Nature,

“When he appears as “Buddy,” he isn't aiming to become a superhero in his own right. All he wants is to be Mr. Incredible's sidekick—to acquire reflected glory through Mr. Incredible, rather than seeking it on his own.”

That is not true.

When buddy approaches Mr Incredible he has already developed his own rudimentary technology, however it doesn’t work properly. You see, he doesn’t get it right first time, so it is not an inherent gift for “invention” as people keep suggesting here – but something that he develops over time.

Glenn,

“You’re a scientist. Imagine the government says, “No, you can’t be a scientist, you have to do something you’re totally unsuited for.” It’s unlikely you’ll do well.”

Thanks for the compliment. However, I am actually not a one dimensional cartoon character, born to be capable in only one career. I was not born to be capable in any career. “I” chose to become capable in a certain career.

Nature,

"All right. If you want to go that route, look at Violet. She isn't able to make her force fields work effectively at first. Her superpowers may be inherent, but her ability to use them—like Syndrome's ability to invent—is something that develops over time."

As far as I understood it, that was an issue of confidence and not development - definitely not development in any conscious sense.

That raises another point.

Notice how Syndrome is always confident and self-assured that he can reach his goal. Whereas the "Incredible" family (apart from the naughty son) are constantly insecure and hesitant.

Although that has probably more to do with how American culture views the "typical" working-class family "anxieties" as opposed to undesirable "over-confidence" and "arrogance" of villains.

It seems that this film was disappointing at various levels to most people.

It would probably not have deserved so much attention apart from the fact that some have insisted on equating the values of the film with the values of Objectivism.

Marcus, as someone who found enjoyment in this film I feel like you are challenging me to defend my enjoyment of it without denouncing my objectivist values.

This whole discussion smells like a post modernist deconstructionist reading of this movie.  We pick our position at the outset and subsequently choose to present only the data that confirms our pre-conceived hypothesis.  Clearly there are positive themes from an objectivist perspective in this movie;  e.g. the negative comments about celebrating mediocrity and the heroes using their abilities as they see fit, and clearly there are some anti-objectivist themes presented in this movie, as you importantly points out.  People who enjoyed this movie are not celebrating mysticism, they saw a few objectivist themes poking out of the usually second hander / altruism rhetorhic, even though there was still plenty of that present.  One could tally every single scene, verse, and theme of the film and debate endlessly whether each individual statement was pro-objectivist or anti-objectivist,  but it seems like it is a monumental waste of time. 

Marcus, do you feel that people who claim to like this movie, and to think it was ‘good’ and also claim to be “objectivist” or Rand Inspired are being hypocrites?

Marcus suggested the father was “selflessly saving the world” what part of his actions indicated to you that it was “self-less”?  I picked up nothing that seemed to indicate he thought using his powers was a burden. In fact he was presented as getting a kick out of it, enjoying it, and despised not being allowed to use his ability.  I don’t know why that idea is always presented as self-less, one can be very selfish and want to save the world, he does, after all, live in it. 

Regards,

Michael