The long awaited Incredibles 2

analysis
#121

Psychology: Everyone believes that everyone else has problematic ways of thinking about superheroes, and attempts to change that thinking by convincing (manipulating) others of that opinion. Winston and Evelyn’s different ways of thinking about supers is the source of the entire conflict of the film. From Evelyn’s perspective, her parents’ wrong thinking about superheroes was what led to their deaths, and this becomes her central motivation in secretly opposing Winston. Winston, meanwhile, believes if he can just get heroes better PR (i.e. change the public’s problematic thinking about supers), lawmakers will change the law and bring supers back. This attempt at getting better public relations is what draws Helen and the Incredibles into the story.

Trust: The trust that Winston and Evelyn’s parents put into the supers was what lead to their deaths (according to Evelyn). Winston puts his trust in Helen when he throws her out there with a camera on – essentially he says “just be super” and trusts that whatever she does will play well with public opinion. Meanwhile the Parrs trust Winston which leads them to get involved in the first place, in a scene that kind of screams “wait, why would you trust that guy?” (Seriously? That’s your plan? Hm, what could possibly go wrong?) And of course Helen trusts Evelyn. And I forgot - everyone is trying to get people to trust the supers again.

1 Like
#122

I typed out a long reply to this, but it was basically taking every point and saying, “yes, but how does this lead to conflict?” I deleted it because I didn’t want it to come across as overly aggressive or rude. Also, I’m not arguing for any storyform at this point. Just asking for evidence of other’s selected forms. That said, I’m just not sure how any of that shows Psychology or Trust causing conflict.

For instance, how does changing the publics opinion of supers lead to conflict? Doesn’t changing the public’s opinion get the law signed? And even then, isn’t it what they think (supers can save the day without creating more destruction than it’s worth) than how they think that gets the law signed?

And yes, there is trust, but would a lack of trust have changed or prevented any of the conflict we see in the film? Would Helen not trusting Evelyn, or Helen testing Evelyn, have prevented any of the conflict with Screenslaver?

#123

She trusts him with the main kid job, it seems from previews, so does that cause conflict? He seems overwhelmed in the previews. (from the peanut gallery, here)

#124

Please don’t worry about that (on my account). :slight_smile: And I hope I’m not coming across that way either. I actually almost added a note to my last post to the effect that I wasn’t trying to bait you into further argument as it seems you were winding down on this, I just want to present a storyform that at least some of us seemed to be leaning toward. I do think that we’ll have to wait for someone else (Jim or one of the other DSEs) to help us figure this one out at some point in the future.

Anyway I appreciate this discussion – it’s super useful to have to defend my arguments as of course I’m still learning and have lots of blind spots. You could absolutely be right and/or the story could be sending a confusing/broken signal.

That said to your points:

It doesn’t. It’s attempting to change the public’s opinion that leads to conflict. Pre-story, there is a kind of (unhappy) stasis. The law was passed years ago. The battle at the beginning with the Underminer doesn’t really change anything – really it just reinforces the status quo (or sets it up).

It isn’t until we meet Winston and the characters start coming up with plans to change public opinion that we see the main conflicts of the story emerge.

Well, this is where Dramatica is a little weird for me because trust and lack of trust both illustrate Trust, don’t they? But, yeah, if the Parrs hadn’t trusted Winston initially there wouldn’t have been a story (well, not one with them in it).

1 Like
#125

My wording may have suggested I was done period, but I really only meant I was done arguing for OS Physics or attempting to come up with a form myself. I’m still open to discussing others suggestions. Also, I’ll point out that I’m still pretty sold on OS physics, but not very sold on anything else I suggested.

Again, I want to ask what conflict this leads to. But to save time, let’s say your answer was that attempting to change people’s opinions leads to conflict with Screenslaver. Acceptable enough. But that would lead to other questions.

How is an attempt to change an opinion a form of Psychology? If they were coercing people (found it on a gist list) to change an opinion, I could see it. But they aren’t coercing anyone. They’re going out and saving the day and then showing people the footage.

And then why are they attempting to change peoples opinions? You guys are saying because it’s the goal, but where does the story tell us this? Can you give me something specific that gives us that idea? I’ve given a list of four out of five events in the first act alone that hint that changing the law is the goal and I think mentioned a few moments outside of that, but I can’t think of a single thing that hints that merely changing the public’s attitude is the end game. Heck, Mike and I think maybe someone else (Hunter?) even mentioned that the public already seems pretty enthusiastic about supers. This suggests to me (though the movie doesn’t outright say it) that what they’re really drumming up is support for changing the law rather than simply trust in supers.

