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

nemesis wrote:
> 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...

Sounds like *your* motivation is to call Bird a liar, not to publish facts.

If you really want to know, I didn't find any similarities between Watchmen 
and Incredibles. Now that you point it out, sure, there are some 
similarities, primarily the "superheros are disliked and outlawed." But that 
happens in a number of movies. Batman and Hancock and Star Trek and the 
Bible spring to mind.

Mysterious island is a kind of obvious place to put out-of-the-way evil for 
land-dwelling species. Citation: at least three or four Bond movies, for 
example, as well as King Kong.

Villain lies to people about danger in order to be a hero. "Mission 
Accomplished!"  Except in Watchmen he didn't lie in order to be a hero. The 
whole plot device wouldn't have worked if the villain was taken to be a hero 
because of what he did. In Watchmen he makes a truly dangerous thing in 
order to save the world without taking credit, while in Incredibles he makes 
a supposedly harmless thing in order to take the credit for defeating it.

That the evil device was also based on a squid isn't really surprising 
either. Gee, think Watchmen took the idea from Jules Verne?

If you're going to compare two plots, you have to compare all the major 
points, not just the ones that match.

Watchmen: there's a hunt for the bad guy. Incredibles: there isn't.
Watchmen: they're normal people. Incredibles: they aren't.
Watchmen: lots of internal moral conflict. Incredibles: little to none.
Watchmen: Rape. Incredibles: No rape.
Watchmen: Prison break.  Incredibles: No prison break.
Watchmen: Cancer.  Incredibles: No cancer.
Watchmen: Mars.  Incredibles: No mars.
Watchmen: Thermonuclear annihilation. Incredibles: No nuclear bombs.
Watchmen: Bad guy gets away with it. Incredibles: Bad guy gets caught.
Watchmen: No babies kidnapped.  Incredibles: Babies kidnapped.
Watchmen: Good guy main character has secret high tech.
       Incredibles: Bad guy main character has secret high tech.
Watchmen: Disfunctional families. Incredibles: Happily married families.
Watchmen: Good guy main character is insane psychopathic killer.
   Incredibles: No insane psychopathic killers.
Watchmen: Bad guy motivated by love for humanity.
   Incredibles: Bad guy motivated by hubris and vengeance.
Watchmen: Good guy motivated by fear.
   Incredibles: Good guy motivated by boredom.

To me, they seem like completely different movies, with different moods, 
morals, plots, motivations, and environments. I wouldn't have a problem 
believing that Incredibles wasn't particularly inspired by Watchmen. It's 
certainly not a retelling of the story in any sense.

I bet with enough work you could say that the Matrix has as many 
similarities to Incredibles as Watchmen does.

-- 
   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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > 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...
>
> Sounds like *your* motivation is to call Bird a liar, not to publish facts.

My motivation was to point out the similarities.  Perhaps I went to far by going
for "inspiration" rather than just plainly pointing them out.  This thread
however got to my nerves and I discounted on Bird.  though he deserves...

> Now that you point it out, sure, there are some
> similarities, primarily the "superheros are disliked and outlawed." But that
> happens in a number of movies. Batman and Hancock and Star Trek

There was no plot like that before Watchmen.  None at all.  A critic hailed it
as Alan Moore's obituary for the whole super-hero concept.

> Mysterious island is a kind of obvious place to put out-of-the-way evil for
> land-dwelling species. Citation: at least three or four Bond movies, for
> example, as well as King Kong.

Yes, Bond is a reference in both The Incredibles and Watchmen.  Watchmen's
Adrian Veidt was a caped crusader until retiring and becoming a wealthy
businessman.  His early-Bond villain attire is noted, like his lynx pet and
enjoyment of ancient civilizations.  Very Dr. No.

> The
> whole plot device wouldn't have worked if the villain was taken to be a hero
> because of what he did. In Watchmen he makes a truly dangerous thing in
> order to save the world without taking credit, while in Incredibles he makes
> a supposedly harmless thing in order to take the credit for defeating it.

I didn't say it was straight similar.  I said both did it to feel heroic about
the act of saving the world.  Feeling heroic about it doesn't require publicity
about it.

That's not the only plot twist The Incredibles got to get a plot similar yet
different:  they also had, as you note below, real super-beings rather than the
strong, but humanized masked crime fighters.  I also mentioned that the only
super-being in Watchmen doesn't care about mankind.

> That the evil device was also based on a squid isn't really surprising
> either. Gee, think Watchmen took the idea from Jules Verne?

Yes, but the point is:  why The Incredibles had copy-cat all these same choices
of staple fantasy/scifi literature as Watchmen?

> If you're going to compare two plots, you have to compare all the major
> points, not just the ones that match.

> Watchmen: there's a hunt for the bad guy. Incredibles: there isn't.

Come again?

> Watchmen: they're normal people. Incredibles: they aren't.

Most obvious deviating plot.  Watchmen set out to be a "realistic" super hero
comic book.  No such need in an animation.

> Watchmen: lots of internal moral conflict. Incredibles: little to none.
> Watchmen: Rape. Incredibles: No rape.

Family movie.

> Watchmen: Prison break.  Incredibles: No prison break.

