 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
well, just did some basic "brad bird watchmen" googling:
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Bird/Bird_Interview.htm
He's directly confronted with both the Fantastic Four and Watchmen
references. And dismisses them by saying he's more of a "Peanuts" guy
than a "Whoeverman" guy.
The maximum he goes is to acknowledge he's heard of Watchmen before and
is glad that The Incredibles is compared with something that good. He
mentions the super-heroes retirement, but that's all. No mention to the
"no cape", secret Island or huge squid attack on a city.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:37 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how else to state it.
>>
>> Then don't. It's unnecessary, and calling a group of people "a bunch
>> of nazis" doesn't exactly ingratiate you to them (or to others you're
>> trying to convince).
>
> Funny. I only mentioned it here because I seem to recall similar
> anti-wikipedian moderators discussions here before. Nevermind.
Anti-wikipedians can hate each other, too. We're equal opportunity
antists.
--
Misspelled? Impossible. My modem is error correcting.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> well, just did some basic "brad bird watchmen" googling:
>
> http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Bird/Bird_Interview.htm
>
> He's directly confronted with both the Fantastic Four and Watchmen
> references. And dismisses them by saying he's more of a "Peanuts" guy
> than a "Whoeverman" guy.
>
> The maximum he goes is to acknowledge he's heard of Watchmen before and
> is glad that The Incredibles is compared with something that good. He
> mentions the super-heroes retirement, but that's all. No mention to the
> "no cape", secret Island or huge squid attack on a city.
What we have here is a clear case of convergent evolution. With enough
individual plot elements available and enough movies using the same pool
of elements, eventually someone is *going* to, completely at random with
no prior exposure to the other work, choose elements that are similar
enough to it to suggest inspiration.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> He set out to make a movie about super-heroes. He had to draw some
> references.
Sure he had to, but can you prove that he referenced Watchmen?
When Brad Bird himself denies it, then you're left with two stories that
have similarities. NOT one story based on another.
Believe it or not, coincidences DO happen. Given the public zeitgeist,
the idea of a "fallen hero" has been popular for quite some time, and
nostalgia is always a seller. It's no wonder that somebody made a movie
about retired superheroes, whether or not the person who made it has
seen or read Watchmen.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Yes. And West Side Story is not inspired by Romeo and Juliet either
> because of the myriad of small different details...
Except that, there, the author admitted having written it to make Romeo
and Juliet more accessible to modern audiences.
Here, Brad Bird denies that Watchmen was an inspiration.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> He set out to make a movie about super-heroes. He had to draw some
>> references.
>
> Sure he had to, but can you prove that he referenced Watchmen?
>
> When Brad Bird himself denies it, then you're left with two stories that
> have similarities. NOT one story based on another.
>
> Believe it or not, coincidences DO happen. Given the public zeitgeist,
> the idea of a "fallen hero" has been popular for quite some time, and
> nostalgia is always a seller. It's no wonder that somebody made a movie
> about retired superheroes, whether or not the person who made it has
> seen or read Watchmen.
I don't believe in coincidences at all in this case. It's not a "fallen
hero", nor "retired superheroes".
I'll be redundant and repeat it again:
* *outlawed* super-heroes
* a suggested plot to kill past super-heroes
* the villain undergoes a quest for personal heroism by saving the world
from a faked attack to a city with a huge squid monster
* huge squid monster raised on a remote Island
* "no cape"
* "villain" uses cape
I agree with Darren that all but the first 2 are pretty common elements.
What I don't agree is to see all these very same elements together in
the same order as they appear in Watchmen in The Incredibles as well.
Why not other staple elements, or at least in another order?
He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:
* similar name for the heroes (Incredible/Fantastic)
* similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
* a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
* an elastic being (Elastigirl/Mr Fantastic)
* an invisible woman able to create force fields (Violet/Ms. Fantastic)
* a high-energy being (Dash/Human Torch) (actually, Dash has more to do
with The Flash sure)
* a last enemy by the name of Underminer resembles a lot the The Mole
Man, first enemy of FF
Funnily enough, wikipedian moderators allowed the reference to Fantastic
Four, despite no acknowledgment from Bird either. This is what truly
pissed me off about the whole thing. One simply can't list the shared
plot details between The Incredibles and Watchmen, either under
criticism section or even in the talk page.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> What I don't agree is to see all these very same elements together in
> the same order as they appear in Watchmen in The Incredibles as well.
They're not in the same order. Killing the superheros starts and drives
Watchmen, and is almost incidental in Incredibles, well near the end and
already into the rescue phase. Just as an example.
> Why not other staple elements, or at least in another order?
There are a bunch of other staple elements in each that aren't in the other.
Misbehaving young superhero. Forgiveness of past crimes as age progresses.
--
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:
>> What I don't agree is to see all these very same elements together in
>> the same order as they appear in Watchmen in The Incredibles as well.
>
> They're not in the same order. Killing the superheros starts and drives
> Watchmen, and is almost incidental in Incredibles, well near the end and
> already into the rescue phase.
No, Mr. Incredible notices Gazerbeam going missing in a newspaper early
on and even comment it with Frozone while in the car. It does not take
front stage, but is acknowledged to be happening way before the story
starts.
BTW, masked vigilantes killing in Watchmen is just a suggested plot by
Rorschach to explain The Comedian's death. He is truly paranoid. No
previous such killings before nor after, except "career" incidents in
older times, like Dollar Bill's being shot by criminals after the cape
gets entangled in a door, just as other such examples of similar
old-time deaths in The Incredibles. The Incredibles diverged here by
making the suggested plot to be real, just like making supers truly supers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
You looked at one plot, you looked at another plot, you decided they were
similar. That's original research.
You need to quote a reliable source saying the plots are similar, not quote
reliable sources on what the plots are, and making *your* conclusion that
they are similar, or that one was inspired on the other.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> BTW, just found this:
>
http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2009/03/watchmen_vs_the_incredibles.html
Okay, *now* add your stuff back, and cite that blog post.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
