PDA

View Full Version : Pixar's Incredibles: Syndrome is the true hero?



Pages : [1] 2

Sunken Valley
2012-08-07, 04:53 PM
Alright, This is my theory on the Incredibles. Everyone knows I dislike this for one reason: I think Syndrome is the true hero. I think he is working for the government, not evil and a better person than mr Incredible. The next 3 posts will explain why.

PS: please inform me if you see any subtle political stuff. I have posted this elsewhere and I don't want the mods to get me due to an editing slip

Sunken Valley
2012-08-07, 04:55 PM
Chapter 1: Syndrome the Government Consultant

Super-heroism is outlawed in the Incredibles universe because the property damage caused by their escapades results in numerous lawsuits and a bad public image. The government still harbours these superheroes, helping them maintain their civilian identities and cope with normal life. However, some supers do not approve. These powered beings chafe under the restrictions imposed by ordinary duties and wish for a chance to use their greatness. In the first 30 minutes of the film, Mr Incredible not only super-heroes in secret with his friend Frozone, but loses his temper with his boss, punching him through 5 walls (the latter blunder not only mind-wiped by government agents but implied to have happened before, with the end result being Mr Incredible and his family re-located). Mr Incredible was a reasonably sane individual as a hero. Other supers have a lesser grip on sanity. This is where Syndrome comes in.

To explain why Syndrome is useful to the government I must mention what his “evil” plan is. Syndrome has no super-powers, unless you count his vast intellect as one. He has used his inventive mind to become a weapons designer granting him a vast fortune. As a result, he is a bit cocky and could be considered a “prick”. You know who else that description matches? Iron Man. Yes, Syndrome is just like Iron Man: a maverick government consultant who operates on his own agenda, but an agenda inevitably on the government side. His greatest invention is the Omnidroid, a killer robot which he commands. Syndrome lures supers to his private island one by one with the help of his secretary Mirage, an attractive woman who offers the supers a chance to use their powers and costumes again. Whilst there they are asked to fight the “out of control” Omnidroid and try to stop it. In this gambit Syndrome is in a win-win situation. He fully intends to kill the super involved with the Omnidroid, so if they die, mission accomplished. If per chance they succeed, he asks them back and then builds a new more powerful Omnidroid specifically to kill them. Syndrome is shown to have done this to 15 super powered beings (with Mr Incredible intended as the 16th and final target). The next step of his plan is to launch a giant Omnidroid right into a city and then defeat it himself using gadgets to make himself into a superhero. This will then inspire a new age of powerless superheroes that use gadgets to fight crime, either ones they made or ones from Syndrome’s company.

Although Mirages’ line to Mr Incredible that both of them are “off the grid” (aka protected by the government) are a telling hint Syndrome’s actions are fully evidenced in the film as endorsed by the government by one gaping plot hole. Every super in the film has a government handler to check up on them and support them. Mr Incredible has one and both his wife and Frozone are mentioned as having their own. This implies that the 15 supers Syndrome killed had handlers as well. In this case, why was Mr Incredible never informed by the government that his life may be in danger and that supers are missing? Some of the disappearances are reported by the newspapers but Mr Incredible is never informed of them by his handler. The government are not stupid in this film, they would have noticed that 15 supers are missing, some of whom with connections to each other. Therefore, they knew Syndrome was doing it but kept quiet. Supers presumably cost a large amount of money to support and relocate and they may also be dangerous and crazy. If the government killed supers themselves, the scandal would be tremendous. So the government outsources the problem to a private organisation who will accept the job for little to no pay (highly likely, given the advanced technology Syndrome’s weapons possess has made him a billionaire). If anything, it is likely the government owes Syndrome for weapons and is paying him off by letting him kill supers (as mentioned later on, Syndrome has a grudge against super powered individuals).

Syndrome’s methods of doing so are also more dignifying to supers than dying of old age, suicide or snapping and becoming a villain (which, given Mr Incredible’s circumstances, is more than possible). In Wagner's Ring the greatest honour was dying in battle as only then could one go to Valhalla, the greatest heaven. For a superhero it would be infinitely better to die in action than live a life where they could not do the jobs their powers gave them. Take for instance Syndrome’s first target: Universal Man. Universal Man does not have a secret identity. He did not see the point of having one as fighting crime was what he did. His NSA fact-file on the 2-disc DVD recommends that he be kept busy. A ban on Superheroes would be a death sentence to him. When killed by the Omnidroid, Universal Man can now say that he died the way he lived: a superhero.

Furthermore, being killed by Syndrome is more dignifying to the families of the supers. Every superhero who comes to Syndrome’s island comes of their own free will. They are also paid handsomely for their services. Mr Incredible was able to use the money he was paid to defeat the Omnidroid to buy not only a car which did not break under his super strength, but was also enough to lie to his wife about being fired earlier in the film. The cash strapped government clearly did not give the supers any of these things. Syndrome did and he hates supers. Upon the hero’s eventual fall at the hands of the Omnidroid, this money makes a great pension for the bereaved families of the supers. This saves the government money, and further highlights Syndrome as a philanthropist. Syndrome’s end goal of making a new age of powerless gadget super-heroes is also beneficial to the government, as the members presented in the film expressed a desire for a return to the days of superheroes. Gadgets allow this by making superheroes more a part of public life than the distant idols they were. It also makes them more controllable by the government as gadgets can be destroyed, unlike superpowers. Finally, Mirage defects to Mr Incredible’s side and according to The Incredibles comic book is now working for the government. Given that Mirage only sides with Mr Incredible after the rest of his family breach the island and her pardoning for being accomplice to Syndrome this may have been a hasty government cover-up. As to the question of why a government would support sending a 50 foot killer robot into its own city, it would not. Syndrome did that on his own initiative. However, this is not an evil action.

Sunken Valley
2012-08-07, 04:56 PM
Chapter 2: Syndrome the Well Intentioned

Syndrome has regularly been described by critics, commentators and wiki-editors as a complete monster who repeatedly crosses the moral event horizon. The critic Confused Matthew refers to Syndrome as “so evil and sadistic that it was unpleasant just to watch him on screen”. Admittedly Syndrome does taunt Mr Incredible and his family regularly but the rest of his actions are not evil. Many of them are not “good” by the usual standard but all are well-intentioned and after all, there is no one way to do the right thing. Some are positively good, stripping Syndrome’s actions of the evil everyone else believes he has.

Syndrome’s first “evil action” in the film would be the murder of the 15 supers killed by his Omnidroid. Although I have mentioned that all of them went on the island of their own free-will, all died in dignity and all received a lot of money that was not the only reason. The real reason is that almost every one of those “Super-heroes” was dangerous to society. Syndrome was doing a medal worthy service by getting rid of them. The 2-disc DVD has fact files for 12 of those 15. I have already mentioned Universal Man and his lack of secret identity. Now I will mention the rest:

• Psycwave. Power: Mind Control. This alone is dangerous. Mind control can really mess up the world. Too deadly to fall into the wrong hands.
• Everseer. Powers: Clairvoyance, Telepathy and Magni-Vision. A mind reader who can observe from a distance and see the future. This is dangerous to the government as he would know supers were being killed. Plus, he was a paranoid germophobe. Certainly the type to believe in conspiracies.
• Macroburst. Power: Wind Control. This androgynous person was the kid side-kick of Everseer. He/She would likely have been inducted from an early age in Everseer’s conspiracy theories. He may also have been in contact with Everseer.
• Phylange. Power: Sound Manipulation. Phylange’s file describes him as selfish and not very popular amongst his peers. This sounds bittered.
• Blazestone. Power: Fire. She was a reformed villain. Her file recommends that she be under supervision. Supervision which would likely be costly.
• Downburst. Power: Matter Creation. The husband of Blazestone. He worked for the government even after the ban to find a way to use his powers to mass produce manufactured products. This could be dangerous if Blazestone managed to convince him to turn to evil.
• Hypershock. Power: Seismic Waves. His file also asks for supervision as he has a bad temper. Earthquakes controlled by a bad-tempered person? Risk.
• Apogee. Power: Gravity Control. This is a lethal power but Apogee sounds on her interview like a nice person. People do change over time though.
• Blitzerman, Tradewind, Vectress. They don’t have files on the DVD. This may mean they were “un-personed” because they were evil.
• Stormicide. Power: Gale Force Bursts. Looked after a sick Uncle. Depending on the circumstances of his inevitable death, this may have bittered her against the world.
• Gazerbeam. Power: Laser Eyes. He was a defence attorney who campaigned to remove the ban on super-heroes. Not only would he have noticed the disappearances, but the government would not want the ban to be overturned with dangerous supers like:
• Gamma Jack. Power: Radiation. A megalomaniac, who could disintegrate at 100 metres, was only in the super-hero business for the ladies and believed that supers were a “superior race”.
• Mr Incredible. Power: Super Strength. Punched his boss through five walls and was recently fired from work. A time bomb waiting to go off.
Nearly everyone on this list was dangerous. This would also explain why when Mr Incredible hacked Syndrome’s computer, his wife Elastigirl and Frozone were not on his records despite Syndrome clearly knowing about them. They had not shown any clear signs of violent behaviour.

Syndrome’s second “evil action” was being a weapons designer. Despite the negative connotations this profession possesses it is an important job. People need weapons so a weapons designer provides a valuable service to society. It is not a job to be vilified.

Syndrome’s third “evil action” was to torture Mr Incredible. Mr Incredible had sent a distress signal before his capture. As Syndrome knew Mr Incredible had hero contacts (hero contacts who could not be dissuaded by the government) he was trying to gain information as to which one it was. Jack Bauer interrogates people all the time, using much more dangerous methods than electrocution (Syndrome’s weapon of choice) on much weaker men. It is not wrong to torture for information.

Syndrome’s fourth “evil action” was to send missiles to blow up a plane with both Elastigirl and both her and Mr Incredible’s two eldest children, Violet and Dash. This is believed to be Syndrome’s most evil act, mainly because he did not stop when told that there were children on the plane and he gloated at Mr Incredible upon realising they were people he cared about. However, not only is it not evil to gloat, Syndrome did not “know” there were children on board. He was only told, he did not hear Violet or Dash. He only heard Elastigirl saying there were children aboard. It might have been a lie. He is also completely entitled to blow up Elastigirl. Syndrome lives on a private island. Elastigirl was trespassing on his land. As his island is not under any countries trespass laws, Syndrome is entitled to do what he wants. Elastigirl was clearly affiliated with her husband therefore dangerous. Furthermore, Violet and Dash were not supposed to be on the plane. They were supposed to be in school. At ages 10 and 14 it’s their own fault if they get caught in a dangerous mission. Plus, they skipped school! A truly heinous crime.

Syndrome’s fifth “evil action” was to not care about Mirage. After the plane blows up, Mr Incredible grabs Mirage and threatens to kill her if Syndrome doesn’t release him. Syndrome calls his bluff and even though Mr Incredible has nothing to lose, he can’t do it. Syndrome taunts him on this, calling him weak. This event sours Mirage’s opinion of Syndrome. But Syndrome was actually showing great wisdom by knowing his opponent. He would have intervened if Mirage was in real danger. But she wasn’t. He made a calculated risk and it paid off. Plus, Mr Incredible was the one making death threats (disrespectful).

Syndrome’s sixth “evil action” was to send his giant Omnidroid to attack a city. This was not supported by the government, but it was a good action. Syndrome’s eventual plan of creating the new generation of supers was a good idea. However, for a major change in world views to occur, a great event must happen to change everyone’s mind, to show everyone that supers are needed. By sending a giant killer robot, impervious to the army and the police, the need for supers is shown. This would also spread peace in the world as people would be too worried about giant robots to fight (Syndrome sent the robot in a rocket which he sent into space first). This plan is in many ways similar to that of Ozymandias from Watchmen. Ozymandias planned to teleport a mutant squid he created into Times Square. This mutant squid would send a psychic wave across New York, killing thousands of people, including the squid. This would unite the world against a common enemy (aliens) and stop all wars (including the cold war). In a way Syndrome is doing this by preventing the threat of Supers rebelling and empowering the common man to be greater.

Syndrome’s seventh and final “evil action” was to attempt to kidnap Mr Incredible’s youngest child, baby Jack-Jack and raise him as his own son. This would in the long run have benefitted Jack-Jack. The Incredibles are clearly a dysfunctional family. Mr Incredible punched his boss through 5 walls and at the end of the film does not appear to have got a new job, Dash uses his super-speed to play pranks at school, which his father supports (in a selfish attempt to live through his child), Violet is shy and uses her invisibility to stalk boys and Elastigirl is unable to control her family and prevent them from starting a fight at the dinner table. What kind of lessons would these people be teaching Jack-Jack? Undoubtedly he would be surrounded by bad role-models. This is made worse by the reason why Syndrome failed in his kidnapping: Jack-Jack’s shape-shifting powers allowed him to best Syndrome. As seen from the short film Jack-Jack Attack Jack-Jack shape-shifting is so powerful it allows him to access numerous other powers (including flight, super strength, fire, invulnerability and phasing). This immense power and the inability to use it under the ban would likely have driven Jack-Jack violent and given him a superiority complex in later life. Furthermore, Syndrome was able to get to Jack-Jack because the baby sitter the child’s family left him with gave Jack-Jack flat out to the weapons designer due to her fear of the baby’s powers. Any family who would leave their boy in the hands of such a clueless person are obviously irresponsible. This tradition is continued by the end of the film’s implication that baby Jack-Jack superheroes with his family. One should not have a baby super hero no matter how powerful. It’s dangerous. In such a scenario, a child would be taken into care. This is what Syndrome was doing, he was again helping the government deal with their super problem by being super-social care. Syndrome would have also made a good father. When we see him in the process of kidnapping Jack-Jack he is feeding the babe milk and filling a box with his toys. Is this really the actions of a maniac? Syndrome is also rich. Jack-Jack would have lived a life of luxury with his new father. Syndrome would have spent a lot of time with his son. It is implied that Syndrome was ignored as a child by his parents. He would have done the opposite to any children he had. He would also have been nice to Jack-Jack given that he appears a pleasant person to his henchmen and Mirage. Only when taunting Mr Incredible is he unpleasant. Furthermore, Syndrome told Mr Incredible how he intended to train Jack-Jack as a super. This would prevent Jack-Jack from being a lazy playboy like many heirs and heiresses and allow him to harness and control his powers. This would give him a better experience in the long run.

Syndrome’s actions can now no longer be seen as evil. They were always for the good of society and never truly for any darker purpose than self-defence or helping others. But so does this lead into Syndrome being a benevolent force? Chapter 3 will reveal all.

Sunken Valley
2012-08-07, 04:58 PM
Chapter 3: Syndrome: Empowering the Common Man

To start looking at what makes Syndrome heroic it is first important to examine his back-story. As a child, Syndrome was a big fan of Mr Incredible before the ban to the extent that he tried to sneak into the latter’s superhero missions under the guise of “Incrediboy”. When I was younger I approved of this decision as I was of the age where I supported such vigilantism. Now I do not. Being a child sidekick is dangerous, irresponsible and could get you killed at an age too early to fully experience life or have a successful career afterwards. Plus, it is implied in the film that Incrediboy had pestered Mr Incredible many times before. Mr Incredible was, dare I say, right to have turned him down. However, he did so very badly. He did not use the argument I did. He told Buddy to go away because “he worked alone” which is very rude. He obviously knew it was wrong as he later apologised to Syndrome for being rude (the sincerity of his apology is doubtful at best as Syndrome had the Omnidroid’s blades to his neck). In fact, since Mr Incredible does work with other heroes during the film (including the flashback) it is highly likely that Mr Incredible would have let Incrediboy join him if not for his lack of powers. Mr Incredibles rejection turned Incrediboy/Syndrome against supers. For you see, this is the key difference between Syndrome and Mr Incredible that makes Syndrome a better role model: ambition. Syndrome knows he does not have powers and he has the dream of being a super hero (a good dream if you start at adult). He also knows he can’t be a superhero due to the ban. So instead he becomes a supervillain/weapons designer. Syndrome knew as a child that he was a good inventor (as Incrediboy he had Rocket-boots he made himself. As a child). He followed these talents to their natural conclusion and designed weapons. Not only that, his weapons are revolutionary. To date no one has made rocket boots, flying saucers, killer robots and zero point energy (an energy that levitates and immobilises anything inside it.). Syndrome managed to rise to the top and reach a position to create his utopia. Mr Incredible has no ambition. After the ban he could not be a superhero but he could have used his super strength to be a police man, fire man or builder. He becomes an insurance salesmen, a job that not only does not need his strength but is the opposite to helping people (to the extent that Mr Incredible loses the company money by giving his clients advice to how to navigate the system and punches his boss through 5 walls due to frustration with the little man’s lack of empathy). He instead has to do his superheroing against the law and in secret. This is not a positive role model. This is a wreck who lives in a broken family and is unable to follow his dreams even though he could easily. Whereas Syndrome was a disadvantaged child who rose to the top and became successful. Furthermore, according to Brad Bird (Incredibles creator) Syndrome gained his name because he is antisocial as in “antisocial behaviour syndrome”. Do you know who else had that? Ludwig van Beethoven, Winston Churchill and Steve Jobs. All inspirational people. Syndrome can now join them as a pioneer of weapons design and give his message to the world.

Speaking of message, I will now go on to mention the film’s flawed and warped moral. Whilst The Incredibles has an obvious message on the importance of family, this was a co-incidence and not, according to Brad Bird, the film’s intended message. The true message of the film is that some people are naturally better than others and that these people are being suppressed and held back by society. Now this message has a ring of truth, but it is not only not very family friendly it is also un-democratic. Society is there to represent the interests of the majority whilst making sure that every minority is happy. The idea of people being better than others is discrimination and a philosophy that leads to genocide. This is further warped when the better people are superhuman beings who can control minds and disintegrate people on a whim. These people aren’t rulers, they’re threats which no one can handle and create a brutal caste system. This is not a positive message. Syndrome on the other hand advocates a positive message. Syndrome wants to create a new era of super-heroes who are ordinary people relying on gadgets to catch criminals, just like people such as Ironman or Batman. This is expressed mainly by the infamous quote “When everyone’s Super no one will be.”. This is not a negative message. It represents a technological utopia where people not only have a better quality of life, but they are also equal, which makes them more diverse and removes discrimination. As the first gadget- based super, Syndrome is an inspirational citizen leader, inspiring others to follow his path. I have previously mentioned Syndrome’s similarity to Ozymandias and his message of world peace. However, what I did not mention is that his plan worked. World peace was brought about by the mass deaths of New York City. The protagonists of the graphic novel all agree that the plan was a good idea after all and promise not to tell anyone that Ozymandias was responsible, letting him get away scot free. His plan had a positive result and rightly so. Syndrome unfortunately doesn’t get this. Although he is the first costumed vigilante on the scene of the attack, he drops his remote for the robot before he can finish destroying it and gets knocked out, recovering shortly after the robot is destroyed. How is it destroyed? When the Incredibles get on the scene, it overwhelms them and is only defeated when Mr Incredible finds the remote and finishes what Syndrome started. I see this as unfair. Without Syndrome, the robot could not be stopped and all he did was drop his remote. Does that mean he does not deserve credit for stopping the robot just because he is clumsy? Just because he does not have powers? This is blatant discrimination and disrespect. Powered people stole Syndrome’s plan and didn’t give Syndrome any credit. I think Syndrome deserved a second chance due to his positive message as opposed to the warped one of the supers. But this was not the worst thing to happen to Syndrome.

A subject of The Incredibles that is close to my heart is the matter of Syndrome’s death. After his failed attempt to kidnap Jack-Jack, Syndrome gets into his private jet, swearing vengeance on the Incredibles. As he does so, Mr Incredible picks up his car (a car Syndrome bought for him) and throws it straight at Syndrome (a glaring lack of respect). This causes the jet to explode, killing Syndrome in the process. The movie tries to make Syndrome look like he killed himself by having him thrown into his jet engine and still alive, but getting his cape caught in the engine (the film had previously discussed how capes were the cause of numerous super deaths due to them catching on things) and him being dragged into the engine by his cape screaming. However, given that he would not be in the jet engine if not for Mr Incredible throwing the car, that the plane would have exploded anyway (it did not explode because Syndrome’s corpse got stuck in the engine, planes are designed to prevent that) and that Syndrome’s rocket boots were broken by Jack-Jack, Mr Incredible murdered Syndrome. There are several problems with him doing this. The first is that it was pointless. The government had already said that they had frozen Syndrome’s assets and were waiting to arrest him when he came back to his island. Mr Incredible knew this and had no reason to doubt it (I have already shown that I do). Syndrome certainly did not know about this. Therefore, it was pointless to kill Syndrome as he would have been arrested anyway. Even if the Incredibles wanted to capture Syndrome themselves, Violet could have incapacitated him with one of her force fields. There was no need to kill him. Another problem with killing Syndrome is the unwritten law. This law is that superheroes should not kill. This is because if they kill they are not heroic as they have killed in cold blood, making them at best vigilantes who take the law into their own hands and at worse villains themselves. To prevent this super heroes should show they are “super” by not killing. Those who do kill are merely anti-heroes. Syndrome understood this, that is why not only did he refer to himself as a villain (giving him the ability to kill if he wanted) but he did not kill anyone personally. He merely used his paralysing beam to incapacitate his foes. He had every opportunity to kill the Incredibles but he did not. Mr Incredible did not need to kill Syndrome but he did. This makes Syndrome the better man. The final reason why it was wrong to kill Syndrome is because it makes Mr Incredible a jerk. As previously mentioned, Syndrome had taunted Mr Incredible on how not killing makes him weak. This is false. Not killing someone you don’t like (especially when you can do so and the other person tried to kill your family) takes a great amount of will power. By not killing Syndrome, Mr Incredible could have shown him that not killing makes you stronger than one who kills to get what they want. It could have been a poignant moment and changed my opinion of both costumed persons. Instead, Mr Incredible was weak and gave into his urge to kill. This ultimately makes him a weaker man who cannot resist his primal impulses instead of a true hero. As a result, he is less of a hero than Syndrome.


In conclusion, Syndrome may not have been the best of people. Certainly he did many actions which could be labelled evil. However, his message was a good one. He wanted a utopia of equality and diversity and in my opinion, this goal is greater than the selfish goal of the protagonists of re-consolidating their power base. But at the end of the day, if The Incredibles can be interpreted in so many different ways on so many different levels, then that must mean it’s a pretty good film.

Mauve Shirt
2012-08-07, 05:02 PM
IIRC, Mr. Incredible didn't kill Syndrome, he was sucked into a jet by his cape.

Whiffet
2012-08-07, 05:02 PM
Could you edit those so they're easier to read please? :smallconfused: All I see are three giant walls of text. Hitting "enter" twice between each paragraph alone would make a huge difference.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-07, 05:08 PM
Are you kidding me!

People that saved hundreds of lives from villains that where then locked away because jerks took advantage of suing stuff. Collateral damage caused by them saving people that would be dead otherwise!

Then a guy comes in and MURDERS them. A WEAPONS dealer. So who knows how many people are dead because of his ultra lazers that he sold off alone.

Off the grid? The island was just hidden!

The murder being OK? Are you serious! A guy that takes sadistic pleasure in both torturing a man and killing his wife and children?

GloatingSwine
2012-08-07, 05:11 PM
He wanted a utopia of equality and diversity and in my opinion, this goal is greater than the selfish goal of the protagonists of re-consolidating their power base.


No, not really.

What he wanted was to play with the world like a toy, to be the only one who was special, and when he was bored of that, when he'd "had his fun", he would render the whole concept meaningless so that no-one would ever rise above his new mediocrity.

He was also pretty much a grade A psychopath, he didn't view others as people, but as objects for his use.

Think back to why Mirage betrays him. When Mr. Incredible was threatening her life, Syndrome simply doesn't care if she dies. She's not a person to him, if she had to die just to make Mr. Incredible cross that line and so hurt him just a little bit more, so be it. That's indicative of his wider outlook, he doesn't care who suffers to make him look good in his plan to unleash then stop the Omnidroid, they're little people.

So no. Syndrome isn't the real hero, and in order to try to claim that he is you basically have to ignore his character and everything he does in the movie.

GloatingSwine
2012-08-07, 05:13 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Lord Magtok
2012-08-07, 05:24 PM
It is not wrong to torture for information.

Many would disagree.

Forum Explorer
2012-08-07, 05:33 PM
While that was pretty thought out it was also painful to read. Please edit it and create some paragraph breaks.


Now your argument against the superheroes basically is that you can't trust these people with these powers and thus they should be killed. Either due to possible emotional issues or the power in question is too powerful.

These people didn't choose to have powers. Either a lucky accident or birth gifted them with these powers. They could have done as Syndrome did and used it for personal power and wealth. Instead they decided to help anyone who needed it without question or thinking about the consequences.

Syndrome didn't need to kill anyone. His inventions already put him on par with a group of four superheroes. He could have given them away freely and ended the supposed 'menace' right there. Instead he lured them in and killed them. In the end he didn't give away his technology at all. He used it to place himself above the rest and to eliminate his rivals. Then he would sell his inventions so that other rich people could also be superheroes.

The use of torture is wrong. It's always wrong. Only in the most dire of circumstances would it even being considered as an option would be acceptable.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-07, 05:33 PM
He's essentially Lex Luthor, I suppose if you're Ayn Rand or something you could find him praiseworthy.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-07, 05:39 PM
Many would disagree.
I would agree with your statement.
Yes, Mr. Incredible could potentially have handled things better with Buddy "Incredi-boy", but that does not justify Syndrome murdering multiple people to try and get back at a man who tried to protect him when he was a child and who in fact saved his life, attempting to murder Mr. Incredible's family or trying to kidnap his youngest child
In the end, Buddy was still a selfish, angry little boy.
His motives might be sympathetic, but his actions?
No, Syndrome is no hero.

Maxios
2012-08-07, 05:45 PM
The only thing I got out of your essay is this: We can say prick on these forums? :tongue:

Sunken Valley
2012-08-07, 05:48 PM
Edited for paragraphs!

I'll tangle with you all later. I notice that certain segments are mentioned about more than others. Interesting. Also, whoever does a point-by-point analysis of the whole thing will be rewarded.

Finally, I'd like to point out that I'm not a psycho, nor do I support real-life or other fictional psychos. Just Syndrome. And mostly because he died. Maybe someone else if I watch more films.

And yes, I do support later comic-book interpretations of Lex Luthor. Mostly the non-crazy ones where he's a billionaire threatened by something dangerous that no-one understands.

Tavar
2012-08-07, 05:52 PM
So, essentially, your argument is that because the character/person in question died, he's a hero? That an incredibly weak argument, if that is the case.

SoC175
2012-08-07, 06:06 PM
Syndrome on the other hand advocates a positive message. Syndrome wants to create a new era of super-heroes who are ordinary people relying on gadgets to catch criminals, just like people such as Ironman or Batman. This is expressed mainly by the infamous quote “When everyone’s Super no one will be.”. This is not a negative message. It represents a technological utopia where people not only have a better quality of life, but they are also equal, which makes them more diverse and removes discrimination. As the first gadget- based super, Syndrome is an inspirational citizen leader, inspiring others to follow his path.Except that this is total rubbish. Syndrome explicitly states that this is not his goal, not even by a long stretch

He doesn't want to inspire, he just wants to be the only one who "can control minds and disintegrate people on a whim". He wants a ruling caste to be created with him as it's only member.


Syndrome’s actions can now no longer be seen as evil. They can.

They were always for the good of society They were not

and never truly for any darker purpose than self-defence or helping others. They were only ever intended for a darker purpose and never to help anyone other than himself.

But so does this lead into Syndrome being a benevolent force? No

And then once he's too old to enjoy it anymore he wants to arm the whole world and have a last laugh watching the world blasting itself back into stone age.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-07, 06:07 PM
From what you're saying, Sunken, what I'm getting is you think that anyone with super-powers - even when dealing with someone who just IS more moral than the general morass of humanity (i.e. Superman) - is inherently a dangerous and/or an untrustworthy threat, but are apparently willing to trust that mundane humans with super-power-emulating technology are not going to abuse the priviledge.

Because I really can't see that ending well. Humanity as a whole is simply not ready for that kind of power - and personally, I have my doubts as to whether it could ever be.

Fiery Diamond
2012-08-07, 06:16 PM
...

What.

...

Surely you're not serious. Surely you're being facetious.

...

There are a few things you said that make me think this is all a big long complicated joke, such as you calling skipping school a heinous crime. It's possible that was simply your attempt to inject humor into your presentation of something which was otherwise meant to be taken at face value, though.

Let me just say I hope you're kidding, and not an unconscionable monster.

I will treat you as if you're serious, though, as I respond.

RESPONSE TO "CHAPTER ONE"
That's a fairly amusing theory. It's self-consistent and not particularly hard to fathom, assuming one takes the viewpoint that the government is full of soulless monsters, which is not out of the question. So far, the final sentence is the only part I can call shenanigans on completely. As far as conspiracy theories go (which is precisely what this is, just about a fictional world rather than the real one) this is relatively straightforward and believable. It's still utterly ridiculous.

RESPONSE TO "CHAPTER TWO"
Point by point...

Evil Act 1: You acknowledged it as murder. So far, so evil. Then you proceed to list the supers killed with your own reasons why eliminating them could be seen as a good thing. Some of the reasons given are fairly reasonable (i.e. Psycwave, Hypershock, and Gamma Jack) while most of the rest are completely ludicrous or "they might find out supers are getting murdered! Let's murder them too!", which is clearly an EVIL reason to kill someone.

Verdict: Evil Act confirmed as evil, despite one or three people being possibly better off gone. Syndrome Status so far: Mass Murderer.

Evil Act 2: Is Syndrome supplying others with his weapons? What others is he supplying? If he is selling them to the government, then this is not necessarily a bad thing (of course, if your crazy conspiracy were true, then it would still be a bad thing, just because helping such a government be able to obliterate others is a bad thing). Selling them to terrorists? Significantly bad. Keeping them for himself? Depends on how he uses them. How's he using them? Oh, right, to kill people.

Verdict: Evil Act not confirmed as evil due to lack of information; however, this act makes him far more dangerous than any of the other supers were - so if they should be eliminated, so should he. Syndrome Status so far: Mass Murderer, armed and dangerous.

Evil Act 3: No need to elaborate. Your statement of torture not being wrong is false.

Verdict: Evil Act confirmed as evil. Syndrome Status: Sadistic Mass Murderer, armed and dangerous.

Evil Act 4: Your entire line of reasoning is fallacious and laughable. He willingly opened fire on an unarmed plane bearing a non-hostile adult and two underage children. He had no reason to disbelieve that he had killed Mr. Incredible's family and he gloated about it. "I'm not bound by law so I can murder trespassers" is not a valid moral argument.

Verdict: Evil Act confirmed as evil. Syndrome Status: Unconscionable Sadistic Mass Murderer, armed and dangerous.

Evil Act 5: Given what we know of Syndrome so far, we have no reason to believe your claim that he would have intervened but for that he was calling Mr. I's bluff. We have every reason to believe he simply didn't care if she died.

Verdict: Evil Act confirmed as evil. Syndrome Status: Socio/Psychopathic Unconscionable Sadistic Mass Murderer, armed and dangerous... you know what? I'm just going to shorten this to "Complete Monster."

Evil Act 6: Your allusions to other stories are irrelevant, since they hinge on me agreeing with you about them, which I don't. Letting a giant killer robot loose in a crowded city so you can grandstand is at the very least completely irresponsible to the point of monstrous. His eventual goal to be achieved is, contrary to what you posit, completely beside the point.

Verdict: Evil Act confirmed as evil. Syndrome Status: Complete Monster.

Evil Act 7: Kidnapping is bad.

Verdict: Evil Act confirmed as evil. Syndrome Status: Complete Monster.

Conclusion: Your conclusion is ludicrous.

RESPONSE TO "CHAPTER THREE"
Do you really think "empowering the common man" makes all the evil committed okay? That's a disturbing view. Besides, some people ARE superior to others, even in the real world. Not value-wise, but capability-wise.

Syndrome deserved that suffering death. Mr. Incredible was completely justified in killing him.

I can't believe I just wasted 45 minutes on this response when I still think you were just playing out an elaborate fishing for responses.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-07, 06:22 PM
If you want I will go into more detail:

First off lets establish that the heroes are freaking awesome. I would trust them with my entire Bank account.

What does Mr Incredible and Freeze do in their spare time? Going around rescuing people. They consider their duty of Saving people so important to them that they spend their free time saving people (Even though they have no glory). How awesome of people are they? Its like a guy gifted with insane wealth going around spending every penny creating orphanages and when he is prevented from making orphanages he sneaks out wearing a black mask and hunted by the police building orphanages at midnight.

Although they liked glory, this proves that they considered their powers a privilege (That they will not rest using to aid you) and the the freaking shining examples of humanity.

Two: Giving everybody superpowers is not such a great idea. I am perfectly comfortable with Mr "I will spend my free time saving you from a fire and the very act of preventing me from saving people like you makes me mad" having them exclusively. I would vote the man for President.

Three: So dying in a bed as an old person an next to your children (Who have their own children by now) is worse then dying by the hands of a homicidal robot (Again People who are Paragons of Virtue. They could be rulers of the world but they PROVED to be heroes) ? And my family knows nothing about it? The idea disgusts me. Its like saying killing me right now is justified because I die young.

Four: They come by their own free will yes, but its like saying that If I was stabbed in an alleyway it was my own free-will that got me there.

