 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:05:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>>>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added
>>>> to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not
>>>> whether we think it is true."
>>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>>
>> The work doesn't state its inspiration. The work is the work, not a
>> "making of the work" work.
>
> I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
> to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
> list the plot points similarities, right? Which is not possible,
> either.
Yeah, and apparently because you started by trying to say "this proves
it", they've rejected those edits as well, perhaps thinking you're trying
to sneak your "proof of inspiration" in the back door by starting with
something less declarative in the hopes that later you (or someone else)
will be able to make a minor edit that changes it back to being proven.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:05:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>>>>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added
>>>>> to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not
>>>>> whether we think it is true."
>>>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>>> The work doesn't state its inspiration. The work is the work, not a
>>> "making of the work" work.
>> I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
>> to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
>> list the plot points similarities, right? Which is not possible,
>> either.
>
> Yeah, and apparently because you started by trying to say "this proves
> it", they've rejected those edits as well, perhaps thinking you're trying
> to sneak your "proof of inspiration" in the back door by starting with
> something less declarative in the hopes that later you (or someone else)
> will be able to make a minor edit that changes it back to being proven.
Anyone of you may try it and see if it works. I just lost respect
altogether for wikipedia and Pixar to care.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.
I think I'll just leave this with the comment that I think you're wrong, I
don't think Watchmen and Incredibles had much in common. You cherry pick a
handful of similarities and ignore the overall plot, mood, and
characterization, the elements that make each of these works memorable.
Neither of these works is a plot-driven story, so comparing similarities in
the plots is pointless given the differences in the important parts.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.
>
> I think I'll just leave this with the comment that I think you're wrong,
> I don't think Watchmen and Incredibles had much in common. You cherry
> pick a handful of similarities
Yes, my point was exactly to list the *striking* similarities, not the
differences.
> and ignore the overall plot, mood, and
> characterization, the elements that make each of these works memorable.
> Neither of these works is a plot-driven story, so comparing similarities
> in the plots is pointless given the differences in the important parts.
You're very right in that, indeed. They are multi-faceted gems,
beautiful to look at from various different angles.
I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to
dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
himself. But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
> himself.
Oddly enough, I don't see anything in the wikipedia article that says Bird
is a genius or that he came up with the ideas himself.
> But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
> since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
Gee, sounds like an encyclopedia to me! Funny, that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4a10babe@news.povray.org...
> I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to
> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
> himself. But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream, since
> it only points to official positions from official mouths.
Hey, I just noticed something about the Incredibles:
- Apparently normal American suburban family who goes through extraordinary
adventures
- Slightly pudgy, not so smart, lovable father, stuck in a boring job with
an abusive boss
- Hyperbusy homemaking mom
- Hyperenergetic, hot-headed teenage son
- Nerdy, socially awkward teenage daughter
- Non-talking baby with no special powers (except when needed)
Rings a bell?
The Simpsons...
And guess who was part of the original Simpsons developing team, directed
some episodes and served as an executive producer for 181 episodes between
1989 and 1997?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh heh heh.
http://terminatorguide.webs.com/T3special.htm
Of course, in that case...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
> > But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
>> since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
>
> Gee, sounds like an encyclopedia to me! Funny, that.
Does not sound like a user-fed wiki to me, though. If all I can do is
parrot official mouths from Disney, I don't feel there's any use for my
knowledge on any specific subject. There was a time where one could do
just that. I suspect the majority of wikipedia was initially built that
way and now that the base is already there, there's no more space for
grass-roots wiki editing...
BTW, perhaps Nicolas Alvarez should take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Incredibles_characters
there's plenty of unsourced statements there about similarities with
long-known super-hero characters for him to apply his revisionism.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escreveu:
> 4a10babe@news.povray.org...
>> I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to
>> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
>> himself. But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream, since
>> it only points to official positions from official mouths.
>
> Hey, I just noticed something about the Incredibles:
> - Apparently normal American suburban family who goes through extraordinary
> adventures
> - Slightly pudgy, not so smart, lovable father, stuck in a boring job with
> an abusive boss
> - Hyperbusy homemaking mom
> - Hyperenergetic, hot-headed teenage son
> - Nerdy, socially awkward teenage daughter
> - Non-talking baby with no special powers (except when needed)
>
> Rings a bell?
>
> The Simpsons...
>
> And guess who was part of the original Simpsons developing team, directed
> some episodes and served as an executive producer for 181 episodes between
> 1989 and 1997?
yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Heh heh heh.
>
> http://terminatorguide.webs.com/T3special.htm
>
> Of course, in that case...
That's nothing: the whole Back to the Future trilogy is a lucrative
rehash of the very same first movie plot, except one in the future and
another in the far past. Blowderized, puerile, rehashed entertainment
is really all Hollywood is about.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
