"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

Publish a paper on it on your website.

Then, in Wikipedia, reference that paper.

That should satisfy the "no original research" policy just fine.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/15/2009 2:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.

Actually, it isn't.

Wikipedia has huge credibility issues.  With all the blatant lying, 
fanaticism, and laziness on the part of its contributors, a great deal 
of the content on it is just plain inaccurate.  Several of my professors 
have repeatedly stated that referencing Wikipedia in any way in a paper 
will result in an instant fail grade for that paper.

As such, Wikipedia wants to improve their image, and one of their 
requirements is that all claims be backed up with legitimate, outside 
references.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/15/2009 7:07 PM, nemesis wrote:
> 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:

Maybe you should put a disclaimer in, stating that "the striking 
similarity between the two plots has lead some to speculate that Brad 
Bird was inspired by the classic graphic novel, Watchmen.  This, 
however, remains unconfirmed."

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/15/2009 7:12 PM, Jim Henderson 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).

Actually, I saw an interview with George Lucas once where he pretty much 
stated that Star Wars was inspired by the Bible.  His whole point in 
making it was, "What if Jesus turned bad?"  Of course, it took him more 
than 20 years to really finish the whole story, but that's beside the 
point...

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> *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*

*throws a granade*

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> 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 

That's, I guess, a nice link from a "credible" source.  Thanks.

> Still, it probably belongs in the critics section...

Yeah, I tried it but it got deleted again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Incredibles&oldid=290239216#Critics

I just said it shared many similarities to the plot of Watchmen.  But is 
well known, nazis don't read.

> 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

How about outlawed super-heroes?  It's been told and retold ever since 
Watchmen, not before it.  It's in The Incredibles, Hancock and possibly 
more...

As Alan Moore himself noticed:  "The gritty, deconstructivist postmodern 
superhero comic, as exemplified by Watchmen, also became a genre."
http://www.avclub.com/articles/alan-moore,13821/

> 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.

I heard before of a french author of child books claiming his book about 
a little clown-fish called Pierrot was adapted into Nemo without his 
consent.  Now I'll be more weary of Pixar "story-first" approach...

> 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.

Indeed.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> There was no plot like that before Watchmen.  None at all. 

But there were plenty before Incredibles. Maybe Incredibles had inspiration 
from batman or the bible.  (I mean, superman *does* get nailed up in the end 
of the bible, ya know?)

>> 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.

So maybe Incredibles took that from Bond, not Watchmen. See?

> 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.

Perhaps.

> Yes, but the point is:  why The Incredibles had copy-cat all these same choices
> of staple fantasy/scifi literature as Watchmen?

I'm saying that lots and lots of staple fantasy/scifi written before 
Watchmen had these same elements.

>> 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?

Nobody goes looking for the bad guy in Incredibles. I don't know how else to 
describe it. Nobody is hunting for the bad guy.

>> 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.

No such need in a comic book either. I think you may have missed the entire 
point of Watchmen, which was basically "what happens when a normal person 
tries to be heroic?"  Remember the whole pirate ship subplot?

>> Watchmen: lots of internal moral conflict. Incredibles: little to none.
>> Watchmen: Rape. Incredibles: No rape.
> 
> Family movie.

No. No need for it given the plot. Incredibles wouldn't have been improved 
by the inclusion of a rape that was left out to make it PG.

>> Watchmen: Prison break.  Incredibles: No prison break.
> Sure there's a prison break in Incredibles.

Breaking out of the bad guy's prison? I don't know that counts. I don't 
remember breaking out of the real authority's prison.

>> Watchmen: Cancer.  Incredibles: No cancer.
> What about that mutating kid?  Sure does not sound healthy in the long term...

Hmmm. I don't remember a mutating kid, but it's been a while since I saw the 
movie. Or do you mean the baby at the end? That's just his super power.

>> 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.

I should have said "potential thermonuclear annihilation" but it wouldn't 
fit on one line. :-)

>> 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.

Maybe. It's clearly left up in the air.

>> Watchmen: No babies kidnapped.  Incredibles: Babies kidnapped.
> Worse: children murdered.

Errr, in which?