Are you suggesting that coming up with plans, or in Dramatica terms Conceptualizing, creates conflict? If so, how is it the coming up with a plan that creates conflict rather than the carrying out of a plan?

So would Testing Evelyn or Winston have removed conflict? How so?

How does the story place any conflict on the Parr’s trust of Winston? Screenslaver doesn’t attack the city because Winston has their trust. She does it to undermine their efforts. You could just as easily say that the supers support Winston rather than trusting him. So what is about trust specifically, and not support, that leads to conflict?

Ps, sorry for giving the impression I was done altogether and then not being done. We can move on to other things anytime. But, honestly, I don’t think I’m actually discussing the Incredibles 2 anymore so much as I am discussing Dramatica itself through Incredibles 2.

1 Like
#126

Lol I should probably quit at least until I can see the movie again. At this point I’m just digging around the Internet to support my point, which doesn’t seem productive.

That said, as you suggest, this leads to meta-questions about Dramatica.

Okay, yes. Changing the law is the goal. But that doesn’t get us very far, does it? This is where you get into the question of why isn’t every story a Situation and why isn’t the Goal of every story Obtaining? The Princess Bride, Silence of the Lambs, The Fugitive, Star Wars - each of these stories are about winning, achieving, catching or freeing something, right?

The answer has to lie in the way the story presents the nature of the conflict that arises from the “storytelling” goal. To use your example of people trying to impeach Trump, I could easily imagine putting that story in any of the four domains depending on the argument being made.

It’s entirely possible that I’m misremembering, but the impression I got from this movie was that the goal of changing the law was presented as almost entirely a function of changing people’s perceptions and getting them to see the tough choices that supers have to make. In other words, the real source of the problem is bad public relations.

In other words, it’s all about “the optics”. How is that anything other than Psychology?

Doesn’t it depend on how you go about it? If you’re trying to teach someone something or get someone to understand - that could be Learning or Understanding. But if you’re trying to create good public relations (or counteract bad pr), that seems like Psychology (Manipulation). (I concede that Jay might be right that the Concern is Conceiving rather than Being, even though that messes up the rest of our storyform).

2 Likes
#127

Attempting to change an opinion (or any form of convincing) is practically the definition of Psychology/Manipulation. Especially when you see the attempting part causing problems, as you do with Evelyn’s Screenslaver plot, that’s a good indicator of a Psychology Domain. It’s not only causing problems for the people’s she’s trying to convince, it’s causing problems for her (because she’s driven to do it but it’s not a slam dunk), and causing problems for the people trying to stop her. Plus, the whole thing is a big scheme (scheming is another form of Psychology) which is at the root of the conflict in the whole movie. If Evelyn wasn’t scheming to change people’s opinions, there would be no OS.

4 Likes
#128

Because trusting Winston and Evelyn is exactly what led to Evelyn being able to manipulate them, especially Helen.

Helen testing Evelyn could certainly have led to her realizing who was behind Screenslaver from the beginning.

It can be difficult to see these things until you’re certain on all the higher levels. When analysing, I usually don’t find it that useful to question elements from different concerns, e.g. Trust vs. Support or Trust vs. Faith. All that said, for me it does feel a lot more like Trust and Test were at play in this movie, not Support and Oppose. Some of that comes from comparing different aspects of the movie. Trusting Evelyn too much might be seen as Support (isn’t there a scene when Helen is trying to be Evelyn’s friend, being very supportive?), but the whole thing with Evelyn’s father not calling the police is definitely more Trust than Support.

3 Likes
#130

It’s only Psychology when it’s internal. Changing the law is external. Even if your plan to change the law includes changing people’s minds, changing the law is still external.

Psychology would be lying to everyone about the presence of a wolf and all the sheep getting eaten because everyone stops believing the lie. It’s still Psychology even if it’s happening for something Physical, like the guy calling wolf is doing it to get everyone to practice grabbing their weapons and getting out to the field and prepared to fight in under two minutes.

But if the story is about a boy going out to take a picture of a wolf and he hopes people will see the picture and decide he’s not a liar, and he gets eaten when he goes into the woods to take a picture, it doesn’t matter that he was hoping to change people’s opinions. The conflict comes from the external process of collecting evidence.

What we’re talking about with Incredibles 2 is the same thing. There’s a physical aspect-changing law-and a psychological aspect-changing opinions. I’m just asking for where the movie points toward the internal changing of minds as a source of conflict.

#131

Trust led to Evenlyn being able to manipulate them, but trust did not led directly to Evelyn manipulating. They weren’t driven to trust Evelyn and Evelyn didn’t do what she did in response to being trusted.

