>> I know and care less than nothing about either the Incredibles or
>> Watchmen, but my 2 cents says the text above reads very much like an
>> argument, not as an encyclopedic entry. Maybe that's the contention.
>> It's not an encyclopedia's job to make a point (and no, some bad
>> examples from Wikipedia don't change this rule) but to document well
>> established points. If you have a reference, only a single sentence
>> should suffice.
>
> Well stated - we've found something to agree on. :-)
>
> Jim

I'm sure enough people have noticed the similarity to find
citations via Google.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bal-to.sragow13mar13,0,3736906.story
etc.

Still, it probably belongs in the critics section...
There's no telling what Brad Bird thought, or when he thought it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_subconscious
Comics often get pretty close to archetypes, that's just how it is.
It'd be more surprising if the monsters didn't have tentacles =P

Still, I've heard enough stories about writers having their
stories stolen by producers in Hollywood to think that
probably is what happened with The Incredibles.
DC comics or the original writers probably had grounds
for a lawsuit, but that would have soured their relationship
with Hollywood for other projects, like the Watchmen film.

Post a reply to this message