Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
As long as Uwe Boll didn't direct it.
That's a straw man argument. This isn't about "absolute truth", it's whether or not your argument holds *any* truth, which - by your own admission (see above) - it doesn't, since there is no evidence to support it, i.e. that the episode was used as basis for the game.
You cannot simply shift the burden of proof from your side to somebody arguing against your position. It's not on me to show you that the episode wasn't an inspiration for Subanutica (though the interview at least in part proves that it wasn't) when you don't provide any proof for your suggestion that it was.
Then by your definition, any work can be construed as a "major" influence on Subnautica, or any other work for that matter and the designation of an influence as "major" would be meaningless.
The scope of the premise isn't part of this argument.
For one, you're pretty much dismissing that finding Nemo actually takes place under water,
but that's beside the point. Finding Nemo has been cited as an influence, while the same can not be said about the Outer Limits episode.
But the inverse can just as well be true. Just because two things are similar doesn't make it more likely that one inspired the other. That's a logical fallacy. Again, correlation doesn't imply causation.
But that doesn't mean that there is a connection between the two. Again, your comitting a logical fallacy here. You're also ignoring what i showed you in my last post. You don't need a sci-fi TV show as inspiration for those plants, nor does having them in the show make it any more likely that there's a connection between Subanutica and the TV episode.
And they can be amalgamations of multiple, different source materials as well, as i stated earlier. That does not make it more likely that the amalgamation is the basis for later works.
Can we just drop this now?
Again, it was a suggestion. Subnautica *could* have inspired by S02E10 of The Outer Limits. That doesn't mean it nevessarily was. I don't need to say my suggestions are wrong every time I make one. That would defeat the point.
I wasn't even making an argument. I made a suggestion. It does not need to hold any truth. Again, that defeats the point of making a suggestion. And neither of us knows whether or not Subnautica was inspired by that episode so I shouldn't need to say anything.
A couple of questions for you:
1) Why do you need to prove or disprove whether or not the episode was inspiration for Subnautica? There is no reason to do that, since neither of us will ever know unless a developer or some other official source says so directly.
2) What makes you think you have the authority to say so, anyway? You know just as much as I do.
No, you aren't getting what I said. A minor influence would be a single element or detail. Something like the shape of a plant, a single name, a particular colouration, etc. Major influences are things like game mechanics, premises, plots, etc. to the point where you could say that idea was actually copied from its source of inspiration. You cannot claim any form of intellectual ownership on a minor influence but if someone looks at a source of inspiration and instantly thinks "Subnautica did the same thing" then that would be a major influence.
Yes it is. The reason I said S02E10 of The Outer Limits could be a major influence on Subnautica was because of the whole premise of crashlanding into the ocean of a planet and having to survive the ocean and the creatures in it. That is a premise. So is the premise of contacting other people from Earth and requesting a rescue.
There are a lot of influences on Subnautica that have not yet been named so the fact that S02E10 of The Outer Limits has not been mentioned doesn't matter. And I already addressed the underwater part when I said "almost" which you have yet to understand so I won't worry about it.
I never said the Outer Limits episode was a guaranteed source of inspiration or that the planet in it was an ocean world. I only suggested it. And I have no need to support that. I am allowed to make suggestions in this forum.
There still could be a connection. We don't know. I won't say that is for sure but it is possible. It looks like a connection to me. That is all that is important.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120685/?ref_=nv_sr_4
^^^ That is definately based on Ishiro Honda's original 1954 film but the version of Godzilla in that film is nothing like the Godzilla of the original film. There were even a lot of added concepts like parthenogenesis and the French secret service that were thrown in. Many films do this sort of thing when they are adapted from earlier works.
You never provide any reason for why that should be the case. Your whole premise is grounded on the assumption that one episode is the (or a, if that makes you happy) basis simply because the premise is similar, even though the episode itself is missing major parts of what the game is about.
But it needs to be logically sound for crying out loud.
Maybe i'm actually not trying to do that? Maybe i'm simply trying to point out that we don't have enough infrmation to assume that it is?
No, what i meant was that the scope is irrelevant in so far as your whole assumption is based solely on similarity, without any other qualifying criterion. You also didn't say that that it could be major influence, you said that you would call it a basis for the game, which - as far as i can tell - isn't the same thing. Stating "it could be a basis" actually acknowledges that the opposite could be true, while stating that "i would call something the basis for something else" doesn't.
