not only compelling characters and storytelling, but some top notch, makes you think modern social critique. Thanks for debunking the rather shallow objectivist interpretations of the films.
My initial understanding of objectivism was nearly the complete opposite of what you described in your video. How Rand's ideology was described to me was through the belief : that if everyone were to look out for themselves, each individual (assuming they are seeking to elevate their own interests) would do so through camaraderie, unless they were super 'badass' and could do it on their own. (But what if someone doesn't want to go into business, and write novels like Atlas Shrugged for a living?) Regardless of this misunderstanding, I used to support this philosophy as I felt anyone who let their emotion compromise their judgement was weak; Rick and Morty quickly became my favorite show because this idea is personified in Rick, as he views the world through this lens, yet struggles to exist. The episode where he sacrifices himself for Morty was extremely meaningful to me; not only was Rick acting out of selflessness, but he also gave up everything he believed to be true in that moment.
"The episode where he sacrifices himself for Morty was extremely meaningful to me; not only was Rick acting out of selflessness, but he also gave up everything he believed to be true in that moment." No Rick didn't gave up everything he believed. Rick kept his science knowledge to then use it to fix Morty's bracelet and save himself. Rick cared about Morty and choose to risk himself for morty in that moment. He gave up security to keep Morty alive. Morty must have meant a lot to him.
Guys, you totally forgot to mention Ayn Rand said we should do good things for our family, friends, neighbors and mankind because it makes us happy. Rand didn’t preach for us to be Scrooges.
@@Fearofthemonster I would only change the word to "if" if I were talking to sociopaths and psychopaths. What percentage of TH-cam commenters are psych... nevermind
Yeah, you get Ayn Rand philosophy wrong. When you read "Atlas..." (by Rand) you get opposite of what you're saying. She never write that man is heroic by nature, what she really write is that human are not desine by nature. She loved man for what they can achive, but she accept that every human have a right to choose. Man can choose to be good or evil and that's way to be a moral being - to be able to choose. I read polish version of the book, but it's around begining of the 50-page monolog John Galt gave in "Atlas...". And no, being selfish at the expense of others is not a "good way" in objectivism. There's nothing like this in her books or essay. There is about that you can choose to left your family if you value being alone that support your family, but it dosen't say that good. Again, it's say opposite - that you can choose, but you must pay consequences. If you give life you need to take care of it. You just must be aware of consequences of what you choose. If you're contradict to it, you're not "Objectivist", because you contradict to the reallity. I think that example was somewhere in "The Return of the Primitive" by Rand.
just use a VPN man, not all that hard to set up at all. Bonus tie-in: that is the rational self-interest that Objectivists glorify, when government makes stupid laws, citizens will find a way to circumvent them ;)
@@adnan34chowdhary It still means they'd have to spend an entire month watching and researching for one show when they could have produced 4 episodes of smaller titles in the same amount of time. Also, come on now, Monster isn't that complex of a show, philosophically speaking. The machinations of the plot are many and varied and engrossing, but the philosophy is stated right in those first few episodes: "Everyone's lives have equal weight and no one deserves to live more than anyone else."
The way you put Objectivism makes it sound great, and I definitely agree with the first 3 points, especially the first one. But, in reality, Objectivism is just one big excuse to be shitty to other people.
On the other hand, Mr Incredible's entire purpose was to altruistically help others. He hates his capitalist job, specifically because it denys people help for profit. It puts up front the real meat of what Marxist's problem with capitalism is, the fact that all things will be sacrificed to the profit motive or the firm will be out competed by those that do, capitalism trains the vine of production in that direction and in that only. " We're supposed to help people. We're supposed to help OUR people, starting with our stock holders Bob!" It holds true wether it's insurance, or food, or healthcare or anything. He is scammed, captured and almost killed by Syndrome, who then intends to unleash death and destruction on a city for a spectacle. It's none other than his wealth accumulated as a capitalist that gives him the means to commit these horrid actions.
One thing that persists through both movies is that the villains have ultra-genius intellects and should rightly be considered "supers" but aren't. Both are creating machines DECADES ahead of any contemporaries, but because their power doesn't have a physical manifestation no one sees them as super.
This is the biggest issue that these counter-analyses ignore. The whole reason these villains are villains is because they're not born super. Supers are a race and Mr. Incredible openly refuses to accept Billy as a sidekick despite him giving himself the ability to fly at age 10. The movie never even interrogates how this leads to Billy's fall and instead amplifies the threat by terrifying the audience and Mr. Incredible with a world full of Billys.
Meanwhile, Mr. Incredible is giving his elementary-age kids supersuits because they're part of a racial elite. Edna Mode is literally one of the most gifted minds in the world and she puts her goals toward giving superpowered people more freedom and recognition. Natural superpowers are treated as a gift to be wielded toward one's own prestige, creative superpowers are treated as a tool that must be made subservient to the naturally gifted or else you're evil.
