 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Fredrik Eriksson
Subject: Re: Watchmen vs The Incredibles
Date: 16 May 2009 16:04:46
Message: <op.ut1gp4uw7bxctx@e6600>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> 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'.
Yes, I read it at the time it was released, though I was only an
adolescent and possibly did not get all references. I just reread it
now just to be sure: no outlawed heroes, only retired heroes.
No huge squid terrorizing a city either.
>> or the Bible.
>
> Read the New Testament.
Sorry, I don't see it. In particular, this is a discussion about
super-heroes from american XX century comics and I don't see the
relevance of that here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
I don't think they allow blog entries as reference. It doesn't matter,
a reference to the work itself should suffice. I should point to a
selling place, like Amazon.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:37 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> I don't know how else to state it.
Then don't. It's unnecessary, and calling a group of people "a bunch of
nazis" doesn't exactly ingratiate you to them (or to others you're
trying to convince).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 16 May 2009 19:17:04 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> It doesn't matter,
> a reference to the work itself should suffice.
No, it shouldn't. Because the work itself doesn't say anything about its
author's development process. It's an end product.
When you "cherry pick" similarities between two things that seem similar
to you, of course you're going to find things that are similar. You
probably could do the same with The Incredibles and The Brady Bunch, too
if you worked hard enough at it.
That doesn't mean The Incredibles was based on The Brady Bunch. Just
that you found similar plot points.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, and yet despite being this generic, it's not the plot of Watchmen,
only Incredibles.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Yes, and yet despite being this generic, it's not the plot of Watchmen,
> only Incredibles.
So, clearly, the plot of Incredibles wasn't inspired by the plot of
Watchmen. Quid pro quo epsom cephalopod. ;-)
--
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:
>> 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.
I reworked it as just a brief list of plot points shared by both works
under the Critics section. Deleted. More to the point, I never saw an
idea being deleted on the Discussion page. Never, despite some heavy
flamewars.
It's simply not allowed. Not that I care anymore.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:37 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>
>> I don't know how else to state it.
>
> Then don't. It's unnecessary, and calling a group of people "a bunch of
> nazis" doesn't exactly ingratiate you to them (or to others you're
> trying to convince).
Funny. I only mentioned it here because I seem to recall similar
anti-wikipedian moderators discussions here before. Nevermind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Fredrik Eriksson
Subject: Re: Watchmen vs The Incredibles
Date: 16 May 2009 18:33:36
Message: <op.ut1nmafo7bxctx@e6600>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 00:15:04 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> 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'.
>
> Yes, I read it at the time it was released, though I was only an
> adolescent and possibly did not get all references. I just reread it
> now just to be sure: no outlawed heroes, only retired heroes.
The government forbids heroes from appearing in public and punishes them
quite severely if they disobey. They are effectively outlawed, even if the
law is not in writing.
> No huge squid terrorizing a city either.
>
>>> or the Bible.
>> Read the New Testament.
>
> Sorry, I don't see it. In particular, this is a discussion about
> super-heroes from american XX century comics and I don't see the
> relevance of that here.
You were talking about outlawed heroes. In the bible, Jesus was a hero. A
superhero really. He was most certainly outlawed, and even sentenced to
death.
If you insist on limiting the discussion to comic books you may wish to
read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Witness-Fictional-Absolute-Truth/dp/0975892401?s=books&qid=1242512645
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> nemesis wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, and yet despite being this generic, it's not the plot of
>> Watchmen, only Incredibles.
>
> So, clearly, the plot of Incredibles wasn't inspired by the plot of
> Watchmen. Quid pro quo epsom cephalopod. ;-)
Yes. And West Side Story is not inspired by Romeo and Juliet either
because of the myriad of small different details...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
well, just did some basic "brad bird watchmen" googling:
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Bird/Bird_Interview.htm
He's directly confronted with both the Fantastic Four and Watchmen
references. And dismisses them by saying he's more of a "Peanuts" guy
than a "Whoeverman" guy.
