Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
>>>> Wikipedia:
>>> That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
>> The point is not to add content to wikipedia based on wikipedia content.
>>   The wikipedia content at question is merely a plot overview.  I'm just
>> saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
>> and for the purpose of illustration I link to the plot overview in the
>> wikipedia entry for Watchmen.  Which itself has no other reference than
>> the work itself.
> 
> The problem is that because of the nature of Wikipedia, if you create an 
> entry that says "All elephants are blue" and cite another Wikipedia 
> article that contains that assertion as a source, you're not really 
> citing a source.

If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd 
better just drop the whole entry altogether.  If however it is accurate 
info, I don't see why I can't link to it.  The only other option is to 
read the damn graphic novel, really.

BTW, just found this:
http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2009/03/watchmen_vs_the_incredibles.html

Thankfully not just me... Now that people have watched the Watchmen 
movie (bad pun), I guess The Incredibles entry should be updated.  Back 
then when I watched it, I saw some people making the link to Watchmen, 
but since I never read it, I didn't knew to what extent.

Of course, most animation output is parodies in the same way as Shrek 
and it's parodying of pop culture and fairy tales... but I thought Pixar 
was all about story, not parody alone.

Whatever it is, The Incredibles and it mix of Fantastic Four, Watchmen 
and 007 is still good fun.  But now I understand why the plot itself was 
so great...

Post a reply to this message