nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> How could he not be aware of this classic?  You know Alan Moore was
> featured in a Simpsons episode?  You know Brad Bird was creative
> consultant to the Simpsons?  No, I don't know if the episode is from
> before or after he left, what I do know is:
> 
> * a super-hero world where heroes are banned is by itself a very
> non-conventional plot for a super-hero story (at least until Watchmen
> got it done)
> * the plot is kicked off when an older hero goes missing (and is found
> to be dead)
> * the villain threatens the world with a fake attack so that he can be
> "heroic"
> * the threat is a huge, monocular monster with tentacles
> * the monster was raised in a remote Island
> * the dead hero was killed because of what the plans he uncovered in the
> Island
> * cape is bad for your health
> 
> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...

Nobody cares how obvious it is. I believe you need to cite sources when you
say water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> 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.

There is no sources for the Fantastic Four similarities either (in fact,
there is a [citation needed] tag), so I just removed it.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...
> 
> Nobody cares how obvious it is. I believe you need to cite sources when you
> say water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

I clarified this already elsewhere:  I tried being more polite a second 
time and just listed the shared plot points in the critics sections 
rather than plainly suggesting inspiration.

Still, the only source I can find is the book itself.  You read it and 
you realize the plots are very similar.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 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.

My conclusion was based on my own experience with both works.  But yes, 
I get your point.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> There is no sources for the Fantastic Four similarities either (in fact,
> there is a [citation needed] tag), so I just removed it.

The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense.  Ok, so 
that's a encyclopedia thing.

The fact that you have to source someone saying:
* 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

rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty 
much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't sound 
credible.

Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference?  A blog entry?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense.  Ok, so  
> that's a encyclopedia thing.

Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are  
collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to said  
facts in order to maintain credibility.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that  
is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has  
already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is  
true."



> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
[snipped list of perceived similarities]
> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty  
> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't sound  
> credible.

There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie  
does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by  
a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B  
can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."



> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference?  A blog entry?

They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and  
even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like "Some  
people have noted similarities...".

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open  
wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not  
acceptable"



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis 
> <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense.  Ok, so 
>> that's a encyclopedia thing.
> 
> Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are 
> collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to 
> said facts in order to maintain credibility.
> 
>  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not 
> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to 
> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether 
> we think it is true."

What could be more verifiable than the work itself?

>> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
> [snipped list of perceived similarities]
>> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty 
>> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't 
>> sound credible.
> 
> There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie 
> does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.

First:  I'm not comparing movies.  I'm comparing the movie The 
Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four. 
I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.

Second:  it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to 
realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar 
uniforms.  How does one quote similar imagery?  It's just needed common 
sense.  Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at 
wikipedia itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity 
between uniforms and super-powers?

>  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
> "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published 
> by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A 
> and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."
 >
>> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference?  A blog entry?
> 
> They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and 
> even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like 
> "Some people have noted similarities...".

Exactly.  I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both 
works would gain much relevance.  They only allow it from the mouths of 
the creator or from cinema critics who don't know much about comics. 
Despite any evidence or even images.

>  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, 
> open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not 
> acceptable"

Indeed.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:04:25 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...
>> 
>> Nobody cares how obvious it is. I believe you need to cite sources when
>> you say water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
> 
> I clarified this already elsewhere:  I tried being more polite a second
> time and just listed the shared plot points in the critics sections
> rather than plainly suggesting inspiration.

Maybe they decided that since you'd already tried one version that came 
out and said it was the inspiration without documentation that further 
attempts would be non-objective.

> Still, the only source I can find is the book itself.  You read it and
> you realize the plots are very similar.

"Similar" and "inspired by" are two different things.  We've been over 
that before.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to
>> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether
>> we think it is true."
> 
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?

The work doesn't state its inspiration.  The work is the work, not a 
"making of the work" work.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:19 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?

The work itself does not provide any comparison to other works.



> First:  I'm not comparing movies.  I'm comparing the movie The  
> Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four.  
> I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.

Irrelevant. There are no such comparisons in the comics either.



> Second:  it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to  
> realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar  
> uniforms.  How does one quote similar imagery?  It's just needed common  
> sense.

Again, encyclopedias are not about "common sense".

*You* have looked at the movies/comics.
*You* have noticed similarities.
That is called "original research", in this case performed by you. Unless  
you can get this "research" published in a credible medium, you will need  
other sources to back up your claims.

The fact that others may share your opinion is irrelevant, unless one of  
them gets it published in a credible medium.



> Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at wikipedia  
> itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity between  
> uniforms and super-powers?

Because similarity is a matter of opinion. Also, an encyclopedia cannot  
credibly cite itself.



> I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both works would  
> gain much relevance.

Because they are not considered credible. Neither are you, for much the  
same reason.


> They only allow it from the mouths of the creator or from cinema critics  
> who don't know much about comics.

Citing the creator is only credible if the point you are backing up is  
"The creator said...".

Citing movie critics is only credible if the point you are backing up is  
"Some movie critics are of the opinion that...".


> Despite any evidence or even images.

An encyclopedia is not the proper medium for presenting evidence.




-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message