 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
4a10babe@news.povray.org...
> 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.
Hey, I just noticed something about the Incredibles:
- Apparently normal American suburban family who goes through extraordinary
adventures
- Slightly pudgy, not so smart, lovable father, stuck in a boring job with
an abusive boss
- Hyperbusy homemaking mom
- Hyperenergetic, hot-headed teenage son
- Nerdy, socially awkward teenage daughter
- Non-talking baby with no special powers (except when needed)
Rings a bell?
The Simpsons...
And guess who was part of the original Simpsons developing team, directed
some episodes and served as an executive producer for 181 episodes between
1989 and 1997?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh heh heh.
http://terminatorguide.webs.com/T3special.htm
Of course, in that case...
--
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 escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
> > 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.
Does not sound like a user-fed wiki to me, though. If all I can do is
parrot official mouths from Disney, I don't feel there's any use for my
knowledge on any specific subject. There was a time where one could do
just that. I suspect the majority of wikipedia was initially built that
way and now that the base is already there, there's no more space for
grass-roots wiki editing...
BTW, perhaps Nicolas Alvarez should take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Incredibles_characters
there's plenty of unsourced statements there about similarities with
long-known super-hero characters for him to apply his revisionism.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escreveu:
> 4a10babe@news.povray.org...
>> 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.
>
> Hey, I just noticed something about the Incredibles:
> - Apparently normal American suburban family who goes through extraordinary
> adventures
> - Slightly pudgy, not so smart, lovable father, stuck in a boring job with
> an abusive boss
> - Hyperbusy homemaking mom
> - Hyperenergetic, hot-headed teenage son
> - Nerdy, socially awkward teenage daughter
> - Non-talking baby with no special powers (except when needed)
>
> Rings a bell?
>
> The Simpsons...
>
> And guess who was part of the original Simpsons developing team, directed
> some episodes and served as an executive producer for 181 episodes between
> 1989 and 1997?
yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Heh heh heh.
>
> http://terminatorguide.webs.com/T3special.htm
>
> Of course, in that case...
That's nothing: the whole Back to the Future trilogy is a lucrative
rehash of the very same first movie plot, except one in the future and
another in the far past. Blowderized, puerile, rehashed entertainment
is really all Hollywood is about.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> BTW, perhaps Nicolas Alvarez should take a look at this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Incredibles_characters
>
> there's plenty of unsourced statements there about similarities with
> long-known super-hero characters for him to apply his revisionism.
The tag to add is {{fact}} (expands as a superscript "[citation needed]").
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> That's nothing: the whole Back to the Future trilogy is a lucrative
> rehash of the very same first movie plot, except one in the future and
> another in the far past. Blowderized, puerile, rehashed entertainment
> is really all Hollywood is about.
Except, in the case of Back to the Future, it was done in a deliberate,
tongue-in-cheek manner. "History repeats itself", and so forth.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
Another parody? In a movie that's a parody of,
everybody-knows-it's-a-parody,-that's-how-it-was-marketed, the superhero
and comedy genres?
*GASP*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
>
> Another parody? In a movie that's a parody of,
> everybody-knows-it's-a-parody,-that's-how-it-was-marketed, the superhero
> and comedy genres?
Everybody but Bird, who doesn't acknowledge any of the crystal-clear
visible influences in his subject of choice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Does not sound like a user-fed wiki to me, though.
And that's why your original research gets rejected: it's a user-fed wiki
being used as an encyclopedia, so when users feed it things that shouldn't
be in an encyclopedia, it gets deleted. See how that works?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
