>>101137511>he didn't out-perform her at allIf we count that he had a whole arc in this movie and Helen had none of that in the 1st, collectively he does out-perform her.
More screen-time does that.
Just counting that they both got captured, they're equal.
>No it's not, the original was as neutral as it could get with gender.You could flip the genders in either movie and little would change.
You're just seeing things.
>No idea where you're pulling that from.Not really sure what to say.
This was a pretty prominent thing, you can literally google 'Incredibles Objectivism' right now and dive in to all the political crap if you wanted.
>Ah, so I guess that's a really long way of sayingIt's a way of saying you're basing your views on conjecture and not really evidence based in the film.
You could also make a conjecture for the film about abortion rights, or religion, Immigration, or the state of citizenship in Ancient Rome.
It doesn't make the film about any of those things just because you project or read into them. Because those central themes have nothing to do with the narrative or its aesthetics.
Even the objectivism one people like to Meme is shaky, regardless of whether it stops people from writing essays about it.
This is a Post-Modern way of thinking and interpreting media/literature. I find it very flawed and unscientific, it boils analysis and procedural discussion into little more than baseless assertions of opinion.
>implying that the theme of the film wasn't referring to the second-wave feminismYeah this is exactly what I was talking about in my above point.
Second-wave feminism huh? Really?
Care to explain that one?
>"a reference to trump,"What shit are you on?
A reference for trump, just because it's a president sign?
Why wouldn't it be a reference to John F. Kennedy or Richard Nixon who were candidates in the 60's?