>> Watchmen: Disfunctional families. Incredibles: Happily married families.
> Sure.  It's a family movie.

It's not like he left out the disfunctional family part to make it a family 
movie. It was a family movie whose plot wouldn't be advanced in any way by 
the presence of disfunctional families.

>> 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.

Nope. That's just murder. Soldiers aren't psycopathic.

> There's no bad guy in Watchmen, just human beings and dubious moral choices.

Yep. That was kind of my point in the list. They're completely different 
movies.

>> To me, they seem like completely different movies,
> 
> Watchmen is not a movie.  

Fine. They seem like completely different stories.  Watchmen the book was 
even *more* different from Incredibles than Watchmen the movie.

> The finale is also very different from the comic book and the long fight with a
> villainous Ozymandias completely unnecessary and dork.  

That was actually in the book, except that Oz won by being smarter instead 
of faster.

> He has no super-powers as the movie pictures it.  

Well, he *does* catch a bullet in the book, etc. It's overdone in the movie, 
tho, yes.

> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...

Interesting. But as I say, if you also leave out the differences, it's a 
little easier to line them up.  It's not like you're talking Romeo vs West 
Side Story here.


Put it this way. I don't think Bird said "Hey, let's make a movie that's 
just like Watchmen, only cheery and family friendly!"

-- 
   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

On Sat, 16 May 2009 01:55:13 -0300, nemesis wrote:

> The fact is that the plots are too damn similar and it should be listed
> there, encyclopedically.

You misunderstand the point of an encyclopedia, because the fact is that 
"similar" is not sufficient.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:38:54 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> On 5/15/2009 7:12 PM, Jim Henderson 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).
> 
> Actually, I saw an interview with George Lucas once where he pretty much
> stated that Star Wars was inspired by the Bible.  His whole point in
> making it was, "What if Jesus turned bad?"  Of course, it took him more
> than 20 years to really finish the whole story, but that's beside the
> point...

I could believe that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:16:05 -0300, nemesis wrote:

>  But is
> well known, nazis don't read.

I call Godwin's law.  Again.

Hint:  If you want to be taken seriously, don't engage in name calling.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...

Your plotline doesn't really match Watchmen, or Incredibles.

Watchmen didn't have super-heros abounding - they were normal people, except 
for Jon, who doesn't exactly Abound.  The government rules them out for 
different reasons, and those reasons motivate the remaining heroes 
differently. In Watchmen, there are people living normal lives, some in 
undercover activities, and some working for the government. In Incredibles, 
nobody "discovers" a malign plan hidden on an island- Mr Incredible is 
invited to participate in the plan and does so unwittingly. In Incredibles, 
nobody goes investigating any conspiracy to kill super heroes - nobody knows 
they're dead until Mr Incredible finds the bodies. Rorschach isn't tortured, 
he's locked in prison. It isn't "Fellows" who free Mr Incredible, but his 
family.

You left out all the things in the movies that make them different, as well. 
Like, the whole theme of good vs bad, the moral of the story, the 
motivations, the personalities, and everything else that makes Incredibles a 
child's movie and Watchmen an adult's movie. You left out the coming-of-age 
bit with the kids, the turning of the loyalties of the kid's henchwoman in 
Incredibles, etc.

Or are you saying it would be difficult to write a plot summary for Watchmen 
that shares *nothing* with the plot summary above?

Altho I will say, unlike some here, you *do* seem to be able to admit you 
*might* be a little bit wrong, or at least that there might be multiple 
perspectives, or I wouldn't have even bothered this far. :-)

-- 
   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" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0e4160@news.povray.org...
> 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. :-)

That feels so... wrong.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 12:24:44 -0600, somebody wrote:

>> Well stated - we've found something to agree on. :-)
> 
> That feels so... wrong.

You said it...Damnit, another thing we agree on. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> There was no plot like that before Watchmen.  None at all. 
> 
> But there were plenty before Incredibles. Maybe Incredibles had 
> inspiration from batman or the bible.

There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman or the Bible.

> (I mean, superman *does* get 
> nailed up in the end of the bible, ya know?)