Five: Iron man went around saving people. He did not use his powers do stage a robot to make himself out a hero whilst killing the saints of humanity.

Six: I counter your government theory with mine. They knew about the occurrences but kept it secret from the other supers because they didn't wan't them getting fishy.


To your second part:

The movie established how totally awesome the heroes where. Sure they could be dangerous, but who would I trust more? Paragons of humanity? Or Syndrome?

But Il review your other text chunks later.

Dr.Epic
2012-08-07, 06:23 PM
Chapter 1: Syndrome the Government Consultant

Where is this ever stated? He said he was an arms dealer. It was never stated he sold weapons to the US military.


Chapter 2: Syndrome the Well Intentioned

Yeah, tracking down old supers - innocent people who helped save the world countless times - tracking them down to kill them, then launching a giant robot to possible kill people so he could be a hero is really well intentioned. Give this man a medal.


Chapter 3: Syndrome: Empowering the Common Man

So? You say that like it's a positive. If he's supposed to represent the common man, he's villain and caused the deaths of many innocent people. Magneto empowered mutant kind, but given all the destruction he did, at the end of the day, good mutants don't want to be associated with him. And as the common man, I don't want to be associated with Syndrome. Not to mention, a superhuman intellect doesn't make him such a common man.


In conclusion, Syndrome may not have been the best of people. Certainly he did many actions which could be labelled evil. However, his message was a good one. He wanted a utopia of equality and diversity and in my opinion, this goal is greater than the selfish goal of the protagonists of re-consolidating their power base. But at the end of the day, if The Incredibles can be interpreted in so many different ways on so many different levels, then that must mean it’s a pretty good film.

The message was be proud of you strengths. I'm sure you're talented in one or more subjects and you should be proud of that as opposed to not being recognized for you greatness. We wouldn't be where we are today with all our technological advances and great works of art without such people who were better than others.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-07, 06:33 PM
If he really wanted to help humanity, he could have used his technology skills to do so. Perhaps not as a hero, those were banned, but by creating better technology for all? If done right, that could indeed be considered noble.
But he didn't do that.
Instead, he was obsessed on some petty, and murderous, revenge plot against superheroes in general and Mr. Incredible in particular.

Tavar
2012-08-07, 06:34 PM
Don't forget attacking the city in an attempt to stage a heroic rescue. An attack that pretty explicitly killed people.

Rake21
2012-08-07, 06:49 PM
I'd like to point out that the people he murdered on the island (and yes, tricking people into battleing your giant kill-bots until they die is murder) were all super-heroes, people who saved lives every day. You make some pretty big jumps in logic to try and justify their death, too.

A reformed supervillian? Obviously dangerous.

A clairvoyant and their sidkick? Clearly deranged conspiracy nuts.

Superhero who's kind of a jerk? He's going to be tossing death rays from a clock tower.

You also noted that Frozone and Elasta-girl weren't in Syndrome's data-base. They were. He had a file on each of them. He even knew who Frozone was and probably would have gone after him next if he hadn't found a much more personal target, Mr. Incredible.

Later, he hears children screaming in terror as they, presumably for him, fall to their death. And then he gloats about it. It being attempted child murder.

Also, he hires mercs who clearly have no qualms about child murder.

Then there comes the point where he drops a building size death machine in the middle of Washington D.C. where it blows up a bunch of buildings and tanks, likely killling doznes of civillians and soldiers in the process. All so he could pretend to be the hero... which he goes on to fail at.

Finally, after being showed up, he kidnaps a baby. Not for the kids betterment, but because he wants to hurt the Incredibles. And then he gets himself killed.

Syndrome=**** who hates kids



Good villain, though.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-07, 06:57 PM
Am I the only one reminded of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0)?
Rather harsh I know, but Syndrome isn't a hero.
He could have been, but he lost that opportunity a long time ago.
Partly through Mr. Incredible's actions, but mostly his own.

Forum Explorer
2012-08-07, 06:58 PM
Reward eh?


Well lets start off with Syndrome being a government consultant.

He wasn't. While he may have sold weapons to the government there is no evidence that he is in anyway supported by them. In fact there is evidence to the contrary as they shut him down as soon as he does something illegal.

The old superheroes on the other hand were. They were funded by the government, protected by them, and when they were sued, the government payed the cost.

If Syndrome was working for the government he would know where Elastigirl was instead of it being unknown.

Dying in battle being dignified is debatable but definatly not universal. Mr. Incredible didn't want to fight, he wanted to help people. The same attitude likely exists in many of the other heroes. In a way dying when you think you are helping protect the world when you aren't is a cruel lie.

As for the families well, Mr. Incredible didn't get paid until he defeated the first death bot. For those who failed initially, to their families they just disappeared.

The government not warning the supers points to one of two things. One they respected the privacy of the superheroes and only intervened when requested or needed. Two they didn't care/liked the supers dying. Either way it doesn't legitimize Syndrome's actions.

I think I covered why killing the supers was wrong but lets go over in more detail

Psycwave: He was a hero. He already has this power and didn't abuse it. Killing someone for the potential to cause harm is wrong and paranoid.

Everseer: Well that depends on the government's involvement. If the government is ordering the murder of it's civilians then Everseer is a threat. Otherwise Everseer would likely warn the other supers. He's a big threat to Syndrome but not to the government.

Macroburst: You have no evidence of Everseer believing in consipricy theories. Even if you did that doesn't mean Macroburst believes them as well. Even if Macroburst did that doesn't mean believing in conspiracy theories is worth a death sentence. If he/she was in contact with Everseer that would be a threat to Syndrome. Not to the government or world at large.

Phylange: Being bitter doesn't mean you should die. Saying he's bitter is an assumption in of itself

Blazestone: Costly isn't a justification for murder. If you killed your child/grandparent because you couldn't afford to take care of them you would go to jail, and be considered a monster by nearly everyone.

Downburst: Blazestone likely became good because of Downburst. Considering how much it seems that he wants to help it's severely unlikely that the reverse would happen instead.

Hypershock: Good point, but the same point can be said to owning any sort of weapon. Until they actually break the law no action can be taken against them. Outright murdering them is wrong.


Blitzerman, Tradewind, Vectress: Seriously what? They were murdered so thus they were evil? That is not an argument at all. That's just insane. Or if you meant the details weren't provided thus they were evil, well that still wrong. It just means the details weren't provided.

Stormicide: It's a truth of this world that we all eventually lose someone. Nearly everyone is capable of handling that loss without becoming bitter towards the world. Assuming that she would become bitter due to this is a horrible assumption. Killing her under that assumption is evil.

Gazerbeam: Wanted to do what Syndrome and Mr. Incredible wanted anyways. Furthermore he was doing so in a legal manner. Really it seems you want to paint the entire government as the villains of the movie instead of just Syndrome. He was a threat to Syndrome which is likely why he managed to warn Mr. Incredible post-humorously

Gamma Jack: Finally a legitimate threat to normal humans. Still while he warranted watching, (which he wasn't being) killing him outright is wrong until he actually crosses the line.

Mr. Incredible: He spent his free time saving people from burning buildings. Perhaps the government should have given him a job doing something productive and useful instead of hiding him in literally the worst possible position he would be more mentally balanced in the first place.

Frozone was in the records and Elastigirl was known to be with Mr. Incredible by the government. You've only proven that Syndrome's murderous spree was not being supported by the government.

Being a weapon designer/dealer is not wrong in of itself no. Fair enough

Torture is always wrong. Jack is an extremist who is willing to take any step in order to protect people. Even he thinks it's wrong, just justified.

There is a difference between illegal and wrong. In fact possessing those missiles at all was likely illegal in the first place. Depends on which country the island is part of. Plus it was a civilian plane without any weapons. Murdering innocents is always wrong no matter what the circumstance.

Not really evil but definatly showing how little he values human lives. He flat out claims that mercy is a weakness. If he had great wisdom he would have made a show of saying that Mirage wasn't in any real danger so she wouldn't feel betrayed. Or taken her aside afterwards and asked if she was alright.

Good in the long run is not a good argument for a kidnapping. At all. And it likely isn't true anyways. If Syndrome had succeeded Jack-Jack likely would have been killed when he exhibited his powers. If not killed he would have been raised with an inferiority complex thinking that he was a freak. For that matter all families are dysfunctional to a degree. At the end of the movie we see the Incredibles becoming better people by overcoming their issues.

Those are all government positions. It's implied that the government actually places the heroes in different jobs and thus chose the position of insurance salesman. Furthermore those positions are public and would reveal Mr. Incredible to the world. Really just brings him back to where he was before the ban which the government did not want.

Yes famous people can overcome disorders to do great things. People can also fail to overcome their disorder and end up doing horrible things. This point just proves that having this disorder did not make Syndrome a villain in of itself.

It's possible to get that message but only if you use a twisted viewing glass. Look at Frozone. He had a happy normal life but was willing to be a superhero anyways at the first sign of danger. These 'threats' risked their lives so that others could live. They never tried to force their beliefs or rule others. In fact they would stop those who did. When the majority asked them to step down they did, if reluctantly. None of them refused to step down at all and continued acting as a vigilante.

I covered this but if Syndrome had released his products openly that would be true. Instead he wanted to be the only super for a good long time. Then as a final kick in the teeth to whatever supers may still be alive he would make everyone super. He had no noble purpose behind him, only bitterness and vengeance.

Syndrome underestimated his own creation and nearly caused his own death along with hundreds of thousands of others. Yes he should be blamed for that. If he hadn't been such a showboat it wouldn't have happened at all. The Incredibles didn't know about the plan at all and had to piece it together on the fly. Doing so they managed to defeat the robot using a method that Syndrome would not have been able to do. They do deserve the full credit for that victory alongside Frozone.

First you say superheroes should not kill, but due to their potential to kill they should all be killed. :smallamused: Seriously that sounds like trolling. Did Mr. Incredible kill Syndrome? Pretty much yeah. Was Syndrome a serious threat regardless? Yeah. He could have easily rebuilt his wealth elsewhere in the world by selling his ideas. Failing that he still possessed technology strong enough to defeat all of the Incredibles. Was Mr. Incredible acting in self-defense? Yes. Was it right? No.

Syndrome wanted to taunt and torture the Incredibles. He in fact does try and kill them many times throughout the movie. Your own arguments cannot be applied to him. It's only because he thought it would be more painful for them to steal their child away that he let them live at all.


So what's my reward? :smallbiggrin:

Kd7sov
2012-08-07, 07:00 PM
Nearly everyone on this list was dangerous.

And? I am not aware of anyone who isn't dangerous under the right circumstances. Such as being in charge of a 1500-kg chunk of metal that can easily travel at speeds above 160 kph. Also known as a typical car.

Abilities don't make people dangerous, not by themselves. Intentions, creativity, carelessness, can all make people dangerous. Actual intentions, mind you, not "she was just the type to be a conspiracy theorist" or "his death could have embittered her against the world".

Rake21
2012-08-07, 07:13 PM
And yes, I do support later comic-book interpretations of Lex Luthor. Mostly the non-crazy ones where he's a billionaire threatened by something dangerous that no-one understands.

But... but those are the same character. The crocked billionaire who focuses his entire fortune toward killing a superhero he's jelous of is the same guy who faked an alien invasion that killed thousands so he could become president. The same guy who gave thousands of people superpowers, only to take them all away at the exact same, killing most of them, in order to hurt a man he thought was Superman.

Your right about one thing, Luthor doesn't understand the man in blue. But Lex doesn't hate Superman because he thinks he's dangerous. He hates Superman because, with all his power, the Man of Steel selflessly helps everyone he can. And Luthor, so corrupt, can't grasp that concept.

Tavar
2012-08-07, 07:16 PM
Well, he often does think Superman is dangerous. The issue is that his view is so warped that it's really not a good starting point. There are people who thought killing based on race was a good thing. Doesn't mean we should be learning morals from them.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-07, 07:31 PM
Well, he often does think Superman is dangerous. The issue is that his view is so warped that it's really not a good starting point. There are people who thought killing based on race was a good thing. Doesn't mean we should be learning morals from them.
What makes Superman scary is he has, at best, only a human level resistance to magic. Any two-bit mage could make a being who is practically a physical god dance to their tune.
Sure, he's probably will power out of it eventually, but at what cost?
I'm not saying it justifies a proactive strike by any means, but it does justify seeking ways to neutralize the threat if it appears.

McStabbington
2012-08-07, 08:47 PM
Having stepped back from this for a while, I've decided to refrain from a detailed point by point post and just go for a more generalized critique. The generalized critique really loses nothing because each of my points ultimately comes down to the same thing: you don't seem to understand that a hero doesn't simply do the right things; he does them for the right reasons.

The line between heroes and villains isn't really all that hard to understand. Real people may drift back and forth across that line, and so may characters, but the line of demarcation itself is pretty clear-cut. Heroes do the right things because they care about something other than themselves. Han Solo becomes a hero when he goes back to save Luke. MacBeth becomes a villain when he starts murdering people to attain more power. And Mr. Incredible is a hero not because has powers, but because he insists on trying to help people even when it costs him his job and makes him an outlaw. And he does it because he cares about other people, and he just can't allow himself to stand by.

As such, I don't see how you can see Syndrome as anything but a villain, and a pretty repugnant one at that. He doesn't care that his method of testing his super robot involves killing people. He doesn't care about a long-term coworker when someone threatens to kill her. He doesn't care about innocent civilians if they happen to get in the way of his killer robot. He uses a baby as a tool to get back at the baby's father. And he doesn't care when people beg him not to kill children. Put simply, I cannot recall one time as an adult when Syndrome showed any care whatsoever for anyone but himself. As such, even if you accept the convoluted and contorted insane troll logic that gets you to the idea that murdering, torturing and kidnapping babies are all good things (which I don't), the fact still remains that he was doing all those things purely for his own ends, and not because he cared about others. Which means that Syndrome cannot be a hero.

Tengu_temp
2012-08-07, 08:59 PM
When a story's hero is shown to be flawed instead of perfect and when the villain has an understandable motivation instead of doing evil for the sake of evil, many people tend to dismiss the hero as Not The Good One (because they can't accept anything but perfection) and therefore treat the villain as the one who is right, justifying his every action with often flimsly claims.

I believe the OP falls hard into this fallacy.

kpenguin
2012-08-07, 09:09 PM
And now for some words from our expert commentators

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Magneto.png
"You see, Charles? How readily the humans leap to contain and destroy us, how easily they justify their prejudice? Humanity and mutantkind cannot co-exist. There can be no compromise.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/ProfessorX.png
"Give them time, Erik. They're not all like this..."

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-07, 09:17 PM
A good person with power is never a Danger. We WANT the power into the hands of good people.

Tiki Snakes
2012-08-07, 09:29 PM
And now for some words from our expert commentators

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Magneto.png
"You see, Charles? How readily the humans leap to contain and destroy us, how easily they justify their prejudice? Humanity and mutantkind cannot co-exist. There can be no compromise.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/ProfessorX.png
"Give them time, Erik. They're not all like this..."

Kpenguin is best Penguin.
This.

Nekura
2012-08-07, 09:47 PM
What makes Superman scary is he has, at best, only a human level resistance to magic. Any two-bit mage could make a being who is practically a physical god dance to their tune.
Sure, he's probably will power out of it eventually, but at what cost?
I'm not saying it justifies a proactive strike by any means, but it does justify seeking ways to neutralize the threat if it appears.

That is why batman dislikes superman and keeps a bunch on green kryptonite and contingency plans in case it happens. Luther hates superman because he is always interfering with is evil plans and possibly just because he is an alien.

Syndrome is evil just because Mr. Incredible was rude to him when he refused to let him risk his life as a kid does not make his killing a lot of people justifiable. If he wanted to be seen as a hero he could helped people who needed it not send a robot to kill civilians. Was he going to keep inventing threats to “save” people from?

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-07, 09:56 PM
And Syndrome COULD be a hero if he wanted. He at any point could have started producing amazing machines to help the world. But he wanted revenge.

Forum Explorer
2012-08-07, 10:07 PM
And Syndrome COULD be a hero if he wanted. He at any point could have started producing amazing machines to help the world. But he wanted revenge.

He could have even just started saving people the old fashioned way. Instead he chose the path that guaranteed that people, likely many people would be harmed.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-07, 10:13 PM
Alright, This is my theory on the Incredibles. Everyone knows I dislike this for one reason: I think Syndrome is the true hero. I think he is working for the government, not evil and a better person than mr Incredible. The next 3 posts will explain why.

No. You are wrong on all accounts.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-07, 10:16 PM
That is why batman dislikes superman and keeps a bunch on green kryptonite and contingency plans in case it happens. Luther hates superman because he is always interfering with is evil plans and possibly just because he is an alien.

Like so much in comics, that depends on the author, but yes, that's basically true.


Syndrome is evil just because Mr. Incredible was rude to him when he refused to let him risk his life as a kid does not make his killing a lot of people justifiable. If he wanted to be seen as a hero he could helped people who needed it not send a robot to kill civilians. Was he going to keep inventing threats to “save” people from?
I agree that Syndrome is a villain through and through; I agree that Lex is a villain. But I find the motivation of fearing the superman more sympathetic than Syndrome's.

dps
2012-08-07, 10:17 PM
I really hope the OP is a joke or troll. Otherwise, it's kind of scary.

Jayngfet
2012-08-07, 10:19 PM
You know, since the overwhelming logical fallacies of this argument have been pointed out, time and again, in this thread, by our other good playgrounders, I'm just gonna go ahead and get straight to the heart of the issue, and *why* this is such a bad argument.

Your logic is flawed, and your train of thought is based on pre-existing bias. Your whole argument is based on the idea that "Well the supers are big physical guys who are kinda jerky at a couple of points and have their powers naturally, while Syndrome is a little guy with brains who invented his stuff. I'm going to empathise with Syndrome and try to paint him as the good guy."

The inherent issue here is that you came to the conclusion that Syndrome was good first, and then constructed your whole argument around that point. I mean yeah, Syndrome made his stuff, but he made it to murder people he percieves at better than him for petty reasons while they're already vulnerable and down on their luck. You're assuming that since Syndrome vaguely resembles people you know of that are good, and kinda-sorta-but-not-really pays lip service to an ideal you subscribe to, he is by default good and all his actions are justified, while the Incredibles, who subscribe to a philosphy you have already made clear in your posts, are therefore bad, not because of what they've done, but because you disagree with them.

You're looking at the message and seeing Syndrome as some kind of picked-on Nerd being bullied by a bunch of Jocks who are naturally strong, instead of being a petty little dweeb that needs to be stopped by the only people who *can* stop him. Because unfortunatly, some people are just plain better at some things, and those people need to be responsible and be able to actually do those things to get the job done. Hence why parapalegics don't become Navy Seals, and hence why only the Incredibles can stop Syndrome and his deathbot from killing several hundred people.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-07, 10:23 PM
I really hope the OP is a joke or troll. Otherwise, it's kind of scary.

I don't think so; Sunken Valley tend to have a different way of looking at things than the rest of us.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-07, 10:29 PM
I don't think so; Sunken Valley tend to have a different way of looking at things than the rest of us.
Reminds me of another thread where it was claimed with apll apparent seriousness that because unhappiness exists or even has the potential to exist, if one had the opportunity to go back in time and prevent the creation of the universe, one had a moral and ethical imperative to do so.
I disagreed rather strenuously.

Tebryn
2012-08-07, 10:34 PM
Chapter 1: Syndrome the Government Consultant

Super-heroism is outlawed in the Incredibles universe because the property damage caused by their escapades results in numerous lawsuits and a bad public image. The government still harbours these superheroes, helping them maintain their civilian identities and cope with normal life. However, some supers do not approve. These powered beings chafe under the restrictions imposed by ordinary duties and wish for a chance to use their greatness. In the first 30 minutes of the film, Mr Incredible not only super-heroes in secret with his friend Frozone, but loses his temper with his boss, punching him through 5 walls (the latter blunder not only mind-wiped by government agents but implied to have happened before, with the end result being Mr Incredible and his family re-located). Mr Incredible was a reasonably sane individual as a hero. Other supers have a lesser grip on sanity. This is where Syndrome comes in.

Yes lets.


To explain why Syndrome is useful to the government I must mention what his “evil” plan is. Syndrome has no super-powers, unless you count his vast intellect as one. He has used his inventive mind to become a weapons designer granting him a vast fortune. As a result, he is a bit cocky and could be considered a “prick”. You know who else that description matches? Iron Man. Yes, Syndrome is just like Iron Man: a maverick government consultant who operates on his own agenda, but an agenda inevitably on the government side. His greatest invention is the Omnidroid, a killer robot which he commands. Syndrome lures supers to his private island one by one with the help of his secretary Mirage, an attractive woman who offers the supers a chance to use their powers and costumes again. Whilst there they are asked to fight the “out of control” Omnidroid and try to stop it. In this gambit Syndrome is in a win-win situation. He fully intends to kill the super involved with the Omnidroid, so if they die, mission accomplished. If per chance they succeed, he asks them back and then builds a new more powerful Omnidroid specifically to kill them. Syndrome is shown to have done this to 15 super powered beings (with Mr Incredible intended as the 16th and final target). The next step of his plan is to launch a giant Omnidroid right into a city and then defeat it himself using gadgets to make himself into a superhero. This will then inspire a new age of powerless superheroes that use gadgets to fight crime, either ones they made or ones from Syndrome’s company.

So you, right off the bat, admit he’s going to murder people then use his technology to lie to the public, creating a new era of super heros who will....be breaking the law. This is going to come up later. So you remember this.

Although Mirages’ line to Mr Incredible that both of them are “off the grid” (aka protected by the government) are a telling hint Syndrome’s actions are fully evidenced in the film as endorsed by the government by one gaping plot hole. Every super in the film has a government handler to check up on them and support them. Mr Incredible has one and both his wife and Frozone are mentioned as having their own. This implies that the 15 supers Syndrome killed had handlers as well. In this case, why was Mr Incredible never informed by the government that his life may be in danger and that supers are missing? Some of the disappearances are reported by the newspapers but Mr Incredible is never informed of them by his handler. The government are not stupid in this film, they would have noticed that 15 supers are missing, some of whom with connections to each other. Therefore, they knew Syndrome was doing it but kept quiet. Supers presumably cost a large amount of money to support and relocate and they may also be dangerous and crazy. If the government killed supers themselves, the scandal would be tremendous. So the government outsources the problem to a private organisation who will accept the job for little to no pay (highly likely, given the advanced technology Syndrome’s weapons possess has made him a billionaire). If anything, it is likely the government owes Syndrome for weapons and is paying him off by letting him kill supers (as mentioned later on, Syndrome has a grudge against super powered individuals).[/quote]

We’re going to start an assumption ticker here. You assume “Off the Grid” means protection from the governement. How? As to the government keeping silent on the deaths of the Super Heros, I’m not sure why they didn’t tell anyone but if you told a Super Hero you want to not be a Super Hero any more....the last thing you’d do is tell them a super villian is out there killing your friend. You then assume that Government wouldn’t kill Super Heros because the scandal would be huge. Then you assume that they’ll not only outsource it to Syndrome but also that it’s likely they owe him money for his weapons. So that’s three baseless assumptions right off the bat.



Syndrome’s methods of doing so are also more dignifying to supers than dying of old age, suicide or snapping and becoming a villain (which, given Mr Incredible’s circumstances, is more than possible). In Wagner's Ring the greatest honour was dying in battle as only then could one go to Valhalla, the greatest heaven. For a superhero it would be infinitely better to die in action than live a life where they could not do the jobs their powers gave them. Take for instance Syndrome’s first target: Universal Man. Universal Man does not have a secret identity. He did not see the point of having one as fighting crime was what he did. His NSA fact-file on the 2-disc DVD recommends that he be kept busy. A ban on Superheroes would be a death sentence to him. When killed by the Omnidroid, Universal Man can now say that he died the way he lived: a superhero.

You think it gives a hero more dignity to die by the hands of a Super Villain than to die of old age. Baseless assumption number 4. There’s not much to say on this. No where is it mentioned that the Super Heros are in some ennui about not getting to die by the hands of a baddie. Some seem a little sad those days are gone but none at all mention “Dying like a hero.”


Furthermore, being killed by Syndrome is more dignifying to the families of the supers. Every superhero who comes to Syndrome’s island comes of their own free will. They are also paid handsomely for their services. Mr Incredible was able to use the money he was paid to defeat the Omnidroid to buy not only a car which did not break under his super strength, but was also enough to lie to his wife about being fired earlier in the film. The cash strapped government clearly did not give the supers any of these things. Syndrome did and he hates supers. Upon the hero’s eventual fall at the hands of the Omnidroid, this money makes a great pension for the bereaved families of the supers. This saves the government money, and further highlights Syndrome as a philanthropist. Syndrome’s end goal of making a new age of powerless gadget super-heroes is also beneficial to the government, as the members presented in the film expressed a desire for a return to the days of superheroes. Gadgets allow this by making superheroes more a part of public life than the distant idols they were. It also makes them more controllable by the government as gadgets can be destroyed, unlike superpowers. Finally, Mirage defects to Mr Incredible’s side and according to The Incredibles comic book is now working for the government. Given that Mirage only sides with Mr Incredible after the rest of his family breach the island and her pardoning for being accomplice to Syndrome this may have been a hasty government cover-up. As to the question of why a government would support sending a 50 foot killer robot into its own city, it would not. Syndrome did that on his own initiative. However, this is not an evil action.

So...it’s hard to have a furthermore when the point you’re coming off of isn’t based in the movie at all. However you do make points here in that can be discussed. We’ll break them down

1. Syndrome gave the money as incentive to the struggling Heros to get them to the island. It was part of his trap. Nothing more. He never mentions anything about helping the families of the supers. Assumption 5.

2. That the government wants controllable super heros and that this is all a government plot to make dissosable heros. This will also all come back in the end so stay tuned. Also, Assumption 6.

3. The government only lets Miarge slide so that the Incredibles won’t see a massive Government Conspiracy to kill them all off so they don’t have to protect them now that they’re not super heros anymore. Welcome to Assumption 7 and one more ticket on the “We’ll get back to this later” page.


Chapter 2: Syndrome the Well Intentioned

Syndrome has regularly been described by critics, commentators and wiki-editors as a complete monster who repeatedly crosses the moral event horizon. The critic Confused Matthew refers to Syndrome as “so evil and sadistic that it was unpleasant just to watch him on screen”. Admittedly Syndrome does taunt Mr Incredible and his family regularly but the rest of his actions are not evil. Many of them are not “good” by the usual standard but all are well-intentioned and after all, there is no one way to do the right thing. Some are positively good, stripping Syndrome’s actions of the evil everyone else believes he has.

I’m not really sure who you’re arguing with here. Probably a Strawman somewhere but that’s the least of the problems here. You say that Syndrome’s actions aren’t evil but also not “good”. They’re “Well Intentioned”. I suppose we’ll cover this all in your break down later.

[qoute]Syndrome’s first “evil action” in the film would be the murder of the 15 supers killed by his Omnidroid. Although I have mentioned that all of them went on the island of their own free-will, all died in dignity and all received a lot of money that was not the only reason. The real reason is that almost every one of those “Super-heroes” was dangerous to society. Syndrome was doing a medal worthy service by getting rid of them. The 2-disc DVD has fact files for 12 of those 15. I have already mentioned Universal Man and his lack of secret identity. Now I will mention the rest:[/quote]

Murder is generally an Evil Act. Doesn’t matter if they went on their own free will. He still killed them. Lets take a look at the heros!


Psycwave. Power: Mind Control. This alone is dangerous. Mind control can really mess up the world. Too deadly to fall into the wrong hands.

But they hadn’t. So he killed a totally innocent person.


Everseer. Powers: Clairvoyance, Telepathy and Magni-Vision. A mind reader who can observe from a distance and see the future. This is dangerous to the government as he would know supers were being killed. Plus, he was a paranoid germophobe. Certainly the type to believe in conspiracies.

And here we go. Assumption 8 and the catch up point of what we’re going to get into. You’ve stated that there is a Government Created Initiative to kill off the Super Heros. If we had any reason to believe Everseer was someone who was “Certainly” the type to believe conspieracies, he’d be right and he’d actually be a threat. Luckily all this rests on assumptions and nothing else like...evidence in the movies.


Macroburst. Power: Wind Control. This androgynous person was the kid side-kick of Everseer. He/She would likely have been inducted from an early age in Everseer’s conspiracy theories. He may also have been in contact with Everseer.

Assumption 9! Other than that...nothing to say. It hinges on Everseer being someone to believe Conspiracy theories even though he had the power to actually see if they were true or not. We’ll move on.


Phylange. Power: Sound Manipulation. Phylange’s file describes him as selfish and not very popular amongst his peers. This sounds bitter.

Assumption 10! Even if he were bitter...being selfish and bitter are no reasons to kill anyone.


Blazestone. Power: Fire. She was a reformed villain. Her file recommends that she be under supervision. Supervision which would likely be costly.

Killing someone because it costs a lot isn’t a good reason to kill someone. Let alone being a reason to kill anyone at all. Her being a reformed villain also isn’t a reason to kill her just because she might do bad things again.


Downburst. Power: Matter Creation. The husband of Blazestone. He worked for the government even after the ban to find a way to use his powers to mass produce manufactured products. This could be dangerous if Blazestone managed to convince him to turn to evil.

Killing someone because they’re making things for free seems pretty screwed up to me. Also killing someone because their wife may make them “evil” somehow seems pretty sketchy too.

[qoute]Hypershock. Power: Seismic Waves. His file also asks for supervision as he has a bad temper. Earthquakes controlled by a bad-tempered person? Risk.

Killing someone because they're a risk is pretty nasty. Especially when they've not done anything wrong.


Apogee. Power: Gravity Control. This is a lethal power but Apogee sounds on her interview like a nice person. People do change over time though.

Yep! Totally innocent person but hey...people can change right? Might as well murder her before she changes. Just to be safe.


Blitzerman, Tradewind, Vectress. They don’t have files on the DVD. This may mean they were “un-personed” because they were evil.

Assumption 11. We don’t know they’re evil. I like however that you use that word on people who have no evidence of doing bad things...but don’t want to use it when talking about people who have. Amusing that.


Stormicide. Power: Gale Force Bursts. Looked after a sick Uncle. Depending on the circumstances of his inevitable death, this may have bittered her against the world.

Assumption 12 and the same as Phylange above. Someone becoming bitter doesn’t mean you kill them.


Gazerbeam. Power: Laser Eyes. He was a defence attorney who campaigned to remove the ban on super-heroes. Not only would he have noticed the disappearances, but the government would not want the ban to be overturned with dangerous supers like

So the government doesn’t want to overturn the ban but they want to institute super heros with gadgets instead of super powers? And they want to get rid of the person fighting for the rights of the Super Heros right to be Super Heros? Adding to the “Government is an Evil Organization keeping the Super Heros Down” bit I’ll detail fully when we’re done.


Gamma Jack. Power: Radiation. A megalomaniac, who could disintegrate at 100 metres, was only in the super-hero business for the ladies and believed that supers were a “superior race”.

Killing someone for their beliefs is wrong and boarders on mind control. He may be a “megalomaniac” but we don’t hear about him trying to take anything over. Seems like he’s not a threat. No real reason to kill him if he’s not killing others.


Mr Incredible. Power: Super Strength. Punched his boss through five walls and was recently fired from work. A time bomb waiting to go off.

Yep! Another person we should just kill because they may be dangerous!! But seriously no..that’s messed up.


Nearly everyone on this list was dangerous. This would also explain why when Mr Incredible hacked Syndrome’s computer, his wife Elastigirl and Frozone were not on his records despite Syndrome clearly knowing about them. They had not shown any clear signs of violent behaviour.

Others have covered this. Being dangerous isn’t a reason to murder anyone. And Elastigirl and Frozone were on the datalist. Moving on.


Syndrome’s second “evil action” was being a weapons designer. Despite the negative connotations this profession possesses it is an important job. People need weapons so a weapons designer provides a valuable service to society. It is not a job to be vilified.

You’re right. This doesn’t make him evil. Makes him sketchy on an Empathetic level but that’s not a crime. We make pills for it though. However, selling weapons for the express purpose of killing people? Ya. That should be vilified.


Syndrome’s third “evil action” was to torture Mr Incredible. Mr Incredible had sent a distress signal before his capture. As Syndrome knew Mr Incredible had hero contacts (hero contacts who could not be dissuaded by the government) he was trying to gain information as to which one it was. Jack Bauer interrogates people all the time, using much more dangerous methods than electrocution (Syndrome’s weapon of choice) on much weaker men. It is not wrong to torture for information.

He tortued an innocent man. Just because “Jack Bauer” does it doesn’t make it any less wrong. Hell, it doesn’t mean anything at all no matter how much “worse” he uses things. Torture is wrong. Period.


Syndrome’s fourth “evil action” was to send missiles to blow up a plane with both Elastigirl and both her and Mr Incredible’s two eldest children, Violet and Dash. This is believed to be Syndrome’s most evil act, mainly because he did not stop when told that there were children on the plane and he gloated at Mr Incredible upon realising they were people he cared about. However, not only is it not evil to gloat, Syndrome did not “know” there were children on board. He was only told, he did not hear Violet or Dash. He only heard Elastigirl saying there were children aboard. It might have been a lie. He is also completely entitled to blow up Elastigirl. Syndrome lives on a private island. Elastigirl was trespassing on his land. As his island is not under any countries trespass laws, Syndrome is entitled to do what he wants. Elastigirl was clearly affiliated with her husband therefore dangerous. Furthermore, Violet and Dash were not supposed to be on the plane. They were supposed to be in school. At ages 10 and 14 it’s their own fault if they get caught in a dangerous mission. Plus, they skipped school! A truly heinous crime.

