 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 21:34:53 +0200, nemesis
> <nam### [at] nospam-gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Fredrik Eriksson
Subject: Re: Watchmen vs The Incredibles
Date: 17 May 2009 18:03:33
Message: <op.ut3gv6or7bxctx@e6600>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense. Ok, so
> that's a encyclopedia thing.
Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are
collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to said
facts in order to maintain credibility.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that
is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has
already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is
true."
> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
[snipped list of perceived similarities]
> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty
> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't sound
> credible.
There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie
does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by
a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B
can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."
> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference? A blog entry?
They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and
even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like "Some
people have noted similarities...".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
"self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open
wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not
acceptable"
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 23:35:48 +0200, nemesis
> <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> The problem I see is that wikipedia simply lacks common sense. Ok, so
>> that's a encyclopedia thing.
>
> Exactly. Encyclopedias are not about so called "common sense". They are
> collections of verifiable facts, and as such must cite references to
> said facts in order to maintain credibility.
>
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to
> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether
> we think it is true."
What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>> The fact that you have to source someone saying:
> [snipped list of perceived similarities]
>> rather than simply lookup such info in the works themselves -- pretty
>> much a part of popular "inconscient collective" by now -- doesn't
>> sound credible.
>
> There is no such info in the works themselves. Nowhere in either movie
> does anyone discuss - or even point out - the similarities of the two.
First: I'm not comparing movies. I'm comparing the movie The
Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four.
I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.
Second: it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to
realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar
uniforms. How does one quote similar imagery? It's just needed common
sense. Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at
wikipedia itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity
between uniforms and super-powers?
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
> "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published
> by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A
> and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C."
>
>> Would the above newsgroups post serve as reference? A blog entry?
>
> They would be considered to be sources of poor credibility at best, and
> even that is under the assumption that you start with a phrase like
> "Some people have noted similarities...".
Exactly. I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both
works would gain much relevance. They only allow it from the mouths of
the creator or from cinema critics who don't know much about comics.
Despite any evidence or even images.
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites,
> open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not
> acceptable"
Indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 18:04:25 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> 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.
Maybe they decided that since you'd already tried one version that came
out and said it was the inspiration without documentation that further
attempts would be non-objective.
> Still, the only source I can find is the book itself. You read it and
> you realize the plots are very similar.
"Similar" and "inspired by" are two different things. We've been over
that before.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to
>> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether
>> we think it is true."
>
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
The work doesn't state its inspiration. The work is the work, not a
"making of the work" work.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Fredrik Eriksson
Subject: Re: Watchmen vs The Incredibles
Date: 17 May 2009 19:01:36
Message: <op.ut3jkxtn7bxctx@e6600>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:19 +0200, nemesis
<nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>
> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
The work itself does not provide any comparison to other works.
> First: I'm not comparing movies. I'm comparing the movie The
> Incredibles with comic book Watchmen and comic heroes Fantastic Four.
> I'm not comparing their lame movies with Pixar's masterpiece.
Irrelevant. There are no such comparisons in the comics either.
> Second: it's not needed words, let alone in the movies itself, to
> realize similar plots, similar powers, similar names and similar
> uniforms. How does one quote similar imagery? It's just needed common
> sense.
Again, encyclopedias are not about "common sense".
*You* have looked at the movies/comics.
*You* have noticed similarities.
That is called "original research", in this case performed by you. Unless
you can get this "research" published in a credible medium, you will need
other sources to back up your claims.
The fact that others may share your opinion is irrelevant, unless one of
them gets it published in a credible medium.
> Why shouldn't a link to an image of Fantastic Four hosted at wikipedia
> itself suffice as a "citation" in order to show the similarity between
> uniforms and super-powers?
Because similarity is a matter of opinion. Also, an encyclopedia cannot
credibly cite itself.
> I don't think linking to blog posts by fans who know both works would
> gain much relevance.
Because they are not considered credible. Neither are you, for much the
same reason.
> They only allow it from the mouths of the creator or from cinema critics
> who don't know much about comics.
Citing the creator is only credible if the point you are backing up is
"The creator said...".
Citing movie critics is only credible if the point you are backing up is
"Some movie critics are of the opinion that...".
> Despite any evidence or even images.
An encyclopedia is not the proper medium for presenting evidence.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
news:4a10508b$1@news.povray.org...
[...]
> He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:
> * similar name for the heroes (Incredible/Fantastic)
I take it "Average Joe" was taken.
> * similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
Besides being both super-dorky, as is common to the genre, how are these
uniforms in any way or form similar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiposter.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watchmencharacters.jpg
> * a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
A super-strong being in the super hero comic. What are the odds!
I don't doubt there are similarities. And you might be even correct about
direct inspiration. But it's probably next to impossible to prove anything
within such a formula based genre. I am afraid it looks like you are letting
your good judgement be clouded by your contempt for Disney and adoration of
Moore.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:4a10508b$1@news.povray.org...