@@MrBazBake There's a lot of logic leaps in this reply, most egregiously in claiming Mr. Incredible ONLY refused to take on Buddy because he wasn't an official Super. It's been a long time since I saw Incredibles one, but I seem to recall Buddy put himself and others in danger when he intervened the first time around, so it's possible Bob didn't want to have some kid's death on his hands for him letting the kid engage in severely dangerous behavior OR let some innocent bystander die because he had this untrained child with him who might make a mistake. He probably thought that the kid didn't realize how actually dangerous this all was and was just enamored by the fame and adoration Supers got, plus Buddy proved he couldn't/wouldn't listen to instructions which would make it even harder for Bob to keep him and others safe if he were to be in the battlefield, so Bob couldn't responsibly say yes. Reacting in the moment from a place of all the adrenaline from the fight and fear of Buddy or other bystanders getting hurt on his watch, it's possible Bob didn't articulate all these nuanced reasons when he chastised Buddy, similar to how a parent will scream at their child after they run out in traffic or something reckless like that which gets the parent's adrenaline up. So maybe he just gave Buddy an excuse of "you're not a super" or something to try to distill all his concerns into something strong enough to dissuade Buddy for his own good.
Still, in the circumstances it's just as likely he would have turned down Buddy's request even if he had powers *because Buddy was still a child* and in fact one of the biggest points hammered in throughout the movie is that he and Helen also DO NOT allow THEIR children to act as supers either. Mr. Incredible IS NOT the one who gives the kids super suits, Edna Mode just takes it upon herself to make them when Helen comes to get one made for herself and she tells Edna she doesn't want them because they don't want their kids getting into that life, but Edna pretty much forces them on her anyway. The kids take the suits themselves when they sneak into the plane Helen takes to go find Bob. Mr. Incredible is also NOT the one who does eventually allow the kids to act more as official Supers, Helen does, reluctantly, and it's only because once they're already on the island and know the territory is hostile (because their plane got shot down) then she has no choice but to let them use their abilities to defend themselves. So no, it's not necessarily the case that the only reason he turned Buddy down is because he's some elitist because he clearly exercised the same caution with his own kids even though they do have super powers but because they *are KIDS* he wants to keep them out of harm's way until they can receive proper training or get old enough to decide to seek that out for themselves.
Aside from those potential reasons why he may have turned Buddy down, there is the very basic one that any supporter of Rand should be a fan of I guess - he doesn't owe anything to Buddy. If he just didn't want to have a partner, or if he just didn't want to be partners with Buddy for whatever reason, that's a personal choice he has every right to make. He's not obligated to take anyone, not even another Super, on as a partner. So even if Bob had been elitist, Buddy's entitled feelings and his personal choices to create a vendetta based on someone not bending to his will instead of exercising their own free will are HIS mistake and are not at all justified. Which leads into the whole systematic oppression of non-supers thing you mentioned.
In the world of the movie, non supers are in no way systematically oppressed. They're not kept from rising to international fame, mogul status, from exercising any of their civil rights, nothing. They are not forced to use their abilities in servitude of supers. In fact there's a whole system in place of having the Supers named and known and lines of contact established and a whole governmental branch created for issues of collateral damage and clean up and public relations, and maintaining the Supers' secret identities so that they can live peacefully in their off hours. Overall there are far more systems in place to actively control Supers than regular people. People like Edna and Evelyn are not just "automatically" villains if they refuse to use their abilities in service of Supers, otherwise they both would've been considered villains earlier on. Edna started out as a regular fashion designer and achieved great success with that, but *she* thought it was boring so *she chose* to get into the business of designing super suits. Evelyn talks about the various innovations she made for the company she and her brother run that made the company grow, which had *nothing to do* with supers. She says her brother has been obsessed with Supers for a long time but that his idea to act as PR for Supers is a project he only *recently* finally got started on. All those years she's been inventing new and better tech that grew their company and its influence so big that she and her brother could have lived comfortably as billionaires for the rest of their lives, all on innovations made for people in general, not just contracted work for a few specific supers like what Edna does, and yet she was never considered a villain until she actively put people's lives in danger, kidnapped people, and tried to kill a bunch of people. Both Buddy and Evelyn were geniuses, veritable Technomancers, they could have used their abilities to be heroes to millions of people but they chose instead to focus on their personal suffering and lash out at the world. And with Evelyn it was totally arbitrary; the Supers her father called never showed up because Supers had already been made illegal at that point, so she could have become a character who hated the legal system for holding back people who could have saved her family. This is only my speculation but I think she just got angry at Supers because she was jealous of the attention she always saw them getting, from society and her father and brother, where of course nobody involved in the legal system has hordes of adoring fans.
Anyway neither of them have any excuse. They're exactly the same as Tony Stark. No super powers but genius level intellect, incredibly wealthy, capable of creating things that can benefit millions of people - Tony lost his parents as a boy, struggled with addiction and nearly lost the family company because of it. Same thing with Batman, no powers, pretty much a genius, incredibly wealthy, had his parents killed right in front of him, watched his city degrade day by day with crime running rampant. So why is it that Iron Man and Batman are seen as heroes even though they're both so similar to Buddy and Evelyn? Because even though they had hardship, even though they made mistakes, *even though they have no powers,* in the end they chose to use what they had and do what they could to help make the world a better place instead of choosing to be destructive for their own personal catharsis. Bob may have done some selfish things, he may have made mistakes, but in the end he committed to helping people and keeping his powers in check instead of just doing any old thing he may wish to do. Bad things may have happened to the two villains, or things they perceive as bad, but they both had the option of proving to the world how valuable they were even without powers, or proving that you don't need powers to be a hero on their own, but they chose to hurt people instead and brought about their own downfalls.
I think the villians are prefect objectivist villians. Buddy is a classical but screenslaver is the prefect randain villian on an exstensial level. It can strip people of free will and reason.
