|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |