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?

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Really, that's not original, non-verifiable research

  Some actual references would probably help proving that.

  "Original research" doesn't mean "hard to prove" or "questionable".
It means that you gave no references to other respectable sources to base
your text on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Really, that's not original, non-verifiable research
> 
>   Some actual references would probably help proving that.
> 
>   "Original research" doesn't mean "hard to prove" or "questionable".
> It means that you gave no references to other respectable sources to base
> your text on.

I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry.  Yeah, not respectable at all.

Strange trying to find out about Watchmen.  The DC site says nothing:
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/watchmen/?action=graphic_novel

Not even a basic overview or something.  Why should such an iconic work 
deserve one after all?

And Amazon is pretty much all about consumer review, surely not 
respectable, despite statistics:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Alan-Moore/dp/0930289234

Don't know where else to try.  Shouldn't they just read the damn thing 
to get references?  How do they allow for articles on books anyway? 
It's a well-known plot, it's even one of Time magazine's top 100 20th 
century books:
http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/0,24459,watchmen,00.html


BTW, only right now, some 20 years later I read it.  I needed to, in 
order to watch the movie.  Just like with The Lord of the Rings. 
There's a pile of literature that movies just keep prompting me to read 
and that's the best this industry has to offer, because otherwise the 
original works are superior in every respect.

Bland, superficial and Hollywoodian takes like Zack Snyder's port or The 
Incredible's "homage" truly don't make that masterpiece any justice.  I 
don't quite understand why I didn't pick it up then, I read Frank 
Miller's Batman:  The return of the Dark Knight by that same time frame...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

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".

And Wikipedia itself is not an acceptable source for content added to
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_source_information_from_Wikipedia

Post a reply to this message

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?

"Excuse me, Mr. President, in the dictionary under 'redundant' it says 
'see redundant'." -- Robin Williams

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

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...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:16:51 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd
> better just drop the whole entry altogether.

Well, I don't know the plot.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I don't know for sure, but it might well be an administrative thing - 
they say they can't accept other wikipedia pages as references because 
you could end up with a situation where two articles make assertions and 
reference each other (and only each other), and since they've said "dem's 
da rules", they can't let it go because it opens the door for other 
abuses.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 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."

A whole lot of very unconventional plot points.  See my reply above.

I don't think that's mere coincidence.

Besides, I don't think Brad Bird would go on and admit a ripping like that.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:22:46 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> 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?

My comment has nothing to do with that.  You reduced it to "what a bunch 
of nazis", so I called Godwin's law.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:16:51 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd
>> better just drop the whole entry altogether.
> 
> Well, I don't know the plot.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.
> 
> I don't know for sure, but it might well be an administrative thing - 
> they say they can't accept other wikipedia pages as references because 
> you could end up with a situation where two articles make assertions and 
> reference each other (and only each other), and since they've said "dem's 
> da rules", they can't let it go because it opens the door for other 
> abuses.

Ok, I can accept that.  I just can't accept that they may allow 
references in the discussion page for Fantastic Four but not for 
Watchmen.  Something gotta hurt, I guess...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:15:04 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:16:51 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> 
>>> If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd
>>> better just drop the whole entry altogether.
>> 
>> Well, I don't know the plot.  I'm sure I'm not the only one.
>> 
>> I don't know for sure, but it might well be an administrative thing -
>> they say they can't accept other wikipedia pages as references because
>> you could end up with a situation where two articles make assertions
>> and reference each other (and only each other), and since they've said
>> "dem's da rules", they can't let it go because it opens the door for
>> other abuses.
> 
> Ok, I can accept that.  I just can't accept that they may allow
> references in the discussion page for Fantastic Four but not for
> Watchmen.  Something gotta hurt, I guess...

<shrug>  It's their system, they can moderate it and manage it how they 
like....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:07:34 -0300, 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...

Get your fork out, apparently it isn't.  There's nothing *substantiated* 
there, just a bunch of guesses.

Star Wars, The Belgariad, and Dune, and Magician:Apprentice (and its 
sequels) all have a common plot - the world is in trouble and then saved 
by a messiah character.  That doesn't mean they were inspired by the 
Bible (or that any of their authors read the Bible or were even inspired 
by it).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:07:34 -0300, 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...
> 
> Get your fork out, apparently it isn't.  There's nothing *substantiated* 
> there, just a bunch of guesses.
> 
> Star Wars, The Belgariad, and Dune, and Magician:Apprentice (and its 
> sequels) all have a common plot - the world is in trouble and then saved 
> by a messiah character.  That doesn't mean they were inspired by the 
> Bible (or that any of their authors read the Bible or were even inspired 
> by it).