@@darkeimp555 boy, that was a mouthful... maybe a bit much, but I do *think* these two along with bruce and tony fit in the same category. They are all well above genius level. When you look at someone like Rick Sanchez, it's obvious that he is considered a "super" and to a lot who know what he is, probably a "god". Where in the scale of someone like Hawking to Rick does one be officially considered a "super", barring that Buddy, Evelyn, and tony aren't technomancers.
@@darkeimp555 "It's been a long time since I've watched The Incredibles one" you say before typing 76 lines of text about... I don't even know because I'm not going to read 76 lines of text talking about The Incredibles
"When everyone's super, no one will be." that gave me chills when I rewatched it years later.
Funny how well he would do in the MHA universe.
@@ZoanBlade90 not very. Because the MHA world points out exactly how that idea isn't particularly true. The My Hero world values not just power, but image, and prestige. And then it points out how those things can never be the same for everyone and how society itself has baked in biases.
@@LupineShadowOmega So, if anything, he would be a follower of Stain? And since we're here, I'm curious: what do you think Magneto would think of the MHA world? Would he be a pro hero, a supporter of vigilantes, or a supporter of those forgotten in their society?
@@ZoanBlade90 I doubt it. Stain's allure was that he shined a light on some of the ulterior motives of heroes and painted them as selfish or lacking, which then gave villains courage to confront those heroes for whatever reasons they had that could be played as being in the right. By comparison, Syndrome is obsessed with inequality of society. Which still very much exists in MHA, and that he'd be a prime candidate for himself seemingly not having powers and still wanting to be a hero. Basically he'd be a cross between Gentle and Izuku.
Magneto, would be in his dream world. Heck, any of the X-Men would be in their dream world. All of the mutant growing pains are done, mutants are the dominant species on the planet and more or less this is the world that has been built to accommodate being a mutant. With baseline humanity just popping up from time to time. If we're talking who Mags would support, its probably a toss up of him wanting to help those that fall through the cracks in the system or just living a rather ordinary life without having to hide who or what he is.
One major distinction between the worlds of Incredibles and MHA is the prevalence of powers. That matters, because one adresses superhero "problem" via powers, and the other adresses it through the role of superheroes in society. Syndrome would be a reverse Stain, if anything. Stain seeks to remove those with power who don't have the right outlook. He sees himself as the judge, the one who decides who can be a hero, while having no problem with powered individuals living a normal life. Buddy, in contrast, has a problem exactly WITH this "judge", who decides who can and cannot be a hero, be it genetics, God or Stain.
Also, Magneto would be a pro hero in my guess. His main drive is to protect mutants, and mutants are a.not a minority and b.not prosecuted in MHA
*_Legend has it that Frozone still could'nt find his supersuit for 14 years...._*
Friendship I mean he does all ready have the greatest good he’ll ever get
I like your profile pic
Ghacchio stole it.
Live with no capes. Very straightforward philosophy I think.
NO CAPES!!!
Edna Mode
"But for those of us who finished the movie," is the best shade I've heard all day. Thank you for that.
I feel dumb. I just put the play on the sister's name together... "Evelyn Deavor..." Evelyndeavor... Evel yndeavor... "Evil Endeavor." A little on the nose I guess... but clever. :)
🤯
I noticed as soon as her name was first said. "This is my sister Evelyn" (me to me: So... evelyn deavor? She's the villain?)
Adren damn you’re really smart, you must watch rick and morty
Winston? "Wins Endeavour"?
...winning??
Nah. I'm reaching.
@@BigPurp9 Wubba lubba
Syndrome was a Super, just look at what he was able to create with the power of his mind... I like how in the Avengers infinity war, Thanos asks Tony Stark if he think he's the only one who can see, giving the idea that his Intelligence is his superpower. I love that because nerds are the biggest part of the superhero fan base and they may not be the Fastest or the Strongest but they can still be the smartest and that sort of encouraging positivity is exactly what kids need!
I think being SUPER genius is the most important & useful thing in the real world!!!!
hot take: syndrome is literally blaming mr. incredible for something that was his own damn fault. i mean, yeah mr incredible told buddy off. but imagine being a surgeon who in the middle of a tense session of surgery, some punk kid bursts in and yells "i can help too!" would you be polite or would you snap at them telling them to go home? mr. incredible gave the appropriate response. he had a dangerous supervillain nearly captured, but buddy kept him distracted long enough for the villain to plant a bomb on the little brat so he could get away. bomb voyage knew the bomb wouldnt do much to mr incredible but knew that mr incredible would drop him if he endangered the nearest civilian, in this case buddy. and the accident caused by said bomb could be further blamed on buddy. buddy basically helped the law that forced supers underground. and in the flashback scene when syndrome explains his motives, notice how bomb voyage isn't shown at all. he warped and twisted what was, a stressed out superhero wanting you to go home for your safety into something purely about himself. and all this, he blames on mr incredible for snapping at him during a tense moment. what buddy should have done is: attach something that can track mr. incredible, have buddy discover his secret identity during a less stressful situation, and have a friendship build from mr incredible training buddy. but instead, he did literally everything wrong. and this isnt even touching the numerous supers he lured to his private island and killed one by one like some kind of serial killer.
I mean yeah, that's the point. He's the villain. Dealing with people like Syndrome is more of a message that the superheroes can't please everyone on their own and Syndrome tries to eliminate that possibility by giving everyone the power to please themselves whenever they want. This is wrong in the end though, as it would just lead to people using their powers for selfish reasons, but of course Syndrome wouldn't notice this because he's salty over not being able to help and is too focused on his goal.