The maximum he goes is to acknowledge he's heard of Watchmen before and
is glad that The Incredibles is compared with something that good. He
mentions the super-heroes retirement, but that's all. No mention to the
"no cape", secret Island or huge squid attack on a city.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 16:37:37 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know how else to state it.
>>
>> Then don't. It's unnecessary, and calling a group of people "a bunch
>> of nazis" doesn't exactly ingratiate you to them (or to others you're
>> trying to convince).
>
> Funny. I only mentioned it here because I seem to recall similar
> anti-wikipedian moderators discussions here before. Nevermind.
Anti-wikipedians can hate each other, too. We're equal opportunity
antists.
--
Misspelled? Impossible. My modem is error correcting.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> well, just did some basic "brad bird watchmen" googling:
>
> http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Bird/Bird_Interview.htm
>
> He's directly confronted with both the Fantastic Four and Watchmen
> references. And dismisses them by saying he's more of a "Peanuts" guy
> than a "Whoeverman" guy.
>
> The maximum he goes is to acknowledge he's heard of Watchmen before and
> is glad that The Incredibles is compared with something that good. He
> mentions the super-heroes retirement, but that's all. No mention to the
> "no cape", secret Island or huge squid attack on a city.
What we have here is a clear case of convergent evolution. With enough
individual plot elements available and enough movies using the same pool
of elements, eventually someone is *going* to, completely at random with
no prior exposure to the other work, choose elements that are similar
enough to it to suggest inspiration.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> He set out to make a movie about super-heroes. He had to draw some
> references.
Sure he had to, but can you prove that he referenced Watchmen?
When Brad Bird himself denies it, then you're left with two stories that
have similarities. NOT one story based on another.
Believe it or not, coincidences DO happen. Given the public zeitgeist,
the idea of a "fallen hero" has been popular for quite some time, and
nostalgia is always a seller. It's no wonder that somebody made a movie
about retired superheroes, whether or not the person who made it has
seen or read Watchmen.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Yes. And West Side Story is not inspired by Romeo and Juliet either
> because of the myriad of small different details...
Except that, there, the author admitted having written it to make Romeo
and Juliet more accessible to modern audiences.
Here, Brad Bird denies that Watchmen was an inspiration.
--
Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> He set out to make a movie about super-heroes. He had to draw some
>> references.
>
> Sure he had to, but can you prove that he referenced Watchmen?
>
> When Brad Bird himself denies it, then you're left with two stories that
> have similarities. NOT one story based on another.
>
> Believe it or not, coincidences DO happen. Given the public zeitgeist,
> the idea of a "fallen hero" has been popular for quite some time, and
> nostalgia is always a seller. It's no wonder that somebody made a movie
> about retired superheroes, whether or not the person who made it has
> seen or read Watchmen.
I don't believe in coincidences at all in this case. It's not a "fallen
hero", nor "retired superheroes".
I'll be redundant and repeat it again:
* *outlawed* super-heroes
* a suggested plot to kill past super-heroes
* the villain undergoes a quest for personal heroism by saving the world
from a faked attack to a city with a huge squid monster
* huge squid monster raised on a remote Island
* "no cape"
* "villain" uses cape
I agree with Darren that all but the first 2 are pretty common elements.
What I don't agree is to see all these very same elements together in
the same order as they appear in Watchmen in The Incredibles as well.
Why not other staple elements, or at least in another order?
He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:
* similar name for the heroes (Incredible/Fantastic)
* similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
* a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
* an elastic being (Elastigirl/Mr Fantastic)
* an invisible woman able to create force fields (Violet/Ms. Fantastic)
* a high-energy being (Dash/Human Torch) (actually, Dash has more to do
with The Flash sure)
* a last enemy by the name of Underminer resembles a lot the The Mole
Man, first enemy of FF
Funnily enough, wikipedian moderators allowed the reference to Fantastic
Four, despite no acknowledgment from Bird either. This is what truly
pissed me off about the whole thing. One simply can't list the shared
plot details between The Incredibles and Watchmen, either under
criticism section or even in the talk page.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> What I don't agree is to see all these very same elements together in
> the same order as they appear in Watchmen in The Incredibles as well.