Now we actually get to something actually “Evil”. He was going to kill an innocent woman for trespassing and instead of making sure there were kids on board he was just going to blow the plane up regardless. There’s actually a crime called “Crime of Neglegance” and it’s a felony in the United States. Now it’s amusing that you mentioned that the island was outside of any countries jurisdiction here but said it was under government protection above. That protection being from the United States of America. Meaning it’s in United States waters. Subject to the laws of the United States. So I guess I’ll let you revise this. Was the island private property? Or was it in American Waters and thus subject to American Laws. You do know that just because you’ve got Private Property doesn’t mean you get to kill people that trespass on it when ever you please?

You then go on to say that “Well, the kids deserve to die. They’re old enough to make decisions”. I don’t know how to even approach that while being board safe. So I’ll just say....no. You’re wrong and leave it there.


Syndrome’s fifth “evil action” was to not care about Mirage. After the plane blows up, Mr Incredible grabs Mirage and threatens to kill her if Syndrome doesn’t release him. Syndrome calls his bluff and even though Mr Incredible has nothing to lose, he can’t do it. Syndrome taunts him on this, calling him weak. This event sours Mirage’s opinion of Syndrome. But Syndrome was actually showing great wisdom by knowing his opponent. He would have intervened if Mirage was in real danger. But she wasn’t. He made a calculated risk and it paid off. Plus, Mr Incredible was the one making death threats (disrespectful).

You’re right on this not being “evil” as well. It’s again rather Empathetically ambigious but once more that’s not a crime. It lends itself more to Syndrome being a Sociopath but once again, we’ve got pills for that.

I’m again amused by you however calling Mr. Incredible disrespectful for threatening to kill someone when we know that Syndrome and by association Mirage actually -have- killed people. Guess when it’s government sanctioned murder though it’s ok? Even though there’s no evidence that it is at all. So in reality they’re just murdering innocent people for Syndromes glory and vendetta against the Super Community. That’s cool.


Syndrome’s sixth “evil action” was to send his giant Omnidroid to attack a city. This was not supported by the government, but it was a good action. Syndrome’s eventual plan of creating the new generation of supers was a good idea. However, for a major change in world views to occur, a great event must happen to change everyone’s mind, to show everyone that supers are needed. By sending a giant killer robot, impervious to the army and the police, the need for supers is shown. This would also spread peace in the world as people would be too worried about giant robots to fight (Syndrome sent the robot in a rocket which he sent into space first). This plan is in many ways similar to that of Ozymandias from Watchmen. Ozymandias planned to teleport a mutant squid he created into Times Square. This mutant squid would send a psychic wave across New York, killing thousands of people, including the squid. This would unite the world against a common enemy (aliens) and stop all wars (including the cold war). In a way Syndrome is doing this by preventing the threat of Supers rebelling and empowering the common man to be greater.

Well, we know the Omnidroid killed innocent civilians so that seems pretty “evil” to me. So a Government employed agent goes rogue, kills innocent civilians and then

Lets not even try to have this passed as something that it’s not, oh and Assumption 13 by the way, and say that Syndrome set this up as some sort of massive trick to get the public into wanting Super Heros again. He states what his goals are. To make people want him to protect them and to solidify his ego. Ozymandias wasn’t any less of a villain in Watchmen. The above is such a leap of illogic I can’t even say more on it. It’s totally making things up counter to what the actual movie says.



Syndrome’s seventh and final “evil action” was to attempt to kidnap Mr Incredible’s youngest child, baby Jack-Jack and raise him as his own son. This would in the long run have benefitted Jack-Jack. The Incredibles are clearly a dysfunctional family. Mr Incredible punched his boss through 5 walls and at the end of the film does not appear to have got a new job, Dash uses his super-speed to play pranks at school, which his father supports (in a selfish attempt to live through his child), Violet is shy and uses her invisibility to stalk boys and Elastigirl is unable to control her family and prevent them from starting a fight at the dinner table. What kind of lessons would these people be teaching Jack-Jack? Undoubtedly he would be surrounded by bad role-models. This is made worse by the reason why Syndrome failed in his kidnapping: Jack-Jack’s shape-shifting powers allowed him to best Syndrome. As seen from the short film Jack-Jack Attack Jack-Jack shape-shifting is so powerful it allows him to access numerous other powers (including flight, super strength, fire, invulnerability and phasing). This immense power and the inability to use it under the ban would likely have driven Jack-Jack violent and given him a superiority complex in later life. Furthermore, Syndrome was able to get to Jack-Jack because the baby sitter the child’s family left him with gave Jack-Jack flat out to the weapons designer due to her fear of the baby’s powers. Any family who would leave their boy in the hands of such a clueless person are obviously irresponsible. This tradition is continued by the end of the film’s implication that baby Jack-Jack superheroes with his family. One should not have a baby super hero no matter how powerful. It’s dangerous. In such a scenario, a child would be taken into care. This is what Syndrome was doing, he was again helping the government deal with their super problem by being super-social care. Syndrome would have also made a good father. When we see him in the process of kidnapping Jack-Jack he is feeding the babe milk and filling a box with his toys. Is this really the actions of a maniac? Syndrome is also rich. Jack-Jack would have lived a life of luxury with his new father. Syndrome would have spent a lot of time with his son. It is implied that Syndrome was ignored as a child by his parents. He would have done the opposite to any children he had. He would also have been nice to Jack-Jack given that he appears a pleasant person to his henchmen and Mirage. Only when taunting Mr Incredible is he unpleasant. Furthermore, Syndrome told Mr Incredible how he intended to train Jack-Jack as a super. This would prevent Jack-Jack from being a lazy playboy like many heirs and heiresses and allow him to harness and control his powers. This would give him a better experience in the long run.

Stealing someones child is wrong when the child is not in a harmful environment. Jack-Jack wasn’t and saying that it would benefit him in the long run is a massive Assumption number 15. Nothing in the massive text block you put up is ever even hinted at. Once again, there’s no real way to refute anything you said because it’s built on assumptions you don’t have any evidence other than “Well, it happens ya know?” Syndrome stole a baby. Wrong.



Syndrome’s actions can now no longer be seen as evil. They were always for the good of society and never truly for any darker purpose than self-defence or helping others. But so does this lead into Syndrome being a benevolent force? Chapter 3 will reveal all.

Despite your assertions to the contrary, his actions can still be seen as evil. Assumption 14 being that it was “always for the good of society” when we know by just watching the movie that they weren’t. We know that the actions were for an ego driven purpose from start to finish and to finish a vendetta created when he was a boy. Lets go to Chapter Three though....it won’t change anything however.


Chapter 3: Syndrome: Empowering the Common Man


To start looking at what makes Syndrome heroic it is first important to examine his back-story. As a child, Syndrome was a big fan of Mr Incredible before the ban to the extent that he tried to sneak into the latter’s superhero missions under the guise of “Incrediboy”. When I was younger I approved of this decision as I was of the age where I supported such vigilantism. Now I do not. Being a child sidekick is dangerous, irresponsible and could get you killed at an age too early to fully experience life or have a successful career afterwards. Plus, it is implied in the film that Incrediboy had pestered Mr Incredible many times before. Mr Incredible was, dare I say, right to have turned him down. However, he did so very badly. He did not use the argument I did. He told Buddy to go away because “he worked alone” which is very rude. He obviously knew it was wrong as he later apologised to Syndrome for being rude (the sincerity of his apology is doubtful at best as Syndrome had the Omnidroid’s blades to his neck). In fact, since Mr Incredible does work with other heroes during the film (including the flashback) it is highly likely that Mr Incredible would have let Incrediboy join him if not for his lack of powers. Mr Incredibles rejection turned Incrediboy/Syndrome against supers. For you see, this is the key difference between Syndrome and Mr Incredible that makes Syndrome a better role model: ambition.

This is the origin story of Syndrome. Was Mr. Incredible right in turning the boy away? Yes. Was he rude to a boy who he was tired of pestering him? Well...ya probably but being rude isn’t a reason to get murdered. It’s not even a reason not to speak to someone again. You assume (16) that the apology wasn’t earnest but you’re not the judge of that. You then chide the fact he doesn’t use your argument...so what? Moving on.


Syndrome knows he does not have powers and he has the dream of being a super hero (a good dream if you start at adult). He also knows he can’t be a superhero due to the ban. So instead he becomes a supervillain/weapons designer. Syndrome knew as a child that he was a good inventor (as Incrediboy he had Rocket-boots he made himself. As a child). He followed these talents to their natural conclusion and designed weapons. Not only that, his weapons are revolutionary. To date no one has made rocket boots, flying saucers, killer robots and zero point energy (an energy that levitates and immobilises anything inside it.). Syndrome managed to rise to the top and reach a position to create his utopia. Mr Incredible has no ambition. After the ban he could not be a superhero but he could have used his super strength to be a police man, fire man or builder. He becomes an insurance salesmen, a job that not only does not need his strength but is the opposite to helping people (to the extent that Mr Incredible loses the company money by giving his clients advice to how to navigate the system and punches his boss through 5 walls due to frustration with the little man’s lack of empathy). He instead has to do his superheroing against the law and in secret. This is not a positive role model. This is a wreck who lives in a broken family and is unable to follow his dreams even though he could easily. Whereas Syndrome was a disadvantaged child who rose to the top and became successful. Furthermore, according to Brad Bird (Incredibles creator) Syndrome gained his name because he is antisocial as in “antisocial behaviour syndrome”. Do you know who else had that? Ludwig van Beethoven, Winston Churchill and Steve Jobs. All inspirational people. Syndrome can now join them as a pioneer of weapons design and give his message to the world.

I like how you say that it logically follows that if you’re a good inventor you’re going to make weapons. I don’t know how you got to that conclusion but this whole thing has been one long mess so I don’t think it’s going to really matter.

You then assert that no one else has made all those cool gadgets so he’s a pioneer! Assumption 17!!!

You then list a few people who had Anti-Social Disorder, which ya know...leads credence to him being a Sociopath that I stated above, but then you make the link that hey! That means people with Anti-Social Disorder must be great innovaters! Syndrome is a great Innovater! That....Do I have to pull out Logic 101 and show you how much of a gaping fallacy that is?




Speaking of message, I will now go on to mention the film’s flawed and warped moral. Whilst The Incredibles has an obvious message on the importance of family, this was a co-incidence and not, according to Brad Bird, the film’s intended message. The true message of the film is that some people are naturally better than others and that these people are being suppressed and held back by society. Now this message has a ring of truth, but it is not only not very family friendly it is also un-democratic. Society is there to represent the interests of the majority whilst making sure that every minority is happy. The idea of people being better than others is discrimination and a philosophy that leads to genocide. This is further warped when the better people are superhuman beings who can control minds and disintegrate people on a whim. These people aren’t rulers, they’re threats which no one can handle and create a brutal caste system. This is not a positive message. Syndrome on the other hand advocates a positive message. Syndrome wants to create a new era of super-heroes who are ordinary people relying on gadgets to catch criminals, just like people such as Ironman or Batman. This is expressed mainly by the infamous quote “When everyone’s Super no one will be.”. This is not a negative message. It represents a technological utopia where people not only have a better quality of life, but they are also equal, which makes them more diverse and removes discrimination. As the first gadget- based super, Syndrome is an inspirational citizen leader, inspiring others to follow his path. I have previously mentioned Syndrome’s similarity to Ozymandias and his message of world peace. However, what I did not mention is that his plan worked. World peace was brought about by the mass deaths of New York City. The protagonists of the graphic novel all agree that the plan was a good idea after all and promise not to tell anyone that Ozymandias was responsible, letting him get away scot free. His plan had a positive result and rightly so. Syndrome unfortunately doesn’t get this. Although he is the first costumed vigilante on the scene of the attack, he drops his remote for the robot before he can finish destroying it and gets knocked out, recovering shortly after the robot is destroyed. How is it destroyed? When the Incredibles get on the scene, it overwhelms them and is only defeated when Mr Incredible finds the remote and finishes what Syndrome started. I see this as unfair. Without Syndrome, the robot could not be stopped and all he did was drop his remote. Does that mean he does not deserve credit for stopping the robot just because he is clumsy? Just because he does not have powers? This is blatant discrimination and disrespect. Powered people stole Syndrome’s plan and didn’t give Syndrome any credit. I think Syndrome deserved a second chance due to his positive message as opposed to the warped one of the supers. But this was not the worst thing to happen to Syndrome.

So if we ignore the creators statement of what the meaning of the film was and go with what you think it is, which you assert is it’s actual meaning, than Syndrome is a good guy? Nope. He’s still just as wrong. I would actually say evil because he killed innocent people.


A subject of The Incredibles that is close to my heart is the matter of Syndrome’s death. After his failed attempt to kidnap Jack-Jack, Syndrome gets into his private jet, swearing vengeance on the Incredibles. As he does so, Mr Incredible picks up his car (a car Syndrome bought for him) and throws it straight at Syndrome (a glaring lack of respect). This causes the jet to explode, killing Syndrome in the process. The movie tries to make Syndrome look like he killed himself by having him thrown into his jet engine and still alive, but getting his cape caught in the engine (the film had previously discussed how capes were the cause of numerous super deaths due to them catching on things) and him being dragged into the engine by his cape screaming. However, given that he would not be in the jet engine if not for Mr Incredible throwing the car, that the plane would have exploded anyway (it did not explode because Syndrome’s corpse got stuck in the engine, planes are designed to prevent that) and that Syndrome’s rocket boots were broken by Jack-Jack, Mr Incredible murdered Syndrome. There are several problems with him doing this. The first is that it was pointless. The government had already said that they had frozen Syndrome’s assets and were waiting to arrest him when he came back to his island. Mr Incredible knew this and had no reason to doubt it (I have already shown that I do). Syndrome certainly did not know about this. Therefore, it was pointless to kill Syndrome as he would have been arrested anyway. Even if the Incredibles wanted to capture Syndrome themselves, Violet could have incapacitated him with one of her force fields. There was no need to kill him. Another problem with killing Syndrome is the unwritten law. This law is that superheroes should not kill. This is because if they kill they are not heroic as they have killed in cold blood, making them at best vigilantes who take the law into their own hands and at worse villains themselves. To prevent this super heroes should show they are “super” by not killing. Those who do kill are merely anti-heroes. Syndrome understood this, that is why not only did he refer to himself as a villain (giving him the ability to kill if he wanted) but he did not kill anyone personally. He merely used his paralysing beam to incapacitate his foes. He had every opportunity to kill the Incredibles but he did not. Mr Incredible did not need to kill Syndrome but he did. This makes Syndrome the better man. The final reason why it was wrong to kill Syndrome is because it makes Mr Incredible a jerk. As previously mentioned, Syndrome had taunted Mr Incredible on how not killing makes him weak. This is false. Not killing someone you don’t like (especially when you can do so and the other person tried to kill your family) takes a great amount of will power. By not killing Syndrome, Mr Incredible could have shown him that not killing makes you stronger than one who kills to get what they want. It could have been a poignant moment and changed my opinion of both costumed persons. Instead, Mr Incredible was weak and gave into his urge to kill. This ultimately makes him a weaker man who cannot resist his primal impulses instead of a true hero. As a result, he is less of a hero than Syndrome.


In conclusion, Syndrome may not have been the best of people. Certainly he did many actions which could be labelled evil. However, his message was a good one. He wanted a utopia of equality and diversity and in my opinion, this goal is greater than the selfish goal of the protagonists of re-consolidating their power base. But at the end of the day, if The Incredibles can be interpreted in so many different ways on so many different levels, then that must mean it’s a pretty good film.

And this brings us to the end of your meandering....rant? Was it a rant? I don’t know what it was really but it wasn’t a very convincing dissertation on how Syndrome wasn’t a villain. So Mr. Incredible is evil for throwing a car (A car Syndrome bought for him! OH HOW COULD HE! That’s DISRESPECTFUL!) to protect his son who Syndrome was going to steal away. But somehow Syndrome (Because he died) is the real hero in this because all he wanted to give out his powers to everyone even though he never mentions that. Except we got foreshadowing that Capes are a bad idea because they’ll get you killed. It’s meaningless to say “Well, it only happened because of X. If it happened Y things would be different.” Things didn’t happen any other way than what they happened. Discussing them in the context of this...debate? doesn’t mean anything or get us anywhere. The end result was Syndrome was stealing the



And now for my closing...and I suppose reward because I actually went through your whole thing. Gotta say it was fun by the middle and...just kind of a brush up by the end.

Based on over arching assumptions based off...nothing and ignoring the actual messages of the story along with half the plot you could build a pretty good case that Syndrome wasn’t a villain but a hero all along. Here’s the problem though.

1. If the government is indeed trying to murder all the super heros because they’re to expensive to maintain, the easier solution is to actually repeal the ban. Not start a global conspiracy where they hire one guy to do the dirty work for them no matter what they owe him. However, we see in general the Government doesn’t really have a problem with the Supers save for one guy saying he’s tired of relocating Mr. Incredible.

2. You generally ignore the bad things Syndrome does while oddly making smaller issues the other heros do or in some cases are never even having been implied to do to levels of true atrocity. You find disrespect and “bitterness” to be much more “evil” than you know...killing innocent lives and kidnapping.

3. The number of assumptions needed to even get to your basic premise, along with the various logical fallacies and inconsistancies(Syndrome is on a government protected island but it’s not a government island) detract from your over all message here. You say torture isn’t wrong, claim the murder of children is permissable when the person doesn’t know about it and that selling weapons with the clear intent of killing people isn’t to be vilified. Those things...ya. They’re wrong on an vilified level and even on a legal level.

4. A subset of the above. You bring other sources into your argument that have little to no connection at all with your main point. You mention TV shows and famous people to excuse the actions of the person you’re defending. Steve Jobs may have had Anti-Social Disorder but that wasn’t the cause of his innovation. And even if it wasn’t Steve Jobs didn’t create devices that destroyed city blocks (That we know of). So what if...Jack Buar or who ever tortured people? That’s still wrong no matter who does it.


Over all...I suppose I don’t agree. Now what’s my prize? Are you just having a laugh here and not being serious?

TL:DR- Read Jayngfet's response. It basically sums my response up pretty well.

Pokonic
2012-08-07, 10:37 PM
A good person with power is never a Danger. We WANT the power into the hands of good people.

Dang it Sunken, you have actualy put me on the same side of a argument as SD. :smalltongue:

Secondly, I realy having nothing to point out that has not been pointed out already, but I will state the general statement that your logic is flawed.

Knaight
2012-08-07, 10:50 PM
Most of my points have already been made. However, what has yet to be touched is that part 2 of your argument hinges on what Syndrome intended. What Syndrome intended is completely irrelevant, as the results of his actions are the exact same whether he was acting from malice or trying to help. Moreover, I'd point out that your justification of torture is predicated on Jack Bauer being a good person. This is incredibly sketchy on its own, and really doesn't hold up when being shy is sufficient to condemn Violet as a character, and having a family member die is enough to condemn Phylange.

Jayngfet
2012-08-07, 11:05 PM
Most of my points have already been made. However, what has yet to be touched is that part 2 of your argument hinges on what Syndrome intended. What Syndrome intended is completely irrelevant, as the results of his actions are the exact same whether he was acting from malice or trying to help. Moreover, I'd point out that your justification of torture is predicated on Jack Bauer being a good person. This is incredibly sketchy on its own, and really doesn't hold up when being shy is sufficient to condemn Violet as a character, and having a family member die is enough to condemn Phylange.

What I love about this statement is how it assumes that not only is Jack Bauer a good person, but it assumes that Jack Bauers techniques are effective outside primetime Fox television.

I've said this before, but let me repeat myself: Torture (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/25/new-research-suggests-enhanced-interrogation-not-effective.html) has been proven (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2), Objectively (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/08/the_efficiency_of_torture), with actual evidence (http://www.counselheal.com/articles/1504/20120402/interrogational-torture-effective-purely-sadistic.htm), to not workhttp://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-09/new-study-finds-torture-negatively-affects-memory.

Anyone using torture at this point is literally only doing it either because they're too stupid to know what they're doing, trying to fill out petty power fantasies, or else for whatever reason not wanting the actual truth to work out. This isn't even a good vs evil thing, this is a thing that plain doesn't work in real life and often has negative progress in terms of actually getting the information you want out of someone. I mean, out of every case of known torture in the modern world how many of them do you know of that actually revealed major information right on time in ways that couldn't be done better otherwise, because I sure can't think of any.

Dienekes
2012-08-07, 11:33 PM
I really hope the OP is a joke or troll. Otherwise, it's kind of scary.

I think he has brought his opinions on Syndrome and the Incredibles once or twice before, each other time it gets rather vehemently shot down.

I can see a case made for seeing Syndome as sympathetic (not one I agree with, mind you, but a case can be made, Mr I did act a bit harshly too him)

But calling a man who committed multiple counts of unrepentant murder, bombed a plane, unleashed a giant killer robot on a city, and then kidnapped a child a hero is well... I don't want to get into what I think of a person who believes that.

thubby
2012-08-07, 11:49 PM
syndrome is unquestioningly a villain. sanctioned by the government or not, he murdered a dozen people for no sensible reason and endangered (at least) an entire city.

what makes the incredibles so good as a story is that he's so close, though. he could have been ironman, he could have done so much to help people. BUT HE DIDN'T.

instead he took his petty jealousy and hatred and let it twist him into a vile, deceitful glory-seeker who risked the lives of everyone just to look good.

Anarion
2012-08-08, 12:29 AM
.
• Blazestone. Power: Fire. She was a reformed villain. Her file recommends that she be under supervision. Supervision which would likely be costly.


There are a lot of things going on in this argument, which in some ways actually makes this a great thread for getting people talking about this stuff.

However, that line there, that's where you lost me completely. Your whole argument is that this particular person should be killed because supervising her costs too much.

That is unacceptable. You can't so callously place a value on a person's life like that. Here, look what Kpenguin posted.

And now for some words from our expert commentators

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Magneto.png
"You see, Charles? How readily the humans leap to contain and destroy us, how easily they justify their prejudice? Humanity and mutantkind cannot co-exist. There can be no compromise.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/ProfessorX.png
"Give them time, Erik. They're not all like this..."

So, Magneto, we're not all like that. Most of us here believe that individuals deserve rights like their lives, even if their life costs the government a little more money than someone else's life.

Lord Seth
2012-08-08, 02:01 AM
I mean, out of every case of known torture in the modern world how many of them do you know of that actually revealed major information right on time in ways that couldn't be done better otherwise, because I sure can't think of any.This seems to be an unfair question, because there's a high probability any such examples would be top secret and not available to the public.

Jayngfet
2012-08-08, 02:15 AM
This seems to be an unfair question, because there's a high probability any such examples would be top secret and not available to the public.

Yes, but we know of several instances where torture has happened to multiple people over lengthy periods of time, in some cases where superiors ordered things to get WORSE.

The funny thing is even when they get found out, even when the people defending that kind of thing bring it up, I've never heard of a single useful piece of intel to come from it. One would assume if it's something that was ordered and it got results and the bad thing got found out, you would at least bring up the evidence that it worked, contrary to studies showing it would not often carried out by other people in your own military.

So we're left to assume either the people doing it failed to get any meaningful results and the science is correct, or that somehow they have magical information that justifies literally everything they did over lengthy periods of time that they're withholding for unknown reasons. Considering that again, multiple studies carried out by people from both independant third parties and within the actual army have evidence pointing to A, it means we're basically forced to admit that what they're doing is petty, costly, and a quite frankly morally disgusting waste that's producing nothing of value anyway.

Sunken Valley
2012-08-08, 02:59 AM
I don't think so; Sunken Valley tend to have a different way of looking at things than the rest of us.

How so? We've only argued about this one point.

Also, the mind controller. She made men dump their girl friends for her and was expressing stress in her psychiatry job about people not solving their problems.

Blazestone is extra dangerous for her connection to downburst aka government.

The OOTS torture people and most of them are good.

Back for more later.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 03:08 AM
Really, when has the Order of the Stick tortured people?
Interrogated yes, but torture? You'll need to refresh my memory, I haven't recently done an archive binge.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 03:15 AM
Also, the mind controller. She made men dump their girl friends for her and was expressing stress in her psychiatry job about people not solving their problems.

So what? The first only makes her kinda mean spirited while the second is something that field has to deal with all the time. Do you think psychiatrists don't get upset when their patients show no sign of getting better? They're in the profession to do just that.


Blazestone is extra dangerous for her connection to downburst aka government.

How so? Not only have you pointed out that Downburst -worked- as in no longer works for the Government...the Government in the movie isn't the same as what you think it is. So once again...so what?


The OOTS torture people and most of them are good.

Ya, Belkar has but he's actually evil. Once again you're using other areas to prove your point when there's no connection what so ever or actually confirms what you're denying. Syndrome is evil.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 03:19 AM
And now for some words from our expert commentators

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Magneto.png
"You see, Charles? How readily the humans leap to contain and destroy us, how easily they justify their prejudice? Humanity and mutantkind cannot co-exist. There can be no compromise.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/ProfessorX.png
"Give them time, Erik. They're not all like this..."

The thought had crossed my mind as well, though I could never had made the point quite as eloquently...

Killer Angel
2012-08-08, 03:29 AM
I really hope the OP is a joke or troll. Otherwise, it's kind of scary.

SV is not a troll, and is not joking. On this issue, he takes very deeply the role of the Devil's advocate.


And now for some words from our expert commentators

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/kpenguin222/Magneto.png


Am I bad if I admit that, probably, Magneto is the BEG that I sympathize more with?

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 03:32 AM
I'm I bad if I admit that, probably, Magneto is the BEG that I sympathize more with?

Well, Mags is sorta the poster-boy for "sympathetic villain"; so much so he's spent about a third of his time as one of the heroes, so...!

The Succubus
2012-08-08, 03:34 AM
Flawed logic or not, that was a pretty entertaining read SV. While some of the morals are up for debate there's a lot of heartless but pragmatic sense in what he's said as well.

Unfortunately, humans as a species are not very good at heartless pragmatism.

Also, kpenguin is awesome.

Hopeless
2012-08-08, 03:53 AM
You also noted that Frozone and Elasta-girl weren't in Syndrome's data-base. They were. He had a file on each of them. He even knew who Frozone was and probably would have gone after him next if he hadn't found a much more personal target, Mr. Incredible.
Good villain, though.

Actually as i recall when Mirage realised who was helping Frozone from that burning building it was actually Frozone who was her next intended target, since she realised who Mr Incredible was and how her boss felt about him was why she switched targets to him.

So Mr Incredible literally saved Frozone's life without even realising, Elasti-girl remained undetected because Mirage didn't check on Mr Incredible's family and quite possibily because whatever information Syndrome had on her didn't include the possibility she had settled down and got married as noted when he finally met Mr Incredible and his family for the first time on the island.

Interestingly he left them effectively locked up rather than continue his field testing possibly because he believed he wouldn't have time to do both.

But yes Syndrome was definitely evil but I can see the government being involved to some level, there's only so many supers going missing before something clicks and the one glaring flaw I could see was that a number of these heroes knew each other pretty well and Gazerbeam in particular or Everseer I really couldn't see them going on such a mission without backup or at least some information since in Everseer's case he was entirely outmatched.

Now had they indicated there had been teams of supers who had been killed then that part would have made sense but really some of the supers mentioned couldn't have possibly been able to do anything against a supposedly out of control robot!

I think Syndrome was not only used to eliminate particularly troublesome targets but he used them to cover up some of his more darker schemes, if they ever do a sequel I'd like this addressed since those government handlers should have said something!

thubby
2012-08-08, 04:07 AM
you have to realize we're only seeing this from the incredibles' perspective.
there may well be a huge investigation into the disappearing supers, doesn't mean we'd see it on the screen. and given our perspective we wouldn't expect to.

dehro
2012-08-08, 04:10 AM
Superheroes are given names and called superheroes by the common man..
Syndrome is a loser who gave himself a super-name.

also, Syndrome has a cape..
we all know what Edna Mode thinks about people with capes.

Incidentally, Edna Mode represents what Syndrome could have been/become, if he had bothered trying not to be a sociopath.
She's not a super, except maybe for a super intelligence applied to fashion (btw, the italian dubbing had Amanda Lear voice Edna Mode, which is a stroke of genious.. google her..she's worth the read).
likewise, Syndrome could be a bit of a super in that he has great intelligence and obvious market skills, applied to weapons and robotics.
but no..Syndrome is a villain, so he turned to killing people.
I may do a point by point rebuke of your statements which contain a number of flaws already pointed out by others..but I really should be working...so that will have to wait.

theNater
2012-08-08, 04:23 AM
Do we know how long Syndrome was iterating on the Omnidroid? It matters because 15 supers going missing over the course of 20 years is far less likely to raise alarm bells than 15 supers going missing over 6 months.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 04:38 AM
Well, it's only on V10 when it's launched into the city. Though Syndrome says it took him 15 years. So that's a year a hero? Not so weird really.

Not only that, but we're forgetting that he designed the big bot to fight Mr. Incredible. Killed all those heros to fight Mr. Incredible. He says so. To his face.

thubby
2012-08-08, 05:14 AM
Well, it's only on V10 when it's launched into the city. Though Syndrome says it took him 15 years. So that's a year a hero? Not so weird really.

Not only that, but we're forgetting that he designed the big bot to fight Mr. Incredible. Killed all those heros to fight Mr. Incredible. He says so. To his face.

i thought it was 15 years since he set out on his plan, which may have happened when he was little.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-08, 05:16 AM
I think he has brought his opinions on Syndrome and the Incredibles once or twice before, each other time it gets rather vehemently shot down.

I can see a case made for seeing Syndome as sympathetic (not one I agree with, mind you, but a case can be made, Mr I did act a bit harshly too him)

But calling a man who committed multiple counts of unrepentant murder, bombed a plane, unleashed a giant killer robot on a city, and then kidnapped a child a hero is well... I don't want to get into what I think of a person who believes that.

No; he lost all rights to sympathy the moment he started with his plan. He is a mass-murderer motivated by two things: Greed and Petty (VERY Petty) Revenge. Supers aside, his plan hinges on killing innocent civilians to make money and being able to show off.


How so? We've only argued about this one point.

No, we have argued many things over a number of years. You tend to always be morally outraged against things the rest of us don't feel that way about, and the other way around (like in this case). In other words, you have a different view of most things than the rest of us here at this forum.


Incidentally, Edna Mode represents what Syndrome could have been/become, if he had bothered trying not to be a sociopath.

Definitely. She is a gadgeteer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GadgeteerGenius), just like him, and nuts, to a degree, but GOOD nuts.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 05:25 AM
i thought it was 15 years since he set out on his plan, which may have happened when he was little.

It's ambigious. He mentions it when he's about to kill the rest of the Incredibles. He shouts "15 years blah blah" but he doesn't say it was 15 years since he built the robots. It's kinda implied but...I'm not going to fall on either side really because it's not really that important other than it shows that Syndrome has focused on revenge for 15 years.

Omergideon
2012-08-08, 05:28 AM
The main points that seem flawed in Sunken Valleys arguement have been pointed out many times in this thread. I agree quite a lot with them. Sunken Valley's logic works when based upon a number of his assumptions. However a few of those were incorrect assumptions and other, more plausible reasons have been stated by a few.

Tebryn specifically does quite the good job.

I would merely add 2 responses. Firstly, I concur that a person posing a risk of danger may warrant observation and care. Supers have incredible levels of power and, with their activities outlawed, keeping an eye on them makes sense. It may clash with some thoughts on civil liberty (see most x-men films/comics for this debate) but it is a defensible and rational position. However potential risk is far from actual risk. On an absolute scale I represent potential risk to many people. I am large, fit, trained in martial arts and if my history is looked at enough it is possible to justify me being seen a a person at risk of violence.

I mean that to your average woman (say, as they are a traditional target) I represent a meaningful potential risk. So her keeping an eye on me, or perhaps not walking down a dark alley I just entered may make sense. But for her to walk up and taser me if she wishes to walk home "just to be safe" is crossing the line to paranoia. As a potential risk wariness is acceptable. A Pre-emptive strike when there is no imminent and immeadiate risk of danger would usually be declared legally indefensible, and morally wrong. The same principle applies to superheroes. Mind Control Girl may warrant observation, but to kill her pre-emptively on the risk and not a real and active threat corsses the line.


The second is the dysfunction of the Incredibles Family. It is true that at the start of the film they have issues. This is a big part of the plot. Dash is overly excitable and not controlled enough. Violet is shy (though to say she is stalking requires a massively jaded view of her actions). Bob is depressed and Helen is struggling to cope with the kids. In other words they are a normal family. The source of the dysfunction can be traced to Bob's overall disaffection with his life as it stands. He is not helping out at home enough and as such Helen is struggling to handle 2 school age kids (pre and post pubescent). and a baby. This is tough to do. Studies do state that 2 parents cope with this sort of set up much more easily than one does, with statistics to back it up. And with Bob depressed functionally it is one parent.