You ignore the additional encounters with Buddy that came beforehand, in which Mr. Incredible rejected Buddy in a much more direct and less understandable way. The conversations indicate that he does not see value in Buddy's support at all.
I actually like Evelyn Deaver more than this psychopathic bratty ego- filled genius!!!!!
@@ptolemyhenson6838 Imagine if some random kid broke into your car dressed like you. Would you be polite in that situation?
@@zinkheroofyoutube8004 not saying I wouldn’t be upset but you have to know your audience. He’s a kid for gods sake and you’re his hero. In his eyes, you’re a perfect beacon everyone should look to aspire being. We know how supportive this kid is. Mr incredible already mentioned signing autographs and whatnot. Who knows if mr. Incredible handled it differently syndrome might not have been created.
Randyan philosophy, named of course after one of the greatest philosophers in modern history: Randy Marsh
It doesn't exist. There is no "randyan" philosophy other than Objectivism
"I'm sorry, I thought this was America!"
Mr Incredible perfectly encapsulates what happened when parents first came in contact with the Common Core.
*Becoming fearless isn't the point. That's impossible. It's learning how to control your fear, and how to be free from it.*
Counterargument: see Chris Hadfield's TedTalk "What I Learned From Going Blind In Space". His argument is that fear and danger are not the same, and you can overcome fear. (Though it all does depend on the definition of fear being used: fear->panic or fear as in respect for a danger.)
"Being brave doesn't mean you go looking for trouble."
@@S3rp3rior :)
totally agree
That's essentially Chapulín Colorado's real power
Incredibles 2 is underrated, it’s become very popular to hate on it within the TH-cam film critic and philosophy community. It catches a lot of flack for repeating story beats from the previous movie - which is admittedly true - but doesn’t get enough credit for expanding the scope and depth of the philosophical analysis started in the first movie, which is what every good sequel should strive to do.
Plus it looks absolutely amazing
Totally agree, but some critics I respect, like the 3 dudes on Sardonicast, have a good point when they criticize Incredibles 2 for spending WAY too much time on Jack Jack for the purpose of marketing. The lack of time skip between the two films was likely because Jack Jack wouldn't have been a baby anymore and they wanted to sell him to audiences. Also if you're sensitive to audio changes the voice actors sound distinctly different, which is another good argument for a time skip. Finally, a lot of people saw Bobs jelousy for his wifes success as rooting against her, in an unsettling way. I disagree with that point but I can see someone interpreting it that way. personally enjoy it, but I see these points as very valid. The scene where Elastagirl swung to find Screenslaver and we heard a monolog about tech/meaning being served on a silver platter had me teary eyed. If the movie would have been more of that, it would have been much better I think. But instead we had to have 15 minute scenes made purely for children of Jack Jack playing with an animal Tom and Jerry style.
@@mikehudgins8545 Hey man, I'm 21-year old man (or at least I was when I saw the movie) and I had zero issues with jack jack fighting the raccoon.
Tristan Neal
Oh I totally agree. It’s still a great movie! Keeps true to the themes the first film set up so well that exceptional people should us their talents for the benefit of society and is certainly not short on action and humor.
I would say however these themes are not nearly as well executed as they where in first film, plus it get a bit preachy at times with
espousing media theory that is relevant to todays world. I always thought the Incredibles existed in it’s own universe, whats this stuff about todays politics doing in my family friendly cartoon feature?
Also maybe it’s just me but this movie didn’t feel like it was as much of an adventure like the first film. Where before they had to travel to a mysterious island and here they’re in the city the whole time not a much at stake since these characters can go home and take a nap after the hero work is done.
I still like the movie. Just perhaps the movie could have kept it self focused on it’s larger narrative more rather than be distracted by all the sub plots that pad out the run time. From Bob and the kids, to Jack Jack, to Edna, to Frozon, it is not bad at all but it’s a lot happening at once and can distract from the larger narrative. This is The Incredibles! I shouldn’t feel like they had to pad out their runtime. I expect that from the b-list movies from Dreamworks or Illumination, not from Pixar!
Anyway thats all, still a fun movie regardless!
@@HunterStiles651 I'm 25 with a little one and I still didn't care for it lol
It takes a strong man to stand up for himself, but it takes a stronger man to stand up for others. -Ben, Barnyard.
9:59 this part made me tear up again just from hearing it. Damn. The emotion is just so palpable.
I am not superhero, but I can relate to that moment.
Great video wisecrack. Now I desperately NEED you guys to break down the Coen brothers latest film: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. That movie has so many themes and is very philosophical as well in the Wild West setting. The whole film was like a bunch of stranger missions from rdr lol, with all the bleakness, dark humor, and satire included.
I love that line " when everyone is super...no one will be" except I switch out super for special, because it works so well in today's world. Everyone is trying to be special, but when everyone is special, no one is.
Wisecrack is easily my favorite TH-cam channel
First time I've seen you on wisecrack and you smashed this man. Brilliant job and I love the incredibles movies so a big thank you for this.
I'm glad you guys agree! It's be way too easy to just pass the idea of the ideal men and women as those who are "Super". Almost in a similar sense to The Good Place, it's not what you do, but your intentions behind an action that make you a better person
Let me start by saying, I love this channel. I have yet to see one of your videos that didn't make me think or look at something in a new light. This one is no exception.
