HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/unnatural

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(archived closed STUFF)
m (archived closed STUFF item)
 
(includes 1 intermediate revision)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stuffarchive}}
{{stuffarchive}}
__TOC__
__TOC__
 +
{{stuffbeginblue}}
 +
 +
=== Emergency Marketown Meeting! Jaws? ===
 +
{{stufffact|The emergency town meeting scene could be a reference to a similar scene from the movie Jaws.}}
 +
{{stuffdata|[[unnatural]]|16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)}}
 +
 +
{{stuffargsfor}}
 +
#"There are a lot of movies with similar scenes." ''Jaws'' is still probably the most well known, though, so I'd say it's more likely that that was what they were referring to.
 +
<!--# list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffargsagainst}}
 +
<!--# list-->
 +
#[[TTATOT]], there are a lot of movies with similar scenes.
 +
#Re arg for #1: I'd say it's more likely that they were refferring to the sbemail "unnatural". As in, they made up a scene that is a likely occurence at that point in the plot. Nothing more.
 +
#Re arg for #1: The very definition of TTATOT is "if it could apply to several things, it probably refers to nothing in particular." Your argument sports a "most likely". A clear sign of TTATOT.
 +
{{stuffcomments}}
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffaccept}}
 +
<!--# list-->
 +
#[[User:Lux Acerbus|Lux Acerbus]]
 +
 +
{{stuffdecline}}
 +
<!--# list-->
 +
#[[User:DeFender1031|DeFender1031]]
 +
#{{User:Trey56/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Some kind of scientist|Some kind of scientist]]
 +
#{{User:Bluebry/sig}}
 +
#[[User:EYanyo|EYanyo]]
 +
#{{User:Loafing/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Collin Diver|Collin Diver]]
 +
#[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
 +
#[[User:Mycroft.holmes|Mycroft Holmes]]
 +
#{{User:TotalSpaceshipGuy3/sig}}
 +
#{{User:E.L. Cool/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Crazyswordsman|Crazyswordsman]]
 +
#{{User:YK/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Dangeresque, too?|Dangeresque, too?]]
 +
#[[User:Yadaman|Yadaman]]
 +
#[[User:Rowsdower45|Rowsdower45]]
 +
#{{User:Theyellowdart/sig}}
 +
{{stuffendvotes}}
 +
 +
{{stuffend}}
 +
 +
{{stuffbegingray}}
 +
 +
=== Chocolate cake again! I said chocolate cake again! ===
 +
 +
{{stufffact|Homestar mentioning chocolate cake is also a reference to strong badathlon in which [[Homsar]] mistakes The Cheat covered in [[Whatsit]] for a chocolate cake when he lands on the picnic table.}}
 +
{{stuffdata|[[unnatural]]|22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)}}
 +
 +
{{stuffargsfor}}
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
*Strong Bad is mentioning tampering with DNA evidence just before homestar appears, saying that. When The Cheat was referenced to as chocolate cake, Marzipan had just mentioned that she realized DNA evidence was tampered with.
 +
*In [[strong badathlon]], The Cheat ''was'' clearly described by chocolate cake, and was even on a picnic table at the time.  And, it's a consecutive reference, too.
 +
*Complete and utter coincidence? Homestar might be a pretty incoherent guy, but the Brothers Chaps are quite coherent. Since they're writing the scripts for these cartoons (not Homestar), it's almost certain that Homestar referencing chocolate cake on top of a picnic table is just as much a reference as Strong Bad's mention of DNA evidence (especially since they both happened in the same scene in the last email). Whether or not it's likely that Homestar would lend credence to Homsar's ramblings is totally irrelevant.
 +
*Homestar has been known to seemingly back up Homsar's ramblings, like in [[theme park]], when he got excited about "tasteball." It was probably just Homestar being clueless as usual, and so is this.
 +
*The important thing isn't that there's actually a whatsitburied the Cheat on the table for Homestar to mistake as chocolate cake. He just ''thinks'' it's there, which is what makes it a reference. Saying that the two tables are different and that there's no reason for Homestar to mistake anything on the table for chocolate cake aren't valid arguments because by making those arguments, your'e trying to make the reference logical only in the context of the email it's in. Inside references, however, don't always make sense when you take them out of context to what they're referring to.
 +
*It is possible that Homestar was still talking about turning into ants. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have been confusing the image of a whatsitburied The Cheat with chocolate cake. Just because the reference might not seem to make sense doesn't mean it's not a reference - I think TBC would remember what they put in the immediately preceding email. If it's not a reference, why, of all things, would they mention chocolate cake? Especially in the context of a teaset and picnic table, which is exactly how the whatsitburied Cheat appeared in the last email.
 +
*I too dont agree with the wording, i think that a refrence to DNA evidence in the actual fun fact would clear the foggyness.
