Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Really, that's not original, non-verifiable research
> 
>   Some actual references would probably help proving that.
> 
>   "Original research" doesn't mean "hard to prove" or "questionable".
> It means that you gave no references to other respectable sources to base
> your text on.

I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry.  Yeah, not respectable at all.

Strange trying to find out about Watchmen.  The DC site says nothing:
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/watchmen/?action=graphic_novel

Not even a basic overview or something.  Why should such an iconic work 
deserve one after all?

And Amazon is pretty much all about consumer review, surely not 
respectable, despite statistics:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Alan-Moore/dp/0930289234

Don't know where else to try.  Shouldn't they just read the damn thing 
to get references?  How do they allow for articles on books anyway? 
It's a well-known plot, it's even one of Time magazine's top 100 20th 
century books:
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/0,24459,watchmen,00.html


BTW, only right now, some 20 years later I read it.  I needed to, in 
order to watch the movie.  Just like with The Lord of the Rings. 
There's a pile of literature that movies just keep prompting me to read 
and that's the best this industry has to offer, because otherwise the 
original works are superior in every respect.

Bland, superficial and Hollywoodian takes like Zack Snyder's port or The 
Incredible's "homage" truly don't make that masterpiece any justice.  I 
don't quite understand why I didn't pick it up then, I read Frank 
Miller's Batman:  The return of the Dark Knight by that same time frame...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message