The problem I had with it is the presenter's basic misunderstanding of objectivism. For example he, posits that, by objectivist standards, Mr. Incredible should be on the side of the insurance executive because at the beginning of the first movie, simply because he was "trying to make a profit." This leads me to believe that, like most critics of Rand in the media, he has either never actually READ any Rand, or read very little and allowed his perception of her philosophy to be informed by her other critics.
The main misconception he promulgates is equating "selfishness" with "self-interest". Selfishness is the mere gratification of whims and desires without thought to consequence or virtue. Self-interest is long-term goal of improving the quality of your life. Selfishness may cause you to eat whatever you like at the moment, where as self-interest will tell you that the long term benefits of watching your diet will make you happier in the long run. Going back to the example of the insurance executive, his selfishness causes him to defraud his customers by breaching the contract of the insurance policy he sold them. Bob (if you believe he is an objectivist hero) is simply applying that bit of objectivist reasoning and rationally deciding he should quit and justly chuck the lying little twerp through several walls on his way out.
The presenter also claims, incorrectly, that objectivism somehow forbids its adherents to ever act for the benefit of others. Again, this is either a misreading of Rand or simple ignorance of what she actually said. What Rand actually railed against was "sacrifice." Giving up something of value in your own life for others while getting nothing in return. Mr. Incredible might come to the conclusion that fighting crime (a dangerous occupation) will make Metro City a safer place in general which gives him a safe place to work and raise a family. "Value for value" is one of the main tenets of Rand and, often, the best way to get something of value is to offer something of value to someone else. That way everyone wins.
Last, the presenter gives us the philosophy of Aristotle as somehow a contrast to Rand. This made no sense to me. Any knowledge at all of Rand's early life shows that her philosophy was largely based on Aristotelean principles. Presenting it as the opposite is simply not logical.
So, a bit of advice. Go back and actually read "Atlas Shrugged"(or, at the very least John Galt's big speech at the end of the book). Granted, it's a tough read. She was a much better Philosopher than a fiction writer. Also read ABOUT Rand. I would recommend Stephan Molyneux's You-tube biography, which you can find here: th-cam.com/video/t-2c7Keic_A/w-d-xo.html
Molyneux is awful on Rand and Objectivism. I recommend you read curi.us and / or listen to Charles Tew instead.
Michael: "this time... we agree with you Kanye"
Kanye: "NO ONE CLAM SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT CHOWDER"
#RedVsWhite Can't we all just get along?
I consider The Incredibles an improvement upon objectivism. It is Randian in its insistence that the expectational person be allowed to be so.
“If everyone’s super, no one will be” and all that.
But it improves upon Randian thought by recognizing that the expectational person has a duty to his fellow man. Which is distinctly anti-Randian.
First villain: I destroy the heroes and create my own superpowers
Second villain: I control the heroes and repurpose their superpowers
Third villain: I take away the heroes superpowers and redistribute them (?)
"When everybody's special, no one will be."
Tell that to Hero Academia.
10:13 incredible missed opportunity for Frozone "greater good" clip.
My birthday is certainly made more incredible with this video!
Happy birthday!
Happy Birthday!!!
happy birthday, have a good one!
Happy Birthday! I hope you’re doing alright
happy birthday
"Radioactive web designer" ... I choked on coffee. Good morning to you too! :)
I think this is the only channel that doesn't fall apart when new people show up. Way to go everyone!👍🏿👏🏿
Dr Nihilism, hell yeah! Love the rotating hosts on Wisecrack, keeps things fresh and exciting! Please do Philosophy of Young Justice!
Hey I'm an up and coming filmmaker. I recently just put out a short film about A young African American husband who has to deal with dire consequences after losing his job and benefits. I'm looking to start a base, if you would please check it out. th-cam.com/video/Y0DVRtESscQ/w-d-xo.html
I think you're a bit off when it comes to the power part. Syndrome wasn't seeking power, he was seeking to destroy the ideals and meaning of the hero that he once idolized and felt betrayed him. Everything that he did was toward seeking revenge, not power. He just needed technological power in order to obtain that revenge.
Wisecrack has gotten me through a lot of difficult times in college.
One of the best you guys have done recently!
Wow a host substitute thats actually charismatic. It's pretty rare youtube channels pull this off. Good work!
I had never thought about it that way. Every time I considered The Incredibles, I only saw that Randian reading. But if thematic truth of the franchise is that with great power comes great responsibility and that being great does not mean being good. Syndrome could have used is superior intellect to help the world, instead of for a grudge.
Thanks Wisecrack.
Unfortunately, this exact idea us part of objectivism, not antethetical to it
I rewatched this movie a little while ago, and I'm so surprised at how awesome this is ...
WAY better than Over-land Over-watch Over-whateveritscalled
After watching this I think that you all should do an episode about "My Hero Academia". The story has a very deep undertone about morality, ideology and what it means to be human.
So basically what you’re saying is “with great power comes great”...
Wait wrong superhero franchise
This video makes me think of what I'm doing in my life, what I'm chasing after, if it's okay to do so, if I should be doing so. It makes me think that maybe the best way to do things is to strive for a place where both sides can get what they want. Where I can be a good friend, creating a happy and fun place to hang out, joke, tease, and play games, while also getting the same for myself. A win win where everyone is happy.
Congratulations, now you're an Objectiveist.
People who are born into greatness and harness their power and people that start in mediocrity but become great through their work are both sides of the objectivist coin
hearing "we agree with you kanye" in December 2022 activated my fight or flight response lmao
I know the shows not all that popular but could you do the philosophy of Wilfred. It’s a real interesting show and I feel like there’s something there. I think a video on it would be really good.