However we have a long montage and the conclusion of the film. In the "getting in shape" montage we see Bob spending more time with his kids, actively involved in family life etc. As a result of this the family life has clearly been seen to be more harmonious and happy. More especially we see the effect of becoming closer as a family (and Bob being an active part of his life) at the end of the film. Violet is now less shy, Dash has found more peace in his life, the parents are close and all round they appear more stable. Thus the accusation that kidnapping Jack Jack was a good act is flawed at best. By the time it happens the stability of the family is much greater.

Granted the lies about the new job are a problem waiting to happen, and a huge issue. BUT the point is that Bob becoming an active part in his Kids life (compared to before) led to a happier and less dysfunctional family. In short, the problem was a normal family one, solved in normal family ways. Being Superpowered was almost irrelevent to this except in the specific expressions of their dysfunction.

dehro
2012-08-08, 05:36 AM
on the plus side..I'm going to use the rebuttal to this thread as an excuse to watch Incredibles again.

thubby
2012-08-08, 05:44 AM
on the plus side..I'm going to use the rebuttal to this thread as an excuse to watch Incredibles again.

do us a favor and see if you cant keep track of an age/timeline estimate.

Selrahc
2012-08-08, 05:49 AM
Flawed logic or not, that was a pretty entertaining read SV. While some of the morals are up for debate there's a lot of heartless but pragmatic sense in what he's said as well.


If the intended conclusion was that Syndrome was a necessary evil, who would ultimately do more good for society than the supers that he murdered, then maybe. It would all be pretty sketchy, but at least things like enjoyment over callous murder wouldn't really be a detriment to it.

Syndrome is clearly and self evidently, a real nasty piece of work. He isn't a hero.

Knaight
2012-08-08, 06:07 AM
I would merely add 2 responses. Firstly, I concur that a person posing a risk of danger may warrant observation and care. Supers have incredible levels of power and, with their activities outlawed, keeping an eye on them makes sense. It may clash with some thoughts on civil liberty (see most x-men films/comics for this debate) but it is a defensible and rational position. However potential risk is far from actual risk. On an absolute scale I represent potential risk to many people. I am large, fit, trained in martial arts and if my history is looked at enough it is possible to justify me being seen a a person at risk of violence.

I mean that to your average woman (say, as they are a traditional target) I represent a meaningful potential risk. So her keeping an eye on me, or perhaps not walking down a dark alley I just entered may make sense. But for her to walk up and taser me if she wishes to walk home "just to be safe" is crossing the line to paranoia. As a potential risk wariness is acceptable. A Pre-emptive strike when there is no imminent and immeadiate risk of danger would usually be declared legally indefensible, and morally wrong. The same principle applies to superheroes. Mind Control Girl may warrant observation, but to kill her pre-emptively on the risk and not a real and active threat corsses the line.
Of course, the equivalent to what Syndrome is doing wouldn't be an average women walking up and tasering you. A closer equivalent would be a retired special forces member who you don't pose the slightest threat to walking up with a shotgun, because you have the potential to be dangerous.


The second is the dysfunction of the Incredibles Family. It is true that at the start of the film they have issues. This is a big part of the plot. Dash is overly excitable and not controlled enough. Violet is shy (though to say she is stalking requires a massively jaded view of her actions). Bob is depressed and Helen is struggling to cope with the kids. In other words they are a normal family. The source of the dysfunction can be traced to Bob's overall disaffection with his life as it stands. He is not helping out at home enough and as such Helen is struggling to handle 2 school age kids (pre and post pubescent). and a baby. This is tough to do. Studies do state that 2 parents cope with this sort of set up much more easily than one does, with statistics to back it up. And with Bob depressed functionally it is one parent.
I wouldn't call the family dysfunctional at all. There are some minor relationship problems, and everyone in it has their own flaws. That isn't broken at all, merely imperfect; dysfunctional implies the former. If they were actually dysfunctional there would likely be either real hatred between them or an incredible level of apathy, to the point where people in the family simply do not matter to each other.

Sunken Valley
2012-08-08, 06:19 AM
No, we have argued many things over a number of years. You tend to always be morally outraged against things the rest of us don't feel that way about, and the other way around (like in this case). In other words, you have a different view of most things than the rest of us here at this forum.


I'm sure you've got me mixed up. I only joined the forums June 2011 and have been absent for the last 2 months. We did debate about Incredibles having a warped message and that super heroes should kill Villains. I'd like some examples.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-08, 07:22 AM
I'm sure you've got me mixed up. I only joined the forums June 2011 and have been absent for the last 2 months. We did debate about Incredibles having a warped message and that super heroes should kill Villains. I'd like some examples.

Well there is your post in the Megamind (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235019) thread where you argued against Syndrome's guilt the first time. Or the same thing in the "Favorite Pixar Movie (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228342)" thread.

So maybe I was wrong, and the only item you end up on the other side of the tracks is this particular one. If so I change my statement:

"Sunken Valley has a very strong opinion of the Incredibles that seems to be at odds with everyone else on the forum, and he has expressed it at several times before this one." :smallsmile: There, that should be correct!

Hopeless
2012-08-08, 07:32 AM
I'm sure you've got me mixed up. I only joined the forums June 2011 and have been absent for the last 2 months. We did debate about Incredibles having a warped message and that super heroes should kill Villains. I'd like some examples.

The Joker would exmplify the one who shouldn't be allowed to kill again.

How would you view the Punisher though?

If this movie was remade I would like the opposition consist of a family of supers except the lead antagonist is remarkable because they don't have powers in a family of supers and the "Syndrome" of this remake has a genuine hatred of superheroes but has used this as an excuse to punish everybody to cover up for his own loss of self-esteem.
I'd make it more obvious he has links in the government and that this was supposed to help weaken the heroes own country for an eventual coup using "Syndrome's" inventions.
As an added bonus have her father be a former Supervillain who is trying to protect his daughter but that might be going a little too far for the purposes of this thread at least!

Manga Shoggoth
2012-08-08, 07:33 AM
Since all the other points have been covered (in better ways than I would put them):


A subject of The Incredibles that is close to my heart is the matter of Syndrome’s death. After his failed attempt to kidnap Jack-Jack, Syndrome gets into his private jet, swearing vengeance on the Incredibles. As he does so, Mr Incredible picks up his car (a car Syndrome bought for him) and throws it straight at Syndrome (a glaring lack of respect).

(a) Syndrome did not buy the car for Mr Incredible. At that point Mr Incredible did not even know who Syndrome was. Mr Incredible brought it with the money he earned on the job for Mirage. It was not - in any way - a gift from Syndrome. By the same logic, my car is a gift from my company, because I bought it with money earned from the company.

(b) How can throwing a car at the person who has...

...Attempted to kill you
...And your family
...Killed a number of your friends in preparation for killing you
...and to cap it all has just tried to kidnap your son
...possibly be described as "a glaring lack of respect"?

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 07:38 AM
(b) How can throwing a car at the person who has...

...Attempted to kill you
...And your family
...Killed a number of your friends in preparation for killing you
...and to cap it all has just tried to kidnap your son
...possibly be described as "a glaring lack of respect"?

Come to think of it, I suspect even Superman might have chucked something heavy at Lex Luthor in similar circumstances... Maybe. (Though he has more options open to him as well.)

Lesser (i.e. nonsuperpowered) mortals like Horatio Caine, Jack O'Niell or Han Solo would have just right-out shot him in in the head, for that matter...

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-08, 07:42 AM
Since all the other points have been covered (in better ways than I would put them):



(a) Syndrome did not buy the car for Mr Incredible. At that point Mr Incredible did not even know who Syndrome was. Mr Incredible brought it with the money he earned on the job for Mirage. It was not - in any way - a gift from Syndrome. By the same logic, my car is a gift from my company, because I bought it with money earned from the company.

(b) How can throwing a car at the person who has...

...Attempted to kill you
...And your family
...Killed a number of your friends in preparation for killing you
...and to cap it all has just tried to kidnap your son
...possibly be described as "a glaring lack of respect"?

Even if he HAD bought the car... Why would that make Mr Incredible wrong in what he is using it for? It might have been highly IRONIC, but not morally wrong.

And as it's pointed out above: Syndrome is killed because of extreme Evil combined with stupidity: His cape is sucked into the jet engine of his plane after he threatens to come back and hurt the family again (for Petty Revenge's sake, which, again, is why he became a mass murdering psychopath to begin with). If he had stopped himself from "Monologuing" and threatening a father's children (for a third time) he might have gotten away.

Dienekes
2012-08-08, 07:42 AM
Am I bad if I admit that, probably, Magneto is the BEG that I sympathize more with?

Not necessarily, though I'd suggest you read a few more of his comics. If anything Magneto is worse than Syndrome, but with some actual sad in his backstory.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 07:43 AM
(a) Syndrome did not buy the car for Mr Incredible. At that point Mr Incredible did not even know who Syndrome was. Mr Incredible brought it with the money he earned on the job for Mirage. It was not - in any way - a gift from Syndrome. By the same logic, my car is a gift from my company, because I bought it with money earned from the company.

Well... now... not that I want to defend Syndrome, because I've always seen him as a bit of a tool, but that money was earned under a ruse including a job that didn't actually exist. It was part of a con. The money wasn't honestly earned because Mr. Incredible wasn't actually employed.

I can see how the interpretation of the car's origins can be considered a 'gift' rather than a 'purchase'.


(b) How can throwing a car at the person who has...

Respect or not, he threw that car at a plane over a residential neighborhood. Burning jet fuel? Falling auto parts? Multi-ton fuselages? At the very least it seemed to be a poorly thought-out reaction.

EDIT: Well, okay, he did miss hitting the actual plane and probably had enough experience to know he'd miss the plane. But I still have to wonder who's house did the car land on?

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-08, 07:44 AM
Respect or not, he threw that car at a plane over a residential neighborhood. Burning jet fuel? Falling auto parts? Multi-ton fuselages? At the very least it seemed to be a poorly thought-out reaction.

Of course. It's almost like it's a super hero movie... :smallbiggrin:

Manga Shoggoth
2012-08-08, 08:36 AM
Even if he HAD bought the car... Why would that make Mr Incredible wrong in what he is using it for? It might have been highly IRONIC, but not morally wrong.

I quite agree. I was arguing against Sunken Valley's apparant belief that the car was a gift, and Mr Incredible was using the said gift in an unjustified attack on the person who gave it to him.

In fact, I always had the reverse opinion: Mr Incredible buys two cars - a flashy car for himself, and another slightly more practical one for his wife. He throws his car at Syndrome because it is the first thing to come to hand, and he now realises that it was an "ego" purchase and - worse - brought with money from Syndrome.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-08, 08:40 AM
I quite agree. I was arguing against Sunken Valley's apparant belief that the car was a gift, and Mr Incredible was using the said gift in an unjustified attack on the person who gave it to him.

In fact, I always had the reverse opinion: Mr Incredible buys two cars - a flashy car for himself, and another slightly more practical one for his wife. He throws his car at Syndrome because it is the first thing to come to hand, and he now realises that it was an "ego" purchase and - worse - brought with money from Syndrome.

Exactly. We are arguing the same thing here. I was building on your argument by questioning why it is morally wrong to use a gift from someone to protect yourself and your family from that someone.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-08, 08:51 AM
Of course. It's almost like it's a super hero movie... :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, but also a superhero movie dedicated to deconstructing things like the collateral damage superheroes can cause - if there had been a sequel, I'd expect something like that to be brought up. :smallsmile:

dehro
2012-08-08, 09:27 AM
Well... now... not that I want to defend Syndrome, because I've always seen him as a bit of a tool, but that money was earned under a ruse including a job that didn't actually exist. It was part of a con. The money wasn't honestly earned because Mr. Incredible wasn't actually employed.


yeah.. no.
Mr Incredible was actually employed by what he believed to be a government agency, so the money he earned was justified. the only ruses were that Syndrome is not a governmental agency, something Mr Incredible didn't know and which doesn't affect the book-keeping side of things, and the fact that Mrs Incredible thought he was still earning his keep from insurances.
other than that, there was nothing dishonest or "non existent" in the job.

Ramza00
2012-08-08, 09:51 AM
Well, Mags is sorta the poster-boy for "sympathetic villain"; so much so he's spent about a third of his time as one of the heroes, so...!
Not really, the amount of death and destruction will limit the amount of sympathy I have for him. He will always be a villain, sometimes he is a reformed villain but a villain he remains.

The best point of his character is that he often feels regret for his actions.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 09:58 AM
Not really, the amount of death and destruction will limit the amount of sympathy I have for him. He will always be a villain, sometimes he is a reformed villain but a villain he remains.

The best point of his character is that he often feels regret for his actions.

Well, I never said I felt at all sympathetic towards him! Heh.

No, it's just that he's a common example of the, if you'll forgive me trope-dropping, the "well-intentioned extremist". Unlike say, Doctor Doom, he at least thinks he's doing the right thing, and had enough of a cruddy start in life that you can sort of see where he's coming from. Even if, by and large, he's frequently only marginally less bonkers than the aforementioned, particular comic depending...

Of course, the fact that mutants have shown to be just as mind-numbingly stupid and bigoted as flatscans just shows that mutants are still very much humans - something Mags has never quite got, the silly bugger. In some ways, he's more naive than Xavier.

Omergideon
2012-08-08, 10:03 AM
Of course, the equivalent to what Syndrome is doing wouldn't be an average women walking up and tasering you. A closer equivalent would be a retired special forces member who you don't pose the slightest threat to walking up with a shotgun, because you have the potential to be dangerous.


I wouldn't call the family dysfunctional at all. There are some minor relationship problems, and everyone in it has their own flaws. That isn't broken at all, merely imperfect; dysfunctional implies the former. If they were actually dysfunctional there would likely be either real hatred between them or an incredible level of apathy, to the point where people in the family simply do not matter to each other.

1) True, however by using an example where the person is more justified than syndrome it makes the lack of power in the position he "should" kill supers all the more apparent.

2) I would say that they were disfunctional in minor ways. Certainly they had some reasonably serious issues in how the kids were growing up. however perhaps the word disfunctional is a little strong. I did try to make it clear that the problems in the family were caused by the relative impotence of the father figure in the family (caused by his apathy at non-super life).


And yeah, Mr Incredible did think he was earning money in a legitimate way. His lying about it was problematic to be sure, but there was no crime that he was aware of in how he earnt his money.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 10:11 AM
yeah.. no.
Mr Incredible was actually employed by what he believed to be a government agency, so the money he earned was justified. the only ruses were that Syndrome is not a governmental agency, something Mr Incredible didn't know and which doesn't affect the book-keeping side of things, and the fact that Mrs Incredible thought he was still earning his keep from insurances.
other than that, there was nothing dishonest or "non existent" in the job.

But the first job was to die while fighting Syn's creation. Clearly, he failed. But that's really only because he was given poor instruction in the matter.

After that... what was his job? It seems like he bought the car while on the payroll for working out at the railyard. Not actually doing anything, just waiting for an assignment.

So I suppose it was just a retainer type position after that first one, waiting for the next model to come roll out and defeat him. Except this time he wasn't allowed to die... for some reason.

I wonder if Buddy would have stepped in and kept him from being killed if he'd have lost to the thing the first time around? He seemed to be in a poor position to interfere.

Manga Shoggoth
2012-08-08, 10:50 AM
I wonder if Buddy would have stepped in and kept him from being killed if he'd have lost to the thing the first time around? He seemed to be in a poor position to interfere.

That's an interesting question. One of the major points of the exercise was Syndrome's revenge against the percieved slight from Mr Incredible. This is made very clear with Syndrome's grandstanding in the second fight - Syndrome really wanted to rub Mr Incredible's nose in it.

So... If Mr Incredible was killed by the first onmidroid then the revenge part would have been a complete waste of time.

I suspect that if the onmidroid looked to be getting the upper hand then some "coincidental" problem would have caused it to stop working. Then - knowing that the omnidroid was superior - Syndrome could call Mr Incredible back for the proper revenge match.

That means that the really dumb move was that Syndrome revealed himself before the second fight. If he wanted to grandstand then he should have confirmed that the omnidroid was better than Mr Incredible first. Instead, he (I assume) threw in a few upgrades and assumed that the omnidroid had gone from "not quite matching Mr Incredible" to "clearly exceeding Mr Incredible".

...Or perhaps he was running out of Supers to test it with. Frozone and Elasti-girl probably weren't considered powerful enough.

EDIT:


After that... what was his job? It seems like he bought the car while on the payroll for working out at the railyard. Not actually doing anything, just waiting for an assignment.

I expect he would have been payed a LOT of mony for the job - extreme hazard pay, so to speak. No need to assume he was on the payroll or on retainer at all.

As to the exercising, I think that the fight made him realise that he was really out of condition, so he started training. I don't think Syndrome expected this, which is partly why Mr Incredible managed to escape the omnidroid's clutches the second time. (The other reason being that Syndrome was being a complete moron).

pendell
2012-08-08, 11:08 AM
Short response: Syndrome is Nale, making needlessly-complicated revenge for slights which are out of all proportion to the original offense.

I sympathize with "ordinary geek who can defeat superheroes through technology and money". That's been done right by Batman and (less right, but still on the hero side) by Frank Castle. Saving innocents and stopping villainous plans to destroy the world with courage, intelligence and cunning would make Syndrome a hero. Instead, he's a psychopath and a self-admitted murderer. That's not a hero.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 11:26 AM
But the first job was to die while fighting Syn's creation. Clearly, he failed. But that's really only because he was given poor instruction in the matter.

After that... what was his job? It seems like he bought the car while on the payroll for working out at the railyard. Not actually doing anything, just waiting for an assignment.

His pay for the first job was "triple his current annual salary" - given that he was comfortably if miserably supporting his wife and three dependents on his "current annual salary", this means his pay for his first job was probably somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in 2012 dollars (significantly less if the movie does in fact take place in the early 70's or whatever, but an equivalent accounting for inflation and cost of living increases). And this is all untaxed, since it was an under-the-table job; even if you actually are the government, you don't tell the IRS about who you paid to do your black ops (and this is fiction, so Bob doesn't need to worry about an audit even if he's the kind of person who would). In other words, just the pay from the first job would leave Bob Parr well flush with cash for a long time, even after buying a fancy sports car.


All that said, it's really a side note to this whole argument. To anyone who thinks Syndrome is anywhere close to something resembling a hero, and not an obsessive narcissistic serial killer, please go re-watch the film and pay attention to what Syndrome actually does - premeditated murder, conspiracy, serial murder, wanton acts of destruction to inflate his own self-image, torture, selling superweapons to the highest bidder (even pre-Iron Man ******* movie Tony Stark thought he stopped short of that), throwing his loyal "sidekick" under the bus to save his own neck (after she saved his)...and what does he do that's "good"? Offer superpowers to everyone? Specifically, whoever can afford to pay him scads of money for them, regardless of who they are or anything remotely resembling a sense of responsibility?

If you still think he's your kind of "hero", I have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_truth) a few books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged) you might enjoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead).

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 11:32 AM
I expect he would have been payed a LOT of mony for the job - extreme hazard pay, so to speak. No need to assume he was on the payroll or on retainer at all.

That's right. Mirage stated it was triple his yearly salary. Plus I think we've established he was never really the guy to think things through. He might have even blown a fair chunk of it on the car if he assumed more checks were to follow.



As to the exercising, I think that the fight made him realise that he was really out of condition, so he started training. I don't think Syndrome expected this, which is partly why Mr Incredible managed to escape the omnidroid's clutches the second time. (The other reason being that Syndrome was being a complete moron).

Well yeah. His reasons for getting back into shape were never in question. I was just wondering if he was being paid that entire time. It was, what, a month? Maybe he wasn't.

But I don't think Syndrome jumped the gun on the last fight. Mr. Incredible was inches from decapitation. The first droid was able to cut him, there's no real reason to assume the upgraded version couldn't. It had him helpless with a spinning-blade-of-death at his throat.


EDIT: Ninja'd!


To anyone who thinks Syndrome is anywhere close to something resembling a hero, and not an obsessive narcissistic serial killer, please go re-watch the film and pay attention to what Syndrome actually does...

Well I did call him a tool...

Tvtyrant
2012-08-08, 11:34 AM
His pay for the first job was "triple his current annual salary" - given that he was comfortably if miserably supporting his wife and three dependents on his "current annual salary", this means his pay for his first job was probably somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in 2012 dollars (significantly less if the movie does in fact take place in the early 70's or whatever, but an equivalent accounting for inflation and cost of living increases). And this is all untaxed, since it was an under-the-table job; even if you actually are the government, you don't tell the IRS about who you paid to do your black ops (and this is fiction, so Bob doesn't need to worry about an audit even if he's the kind of person who would). In other words, just the pay from the first job would leave Bob Parr well flush with cash for a long time, even after buying a fancy sports car.


All that said, it's really a side note to this whole argument. To anyone who thinks Syndrome is anywhere close to something resembling a hero, and not an obsessive narcissistic serial killer, please go re-watch the film and pay attention to what Syndrome actually does - premeditated murder, conspiracy, serial murder, wanton acts of destruction to inflate his own self-image, torture, selling superweapons to the highest bidder (even pre-Iron Man ******* movie Tony Stark thought he stopped short of that), throwing his loyal "sidekick" under the bus to save his own neck (after she saved his)...and what does he do that's "good"? Offer superpowers to everyone? Specifically, whoever can afford to pay him scads of money for them, regardless of who they are or anything remotely resembling a sense of responsibility?

If you still think he's your kind of "hero", I have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sword_of_truth) a few books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_shrugged) you might enjoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead).

I don't think Syndrome can be compared with Richard "removed everyone's souls" Rahl. Sure Syndrome does villainous things, but Richard butchers innocents (including friends) on a regular basis.

Knaight
2012-08-08, 11:37 AM
His pay for the first job was "triple his current annual salary" - given that he was comfortably if miserably supporting his wife and three dependents on his "current annual salary", this means his pay for his first job was probably somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in 2012 dollars (significantly less if the movie does in fact take place in the early 70's or whatever, but an equivalent accounting for inflation and cost of living increases). And this is all untaxed, since it was an under-the-table job; even if you actually are the government, you don't tell the IRS about who you paid to do your black ops (and this is fiction, so Bob doesn't need to worry about an audit even if he's the kind of person who would). In other words, just the pay from the first job would leave Bob Parr well flush with cash for a long time, even after buying a fancy sports car.

2010 median pay of insurance sales agents was $46,770 in the U.S. Given that Bob is male we can assume that his pay is higher than that, but that puts us closer to the $150,000 to $200,000 range than the $250,000 to 300,000 range.

dehro
2012-08-08, 11:38 AM
But the first job was to die while fighting Syn's creation. Clearly, he failed. But that's really only because he was given poor instruction in the matter.

After that... what was his job? It seems like he bought the car while on the payroll for working out at the railyard. Not actually doing anything, just waiting for an assignment.

So I suppose it was just a retainer type position after that first one, waiting for the next model to come roll out and defeat him. Except this time he wasn't allowed to die... for some reason.

I wonder if Buddy would have stepped in and kept him from being killed if he'd have lost to the thing the first time around? He seemed to be in a poor position to interfere.

he got 3 times his yearly wages for his first assignement and was told more would follow..which did.
the job he was paid for (and actually failed at) was to disable the robot without damaging it too much..which is the bit he failed at. that they intended him to die has nothing to do with his contractual position :smallbiggrin:

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 11:46 AM
he got 3 times his yearly wages for his first assignement and was told more would follow..which did.
the job he was paid for (and actually failed at) was to disable the robot without damaging it too much..which is the bit he failed at. that they intended him to die has nothing to do with his contractual position :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, I did acknowlege the payment below... which was then wiped out by an edit... which I then went back and repaired.

But he did manage to disable the omnidroid with only ripping off one camera and putting a few holes into it. It was mostly intact, including the whatever vital part it was he ultimately tricked it into targeting. Some power coupling or A.I. unit. He was shown analysing it from the inside during the first fight and exploited the same weakness in the second.

Now there was a mistake on Buddy's part. Knowing how it was taken down the first time, why not move that part? Give it better protection? Perhaps a backup unit?

It seems he just concentrated on making it bigger and badder... which I suppose was the entire point; letting his ego get in the way where Mr. Incredible was concerned.

Tavar
2012-08-08, 11:48 AM
But the first job was to die while fighting Syn's creation. Clearly, he failed. But that's really only because he was given poor instruction in the matter.

After that... what was his job? It seems like he bought the car while on the payroll for working out at the railyard. Not actually doing anything, just waiting for an assignment.
Retainer Agreements are something that exists in real life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retainer_agreement).

Also, dying to the thing was only one goal. The other goal, and more important one, was to test the device to the limits of its capabilities, to see which areas could be improved upon. Neither of which were specified to him, but then they were lying to him.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 11:48 AM
2010 median pay of insurance sales agents was $46,770 in the U.S. Given that Bob is male we can assume that his pay is higher than that, but that puts us closer to the $150,000 to $200,000 range than the $250,000 to 300,000 range.

I didn't look it up, I was just spitballing based on the fact that he and Helen could support three kids on one salary. Then again, housing was really a lot cheaper back then, and his pre-lawsuit debt (if he had any) was probably wiped as part of his deal with the government to go underground and stay there. I know most of my bills are friggin' student loans, which wouldn't have been nearly so harsh if Bob went to college in the 40's or early 50's (and would be non-existent if he ever served in the military, but there's no indication that he did other than the movie's vague timeline and statistical probability.)

Also, I think he was a claims adjuster.


I don't think Syndrome can be compared with Richard "removed everyone's souls" Rahl. Sure Syndrome does villainous things, but Richard butchers innocents (including friends) on a regular basis.

Well, this is a kids' movie (yes, yes, jet engines, I know). Unleashing a killer robot on a densely populated city (at least he apparently did it on a Sunday?) and hurling about gas trucks like a jackass probably counts as attempted butchering of innocents, at least.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 11:57 AM
Retainer Agreements are something that exists in real life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retainer_agreement).

Also, dying to the thing was only one goal. The other goal, and more important one, was to test the device to the limits of its capabilities, to see which areas could be improved upon. Neither of which were specified to him, but then they were lying to him.

Sure retainers exist, but the question is whether it was actually a valid job or just part of a con. Or even if there's a distinction between the two.

And I don't think Syndrome really had testing in mind. Remember some of his quotes:

"Surprising, we must bring him back."

"You know, I went through quite a few supers to get it worthy to fight you, but man, it wasn't good enough!"

I think he honestly meant for Mr. Incredible to die. So if the entire job offer was a ruse, was he actually earning a paycheck? Or was Syndrome just giving him money as part of a larger plot?

Tavar
2012-08-08, 12:00 PM
Well, of course he was given the money as some larger plot. But Mr. Incredible can't have known that, which is what actually matters for judging his actions.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-08, 12:03 PM
Maybe he was running a two-stage revenge plot? He hated Mr. Incredible, but it's obvious he also hated the whole superhero institution almost as much as he hated Incredible personally. That splits his plan into two concurrent but technically independent aspects - if the Omnidroid kills Mr. Incredible, he gets his first revenge then proceeds to enact his second revenge. If Mr. Incredible wins, he upgrades the Omnidroid and repeats the process as many times as necessary - once he's killed Mr. Incredible, he knows the plot is ready to deploy because his warped hero-worship/hatred considers Mr. Incredible to be the best, so his robot will beat anyone else.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 12:08 PM
Well, of course he was given the money as some larger plot. But Mr. Incredible can't have known that, which is what actually matters for judging his actions.

Not if we're considering the legality of the purchase of the car. If the money used to buy it was part of Syndrome's assets that were seized at the end of the movie, it might not have been a legal purchase. We see that all the time when it comes to prosecuting organized crime. A person could have their house, their car and any other possession taken away if the courts decide that they were bought with profits from their crimes.

So if it wasn't a legal purchase, was it even Mr. Incredible's car at that point?


Maybe he was running a two-stage revenge plot? He hated Mr. Incredible, but it's obvious he also hated the whole superhero institution almost as much as he hated Incredible personally. That splits his plan into two concurrent but technically independent aspects - if the Omnidroid kills Mr. Incredible, he gets his first revenge then proceeds to enact his second revenge. If Mr. Incredible wins, he upgrades the Omnidroid and repeats the process as many times as necessary - once he's killed Mr. Incredible, he knows the plot is ready to deploy because his warped hero-worship/hatred considers Mr. Incredible to be the best, so his robot will beat anyone else.

I think he was planning on Mr. Incredible being killed by Ominidroid 08 (Or '9000', according to Mirage). After it was defeated, he decided to rub Bob's nose in the fact that the next model overpowered him. It was then that he decided it would be more fun to have the hero watch him capture the world's adoration for a while.

I don't think there was ever a real plan to need a version 09.

Tavar
2012-08-08, 12:28 PM
Perhaps, but in that case it's not Sydromes car, either.

In addition, it's not clear just how illegal all parts of Sydromes operations were. If he was a legitimate weapons developer, would funds from that part of the company be confiscated? Oh, they would certainly be frozen, until they were sure Syndrome had been caught, and thus his ability to access them for illegal purposes was curtailed, but that doesn't mean every employee from his legitimate businesses would be losing their house and possessions.

Furthermore, it's not clear how illegal Mr. Incredible's actions were. I'm not an expert on such matters, but would someone who was employed in an entirely legal manner, and who preformed entirely legal actions while employed, lose possessions? Especially if at the time they did not know of the illegal side of things?

As for the plan, I'm not so sure. Yes, he seemed to think that it would be strong enough, but he was also still going to test it on other supers. It seems completely counter to his established method(as evidenced by the previous tests) to no consider the fact he might need to redesign the machine.

Kinslayer
2012-08-08, 12:33 PM
And this is all untaxed, since it was an under-the-table job; even if you actually are the government, you don't tell the IRS about who you paid to do your black ops...

For some reason I have the hilarious image of a Tax receipt that reads

$150,000
One-Hundred And Fifty Thousand Dollars
For Special Operations Services Concluded In _________

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 12:36 PM
Oh, almost forgot the part where Syndrome blithely (thinks he) murders a man's wife and children in front of him while he is begging for their lives and then proceeds to mock him about it.

Clearly this is just Mr. Incredible's earned comeuppance for copping an attitude fifteen years ago, right?


For some reason I have the hilarious image of a Tax receipt that reads

$150,000
One-Hundred And Fifty Thousand Dollars
For Special Operations Services Concluded In _________

If it was a real government project, it'd be paid in cash and the government expenditure would be marked on their books as $150,000 worth of toilet seats and office supplies disbursed to the Hawaii Department of Fish and Game.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 12:40 PM
Perhaps, but in that case it's not Sydromes car, either.

In addition, it's not clear just how illegal all parts of Sydromes operations were. If he was a legitimate weapons developer, would funds from that part of the company be confiscated? Oh, they would certainly be frozen, until they were sure Syndrome had been caught, and thus his ability to access them for illegal purposes was curtailed, but that doesn't mean every employee from his legitimate businesses would be losing their house and possessions.

Furthermore, it's not clear how illegal Mr. Incredible's actions were. I'm not an expert on such matters, but would someone who was employed in an entirely legal manner, and who preformed entirely legal actions while employed, lose possessions? Especially if at the time they did not know of the illegal side of things?

As for the plan, I'm not so sure. Yes, he seemed to think that it would be strong enough, but he was also still going to test it on other supers. It seems completely counter to his established method(as evidenced by the previous tests) to no consider the fact he might need to redesign the machine.

Well it is stated clearly during the limo ride that all of Syndrome's assets have been frozen by the government. I believe they were prosecuting him as a terrorist, giving them the rights to seize any assets associated with the unnamed island organization that he ran.

So not only did Bob whip a car into some poor shmoe's house, but he was also tampering with federal evidence?

And I can buy that Syndrome was so consumed with overcoming Mr. Incredible's strength and invulnerability that he lost sight of covering the Omnidroid's demonstrated weakness. He just wanted more power, more mass and more lethality.


Oh, almost forgot the part where Syndrome blithely (thinks he) murders a man's wife and children in front of him while he is begging for their lives and then proceeds to mock him about it.

Well I did call the man a tool, I keep saying that...

Tavar
2012-08-08, 12:50 PM
Ah, but did the right to seize any asset does not mean they seized every asset. In addition, is it even an asset of the company? Again, if someone is a legal employee, and receives payment for entirely legal services, is that payment then liable to be seized?

Selrahc
2012-08-08, 12:50 PM
If it was a real government project, it'd be paid in cash and the government expenditure would be marked on their books as $150,000 worth of toilet seats and office supplies disbursed to the Hawaii Department of Fish and Game.

Uh... why? The military and black ops both have budgets, even if the records of exact spendings are confidential. It would just go down as part of that if it was within the government. And a defence contractor hiring a specialist consultant isn't exactly something heinous enough to need to hide within dummy purchases.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 01:08 PM
Ah, but did the right to seize any asset does not mean they seized every asset. In addition, is it even an asset of the company? Again, if someone is a legal employee, and receives payment for entirely legal services, is that payment then liable to be seized?

As part of a federal investigation and a suspicious amount? Probably. A payment three times the average household income made in one lump deposit by a terrorist organization just a month prior to attacking a major city?

I think they're going to want to know where that money went and what role Bob had in helping to design Omnidroid 09. Remember that we're not dealing with the common comic book world, but rather one in which supers are demonstrably prosecuted in the execution of their heroic duties.

Tavar
2012-08-08, 01:14 PM
Considering that they were talking to at least some of the Federals in question in the car, that's a rather large assumption.

