HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/lady...ing

I hear voices

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 18:41, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Whan an old scene is re-enacted, it is nice to have a comparison like this.
• They both sound more like their modern forms. A similar fact is used in flashback; why not here?

Arguments against:

• We normally kill stuff with language like that. Isn't it unlikely that an MLS-era voice would be "performed" precisely as it was years ago?

Additional comments:

• Both Homestar and Strongbad's flashback voices sound enough like their older counterparts to render this fact essentially unprovable.
  • I've compared them side-by-side. The fun fact above is true.
  • Whether or not it's true, the fact here is that Matt Chapman is essentially trying to do an impression of his Strong Bad and Homestar from years ago. In the present, he's spent years developing and refining the voices. No matter how talented a voice-actor he is (and he is quite talented), there's almost no way he could get the MLS-era voices perfectly. And that was the intent of the "lady...ing" - to at least evoke the crudity of the MLS characters, and certainly to make fun of them, not to have them sound slightly more like their modern counterparts.
    • True as that may be, this is still an interesting fun fact.
      • I suppose it's interesting - the difference is noticeable. But there's just something about it that bugs me - I just can't see it without the subtext of "Matt Chapman, who created and shaped the voices of Homestar and Strong Bad that we all know and love, failed to exactly re-create earlier versions of his own voice from years ago." I know that wasn't the intent of the fact's author, but it still bothers me. Why can't we just enjoy the fact that TBC gave true H*R fans who even know what Marshmallow's Last Stand is a real treat to savor?

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• Why rewrite just to add speculation on why they sound like they do?

Additional comments:

• Wait. You rewrite it to add a speculation? And I thought this wiki didn't like those.
• I like the re-write better, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's Matt in 2005 doing Matt from five or six years ago. The difference is not intentional (well, I'm 99% sure it's not intentional) - why not make it a "goof"?
  • This was plucked from Remarks, not Goofs. If accepted, it will go back there.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

What about Van Mundegaarde?

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 16:20, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• "Main man" and "best friend" are arguably synonymous phrases.
• The authors' (of 2_years and lady...ing) references to themselves as Strong Bad's "Main Man" and "2nd and 3rd best Friends Ever," as well as Strong Bad's responses to these claims, are strikingly similar.
• This is close enough to merit attention. I believe all viewers should have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not Strong Bad is contradicting himself.
• Even though best friends change over time, Van Mundegaarde has remained Strong Bad's main man since 1987.
• Possibly they said 2nd and 3rd as to not step on Mundegaarde's title

Arguments against:

• Strong Bad does this sort of thing all the time.
• Van Mundegaarde is his main man, Fabrosi is his first best friend, ever. They're different.
• Best friends change over time. The email 2 years, was a long time ago.
• I don't think TBC are that focused on such minor continuity.

Additional comments:

• The point I would have made would be that the writers of the email probably remembered Van Mundegaarde being Strong Bad's main man, and so opted to identify themselves as second and third, knowing that the number one slot has already been filled.
  • I agree, maybe we should put that up instead.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Adorable The Cheat's blue eyes

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 15:58, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The blue eyes shared by both versions of the Cheat are unmistakably similar, and both are intended for increased adorability.
• Comparison of the pictures below reveals both similarities and differences, with the significant similarities being color, reflection of light, and a qualitative "cuteness" factor.

Arguments against:

• Actually, they are both just creepy blue eyes. They look very different when you compare them.
• As can be seen in the pictures below, the eyes may both be large and blue, but they have very different shapes. The Cheat's eyes are very vertical ovals and have eyelashes; 20X6 Cheat's eyes are more horizontal, lack lashes, and the outline doesn't go all the way around the eyes. The Cheat also doesn't have noticeable pupils, while 20X6 Cheat does.
• The two images don't use the same colour of blue. The Cheat's eyes are 0x0000CF, whereas 20X6 Cheat's eyes are 0x0000FF.
• "Shares" is not the right word, because they are obviously different eyes.