Maybe my definition of almost is vastly different from yours, but saying something is almost the same as something else doesn't usually imply that it's missing major parts. They are similar, i'm not contesting that, but they are not almost identical.
Already stated that i'm not contesting that, but you can expect other people to call you out on your reasoning. Same as the last time you "suggested" that the episode and the game were connected. Again, correlation alone is not enough to imply causation.
But you outright stated that you'd call it a basis - not that it could be a basis. You have a clear narrative here that you're trying to push, even though there is no clear evidence for your assumptions.
Yeah, i assumed as much.
Wow, now I know you need to get your English checked. Here was the original sentence from Post #18 which you quoted:
You inserted the words "episode is" without understanding what the sentence meant, and you left out the first three words. I don't know whether you are doing this intentionally or not but I do know - after checking out your profile before - that your native language is German so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are having trouble understanding me correctly. But if you keep doing this then I am going to report you for trolling.
[EDIT]
The sentence you quoted there was supposed to represent my perspective on the matter and was not intended to be a definitive statement but you made it seem that way when you added to it and omitted the first three words.
In hindsight, saying "probably" may have been a mistake, though. I intended it to mean "more likely than not" since The Outer Limits S02E10 is the only source of inspiration I can think of that has many of the same elements in it but it should not have meant these elements needed to come from there in order to happen. That part is uncertain.
[/edit]
No it does not. This is your own pedantism speaking. You do not need to make a suggestion necessarily true or "logically sound" in order to suggest it. Logical soundness doesn't even figure into this at all because we are talking about inspirations for a work of fiction. If we were talking about some sort of scientific theory then we could bring logical soundness into it but this is all imagination. Logical consistency and soundness have nothing to do with it.
Which is what I've been saying all along. I've also been saying that this shouldn't stop anyone from making suggestions. That is different from making an assertion; assertions are statements that are presented as being true. Suggestions are statements that could be true but that are not necessarily true. That is basically what a hypothesis is, if you understand what that is.
The scope is very relevent because there are similarities that go beyond whether or not the main character did anything underwater. You are essentially defining the scope of this comparison based on differences and then dismissing the similarities in order to dismiss the entire comparison, which is called Cherry-Picking and which is a logical fallacy. It matters that both Subnautica and The Outer Limits S02E10 started out with the main character crash-landing in an ocean and had to survive against hostile creatures while trying to contact someone from Earth for a rescue mission. It matters that there are landmasses in both Subnautica and The Outer Limits S02E10 with plants that are very noticeably all red and blue without indicating any recognizeable seasonal variation. That is what made me think of the comparison, that what why I made my post, and that is why it counts.
I said several times that The Outer Limits S02E10 was a major influence. Regardless of whether I did or not, that does not negate my reasoning for making my initial post. A "basis"in this context is the source of an idea, so - yes - they are the same thing.
Another translation error.
"It could be a basis for..." and "I would call something the basis for..." mean exactly the same thing. The perspective is the only difference; one statement has a first-person perspective and the other one doesn't which makes it more definitive.
Let's look at my original post again, shall we?
^^^ What makes you think I was suggesting that The Outer Limits S02E10 was almost identical to Subnautica? Saying it could almost be a Subnautica film is not the same as saying it is almost identical to Subnautica. As I said earlier, lots of screen adaptations of popular works of fiction have been distorted from their original source. That doesn't illegitimize the screenwriting for those adaptations from "almost being a film of said oriiginal work." That is how inspiration works. That is how ideas are passed on.
I couldn't care less. Again, most critical-minded people in this forum would understand what I meant and wouldn't argue with me to this extent or something this trivial. Which is why I think you're trolling me.
I did not say Subnautica and The Outer Limits S02E10 were connected. This could be another one of your translation errors or it could just be you trying to nitpick or troll me. Subnautica reminds me of The Outer Limits S02E10 and vice versa. Ergo The Outer Limits S02E10 could have inspired Subnautica (even though - again - we don't know this for sure) and The Outer Limits S02E10 could be a reasonable screen adaptation for Subnautica, given it was less than an hour long and therefore could not possibly come any closer to Subnautica without taking out any of what it was supposed to be about. Which was where "almost" comes in. Subnautica and The Outer Limits S02E10 had different themes so the latter could never be an ideal screen adaptation of the former.