About the factor of pleasure, that depends on what you're referring to.
What gives ME the most pleasure are books. Whether writing them or reading them, indulging in literature NEVER gets old for me
"A Captain of Industry is better..." *shows Henry Ford*
...uhh...Probably could've chosen somebody else there Wisecrack.
Maybe they purposefully showed Ford as a subtle jab at objectivism.
Calm down snowflake.
@Rhox Omega Can people just fucking forget already that that word exists?
@@roxomega
It's almost like you're too stupid to successfully use the least intelligent ad hominem.
@@qwertyuiopaaaaaaa7 I present to the court exhibit B
4:44 He's not a failure, he's G-Man Graves, he owns the Chaos Theater in Toronto and New York City, he has a huge indie rock music label!
this is *definatley* a great video
don't you mean Incredible? ;)
Dina Rubina increbidle
@@jomibo21 thanks I can't spell
I haven't watched The Incredibles 2 yet, but I think I already like it.
Can you guys do the Venture Bros?
per season plz
tensix tag I mean if Rick and Morty can get an video for each episode than it’s the least they can do
I've been asking that for years
I think doing an episode on Archer might lead to the same philosophical mindset, but maybe I'm just being too much of a _jaded nihilistic sociopath._ ;-]
"What's your Superpower?"
"I have Munnnny..."
"Curshe you Schaint Cloud!"
This was really cool. Well done wisecrack!
What I always wanted to know is where the hell were Syndrome’s parents? The whole movie can also be taken as a plea for better parental responsibility.
Yeah ok but what are going to do to a young person that smart? Ground him, any school would laugh at you and call you a bad parent
You also forget Aristotle’s definition of “justice” was knowledge of one’s place and enforcement of the status quo. I imagine that might add an unintended tinge to your definition.
I would love to see "the Philosophy of Doctor Who." someday.
My mind is blown... never thought there would be such philosophy behind that. Honestly can't argue the logic though. How many of us will do quests in a game without a promise of a reward after? Fits for this philosophy as an example.
Philosophy of elasthic girl
you mean the philosophy of using sex appeal totally unrelated to the character arch (eg. Faye Valentine, Jessica Rabbit, ect.) in animation? That's actually a really good topic.
cool kid
ElasTHICC Gurl
The most interesting thing from a philosophical standpoint about The Incredibles is it is a world where superpowers make you inherently good. Every person with superpowers is a superhero, and every villain or crook is a regular human or one who uses technology.The movies are seemingly so definitive in this idea that not only is the government's entire argument for Supers that their do-goodery causes property damage instead of even a worry about whether they'd go bad, but the second film features a seemingly pointless scene where the baby super Jack-Jack fights a raccoon; a creature that is synonymous with robbery and theft.
Where is Jared. I hate change
Yeah, this guy has about as much personality as a water flavored snow cone....
Ancapride Hans r/ whoosh
Jared and Girl Jared are the only hosts we accept
@@pfl95 I can't even accept girl Jared, #MakeJaredHostAgain
"Why would they change Wisecrack?! Wisecrack is Wisecrack!"
- Mr. Incredible / NJ Media
The way I see, objectivism is definitely finding true happiness in life, but also self-respect. Like, don't do things because others tell you, but do it for yourself. Be a man that's taking charge of your life and making a path for yourself. Don't be a yes man and do everything tell you to do 100% of the time. Yes, you can take some life lessons from others, but you don't have to let all of that dictate everything in your life.
Good morning Wisecrack! o/
Mornin’!
I always felt that the "rand" heroes didnt look for money but looked for ways to achieve there goals without compromise and would even give up money and power in order to achieve there goals
My biggest issue with the Incredibles 2 was that the villain complained about people being ridiculously hooked on tv yet the movie takes place in the 60s. Unless I've been VERY misled by literally everyone I've met that lived at that time, that was not the case.
This video was one of the things that finally pushed me to read Atlas Shrugged. Looking back, I think there are a lot similarities between James Taggert/Cuffy Meigs and Syndrome that a quick video doesn't have the time to dig into. While the movies don't play out exactly like the book, a more detailed review would probably reveal this movie does more or less play by the rules of Rand's objectivist framework
Ah! Jared's gone bald. Sweet beard though.
What Jared? This is that pale dude from SNL that dated Ariana Grande.
It is against objectism to be forced to use your superpower for good. Objectism is an idea that you should not be forced to do good.
A new intern, Garax is getting pretty big.
When I first heard someone proclaim that The Incredibles were peddling objectivism, I thought they must have seen a completely different movie than I.
No one man should have all that power is from lex Luther not Kanye West
What about the romans lol
Remember when Steve left blues clues and we all hated Joe because he couldn’t never replace Steve? Yeah we want Jared to narrate.
You've changed my mind about how to interpret these movies. Looks like I'm not as observant as I thought I was.
I think screneslaver is an interesting villain because if you think about it, while they do seem to have a modern angle to them. They also fit pretty well in the 1960s when the incredibles take place. Funny how things seem to go in circles like that.
My Thesis is with Ayn Rand.