Did you actually read what I wrote.  It's not a generic set of plot 
points, they are very specific and "awkward" set of plot points 
identical in both works.

You may not be aware of it, but Watchmen is a very known super-hero 
classic.  It was also the only comic book in Time magazine's list of 100 
most significant XX century books.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a0dd1e9@news.povray.org...

> 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 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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

may be.  I'll try to rework it then...

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a0e1da3@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:

> > You can say "the film shares plot points with Watchmen."  I don't htink
> > you've justified "the film was inspired by Watchmen."

> A whole lot of very unconventional plot points.  See my reply above.
>
> I don't think that's mere coincidence.

That's not an encyclopedic wording. You never want to read opinion pieces
from encycpedia authors, you don't even want to feel that there's a human
author behind an entry.

> Besides, I don't think Brad Bird would go on and admit a ripping like
that.

If there's no hard evidence or prior research, your option is to publish
your analysis somewhere respectable, and then add it to Wikipedia.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> If there's no hard evidence or prior research, your option is to publish
> your analysis somewhere respectable, and then add it to Wikipedia.

So, those very distinct and unconventional plot points I listed offer 
absolutely no evidence at all?  The fact that Watchmen is one of the 
most respectable and influential comics ever and we're talking here 
about comics creators and animators who no doubt are aware of each other 
works is of no relevancy either?  Ok.

Anyway, this was not invention of mine, many other people who *know* 
Watchmen saw the similarities.  I was just pointing out them.

Post a reply to this message

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?

It doesn't matter. If you assert Bird was inspired, you would need to give a 
reference to it. They're saying you are doing original research. I agree 
with their opinion because the rest of your message is arguing that your 
original research is plausible or even likely.

> what I do know is:

... a whole list of things which have nothing to do with Bird or his thought 
processes.

> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...

I think it's enough for your link. That isn't the point.

Did you figure this link out yourself? Or did you read about it somewhere?

If the former, it's original research. If the latter, provide the citation. 
It seems pretty easy to me. :-)

-- 
   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:
> I don't think that's mere coincidence.

Then it's original research. If *you* think it's not mere coincidence, you 
don't have a citation.

> Besides, I don't think Brad Bird would go on and admit a ripping like that.

So not only is it original research, you're admitting the unlikeliness that 
there even *is* a citation you don't know about.

I suspect if you had a paragraph starting "The Incredibles shares a striking 
number of plot elements with Watchmen," and you took it out of the 
"inspiration" part, it might fly. But "inspiration" isn't about how many 
plot points it shares. It's about the thought processes of the author.

-- 
   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:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:07:34 -0300, 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...
>>
>> Get your fork out, apparently it isn't.  There's nothing 
>> *substantiated* there, just a bunch of guesses.
>>
>> Star Wars, The Belgariad, and Dune, and Magician:Apprentice (and its 
>> sequels) all have a common plot - the world is in trouble and then 
>> saved by a messiah character.  That doesn't mean they were inspired by 
>> the Bible (or that any of their authors read the Bible or were even 
>> inspired by it).
> 
> Did you actually read what I wrote.  It's not a generic set of plot 
> points, they are very specific and "awkward" set of plot points 
> identical in both works.
> 
> You may not be aware of it, but Watchmen is a very known super-hero 
> classic.  It was also the only comic book in Time magazine's list of 100 
> most significant XX century books.

actually, a list of top 100 all-time English-language novels.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> If there's no hard evidence or prior research, your option is to publish
>> your analysis somewhere respectable, and then add it to Wikipedia.
> 
> So, those very distinct and unconventional plot points I listed offer 
> absolutely no evidence at all? 

THAT ISN'T THE POINT!

They *are* evidence. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But it's ORIGINAL 
RESEARCH.  *You* calculated the probability that Watchmen serves as an 
inspiration to Bird.  It's not something Bird said. It's not something where 
your analysis appears anywhere outside of Wikipedia. That isn't how an 
encyclopedia works.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bird himself went in and wrote that he was 
inspired by Watchmen, and the comment was removed for the same reason.