Additional comments:

• Let's compare:

• Even if they are similar, that doesn't automatically make it a reference, especially since they're just as different as they are similar.
• Maybe shares should be replaced with resembles.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• There seems to be enough evidence that, up close, the furry little guy's eyes are blue.

Arguments against:

• He doesn't have blue eyes. He had blue eyes as a joke in lady...ing, and had them as his 20X6 counterpart to make him look different.
• It's just fot the sake of cuteness.

Additional comments:

• This item is intended to replace the one above, but it is not proposed for lady...ing. The fact is intended for the article on The Cheat.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Long Pants reference

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 20:51, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Homestar isn't wearing anything other than what he usually wears. He shakes his leg showing that he's wearing pants, just like he insisted he did in "long pants".
• Just because it is a reference to earlier in the same email, doesn't preclude it from being a reference to another email as well.

Arguments against:

• This is not a reference to "long pants". It is a "reference" to Strong Bad's tip to "wear tight pants that accentuate all your suppleties". And since a toon can't reference itself this is not an inside reference.
• Homestar nearly quotes Strong Bad exactly from previously in the toon: "I'm wearin' tight pants so as to accentuate all my bubbleties!" How can that be a reference to a different toon altogether?
• Also, long pants isn't the first time they have mentioned Homestar's apperant lack of pants

Additional comments:

• The implication that Homestar's legs ARE pants, as implied by the leg shaking mentioned above, was brought up in long pants, and it's certainly not impossible TBC are bringing that up again.
• Keep in mind that yes, Strong Bad did say to wear tight pants, but Homestar looks exactly like he always does. Homestar claims that his legs are pants, and because they don't have any obvious cuffs, would therefore have to be tight to begin with.
• So every time Homestar mentions "pants", it is automatically a reference to long pants?
  • Good point. We don't call every time strong bad kicks the cheat a refrence to little animal.
    • But we do point out the reference to the running gag.
• I will accept this if we revise it to "Homestar telling Marzipan he is wearing pants when he looks no different to normal is a reference to long pants."
• If this stays in, maybe instead of saying it's a direct reference to long pants, it should be called a running gag or something. They also mentioned Homestar's pants in Not the 100th Email!!! and monument.
  • This is a good point. See: Homestar's Pants
• I think tight pants ARE a running gag or at least an inside joke. Look in super powers, Pom Pom's character page, Because, It's Midnite (karaoke) and lady...ing.

Proposed revision:

• If the article on Homestar's Pants is accepted, then the fact would need to be revised as above. This revision would then automatically accepted as a running gag. If the article is not accepted, then this revision can be ignored. Any discussion would be at Talk:Homestar's Pants.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Holy crap!

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 01:53, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The phrase wasn't used until A Jumping Jack Contest, which was in an entirely different style and time period.
• personal favorites is not a true "way back" scene. It was after "Holy crap" was introduced in the newer styles.
• The overuse of "Holy Crap" is from an entirely different "back then" era. The Luau era, to be exact.

Arguments against:

• He did use it in the other "way back" scene from personal favorites.
• MLS is not an era, just one toon. Not just that, but It's the first toon with voice acting, so it's natural that Strong Bad's personality wouldn't be fully developed.
• They are simply parodying the fact that "back then" Strong Bad supposedly said the phrase a lot.
• As the fact stands (after crossing stuff out), it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy.

