|
 |
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:19 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] nospam-gmail com> wrote:
>
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
The work itself does not provide any comparison to other works.
> First: I'm not comparing movies. I'm comparing the movie The
> Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four.
> I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.
Irrelevant. There are no such comparisons in the comics either.
> Second: it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to
> realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar
> uniforms. How does one quote similar imagery? It's just needed common
> sense.
Again, encyclopedias are not about "common sense".
*You* have looked at the movies/comics.
*You* have noticed similarities.
That is called "original research", in this case performed by you. Unless
you can get this "research" published in a credible medium, you will need
other sources to back up your claims.
The fact that others may share your opinion is irrelevant, unless one of
them gets it published in a credible medium.
> Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at wikipedia
> itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity between
> uniforms and super-powers?
Because similarity is a matter of opinion. Also, an encyclopedia cannot
credibly cite itself.
> I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both works would
> gain much relevance.
Because they are not considered credible. Neither are you, for much the
same reason.
> They only allow it from the mouths of the creator or from cinema critics
> who don't know much about comics.
Citing the creator is only credible if the point you are backing up is
"The creator said...".
Citing movie critics is only credible if the point you are backing up is
"Some movie critics are of the opinion that...".
> Despite any evidence or even images.
An encyclopedia is not the proper medium for presenting evidence.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
