"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a10508b$1@news.povray.org...

[...]

> He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:

> * similar name for the heroes (Incredible/Fantastic)

I take it "Average Joe" was taken.

> * similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)

Besides being both super-dorky, as is common to the genre, how are these
uniforms in any way or form similar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiposter.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watchmencharacters.jpg

> * a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)

A super-strong being in the super hero comic. What are the odds!

I don't doubt there are similarities. And you might be even correct about
direct inspiration. But it's probably next to impossible to prove anything
within such a formula based genre. I am afraid it looks like you are letting
your good judgement be clouded by your contempt for Disney and adoration of
Moore.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4a10508b$1@news.povray.org...
>> He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:
>> * similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
> 
> Besides being both super-dorky, as is common to the genre, how are these
> uniforms in any way or form similar?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiposter.jpg
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watchmencharacters.jpg

I was talking in the context of Fantastic Four.

>> * a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
> 
> A super-strong being in the super hero comic. What are the odds!

The odds are as low as finding one right next to an elastic one and an 
invisible force-field generating another in the very same quartet with a 
very similar dorky costume design.

> I don't doubt there are similarities. And you might be even correct about
> direct inspiration. But it's probably next to impossible to prove anything
> within such a formula based genre. I am afraid it looks like you are letting
> your good judgement be clouded by your contempt for Disney and adoration of
> Moore.

Fantastic Four has nothing to do with Moore.  It was Marvel Comics first 
successful comic book and has spanned a well-known comics doomsday saga 
in the form of the Galactus/Silver Surfer one.

I just find it truly hard to believe people would go on to create a 
super-heroes animation and not pay homage to/be aware of some of the 
best known works in the genre, that's all.

And there's far more comic book references one can distil, for instance:
* the villain Bomb Voyage looks a lot like Batman's The Joker down to 
the large maniacal smile;
* Frozone has similar powers to X-Man Iceman.  This is acknowledged in 
wikipedia, despite no references.
* Gazerbeam has similar powers and similar mask to X-Man Cyclops. 
Someone removed the similarity I one saw in wikipedia.
* Rick Dicker, a government agent in The Incredibles looks a lot like 
Richard Nixon, which is a prominent figure and still in power in 
Watchmen's alternate universe.  The name itself sounds like a pun.
* Mirage has the looks of X-Man Tempest
* Mr Incredible and Frozone are seen remembering old times in the car by 
laughing over old villains.  This scene is pretty much the same as in 
the opening chapter of Watchmen, with retired Nite Owl and Nite Owl II 
having a similar talk.  Page 9 to be exact.  You can read this one in 
chapter one of Watchmen for free on DC's own site:
http://www.dccomics.com/media/excerpts/1462_1.pdf

But I was only interested in Watchmen so far because it turns out I only 
read it now before going to see the movie.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying 
to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to 
list the plot points similarities, right?  Which is not possible, either.

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> 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.

Fine.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:03:39 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> I just find it truly hard to believe people would go on to create a
> super-heroes animation and not pay homage to/be aware of some of the
> best known works in the genre, that's all.

"hard to believe" isn't proof, though.  You seem to be missing that point 
- belief != proof.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:05:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
> to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
> list the plot points similarities, right?  Which is not possible,
> either.

Yeah, and apparently because you started by trying to say "this proves 
it", they've rejected those edits as well, perhaps thinking you're trying 
to sneak your "proof of inspiration" in the back door by starting with 
something less declarative in the hopes that later you (or someone else) 
will be able to make a minor edit that changes it back to being proven.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:05:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> 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.
>> I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
>> to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
>> list the plot points similarities, right?  Which is not possible,
>> either.
> 
> Yeah, and apparently because you started by trying to say "this proves 
> it", they've rejected those edits as well, perhaps thinking you're trying 
> to sneak your "proof of inspiration" in the back door by starting with 
> something less declarative in the hopes that later you (or someone else) 
> will be able to make a minor edit that changes it back to being proven.

Anyone of you may try it and see if it works.  I just lost respect 
altogether for wikipedia and Pixar to care.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.

I think I'll just leave this with the comment that I think you're wrong, I 
don't think Watchmen and Incredibles had much in common. You cherry pick a 
handful of similarities and ignore the overall plot, mood, and 
characterization, the elements that make each of these works memorable. 
Neither of these works is a plot-driven story, so comparing similarities in 
the plots is pointless given the differences in the important parts.

-- 
   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:
>> Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.
> 
> I think I'll just leave this with the comment that I think you're wrong, 
> I don't think Watchmen and Incredibles had much in common. You cherry 
> pick a handful of similarities

Yes, my point was exactly to list the *striking* similarities, not the 
differences.

> and ignore the overall plot, mood, and 
> characterization, the elements that make each of these works memorable. 
> Neither of these works is a plot-driven story, so comparing similarities 
> in the plots is pointless given the differences in the important parts.

You're very right in that, indeed.  They are multi-faceted gems, 
beautiful to look at from various different angles.

I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to 
dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by 
himself.  But it doesn't matter:  wikipedia is a revisionists dream, 
since it only points to official positions from official mouths.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by 
> himself. 

Oddly enough, I don't see anything in the wikipedia article that says Bird 
is a genius or that he came up with the ideas himself.

 > But it doesn't matter:  wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
> since it only points to official positions from official mouths.

Gee, sounds like an encyclopedia to me!  Funny, that.

-- 
   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