I like my word better.

I hate all kids getting trophies, I hate saying there are not winners and losers in games and competitions.

without feeling one bit contradictory, I really hate adults who stress only winning. I also hate presenting games and competitions as only about the outcome.

I consider myself a left of moderate social liberal.

People who use their talents, physical or mental, to hurt others - those people do not get to be heros in my world. People who use their talents to help others, even if they are egomaniacal - they do get to be heros. And as for who decides, I do.

People who use their talents, physical or mental, to hurt others - those people do not get to be heros in my world. People who use their talents to help others, even if they are egomaniacal - they do get to be heros.

ITA.

And as for who decides, I do.

Whew. Now I know who to send my questions to. Thank goodness it's off my shoulders. *g*

psst, Aimee. That only counts in my world. you have to make the rules for your world.

Damn. I don't want my own world!! Ok, I do. But only one in which good things happen and noone is a dick. Including me.

But, you know...I'm a Wirehead and a Homicide fan, and thus have seen people do good things for bad reasons(Luther Mahoney builds a rec center to clean up his drug money.) and bad things for good reasons(Frank Sobatka gets involved in corruption on the docks to save his way of life, which, in a perverse way, I find heroic.) Great, now I can sit here and look like I'm talking to myself till Corwood bails my narrow ass out.

You're in good company until Raq comes in here and throttles me.....

More Buffistas need to watch "The Wire" and not just because(George likes urban carrots!) my fictionwriting boyfriend got Emmy nom for it, although I'm an idiot and got all proud when I read that, like I could say "That's my man!" or something. God.(And my friend asked me how I could be sure I'm not a genius. Um, I know okay?)

Nah, no throttling. I totally get that people will see the movie in different ways, and it's illuminating to read those differences.

My one response is that the part where Jack-Jack gets his powers isn't in the movie - it's in one of the DVD extras. I just watched it. I thought it was great, but it wasn't part of the text I was talking about. (And to be insanely pedantic, because, hey, it's b.org, he teleports or whatever before Kari breaks out the cognitive development toys).

I'm not really addressing what my political stance is, or what I think about everyone getting medals, etc, although if you guys want to talk about that we can (maybe better done in Natter, though). I was only addressing how the writing of a movie seemed to me to take the line that I've often heard from the right wing, and agree with it. And that I got a strong Objectivist vibe from the movie.

Heck, I've been accused before of reading too much into movies. I tried to explain to my nephew the symbolism I saw at the end of The Searchers, where the couples go off as couples and John Wayne is alone with the open doorway. He said, "Man, can't you just enjoy a movie?" I was boggled; much of my enjoyment comes from looking for the symbolism or message. So that's me; YmoviewatchingMV.

(I still think it's symbolic that Mr. Incredible started off with a blue uniform and ended up with a red one.)

Well, I think Raq's right that they repeat the statement that "if everyone's special, no one is" twice, which does make it a particular point. However, like Aimée says, the first time is in the mouth of an impetuous child, and the second time is in the mouth of the supervillian, so I think it's up ambiguous how much this message is sanctioned by Bird. I do think that the way the Incredibles coddle their older son (what was his name? Zippy? Speedy? Fast kid?) when he's clearly in the wrong for the way he treats his teacher is a particularly egregious example of bad parenting. Again, I'm not sure how much Bird wants you to admire them, though, because this is when the family is still being treated as dysfunctional. Later, the more functional family allows Zippy to go out for sports, with the qualification that he has to let slower, non-super kids win in order to maintain their secret identities. Presumably, per the earlier discussion, this subdues his behavior problem, I dunno (and they don't tell us).

Anyway, I think ultimately that Raq's problem with this movie is that it doesn't have the brainpower of comics like The Watchmen or Powers, both of which do examine (with wild succes in the former and varied success in the latter) the ethical issues of having a Nietzschean superman walking among us. Personally, I think that's ok because it's just not that movie - it's a play on the goofy tropes of superheroes, mostly Marvel superheroes like the Fantastic Four or the X-Men (and how do I know that? Sometimes I wonder), both of which mostly ignore the implications of superherodom for society at large in favor of inner turmoil and implications for immediate family.

And Erika is dead right about the way that intent is used in The Wire and Homicide, but I don't know if Bird is that nuanced. As much as I love The Iron Giant -- and trust me, I love the hell out of that movie -- it wasn't exactly subtle. Bird's also worked on lots of Simpsons episodes, which don't exactly involve categorical imperative in the actions of the protagonists.