Sure there's a prison break in Incredibles.

> Watchmen: Cancer.  Incredibles: No cancer.

What about that mutating kid?  Sure does not sound healthy in the long term...
:P

> Watchmen: Mars.  Incredibles: No mars.

Mars is up there. ;)

> Watchmen: Thermonuclear annihilation. Incredibles: No nuclear bombs.

No bombs detonated in Watchmen, thanks to Veidt's intervention.  One bomb
detonated by Bomb Voyage in Incredibles.

> Watchmen: Bad guy gets away with it. Incredibles: Bad guy gets caught.

Rorschach's journal is sent to a right-wing publication prior to going to
Ozymandias fortress.  Not seen, but "bad guy" is caught in the act indeed.

> Watchmen: No babies kidnapped.  Incredibles: Babies kidnapped.

Worse: children murdered.

> Watchmen: Good guy main character has secret high tech.
>        Incredibles: Bad guy main character has secret high tech.

"Bad guy" too.

> Watchmen: Disfunctional families. Incredibles: Happily married families.

Sure.  It's a family movie.

> Watchmen: Good guy main character is insane psychopathic killer.
>    Incredibles: No insane psychopathic killers.

Prior to trying with Mr. Incredible, Syndrome had killed several past heroes
while bettering Omnidroid.  That's pretty psychopathic to me.

> Watchmen: Bad guy motivated by love for humanity.
>    Incredibles: Bad guy motivated by hubris and vengeance.
> Watchmen: Good guy motivated by fear.
>    Incredibles: Good guy motivated by boredom.

I never said The Incredibles to be as deep as Watchmen.  It's the opposite, a
light, family-geared, comic rather than realist take on the very same themes of
Watchmen.  You just listed all the contrasting choices Pixar opted to uncover
the Watchmen main plot.  They also mixed enough James Bond and Fantastic Four
and diverged a lot in the original plot to dismiss any further relations.

There's no bad guy in Watchmen, just human beings and dubious moral choices.

Ozymandias may not have been motivated solely by a love for humanity or the
desire to see a unified Earth:  like all the other characters, other motives of
sexual or egomaniac nature may drive him.  He resented The Comedian waking him
up to the uselessness of puerile heroism.  Still, he sets as his main goal
through years to come to do exactly what Captain Metropolis says in that same
episode:  "Who's going to save Earth?"  He was still fantasizing of being a
hero, despite the seriousness and larger scale of the plan.

> To me, they seem like completely different movies,

Watchmen is not a movie.  The movie based on Watchmen sucks like any Hollywood
shallow and puerile take on a serious subject matter.  It sucks a bit less than
Hancock.  There are none of the multilayered meanings, self-referencing forms,
crucial side-stories, homages to old comic books, or human emotion from the
book.

The finale is also very different from the comic book and the long fight with a
villainous Ozymandias completely unnecessary and dork.  He has no super-powers
as the movie pictures it.  It also completely ruined him as he's seen as a
flat, villainesque hero in bad rubber Batman suit and having The Flash speed...

> with different moods,
> morals, plots, motivations, and environments. I wouldn't have a problem
> believing that Incredibles wasn't particularly inspired by Watchmen. It's
> certainly not a retelling of the story in any sense.

Let's tell a very brief plot, shall we?

In the past, super-heroes were abound.  Until the day their popularity fades
among the public and they are ruled out by a government act.  A few years
later, some of them are living normal lifes, some of them still in undercover
activities.  One of them still in activity discovers a malign plan hiding on an
Island and is killed.  One of his old hero fellows begin investigating and is
led to believe there's a conspiracy to kill super heroes.  He's caught and is
tortured.  Some of his fellows go on to infiltrate and release him.  They then
realize the plan of the villain to be a hero by faking an alien attack with a
huge monocular, tentacled monster.

The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...

> I bet with enough work you could say that the Matrix has as many
> similarities to Incredibles as Watchmen does.

I'll leave you to try your hand at those.

Post a reply to this message

*deadpan* I think you're taking this whole thing far too seriously. 
Especially over a comic book, which everyone knows is for small 
children.  The imagery is crude and lacking artistic merit, especially 
in the works of Alan Moore.

*runs away as fast as possible*

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

>> 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

> A more direct inspiration

Citation needed. How do you know it's an inspiration?

>  is the comic book masterpiece

"masterpeice": opinion. "Original research."

> The main differences being that Watchmen's "villain" truly turns out to 
> save the world by way of his machiavelic plan and that no hero is truly 
> super: the only one with true superpower couldn't care less for mankind or 
> living organisms

Interpretation of the plot: original research. Implication of relevance to 
The Incredibles is also original research.

> Even the "no cape" is from Watchmen

Why say "even" unless you're trying to prove a point? Encyclopedias don't 
try to prove points; they state facts.

In addition there are a few sentences with poor structure or vague 
relevance. "is going on", "not in the watchmen movie though", and the "The 
Omnidroid" sentence.

Although you have some interesting points which would be good for different 
forums, the moderators were correct to remove this information as it was 
implying conclusions that could not be verified by external sources.

Also, I'm drunk. =D

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message