#132

I think the lack of consensus here is actually not so much at the Domain/Class level. It’s about what the OS actually is. Like that one-sentence summary of the OS, the first step that Chris does in the User’s Group meetings.

I saw the OS as basically Winston’s attempt to “regain public trust in superheroes” and Evelyn’s counter-plot to “tarnish the reputation of superheroes” so people will start depending on themselves. (quotes are from Wikipedia plot summary)

@Greg I think you’re seeing the OS as an attempt to change the law in superheroes’ favour.

Before we try to agree on OS Domain, we have to agree on what the OS actually is. For example:

  • I saw the stuff about changing the law as “ammunition” to help convince supers to participate in both Winston’s and Evelyn’s plans. Mostly a manipulation tool, a straw man, but perhaps also as a confirmation that people’s trust had been regained. Definitely secondary to the manipulation.
  • The stuff at the beginning about the government shutting down the Relocation program seemed like it was more in the other throughlines (esp. RS) and maybe something that led the Parrs to the OS at a storyweaving/telling level, rather than a core conflict in the OS.

But I admit I don’t recall the movie that well anymore. I offer those examples not to assert they’re correct, just to show you how one can look at Domain differently when you frame the throughline story differently.

So there’s no point talking about Domain until you have reasonable consensus at the 1-sentence summary level.

#133

That makes a whole lot of sense. And, if I’m going to be honest, since I did just re-watch the movie twice this last week, I’m not sure the movie itself knows what it’s Objective Story is…

Winston’s first words are during the Underminer fight: “They’re out in public again. This is our chance.” At the end of the fight, Frozone mentions how he’s not really supposed to be there to Winston’s assistant, and the assistant responds, “That seems wrong, doesn’t it? How would you like a chance at changing that law?”

It’s almost like the characters are seeing something wrong with the way things are, but as for trying to determine Author’s Intent in this movie… It’s like they wanted to write a story about Helen or Elastigirl, ended up writing a story about how Bob can’t stand Elastigirl’s attention, and added in a bad guy because it’s a superhero movie. Thus, I give up, and anything further I put forth involving the Screenslaver is to facilitate discussion.

I will note: In that scene toward the beginning, where Bob and Helen are being detained and/or questioned about their actions, the conflict seems to come much more from differences in thinking between Bob and the officers/government, and not so much from the law itself, nor what the superheroes did or didn’t do. The officers/government were focused on the damage to the city infrastructure and the failure of the superheros, whereas the supers (especially Bob) were focused on “the fact” that they actually did save people and limited the damage that could have been. Even Dicker said, “You want outta the hole, first you gotta put down the shovel.” Lastly, the news announcement on the TV in the station: “Damage caused to the city as superheros failed to stop the Underminer.”

That whole scene presents the current reputation/perception of superheros for the start of the second movie. It certainly frames supers as illegal, but it also frames the government perception of supers. In addition, there are a number of items peppered into the movie for either view.

The biggest problem I have in determining anything for this portion of the story is that Winston’s motivations appear far more like a Sidekick (believing in the supers and giving them the means to achieve the goal, whichever you believe the goal to be) to me, but Winston also seems like a driver player in the story. Only Universe and Psychology allow for this.

I have more to say, but I’m gonna do some more thinking first.

#134

Is that conversation a source or conflict, though? Or is being arrested and having that conversation how we know something else was a problem?

#135

I think this conversation and similar ones point to the nature of what the author believes is the source of conflict throughout story. No one is saying “oh, everyone has these mistaken opinions of supers, but if we could just change the law, public opinion would follow”. The way it’s presented in the movie, changing the law = changing public opinion and vice versa.

In real life this is naïve of course. You could make a movie where conflict arises from someone decides they need to change a law by Gathering Evidence, and then using that evidence to correct the public’s Misunderstandings, and then Do some things which lead to Achieving a change in the law. I just don’t think that’s this movie.

The idea that the author views problematic thinking as the source of conflict is supported by ongoing events in the story. Problems and conflicts consistently and repeatedly arise from attempts to convince, coerce or manipulate people, whether it Winston trying to create a p.r. campaign, or the Screenslaver trying to mind control the people. What’s more, the characters believe that problematic thinking is the source of conflict and motivation, and this isn’t ever contradicted.