...and another one of your translation errors. I would call The Outer Limits S02E10 a basis for Subnautica precisely because it could be a basis for Subnautica. Both are non-definitive statements that are not claiming to be necessarily true.
I am going to repeat this again: There are some very noticeable errors in communication between us in this thread that are causing this lack of understanding and I don't think moost of it is on my end. Furthermore, you seem quite defensive about the idea of The Outer Limits S02E10 having anything to do with Subnautica, almost to the point of suggesting you don't like it at all. So in addition to the translation part, I would also suggest any personal feelings be removed before we continue.
[EDIT:[/b] Fixed a typo, made changes to last paragraph in last response, and added to first response (see edit tags).
Which is probably what i have the most gripes with, since you can't infer a higher chance for that simply because it is "more similar" than other works. All you can really infer from that is that is a possible source, because both contain similar elements. It's just as likely that it was inspired by other works that contain the same elements. To infer that is "more likely" you'd actually have to know that the developers were aware of the episode. The chance that the developers watched the episode is not connected to the similarity of the works, which is why i'm saying that your line of reasoning is based on a logical fallacy. The similarity alone is not sufficient to infer a higher likelyhood of inspiration. For that to be true, it is necessary that the developers were actually aware of the episode, which we don't know. Ergo saying it is more likely that it was an inspiration because of the similarity is a false assumption. Even if they did watch the episode it is possible that it was not a basis for the game (though in that case we can actually suggest it to be more likely that it was).
Just noticed this after writing most of my reply, but this might actually be a case of me confusing an english term for another - i probably meant "logically valid" instead of "logically sound".
Anyway, you can dismiss a suggestion for not being sound or not being valid, and people normally try to make sense when they are talking to other people. Yes, you can spout non-sequiturs half the time, but that is not how communication between two (or more) individuals works.
Like i said, i might be confusing sound and valid.
This isn't about the inspirations being sound, but whether or not it is possible (or rather, more likely) that one is an inspiration of the other. "Lord of the Rings could have been written by Harry Potter" is a false statement no matter how you look at it, regardless of the ficitonal nature of both subjects.
Again, i'm not dismissing your right to make suggestions, i'm pointing out that the premise you're basing that suggestion on is wrong. This is what people do when things are put up for suggestion. You can accept them, or you can dismiss them, based on how sound they are (among other things). Your's isn't valid, since it is based on a false assumption. That doesn't mean that you're not allowed to make that suggestion, it simply means it can be dismissed on grounds of simple logic.
Can you drop the "he's trying to stop people from making suggestions"-act? That's not what this about, and i'm pretty sure you must've realized that by now. To repeat it: Ther are similarities between the episode in the game. I'm not contesting that. It could be a possible source. But the suggestion that is a more likely source because it combines more elements in it can not be true, because one isn't dependent on the other.
I'm not dismissing the comparison. I'm dismissing the suggestion that
1)High similarity alone can be taken as grounds or implication for a higher likelihood of inspiration
2)The episode is almost akin to Subnautica or a Subnautica movie, seeing how major parts of the game take place underwater and the essential parts of the narrative are missing or are different
I'm not denying that there are similarities, but from my perspective they are not as outstanding as you make them out to be, and the combination of them in a single tv show episode doesn't tell us anything about the likelyhood of it being an inspiration for the game.
Was that a Freudian slip?
There is a limit as to how much you can distort an adaption before it becomes a seperate intellectual work. The episode differs in so many parts that i'd refrain from calling it a Subnautica film and at most call it "inspired by" Subnautica. Compounding that is the fact the episode itself is an amalgamation of classic sci-fi tropes, so even calling it inspired by Subnautica would be a stretch. Again, you might have different standards as to what you might call an outright adaption.
Thanks for reminding me, apparently me mentioning in earlier posts that the episode itself is an amalgamation of earlier sci-fi tropes is somehow different.
Your suggestion hinges on the proposition that Subnautica implements elements from the episode. There has to be some - any - kind of connection to suggest a possible influence (e.g. the dev has to at least have heard about it). Similarity alone is not enough to infer that, at least not in the way you make it out to be here. Higher similarity doesn't mean higher chance of influence.