And, if they did do such a thing, they would be required to inform him of the seizure, yes? Especially since Bob Parr is quite obviously not Syndrome, and thus a seizure of the latter's assets does not necessarily include the former's.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 01:32 PM
Considering that they were talking to at least some of the Federals in question in the car, that's a rather large assumption.

And, if they did do such a thing, they would be required to inform him of the seizure, yes? Especially since Bob Parr is quite obviously not Syndrome, and thus a seizure of the latter's assets does not necessarily include the former's.

Well, they were talking to one agent with waning influence who'd gotten the investigation started. Once the payment came to the attention of the court system, who knows what might happen. The question of legality can be retroactively applied, it can get tricky.

Maybe some day a different set of agents will show up at the Parr residence asking for an accounting of Syndrome's payment. At that point he'll have to explain how he no longer has the expensive car bought with terrorist money because he threw it at a jet which was hovering at low altitude over a residential district. All in the name of saving lives.

I know, I know. We're supposed to take the ending of the movie as all of the supers being forgiven and allowed to return to duty. But... really? In a world where they can be prosecuted for collateral damage and aggressive suicide prevention, anything can happen.

Perhaps that's a fault of their civil circuits. I can't really picture the Judicial branch holding the Executive so fiscally responsible as to nearly bankrupt the system.

dehro
2012-08-08, 01:42 PM
I don't know a thing about the american legal system.. however... I don't seem to have noticed the arrest and indictement of any of the Madoffs of this world involving the seizure of the properties of his/their employees, however acquired through the salaries paid to them by a conman.
as for the figures that I've seen being thrown about.. what time-period are we considering here? for some reason I see the setting of the movie as a mock-fifties/sixties.. with a few technological developments. (kind of a early james bond days)
I would figure that if any sort of deep analysis must be made on the background and legalities of a Disney cartoon, then the time period should have some relevance..
If my perception of the time period is accurate, then also the laws and economic situation used in the debate should reflect this.
it seems to me that average salaries back in the 50s allowed for stay-at-home mums.

Kinslayer
2012-08-08, 01:47 PM
it seems to me that average salaries back in the 50s allowed for stay-at-home mums.

More so, the average expenditure was lower, rather than the wages higher.

Ie ; We buy a lot of junk (for a given value of junk) today.

dehro
2012-08-08, 01:53 PM
More so, the average expenditure was lower, rather than the wages higher.

Ie ; We buy a lot of junk (for a given value of junk) today.

same difference, as long as we take it into account in the debate

Tavar
2012-08-08, 01:54 PM
It's not simply that, thought that may be a part. Basically, at least in the US, wages have not kept up with prices.



Well, they were talking to one agent with waning influence who'd gotten the investigation started. Once the payment came to the attention of the court system, who knows what might happen. The question of legality can be retroactively applied, it can get tricky.

Maybe some day a different set of agents will show up at the Parr residence asking for an accounting of Syndrome's payment. At that point he'll have to explain how he no longer has the expensive car bought with terrorist money because he threw it at a jet which was hovering at low altitude over a residential district. All in the name of saving lives.
We don't actually know if his influence is waning, and if the Supers are coming back that would seem to give his position a huge boost. Also, consider that the Incredibles would likely have spoken to him to tell their side of the story, which might also give them some buffer.

I'm not sure of what point you are making, though. If they did question him of that fact, what could come of it? The asset was destroyed before any request regarding it's seizure were filed. What case could the government make at that point? That he destroyed his own private property? Yes, they would question him, but that doesn't mean anything. The police question witnesses to crimes. Those witnesses aren't then charged with a crime themselves automatically.

Also, of course, there's the fact that we see the family some time later, and they don't seem to have been hit by a massive criminal ruling against them. Sure, you could make one up, but at that point you're pretty much changing the canon of the story.


I know, I know. We're supposed to take the ending of the movie as all of the supers being forgiven and allowed to return to duty. But... really? In a world where they can be prosecuted for collateral damage and aggressive suicide prevention, anything can happen.

Perhaps that's a fault of their civil circuits. I can't really picture the Judicial branch holding the Executive so fiscally responsible as to nearly bankrupt the system.
I'd say it's explicitly the problem of poor PR and bad laws. If I'm injured because a train was stopped suddenly, with the alternative being dead because the train horribly crashing due to a bombed out section of tracks, I don't feel I should have any right to sue the person who stopped the train.

The fact that preventing a mass death like that turned into bad public perception is a sign of horrible PR.

The Suicide Prevention is a more complicated issue, as it runs into the whole "should suicide be a crime thing". Still, if it is a crime, I'm not certain how viable it should be to sue someone for stopping a crime. Seems it would give precedent for a Mugger to sue a policeman for intervening in a mugging.

Rake21
2012-08-08, 02:15 PM
I... I think we got off topic a bit. What with the discussion of earned wages and the legality of chucking your car at a super villain.

If I may get us back on track, I believe we were all continually pointing out that Syndrome is kind of an *******.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 02:27 PM
It's easy to get off track when the core discussion is rather apparent. No one but Sunken is arguing for Syndrome being a hero.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 02:40 PM
We don't actually know if his influence is waning, and if the Supers are coming back that would seem to give his position a huge boost. Also, consider that the Incredibles would likely have spoken to him to tell their side of the story, which might also give them some buffer.

He's been through this enough that he already knows their side. And remember his air of resignation in the elevator ride out of the insurance building. He struggled to think of what last few strings he could pull at great cost to get Bob relocated again. That wasn't a power player. That was a the guy who allowed the madness to start all over again.


I'm not sure of what point you are making, though. If they did question him of that fact, what could come of it? The asset was destroyed before any request regarding it's seizure were filed. What case could the government make at that point? That he destroyed his own private property? Yes, they would question him, but that doesn't mean anything. The police question witnesses to crimes. Those witnesses aren't then charged with a crime themselves automatically.

I dunno either. I just like helping out the underdog. And arguing.

I believe we were trying to establish the legal ownership of the car which was so carelessly thrown. The exact reasons for establishing such need no longer apply.

I want to know who's car was turned into who's luxury treehouse.


Also, of course, there's the fact that we see the family some time later, and they don't seem to have been hit by a massive criminal ruling against them. Sure, you could make one up, but at that point you're pretty much changing the canon of the story.

No, they don't, as I'd mentioned. A shame. Apparently the government and the citizens just needed some time to cool down before opening up to their heroes once again. So it'll only be a matter of time before a guy with motor oil all over his living room and another with a burning jet engine where his doghouse used to be comes looking for answers.


The Suicide Prevention is a more complicated issue, as it runs into the whole "should suicide be a crime thing". Still, if it is a crime, I'm not certain how viable it should be to sue someone for stopping a crime. Seems it would give precedent for a Mugger to sue a policeman for intervening in a mugging.

That thought struck me even as it happened. Where in the U.S. is suicide legal? Bob was stopping a crime, keeping a man from dying. That's going to have to be a civil issue in seeking recompense. I'm just baffled that the Feds ended up eating the bill.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 02:52 PM
Successful suicide isn't a crime, it is the attempt I believe.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 02:59 PM
Successful suicide isn't a crime, it is the attempt I believe.

Hard to prosecute the dead. Dare I say it'd be a stiff trial. Though I fear actually answering the question would cross board rules about politics and laws and such.

kpenguin
2012-08-08, 03:05 PM
Here's (http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/01/04/the-incredibles/)an excellent discussion over the legal issues surrounding the lawsuits against Mister Incredible.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 03:05 PM
Hard to prosecute the dead. Dare I say it'd be a stiff trial. Though I fear actually answering the question would cross board rules about politics and laws and such.
OK, let's just leave it at that and go onto another topic.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 03:09 PM
Hard to prosecute the dead. Dare I say it'd be a stiff trial. Though I fear actually answering the question would cross board rules about politics and laws and such.

The legality is historically carried beyond the point of death as it would affect the dispersement of property, insurance and those who aided the suicide. The deceased might be also impacted if the charge prevents certain honorifics at internment.

From a historical point of view, of course. You modern legits might want to consult a professional mouthpiece for confirmation.

EDIT: So in what ways do you think Syndrome's retirement would have impacted society? He was planning to sell all his inventions to make EVERYONE super. Would we have seen Kingdom Come at that point?

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 03:14 PM
Here's (http://lawandthemultiverse.com/2012/01/04/the-incredibles/)an excellent discussion over the legal issues surrounding the lawsuits against Mister Incredible.

That was an awesome, if nerdy, read. Thanks for that.



EDIT: So in what ways do you think Syndrome's retirement would have impacted society? He was planning to sell all his inventions to make EVERYONE super. Would we have seen Kingdom Come at that point?

Was he? I don't recall him ever stating his intention of making -everyone- super. Where'd you get that from exactly? Or even that he was going to retire? I don't think anything of either point because they're completely non-existent.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 03:18 PM
Was he? I don't recall him ever stating his intention of making -everyone- super. Where'd you get that from exactly? Or even that he was going to retire? I don't think anything of either point because they're completely non-existent.

Yes, explicitly stated as his plan during the monologue Bob got him into. He was going to save the city from a threat no one else could touch and become the new #1 hero in the world, bringing back the good old days with him at the head.

Then, once he was done having his fun, he was going to sell his inventions and make everyone super... because when everyone is super... no one is...

IMDB has the script online. It's all in there.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 03:21 PM
You mean this one? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBIMQxsJb_s)

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 03:29 PM
You mean this one? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBIMQxsJb_s)
What a hero. </sarcasm>

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 03:31 PM
You mean this one? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBIMQxsJb_s)

No, later on after the whole family has been captured and they're watching footage of the Omnidroid attack on TV.

"Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics anyone's ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes. Everyone can be super. And when everyone's super...no one will be."

So what's that going to be like? Death rays and rocket boots available at Toys R Us...

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 03:34 PM
What a hero. </sarcasm>

I know right? I especially like how he went on an Objectivist Creed about helping the common people out of the good of his heart while waxing the philosophic about how it would usher in a Post-Humanist utopia controlled by the benevolent government who hired him out to kill off the Super Heros who were in fact holding the worlds population down with high interest loans. Best Pixar film ever, hit all my buttons.


No, later on after the whole family has been captured and they're watching footage of the Omnidroid attack on TV.

"Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics anyone's ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes. Everyone can be super. And when everyone's super...no one will be."

So what's that going to be like? Death rays and rocket boots available at Toys R Us...

I think, quite honestly we can chalk that up to him being delusional. We already know by Word of God that he's a psychopath. Unlike the other assumptions in the OP's wall of text we know what constitutes suffering from "Psychopathy" as detailed by the DSM, that being Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Sure he says he's going to do it. Chances are however, if he actually succeeded which he ya know...didn't...he'd never have made good on his grand standing goals.

And not because in the end he's just going to disregard his statement. He wouldn't have been able to keep the limelight on him and stay the "Hero" for very long. He's not a hero after all. He'd do to many cruel things, abuse his power to often. It's just in his nature. There's no need to assume, we see him do it to Mirage. Once she'd lived past her usefulness and became a liability he discarded her.

This is all further evidenced in the entire film. He didn't start with empowering his fellow man for cash. He was first going to get the fame and his personal enjoyment out of the way and when he was "Old" and "Had his fun" he'd sell the technology. Only after the fact would he do it instead of just doing it from the get go and actually winning. What does he do instead? He peruses a personal vendetta against someone who disregarded him in the past, for fifteen years. He didn't move on with the plan of "Making everyone super so no one is". It was never his main plan. He was just gloating and rubbing it in the faces of the Super Heros in front of him. All he wanted was the fame and the glory.

None of this however even matters. He lost in his little display in the city. He displayed he didn't really care about others when his life was in danger. When crap hit the fan, he ran from the robot that was killing innocent people without ever trying to save them. Then, instead of facing the music on his crimes and accepting the consequences he instead runs away. Kidnaps a mans child to raise as evil and swears he'll get them in the end. He doesn't run away to pursue his "Empowering Humankind" thing. No, vengeance comes first and always. Concluding from the evidence that Syndrome is a narcissistic Anti-Social vengeance driven man...we can easily show that his statements were never going to be acted on.

Fragenstein
2012-08-08, 04:08 PM
I know right? I especially like how he went on an Objectivist Creed about helping the common people out of the good of his heart while waxing the philosophic about how it would usher in a Post-Humanist utopia controlled by the benevolent government who hired him out to kill off the Super Heros who were in fact holding the worlds population down with high interest loans. Best Pixar film ever, hit all my buttons.



I think, quite honestly we can chalk that up to him being delusional. We already know by Word of God that he's a psychopath. Unlike the other assumptions in the OP's wall of text we know what constitutes suffering from "Psychopathy" as detailed by the DSM, that being Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Sure he says he's going to do it. Chances are however, if he actually succeeded which he ya know...didn't...he'd never have made good on his grand standing goals.

And not because in the end he's just going to disregard his statement. He wouldn't have been able to keep the limelight on him and stay the "Hero" for very long. He's not a hero after all. He'd do to many cruel things, abuse his power to often. It's just in his nature. There's no need to assume, we see him do it to Mirage. Once she'd lived past her usefulness and became a liability he discarded her.

This is all further evidenced in the entire film. He didn't start with empowering his fellow man for cash. He was first going to get the fame and his personal enjoyment out of the way and when he was "Old" and "Had his fun" he'd sell the technology. Only after the fact would he do it instead of just doing it from the get go and actually winning. What does he do instead? He peruses a personal vendetta against someone who disregarded him in the past, for fifteen years. He didn't move on with the plan of "Making everyone super so no one is". It was never his main plan. He was just gloating and rubbing it in the faces of the Super Heros in front of him. All he wanted was the fame and the glory.

None of this however even matters. He lost in his little display in the city. He displayed he didn't really care about others when his life was in danger. When crap hit the fan, he ran from the robot that was killing innocent people without ever trying to save them. Then, instead of facing the music on his crimes and accepting the consequences he instead runs away. Kidnaps a mans child to raise as evil and swears he'll get them in the end. He doesn't run away to pursue his "Empowering Humankind" thing. No, vengeance comes first and always. Concluding from the evidence that Syndrome is a narcissistic Anti-Social vengeance driven man...we can easily show that his statements were never going to be acted on.

Well, how much fun is that?

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 04:22 PM
So what's that going to be like? Death rays and rocket boots available at Toys R Us...
And that's a good thing . . .how?
Also, watch the earlier video again. He could have made his money creating inventions to help humanity.
Buddy Pine could have done so much to help others.
His 'zero-point energy' would have revolutionized the world.
Instead, he made it selling super-scientific marvels to unstable countries with equally unstable rulers, "countries that want respect".

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 04:22 PM
Well, how much fun is that?

The Universe doesn't owe you a sense of enjoyment.

Kd7sov
2012-08-08, 04:24 PM
EDIT: So in what ways do you think Syndrome's retirement would have impacted society? He was planning to sell all his inventions to make EVERYONE super. Would we have seen Kingdom Come at that point?

I'm not sure it'd change that much, on a short-term personal level. He made an absurd amount of money as an arms dealer; do you think he'd charge a lot less once he's "had my fun", whenever he decides that would be? Odds are it'd be the Rockefellers and such that'd get the stuff, plus various governments of course. And eventually there'd be trickle-down, but unless someone decides to escalate and set off a zero-point bomb on someone else's territory or whatever, I doubt there'd be a lot of impact on most people's lives.

Sunken Valley
2012-08-08, 04:41 PM
Wow, this baby's gone wild fire!

I admit some good points here. Edna Mode as Syndrome's good twin. Did not think of that.

Can anyone give me a link to Syndrome saying "when I'm old and had my fun"? It's not on my copy of the DVD. My copy is legit, but it's not on there.

Syndrome needed to launch the robot to start his career to cause a paradigm shift and emphasise the need for supers. Also, big advert. The Incredibles destroyed his career, hence his crazed invasion of home.

He may have been Father Gothel to Jack-Jack. Good point.

It was pointless for Mr Incredible to throw his car at Syndrome because he would have been arrested at his island. He would not have known about the takeover and he had no contingency plan.

Nobody mentioned my final point in chapter 3 about Mr Inc giving into to his base urges and Syndrome's level by killing him. Also no one mentioned Syndrome and Ozzy comparison. Does this mean I win on those fronts?

Syndrome does deserve some credit for following his dreamsand becoming his dream job though. And the concept of a gadget-topia is soun

Finally, food for thought. What if Buddy had died that day at the hands of the Frenchman? Syndrome never came and neither did his plan. What would Mr Inc have done after firing? What would the supers have done. Would they have snapped

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 05:05 PM
I admit some good points here. Edna Mode as Syndrome's good twin. Did not think of that.

Well....they're not. So there is that.


Can anyone give me a link to Syndrome saying "when I'm old and had my fun"? It's not on my copy of the DVD. My copy is legit, but it's not on there.

Apparently it's in the script. However it doesn't matter. I think we've covered this enough to show that he wouldn't have done it no matter what.


Syndrome needed to launch the robot to start his career to cause a paradigm shift and emphasise the need for supers. Also, big advert. The Incredibles destroyed his career, hence his crazed invasion of home.

That doesn't excuse kidnapping. Nor does it excuse his torture and attempted murder of the entire family. The rest of it...really doesn't matter because there's no real link to any of your assumptions.


He may have been Father Gothel to Jack-Jack. Good point.

Huh?


It was pointless for Mr Incredible to throw his car at Syndrome because he would have been arrested at his island. He would not have known about the takeover and he had no contingency plan.

No it wasn't. It was self defense for one. Two...he was a super villain with tons of gadgets. It's highly unlikely that the military would have done much good against him.


Nobody mentioned my final point in chapter 3 about Mr Inc giving into to his base urges and Syndrome's level by killing him. Also no one mentioned Syndrome and Ozzy comparison. Does this mean I win on those fronts?

I actually addressed your entire argument piece by piece. Even if no one mentions it however that doesn't mean you "win" on these "fronts". Your final point, like the majority of your argument, is based on baseless assumptions. There's no evidence that he "Gave into his base urges" or sunk to the Villains level by killing said Villain.


Syndrome does deserve some credit for following his dreams and becoming his dream job though. And the concept of a gadget-topia is sound

No he doesn't and the last point is mere conjecture.

[qoute]Finally, food for thought. What if Buddy had died that day at the hands of the Frenchman? Syndrome never came and neither did his plan. What would Mr Inc have done after firing? What would the supers have done. Would they have snapped[/QUOTE]

Got a new job and been moved around. They may have won the right back to be super heros but does it matter? It didn't happen.




You said I'd get a reward for going through all three of your chapters. Where is it? :smalltongue:

Forum Explorer
2012-08-08, 05:07 PM
It was pointless for Mr Incredible to throw his car at Syndrome because he would have been arrested at his island. He would not have known about the takeover and he had no contingency plan.

Nobody mentioned my final point in chapter 3 about Mr Inc giving into to his base urges and Syndrome's level by killing him. Also no one mentioned Syndrome and Ozzy comparison. Does this mean I win on those fronts?

Syndrome does deserve some credit for following his dreamsand becoming his dream job though. And the concept of a gadget-topia is soun

Finally, food for thought. What if Buddy had died that day at the hands of the Frenchman? Syndrome never came and neither did his plan. What would Mr Inc have done after firing? What would the supers have done. Would they have snapped

True but Mr. Incredible doesn't know that Syndrome doesn't know that. Mr. Incredible likely thinks that Syndrome has a back up plan.

I think I did. Basically there is a world of difference between trying to kill someone who has attempted to kill you multiple times, destroyed your home, and is currently threatening to do so again vs murdering innocent people without provocation.

On a slight aside it's worth noting that quite a few mooks die early on. This is not a world where superheroes do not kill. Similarly it's a world where superheroes do not come back from the dead.

As for Ozzy it's more of I haven't watched Watchman (or read it) and have little intention of doing so. Therefore the point is meaningless to me either way.

Sure Syndrome is a cool and effective villain. And when he's taken as a villain he's a very fun character.

Frozone would have gotten Mr. Incredible a job. He would have remained depressed and the family issues would not have been addressed until the Undertaker arose to try and take over the world. Most other heroes would have been perfectly fine. Perhaps one or two would have suffered through similar depressions. Either way it would have lasted until the new generation of supervillians arose.

Tavar
2012-08-08, 05:12 PM
Well, how much fun is that?
What does how much fun something is have to do with a discussion regarding what is actually presented in the film?


Can anyone give me a link to Syndrome saying "when I'm old and had my fun"? It's not on my copy of the DVD. My copy is legit, but it's not on there.
Found it on IMDB.

Mr. Incredible: You mean you killed off real heroes so that you could *pretend* to be one?
Syndrome: Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super...
[chuckles evilly]
Syndrome: - no one will be.


Syndrome needed to launch the robot to start his career to cause a paradigm shift and emphasise the need for supers. Also, big advert. The Incredibles destroyed his career, hence his crazed invasion of home.
So murder and mass destruction are okay advertisement methods? How about the fact that this is all staged by him?

It was pointless for Mr Incredible to throw his car at Syndrome because he would have been arrested at his island. He would not have known about the takeover and he had no contingency plan.

Nobody mentioned my final point in chapter 3 about Mr Inc giving into to his base urges and Syndrome's level by killing him.
Proof that he wouldn't have known? and that the government could actually find all his accounts or the like? Remember, he was able to have a whole island fortress with some impressing weaponry. Or that he didn't have a plan?

As for killing him, there really isn't too much of a case. This man repeatedly attempted to kill him and his family, as well as killing many of the friends. He was going to escape on a jet, so Mr Incredible attempted to stop the jet. The fact that he then died because he was standing next to a jet engine in impractical garb is regrettable, but the death of such a man, in the midst of combat? Not exactly something that wouldn't have happened if police were on the scene.

Also, having watched the scene, it appears that most of the debris dropped onto the Parr's own household.

Syndrome does deserve some credit for following his dreamsand becoming his dream job though. And the concept of a gadget-topia is soun
....
That doesn't follow. If my dream is to kill someone, and I follow through with it, that's not something to be admired.

Also, not sure how the gadget-topia is sound. Proof/evidence/reasoning based on strong support?

Finally, food for thought. What if Buddy had died that day at the hands of the Frenchman? Syndrome never came and neither did his plan. What would Mr Inc have done after firing? What would the supers have done. Would they have snapped
If he died at the hands of the Frenchman, things would have been different to be sure, but when and how he died would have been very important, as it would have changed that whole scene.

dehro
2012-08-08, 05:15 PM
attempted suicide being illegal.. how long has that been a law?
anyhoo..
time for my review of Sunken Valley's theory.


Chapter 1: Syndrome the Government Consultant
rebuttal:

loses his temper with his boss, punching him through 5 walls (the latter blunder not only mind-wiped by government agents but implied to have happened before, with the end result being Mr Incredible and his family re-located).
what is implied is that his cover was blown before.. not necessarily through acts of violence but simply by showing his actual strenght or being recognized in one or the other way. (like lifting the car where an adult can see you).
it's kind of harder to remember not to display raw strenght when it's within every cell of your body, than it is to not fly or create ice out of thin air..which is an act of conscious application of a power that you don't usually use to.. walk around or open a door. this could explain why Mr Incredible has a harder time adapting than most.


Other supers have a lesser grip on sanity.
This is completely pulled out of thin air. A few supers meeting their demise by being dumber than a brick doesn't make any of them insane by any measure.
At no point ever do we see any indication that one of the supers is insane or anything worse than having a hard time to fit in..something that is probably true for half the population of the planet.


To explain why Syndrome is useful to the government I must mention what his “evil” plan is....Iron Man.
Yes, Syndrome is just like Iron Man: a maverick government consultant who operates on his own agenda, but an agenda inevitably on the government side. the underlined bit is, again, not a fact.
There's nothing we can see that tells us he's on anyone's side but his own..and nowhere does it say that his side and that of the government match.
The only link is Mirage's claim that she works for a branch of the government. Nothing of what we see later confirms this..in fact, everything denies this wild claim, which is put there only to convince Mr. Incredible that he's working with the good guys.


His greatest invention is the Omnidroid, a killer robot which he commands. I dunno.. it seems to me that the minigranade, search drone and zero gravity point gadgets are way cooler than the omnidroid, which has the subtlety of an atomic bomb. anyway, that's not really relevant.


Syndrome lures supers to his private island one by one with the help of his secretary Mirage, an attractive woman who offers the supers a chance to use their powers and costumes again.A speculation I can live with. as a matter of fact we don't know that the modus operandi is the same with the previous supers..but it's a reasonable assumption.


In this gambit Syndrome is in a win-win situation. He fully intends to kill the super involved with the Omnidroid, so if they die, mission accomplished. If per chance they succeed, he asks them back and then builds a new more powerful Omnidroid specifically to kill them.
yes and no.. we know, because he says so himself in his monologuing bit, that his aim was always to build something capable of beating Mr Incredible against whom he has a special grudge. The other supers were test subjects.. we don't know he actually had it in for them too.. but then, it's a reasonable assumption to think he did. I do however believe that he, being the fanboy he was, believes that Mr Incredible is the ultimate super. Something capable of defeating him can probably take on all the other supers as well (and this is almost proven to be true)... that way he can take out all the supers.


Although Mirages’ line to Mr Incredible that both of them are “off the grid” (aka protected by the government) are a telling hint Syndrome’s actions are fully evidenced in the film as endorsed by the government by one gaping plot hole.
The actual words are "according to the Government, neither of us exist".
This can very well be a lie, just like her claim that she works for a so called branch of the government.
Assuming that it is not a lie.. it doesn't have to mean that the government hides her just like it hides the incredibles.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of criminals, hobos and people who have otherwise disappeared from recent records can claim that the government doesn't know they exist. Syndrome has made enough money to be able to buy an island and bribe his way into non-existence.
In no way does this mean his activities or those of Mirage are endorsed by the Government. Assuming anything different is like assuming a conman operating dressed as a health inspector equates to the government endorsing cons and robberies


Every super in the film has a government handler to check up on them and support them. Mr Incredible has one and both his wife and Frozone are mentioned as having their own.
This implies that the 15 supers Syndrome killed had handlers as well. In this case, why was Mr Incredible never informed by the government that his life may be in danger and that supers are missing? Some of the disappearances are reported by the newspapers but Mr Incredible is never informed of them by his handler.mmhno.. I just watched the movie, and this isn't mentioned anywhere..unless I've just missed it.. but I don't think I did. it's reasonable to assume this was needed at the beginning, but years have passed (at least as many as Violet's age) since they were placed in hiding. There's a good chance that most other supers have required less time to adjust and that they haven't had cause to see their handlers in years.
For all the government knows, the missing supers simply haven't had any problems at all and are still out there living their life. The only reason why GazerBeam was reported in the news was because he was a bigshot lawyer/politician who campaigns for supers' rights. Maybe the others supers just aren't news-worthy in their secret identities.
For all the government knows, those supers simply have moved on to other things without informing them. This probably always was the ultimate goal of their relocation programme.
The government most likely didn't "keep quiet"..they just had no clue that foul play was occurring or that it had a single mastermind.

Supers presumably cost a large amount of money to support and relocate and they may also be dangerous and crazy.
Crazy? no..because supers that go crazy or are crazy aren't supers..they're supervillains.. and those wouldn't get the witness protection type treatment.
the supers we're talkinga bout aren't just people with powers.. but people who have used those powers for good. Nothing in the movie tells us any of them has gone crazy so you shouldn't make that assumption.

If the government killed supers themselves, the scandal would be tremendous. So the government outsources the problem to a private organisation who will accept the job for little to no pay (highly likely, given the advanced technology Syndrome’s weapons possess has made him a billionaire). If anything, it is likely the government owes Syndrome for weapons and is paying him off by letting him kill supers (as mentioned later on, Syndrome has a grudge against super powered individuals).
well...that's a jump in logic worthy of Elastigirl's jumps.
There is absolutely no indication in the movie that any of this is what is happening or might be occurring. None. Ever. Nowhere.
This is a Disney cartoon, targeted for children. what you see is what you get. Background plots that have no indication of existing anywhere..don't exist.
Coming to this conclusion is wishful thinking or fanfiction..at best.
If even the government was inclined this way.. 15 years to find a terminal solution to the problem? It would have made no sense to wait this long...and waste money all these years...not when you're the government, know all their powers, control their assets and have their trust.


Syndrome’s methods of doing so are also more dignifying to supers than dying of old age, suicide or snapping and becoming a villain (which, given Mr Incredible’s circumstances, is more than possible). In Wagner's Ring the greatest honour was dying in battle as only then could one go to Valhalla, the greatest heaven. For a superhero it would be infinitely better to die in action than live a life where they could not do the jobs their powers gave them. Take for instance Syndrome’s first target: Universal Man. Universal Man does not have a secret identity. He did not see the point of having one as fighting crime was what he did. His NSA fact-file on the 2-disc DVD recommends that he be kept busy. A ban on Superheroes would be a death sentence to him. When killed by the Omnidroid, Universal Man can now say that he died the way he lived: a superhero.
Furthermore, being killed by Syndrome is more dignifying to the families of the supers.
This bit.. it really does sound like a speech you'd get from a movie serial killer.. "I kill superheros because that way they will go out in glory instead of getting old and collecting a pension" whichever way you turn it around.. you might as well say "I rape puppies because it makes them better watchdogs"

Every superhero who comes to Syndrome’s island comes of their own free will. They are also paid handsomely for their services.
speculation. We don't know what lure was used on the other supers. money worked for Mr Incredible because he'd just been fired and they knew it. I don't think Gazerbeam, a lawyer and politician, needed the money.
For all we know, the others have been abducted and thrown in a pit with the robot.. or invited for tea and been attacked.. or lied to as to the purpose and powers of the robot, or the threat it posed to civilians. They certainly don't go on the island looking for their deaths..that too is pure speculation on your part.

Upon the hero’s eventual fall at the hands of the Omnidroid, this money makes a great pension for the bereaved families of the supers. This saves the government money, and further highlights Syndrome as a philanthropist.
a philantropist? lol.. he's a billionaire arms dealer who is throwing a lowly white collar a wad of money to lure him in and keep him interested enough to come back a second time.. there's no pension fund there.. the notion alone is a complete example of grasping at straws from your part.

Syndrome’s end goal of making a new age of powerless gadget super-heroes is also beneficial to the government, as the members presented in the film expressed a desire for a return to the days of superheroes. Gadgets allow this by making superheroes more a part of public life than the distant idols they were. It also makes them more controllable by the government as gadgets can be destroyed, unlike superpowers.
you're once again assuming that the government is in on the plot..which it isn't. Nothing but pure speculation based on nothing and on the thought that "it could be" tells us that anything Syndrome does is sanctioned or even known about by anybody.

Finally, Mirage defects to Mr Incredible’s side and according to The Incredibles comic book is now working for the government. Given that Mirage only sides with Mr Incredible after the rest of his family breach the island and her pardoning for being accomplice to Syndrome this may have been a hasty government cover-up. wild speculation again? if anything, this is an example of the government making use of the skills of a repenting enemy operative. most likely she did her time and was then recruited to make better use of her skills. AFTER the whole Syndrome bust-up this makes a lot of sense..
Using this fact somehow as a proof that the whole operation was sanctioned and then covered up.. just doesn't work... it's like trying to sas us in eskimo-talk.

As to the question of why a government would support sending a 50 foot killer robot into its own city, it would not. Syndrome did that on his own initiative. so wait.. the government was in on Syndrome's aims and strategy but wasn't aware of the key point in his strategy?

However, this is not an evil action.
So.. dropping a killer robot who immediately starts knocking over buildings and cars in a highly populated area is not an evil action.
This phrase alone is really making me consider that you're just taking the piss and that I'm wasting my time here.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 05:24 PM
Wow, this baby's gone wild fire!

Yes, we have been successfully trolled, congratulations.


Can anyone give me a link to Syndrome saying "when I'm old and had my fun"? It's not on my copy of the DVD. My copy is legit, but it's not on there.

Yes it is. Watch the movie. It's right there in the middle of the same speech everyone who is an idiot uses to justify Syndrome's "benevolence".


Via IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/quotes)

Syndrome: Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super...
[chuckles evilly]
Syndrome: - no one will be.


Syndrome needed to launch the robot to start his career to cause a paradigm shift and emphasise the need for supers. Also, big advert. The Incredibles destroyed his career, hence his crazed invasion of home.

Start his career?! Is there a possible reason why his superhero career had to start with him potentially killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people? Is there any possible way he could be considered the good guy in this situation and the Incredibles and Frozone villains for stopping the rampant destruction of civilian people and property?


It was pointless for Mr Incredible to throw his car at Syndrome because he would have been arrested at his island. He would not have known about the takeover and he had no contingency plan.

Nobody mentioned my final point in chapter 3 about Mr Inc giving into to his base urges and Syndrome's level by killing him. Also no one mentioned Syndrome and Ozzy comparison. Does this mean I win on those fronts?

First of all, thinking a discussion about morality like this is about you "winning" makes you some kind of sociopath. If we weren't talking about fictional characters I would be severely worried for you and the people around you.

Second, Mr. Incredible does not intentionally kill Syndrome. He attempts to stop a dangerous, resourceful supercriminal from fleeing and potentially evading arrest, while said supervillain was loudly declaring his intent to continue committing crimes in the future. It's kind of his basic responsibility as a superhero. Now, Syndrome did die in Incredible's attempt to stop him from fleeing, because Syndrome was being a ****ing moron. Monologuing+cape+known flaws in his flight system he hadn't bothered to correct for fifteen years. This is, at worst, manslaughter, and the kind that police officers perform on a routine basis - and as a superhero, Mr. Incredible was used to performing functions that normally belong to a police officer. Was that strictly the law of the land post-lawsuit era? Presumably not. But it was still an entirely reasonable reaction from his point of view, and clearly not intentional or premeditated murder (like what Syndrome was committing throughout the backstory and into the final phase of his plan).

