On Sat, 16 May 2009 01:09:45 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> It doesn't matter. If you assert Bird was inspired, you would need to
>> give a reference to it.
> 
> Yes, I gave a reference to it.  The plot of Watchmen.

That is not a reference.  A reference would be, as Darren said, citing an 
article where Brad Bird stated that he was inspired by Watchmen.

Otherwise, it's just a guess on your part.  Guesses aren't citable 
references, no matter how canny you think the similarities are.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:34:16 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> Star Wars, The Belgariad, and Dune, and Magician:Apprentice (and its
>> sequels) all have a common plot - the world is in trouble and then
>> saved by a messiah character.  That doesn't mean they were inspired by
>> the Bible (or that any of their authors read the Bible or were even
>> inspired by it).
> 
> Did you actually read what I wrote.  

Yes.

> It's not a generic set of plot
> points, they are very specific and "awkward" set of plot points
> identical in both works.

That doesn't matter.  If you want to say Bird was inspired by Watchmen, 
cite a reference where he says that was the case.  Otherwise, it's a 
guess.  It may be a good guess, but it's still a guess.

> You may not be aware of it, but Watchmen is a very known super-hero
> classic.  It was also the only comic book in Time magazine's list of 100
> most significant XX century books.

I am aware of what it is, but that's not relevant to making that 
assertion.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:53:29 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> You may not be aware of it, but Watchmen is a very known super-hero
>> classic.  It was also the only comic book in Time magazine's list of
>> 100 most significant XX century books.
> 
> actually, a list of top 100 all-time English-language novels.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion.  It wouldn't matter if it was the 
Bible, you'd still need a source rather than an educated guess.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Besides, I don't think Brad Bird would go on and admit a ripping like 
>> that.
> 
> So not only is it original research, you're admitting the unlikeliness 
> that there even *is* a citation you don't know about.

There's no citation for that, that's for sure.  There's a plot which is 
largely shared by both, that's for sure too.

> I suspect if you had a paragraph starting "The Incredibles shares a 
> striking number of plot elements with Watchmen," and you took it out of 
> the "inspiration" part, it might fly. But "inspiration" isn't about how 
> many plot points it shares. It's about the thought processes of the author.

ok, point taken.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 01:25:40 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>  Fact is:  you guys don't know
> Watchmen -- nor care about reading the plot details -- and can't see how
> frakking similar it is to the plot of The Incredibles.

The fact is that it doesn't matter if you or we see the similarities.

What matters is a citeable source for that assertion.  Since you are 
providing original research which may or may not prove the point, it 
needs to be published somewhere before Wikipedia will accept it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:35:33 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:09:46 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't think that's mere coincidence.
>> 
>> To borrow a line from A Few Good Men, "It doesn't matter what I
>> believe, it only matters what I can prove!"
> 
> Well, I certainly can prove nothing to people who've only seen a side of
> the coin.

Again, beside the point.  You're missing the point completely.

Can you prove it by citing a reference?  No.  You've looked at the 
plotlines of the two stories and come to the conclusion that Bird was 
inspired by Watchmen.

That's fine, that's called research.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of research.  It's (ostensibly) a publisher 
of facts.  Facts are backed up by research (aka "citations").

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:32:40 -0600, somebody wrote:

> 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

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Yes, I gave a reference to it.  The plot of Watchmen.  Which seemingly 
> no one read from the wikipedia entry, neither you nor the wikipedia 
> moderators.

F__k you.

You know, I'm so god awful tired of the "if you don't understand, it must be 
because you're too lazy to read."  It usually comes from the religious 
people, who proclaim "you'd have to agree, if only you *understood*."

>>> what I do know is:
>>
>> ... a whole list of things which have nothing to do with Bird or his 
>> thought processes.
> 
> But which has a lot to do with the result of his thought processes.

Yes. So?

>> Did you figure this link out yourself? Or did you read about it 
>> somewhere?
> 
> I heard about it before.  

Then cite where you heard it. Problem solved.

>> If the former, it's original research. If the latter, provide the 
>> citation. It seems pretty easy to me. :-)
> 
> There's no citation.

And that's the problem. [citation needed]

> Forget it, perhaps because of my alias you guys just love to have an 
> argument with me whatever the reason.

You'd like to think the reason is anything except that you're wrong, 
wouldn't you?

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Can you prove it by citing a reference?  No.  You've looked at the 
> plotlines of the two stories and come to the conclusion that Bird was 
> inspired by Watchmen.
> 
> That's fine, that's called research.
> 
> Wikipedia is not a publisher of research.  It's (ostensibly) a publisher 
> of facts.  Facts are backed up by research (aka "citations").

Fine.  The fact is that the plots are too damn similar and it should be 
listed there, encyclopedically.  The fact is that there's no reliable 
citation for the plot of Watchmen other than reading the work itself.

The fact is that I don't care anymore.  Let Disney rewrite history and 
Bird cite his own family inspirations for a plot that resembles so much 
that of a mature comic book classic...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Bird will not say that.  He'll say he's taken the idea from his own 
> family.

Contrast with...

> So, another guy above was telling that Star Wars, Matrix and others have 
> all pretty generic plots revolving around religious themes. 

Note that the accepted one is about plot, while the rejected one is about 
what the author was thinking. You didn't say "the plot of Incredibles is 
similar to the plot of Watchmen."  You said "The author of the Incredibles 
had certain thought processes that he is lying about ever having had."

> yes, that's sarcasm.  And that's by abstracting the whole plot down to 
> the very generic core.  One does not need to do that to see the 
> similarities in the plots of Watchmen and The Incredibles.

So what?

> It's not needed that the author spells it out plainly so that one can 
> see parodies.  For instance, Wall-e parodies 2001 in the ship computer 
> resembling HAL.  Was it needed for Wall-e's author to spell it out?  No, 
> one only needs to known there was a movie 2001 and a computer called HAL 
> with a large recognizable eletronic eye.  

I do see it has many similarities. So what?

Again, you're arguing that your original research is correct. Wikipedia 
doesn't want original research.

It's like arguing that your research on cancer cures should be published by 
the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery). It doesn't matter if you've 
found 100% effective cures for every kind of cancer known. ACM isn't going 
to publish it for you. Neither is Wikipedia, for that matter.

 > Fact is:  you guys don't know
 > Watchmen -- nor care about reading the plot details -- and can't see how
 > frakking similar it is to the plot of The Incredibles.

Do you not understand we're agreeing with you that the plots are similar? IT 
DOESN'T MATTER. You're publishing in the wrong venue.

You know what? If you actually read and thought about what people were 
writing to you here, you'd realize you've been mistaken all along, but I 
guess you're too lazy or stupid to think about the arguments. See? Works 
great, doesn't it? Really makes you want to pay attention when someone tells 
you the only reason you could possibly be wrong is you're too pig-headed to 
think about what the other person is saying, doesn't it?

-- 
   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