Here’s a quote of Screenlaver’s speech in which he lays out exactly how problematic thinking is the problem:

Don’t bother watching the rest. Elastigirl doesn’t save the day; she only postpones her defeat. And while she postpones her defeat, you eat chips and watch her invert problems that you are too lazy to deal with. Superheroes are part of a brainless desire to replace true experience with simulation. You don’t talk, you watch talk shows. You don’t play games, you watch game shows. Travel, relationships, risk; every meaningful experience must be packaged and delivered to you to watch at a distance so that you can remain ever-sheltered, ever-passive, ever-ravenous consumers who can’t train themselves to rise from their couches to break a sweat, and participate in life. You want superheroes to protect you, and make yourselves ever more powerless in the process. Well, you tell yourselves you’re being “looked after”. That you’re inches from being served and your rights are being upheld. So that the system can keep stealing from you, smiling at you all the while. Go ahead, send your supers to stop me. Grab your snacks, watch your screens, and see what happens. You are no longer in control. I am.

BTW this supports the OS Problem of Trust too.

Is the above quote shows, Evalyn is totally driven by her disgust at the idea that people have put all their trust into superheroes and thereby given up agency in their own lives. That same misplaced Trust is what led to her parents deaths. Trust is Evalyn’s origin story as a villain.

2 Likes
#136

My answer: That conversation can be easily bent to show Universe, Physics, or Psychology as the real problem behind everything. What’s the subtext of that conversation, though?

What I’m noticing in this thread is this:

  • (With Psychology as the source of problems.) There are arguments about how if the “wrong thinking” were not in effect, then it wouldn’t matter whether the law exists. These arguments contend that all supers could go out without issue, even if illegal, but also point out that the movie marks that changing this thinking would result in changing the law.

  • (With Physics as the source of problems.) There are arguments about how if the law were removed then supers could legally go out, but I’m not sure I’ve seen any arguments as to why this would allow the supers to go out without issue, even though they would now be legal. I’m also not sure I’ve seen any arguments as to how the movie portrays that abolishing the law would remove the wrong thinking.

  • The final thing I’ve noticed is that no one seems to be trying to pinpoint where they believe the story starts. That is, I don’t think the first driver of the story has been discussed. Pinpointing the actual driver to the story should, I think, help determine the domain because it would help answer some questions. Plus, isn’t there an article on Narrative First somewhere way back that suggests doing this when the OS is tricky?

In pure Dramatica terms, what story is actually portrayed based on that first driver:

  • Corrections to the external world would lead to fixing the internal issues?
  • Corrections to the internal world would lead to fixing the external issues?
1 Like
#137

Theoretically, I’d think we just need to find the conflict and see what process led to it.

#138

How? What is the conflict that arises from this conversation? If there isn’t any, is it possible this conversation arose as conflict to another process?

#139

There’s no vice-versa. The movie clearly states step 1 is to sway opinion, step 2 is to chamge the law. There is no other way around. I think this may be a case of combining Space and Time.

Also, the movie shows the plan being put into action, then conflict with Screenslaver, then public opinion changing, then the good guys being happy about it. How can the process that happens next to last be the source of conflict?

#140

Public opinion changing is not the source of conflict. The attempt to change public opinion is the source of conflict.

1 Like
#141

You appear to be thinking of that conversation differently than I am. In that, I am viewing the conversation as the conflict. Thus, I’m claiming that at least 3 (and now all 4) domains could be viewed as the source of conflict therein.

You could say that it’s the law that leads to this conversation (Universe). You could say that it was the actions of the supers that lead to this conversation (Physics). You could say that how the various characters in the conversation think leads to this conversation (Psychology). You could say that the difference in values between the supers and the cops lead to this conversation (Mind).

My point is any domain could be seen as the source of conflict for this conversation, which I view as part of the first driver. Now, for the context of this scene: The very first thing in this scene is a press release where they are bashing the supers. The final line in this scene is “You wanna get outta the hole, first you gotta put down the shovel.”

Thus, how is the real conflict framed for this scene? There’s a reason that Jim renamed his service to Subtext. The characters are focusing on and talking about the damage, and the (failed) activities of the supers. But, this is a character point of view. So, I ask, then, what is the point of this scene?

Thus, the source of the problems as portrayed and framed by this movie, and your own argument here, is the attempt to complete Step 1, is it not? I like @Lakis’s answer to this.

My questions have begun to stack up:

1.) Where does this story actually start? What is the first driver for the movie?
2.) In pure Dramatica terms, what story is actually portrayed based on that first driver:

  1. Corrections to the external world would lead to fixing the internal issues?
  2. Corrections to the internal world would lead to fixing the external issues?
  3. Corrections to the external world would lead to fixing the external issues?
  4. Corrections to the internal world would lead to fixing the internal issues?

3.) What do you mean when you say “source”? (All of these arguments seem to boil down to the question of what Dramatica means, and what each of us means, by “source”.)

You’ll note that this entire post was, in effect, asking questions about Dramatica through Incredibles 2, as you previously described.