Also, Ozymandias's plan was evil, logically shaky, and misguided (no matter how well-executed) in the first place. Syndrome's didn't even pretend to be anything other than his own attempt to become personal "savior" of the world to satisfy his own ego.


Syndrome does deserve some credit for following his dreamsand becoming his dream job though. And the concept of a gadget-topia is soun

No, he does not deserve credit for becoming a super-criminal and a terrorist. Just...no. And his "gadget-topia" idea was strictly for his own ego, so I don't really give a crap, morally, whether it would work or not. Syndrome is ****ing evil, and also crazy.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 05:27 PM
What Sunken Valley has done is called a "Gish gallop".
He has presented a huge mass of claims, and if one single statement is not addressed of the meandering morass of mediocre mutterings, he claims he has 'won' the argument.
Not cool, dude, not cool.:smallannoyed:

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-08, 05:28 PM
Can anyone give me a link to Syndrome saying "when I'm old and had my fun"? It's not on my copy of the DVD. My copy is legit, but it's not on there.

Apparently, I can! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYmHYQPaHaw&feature=related)

Mauve Shirt
2012-08-08, 05:33 PM
When I'm old and I've had my fun (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYmHYQPaHaw&feature=related), around 40 seconds in.

Damn ninjas. :smalltongue:

Sunken Valley
2012-08-08, 05:53 PM
What Sunken Valley has done is called a "Gish gallop".
He has presented a huge mass of claims, and if one single statement is not addressed of the meandering morass of mediocre mutterings, he claims he has 'won' the argument.
Not cool, dude, not cool.:smallannoyed:

Sorry!:smalleek::smalleek: Did not know that was a internet crime. Will not do that again.

I announce that I give up. Syndrome is an evil prick who deserved to be punished. He pretended to be something he wasn't and if he was a goody, he would have done it legit. True, he did a quasi-good act with regard to that Gamma Jack fellow but that was coincidence.

I'm not a troll or a piss taker. I wanted to get this Syndrome stuff off my chest. I will, however, be back after this thing dies down to get you people having a debate again about something else. Less words though, that Syndrome thing, man that's close to me. And I'm actually going to have to think of something.

3 things:

Is getting up on a clock tower to kill people a reference? If so, what

Deleted scene from Incredibles shows Mr Inc taking out his anger on an abandoned building and destroying it. The building then falls into a block of flats, destroying it. Think about that!

@avilan: You were right first time, I do think differently to the normal viewpoint. I was just suprised you figured me out when I only showed that side in the Dr Who thread.

Now I better get the carceri outta here.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 05:57 PM
Is getting up on a clock tower to kill people a reference? If so, what

What? Like...what?


Deleted scene from Incredibles shows Mr Inc taking out his anger on an abandoned building and destroying it. The building then falls into a block of flats, destroying it. Think about that!

Think about what? A scene that wasn't in the movie? No thanks. Isn't imporant.


@avilan: You were right first time, I do think differently to the normal viewpoint. I was just suprised you figured me out when I only showed that side in the Dr Who thread.

Now I better get the carceri outta here.

It wasn't hard to figure out when you said that torture was ok.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-08, 05:58 PM
I'd almost feel like apologizing, but the initial argument here still scares the hell out of me, so...

Also I must have skimmed past the post where it was referenced, but "getting up in the clock tower with a rifle" is a reference to Charles Whitman's 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas, wherein he fired on students and bystanders from the school's clock tower (Texas in the 60's had an unfortunate combination of easily available rifles, tall buildings, and dysfunctional ex-Marines), one of the earliest mass shootings to get national TV media attention.

Math_Mage
2012-08-08, 06:06 PM
• Everseer. Powers: Clairvoyance, Telepathy and Magni-Vision. A mind reader who can observe from a distance and see the future. This is dangerous to the government as he would know supers were being killed. Plus, he was a paranoid germophobe. Certainly the type to believe in conspiracies.

I find this note highly ironic, given that the thesis of this thread is to subvert the entire plot of Incredibles using a largely baseless conspiracy theory.

Not to mention this epileptic tree requires a perverse system of morality, where Syndrome is justified in luring retired crimefighters to their demise based on paranoid threat assessments, and torturing people because it's 'for information', but Mr. Incredible isn't allowed to 'sink to Syndrome's level' by attempting to halt the abduction of his own son.

I think we're done.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 06:12 PM
Also I must have skimmed past the post where it was referenced, but "getting up in the clock tower with a rifle" is a reference to Charles Whitman's 1966 shooting spree at the University of Texas, wherein he fired on students and bystanders from the school's clock tower (Texas in the 60's had an unfortunate combination of easily available rifles, tall buildings, and dysfunctional ex-Marines), one of the earliest mass shootings to get national TV media attention.

Oh, I knew that. I was more asking what he was talking about in the context of the discussion. What about it would have been a better question. It was wrong? I mean...that's all there is to say about that right?

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 06:13 PM
Sorry!:smalleek::smalleek: Did not know that was a internet crime. Will not do that again.

I apologia for coming across as rather harsh, that alliteration kind of got away from me, but Gish gallops are not just Internet crimes. They are crimes against rationality and logical thought, and should be avoided and pointed out when spotted.

Sunken Valley
2012-08-08, 06:14 PM
Forgot to mention!

OOTS torturing:

Roy dangling the Oracle

Celia electrocuting a bound Nale

V rigging Belkar's coffee and charming Muskrats

Miko putting Belkar in the hole

The saga of the dominated Kobold.


Torture is evil indeed!

Rockphed
2012-08-08, 06:16 PM
Reminds me of another thread where it was claimed with all apparent seriousness that because unhappiness exists or even has the potential to exist, if one had the opportunity to go back in time and prevent the creation of the universe, one had a moral and ethical imperative to do so.
I disagreed rather strenuously.

While there are days I wish I hadn't been born, there are also days where I cannot believe how happy I am. Overall, I think the happy days outweigh the unhappy.


That thought struck me even as it happened. Where in the U.S. is suicide legal? Bob was stopping a crime, keeping a man from dying. That's going to have to be a civil issue in seeking recompense. I'm just baffled that the Feds ended up eating the bill.

The suicider might not have won his case, but the people on the train probably won theirs since it kinda was Mr Incredible's fault that they got hurt.

Maxios
2012-08-08, 06:24 PM
Forgot to mention!

OOTS torturing:

Roy dangling the Oracle (Somewhat torture)

Celia electrocuting a bound Nale (This is torture)

V rigging Belkar's coffee and charming Muskrats (This is not torture)

Miko putting Belkar in the hole (Yes, putting an evil murderer into a jail cell is real torture.)

The saga of the dominated Kobold. (Not torture. Making him eat the cat's crap, yeah, that's rude and mean, but not torture.)

Torture is evil indeed!

My opinions on your post.

Tavar
2012-08-08, 06:32 PM
The suicider might not have won his case, but the people on the train probably won theirs since it kinda was Mr Incredible's fault that they got hurt.
Yes, it is his fault that they only got hurt instead of dying. How careless.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 06:33 PM
Forgot to mention!

OOTS torturing:


Roy dangling the Oracle
That's probably your best example.

Celia electrocuting a bound Nale
That wasn't torture, that was an act of anger against a foe that intentionally needled her into attacking him. In his own words "totally worth it"


V rigging Belkar's coffee and charming Muskrats
A prank. Deadly against a Commonor, but not a PC with class levels. V has always been rather morally ambiguous mind


Miko putting Belkar in the hole
Not a member of OOTS.


The saga of the dominated Kobold.
Domination is pretty evil depending on how you use it, but it's not torture though it could be used for such. But then, so could a Cure Light Wounds, and not just on undead.



Torture is evil indeed!
Yes, yes it is.

Mauve Shirt
2012-08-08, 06:34 PM
And the only reason the OOTS forum isn't covered in threads about those deeds is that there's a ban on "morally justified" threads. :smalleek:

dehro
2012-08-08, 06:37 PM
Chapter 2: Syndrome the Well Intentioned
Rebuke
Syndrome has regularly been described by critics, commentators and wiki-editors as a complete monster who repeatedly crosses the moral event horizon. The critic Confused Matthew refers to Syndrome as “so evil and sadistic that it was unpleasant just to watch him on screen”. Admittedly Syndrome does taunt Mr Incredible and his family regularly but the rest of his actions are not evil.
er... yes they are.

Many of them are not “good” by the usual standard but all are well-intentioned and after all, there is no one way to do the right thing.
That's the sort of argument you get from someone who throws a hand grenade into traffic because he wants to cross the streets..yes..he could have waited for the light to turn green..but there is no one way to do the right thing, right?

Some are positively good, stripping Syndrome’s actions of the evil everyone else believes he has.
name one, that wasn't a minor element of a plot to commit greater evil, or that wasn't self-serving to his delusion of grandeur.

Syndrome’s first “evil action” in the film would be the murder of the 15 supers killed by his Omnidroid. Although I have mentioned that all of them went on the island of their own free-will, all died in dignity and all received a lot of money that was not the only reason.
they went on the island of their own free will. we don't know, but let's assume they did.
do you call decomposing in an underwater cavern, away from anyone's sight and without a proper burrial, no notice given to your loved ones and nobody to praise your deeds dignity? this isn't dignity even to the Wagner opus you refer to when talking about "warrior's death" and other such. if it were, it would still not apply. Nordic myths and modern day western civilisation have very different values. I can promise you, nobody at Pixar was thinking about famous last stands or Valhalla when they were writing this plot. As for the money.. who is to say that those who died actually got the money promised to them? then again, I've already stated in rebuttal nr 1 that money may not have played a role with the previous supers.
cops choose put themselves at risk for money and other reasons..and "die with dignity"..that doesn't make the thugs that shoot at them right to do so

The real reason is that almost every one of those “Super-heroes” was dangerous to society.
give me a solid enough reason and a rifle..and I can be as dangerous to society as any superhero.

Syndrome was doing a medal worthy service by getting rid of them. yeah..now I know you're just trolling. the only reason I still continue in my reply is that I have nothing better to do. You're praising a serial killer. Had he been killing known criminals, mass murderers or dictators you may have had a leg to stand on, albeit a shaky one.. Syndrome is killing heroes. people to whom other people looked up to and have their lives to thank to.
it's just getting stupid...but as I said, I'm bored.

The 2-disc DVD has fact files for 12 of those 15. I have already mentioned Universal Man and his lack of secret identity. Now I will mention the rest:

• Psycwave. Power: Mind Control. This alone is dangerous. Mind control can really mess up the world. Too deadly to fall into the wrong hands. true.. except it wasn't falling into the wrong hands. it was being used for good things.. and was then put to rest during the years after the lawsuits.

• Everseer. Powers: Clairvoyance, Telepathy and Magni-Vision. A mind reader who can observe from a distance and see the future. This is dangerous to the government as he would know supers were being killed. Plus, he was a paranoid germophobe. Certainly the type to believe in conspiracies. yes..because believing in conspiracies is clear sign that one is dangerous and must be killed...waitaminute.. who is arguing that Syndrome and the government conspired together here?..oh, right..that's you. better not tell the feds.
anyway, that would be true IF the government knew about it..and you're the only one claiming it did.
I'm actually surprised.. this super should have seen the plot coming and have survived it.

• Macroburst. Power: Wind Control. This androgynous person was the kid side-kick of Everseer. He/She would likely have been inducted from an early age in Everseer’s conspiracy theories. He may also have been in contact with Everseer.
what conspiracy theories? oh..wait..the ones you theorize Everseer was harbouring... "would likely.. may have..".. very solid argument.. yeah..right.

• Phylange. Power: Sound Manipulation. Phylange’s file describes him as selfish and not very popular amongst his peers. This sounds bittered. and being bitter is reason enough to make one dangerous and worthy of being killed off?

• Blazestone. Power: Fire. She was a reformed villain. Her file recommends that she be under supervision. Supervision which would likely be costly. .. so.. let's kill her.. because that makes so much more sense and doesn't have a chance of needing further cover ups

• Downburst. Power: Matter Creation. The husband of Blazestone. He worked for the government even after the ban to find a way to use his powers to mass produce manufactured products. This could be dangerous if Blazestone managed to convince him to turn to evil.
what part of "worked for the government" escaped your attention? and "could be..if another surveilled character who has no reason to turn evil turns evil and then turns him evil too.." sounds really convincing.. keep going.. you might convince someone..eventually

• Hypershock. Power: Seismic Waves. His file also asks for supervision as he has a bad temper. Earthquakes controlled by a bad-tempered person? Risk. what I find hilarious is that you want us to believe that you actually believe that these risks and remotely potential dangers are ground for a whitewash of Syndrome's character.. clearly killing off all these people who might potentially completely flip personality and go from heroes to villains at the toss of a coin.. is the action of a misunderstood paladin of truth and justice.

• Apogee. Power: Gravity Control. This is a lethal power but Apogee sounds on her interview like a nice person. People do change over time though. you sound like an old neighbour I once had.. always ready to assume the worst of people who he had daily proof of that they were practically saints...and on no grounds whatsoever.

• Blitzerman, Tradewind, Vectress. They don’t have files on the DVD. This may mean they were “un-personed” because they were evil. it is getting boring now.. you're not even making an effort.. clearly these must be alien entities, planted there by an evil mastermind from a parallel universe, don't you agree?

• Stormicide. Power: Gale Force Bursts. Looked after a sick Uncle. Depending on the circumstances of his inevitable death, this may have bittered her against the world.
or maybe the uncle left her a pot of money and you're entirely making stuff up?

• Gazerbeam. Power: Laser Eyes. He was a defence attorney who campaigned to remove the ban on super-heroes. Not only would he have noticed the disappearances, but the government would not want the ban to be overturned with dangerous supers like:.. ah, so yeah.. a man who operates perfectly within the law and chooses the public arena of a courtroom must have evil in mind or is an obstacle to a "just and proper" plot to exterminate supers.. so..better kill him

• Gamma Jack. Power: Radiation. A megalomaniac, who could disintegrate at 100 metres, was only in the super-hero business for the ladies and believed that supers were a “superior race”. .. I know plenty of people who joined some form of law enforcement for the uniform and the salary.. but yeah.. you've killed so many already.. might as well kill Gamma Jack too..after all...nobody likes a ladies man.

• Mr Incredible. Power: Super Strength. Punched his boss through five walls and was recently fired from work. A time bomb waiting to go off.
and the personal involvement, the fact that the whole plan was targeted towards him because of a childhood grudge and the twisted ego of a whiny little kid have nothing to do with this, of course.

Nearly everyone on this list was dangerous. This would also explain why when Mr Incredible hacked Syndrome’s computer, his wife Elastigirl and Frozone were not on his records despite Syndrome clearly knowing about them. They had not shown any clear signs of violent behaviour.
wrong.. they both were on the computer.
Frozone in fact was the next target.. the only reason they changed towards Mr Incredible is that they'd been looking for him all along. Once they found him they had no use for Frozone anymore. Elastigirl was on the system too. the only thing that was missing was her location.

Syndrome’s second “evil action” was being a weapons designer. Despite the negative connotations this profession possesses it is an important job. People need weapons so a weapons designer provides a valuable service to society. It is not a job to be vilified.
I don't know who has claimed that his job was an evil action in and of itself. what is evil there is the manner in which he researches and develops his weapons...using human targets. is that not evil now? just what kind of moral code are you operating on exactly?

Syndrome’s third “evil action” was to torture Mr Incredible. Mr Incredible had sent a distress signal before his capture. As Syndrome knew Mr Incredible had hero contacts (hero contacts who could not be dissuaded by the government) he was trying to gain information as to which one it was. Jack Bauer interrogates people all the time, using much more dangerous methods than electrocution (Syndrome’s weapon of choice) on much weaker men. Jack Bauer gets charged with criminal charges precisely for his methods..and he's the hero of his universe.

It is not wrong to torture for information.
seriously? can you honestly write this and then claim that you're not trolling?

Syndrome’s fourth “evil action” was to send missiles to blow up a plane with both Elastigirl and both her and Mr Incredible’s two eldest children, Violet and Dash. This is believed to be Syndrome’s most evil act, mainly because he did not stop when told that there were children on the plane and he gloated at Mr Incredible upon realising they were people he cared about. However, not only is it not evil to gloat, Syndrome did not “know” there were children on board.
it is not evil to gloat about having won a tournament at whatever sport you practice. gloating over unwarranted murder counts as evil in my book.

He was only told, he did not hear Violet or Dash. He only heard Elastigirl saying there were children aboard. It might have been a lie. at no point in the movie does he seem to question that there are children aboard. at no point in the movie does he show that he is anything but satisfied about the murder of whoever was on the plane.

He is also completely entitled to blow up Elastigirl. Syndrome lives on a private island. Elastigirl was trespassing on his land. yeah.. no. I am pretty sure that nobody is entitled to randomly shoot trespassers. certainly not trespassers who announce themselves and require information, trespassers who he had no way of knowing that they were related to the distress signal. trespassers who he did not give fair warning to. I don't know for sure..but if I happen to walk on someone's driveway without a clear display of "intention to do harm" and someone shoots me up.. I think I may be entitled to compensation.

As his island is not under any countries trespass laws, Syndrome is entitled to do what he wants. is it not? and who told you that?

Elastigirl was clearly affiliated with her husband therefore dangerous. except he had no idea who was on board the plane or that whoever was on board the plane was connected to the homing signal.

Furthermore, Violet and Dash were not supposed to be on the plane. They were supposed to be in school. At ages 10 and 14 it’s their own fault if they get caught in a dangerous mission. Plus, they skipped school! A truly heinous crime.
yeah, yeah.. we get it..you're trolling.

Syndrome’s fifth “evil action” was to not care about Mirage. After the plane blows up, Mr Incredible grabs Mirage and threatens to kill her if Syndrome doesn’t release him. Syndrome calls his bluff and even though Mr Incredible has nothing to lose, he can’t do it. Syndrome taunts him on this, calling him weak. This event sours Mirage’s opinion of Syndrome.
I don't know who called it an evil action.. all considered, compared to the rest, this is pretty minor even though it ultimately seals his fate.

But Syndrome was actually showing great wisdom by knowing his opponent. a wise man would have known this would have alienated his closest hench-woman.

He would have intervened if Mirage was in real danger. says who?

But she wasn’t. He made a calculated risk and it paid off. Plus, Mr Incredible was the one making death threats (disrespectful).
seriously..I'm trying to be nice here and to really reply to you point by point.. could you at least not take the piss by shouting it off the rooftops that you're just messing around? it kind of spoils the game.

Syndrome’s sixth “evil action” was to send his giant Omnidroid to attack a city. This was not supported by the government, but it was a good action. we've covered this one.. no good action can or should start with random murder of people.

Syndrome’s eventual plan of creating the new generation of supers was a good idea. However, for a major change in world views to occur, a great event must happen to change everyone’s mind, to show everyone that supers are needed. a prime example of the Stavro Blofeld school of thought.

By sending a giant killer robot, impervious to the army and the police, the need for supers is shown. This would also spread peace in the world as people would be too worried about giant robots to fight (Syndrome sent the robot in a rocket which he sent into space first). This plan is in many ways similar to that of Ozymandias from Watchmen. Ozymandias planned to teleport a mutant squid he created into Times Square. This mutant squid would send a psychic wave across New York, killing thousands of people, including the squid. This would unite the world against a common enemy (aliens) and stop all wars (including the cold war). In a way Syndrome is doing this by preventing the threat of Supers rebelling and empowering the common man to be greater. and we all know what a super-nice guy Ozymandrias was.


Syndrome’s seventh and final “evil action” was to attempt to kidnap Mr Incredible’s youngest child, baby Jack-Jack and raise him as his own son. This would in the long run have benefitted Jack-Jack. The Incredibles are clearly a dysfunctional family. Mr Incredible punched his boss through 5 walls and at the end of the film does not appear to have got a new job, Dash uses his super-speed to play pranks at school, which his father supports (in a selfish attempt to live through his child), Violet is shy and uses her invisibility to stalk boys and Elastigirl is unable to control her family and prevent them from starting a fight at the dinner table. What kind of lessons would these people be teaching Jack-Jack? Undoubtedly he would be surrounded by bad role-models. This is made worse by the reason why Syndrome failed in his kidnapping: Jack-Jack’s shape-shifting powers allowed him to best Syndrome. As seen from the short film Jack-Jack Attack Jack-Jack shape-shifting is so powerful it allows him to access numerous other powers (including flight, super strength, fire, invulnerability and phasing). This immense power and the inability to use it under the ban would likely have driven Jack-Jack violent and given him a superiority complex in later life. Furthermore, Syndrome was able to get to Jack-Jack because the baby sitter the child’s family left him with gave Jack-Jack flat out to the weapons designer due to her fear of the baby’s powers. Any family who would leave their boy in the hands of such a clueless person are obviously irresponsible. This tradition is continued by the end of the film’s implication that baby Jack-Jack superheroes with his family. One should not have a baby super hero no matter how powerful. It’s dangerous. In such a scenario, a child would be taken into care. This is what Syndrome was doing, he was again helping the government deal with their super problem by being super-social care. yeah.. I'm getting tired now.. rebuking this bit isn't even fun because you're clearly just spouting nonsense to try and keep us entertained.. this particular bit is so moronic however it isn't even funny anymore.

Syndrome would have also made a good father. I apologize.. this bit is even worse

When we see him in the process of kidnapping Jack-Jack he is feeding the babe milk and filling a box with his toys. Is this really the actions of a maniac? Syndrome is also rich. Jack-Jack would have lived a life of luxury with his new father. Syndrome would have spent a lot of time with his son. It is implied that Syndrome was ignored as a child by his parents. He would have done the opposite to any children he had. He would also have been nice to Jack-Jack given that he appears a pleasant person to his henchmen and Mirage. Only when taunting Mr Incredible is he unpleasant. Furthermore, Syndrome told Mr Incredible how he intended to train Jack-Jack as a super. This would prevent Jack-Jack from being a lazy playboy like many heirs and heiresses and allow him to harness and control his powers. This would give him a better experience in the long run.
and of course the fact that Syndrome doesn't want anyone but him to be or appear super will not pose a problem or a threat to jack-jack in the future..

Syndrome’s actions can now no longer be seen as evil. They were always for the good of society and never truly for any darker purpose than self-defence or helping others. But so does this lead into Syndrome being a benevolent force? Chapter 3 will reveal all.honestly? chapter 1 was somewhat entertaining..one could almost take your post for one that actually believed in his alternative theory.. this one could have worked if you had left it at facts and not tried to break the fourth wall to tell the reader that you yourself don't believe a word of what you're writing..I am seriously considering to give chapter 3 a miss

Forum Explorer
2012-08-08, 06:41 PM
Forgot to mention!

OOTS torturing:

Roy dangling the Oracle Not torture as much as a physical threat

Celia electrocuting a bound Nale Not torture as much as attacking in a rage

V rigging Belkar's coffee and charming Muskrats Not torture as much as a prank

Miko putting Belkar in the hole Not torture at all. It was basically solitary confinement

The saga of the dominated Kobold. Mostly not torture but iffy. It's mostly done by the evil member of the party and the morally ambigious member of the party.


Torture is evil indeed!

Yes it is evil. It should be also noted that the OotS are not moral paragons.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-08, 07:10 PM
Did... did someone just try to justify torture using a webcomic?

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 07:35 PM
Did... did someone just try to justify torture using a webcomic?

And television shows yes. Also arms dealing.

Psyren
2012-08-08, 07:56 PM
Whatever else there is to debate about this movie, this discussion immediately brought something to mind for me:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/4/1/15/pixar-vs-dreamworks-9485-1238612847-2.jpg


He's essentially Lex Luthor, I suppose if you're Ayn Rand or something you could find him praiseworthy.

Also this.

Anarion
2012-08-08, 08:38 PM
The suicider might not have won his case, but the people on the train probably won theirs since it kinda was Mr Incredible's fault that they got hurt.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the people in the train would lose their case.

It's
a) Not proven that he was the cause in fact of their accident because had he not acted they still might have been killed or injured
b) not proven that he acted negligently even though something bad happened (there are accidents in the world that nobody is allowed to sue over)
c) not proven that the link between his actions and the damage caused fulfills the requirements of proximate cause, which, in a nutshell, says that just because something terrible happens because of something you did doesn't mean you can get sued if it was so unlikely to happen that nobody could have predicted it. A good example here is that if you accidentally tap someone's car and you get out to exchange insurance info and then someone else smashes their car to smithereens because they happened to stop in a bad spot, they can't win a suit against you, even though you technically caused them to be in that position by negligently hitting their car.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 08:52 PM
The train would not have been involved at all if Mr. Incredible hadn't noticed the bomb on Buddy Pine's cape. Buddy likely would have exploded in mid-air rather than the bomb exploding on the tracks, with the worst damage coming from someone maybe getting hit with chunks of what was once Master Pine and his rocket boots.
There likely would be some major flak from a child dying while trying to imitate a superhero however.

McStabbington
2012-08-08, 09:16 PM
Yeah, but you're ignoring two things. First, let's recall that the bomb would never have been introduced had Bomb Voyage not tried to murder a child. Granted, he's a child that's foolish, but that's kind of what kids are supposed to be about. Mr. Incredible acting so as to save a child from a bomb (while holding onto his cape in mid-air) is an entirely non-tortious act (I'll say more below). Meanwhile, Bomb Voyage engaged in a classic case of transferred intent: he intended to kill Buddy, and instead ended up derailing a train and injuring a bunch of passengers when the bomb exploded. As such, any good lawyer in this world using our law could make a tort case out of that.

Second, our law has a set of defenses that give varying degrees of immunity from lawsuit. One such defense is absolute necessity, also known as the "savior of the city" doctrine. In cases where, in order to preserve human life, it becomes necessary to destroy property and/or cause injury, those who do such damage and/or injuries are immunized from suits. For example, if Anarion were to push Raven's Cry into the road, and I tried to rescue, but in pulling Raven's Cry from the road I separated RC's shoulder, I would not be liable; longstanding precedent has already determined we roll the damage for that into the damage inflicted by Anarion in the first place. Similarly, when Mr. Incredible removed the bomb and it came down on the train tracks, he would likely have been immunized from suit given his attempt to save a life and his subsequent actions saving the train.

Really, while we shouldn't read too much into it (it's a movie that needed to get from Point A to Point B; the law was just a plot device to get there and it did it well), but Hollywood has a history of using legal contrivances in the plot that our law already has doctrines to deal with.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-08, 09:47 PM
That makes sense. In fact, a world with superheroes would need pretty lenient Good Samaritan laws for them to exist at all within the law.
It is the court of public opinion which would create the 'major flak' I am referring to.

kpenguin
2012-08-08, 09:50 PM
Ultimately, it was the court of public opinion and the costs of defending the heroes in the court of law that made the government make the supers go away, rather than the actual success of lawsuits.

Jayngfet
2012-08-08, 09:56 PM
Ultimately, it was the court of public opinion and the costs of defending the heroes in the court of law that made the government make the supers go away, rather than the actual success of lawsuits.

Of course, the court of public opinion is a fickle and easily changed beast. Mr. Incredible has a whole wall full of newspapers showing how awesome people thought he was back in the day, and literally minutes beforehand he took time out of a car chase and his own wedding to help a kitten out of a tree.

If they seriously wanted the supers to stick around, it probably wouldn't have been that hard. I think though, that there wasn't any real love lost between the supers and the powers that be, simply because the glory days era supers didn't seem to be all that nice. I mean Mr. Incredible was kind of blunt, at best. He, Elastigirl, and Frozone all came off as kind of arrogant in the interviews during the beginning, and it was mentioned in the thread already that plenty of other heroes came off as jerky as well.

Obviously since they were willing to help them through the case and let them get on with their lives, and since the actual government employees we see didn't have any ill will, it wasn't a case of overriding hatred, but having hundreds of gun-ho loose canons laying around isn't exactly a situation people tend to relish if they have to keep everything in control.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-08, 10:02 PM
My theory was that they didn't win the case. But it opened the floodgate for suing. Every odd person and their grandma was looking to get a nice pile of cash. So newspapers started to ignore

"Hero saves schoolbus full of children" and started to write "Idiot destroys building" only adding fire to the effect.

Eventually the government just ran out of money to deal with the stuff, even if they didn't have to pay, each court case cost money.

And maybe at the time all the major villains where just caught. So the expense was not justified.

And this can easily fit the movies cannon.

thubby
2012-08-08, 10:05 PM
or maybe it was escalation.

Fjolnir
2012-08-08, 10:13 PM
Syndrome is at BEST Hank Pym at his absolute zenith as a hero.

kpenguin
2012-08-08, 10:16 PM
...woah, yeah. His scheme is remarkably similar to BreakdownWifeSwatPym's plan to unleash a robot and be a hero stopping it.

Also homaged in Astro City with El Hombre.

Fjolnir
2012-08-08, 10:44 PM
If all he did was the morally reprehensible "unleash killer robot you are fairly certain only you can defeat on unsuspecting city" act, he might be able to redeem himself and become a hero, it's the beta testing on supers over 15 or so years that really puts him into villain territory.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-08, 10:49 PM
If all he did was the morally reprehensible "unleash killer robot you are fairly certain only you can defeat on unsuspecting city" act, he might be able to redeem himself and become a hero, it's the beta testing on supers over 15 or so years that really puts him into villain territory.

.....:smallconfused:

So Its OK if I drop a nuclear bomb on a village if Im fairly certain I can prevent the majority of the fallout?

Fjolnir
2012-08-08, 11:30 PM
absolutely not, but we're talking degrees of evil here while pulling an Ozymandius for the good of humanity is still inherently evil it does not mean that the person wasn't a hero at some point and could even possibly be one again despite the evil he has committed. A single act can be atoned for, though Syndrome does not seem the type, which is why he is a villain.

Joran
2012-08-08, 11:33 PM
Yes it is evil. It should be also noted that the OotS are not moral paragons.

Mal: Mercy is the mark of a great man.
[Mal lightly stabs Atherton.]
Mal: Guess I'm just a good man.
[He stabs him again.]
Mal: Well, I'm all right.


Forgot to mention!

OOTS torturing:

Roy dangling the Oracle: Not torture: Roy isn't going to drop the Kobold and it does not cause any pain. Assault, not torture.

Celia electrocuting a bound Nale: Borderline: Not good by any stretch of the imagination, but also not sustained. Also, we're unsure how much damage she really did and Nale is fine afterwards.

V rigging Belkar's coffee and charming Muskrats: Not torture: Pranks.

Miko putting Belkar in the hole: Not torture: He's a criminal, he goes into a cell.

The saga of the dominated Kobold. Torture: I blanched at this to be honest. Of course, the two people doing it are the amoral, neutral mage and the chaotic evil halfling.

Tebryn
2012-08-08, 11:37 PM
.....:smallconfused:

So Its OK if I drop a nuclear bomb on a village if Im fairly certain I can prevent the majority of the fallout?

No and that's not what he was saying what so ever. Notice the words "Morally reprehensible" before the whole "Unleashing Robot part." There's also a sense of scale here. Killer Robot=/=Nuclear Holocaust. Nor is mitigating the harm even a part of this. What we have here is a Strawman.

What he's saying is if -all- Syndrome had done was unleash a robot on the populous of a city than he could still be a hero if he tried. Ya know...after he suffered the punishment and all that.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-08, 11:43 PM
True. But hes not the type of person to do so.

Rockphed
2012-08-09, 12:03 AM
Yes, it is his fault that they only got hurt instead of dying. How careless.

Well, my reasoning was that if Mr Incredible had not been involved they would not have been in danger of death. However, McStabbington's analysis convinced me that my reasoning was faulty and wrong. While he might be a lawyer, I am definitely not.


Yeah, but you're ignoring two things. First, let's recall that the bomb would never have been introduced had Bomb Voyage not tried to murder a child. Granted, he's a child that's foolish, but that's kind of what kids are supposed to be about. Mr. Incredible acting so as to save a child from a bomb (while holding onto his cape in mid-air) is an entirely non-tortious act (I'll say more below). Meanwhile, Bomb Voyage engaged in a classic case of transferred intent: he intended to kill Buddy, and instead ended up derailing a train and injuring a bunch of passengers when the bomb exploded. As such, any good lawyer in this world using our law could make a tort case out of that.

Second, our law has a set of defenses that give varying degrees of immunity from lawsuit. One such defense is absolute necessity, also known as the "savior of the city" doctrine. In cases where, in order to preserve human life, it becomes necessary to destroy property and/or cause injury, those who do such damage and/or injuries are immunized from suits. For example, if Anarion were to push Raven's Cry into the road, and I tried to rescue, but in pulling Raven's Cry from the road I separated RC's shoulder, I would not be liable; longstanding precedent has already determined we roll the damage for that into the damage inflicted by Anarion in the first place. Similarly, when Mr. Incredible removed the bomb and it came down on the train tracks, he would likely have been immunized from suit given his attempt to save a life and his subsequent actions saving the train.


Really, while we shouldn't read too much into it (it's a movie that needed to get from Point A to Point B; the law was just a plot device to get there and it did it well), but Hollywood has a history of using legal contrivances in the plot that our law already has doctrines to deal with.

So Hollywood law is nearly as sketchy as hollywood physics? Good to know.