What does that even mean?  Yes, I know you're referring to Jesus.  And I 
know Superman is kind of a jewish messiah interpretation.  Just that 
what you say has no meaning in the context of this dialog.

>> Yes, but the point is:  why The Incredibles had copy-cat all these 
>> same choices
>> of staple fantasy/scifi literature as Watchmen?
> 
> I'm saying that lots and lots of staple fantasy/scifi written before 
> Watchmen had these same elements.

Yes, but not the very same and in the same order as they appear in 
Watchmen.  That constitutes a plot.

>>> 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.
> 
> Nope. That's just murder. Soldiers aren't psycopathic.

Syndrome is not a soldier and his alias should be enough to see he has 
problems.  He was plainly hunting past heroes to feed his Omnidroid robots.

>> There's no bad guy in Watchmen, just human beings and dubious moral 
>> choices.
> 
> Yep. That was kind of my point in the list. They're completely different 
> movies.

Except with a similar plot.

> 
>>> To me, they seem like completely different movies,
>>
>> Watchmen is not a movie.  
> 
> Fine. They seem like completely different stories.  Watchmen the book 
> was even *more* different from Incredibles than Watchmen the movie.

No, it was more equal, since in the movie they replaced the monster in 
the end for another threat.  Perhaps they thought the audience would 
remember The Incredibles?  That can't be:  there's no heroic attempt to 
fight the monster anyway.

>> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...
> 
> Interesting. But as I say, if you also leave out the differences, it's a 
> little easier to line them up.  It's not like you're talking Romeo vs 
> West Side Story here.

I guess you can't trace a similar parallel between the plots for Matrix 
and The Incredibles.

> Put it this way. I don't think Bird said "Hey, let's make a movie that's 
> just like Watchmen, only cheery and family friendly!"

He set out to make a movie about super-heroes.  He had to draw some 
references.  How about the plot of one of the most acclaimed comic books 
in the genre?  How about also some references to some heroes from the 
antagonist publishing house, Marvel?  Fantastic Four is perfect, as they 
already are a family core.  Couple that with some Bond espionage and a 
cheery mood and you have a win...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:16:05 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> well known, nazis don't read.
> 
> I call Godwin's law.  Again.
> 
> Hint:  If you want to be taken seriously, don't engage in name calling.

I don't know how else to state it.  They allow references for Fantastic 
Four, but the simple idea that the plot is similar to that of Watchmen 
isn't allowed, nor in the discussion page.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> If the plot in the Watchmen entry can't be taken for granted, they'd 
> better just drop the whole entry altogether.

  You are still confusing "original research" with "hard to prove" or
"doubtful" or whatever.

  It doesn't matter how much the plot in the wikipedia entry for the
Watchmen resembles the plot in the Incredibles entry. They could be
word-for-word identical for all that matters. Claiming that one is
inspired by the other, without giving any valid third-party references,
would still be original research. In other words, the writer of the
encyclopedia giving his own personal opinion.

  You can argue all you want about how similar they are, but you will be
completely missing the point.

  (Another problem with you making the claim, without verifiable sources,
is that your claim might be *false*. That's the problem with original
research: It reflects *your* opinion and/or *your* findings, rather than
the opinion/findings of a wider respectable community of knowlegdeable
people. An encyclopedia is not a journal where you can publish your own
findings or opinions. Moreover, you might be *wrong* altogether.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> On 5/15/2009 2:30 PM, nemesis wrote:
> > I gave wikipedia's own Watchmen entry. Yeah, not respectable at all.

> Actually, it isn't.

> Wikipedia has huge credibility issues.

  It's not about crediblity. It's simply that an encyclopedia cannot use
itself as reference in the exact same way as, for example, a scientific
publication cannot use itself as reference. The reference would be
circular and completely invaluable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Publish a paper on it on your website.

> Then, in Wikipedia, reference that paper.

> That should satisfy the "no original research" policy just fine.

  The encyclopedia writer referencing his own work is not much more
credible than the encyclopedia referencing itself.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:34:53 +0200, nemesis  
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman

Read 'The Dark Knight Returns'.


> or the Bible.