Everyone has the right to be happy 😊
I know I am more than an entire year late, but Ayn Rand philosophy isn't just simply that everyone has the right to be happy, rather that everyone has the right to act selfishly in order to be happy
@@nicorocks7 my comment is simply a simplified version of it. XD
@@j.lucido9536 I wouldn't say it's simplifying much considering that nearly every philosopher out there also boils their ideas down that everyone should be happy.
found this channel from "Film Theory". Much enjoyed!!
btw youre a handsome fellow
Honestly I dont agree , I dont feel you understand rand or how objectivism is applied to the characters.
Most people believe objectivism is selfish. And most people equate selfish behavior as evil or a bad thing. Not realizing that you only help others because it makes you feel good there by making it a selfish act.
Exactly anyone who has read rands works knows the heros are inherently objectivist . Their primary desire is to establish success through value in their beliefs. Though their nature is not malicious nor goes against the grain of any man . Selfish desire to obtain happiness through their own means as no compromise to their true desires and goals .
Thats fair . I share jordan Petersons views on her works . I enjoy her literature but it doesnt make the best example of philosophy. Yet my point was if one was to argue how to apply her philosophy the examples and the reasoning in the argument dont aline
No it is not Egotistical it is egoism please ilunderstsnd the difference
Guys anyone read or watch movie Harrison bergergon? Don't call it anti egalitarian. Try to understand it...
"Look, I don't know what an ideal man looks like, but I sure as hell know he wouldn't say feelin' sorry for others is bullshit, or that bein' generous to others is for bitches."
-Sparky Sweets, PhD
Objectivists being wrong is just objectivists being objectivists.
Exactly. Fuck Ayn Rand her ideology has made america lag behind western europe, canada, australia, japan in terms of quality of life. Americans work too much and get paid too little.
Objectively your wrong...
@@BenDover-lz6is But hey, at least we learned how best to "pwn the libs" while collecting Social Security.
@@TonyMacFarlane well good point mate. Excuse me, I shouldn't have made such a political comment in the first place. Theres already enough division in the world. We dont need the internet to be more fierce, do we?
@@DodgeWatt
Irony.
8:14-8:31 I can agree with pleasure becoming eventually boring, money being for other things and not really making me happy, but WHOA! Obtaining power depends on factors OUTSIDE our control? Can you explain that in a future episode? Thanks!
“Power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind. ” - Ayn Rand
The irony...
@@Brittow If you find irony here then perhaps it's due to you not really knowing about or understanding Randian Objectivism don't you think ? That or she was a bumbling moron we just keep talking about for no reasons, of course
@@MaiSent I'll stick with the latter
@@MaiSent objectivism is incoherent trash dwi
@@MaiSent Just Objectivism. Not "Randian Objectivism".
I've read some people who thinks incredibles is randian and I've read some who thinks it isnt .
My conclusion is the writers are either unaware of objectivism or didn't care to comment on it in the film. Because the movie has both con and pro objectivistic arguments, I think that these arguments are unintentional
Those who think that the movie has any comment on objectivisim is are no different than those who think frankestein is a commentary on communism.
I don't think this analysis has a proper understanding of Rand's views. Objectivism is not so silly that one can't save or love other people. It's basically all about pursuing what you value without being enslaved or otherwise molested by others. So, if Mr. Incredible values his family, it is perfectly in line with objectivism that he would sacrifice playing hero in pursuit of a higher value -in his estimation. Violet's "final critique of Randian thought" is a criticism of a failure of the government to provide law and order -something Rand believed was one of the few legitimate functions of government. No conflict there. The Objectivism presented in this video is a common caricature that ignores the valuable insights of Rand's philosophy in favor of vilifying her as a cold, advocate of selfishness (and her misuse of that word throughout her work didn't do her any favors).
Well said
Yes. This video was very intellectually dishonest as they didn't care to research or understand Objectivism.
I came here to look for this comment and upvote it. Thank you.
Perfect answer. Just what I was thinking while watching the video. The narrator did not understand objectivism at all.
damn son. deep and thorough.
concerned about my ability to kill time with TH-cam subbed vids amid the growing and changing platforms online, there's a genuine fear every information-well has been tapped.
thank you for dropping knowledge bombs on my doubt and dishing extra helpings on things I love.
...oh, and I can Wix for cheap? 2 for you Wisecrack, You go Wisecrack!
Please do the philosophy of Ron Swanson and if you do him also do Dwight Schrute
What surprise me, is that the Supers in The Incredibles... didn't just become movie actors. I mean, they can do their own stunts, have powers... you could make a Marvel movie with them.
Great pOwer something something... Aunt May
Georg Ohm never forgot his dying Uncle's advice: "With great power, comes great current squared times resistance"
-Annonamous
I’ve never watched Wisecrack, but that was so long I built a 3-story small house with a sky-bridge leading to the other half of the house.
Whoa!
I think that straw man has had enough! You can let him up now.
Talks about Objectivism in the Incredibles, keeps thinking about Bioshock and Rapture
Bioshock (the original) is created as a cautionary tale about objectivist capitalism gone berserk. To see it as a rebuke of objectivism is pure reductio ad absurdum.
When people tell me if you've played Bioshock, you'll learn why capitalism is bad and Communism us good, I always ask, "Have you played Bioshock 2?"