-- 
   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:
>> 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?
> 
> It doesn't matter. If you assert Bird was inspired, you would need to 
> give a reference to it.

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.

>> 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.

> Did you figure this link out yourself? Or did you read about it somewhere?

I heard about it before.  Then now I finally read the graphic novel and 
it indeed is as it is.  Except gritty and mature rather than a, well, 
comic parody.

> If the former, it's original research. If the latter, provide the 
> citation. It seems pretty easy to me. :-)

There's no citation.  There's a plot which is similar in both works, 
down to every relevant detail.

Forget it, perhaps because of my alias you guys just love to have an 
argument with me whatever the reason.  If I came here and said:  "Hey, 
just watched Watchmen and it is a bland copycat of Pixar's The 
Incredibles" you'd all be picking up a fight on how the venerable and 
influential graphic novel was here eons before Pixar was even known...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> somebody wrote:
>>> If there's no hard evidence or prior research, your option is to publish
>>> your analysis somewhere respectable, and then add it to Wikipedia.
>>
>> So, those very distinct and unconventional plot points I listed offer 
>> absolutely no evidence at all? 
> 
> THAT ISN'T THE POINT!
> 
> They *are* evidence. Nobody is disagreeing with that. But it's ORIGINAL 
> RESEARCH.  *You* calculated the probability that Watchmen serves as an 
> inspiration to Bird.  It's not something Bird said.

Bird will not say that.  He'll say he's taken the idea from his own 
family.  Like it is said in the wikipedia entry.  Yeah, right on the 
mark:  banned heroes, heroes being hunted and eliminated, a villain 
posing of hero by a fake attack with a gigantic monster... all pretty 
familiar scenes.  The kind of thing one can expect from liars.

So, another guy above was telling that Star Wars, Matrix and others have 
all pretty generic plots revolving around religious themes.  How can he 
know that?  Did he see George Lucas ever telling it??

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.

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.  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.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 01:09:45 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> It doesn't matter. If you assert Bird was inspired, you would need to
>> give a reference to it.
> 
> Yes, I gave a reference to it.  The plot of Watchmen.

That is not a reference.  A reference would be, as Darren said, citing an 
article where Brad Bird stated that he was inspired by Watchmen.

Otherwise, it's just a guess on your part.  Guesses aren't citable 
references, no matter how canny you think the similarities are.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 23:34:16 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> Star Wars, The Belgariad, and Dune, and Magician:Apprentice (and its
>> sequels) all have a common plot - the world is in trouble and then
>> saved by a messiah character.  That doesn't mean they were inspired by
>> the Bible (or that any of their authors read the Bible or were even
>> inspired by it).
> 
> Did you actually read what I wrote.  

Yes.

> It's not a generic set of plot
> points, they are very specific and "awkward" set of plot points
> identical in both works.

That doesn't matter.  If you want to say Bird was inspired by Watchmen, 
cite a reference where he says that was the case.  Otherwise, it's a 
guess.  It may be a good guess, but it's still a guess.

> You may not be aware of it, but Watchmen is a very known super-hero
> classic.  It was also the only comic book in Time magazine's list of 100
> most significant XX century books.

I am aware of what it is, but that's not relevant to making that 
assertion.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 00:53:29 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>> You may not be aware of it, but Watchmen is a very known super-hero
>> classic.  It was also the only comic book in Time magazine's list of
>> 100 most significant XX century books.
> 
> actually, a list of top 100 all-time English-language novels.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion.  It wouldn't matter if it was the 
Bible, you'd still need a source rather than an educated guess.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Besides, I don't think Brad Bird would go on and admit a ripping like 
>> that.
> 
> So not only is it original research, you're admitting the unlikeliness 
> that there even *is* a citation you don't know about.

There's no citation for that, that's for sure.  There's a plot which is 
largely shared by both, that's for sure too.

> I suspect if you had a paragraph starting "The Incredibles shares a 
> striking number of plot elements with Watchmen," and you took it out of 
> the "inspiration" part, it might fly. But "inspiration" isn't about how 
> many plot points it shares. It's about the thought processes of the author.

ok, point taken.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 01:25:40 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>  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.

The fact is that it doesn't matter if you or we see the similarities.

What matters is a citeable source for that assertion.  Since you are 
providing original research which may or may not prove the point, it 
needs to be published somewhere before Wikipedia will accept it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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