nemesis wrote:
> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...

Your plotline doesn't really match Watchmen, or Incredibles.

Watchmen didn't have super-heros abounding - they were normal people, except 
for Jon, who doesn't exactly Abound.  The government rules them out for 
different reasons, and those reasons motivate the remaining heroes 
differently. In Watchmen, there are people living normal lives, some in 
undercover activities, and some working for the government. In Incredibles, 
nobody "discovers" a malign plan hidden on an island- Mr Incredible is 
invited to participate in the plan and does so unwittingly. In Incredibles, 
nobody goes investigating any conspiracy to kill super heroes - nobody knows 
they're dead until Mr Incredible finds the bodies. Rorschach isn't tortured, 
he's locked in prison. It isn't "Fellows" who free Mr Incredible, but his 
family.

You left out all the things in the movies that make them different, as well. 
Like, the whole theme of good vs bad, the moral of the story, the 
motivations, the personalities, and everything else that makes Incredibles a 
child's movie and Watchmen an adult's movie. You left out the coming-of-age 
bit with the kids, the turning of the loyalties of the kid's henchwoman in 
Incredibles, etc.

Or are you saying it would be difficult to write a plot summary for Watchmen 
that shares *nothing* with the plot summary above?

Altho I will say, unlike some here, you *do* seem to be able to admit you 
*might* be a little bit wrong, or at least that there might be multiple 
perspectives, or I wouldn't have even bothered this far. :-)

-- 
   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" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0e4160@news.povray.org...
> 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. :-)

That feels so... wrong.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:24:44 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> Well stated - we've found something to agree on. :-)
> 
> That feels so... wrong.

You said it...Damnit, another thing we agree on. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> There was no plot like that before Watchmen.  None at all. 
> 
> But there were plenty before Incredibles. Maybe Incredibles had 
> inspiration from batman or the bible.

There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman or the Bible.

> (I mean, superman *does* get 
> nailed up in the end of the bible, ya know?)

What does that even mean?  Yes, I know you're referring to Jesus.  And I 
know Superman is kind of a jewish messiah interpretation.  Just that 
what you say has no meaning in the context of this dialog.

>> Yes, but the point is:  why The Incredibles had copy-cat all these 
>> same choices
>> of staple fantasy/scifi literature as Watchmen?
> 
> I'm saying that lots and lots of staple fantasy/scifi written before 
> Watchmen had these same elements.

Yes, but not the very same and in the same order as they appear in 
Watchmen.  That constitutes a plot.

>>> 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.
> 
> Nope. That's just murder. Soldiers aren't psycopathic.

Syndrome is not a soldier and his alias should be enough to see he has 
problems.  He was plainly hunting past heroes to feed his Omnidroid robots.

>> There's no bad guy in Watchmen, just human beings and dubious moral 
>> choices.
> 
> Yep. That was kind of my point in the list. They're completely different 
> movies.

Except with a similar plot.

> 
>>> To me, they seem like completely different movies,
>>
>> Watchmen is not a movie.  
> 
> Fine. They seem like completely different stories.  Watchmen the book 
> was even *more* different from Incredibles than Watchmen the movie.

No, it was more equal, since in the movie they replaced the monster in 
the end for another threat.  Perhaps they thought the audience would 
remember The Incredibles?  That can't be:  there's no heroic attempt to 
fight the monster anyway.

>> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...
> 
> Interesting. But as I say, if you also leave out the differences, it's a 
> little easier to line them up.  It's not like you're talking Romeo vs 
> West Side Story here.

I guess you can't trace a similar parallel between the plots for Matrix 
and The Incredibles.

> Put it this way. I don't think Bird said "Hey, let's make a movie that's 
> just like Watchmen, only cheery and family friendly!"

He set out to make a movie about super-heroes.  He had to draw some 
references.  How about the plot of one of the most acclaimed comic books 
in the genre?  How about also some references to some heroes from the 
antagonist publishing house, Marvel?  Fantastic Four is perfect, as they 
already are a family core.  Couple that with some Bond espionage and a 
cheery mood and you have a win...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:16:05 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> well known, nazis don't read.
> 
> I call Godwin's law.  Again.
> 
> Hint:  If you want to be taken seriously, don't engage in name calling.

I don't know how else to state it.  They allow references for Fantastic 
Four, but the simple idea that the plot is similar to that of Watchmen 
isn't allowed, nor in the discussion page.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd 
> better just drop the whole entry altogether.

  You are still confusing "original research" with "hard to prove" or
"doubtful" or whatever.

  It doesn't matter how much the plot in the wikipedia entry for the
Watchmen resembles the plot in the Incredibles entry. They could be
word-for-word identical for all that matters. Claiming that one is
inspired by the other, without giving any valid third-party references,
would still be original research. In other words, the writer of the
encyclopedia giving his own personal opinion.

  You can argue all you want about how similar they are, but you will be
completely missing the point.

  (Another problem with you making the claim, without verifiable sources,
is that your claim might be *false*. That's the problem with original
research: It reflects *your* opinion and/or *your* findings, rather than
the opinion/findings of a wider respectable community of knowlegdeable
people. An encyclopedia is not a journal where you can publish your own
findings or opinions. Moreover, you might be *wrong* altogether.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 5/15/2009 2:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.

> Actually, it isn't.

> Wikipedia has huge credibility issues.

  It's not about crediblity. It's simply that an encyclopedia cannot use
itself as reference in the exact same way as, for example, a scientific
publication cannot use itself as reference. The reference would be
circular and completely invaluable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Publish a paper on it on your website.

> Then, in Wikipedia, reference that paper.

> That should satisfy the "no original research" policy just fine.

  The encyclopedia writer referencing his own work is not much more
credible than the encyclopedia referencing itself.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:34:53 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman

Read 'The Dark Knight Returns'.


> or the Bible.

Read the New Testament.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...
> 
> Your plotline doesn't really match Watchmen, or Incredibles.
> 
> Watchmen didn't have super-heros abounding - they were normal people, 
> except for Jon, who doesn't exactly Abound.

Yes.  You still call Batman, Daredevil or The Phantom a super-hero, 
don't you?

BTW, the first Night Owl looks remarkably similar both to The Phantom 
(mask, hood and smile) and to Robin (scaled underwears, shirts).

>  The government rules them 
> out for different reasons, and those reasons motivate the remaining 
> heroes differently.

They are still ruled out by the government.

> In Watchmen, there are people living normal lives, 
> some in undercover activities, and some working for the government.

Yes, in undercover ops.

> In Incredibles, nobody "discovers" a malign plan hidden on an island

Tell that to Gazerbeam, who even went as far as uncovering a password.

> In Incredibles, nobody goes investigating any conspiracy to 
> kill super heroes - nobody knows they're dead until Mr Incredible finds 
> the bodies.

 From the get-go Mr Incredible is interested in the missing of 
Gazerbeam.  When he finally gets aware of Syndrome's plan, he goes 
investigating and enters the computer room where he finds about all dead 
heroes.

> Rorschach isn't tortured, he's locked in prison.

Mr Incredible is tortured and locked in prison.  Rorschach is -- ok, not 
tortured -- badly beaten by cops.

> It isn't 
> "Fellows" who free Mr Incredible, but his family.

Still his allies.

> You left out all the things in the movies that make them different, as 
> well.

Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.

> Or are you saying it would be difficult to write a plot summary for 
> Watchmen that shares *nothing* with the plot summary above?

You certainly can.

Post a reply to this message