They're not in the same order. Killing the superheros starts and drives
Watchmen, and is almost incidental in Incredibles, well near the end and
already into the rescue phase. Just as an example.
> Why not other staple elements, or at least in another order?
There are a bunch of other staple elements in each that aren't in the other.
Misbehaving young superhero. Forgiveness of past crimes as age progresses.
--
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:
>> What I don't agree is to see all these very same elements together in
>> the same order as they appear in Watchmen in The Incredibles as well.
>
> They're not in the same order. Killing the superheros starts and drives
> Watchmen, and is almost incidental in Incredibles, well near the end and
> already into the rescue phase.
No, Mr. Incredible notices Gazerbeam going missing in a newspaper early
on and even comment it with Frozone while in the car. It does not take
front stage, but is acknowledged to be happening way before the story
starts.
BTW, masked vigilantes killing in Watchmen is just a suggested plot by
Rorschach to explain The Comedian's death. He is truly paranoid. No
previous such killings before nor after, except "career" incidents in
older times, like Dollar Bill's being shot by criminals after the cape
gets entangled in a door, just as other such examples of similar
old-time deaths in The Incredibles. The Incredibles diverged here by
making the suggested plot to be real, just like making supers truly supers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
You looked at one plot, you looked at another plot, you decided they were
similar. That's original research.
You need to quote a reliable source saying the plots are similar, not quote
reliable sources on what the plots are, and making *your* conclusion that
they are similar, or that one was inspired on the other.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> BTW, just found this:
>
http://www.filmstalker.co.uk/archives/2009/03/watchmen_vs_the_incredibles.html
Okay, *now* add your stuff back, and cite that blog post.
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? You know Alan Moore was
> featured in a Simpsons episode? You know Brad Bird was creative
> consultant to the Simpsons? No, I don't know if the episode is from
> before or after he left, what I do know is:
>
> * a super-hero world where heroes are banned is by itself a very
> non-conventional plot for a super-hero story (at least until Watchmen
> got it done)
> * the plot is kicked off when an older hero goes missing (and is found
> to be dead)
> * the villain threatens the world with a fake attack so that he can be
> "heroic"
> * the threat is a huge, monocular monster with tentacles
> * the monster was raised in a remote Island
> * the dead hero was killed because of what the plans he uncovered in the
> Island
> * cape is bad for your health
>
> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...
Nobody cares how obvious it is. I believe you need to cite sources when you
say water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Funnily enough, wikipedian moderators allowed the reference to Fantastic
> Four, despite no acknowledgment from Bird either. This is what truly
> pissed me off about the whole thing. One simply can't list the shared
> plot details between The Incredibles and Watchmen, either under
> criticism section or even in the talk page.
There is no sources for the Fantastic Four similarities either (in fact,
there is a [citation needed] tag), so I just removed it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> If that's not enough for a link, I'll eat my underwear...
>
> Nobody cares how obvious it is. I believe you need to cite sources when you
> say water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
I clarified this already elsewhere: I tried being more polite a second
time and just listed the shared plot points in the critics sections
rather than plainly suggesting inspiration.
Still, the only source I can find is the book itself. You read it and
you realize the plots are very similar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> You need to quote a reliable source saying the plots are similar, not quote
> reliable sources on what the plots are, and making *your* conclusion that
> they are similar, or that one was inspired on the other.
My conclusion was based on my own experience with both works. But yes,
I get your point.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> There is no sources for the Fantastic Four similarities either (in fact,
> there is a [citation needed] tag), so I just removed it.
The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense. Ok, so
that's a encyclopedia thing.
The fact that you have to source someone saying:
* similar name for the heroes (Incredible/Fantastic)
* similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
* a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
* an elastic being (Elastigirl/Mr Fantastic)
* an invisible woman able to create force fields (Violet/Ms. Fantastic)
* a high-energy being (Dash/Human Torch) (actually, Dash has more to do
with The Flash sure)
* a last enemy by the name of Underminer resembles a lot the The Mole
Man, first enemy of FF
rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty
much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't sound
credible.
Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference? A blog entry?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