>> He also denies Fantastic Four, but still you have a family quartet with:
>> * similar uniforms (different color, i instead of 4)
>
> Besides being both super-dorky, as is common to the genre, how are these
> uniforms in any way or form similar?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiposter.jpg
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watchmencharacters.jpg
I was talking in the context of Fantastic Four.
>> * a super-strong being (Mr. Incredible/The Thing)
>
> A super-strong being in the super hero comic. What are the odds!
The odds are as low as finding one right next to an elastic one and an
invisible force-field generating another in the very same quartet with a
very similar dorky costume design.
> I don't doubt there are similarities. And you might be even correct about
> direct inspiration. But it's probably next to impossible to prove anything
> within such a formula based genre. I am afraid it looks like you are letting
> your good judgement be clouded by your contempt for Disney and adoration of
> Moore.
Fantastic Four has nothing to do with Moore. It was Marvel Comics first
successful comic book and has spanned a well-known comics doomsday saga
in the form of the Galactus/Silver Surfer one.
I just find it truly hard to believe people would go on to create a
super-heroes animation and not pay homage to/be aware of some of the
best known works in the genre, that's all.
And there's far more comic book references one can distil, for instance:
* the villain Bomb Voyage looks a lot like Batman's The Joker down to
the large maniacal smile;
* Frozone has similar powers to X-Man Iceman. This is acknowledged in
wikipedia, despite no references.
* Gazerbeam has similar powers and similar mask to X-Man Cyclops.
Someone removed the similarity I one saw in wikipedia.
* Rick Dicker, a government agent in The Incredibles looks a lot like
Richard Nixon, which is a prominent figure and still in power in
Watchmen's alternate universe. The name itself sounds like a pun.
* Mirage has the looks of X-Man Tempest
* Mr Incredible and Frozone are seen remembering old times in the car by
laughing over old villains. This scene is pretty much the same as in
the opening chapter of Watchmen, with retired Nite Owl and Nite Owl II
having a similar talk. Page 9 to be exact. You can read this one in
chapter one of Watchmen for free on DC's own site:
http://www.dccomics.com/media/excerpts/1462_1.pdf
But I was only interested in Watchmen so far because it turns out I only
read it now before going to see the movie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>
>>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to
>>> Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether
>>> we think it is true."
>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>
> The work doesn't state its inspiration. The work is the work, not a
> "making of the work" work.
I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
list the plot points similarities, right? Which is not possible, either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:19 +0200, nemesis
> <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>
> The work itself does not provide any comparison to other works.
Fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:03:39 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> I just find it truly hard to believe people would go on to create a
> super-heroes animation and not pay homage to/be aware of some of the
> best known works in the genre, that's all.
"hard to believe" isn't proof, though. You seem to be missing that point
- belief != proof.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:05:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>
>>>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>>>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added
>>>> to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not
>>>> whether we think it is true."
>>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>>
>> The work doesn't state its inspiration. The work is the work, not a
>> "making of the work" work.
>
> I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
> to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
> list the plot points similarities, right? Which is not possible,
> either.
Yeah, and apparently because you started by trying to say "this proves
it", they've rejected those edits as well, perhaps thinking you're trying
to sneak your "proof of inspiration" in the back door by starting with
something less declarative in the hopes that later you (or someone else)
will be able to make a minor edit that changes it back to being proven.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:05:55 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 19:31:19 -0300, nemesis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not
>>>>> truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added
>>>>> to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not
>>>>> whether we think it is true."
>>>> What could be more verifiable than the work itself?
>>> The work doesn't state its inspiration. The work is the work, not a
>>> "making of the work" work.
>> I think by now it's pretty much clear that I dropped altogether trying
>> to imply The Incredibles is *inspire by* Watchmen and was just trying to
>> list the plot points similarities, right? Which is not possible,
>> either.
>
> Yeah, and apparently because you started by trying to say "this proves
> it", they've rejected those edits as well, perhaps thinking you're trying
> to sneak your "proof of inspiration" in the back door by starting with
> something less declarative in the hopes that later you (or someone else)
> will be able to make a minor edit that changes it back to being proven.
Anyone of you may try it and see if it works. I just lost respect
altogether for wikipedia and Pixar to care.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.
I think I'll just leave this with the comment that I think you're wrong, I
don't think Watchmen and Incredibles had much in common. You cherry pick a
handful of similarities and ignore the overall plot, mood, and
characterization, the elements that make each of these works memorable.
Neither of these works is a plot-driven story, so comparing similarities in
the plots is pointless given the differences in the important parts.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Sure, I was pointing out the similarities.