I love Ron Swanson
One of the things about both films Is that the villains give really insightful critiques of modern society. Both Syndrome and Evelyn have compelling and deep arguments. And neither is wrong. They are just evil and mess the arguments up. The heroes mess up. They have uninspiring and unconvincing arguments like “we just have to fit in” or “I can be really great, really incredible!” But in their muddle, they are not wanting to be evil, but good, and they can tell the difference when the chips are down. They have a humanity that allows them to not be evil, even when they aren’t brilliant philosophers. It isn’t enough to be right, but the villains are still worth listening to when you separate their arguments from their obsessive vindictiveness and the evil that stems from their self righteousness. To my own mind and taste, this saves the films from being schmaltzy “good and family always triumphs” tropes. Brad Bird’s brilliance is couching the hero story arc with a happy ending cliche with not only compelling characters and storytelling, but some top notch, makes you think modern social critique. Thanks for debunking the rather shallow objectivist interpretations of the films.
My initial understanding of objectivism was nearly the complete opposite of what you described in your video. How Rand's ideology was described to me was through the belief : that if everyone were to look out for themselves, each individual (assuming they are seeking to elevate their own interests) would do so through camaraderie, unless they were super 'badass' and could do it on their own. (But what if someone doesn't want to go into business, and write novels like Atlas Shrugged for a living?) Regardless of this misunderstanding, I used to support this philosophy as I felt anyone who let their emotion compromise their judgement was weak; Rick and Morty quickly became my favorite show because this idea is personified in Rick, as he views the world through this lens, yet struggles to exist. The episode where he sacrifices himself for Morty was extremely meaningful to me; not only was Rick acting out of selflessness, but he also gave up everything he believed to be true in that moment.
"The episode where he sacrifices himself for Morty was extremely meaningful to me; not only was Rick acting out of selflessness, but he also gave up everything he believed to be true in that moment."
No Rick didn't gave up everything he believed.
Rick kept his science knowledge to then use it to fix Morty's bracelet and save himself.
Rick cared about Morty and choose to risk himself for morty in that moment. He gave up security to keep Morty alive. Morty must have meant a lot to him.
If u wear headphones and listen around 13:20 it sounds like someone's is sweeping the floor behind u to ur left
"Math is math" is so deep!
"Truth is truth!"
>Rand bad
>Utilitarianism good
*eyeroll*
Guys, you totally forgot to mention Ayn Rand said we should do good things for our family, friends, neighbors and mankind because it makes us happy. Rand didn’t preach for us to be Scrooges.
She didn't preach anything, she was a sub-middling "sci-fi" author trying to get books sold.
you should change the word "because" with the word "if" then what you say is correct.
@@Fearofthemonster I would only change the word to "if" if I were talking to sociopaths and psychopaths. What percentage of TH-cam commenters are psych... nevermind
Can you guys do the philosophy of Seinfeld???? Or maybe Larry david
Were we watching the same film?...
“Ah the devils three way. My favorite drinking game “- Brett Kavanaugh @8:32
Yeah, you get Ayn Rand philosophy wrong. When you read "Atlas..." (by Rand) you get opposite of what you're saying. She never write that man is heroic by nature, what she really write is that human are not desine by nature. She loved man for what they can achive, but she accept that every human have a right to choose. Man can choose to be good or evil and that's way to be a moral being - to be able to choose. I read polish version of the book, but it's around begining of the 50-page monolog John Galt gave in "Atlas...".
And no, being selfish at the expense of others is not a "good way" in objectivism. There's nothing like this in her books or essay. There is about that you can choose to left your family if you value being alone that support your family, but it dosen't say that good. Again, it's say opposite - that you can choose, but you must pay consequences. If you give life you need to take care of it. You just must be aware of consequences of what you choose. If you're contradict to it, you're not "Objectivist", because you contradict to the reallity. I think that example was somewhere in "The Return of the Primitive" by Rand.
Friendship with squarespace ended, Wix is now my new best friend.
Living in Europe, I will miss this videos.
just use a VPN man, not all that hard to set up at all. Bonus tie-in: that is the rational self-interest that Objectivists glorify, when government makes stupid laws, citizens will find a way to circumvent them ;)
this movie really highlights the theme of You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain
Do philosophy of naoki uraswa's monster anime or manga
It's a 74-episode series. If no one's already watched it at Wisecrack, they're not gonna sink that much time into watching it now. :/
It's better than 95% of the stuff the talk about
@@adnan34chowdhary It still means they'd have to spend an entire month watching and researching for one show when they could have produced 4 episodes of smaller titles in the same amount of time.
Also, come on now, Monster isn't that complex of a show, philosophically speaking. The machinations of the plot are many and varied and engrossing, but the philosophy is stated right in those first few episodes: "Everyone's lives have equal weight and no one deserves to live more than anyone else."
@@Zelkiiro I'm not saying it is complicated, but its execution is amazing
@white america's worst nightmare I really don't want to start an argument in TH-cam comments, but it's really good. You should check it out
The way you put Objectivism makes it sound great, and I definitely agree with the first 3 points, especially the first one. But, in reality, Objectivism is just one big excuse to be shitty to other people.
On the other hand, Mr Incredible's entire purpose was to altruistically help others.
He hates his capitalist job, specifically because it denys people help for profit. It puts up front the real meat of what Marxist's problem with capitalism is, the fact that all things will be sacrificed to the profit motive or the firm will be out competed by those that do, capitalism trains the vine of production in that direction and in that only.
" We're supposed to help people.
We're supposed to help OUR people, starting with our stock holders Bob!" It holds true wether it's insurance, or food, or healthcare or anything.
He is scammed, captured and almost killed by Syndrome, who then intends to unleash death and destruction on a city for a spectacle. It's none other than his wealth accumulated as a capitalist that gives him the means to commit these horrid actions.