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.
Well, that is incredibly significant in that movie. Ethan creates a safe space for reuniting a family, but he has no place in it himself. That's the heroic/tragic thing about him, even though he's a raving nutbar.
FWIW, Raq, I agree in part with your take on The Incredibles. I didn't extrapolate to the widescreen spectrum of associations you did, but it did strike me as significant that the movie overtly stated a thesis consistent with Libertarian philosophy.
And in case you missed that, Beadie tells Frank "There's all kinds of wrong."(Very gut-wrenching scene and without the Buffista-like humor of Ziggy correcting the verbiage on his murder confession because he liked some other word better, which I mention because?) It's not really relevant to good vs. evil and intent. But I saw it and thought "I know about two hundred people who would do that!"
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.
Yep, Corwood, you're right. I would also add that it doesn't have the brainpower of BtVS. Joss has clearly wondered a lot about the issues surrounding being special by birth, and whether that makes one better, and if so what that means.
I do think that
The Incredibles
crossed the line of being a goofy play on the tropes with the repeated hammering of the point, but that's my read. Your (and Aimee's) points about the offending lines being in the mouths of non-protagonists are good ones, but I'm not convinced. The line from Dash resonated as a "truth from the mouths of babes" statement with me, and Syndrome's goal of making everyone super so no one would be was the genesis of the whole conflict. Having his goal be prefigured by Dash served to underscore that the writer felt that was a very important point.
Speaking of Dash, did they get in utero testing to know what his and Violet's superpowers would be before they named them? Even if Dash's manifested at birth, how would you tell? 5-second labor? Or do super families name the first boy "Jack" until he gets his powers, then the second boy "Jack-Jack," and so on?
I tell you, this movie raises a lot of questions.
"Dash" is short for "Dashiell" which maybe is just someone Brad Bird likes. IIRC.
Joss has clearly wondered a lot about the issues surrounding being special by birth, and whether that makes one better, and if so what that means.
Joss had quite a bit of time to delve into those issues, though.
I tell you, this movie raises a lot of questions.
It just makes me wonder whether my parents named me "Corwood Industries" knowing that I was destined to be a shadowy representative of an avant-garde musician or whether it just happened by chance.
I post twice 'cause I'm crizappy like that.
I tell you, this movie raises a lot of questions.
Such as, "Why does my husband think I would be willing to put my just had a baby ass into spandex?"
I just assumed it was a nickname.
I think that Dash and Violet were named the same way that Remus Lupin was--Authorial Foreshadowing Run Amok.