>
> I think I'll just leave this with the comment that I think you're wrong,
> I don't think Watchmen and Incredibles had much in common. You cherry
> pick a handful of similarities
Yes, my point was exactly to list the *striking* similarities, not the
differences.
> and ignore the overall plot, mood, and
> characterization, the elements that make each of these works memorable.
> Neither of these works is a plot-driven story, so comparing similarities
> in the plots is pointless given the differences in the important parts.
You're very right in that, indeed. They are multi-faceted gems,
beautiful to look at from various different angles.
I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to
dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
himself. But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
> himself.
Oddly enough, I don't see anything in the wikipedia article that says Bird
is a genius or that he came up with the ideas himself.
> But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
> since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
Gee, sounds like an encyclopedia to me! Funny, that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
4a10babe@news.povray.org...
> I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to
> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
> himself. But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream, since
> it only points to official positions from official mouths.
Hey, I just noticed something about the Incredibles:
- Apparently normal American suburban family who goes through extraordinary
adventures
- Slightly pudgy, not so smart, lovable father, stuck in a boring job with
an abusive boss
- Hyperbusy homemaking mom
- Hyperenergetic, hot-headed teenage son
- Nerdy, socially awkward teenage daughter
- Non-talking baby with no special powers (except when needed)
Rings a bell?
The Simpsons...
And guess who was part of the original Simpsons developing team, directed
some episodes and served as an executive producer for 181 episodes between
1989 and 1997?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Heh heh heh.
http://terminatorguide.webs.com/T3special.htm
Of course, in that case...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
> > But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
>> since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
>
> Gee, sounds like an encyclopedia to me! Funny, that.
Does not sound like a user-fed wiki to me, though. If all I can do is
parrot official mouths from Disney, I don't feel there's any use for my
knowledge on any specific subject. There was a time where one could do
just that. I suspect the majority of wikipedia was initially built that
way and now that the base is already there, there's no more space for
grass-roots wiki editing...
BTW, perhaps Nicolas Alvarez should take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Incredibles_characters
there's plenty of unsourced statements there about similarities with
long-known super-hero characters for him to apply his revisionism.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escreveu:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4a10babe@news.povray.org...
>> I think it's still worth mentioning though, for no other reason than to
>> dismiss the idea that Brad Genius Bird came up with all these ideas by
>> himself. But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream, since
>> it only points to official positions from official mouths.
>
> Hey, I just noticed something about the Incredibles:
> - Apparently normal American suburban family who goes through extraordinary
> adventures
> - Slightly pudgy, not so smart, lovable father, stuck in a boring job with
> an abusive boss
> - Hyperbusy homemaking mom
> - Hyperenergetic, hot-headed teenage son
> - Nerdy, socially awkward teenage daughter
> - Non-talking baby with no special powers (except when needed)
>
> Rings a bell?
>
> The Simpsons...
>
> And guess who was part of the original Simpsons developing team, directed
> some episodes and served as an executive producer for 181 episodes between
> 1989 and 1997?
yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Heh heh heh.
>
> http://terminatorguide.webs.com/T3special.htm
>
> Of course, in that case...
That's nothing: the whole Back to the Future trilogy is a lucrative
rehash of the very same first movie plot, except one in the future and
another in the far past. Blowderized, puerile, rehashed entertainment
is really all Hollywood is about.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> BTW, perhaps Nicolas Alvarez should take a look at this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Incredibles_characters
>
> there's plenty of unsourced statements there about similarities with
> long-known super-hero characters for him to apply his revisionism.
The tag to add is {{fact}} (expands as a superscript "[citation needed]").
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> That's nothing: the whole Back to the Future trilogy is a lucrative
> rehash of the very same first movie plot, except one in the future and
> another in the far past. Blowderized, puerile, rehashed entertainment
> is really all Hollywood is about.
Except, in the case of Back to the Future, it was done in a deliberate,
tongue-in-cheek manner. "History repeats itself", and so forth.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
Another parody? In a movie that's a parody of,
everybody-knows-it's-a-parody,-that's-how-it-was-marketed, the superhero
and comedy genres?
*GASP*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> yay, one more parody at stake. Keen eye, G. ;)
>
> Another parody? In a movie that's a parody of,
> everybody-knows-it's-a-parody,-that's-how-it-was-marketed, the superhero
> and comedy genres?
Everybody but Bird, who doesn't acknowledge any of the crystal-clear
visible influences in his subject of choice.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
>> nemesis wrote:
>> > But it doesn't matter: wikipedia is a revisionists dream,
>>> since it only points to official positions from official mouths.
>>
>> Gee, sounds like an encyclopedia to me! Funny, that.
>
> Does not sound like a user-fed wiki to me, though.
And that's why your original research gets rejected: it's a user-fed wiki
being used as an encyclopedia, so when users feed it things that shouldn't
be in an encyclopedia, it gets deleted. See how that works?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