That is so broadly worded it's not even wrong. By that standard, any adaption is as close as it could possible be, because changing any detail can be construed as changing what the work was supposed to be about. Of course you could change that episode to be closer to Subnautica without necessarily changing the plot as a whole.
If you'd go through the trouble to actually list the similarities and the differences of the game an the episode you'd probably arrive at the conclusion that there's more missing from both than they have in common. You can try to explain that away by saying that "adaptions" are almost always lacking in regards to the source material (as you did earlier), but neither actually is an adaption of the other. The most you could say that one was inspired by the other (see above). That's not sufficient to suggest that the episode is "almost" a Subnautica movie. That there is no other comparable episodes doesn't automatically make the one in existence an (almost) fitting adaption in spite of major differences. The question is how much you would actually have to change that episode to make it a fitting adaption.
But your proposition why that should be the case simply isn't valid. You presuppose that it is more likely because they have a lot of elements in common, but that has no implication about one being the basis for the other. They can be similar without there being a connection.
I'm not critizising the episode. What i'm critizising is the validity of your suggestion that having more elements in common makes it any more likely that the game is based on (or inspired by, call it what you will) the episode in question than say, Robinson Crusoe. That's simply not how causality works.
Can we just drop this now?
This stopped having anything to do with Subnautica pages ago.
It was a guess. Not an assertion. Given that we don't know whether S02E10 of The Outer Limits was a major influence or not, we are allowed to make guesses based purely on similarities unless and until they are proven wrong as long as we don't say they are necessarily true, and so far S02E10 of [v]The Outer Limits[/i] has not been proven not to be a major influence, so the guess is no more false than it is true. That is all there is to say and I will repeat it as often as I need to.
Logical validity in this context depends on confirmation by a developer or some other official source and so far - in regards to S02E10 of The Outer Limits - we don't have that, so logical whatever still doesn't matter.
In the case with The Lord Of The Rings and Harry Potter we know they weren't written by the same person because we have both authors to testify for that. Harry Potter was written in 1997 and The Lord Of The Rings was written in 1954. J. R. R. Tolkien passed away in 1973 and J. K. Rowling has not claimed any intellectual ownership of any of his work so it isn't possible for the two to have any direct connection plot-wise or lore-wise.
That aside, it is more than possible that atleast some inspiration from The Lord Of The Rings went into Harry Potter. It would be pretty difficult for that not to happen, given how well-known Tolkien's work was and still is.
And I am saying it isn't. At the very least, not any more wrong than it is right. Ergo it is still a good guess based on the similarities.
Considering you know no more than I do about Subnautica's influences, I am quite OK with that so I don't know why it needs to be brought up.
Lack of evidence /= proof of the contrary. Where is your proof that S02E10 of The Outer Limits is not an inspiration for Subnautica? See, you are making guesses just as much as I am.
Again, where is your proof? Logic alone cannot prove anything here. Only a developer or some other official source can, and right now we don't have that so you cannot disprove anything.
Saying other peoples's guesses and assumptions are wrong or false based on your own opinions and bisarre interpretation of how you think logic works is a good way to indicate that you are trying to stop them from making guesses and suggestions. That's why this argument is happening, pretty much.
That's where we disagree, then. A source of inspiration does not need to be identical or even remotely close to the work it inspires in order to be a source of inspiration. Look up a film called Chronicle[www.imdb.com]. It was a 2012 adaptation of the animated film Project Akira done in 1989. The two are very different but they share a few basic premises. Even more so, there is confirmation that Project Akira was the primary source of inspiration for Chronicle. Even more so: it was an actual adaptation of the same work.
See, that is much better. Here atleast you are admitting that all of this is from your own perspective and not an actual fact.
Nope. Not at all.
Which would be silly considering the release dates. More likely it is the other way around. In any case, again, this would be where we disagree. I happen to think they are more similar to each other than you do.
You never told me what you thought of the 1998 adaptation of Godzilla with Matthew Broderick. In any case, you would have to be a complete newcomer to Science Fiction to say Subnautica doesn't have any common Science Fiction tropes of its own. I've pointed out a number of them mylself in this forum before.