Ultimately, it was the court of public opinion and the costs of defending the heroes in the court of law that made the government make the supers go away, rather than the actual success of lawsuits.

I was going to bring up defense costs, but the forum ate my post about it. I do know that a lot of malpractice cases are settled because the value of the settlement is determined to be less than the cost of a trial. I knew a dentist or oral surgeon who was really scared of malpractice suits because of the damage a settlement would do to his reputation.

Rockphed
2012-08-09, 12:05 AM
Yes, it is his fault that they only got hurt instead of dying. How careless.

Well, my reasoning was that if Mr Incredible had not been involved they would not have been in danger of death. However, McStabbington's analysis convinced me that my reasoning was faulty and wrong. While he might be a lawyer, I am definitely not.


Yeah, but you're ignoring two things. First, let's recall that the bomb would never have been introduced had Bomb Voyage not tried to murder a child. Granted, he's a child that's foolish, but that's kind of what kids are supposed to be about. Mr. Incredible acting so as to save a child from a bomb (while holding onto his cape in mid-air) is an entirely non-tortious act (I'll say more below). Meanwhile, Bomb Voyage engaged in a classic case of transferred intent: he intended to kill Buddy, and instead ended up derailing a train and injuring a bunch of passengers when the bomb exploded. As such, any good lawyer in this world using our law could make a tort case out of that.

Second, our law has a set of defenses that give varying degrees of immunity from lawsuit. One such defense is absolute necessity, also known as the "savior of the city" doctrine. In cases where, in order to preserve human life, it becomes necessary to destroy property and/or cause injury, those who do such damage and/or injuries are immunized from suits. For example, if Anarion were to push Raven's Cry into the road, and I tried to rescue, but in pulling Raven's Cry from the road I separated RC's shoulder, I would not be liable; longstanding precedent has already determined we roll the damage for that into the damage inflicted by Anarion in the first place. Similarly, when Mr. Incredible removed the bomb and it came down on the train tracks, he would likely have been immunized from suit given his attempt to save a life and his subsequent actions saving the train.


Really, while we shouldn't read too much into it (it's a movie that needed to get from Point A to Point B; the law was just a plot device to get there and it did it well), but Hollywood has a history of using legal contrivances in the plot that our law already has doctrines to deal with.

So Hollywood law is nearly as sketchy as hollywood physics? Good to know.


Ultimately, it was the court of public opinion and the costs of defending the heroes in the court of law that made the government make the supers go away, rather than the actual success of lawsuits.

I was going to bring up defense costs, but the forum ate my post about it. I do know that a lot of malpractice cases are settled because the value of the settlement is determined to be less than the cost of a trial. I knew a dentist or oral surgeon who was really scared of malpractice suits because of the damage a settlement would do to his reputation.

Fjolnir
2012-08-09, 12:15 AM
This is why Hank Pym is still a superhero while Syndrome never was. Hank takes responsibility for his actions in every situation and genuinely attempts to both atone and make up for his missteps off the path of righteousness. In addition to the aforementioned incidents, he also created one of the marvel universe's most dangerous robot villains (ultron). But the fact that he attempts to both fix what is wrong with himself and make the world a better place is what makes him a hero, flaws and all.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 12:43 AM
This is why Hank Pym is still a superhero while Syndrome never was. Hank takes responsibility for his actions in every situation and genuinely attempts to both atone and make up for his missteps off the path of righteousness. In addition to the aforementioned incidents, he also created one of the marvel universe's most dangerous robot villains (ultron). But the fact that he attempts to both fix what is wrong with himself and make the world a better place is what makes him a hero, flaws and all.

Well given that Ultron actually became a galactic scale threat I'm not sure who's a more dangerous robotic villain. Though so help me I'm not clear on whether Hank Pym or any of the people on that unimportant podunk planet (which Marvel's Earth really is) know who the real heroes out there are... but either way I've kinda got to say that in a universal world Hank should probably have long since retired.

Anarion
2012-08-09, 01:10 AM
For example, if Anarion were to push Raven's Cry into the road, and I tried to rescue, but in pulling Raven's Cry from the road I separated RC's shoulder, I would not be liable

I just want everyone to know that I have no intention of pushing Raven's Cry into anything. Carry on.



So Hollywood law is nearly as sketchy as hollywood physics? Good to know.

I was going to bring up defense costs, but the forum ate my post about it. I do know that a lot of malpractice cases are settled because the value of the settlement is determined to be less than the cost of a trial. I knew a dentist or oral surgeon who was really scared of malpractice suits because of the damage a settlement would do to his reputation.

The defense costs are a valid point. I find it weird that the government would need to be footing the bill for that. There's gratitude for saving people, sure, but they could just let the heroes handle things themselves and pay their own defense costs.

Also, half the advantage of a secret identity is that nobody knows how to serve you process or collect the cash when they win a suit. Can you imagine that scene?
Guy: Hi there, are you *checks instruction card* Mr. Incredible
Mr. Incredible: "Yes"
Guy: You'll need to show up in court next Tuesday.
Mr. Incredible fails to show up
Court: "So, anybody know where he lives or if he has any money? No? Okay, guy suing, you win. You collect nothing. Have a good day."

Friv
2012-08-09, 01:23 AM
Yeah, but you're ignoring two things. First, let's recall that the bomb would never have been introduced had Bomb Voyage not tried to murder a child. Granted, he's a child that's foolish, but that's kind of what kids are supposed to be about. Mr. Incredible acting so as to save a child from a bomb (while holding onto his cape in mid-air) is an entirely non-tortious act (I'll say more below). Meanwhile, Bomb Voyage engaged in a classic case of transferred intent: he intended to kill Buddy, and instead ended up derailing a train and injuring a bunch of passengers when the bomb exploded. As such, any good lawyer in this world using our law could make a tort case out of that.

To be entirely fair, I suspect that Bomb Voyage didn't intend to kill Buddy. He intended to force Mr. Incredible to save Buddy, giving himself time to escape. Since the bomb then caused the train derailment, he succeeded. ;)

Ravens_cry
2012-08-09, 01:28 AM
To be entirely fair, I suspect that Bomb Voyage didn't intend to kill Buddy. He intended to force Mr. Incredible to save Buddy, giving himself time to escape. Since the bomb then caused the train derailment, he succeeded. ;)

I don't know, Bomb Voyage apparently (http://pixar.wikia.com/Bomb_Voyage) later blew up the Eiffel Tower.
That shows a pretty immense disrespect for human life.

Fjolnir
2012-08-09, 01:39 AM
Well given that Ultron actually became a galactic scale threat I'm not sure who's a more dangerous robotic villain. Though so help me I'm not clear on whether Hank Pym or any of the people on that unimportant podunk planet (which Marvel's Earth really is) know who the real heroes out there are... but either way I've kinda got to say that in a universal world Hank should probably have long since retired.

Ultron was an experiment in creating artificial intelligence, in fact he used his own brain to model Ultron. Ultron is not the robot he build with a specific weakness in mind so he could save the other avengers from a certain doom that he made up. He made the robot to fight after he starts cracking after coming back from being brainwashed by Ultron.

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-09, 01:57 AM
Yes, we have been successfully trolled, congratulations.

He is not a troll, he genuinely hates the Incredibles because of it's corrupt message and support of evil over good (the heroes over Syndrome). This is not the first time he has argued this.

It doesn't stop the argument from being wrong, but I am willing to bet quite a lot that he is not a troll, but sincere.


Whatever else there is to debate about this movie, this discussion immediately brought something to mind for me:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/terminal01/2009/4/1/15/pixar-vs-dreamworks-9485-1238612847-2.jpg



Also this.

Actually, as I have said before... Dreamworks quality has increased tremendously since the early days. I definitely rank How to train your dragon ahead of, or on par with, every single Pixar move. I rank the Kung Fu Panda movies almost as high. Megamind is about the same level of quality as Cars (the first one).

Anarion
2012-08-09, 02:20 AM
Actually, as I have said before... Dreamworks quality has increased tremendously since the early days. I definitely rank How to train your dragon ahead of, or on par with, every single Pixar move. I rank the Kung Fu Panda movies almost as high. Megamind is about the same level of quality as Cars (the first one).

I wonder if Dreamworks finally got rid of their "competition is okay" clause in their corporate documents. They were screwed for quite a while because when they were founded, all the directors signed an agreement saying that they didn't actually have to give their movie ideas to Dreamworks. So Dreamworks by and large only got projects that people weren't confident enough to make on their own for quite a while.

Omergideon
2012-08-09, 02:24 AM
Having read the point by point rebuttal of the second part of Sunken Valley's thread I have a major issue with the general mode of the arguement.

In the Section on one super he notes that this person is a germophobe etc, and then posits a plausible enough reason they might be a risk. A tendency to conspiracy. Now this is not proven, but the inference is understanable and even reasonable to explain why supervision might be warranted. But the next hero is stated as a risk heavily beacuase prior association with the first hero would lead to "induction into the firsts conspiracy theories". This is just bad logic. You take a possible, and yet unproven, bit of reasoning from one section and dress it in the robes of "it stands to reason that this could be true". And then later when speaking of this conclusion act as though it were inherently proven already. This is not how one makes an arguement.


And for the OoTS torturing people, yes they do. Many of us in fact complained about the continuing domination of the Kobold, and many specifically complained about the way they tortured him later (Mr Scruffy needs the bathroom and all that). To say that a fictional character doing an action demonstrates it's moral viability is firstly not good logic. But second, many of us did not agree with the OoTS and their actions then. Our positions are thus consistent and so..........so what if they did?



And to raise a counter point to Buddy/Syndrome's treatment by Mr Incredible, let us observe their interactions in the early film. The first time involves him mentioning to Buddy that he needs to stop it when he breaks into the car. Buddy has done this before it seems. Mr Incredible knows him by name and has tried to deal with him for some time. How we cannot say, but this is not the first event. Afterwards Buddy tries to involve himself in superheroics and, to be blunt, royally screws up. Every failure in that scene can be traced to Buddy's involvement. So when Mr Incredible snaps at him this is coming off of a sustained and lengthy series of interactions, most recently Buddy ruining an attempt to capture a dangerous villain.

Does Mr Incredible speak gently or kindly? No. He is harsh. Possibly even jerky if you are less charitable. But at this moment he is explaining to a kid who just ruined a villain capture, leading to said villains escape etc, why he should not do this. I would personally infer that gentle dissuasion has been tried, and the stress of the kid almost dying right after showing why he is so thoroughly unsuited for heroics right now led to a perfectly reasonable response.

Buddy's grudge is based on his own stupid and dangerous actions as a kid, and Mr incredible explaining bluntly why he needed to back off. I find little to no sympathy for him at this point. And without any sympathy in the origins there is no foundation on which to build his "heroic" status

Avilan the Grey
2012-08-09, 02:34 AM
Buddy's grudge is based on his own stupid and dangerous actions as a kid, and Mr incredible explaining bluntly why he needed to back off. I find little to no sympathy for him at this point. And without any sympathy in the origins there is no foundation on which to build his "heroic" status

Exactly. The major clue that he is MAJORLY unstable mentally is that he does all this because of petty (and very disproportionate) revenge. He feels he was "betrayed" by Mr Incredible, who (unlike Batman I would add!) would not allow a 12-year old to become his sidekick. That's about it.

This also tells me that said 12-year old was not real hero material to begin with, but only wanted to be one to impress Mr Incredible, not because he wanted to be a hero. Not really.

Aotrs Commander
2012-08-09, 03:57 AM
Whatever else there is to debate about this movie, this discussion immediately brought something to mind for me:


Well, to be fair, four and six from the latter are pretty good - and I've been entirely unstruck by most of Pixar's stuff, soo... Milage and all that.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-09, 05:09 AM
Buddy, like all supervillains serves as a dark mirror to Mr. Incredible who is the acme of superheroism in that universe. He wanted the power and the prestige of a Mr. Incredible, but never stopped to consider the fundamental moral character of a hero or that they may be fallible humans.

To Buddy it's all about powers, costumes, monikers, and accolades -- not soul.

Yanagi
2012-08-09, 05:39 AM
Is getting up on a clock tower to kill people a reference? If so, what

The real-life case of Charles Whitman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman).

SiuiS
2012-08-09, 05:51 AM
I think there is a misunderstanding as to what hero entails.

*has read the OP's argument and that's about it*

Devonix
2012-08-09, 06:32 AM
Ultron was an experiment in creating artificial intelligence, in fact he used his own brain to model Ultron. Ultron is not the robot he build with a specific weakness in mind so he could save the other avengers from a certain doom that he made up. He made the robot to fight after he starts cracking after coming back from being brainwashed by Ultron.

This. I am sick and tired of everyone bashing Hank Pym. He's an amazing scientist and superhero with a bit of an inferiority complex because he works with literal Gods and doesn't feel he can measure up. He tries anyway. And then in an attempt to better mankind that creation turns out to be a supervillan, but it's a supervillan because he succeeded he created an actual AI but said AI chose to be evil. But if not for him Vison as well as Ultron's other good offspring would not have existed.

And the whole hitting Jan... He did not injure her and he was being driven insane by supervillany and the others around him not trying to get him to seek help, or helping them himselves even though they knew he had gone through enough crap to break just about anyone.

Jan herself using his deteriorating emotional state against him.


Spiderman hit MJ and people let that one go.

Killer Angel
2012-08-09, 06:52 AM
(OK, this is actually not focused on the current discussion)


Not necessarily, though I'd suggest you read a few more of his comics. If anything Magneto is worse than Syndrome, but with some actual sad in his backstory.

Oh, absolutely. Magneto is a Villain (capital letter), a killer, a mass murderer and so on.
But his childhood was marked by one of the greatest horror in human history, that influenced a good chunk of his actions, with the will to protect his "race", combined with the desire to convert Xavier to his PoV...

He's definitely an interesting character, and one you can in some way sympathize with, even if he's absolutely a dangerous extremist.
The sympathy for Syndrome lasted for what? less than 5 minutes?

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 07:36 AM
Ultron was an experiment in creating artificial intelligence, in fact he used his own brain to model Ultron. Ultron is not the robot he build with a specific weakness in mind so he could save the other avengers from a certain doom that he made up. He made the robot to fight after he starts cracking after coming back from being brainwashed by Ultron.

I know that and its of the sort that I don't care. Ultron in Annihilation: Conquest proved he could act at the galactic scale putting him with players who broadly speaking make something like 98% of the stories Marvel publishes look like a few feuding backwoods clans next to global geo-political conflicts. Though this scale divergence and how unimportant many of the superheroes are to the real events in that universe is in its way more of an editorial issue.

Now I'm not suggesting Hank Pym be put on trial or the like, just that for the scales involved means that while he may not be precisely responsible even that faint echo of responsibility says to me he's should find a new line of work.

This being only one screw up simply suggests a trend.

Devonix
2012-08-09, 08:18 AM
I know that and its of the sort that I don't care. Ultron in Annihilation: Conquest proved he could act at the galactic scale putting him with players who broadly speaking make something like 98% of the stories Marvel publishes look like a few feuding backwoods clans next to global geo-political conflicts. Though this scale divergence and how unimportant many of the superheroes are to the real events in that universe is in its way more of an editorial issue.

Now I'm not suggesting Hank Pym be put on trial or the like, just that for the scales involved means that while he may not be precisely responsible even that faint echo of responsibility says to me he's should find a new line of work.

This being only one screw up simply suggests a trend.


Blaming Hank Pym for Ultron though is like blaming Thanos' dad for creating Thanos. Ultron made the choices independently

Kd7sov
2012-08-09, 08:23 AM
The defense costs are a valid point. I find it weird that the government would need to be footing the bill for that. There's gratitude for saving people, sure, but they could just let the heroes handle things themselves and pay their own defense costs.

Also, half the advantage of a secret identity is that nobody knows how to serve you process or collect the cash when they win a suit. Can you imagine that scene?
Guy: Hi there, are you *checks instruction card* Mr. Incredible
Mr. Incredible: "Yes"
Guy: You'll need to show up in court next Tuesday.
Mr. Incredible fails to show up
Court: "So, anybody know where he lives or if he has any money? No? Okay, guy suing, you win. You collect nothing. Have a good day."

There's some indication that the government runs the supers system. While the secret identity of any given super is probably not available to the court system unless it turns out to be important to the case, I daresay they could send a memo to the Bureau of Powered Affairs (or whatever) saying "make sure Mr. Incredible shows up", and the BPA would be able to follow through if he doesn't.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-09, 08:26 AM
He is not a troll, he genuinely hates the Incredibles because of it's corrupt message and support of evil over good (the heroes over Syndrome). This is not the first time he has argued this.

Trolling doesn't have to be intentional; all that has to happen is that an emotional reaction is provoked, which is what happened in this thread.

I'll say no more in the interest of paying lip-service to the forum rules, however.


On Hank Pym and whatever else we're talking about, I've got nothing. On court defense costs, it seems pretty clear to me that the federal government was sponsoring (American) superheroes to some major extent, more than just encouraging local law enforcement to accept help from masked vigilantes. Thus, the government (presumably the Justice Department) was forced by precedent in this universe to take legal and fiscal responsibility for the actions of superheroes, and (likely under pressure from Congressional budgetary committees) eventually decided it was cheaper to just put all the supers in the equivalent of witness protection and tell them to stop using their powers in a manner that could get them sued.

What probably happened in Mr. Incredible's first two cases was that his hotheaded, self-righteous (no matter how justified) attitude lost him major points with both the judge and the media, causing the government to have to settle out of court on his behalf rather than winning a probably-winnable case. This would also account for the fact that the ban on superheroism was an act of Congress rather than a Supreme Court decision, since Mr. Incredible's lawsuits could have logically been appealed that high by either side if there was an actual decision in favor of the plaintiffs or the defendants.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 08:33 AM
Blaming Hank Pym for Ultron though is like blaming Thanos' dad for creating Thanos. Ultron made the choices independently

Yeah but I don't think saying Mentor and Sui-San should stop having kids after that is unfair either.



What probably happened in Mr. Incredible's first two cases was that his hotheaded, self-righteous (no matter how justified) attitude lost him major points with both the judge and the media, causing the government to have to settle out of court on his behalf rather than winning a probably-winnable case. This would also account for the fact that the ban on superheroism was an act of Congress rather than a Supreme Court decision, since Mr. Incredible's lawsuits could have logically been appealed that high by either side if there was an actual decision in favor of the plaintiffs or the defendants.

Not nessecarily successfully appealed though, a government is certainly liable in general terms for the actions of its apparent agents. Unless there's a specific protection in place in advance then there may be no legal grounds to find fault with the principles of the case. And verdicts themselves I understand are not precisely overturned by appeals.

Of course the government could probably right a specific protection for itself here but presumably the politics of doing this in response to the case would make this unviable. And then of course that law could be challenged up to the Supreme Court who might well find that no the government cannot have blanket tort protection on this matter and each case would have to have its day in court. I certainly am at least suspicious of a "you can't sue the government" protection in general terms personally.

Though so help me I got the impression the hero relocation program was more of a policy then a response to a ban.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-09, 08:45 AM
He's essentially Lex Luthor, I suppose if you're Ayn Rand or something you could find him praiseworthy.

I could more easily justify Ayn Rand or Lex Luthor as heroes than I could Syndrome. Syndrome isn't just taking bad actions to get to a good end...or inadvertently going to a bad end by trying to do good things for people.

Rand, despite poor fiction skills, at least had a goal of helping.

Luthor...at least the man sometimes has grand and good goals. Sometimes.

Syndrome? He's bad through and through. He enjoys doing terrible things to people, and his end goal is to do terrible things to MORE people. He's pretty much as straight up villainous as it's possible to be.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-09, 08:51 AM
Rand, despite poor fiction skills, at least had a goal of helping.

Helping the super-rich feel better about themselves is helping, I guess.

Devonix
2012-08-09, 08:52 AM
Yeah but I don't think saying Mentor and Sui-San should stop having kids after that is unfair either.



Not nessecarily successfully appealed though, a government is certainly liable in general terms for the actions of its apparent agents. Unless there's a specific protection in place in advance then there may be no legal grounds to find fault with the principles of the case. And verdicts themselves I understand are not precisely overturned by appeals.

Of course the government could probably right a specific protection for itself here but presumably the politics of doing this in response to the case would make this unviable. And then of course that law could be challenged up to the Supreme Court who might well find that no the government cannot have blanket tort protection on this matter and each case would have to have its day in court. I certainly am at least suspicious of a "you can't sue the government" protection in general terms personally.

Though so help me I got the impression the hero relocation program was more of a policy then a response to a ban.

Noted and agreed with

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 08:56 AM
Luthor...at least the man sometimes has grand and good goals. Sometimes.


More accurately I'd say Luthor thinks he does but doesn't. I believe after returning One Year Later Supes called Luthor on where the cancer cure he could create if only Superman wasn't around to crush his dreams was.

And as we found out in 52 Lex's spent Superman's year off generally... trying to become Superman. Something "jilted lover" esque about that one...

Tyndmyr
2012-08-09, 09:00 AM
More accurately I'd say Luthor thinks he does but doesn't. I believe after returning One Year Later Supes called Luthor on where the cancer cure he could create if only Superman wasn't around to crush his dreams was.

And as we found out in 52 Lex's spent Superman's year off generally... trying to become Superman. Something "jilted lover" esque about that one...

He at least occasionally does good things. Not always, or even often, but Superman is at least a threat to him and his ends. And sometimes he does the odd good deed.

Syndrome, on the other hand, is killing off superheroes who don't even know he exists. They pose no possible threat to him. And he's not doing ANYTHING for anyone but himself.

My goal isn't to say that Luthor is a hero...just that compared to Syndrome, he comes across as a saint.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-09, 09:04 AM
Yeah but I don't think saying Mentor and Sui-San should stop having kids after that is unfair either.



Not nessecarily successfully appealed though, a government is certainly liable in general terms for the actions of its apparent agents. Unless there's a specific protection in place in advance then there may be no legal grounds to find fault with the principles of the case. And verdicts themselves I understand are not precisely overturned by appeals.

Of course the government could probably right a specific protection for itself here but presumably the politics of doing this in response to the case would make this unviable. And then of course that law could be challenged up to the Supreme Court who might well find that no the government cannot have blanket tort protection on this matter and each case would have to have its day in court. I certainly am at least suspicious of a "you can't sue the government" protection in general terms personally.

Though so help me I got the impression the hero relocation program was more of a policy then a response to a ban.

Well, here's my off-the-cuff headcanon for how this went:

1) Mr. Incredible is sued for various personal injury and negligence claims, as a sponsored agent of the federal government (since they can't exactly sue a non-legal identity or Robert Parr in this case. Incredible could certainly avoid unmasking using some variation on the Fifth Amendment like superheroes do in other settings, so suing Parr would be impossible.)
2) Due to his actions during the trial and successful sleaze of the plaintiff's attorney (I'm betting the same guy represented at least the jumper and the train passengers, building a career off of it), the government fails to win the case, either by settling out of court to avoid embarrassment or by the judge/jury awarding damages sought to the plaintiffs.
3) Rather than appeal this, either because no verdict was reached or simply because they're too busy handling the flood of new suits on other government-sponsored superheroes, the government doesn't appeal the case up to the Supreme Court level, or, as you say, the Supreme Court decides that the suit was legitimate and that courts must accept similar suits. Either way...
4) The cost of sponsoring superheroes and defending them from every conceivable lawsuit in court gets to be too much for Congress, who pass the Superhero Relocation Act, which appears to set up permanent secret identities for superheroes in exchange for them no longer performing superhero work, presumably either with or without official government sponsorship.
5) At some point, supervillains dry up too, either because there's no point in supervillainy without heroes to fight (probably) or the government performs a successful and probably secret crackdown on them while the Relocation Act is being passed.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 09:16 AM
He at least occasionally does good things. Not always, or even often, but Superman is at least a threat to him and his ends. And sometimes he does the odd good deed.

Syndrome, on the other hand, is killing off superheroes who don't even know he exists. They pose no possible threat to him. And he's not doing ANYTHING for anyone but himself.

My goal isn't to say that Luthor is a hero...just that compared to Syndrome, he comes across as a saint.

I'm not sure of a specific example beyond suiting the image of upstanding citizen he likes to project, but would note that Syndrome may well do the same things we just don't have the information on the matter.

Though the Bond villain lair and arms dealer(?) business doesn't lend itself as easily to that sort of thing as a conglomerate like Lexcorp.

I think there isn't enough of a gap to make it meaningful on a karmic evil meter, both are highly immoral and have delusions of grandeur. Luthor has no problem with out of hand killing, he framed Bruce Wayne for murder once for example, and among other things played fast and loose with the safety of the planet to try and take down Superman. Among any number of things I could probably drag up from all the continuities and history of the guy.

Who's worse in this case becomes to me more like arguing whether 30 or 50 angels can fit on the head of a pin.

pendell
2012-08-09, 09:17 AM
Buddy, like all supervillains serves as a dark mirror to Mr. Incredible who is the acme of superheroism in that universe. He wanted the power and the prestige of a Mr. Incredible, but never stopped to consider the fundamental moral character of a hero or that they may be fallible humans.

To Buddy it's all about powers, costumes, monikers, and accolades -- not soul.

Kitten Champion, you may not have quite won the thread , but in any other thread it would definitely be a thread-winning post. Excellent thought.

"Heroism" is about moral character, about risking your own life or well being for the sake of someone else, often someone you don't know and who wouldn't do the same for you in return. You don't need superpowers or fancy costumes to do that.

By contrast ... is there even one thing Syndrome does that isn't for his sole benefit? That he will take the lives of other human beings without qualm so long as he gets to benefit somehow? That's a villain.

Incidentally, Syndrome would not be a hero to Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand proposed the concept of Enlightened Self-interest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest) , or possibly rational selfishness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest#Rational_selfishness). The idea there is that you benefit others by benefiting yourself. For example, if you work for a living, you benefit society by A) providing a useful service through your labor and B) you don't require charity, which means someone ELSE doesn't have to work extra hours to support you.

A Randian hero is one who looks after him/herself and lets others do the same. A Randian hero is not someone who hunts other humans like a predator does prey. That's not enlightened self-interest. That's just greed.

If Syndrome lived on his island by himself and made a living selling technology to others, he'd be a Randian hero. Since he is unleashing things like giant death robots on civilians for his own personal profit, he's a villain in both the Randian universe and in the Pixar one.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-09, 09:23 AM
I don't think Syndrome can be compared with Richard "removed everyone's souls" Rahl. Sure Syndrome does villainous things, but Richard butchers innocents (including friends) on a regular basis.

This is true. However, the only real reason you know that he's the "hero" is because he's the POV char. That's it. Most people living in that world would see him as some kind of terrible murderer. Because, basically, he is.

Hell, he only makes it halfway through the first book before he beats a preteen girl so badly he permanently disfigures her.

Nerd-o-rama
2012-08-09, 09:44 AM
If Syndrome lived on his island by himself and made a living selling giant death robots to others, though, he'd still be a Randian hero. If that's what the market demands, by the Almighty Dollar he should be free to sell it.

But I don't want to turn this into a board-illegal discussion so I'll stop sidetracking now.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-09, 09:51 AM
I'm not sure of a specific example beyond suiting the image of upstanding citizen he likes to project, but would note that Syndrome may well do the same things we just don't have the information on the matter.

Though the Bond villain lair and arms dealer(?) business doesn't lend itself as easily to that sort of thing as a conglomerate like Lexcorp.

I think there isn't enough of a gap to make it meaningful on a karmic evil meter, both are highly immoral and have delusions of grandeur. Luthor has no problem with out of hand killing, he framed Bruce Wayne for murder once for example, and among other things played fast and loose with the safety of the planet to try and take down Superman. Among any number of things I could probably drag up from all the continuities and history of the guy.

Who's worse in this case becomes to me more like arguing whether 30 or 50 angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Fair. Both are pretty high on the evil-o-meter. I just can't really see any good case for justifying Syndrome as a hero...he's not even that sympathetic of a villain.


If Syndrome lived on his island by himself and made a living selling giant death robots to others, though, he'd still be a Randian hero. If that's what the market demands, by the Almighty Dollar he should be free to sell it.

If the only thing he ever did was make and sell death robots...he'd be a helluva lot less evil than he was, certainly. Perhaps not a hero, I'll grant you, but more of "just a dude".

pendell
2012-08-09, 10:21 AM
Silly question .. what market is there for Giant death robots? It's not like you're going to sell them over the counter at Wal-mart.

I'm thinking that this is a big-ticket, special-order item. You don't open up a storefront. You have to send out salespeople to customers in order to make the pitch and seal the deal.

And I'll wager many of those customers -- governments, say -- would want an exclusive deal. If you want to sell 500 death robots to Oceania they probably won't sign on the dotted line unless there's some sort of agreement not to sell to EastAsia.

Then again, maybe not. I once visited the [mumble mumble] aircraft company in Dallas Fort Worth. They had two assembly lines of aircraft, one of which was intended for [mumble mumble country] and the other was the same model of aircraft intended for [mumble mumble neighboring country]. The only thing in common was the airframe. The electronics that went into each was significantly different. And neither, of course, was what the aircraft company put in for the Prime Buyer, which was their country of origin.

My point is: At this level it's not possible to simply sell weapons like they were Hershey bars. You have to know your customer and tailor your pitch specifically to them. Which means you choose your customers as much as they choose you. And that, I think, is where the moral choice comes in. If you deliberately choose supervillains or fuhrer-wannabes as your customer, that probably puts you in the same class of villain as they are. If you're selling to legitimate governments and so forth, that would make you a normal guy. But it wouldn't make you a hero. "Hero" requires some kind of sacrifice of self-interest for the sake of someone else, and while there is minor heroism in giving up insane profits out of social conscience, it's still not in the same league with running into a burning building to save a child.

I contend that people acting out of "enlightened self-interest" typically aren't heroes. The point of enlightened self-interest is to make heroism unnecessary. Heroes exist because strong people help out the weak. But if all are equally strong, equally able to help themselves, then there's no need for anyone to be a hero.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tebryn
2012-08-09, 11:06 AM
Silly question .. what market is there for Giant death robots? It's not like you're going to sell them over the counter at Wal-mart.

I'm thinking that this is a big-ticket, special-order item. You don't open up a storefront. You have to send out salespeople to customers in order to make the pitch and seal the deal.

And I'll wager many of those customers -- governments, say -- would want an exclusive deal. If you want to sell 500 death robots to Oceania they probably won't sign on the dotted line unless there's some sort of agreement not to sell to EastAsia.

Then again, maybe not. I once visited the [mumble mumble] aircraft company in Dallas Fort Worth. They had two assembly lines of aircraft, one of which was intended for [mumble mumble country] and the other was the same model of aircraft intended for [mumble mumble neighboring country]. The only thing in common was the airframe. The electronics that went into each was significantly different. And neither, of course, was what the aircraft company put in for the Prime Buyer, which was their country of origin.

My point is: At this level it's not possible to simply sell weapons like they were Hershey bars. You have to know your customer and tailor your pitch specifically to them. Which means you choose your customers as much as they choose you.

I'm not sure who you're...discussing with? I don't think anyone thinks this? They even address it in the movie.




And that, I think, is where the moral choice comes in. If you deliberately choose supervillains or fuhrer-wannabes as your customer, that probably puts you in the same class of villain as they are. If you're selling to legitimate governments and so forth, that would make you a normal guy. But it wouldn't make you a hero. "Hero" requires some kind of sacrifice of self-interest for the sake of someone else, and while there is minor heroism in giving up insane profits out of social conscience, it's still not in the same league with running into a burning building to save a child.

I have a few qualms here. The "Moral Qualm", as much as I really hate that word, isn't he's selling weapons to the "Wrong People" it's that he's selling weapons at all. It doesn't matter who you're selling them to. Weapons by definition take lives, that's what they do and they do it well. There's nothing heroic about selling the weapons. Where you get into the heroics is when you chose to use it. But don't mistake it here, even if you're a hero for killing someone who was going to do much much worse...you still killed someone.


I contend that people acting out of "enlightened self-interest" typically aren't heroes. The point of enlightened self-interest is to make heroism unnecessary. Heroes exist because strong people help out the weak. But if all are equally strong, equally able to help themselves, then there's no need for anyone to be a hero.

I'm not even sure what "Enlightened Self Interest" is. Nor do I think heroism is that black and white or even if we all can take care of ourselves that there wouldn't need for people to be heroes. Sometimes, things go out of control and no matter how well you can take care of yourself it's just not going to be good enough. Someone else is going to have to stand up and help once and a while. But all of this clouds the issue for me. I'd personalty have empathy over morals and altruism over heroism. If we all cared more for each other and acted with a concern for everyone's welfare....we'd need a lot less heroes.

pendell
2012-08-09, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure who you're...discussing with? I don't think anyone thinks this? They even address it in the movie.


I was addressing Tyndmyr and Soras above, to the extent that "arms dealer" is prima facie a villain , or an ordinary person, or a hero. What if Syndrome had just stayed on his island and sold weapons to people, without siccing his robots on defenseless towns?



I have a few qualms here. The "Moral Qualm", as much as I really hate that word, isn't he's selling weapons to the "Wrong People" it's that he's selling weapons at all


The best way I can answer this on this board is by using a Tolkien analogy .. if there wasn't a smith to forge Anduril , would you have Aragorn face off with orcs using only stones and his teeth? Is the smith evil because he makes and sells swords for fighting monsters? Is every shopkeeper you meet in every RPG ever evil because he enables you to fight with something more than the basic starting equipment?