Read the New Testament.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> The Incredibles or Watchmen?  your choice...
> 
> Your plotline doesn't really match Watchmen, or Incredibles.
> 
> Watchmen didn't have super-heros abounding - they were normal people, 
> except for Jon, who doesn't exactly Abound.

Yes.  You still call Batman, Daredevil or The Phantom a super-hero, 
don't you?

BTW, the first Night Owl looks remarkably similar both to The Phantom 
(mask, hood and smile) and to Robin (scaled underwears, shirts).

>  The government rules them 
> out for different reasons, and those reasons motivate the remaining 
> heroes differently.

They are still ruled out by the government.

> In Watchmen, there are people living normal lives, 
> some in undercover activities, and some working for the government.

Yes, in undercover ops.

> In Incredibles, nobody "discovers" a malign plan hidden on an island

Tell that to Gazerbeam, who even went as far as uncovering a password.

> In Incredibles, nobody goes investigating any conspiracy to 
> kill super heroes - nobody knows they're dead until Mr Incredible finds 
> the bodies.

 From the get-go Mr Incredible is interested in the missing of 
Gazerbeam.  When he finally gets aware of Syndrome's plan, he goes 
investigating and enters the computer room where he finds about all dead 
heroes.

> Rorschach isn't tortured, he's locked in prison.

Mr Incredible is tortured and locked in prison.  Rorschach is -- ok, not 
tortured -- badly beaten by cops.

> It isn't 
> "Fellows" who free Mr Incredible, but his family.

Still his allies.

> You left out all the things in the movies that make them different, as 
> well.

Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.

> Or are you saying it would be difficult to write a plot summary for 
> Watchmen that shares *nothing* with the plot summary above?

You certainly can.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (Another problem with you making the claim, without verifiable sources,
> is that your claim might be *false*. That's the problem with original
> research: It reflects *your* opinion and/or *your* findings, rather than
> the opinion/findings of a wider respectable community of knowlegdeable
> people. An encyclopedia is not a journal where you can publish your own
> findings or opinions. Moreover, you might be *wrong* altogether.)

I'm not making any claims nor finds nor research of any kinds.  I'm just 
pointing out the points where both plots collide.  They both have 
outlawed heroes, a huge squid threat, a suggested plot to kill old 
heroes etc.

There's no original research there, it's only a matter of reading the 
work and enumerating the coincidences between one of the most 
influential comic books ever and a movie about super-heroes...

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> I'm not making any claims nor finds nor research of any kinds.  I'm just 
> pointing out the points where both plots collide.

  "A more direct inspiration is the comic book masterpiece Watchmen, by
Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons."

  You didn't say "the plot of The Incredibles resembles the plot of
Watchmen". You are directly making the claim ghat Watchmens was an
inspiration for the plot of The Incredibles. Without any references to
corroborate this claim.

  Even if you had simply pointed out the similarities, that would also
border the line of original research, because you are basically documenting
your own finding, rather than repeating (and thus referencing) what others
have published.

  However, you are not just pointing out the similarities. You are directly
making the claim that one plot was *inspired* by another, without any
actual references that this was indeed so. This would be a dubious practice
even if it was journalism. With an encyclopedia, which should just repeat
common results, it's even worse.

  It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. An encyclopedia is *not*
a journal to publish your findings.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> They both have 
> outlawed heroes, a huge squid threat, a suggested plot to kill old 
> heroes etc.

Sounds like The Matrix 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:
> There are no outlawed heroes nor huge squids in either Batman or the Bible.

Oh, so neither Moses nor Jesus were outlawed heros? Sorry.

> I guess you can't trace a similar parallel between the plots for Matrix 
> and The Incredibles.

I could. It's just not worth the effort of going through it.

> He set out to make a movie about super-heroes.  He had to draw some 
> references.  How about the plot of one of the most acclaimed comic books 
> in the genre?  

In generics, "good guy scoffs at secret admirer, and winds up having to 
defeat admirer's plan to get revenge" is pretty standard fare.

-- 
   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:
> but the simple idea that the plot is similar to that of Watchmen 
> isn't allowed

But that isn't what you claimed. You claimed it was an inspiration.

-- 
   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