Nope. Most likely S02E10 of The Outer Limits had its own share of influences and inspiration from earlier works.
Again, I was making a guess and a suggestion. Unless and until proven wrong by a developer or some other official source, I am allowed to let this shape my interpretation of the relationship between the two. As much as you might not like it, given the lack of proof on whether it is true or not, I would call it a reasonable educated guess.
You could change the episode, sure, but you wouldn't need to. Some adaptations, like Chronicle, are so loose that you almost wouldn't be able to tell it was an adaptation at all. Yet the core premise still connects them; it is pretty hard to come up with the same premise for a work of fiction without being inspired and influenced by the other work(s) that share it.
I could list a bunch of similarities between Subnautica and S02E10 of The Outer Limits and it would be enough to convince me that the former was inspired by the latter, and that would convince me to suggest the latter as a possible adaptation. As I've said many times in this thread before, you seem to be missing the factor of perspective when it comes to making guesses and suggestions. It doesn't necessarily mean I am correct, but it doesn't invalidate my suggestion, either. And, actually, the whole idea of what could be a screen adaptation of Subnautica amongst existing works is purely subjective from all perspectives, even if you are skeptical of the idea. So there is no argument here. The suggestion for screen adaptation is something I am able to do regardless of what I use for the source of that inspiration.
If you think about it, as someone who was trying to make an adaptation of another work of ficyion, you would probably be doing a few things differently. That is what "Adaptation" means - something changes in order to be better suited to a different venue or audience. The new Star Trek films with Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana are a good example of this. The second film was intentionally altered slightly by shifting it from its characteristic Science Fiction theme to more of a drama theme. So with the adaptation aspect it would be expected that many of the elements of a Subnautica might be different. Even the underwater part. Moreso, since we are talking about adaptation here, Subnautica's underwater element would be a good adaptation of a similar work like S02E10 of The Outer Limits that didn't have it. Maybe the developer's looked at the "Worlds Apart" episode and thought to themselves: "What if the main character in that episode could go underwater? And what if whatever blew up that ship was actually an alien weapon?" Because from what I recall, whatever blew up the ship in S02E10 of The Outer Limits was left undetermined.
That is your opinion. I am being optimistic and you are being skeptical. That is why we have this disagreement.
One could also have been inspired and influenced by the other. Again, we don't know whether or not this is the case so we can afford make guesses.
But why you would go to this extent to argue against a mere guess when you can not possibly be any more correct than I am is what I am referring to here. I've made no attempts to turn my original post into an assertion so there is no need for this argument. Just suck it up and leave me alone already.
Anyway to steer this back on topic, the only film I've seen that came sort of close to Subnautica was Pandorum. Though the only link was SPOILERS a spaceship sent to another planet to colonise that crashed into its ocean, only they didn't realise that until the end. There was a moment on the bridge where they open the shutters and the first thing they see was something that resembled a bio-luminescent jelly ray.
Pretty good film if you've not seen it.
Then your suggestion is invalid on logical grounds. That means your literally spouting nonsense. What you're saying is akin to the suggestion that the sun could be an apple because both are round. Again, higher similarity does not imply higher likelihood.
Let's go back to what you orginally wrote:
I wrote "Harry Potter" on purpose, because you were trying to dismiss logic altogether on grounds that you don't need to make sense because the suggestion in question involves fictional material. This is not the case, because your argument still needs be logical valid on the meta level, regardless whether or not it involves fictional material.
Again, you presupose knowledge that you don't have. Without any additional information the chance is 50/50 for similar elements. The fact that there are similar elements only makes it possible in the first place that there was any inspiration at all. The number of similar elements has no influence on the likelihood, which is what you are inferring.
To put it in very simple terms: The chance for every similar element to have been influenced by the original is 50%. This is the same for every similar element, reagrdless of how many there are. To suggest that the likelihood is any higher you need to have some - any - additional information because you can't judge the likelihood based on similarity. Similarity only tells you that there could have been an influence.
Ask yourself this: Would knowing that the author didn't know the work make it less likely that there was an influence, or does it eliminate the possibility alltogether? Or, in other words, what would make it less likely that it was adapted from said work without removing the possibility alltogether?
Are you trying to troll me here? Your proposition is about it being more likely (i.e. >50%) based solely on the number of similarities.