Eowyn, in Return of the King, was spoken to thus by the master Herb-warden of Gondor:



" 'But for long years, we healers have sought to patch the rents made by the men of swords. Though we should still have enough to do without them: the world is full enough of hurts and mischances without wars to multiply them.'


Eowyn's response is as follows:



'It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two, Master Warden,' answered Eowyn. 'And those who have no swords can still die upon them. Would you have the folk of Gondor gather herbs only, when the Dark Lord gathers armies? And it is not always good to be healed in body. Nor is it always evil to die in battle, even in bitter pain. Were I permitted, in this dark hour I would choose the latter'."


So I don't believe a weapons dealer is prima facie evil in a story simply because they sell weapons. I say this because when I live in one of those worlds I darn well want to BUY one, and one shouldn't eat meat if one hates the butcher.



I'm not even sure what "Enlightened Self Interest" is.


There were wiki links to the concept a few posts up :).

In brief, it breaks the common assumption that I can either help others OR help myself but not both. Enlightened self-interest assumes that, if you are looking out for yourself, you are not burdening others, so you serve others by serving yourself. It's different from greed, in that greed doesn't care about what effect it has on other people. Enlightened self interest does.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Zelkon
2012-08-09, 11:33 AM
Just because the Incredibles weren't the best people and certainly did some very wrong things, doesn't mean the villain is actually the good guy.

Tebryn
2012-08-09, 11:51 AM
I was addressing Tyndmyr and Soras above, to the extent that "arms dealer" is prima facie a villain , or an ordinary person, or a hero. What if Syndrome had just stayed on his island and sold weapons to people, without siccing his robots on defenseless towns?

Ah, I suppose I hadn't taken their posts to seem as if they'd thought that.




The best way I can answer this on this board is by using a Tolkien analogy .. if there wasn't a smith to forge Anduril , would you have Aragorn face off with orcs using only stones and his teeth? Is the smith evil because he makes and sells swords for fighting monsters? Is every shopkeeper you meet in every RPG ever evil because he enables you to fight with something more than the basic starting equipment?

Eowyn, in Return of the King, was spoken to thus by the master Herb-warden of Gondor:



Eowyn's response is as follows:



So I don't believe a weapons dealer is prima facie evil in a story simply because they sell weapons. I say this because when I live in one of those worlds I darn well want to BUY one, and one shouldn't eat meat if one hates the butcher.

I don't believe that either. Nor did I say that. I said that people who sell or make weapons aren't heroes. Not Hero=/=Villain. It just means you're not a hero. What I said was in fact that what makes you a hero is how you use the weapons you have.

There were wiki links to the concept a few posts up :).


In brief, it breaks the common assumption that I can either help others OR help myself but not both. Enlightened self-interest assumes that, if you are looking out for yourself, you are not burdening others, so you serve others by serving yourself. It's different from greed, in that greed doesn't care about what effect it has on other people. Enlightened self interest does.


All you had to say was it was a Randian belief for me to not need to know any more about. Having read your links...ya...don't agree. Will never agree.

pendell
2012-08-09, 11:56 AM
I don't believe that either. Nor did I say that. I said that people who sell or make weapons aren't heroes. Not Hero=/=Villain. It just means you're not a hero. What I said was in fact that what makes you a hero is how you use the weapons you have.


Ah. In that case, I agree with you on this point.



Having read your links...ya...don't agree. Will never agree.


As is your right. What a boring world this would be if we all thought alike. What would be the point of talking? :smallsmile: Thanks for the discussion, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-09, 12:10 PM
Silly question .. what market is there for Giant death robots? It's not like you're going to sell them over the counter at Wal-mart.

In a just world they would....*goes back to oogling japanese death robot that fires when you smile*

hamishspence
2012-08-09, 12:40 PM
He's essentially Lex Luthor, I suppose if you're Ayn Rand or something you could find him praiseworthy.

Actually the most common argument I've seen comparing Rand's themes to the movie- stresses the complaint of the heroes- that society is forcing them to hide their talents, and "celebrating mediocracy".

From a "rand-ish" point of view- the main enemy is their society, for forcing the supers to "stop being super".

Tyndmyr
2012-08-09, 01:36 PM
Actually the most common argument I've seen comparing Rand's themes to the movie- stresses the complaint of the heroes- that society is forcing them to hide their talents, and "celebrating mediocracy".

From a "rand-ish" point of view- the main enemy is their society, for forcing the supers to "stop being super".

The real villainy of Rand wasn't her ideology or any of that. It's advertising Atlas Shrugged as fiction, thus condemning future deceived students to have to read what's frankly a very repetitive, tiresome book.

It would have been a much better pamphlet.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-09, 02:29 PM
It was glib of me to bring Objectivism into this, since it's not specifically a theme in the movie, still.

Pixar obviously drew upon the Luthor archetype for creating Syndrome, and Luthor is something of a Take That! strawman critique of the same Nietzschean interpretations that Rand used. The subtext is actually pretty obvious when you think about it.

The tropes Superman and Batman established are why superheroes in general are anti-objectivist figures -- their whole premise is using their wealth and power for the sake of maintaining the common good and helping the weak, often hand in hand with the reasonable authority figures. The Incredibles are premised on such tropes, this is generally what we (and the movie) frame as heroism as opposed to Rand's morally dissonant champions or Terry Goodkind's **** of a God Emperor.

Society isn't keeping heroes down in and Randian sense, as it's keeping them from committing acts of heroism in the most anti-objectivist style possible -- the reason they're living quiet lives of mediocrity is due to the apparently legitimate danger they have created for themselves after a life-time of altruistic heroism against evil. Mr. incredible's whole mid-life crisis is spurred on by the apparent lack of meaning in his life in living only for his personal concerns.

Knaight
2012-08-09, 02:34 PM
The real villainy of Rand wasn't her ideology or any of that. It's advertising Atlas Shrugged as fiction, thus condemning future deceived students to have to read what's frankly a very repetitive, tiresome book.

It would have been a much better pamphlet.

You should read her "non-fiction". It makes you appreciate Atlas Shrugged, and it is exceptionally clear that Ayn Rand is a far better fiction writer than nonfiction writer.

pendell
2012-08-09, 02:52 PM
Pixar obviously drew upon the Luthor archetype for creating Syndrome, and Luthor is something of a Take That! strawman critique of the same Nietzschean interpretations that Rand used. The subtext is actually pretty obvious when you think about it.


I question this interpretation. Lex Luthor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor#Creation_and_development) made his debut in 1941. Atlas Shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) was published in 1957. So how could Luthor be a Take That to a book which wouldn't be written for another sixteen years?

I think it has more to do with parallel evolution than deliberately lambasting or parodying ideas. It's not as if your general comic book audience read Atlas Shrugged back then, I'll wager. Heck, I'll wager few people read Atlas Shrugged under ANY circumstances unless they A) really , really believe in the author's philosophy or B) really, really have a gun held to their head to complete a class assignment.

I confess I have not read the book but only read synopses of the book's main ideas. From what I understand, even from Rand fans, that the book is a bit of an unreadable doorstop which is about half author-insert lecture for pages upon pages, chapter upon chapter.

At any rate -- a billionaire industrialist makes an easy villain for when you need a villain who isn't YA dude in tights and a cape who fell in a reactor shaft or whatever. When you want your heroes to face off with normal human technology, money, and ingenuity. But governments haven't been used in that role since comics were wartime propaganda back in WWII. So if you can't use governments -- who else has money and know-how? Voila! And so you have your evil billionaire industrialist or kingpin of crime or COBRA, or sometimes all of the above. They're just a convenient villain archetype.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tebryn
2012-08-09, 03:07 PM
I question this interpretation. Lex Luthor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor#Creation_and_development) made his debut in 1941. Atlas Shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) was published in 1957. So how could Luthor be a Take That to a book which wouldn't be written for another sixteen years?



But they weren't the same character. It's also possible that Kitten Champion meant that they were based on the same ideas that Rand looked to when writing Atlus Shrugged and not saying that the original Luther was created off -her- strawman. You also have to take into account the character has changed along the way...It's 2012 after all and he's still being written about. So it's possible that Kitten Champion meant that his most well known incarnation is based off Rand's strawman. It's more than a little silly to nix the idea based on the -very- original Lex Luthor.

pendell
2012-08-09, 03:21 PM
But they weren't the same character. It's also possible that Kitten Champion meant that they were based on the same ideas that Rand looked to when writing Atlus Shrugged and not saying that the original Luther was created off -her- strawman. You also have to take into account the character has changed along the way...It's 2012 after all and he's still being written about. So it's possible that Kitten Champion meant that his most well known incarnation is based off Rand's strawman. It's more than a little silly to nix the idea based on the -very- original Lex Luthor.

From origin to present day, Lex Luthor has always been something along the theme of brilliant industrialist with technology and a mad plan to oppose his superpowered nemesis.

Given this fact, I need more than the fact that someone sees an "obvious" connection between the two to establish that the author intended to parody Rand's ideas. The fact that we must describe luthor as a 'strawman' may also imply that Rand's ideas were not in mind at all -- 'evil industrialist' was simply a useful villain archetype.

After all, just because some members of the audience take away a message from a work doesn't mean the author meant it to be there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author). Tolkien said the same when responding to criticism that his work was a mythic retelling of WWII. It was not. People could read it that way , but it wasn't his intent.



But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations...I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience or readers. I think many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.


Thus it may be here -- Lex Luthor can be *applied* as a parody of John Galt, but the fact that we can make that connection doesn't necessarily mean the author intended this, or had indeed ever read Rand.

If the author truly slogged through that (reputable) doorstopper for the specific intent of parodying it in a comic book, that author is a minor hero in his own right -- not only for the epic task of researching an idea to parody it, but in putting it in easier-to-understand terms than the original author did. :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence
2012-08-09, 03:22 PM
Society isn't keeping heroes down in and Randian sense, as it's keeping them from committing acts of heroism in the most anti-objectivist style possible -- the reason they're living quiet lives of mediocrity is due to the apparently legitimate danger they have created for themselves after a life-time of altruistic heroism against evil. Mr. incredible's whole mid-life crisis is spurred on by the apparent lack of meaning in his life in living only for his personal concerns.

"Heroism" is perfectly valid under the philosophy- as long as, from your point of view- what you're getting out of it (emotionally included) is better than what you're losing- thus making it a "trade".

"Forcing people to be equal" is the main objection.

Which was why, on the TV Tropes page for The Incredibles- people were saying that there is a somewhat Objectivist strain in it for the "Forced equality is a bad thing" theme.

McStabbington
2012-08-09, 04:05 PM
Well, here's my off-the-cuff headcanon for how this went:

1) Mr. Incredible is sued for various personal injury and negligence claims, as a sponsored agent of the federal government (since they can't exactly sue a non-legal identity or Robert Parr in this case. Incredible could certainly avoid unmasking using some variation on the Fifth Amendment like superheroes do in other settings, so suing Parr would be impossible.)
2) Due to his actions during the trial and successful sleaze of the plaintiff's attorney (I'm betting the same guy represented at least the jumper and the train passengers, building a career off of it), the government fails to win the case, either by settling out of court to avoid embarrassment or by the judge/jury awarding damages sought to the plaintiffs.
3) Rather than appeal this, either because no verdict was reached or simply because they're too busy handling the flood of new suits on other government-sponsored superheroes, the government doesn't appeal the case up to the Supreme Court level, or, as you say, the Supreme Court decides that the suit was legitimate and that courts must accept similar suits. Either way...
4) The cost of sponsoring superheroes and defending them from every conceivable lawsuit in court gets to be too much for Congress, who pass the Superhero Relocation Act, which appears to set up permanent secret identities for superheroes in exchange for them no longer performing superhero work, presumably either with or without official government sponsorship.
5) At some point, supervillains dry up too, either because there's no point in supervillainy without heroes to fight (probably) or the government performs a successful and probably secret crackdown on them while the Relocation Act is being passed.

I'm not saying this isn't plausible in the Increible-verse, but there are at least two laws I can think of that would make that difficult in our universe. First, there are a lot of procedural loopholes you have to clear before you get into court, and if you don't clear them, you don't see the inside of a courthouse. The most pertinent in this case is what's known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal of any case that on the pleadings fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The instant that someone files a battery claim against Mr. Incredible for the train crash, Incredible's lawyer would very likely file a response claiming a 12(b)(6) defense: while there is a tort, even on the face of the claim, Mr Incredible isn't responsible because a) he didn't introduce the bomb to the situation and b) attempted as a Good Samaritan to remedy the situation. The second rule is that, barring any kind of substantial hardship, the person who loses a lawsuit typically pays attorney fees for both sides.

As I said, the law really has incorporated a lot of ways to fix flaws that are often picked out in movies, frivolous lawsuits included.

Changing gears, I've heard the argument about the Randian strain in The Incredibles before, although I don't really buy it. The argument is that there is a strong streak of advocacy for both personal excellence and doing what you love in Rand's literature, as well as the recurring theme that society's laws and cultural norms, at least those that are not Objectivist, have the effect of grinding down the exceptional. It's hard to watch Mr. Incredible talk with his boss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC_97F2Zn9k) and not get some sense of that. That being said, it's also clear that Mr. Incredible is not pursuing his enlightened self-interest by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, the movie is actually making a fairly sophisticated critique of Randian thought about the tension in her works between the claim that "society" smashes down the exceptional people, and that it does so by advocating "altruism".

I've always thought that among philosophers, Nietzsche and Marx were most in tune with the theme of The Incredibles. Nietzsche makes many of the same arguments about exceptionalism that Rand seems to, but doesn't tether it to any notions about economics or social norms. And Marx's account of alienation of labor much more strongly mirrors Mr. Incredible's dissafection than anything Rand wrote.

Ravens_cry
2012-08-09, 04:17 PM
Eh, sometimes a movie is a just a good movie. Maybe there is an intended message, but I'd really rather just watch the movie.
Helen and Bob Parr are one of my favourite married couples in media.
Yes, they have their disagreements, but it is also quite obvious they love each other and their family very much.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 04:55 PM
I'm not saying this isn't plausible in the Increible-verse, but there are at least two laws I can think of that would make that difficult in our universe. First, there are a lot of procedural loopholes you have to clear before you get into court, and if you don't clear them, you don't see the inside of a courthouse. The most pertinent in this case is what's known as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal of any case that on the pleadings fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The instant that someone files a battery claim against Mr. Incredible for the train crash, Incredible's lawyer would very likely file a response claiming a 12(b)(6) defense: while there is a tort, even on the face of the claim, Mr Incredible isn't responsible because a) he didn't introduce the bomb to the situation and b) attempted as a Good Samaritan to remedy the situation. The second rule is that, barring any kind of substantial hardship, the person who loses a lawsuit typically pays attorney fees for both sides.

There's three problems with this:

1) In the USA attorney fees are paid win or lose by each party. With exceptions but still as the rule.

2) Unless "Mr. Incredible" has a legal status as a person similar to say a corporation there is no one to sue for anything. In our world Robert Parr (if that's even his original name) could be guilty of various offenses under for vigilante behavior which might also waive Good Samaritan consideration to begin with. He does makes a point to go out and look for trouble after all

3) "Mr. Incredible" is rather evidently an agent of the NSA who cover expenses like the car he starts with. Which is of course why "his" losses cost the government money. Robert Parr was never on trial and presumably just a witness with name with held in the interests of the state, it would be the NSA that was held liable.

Kitten Champion
2012-08-09, 05:09 PM
I question this interpretation. Lex Luthor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Luthor#Creation_and_development) made his debut in 1941. Atlas Shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand) was published in 1957. So how could Luthor be a Take That to a book which wouldn't be written for another sixteen years?


I didn't say it was a critique of Atlas Shrugged, but the relating common interpretation of Nietzchean philosophy that had existed for some time -- many versions of Luthor in the decades that follow would be more or less explicitly an Objectivist Strawman depending on the perspective of the author.


I think it has more to do with parallel evolution than deliberately lambasting or parodying ideas. It's not as if your general comic book audience read Atlas Shrugged back then, I'll wager. Heck, I'll wager few people read Atlas Shrugged under ANY circumstances unless they A) really , really believe in the author's philosophy or B) really, really have a gun held to their head to complete a class assignment.

I confess I have not read the book but only read synopses of the book's main ideas. From what I understand, even from Rand fans, that the book is a bit of an unreadable doorstop which is about half author-insert lecture for pages upon pages, chapter upon chapter.

I've read it, the Fountainhead, and the whole of the Sword of Truth series as well. I'm a masochist.



At any rate -- a billionaire industrialist makes an easy villain for when you need a villain who isn't YA dude in tights and a cape who fell in a reactor shaft or whatever. When you want your heroes to face off with normal human technology, money, and ingenuity. But governments haven't been used in that role since comics were wartime propaganda back in WWII. So if you can't use governments -- who else has money and know-how? Voila! And so you have your evil billionaire industrialist or kingpin of crime or COBRA, or sometimes all of the above. They're just a convenient villain archetype.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That, and many depression era barons were bastards.

I think there was something more deliberate in choosing to make Superman's arch-nemesis a powerless and seemingly reputable American industrialist -- as I've said villains are dark mirrors for their heroes. Lex is a big-city power-broker raised by a loveless elite. He is outwardly dynamic, charismatic, a powerful figure of capitalism, hiding his chessmaster evilness and contempt for common people. Clark is a small-town bighearted boy who was raised by decent and loving folks. He has a joe-schmo go-nowhere job as an unremarkable reporter. Outwardly he's mild-mannered and somewhat forgettable, inwardly he's a knight-in-shining armour with a messiah mission and god-like abilities -- and doesn't even wear a mask.

Luthor is self-interested elitism at its worst, Kent is humble rural American virtues at its best. Perhaps the philosophic discourse is unintentional, but there is a commentary there nevertheless.

I can't believe "Superman" was named without some self-consciousness, at least, the connotations were apparent.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 05:37 PM
I think there was something more deliberate in choosing to make Superman's arch-nemesis a powerless and seemingly reputable American industrialist -- as I've said villains are dark mirrors for their heroes.

Point of order this interpretation only dates to 1986. Seems relevant to mention as Superman is not the only character that's evolved over the years. Original Luthor is by the extracts I've seen a pretty generic mad scientist. He also had hair.

And no kidding his Pre-COIE canonical motivation was that Superboy made him loose his hair. Take that super ventriloquism!

Fragenstein
2012-08-09, 06:12 PM
Point of order this interpretation only dates to 1986. Seems relevant to mention as Superman is not the only character that's evolved over the years. Original Luthor is by the extracts I've seen a pretty generic mad scientist. He also had hair.

And no kidding his Pre-COIE canonical motivation was that Superboy made him loose his hair. Take that super ventriloquism!

Thank you, Lore Fitzgerald Sjoeberg for starting that meme...

Everyone always fixates on the hairloss without fully recalling the cause. Young Lex was working on a secret formula in his barnyard shed-lab which would have made his Kryptonian pal immune to kryptonite. A fire breaks out which Superboy snuffs with his super breath. This accidentally blasts insanely dangerous chemicals into Lex's face. The hair loss was just an outward change, but also his brain chemistry was altered, making him paranoid and aggressive.

He didn't just blame supes for the hair loss, but he went insane and saw the entire episode as a deliberate attack. This is where the war started, not just with a shiny dome, but with facefull of mad science!

Kitten Champion
2012-08-09, 06:23 PM
*Sigh* I keep forgetting that classic comics are all just zine pulp.

Still, super-powers versus science and the red hair is more syndrome-ish isn't it? It's difficult to have much in the way of literary criticism when your characters are all as thin as cardboard cutouts. Beyond I suppose, a distrust of science.

McStabbington
2012-08-09, 06:57 PM
There's three problems with this:

1) In the USA attorney fees are paid win or lose by each party. With exceptions but still as the rule.

2) Unless "Mr. Incredible" has a legal status as a person similar to say a corporation there is no one to sue for anything. In our world Robert Parr (if that's even his original name) could be guilty of various offenses under for vigilante behavior which might also waive Good Samaritan consideration to begin with. He does makes a point to go out and look for trouble after all

3) "Mr. Incredible" is rather evidently an agent of the NSA who cover expenses like the car he starts with. Which is of course why "his" losses cost the government money. Robert Parr was never on trial and presumably just a witness with name with held in the interests of the state, it would be the NSA that was held liable.

Well, if that's what happened, then he has an even easier claim under 12(b)(6): qualified immunity as a public agent acting within the scope of his duties. If you accidentally get caught in the crossfire of a gun battle between police and gangsters, and you get shot, even if you can prove that the bullet that hit you was a police bullet, you have no case unless you can prove that the officer was acting outside the scope of his duties or that he acted with malice towards you. Same principle applies to Mr. Incredible.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 08:15 PM
Well, if that's what happened, then he has an even easier claim under 12(b)(6): qualified immunity as a public agent acting within the scope of his duties. If you accidentally get caught in the crossfire of a gun battle between police and gangsters, and you get shot, even if you can prove that the bullet that hit you was a police bullet, you have no case unless you can prove that the officer was acting outside the scope of his duties or that he acted with malice towards you. Same principle applies to Mr. Incredible.

Upon poking around I've found that this rule does not do what you think it does.

First off by examining the entire rule in context (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12) and pulling up the specific section:


(b) How to Present Defenses. Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:

(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

(2) lack of personal jurisdiction;

(3) improper venue;

(4) insufficient process;

(5) insufficient service of process;

(6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

(7) failure to join a party under Rule 19.

A motion asserting any of these defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed. If a pleading sets out a claim for relief that does not require a responsive pleading, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. No defense or objection is waived by joining it with one or more other defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or in a motion.

Well that's primarily outlining that after someone files a suit against you you must file your defense (the pleading) to set the stage for the trial. And then going on to state that in certain case one can merely make a motion as a defense. Those circumstance however if I am boiling them down right... are for more or less procedural errors on the part of the the plaintiff.

Filing in the wrong court or location (jurisdiction and venue) errors in due process, not properly lining up every person that must be there (that last one (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_19)) and switching order not asking for any form of compensation that can be granted. Like if you sue the government and were asking not for a million dollars but a Psychic Tandem War Elephant it could never reasonably be expected to provide even if you won.

Money is of course relief which can be granted so none of these motion-able grounds have any real reason to come into play unless you are supposing off screen legal incompetence we are never told of. (Also this is to only permission to file a motion. Nothing says the motion will be successful)

What you are discussing would very likely be the defense used, thus would be the pleading handled by the core of the rule and what would go into the trial. The defense "not liable do to established exceptions for being in the line of duty" is certainly a possible and even probable defense... but that becomes what the trial is as both parties are due a reasonable chance to have this matter settled. But simply having a defense does not abrogate a trial.

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-09, 08:50 PM
the Incredibles!

Action!

Adventure!

Law Debate.........

Anarion
2012-08-09, 09:18 PM
There's three problems with this:

1) In the USA attorney fees are paid win or lose by each party. With exceptions but still as the rule.

2) Unless "Mr. Incredible" has a legal status as a person similar to say a corporation there is no one to sue for anything. In our world Robert Parr (if that's even his original name) could be guilty of various offenses under for vigilante behavior which might also waive Good Samaritan consideration to begin with. He does makes a point to go out and look for trouble after all

3) "Mr. Incredible" is rather evidently an agent of the NSA who cover expenses like the car he starts with. Which is of course why "his" losses cost the government money. Robert Parr was never on trial and presumably just a witness with name with held in the interests of the state, it would be the NSA that was held liable.

This is all well and good, but the thing about the government is that you can't sue the government unless it says it's okay. There is a Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States that outlines when the government will let you sue it. I'd have to research it to know for sure whether this could go forward, but my inclination is that suing the government for actions of its hired agents in their line of duty usually isn't allowed unless the agent himself was grossly negligent.



the Incredibles!

Action!

Adventure!

Law Debate.........

That's what happens when they premise a movie on a major legal problem. :smallwink:

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-09, 10:03 PM
Meh. I wouldn't think too deep into it. Its a slightly iffy part, but it pulled it off alright.

Its my Favorite Pixar film.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-08-09, 10:30 PM
This is all well and good, but the thing about the government is that you can't sue the government unless it says it's okay. There is a Federal Tort Claims Act in the United States that outlines when the government will let you sue it. I'd have to research it to know for sure whether this could go forward, but my inclination is that suing the government for actions of its hired agents in their line of duty usually isn't allowed unless the agent himself was grossly negligent.

As I did learn after that particular post though it evidently is a fairly permissive act. One of the spurs for the act though was a B-25 piloted by a military pilot crashing into the Empire State Building with apparently some retroactivity allowing that particular incident to come into court and an industrial accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_Disaster) case was launched under it though not successfully.

Now you're the legal pony (I almost PMed you about my other post btw) but it still sounds to me that while Mr Incredible should have a grounds for his defense, the claim would taken as sufficiently serious to get to a trial.

Where presumably things went very very wrong for the government attorneys.

Lord Seth
2012-08-09, 10:47 PM
The question I have is why the supervillains apparently decided to call it quits along with the superheroes. Did people start suing the supervillains also?

Scowling Dragon
2012-08-09, 10:48 PM
The question I have is why the supervillains apparently decided to call it quits along with the superheroes. Did people start suing the supervillains also?

A decline in supervillany?

Reverent-One
2012-08-09, 10:48 PM
That's what happens when they premise a movie on a major legal problem. :smallwink:

Yes, truly their movie about superpowered individuals that can do things like turn invisible, lift train cars, ect, should have more properly researched how the law affects said superpowered individuals so it portrays them realistically. :smalltongue:

McStabbington
2012-08-09, 11:32 PM
Upon poking around I've found that this rule does not do what you think it does.

First off by examining the entire rule in context (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12) and pulling up the specific section:



Well that's primarily outlining that after someone files a suit against you you must file your defense (the pleading) to set the stage for the trial. And then going on to state that in certain case one can merely make a motion as a defense. Those circumstance however if I am boiling them down right... are for more or less procedural errors on the part of the the plaintiff.

Filing in the wrong court or location (jurisdiction and venue) errors in due process, not properly lining up every person that must be there (that last one (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_19)) and switching order not asking for any form of compensation that can be granted. Like if you sue the government and were asking not for a million dollars but a Psychic Tandem War Elephant it could never reasonably be expected to provide even if you won.

Money is of course relief which can be granted so none of these motion-able grounds have any real reason to come into play unless you are supposing off screen legal incompetence we are never told of. (Also this is to only permission to file a motion. Nothing says the motion will be successful)

What you are discussing would very likely be the defense used, thus would be the pleading handled by the core of the rule and what would go into the trial. The defense "not liable do to established exceptions for being in the line of duty" is certainly a possible and even probable defense... but that becomes what the trial is as both parties are due a reasonable chance to have this matter settled. But simply having a defense does not abrogate a trial.

You've got it basically right. In order to pass muster under 12(b)(6), any initial filing saying that you're filing a lawsuit with the court (called a complaint) must have three things. It must state why the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It must give a short brief recitation of facts sufficient, assuming all facts are true, to prove that a law has been violated in such a way that relief is an option. And it must state the form of relief sought. Most of the rules concern various procedural errors such as filing with the improper court or asking that it be thrown out of federal court and filed in state court instead.

But the key part of 12(b)(6) concerns the sufficiency of a statement of facts. If my statement of facts proves that you walked a dog across the sidewalk in front of my house, your initial response to my complaint should, quite reasonably, include a section saying "Even if we accept all of this as true, that's not against the law. As such, motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)." If I were to complain that you violated a law that specifically has a provision "No civil liability shall be incurred by violation of this statute", you could include the same provision because, after all, there's no more sense hearing a lawsuit for which no relief can be granted than one for violating a non-existent law.

Well, if we accept that position, then we have to accept that Mr. Incredible, as an agent of the United States government acting within the scope of his duties, has qualified immunity from suits. In short, so long as he was acting to save the public from a supervillain, he can't be liable for damages. That's something that clearly falls under 12(b)(6). The lawsuit would be thrown out in the pleading stages.

Anarion
2012-08-09, 11:36 PM
As I did learn after that particular post though it evidently is a fairly permissive act. Now you're the legal pony (I almost PMed you about my other post btw) but it still sounds to me that while Mr Incredible should have a grounds for his defense, the claim would taken as sufficiently serious to get to a trial.

Where presumably things went very very wrong for the government attorneys.

Oh yeah it's definitely possible. I haven't looked at the federal tort claims act in almost two years (it was right in the middle of my first semester), so I really don't know the answer without researching it.

Edit: McStabbington is likely right, however.


Yes, truly their movie about superpowered individuals that can do things like turn invisible, lift train cars, ect, should have more properly researched how the law affects said superpowered individuals so it portrays them realistically. :smalltongue:

Yes, exactly. I'm glad you understand where we're coming from here. *High Fives McStabbington for the 12(b)(6) explanation.*

Forum Explorer
2012-08-09, 11:38 PM
The question I have is why the supervillains apparently decided to call it quits along with the superheroes. Did people start suing the supervillains also?


A decline in supervillany?

I like to think that the superheroes killed off nearly all of the supervillians (after all they didn't seem shy about killing those mooks). As a result the superheroes seemed less necessary so the public were more willing to turn against them later.

kpenguin
2012-08-09, 11:54 PM
If I recall, according to the comics, the supervillains were mostly weeded out by the NSA. Among the notable exceptions was Bomb Voyage, who managed to remain out of the clutches of the government until reappearing to seeming blow up the Eiffel Tower.

Tvtyrant
2012-08-10, 12:55 AM
If I recall, according to the comics, the supervillains were mostly weeded out by the NSA. Among the notable exceptions was Bomb Voyage, who managed to remain out of the clutches of the government until reappearing to seeming blow up the Eiffel Tower.

It makes sense really. Being a super criminal (I hate the word villain) works as long as no one knows who you are. Which means it works right up until you actually commit a crime, and then they simply send people to your house. Worst case scenario they post snipers and wait for a clear head shot.

pendell
2012-08-10, 08:27 AM
You've got it basically right. In order to pass muster under 12(b)(6), any initial filing saying that you're filing a lawsuit with the court (called a complaint) must have three things. It must state why the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. It must give a short brief recitation of facts sufficient, assuming all facts are true, to prove that a law has been violated in such a way that relief is an option. And it must state the form of relief sought. Most of the rules concern various procedural errors such as filing with the improper court or asking that it be thrown out of federal court and filed in state court instead.

But the key part of 12(b)(6) concerns the sufficiency of a statement of facts. If my statement of facts proves that you walked a dog across the sidewalk in front of my house, your initial response to my complaint should, quite reasonably, include a section saying "Even if we accept all of this as true, that's not against the law. As such, motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6)." If I were to complain that you violated a law that specifically has a provision "No civil liability shall be incurred by violation of this statute", you could include the same provision because, after all, there's no more sense hearing a lawsuit for which no relief can be granted than one for violating a non-existent law.

Well, if we accept that position, then we have to accept that Mr. Incredible, as an agent of the United States government acting within the scope of his duties, has qualified immunity from suits. In short, so long as he was acting to save the public from a supervillain, he can't be liable for damages. That's something that clearly falls under 12(b)(6). The lawsuit would be thrown out in the pleading stages.

Then how is it possible to sue people because their coffee is too hot...? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)

At any rate, I think the legal thing was just a mechanism. The fact is, I believe in the Incredible's country there are a lot of people like the Insurance boss, who have no use for heroes. I don't mean superheroes. The boss didn't want him to be an ordinary hero, helping a woman get her claim through a bureaucracy. The Boss IS Syndrome, but without Syndrome's intelligence. He's a mean, petty man who cannot stand to have anyone rise above his level. Such a man tears down superheroes because they are super, and tears down subordinates because they are competent or have hearts.

Why do I think such people were common in the world of the Incredibles? Because the insurance guy wasn't the first person Mr. Incredible had an issue with. He went from job to job to job, constantly being fired because he tried to act heroically. He was a good man in an evil world, so naturally it spit him out over and over and over again.


Get enough people like that in a society, and that society will destroy its superheroes. Because they are everything those petty people aren't. They are great of heart while the insurance guy is spiteful, they are generous where the insurance guy is greedy, they are strong where the insurance guy is weak. And they do it in such a way that it is not possible, as it is in a cube farm, to disguise mediocrity.

Like Redcloak in start of darkness, these petty PHBs will not accept such a world. They will do whatever they have to so they can lie to themselves about what they really are.



That, to my mind, is why the golden age superheroes were forced into hiding. Because Syndrome was just the tip of the iceberg. There were a lot of people in that society who didn't want superheroes, and they used the power they had to shun them, to drive them into hiding, to make them hated and feared even without lawsuits. The lawsuits were just the mechanism. IF they had not existed, another would have been found. The crab bucket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_bucket) finds a way. An evil society has no use for good people.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

Tyndmyr
2012-08-10, 09:02 AM
I've read it, the Fountainhead, and the whole of the Sword of Truth series as well. I'm a masochist.

Having done the same....I'm so very sorry you had to do this.

That said, the randian stuff, etc might be reaching a little bit far for meaning for what the film is. Seriously, there's such a thing as over-analyzing something.

The Glyphstone
2012-08-10, 10:25 AM
Then how is it possible to sue people because their coffee is too hot...? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants)


http://www.cracked.com/article_19150_6-famous-frivolous-lawsuit-stories-that-are-total-b.s..html

When you spill your coffee and need skin grafts afterwards, I think you've got a solid case.