Additional comments:

• His "holy crap" overuse in the flashback would be accurate if it was showing something from "The Luau" era, when that phrase was overused.
• Exactly what constitutes the "Marshmallow's Last Stand era"?
  • It's not exactly an era, but rather a toon, because the style was never really used again, except to mock the old style. Any modern appearances of it are "parodies," methinks.
• Technically, neither "personal favourites" nor "lady...ing" are true "way back" scenes. They were both made long after the phrase was overused.
  • Yes, but they are still attempting to parody the MLS-style, which is pre-Holy Crap. Or perhaps, they may be parodying two different old styles at the same time, although they make it look like they are only parodying one.
• Isn't this email also pre-SB-kicking-The-Cheat? I think there's no reason to be pedantic about these things.
  • Kicking The Cheat is from after-MLS period, but it makes sense in context of the toon and only appears once. Holy crap, however, is placed in several out-of-context areas for no reason than just to overuse it.
    • But Homestar was the first to kick The Cheat in the first book. I think it should be a running gag.
• How 'bout remove the word "era"; there's no question that he doesn't use it that particular 'toon.
  • Seconded.. remove that word, it makes more sense. It may also be useful to note that he's saying 'Holy crap' a lot more in the flashback than he does nowadays, hence making it unusual.
    • NOTE: The word "era" has been crossed out from the fact. This is not being proposed as a full Revision because (1) it doesn't change the substance of the fact, and (2) it would be confusing given that the Accepts are currently leading. If anyone has a serious issue with this, leave a note here and we'll figure something else out.
• Things like the old characters page still use the MLS design.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Ice Creme Fixation

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 16:40, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• This is a valid and interesting fact that lets the reader know that Strong Bad likes ice cream. This fact was deleted with the comment "removed a 'this is the nth time' item ..." but just a few lines above that is the comments that this is the first time that we see a close-up of the floppy disk container.
• A statement, like at the end of kids' book, may seem insignificant at first. It's only when a second instance occurs that it becomes notable and interesting.
• This has the beginnings of a running gag (see link below).

Arguments against:

• The argument for says it all — it's a "this is the nth time" item (a "second"). The other item stated was a "first," which we usually acknowledge.
• This shouldn't be considered a running gag just yet. So far it's only two unrelated incidents. If he does it a third time...

Additional comments:

• When do we stop acknowledging events? The 2nd time? 3rd time? 17th time? The long-standing standard is that only 1st time events are acknowledged.
  • For something special: the 1st time; for something ordinary that is like one that was before it: 2nd time; something that was repeated a lot: consider an inside joke/running gag.
• If it were a running gag, it would be noted, because we note them whenever they appear.
• I think I have stumbled onto something. I did some more searching...admitedly because I was tired of getting my fun facts deleted all the time...and with the aid of the handy dandy search engine, I realize this already is a running gag. TBC must really like ice cream. Because I found more references, I am moving my own vote to decline. I need someone's help because I think this should get its own article an I don't know how to start one or where it should go.
  • Talk:Ice Cream — please join the discussion on whether this should be recognized as a full running gag.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Anchorman Strong Bad?

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 15:50, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The Bros. Chaps have been known to make all kinds of crazy references to all kinds of things, why not a Will Ferrell movie?

Arguments against:

• Fantana's cologne is described by other people as more colorful things than just gasoline.
• The "reference" is too vague.

Additional comments:

• Even though Anchorman has been out for quite some time, it's still possible this is a reference to it.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Broken Lappy Screen (Goofs)

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 16:30, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• This also happened in bottom 10 and was mentioned there.

Arguments against:

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Bubble Teas?

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 04:52, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Um... Bubbleties. Bubble teas. It's worth noting, if people hadn't heard of bubble tea.

Arguments against:

• "Real-World References" is supposed to be limited to "clear references," and this is certainly not that.
• Homestar was just mispronouncing Strong Bad's phrase (which was mispronounced in itself).
• If you need to ask if it is worth noting, it probably isn't.

Additional comments:

• If all "Real-World References" were just "clear references," this wiki would have a lot less info.

• If we've all done our jobs then it would have exactly the same amount of info. It's not a good idea to put sketchy info in just for the sake of having more info. Quality > Quantity.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Suppleties

From: lady...ing
Posted on: 06:54, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• It's just Strong Bad mispronouncing "subtleties" with his old, bad accent.
• This doesn't make much sense in context.

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]