Seeing how i'm not trying to proof that Subnautica wasn't influenced by the episode i'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. I don't need to show you that it wasn't influenced to dismiss your suggestion as invalid, since you proposal it that it is more likely because both have a lot of elements in common, when all that tells you is that it is possible at all that there was an influence. Having more elements or themes in common doesn't make it more likely.
See above. Again, i'm not dismissing the possibility of it being influenced by the episode, i'm simply dismissing your suggestion that "more similarities"="higher likelihood of inspiration".
That is pretty much what somebody you can't validate his own position would say. You already dismissed any logic on your part on grounds of this being about a ficitonal setting, so i'm not surprised you'd call my comprehension of logic bizzare.
First off, that actually shows that you can't judge likelihood of inspiration solely on similarity, you can only infer the possibility that there was an influence, hence you're invalidating your own position here. Second, Chronicle is not an adaptation of Akira (which i've actually watched, believe it or not), but is based on a story by the writer and by the director of the movie (at least that's what wikipedia tells me). Yes, they have cited Akira as an influence - as well as Carrie and The Fury, which all have similar themes. Would you call it almost an Akira movie? Or, for that matter, almost a "Carrie movie"? Maybe. Would i? No. Akira has been cited as influenced for many other movies as well, but i'd call none of them almost an adaptation of Akira either.
I think it's safe to say we're at a point were we can be sure that your definition of "almost" and my defintion of the word are vastly different. That doesn't change the fact that your equation of "more similarities"="higher likelihood of influence" doesn't make any sense, which i think i've made abundantly clear by now.
Wait, so you're not saying it could be an influence, but that it actually is? That makes even less sense than what you were saying before.
I took that more as an rhetorical question. Seeing how you pointed out yourself that Subnautica is influenced by common tropes, how can you say that one TV episode has a higher chance of being one of that works than any other?
But it isn't reasonable because the scope of similarities has no influence on the likelihood beside being able to say that is a possible influence. Again, what you are saying is akin to suggesting that the sun an an apple are the same because they are round. This is not a personal opinion - the terms simply aren't related. You are as free as everyone to post what you want, but you should not be surprised if people point this out to you.
You just said that you could not change anything about the episode without taking away from what it was about, that it was as close as it could possibbly be. Suddenly you admit that you can, but - of course - you wouldn't need too. You're contradicting yourself here. Not that i'm surprised.
Maybe i've misunderstood your whole argument up until now, but don't you mean that it is enough to convince that it could be inspired by the episode? Again, nothing of what you list can be considered as evidence that it is more likely adapted from that episode than from any other work containing the same elements. To suggest that you can infer - from similarity alone - that it is an actual influence hints at a very twisted sense of what can and what can not be considerd evidence. That isn't even a personal opinion, that is simply the opposite of how reasoning works.
Because while the "could almost be a movie"-argument is subjective, the other - stating that you can infer a higher likelihood based on a higher number of similarities alone - is not. I don't know what "almost" means for you, the most i can do is infer it by what you tell me. But i can tell you that your suggestion concerning higher chances of likelihood based solely on the scope of similarity is universally false, because it is an invalid statement. There is a difference between suggesting that Subnautica was possibly influenced by the episode because they share similarities and suggesting that it that it was more likely influenced by that work than by any other because the scope of similarities is greater. One is a valid, one is BS on an universal (i.e. logical) level.
You can argue that it is an "Subnautica"-movie for you, i tell you why it isn't for me. Subjective. We can both be right.
You can not argue that "more similarities=higher likelihood". That is an objective statement, since you make a suggestion about real, observable qualities (i.e. objective reality, if you're ok with that term) based on an invalid assumption. The likelihood you're referring to is the same for everyone - it is independent from the observer. As such it doesn't matter whether or not it's only a suggestion, since you imply that it might be true not just for you, but also for everyone else. This is why i'm arguing - the question isn't whether or not one of us "is correct", but that you can't assume what you assume, based on what your variables are.
Also, i could just as well ask you why you're going to such lengths to defend what was only a suggestion. We're both free to leave this thread any time we want. I'm not holding you hostage. Just ignore me and be done with it.
No it isn't. All it is doing is supporting that guess, and when we don't know the actual answer, that can be quite important in determining what that might be.
