 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.
>>
>
> I don't see The Incredibles mentioned in the Watchmen article, so that can't
> be a source for "The Incredibles was inspired by Watchmen".
The Watchmen entry contains the plot details (that I don't find anywhere
else but in the comic book itself). That's all that's needed. The rest
is up to one's own judgment.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see The Incredibles mentioned in the Watchmen article, so that
>> can't
>> be a source for "The Incredibles was inspired by Watchmen".
>
> The Watchmen entry contains the plot details (that I don't find anywhere
> else but in the comic book itself). That's all that's needed. The rest
> is up to one's own judgment.
BTW, this metacircular referential argumentation begs the question: how
are most works plots inserted into wikipedia? If they simply say the
reference for the plot is the work itself, then I guess it is ok to see
an overview of Watchmen's plot by linking to the wikipedia entry, since
the entry itself references the work ultimately.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
>> Wikipedia:
>
> That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
The point is not to add content to wikipedia based on wikipedia content.
The wikipedia content at question is merely a plot overview. I'm just
saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
and for the purpose of illustration I link to the plot overview in the
wikipedia entry for Watchmen. Which itself has no other reference than
the work itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I tried updating the wikipedia entry on The Incredibles with the
> following update:
>
> A more direct inspiration is the comic book masterpiece Watchmen, by
> Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. In it, super-heroes are banned and living
> common life, a plot to secretly kill heroes is going on, there's a
> mysterious Island where a threatening menace is being created (not in
> the Watchmen movie though), the plan of the "villain" itself being to
> lie to people that they are under attack so that he can secretly realize
> his fantasy of being hero of the world. 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. Even the
> "no cape" is from Watchmen, as one of the hooded crime busters of the
> past is shot to death as his cape gets entangled in a bank's revolving
> door. The Omnidroid closely resembles the organic life-form the
> Watchmen's "villain" has built, tentacles, monocular vision and size
> matching.
>
> I tried inserting the above paragraph at wikipedia's entry for The
> Incredible's, section "Brad Bird's inspiration" but I was faced with
> heavy monitoring from wikipedia bastard moderators. I am under the
> assumption they work for Disney, as they don't care to verify the
> sources themselves. Really, that's not original, non-verifiable
> research: it's simply the description of the plot of both works, except
> that the one from Watchmen is from 1987, from an acclaimed comic book.
>
> You can see it in this revision:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Incredibles&oldid=290153780#Brad_Bird.27s_inspiration
>
>
> here's the wikipedia entry for Watchmen:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmen
>
> and here's the bastard wikipedia minion exerting its lame act on behalf
> of Disney integrity:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:201.47.188.2
>
> Would some of you join me in trying to bring this issue to light and
> overcome wikipedia's moderating lameness?
The fun never stops:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incredibles&action=history
Not even in the talk page is permitted the mention to the similarity of
the two works plots.
bunch of nazis...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>>> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
>>> Wikipedia:
>>
>> That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
>
> The point is not to add content to wikipedia based on wikipedia content.
> The wikipedia content at question is merely a plot overview. I'm just
> saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
> and for the purpose of illustration I link to the plot overview in the
> wikipedia entry for Watchmen. Which itself has no other reference than
> the work itself.
The problem is that because of the nature of Wikipedia, if you create an
entry that says "All elephants are blue" and cite another Wikipedia
article that contains that assertion as a source, you're not really
citing a source.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:35:05 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> bunch of nazis...
I call Godwin's law.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:24:30 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:21:56 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>
>>>> And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
>>>> Wikipedia:
>>> That would be kinda self-reinforcing, wouldn't it?
>> The point is not to add content to wikipedia based on wikipedia content.
>> The wikipedia content at question is merely a plot overview. I'm just
>> saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
>> and for the purpose of illustration I link to the plot overview in the
>> wikipedia entry for Watchmen. Which itself has no other reference than
>> the work itself.
>
> The problem is that because of the nature of Wikipedia, if you create an
> entry that says "All elephants are blue" and cite another Wikipedia
> article that contains that assertion as a source, you're not really
> citing a source.
If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd
better just drop the whole entry altogether. If however it is accurate
info, I don't see why I can't link to it. The only other option is to
read the damn graphic novel, really.
BTW, just found this:
http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2009/03/watchmen_vs_the_incredibles.html
Thankfully not just me... Now that people have watched the Watchmen
movie (bad pun), I guess The Incredibles entry should be updated. Back
then when I watched it, I saw some people making the link to Watchmen,
but since I never read it, I didn't knew to what extent.
Of course, most animation output is parodies in the same way as Shrek
and it's parodying of pop culture and fairy tales... but I thought Pixar
was all about story, not parody alone.
Whatever it is, The Incredibles and it mix of Fantastic Four, Watchmen
and 007 is still good fun. But now I understand why the plot itself was
so great...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:35:05 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>
>> bunch of nazis...
>
> I call Godwin's law.
Don't you find it a bit weird that you can't even point it out in the
discussion page rather than in the entry?
They simply deleted the comment on the discussion page, although in the
same page there's a comparison to Fantastic Four (four heroes, one
strong, other invisible, another elastic). That's very obvious so no
denying.
Less obvious is the plot being a rip off from a comic classic, down to a
monocular, tentacled gigantic threat to a city and banned heroes...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> I'm just
> saying there that "The incredibles" has a very similar plot to Watchmen
No, you're saying Incredible was *inspired* by Watchmen, not just similar.
You would need to show that Brad Bird, for example, was aware of Watchmen
and knew the plot when he was making the Incredibles, as a minimum.
--
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 rest is up to one's own judgment.
An encyclopedia isn't supposed to be up to the reader's judgement.
If you put in a [1]
[1] Bird said he liked Watchmen in a June 1998 interview on The Tonight Show
and would base a film on it
then maybe you'd have something.
You can say "the film shares plot points with Watchmen." I don't htink
you've justified "the film was inspired by Watchmen."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
