The original post: /r/movies by /u/JustSand on 2024-12-31 06:06:24.
In both movies, a parent does superhero work for a rich dude who turns out to be the antagonist, but the difference is in the details. Insuricare wasn’t the right job for Bob. The work isn’t engaging, he doesn’t seem to have any supportive colleagues at work, and it doesn’t fit his personal life. Bob wants for his old job unknowingly puts his family in danger and stirs his core. In Incredibles 2, Helen re-enters superhero work because the family needs the money, then when Evelyn said superhero’s existence makes people rely on them causing complacency, Helen only asks if Evelyn is going to kill her; there's two interpretations, either Helen’s belief in superhero occupation is so unwavering Evelyn has no effect, or Helen doesn’t have any counter argument because she genuinely has none. It’s dull either way but I believe it’s the ladder because of what was shown before. Helen only allows the kids to use their powers on the island because their life is in danger. During underminer’s attack, she orders the kids to do the bare minimum. When discussing Winston’s job offer at the motel, Bob talked about their kid's future while Helen doesn’t want to be away because she worries about the kids. Helen did put the mask on when underminer shows up at the end of the first, but her family’s psychological needs clearly matter to her more than Superhero work.
So, we have a protagonist that’s not as interested in the theme of the movie, and if she doesn’t care and the author doesn't have a convincing argument about it, it only raises questions and no conclusion. The movie could work if Helen realizes the importance of self-fulfillment needs so when Evelyn wants to destroy superheroes, Helen has a personal stack in it. Or if Jack Jack turned out to be a super that would benefit from the superhero job, it would influence Helen’s conformist attitude. What is the personal consequence of giving it up for the family? We see the old interview from the previous film, where Helen claims she doesn’t want to settle down. We know she rides bikes and pilot planes, so maybe she’s a thrill-seeker. I want a moment where Helen lays sleepless at night, wondering what happened to all her bright ambitions.
The first one doesn’t have a sit down debate with the antagonist but it's a battle through action, both Bob and Syndrome want to be superheroes but only one survives. Evelyn and Helen have no dynamic when pitted together. The movie is subversive and intellectually stimulating but it doesn't satisfy the heart because compared with the first film, the journey Bob went on was much more personal to that of Helen’s.
Here’re scenarios where it does:
Something happens that forces Helen to become a vigilante, and the journey is her realizing how her desire for a normal family life actually shapes unhappy supers families, because some physically can’t have a normal life and realizing the need for superhero occupation and actively fighting their future.
A rich tech guy also wants to bring back superheroes, but the job requires Helen to go to a secret facility out in the desert, away from government eyes, to create superheroes that can win the public’s heart, that the officials can’t refuse. She’ll meet characters that expand her view and reframe her stance on the superhero program. With a couple of changes, Helen now needs to deal with the pain of being away from her family and meeting people who will challenge her ideology.
I think it would’ve been better if Helen sees how her job not only provides for the family but also how helping legalizing superheroes opens opportunities for their kids and future supers to self-realize and maybe happier lives, even though she personally never found the superhero job a necessity. Helen actually comes to understand Bob's frustration and perspective in the first film.