All I a, saying there is that I disagree and I have just as much validation to come to come to that comclusion - if not more (because anyone can be skeptical) - that you do.
And that is only your opinion. You should learn that your opinion is no more valid or superior than anyone else's. It will save you some time.
No, but it is a good way to arrive at a good conclusion, given we still don't know whether or not it is true.
But logic wasn't even used when coming up with that conclusion. All it involved wwas the knowledge of who wrote what and when they were published. If logic plays into this at all, it would be in determining that a dead author could not have written a living author's work and claimed intellectual ownership over it. But most people would know that already and would instead be wondering if the living author (in this case J. K. Rowling) took inspiration from the deceased author's work (in this case J. R. R. Tolkien). Which is certainly possible.
It is still very possible that the developers of Subnautica had gotten inspiration from S02E10 of The Outer Limits because they would have been alive when they saw that episode and there are enough similarities between the two works to suggest they did do just that.
But as I've said before, you don't need any logic at all to determine the possibility of whether or not Subnautica could have gotten inspiraton from S02E10 of The Outer Limits. You could still look at it from that perspective, sure, but where it has to do with inspiration, logic cannot disprove that it was possible Subnautica was inspired by S02E10 of The Outer Limits
Because it is fairly obvious that this is what happened. Name a contemporary work of high fantasy that was not inspired in any way by The Lord Of The Rings. It would be rediculous to think otherwise.
But the popularity and influence of the work in question does, and from there we look at how similar the inspired work was from its inspiration. There you go. The fact that you are looking at this strictly from a statistical probability standpoint tells me you don't know how inspiration and influence actually work.
Sorry but inspiration isn't reduced to mere statistical probability like that. You need to look at factors like popularity and the level of appeal a work has, too, and The Outer Limits was very popular. Atleast in North America it was. I am not sure about Germany.
It would be less likely if the author in question didn't know about the work, but then we woulgd have a pretty good idea whether they did or not just by looking at the work. Pure coincidence is rare and originality is the best indicator of a novel concept, obviously.
Similarities and the fact that The Outer Limits[/b] aired long before Subnautica was made and that it was very popular in North America, which is relevant because Subnautica was also made in North America. There is more to it than statistical probability, though that is also in favour of possible inspiration from The Outer Limits because there were similarities between the two. S02E10 of The Outer Limits[/b] doesn't need to be a primary source of inspiration in order to be a major source of inspiration.
Actually, technically you are. Just because we don't know whether or not there really is a connection between Subnautica and S02E10 of The Outer Limits does not mean there isn't one. Yet you seem to think that needs to be the case. Or, in other words, something doesn't exist until we can prove it does. I would hope we could be content with the notion that it is still possible and that its likelihood can be raised by factors like similarity until we know for sure that similarity doesn't mean anything. And in this case we don't.
But that is where our opinions come in and yours isn't any better than mine is so you shouldn't be portraying it as such.
But you don't need to do that. The popularity of the source of inspiration already tells you how much more influence that source of inspiration will have on the work inspired by it. All the similarities show are the magnitude of that inspiration. I.e. it was more likely than not a major source of inspiration. I didn't even say S02E10 of The Outer Limits was a primary source of inspiration. All the similarities show are the chance that the eposode was more of an inspiration than any other work we don't know about. I already realize that Finding Nemo and The Abyss were the primary sources of inspiration for Subnautica becouse those two were the only sources that have been mentioned thus far. That doesn't mean The Outer Limits wasn't a major source of inspiration, too.
It is the fact that logic cannot even be used to disprove the amount of influence S02E10 of The Outer Limits had on Subnautica and the irrelevence it has on the entire matter which makes me think your sense of logic is bizarre. There is no way you can use it to disprove anything so why you are still trying to use it explains enough of what is going on here.
Then why are you basing your entire argument on the amount of similarities Subnautica and S02E10 of The Outer Limits have with each other, and literally nothing else? Don't tell me that alone disproves anything because it doesn't.
There was a lot of talk about an Americanized Project Akira around the time Chronicle was made and Josh Trank said so himself that Project Akira[/b] was a major inspiration for his film. Unless and until an Americanized Project Akira does come out, I think it is pretty safe to say Chronicle was that film. I am not going to place any certainty on it but it is a pretty good guess.
Yep.