 +
 +
{{stuffargsagainst}}
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
*A complete and utter coincidence. Not only is it a random statement, why would Homestar lend any credence to Homsar's incoherent ramblings? Two consecutive appearances of the term "chocolate cake" do not an inside reference make. We might as well say that the term "email" is an inside reference every time it's used in a SBEmail.
 +
*This time, there is nothing that is whatsitburied. In fact, there is no whatsit anywhere in the scene. The table can't still have whatsit on it from last week, because it's not the same table (just because it uses the same vectors does not make it the same).
 +
*When Bubs stomps into the scene, the table goes flying away from The Cheat, so Homestar couldn't even be mistaking The Cheat for whatsit. This is too much of a stretch to call it a reference for sure.
 +
*Chocolate cake is a very general thing that is fairly standard for a picnic table; tampering with DNA evidence is not an everyday topic.
 +
*Moreover, ants can steal chocolate cake from a picnic. Ants are what Homestar thought Bubs turned them into.
 +
*Re: ''"He just ''thinks'' it's there, which is what makes it a reference."'' We don't have nearly enough information to guess what Homestar is ''thinking'' here. Any attempt to do so is pure speculation.
 +
 +
{{stuffcomments}}
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
*While I don't disagree with the connection, I don't like the way it's phrased, as there is no clear connection between this instance and the one in the previous email.  Perhaps it would be better to say "could be a reference to" instead.
 +
*The picnic table and tea set from both emails share the same vectors, and only differ in color.
 +
**This means they're not the same table. The tea set is also different.
 +
*"We don't have nearly enough information to guess what Homestar is ''thinking'' here." You're missing the point of my argument. You're trying to make the reference make sense out of the context of the last email. Maybe you've noticed, but everything Homestar says doesn't necessarily make sense.
 +
**The problem is that you people are trying to make this make sense like it's something that's not out of a cartoon. In order for you to prove that this ''isn't'' a reference, you shouldn't be trying to prove that Homestar's mention of chocolate cake doesn't make sense on the grounds of logic. What you ''should'' be trying to prove is that there's no way that TBC threw the mention in there with the intent of referencing the immediately preceding email. I haven't seen a single argument like that up until now.
 +
***The cartoon's aren't exactly completely illogical just because the they're cartoons, though. At any rate, there is no way to prove that TBC didn't make a reference here, but there is a way to present reasonable doubt, and that is what the above arguments are doing by suggesting that the correspondence between the two events is weak and that it's likely a coincidence.
 +
****Maybe you should be providing reasonable doubt as to whether or not there's any POSSIBLE chance that TBC threw the mention in there as a reference. Is there some law that says that everything they do has to make sense? I think that'd already be in pieces if there was one. Besides, if they weren't going to make a reference, why in God's name did they throw "chocolate cake" in there of all things?
 +
*****It's the other way around. We need to show that it '''is''' a reference. Otherwise, '''everything''' they say is one.
 +
******This wiki rarely lists ''possible'' chances of reference. We tend to stick with those that are at least rather likely. As for why they said chocolate cake, well, I think you answered that yourself: there's no reason everything they do has to make sense. Therefore, there's no reason Homestar couldn't have just thrown that out for no reason.
 +
*What do we do if it stays on a split descision?
 +
*Perhaps it's a running gag.
 +
 +
{{stuffaccept}}
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
#[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
 +
#[[User:Sharp|Sharp]]
 +
#{{User:H*Bad/sig}}
 +
#[[User:0rion|0rion]]
 +
#{{User:Jay/sig}}
 +
#{{User:HeyMama/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Parp11|Parp11]]
 +
#{{User:Snickjames55/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Chimpdudex|Chimpdudex]]
 +
#[[User:Coveredinharmony|Coveredinharmony]]
 +
#[[User:Bungalo|Bungalo]]
 +
#[[User:Kiwi|Kiwi]]
 +
#{{User:Ten Ten/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Gerkuman|Gerkuman]]
 +
#{{User:Has Matt?/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Hrwikisbetterthanmyspace|Hrwikisbetterthanmyspace]]
 +
{{stuffdecline}}
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
#[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]]
 +
#{{User:Dacheatbot/sig}}
 +
#[[User:MNGoldenEagle|MNGoldenEagle]]
 +
#[[User:Mycroft.holmes|Mycroft Holmes]]
 +
#[[User:BoobusToober|BoobusToober]]
 +
#{{User:Geshmalderborgen/sig}}
 +
#[[User: Drippingyellowmadness|<span style="font-family:Bazooka; color:orange"> Drippingyellowmadness</span>]] <sup> [[User talk:Drippingyellowmadness|<font color="#003333">talk</font>]]</sup>
 +
#&mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
 +
#[[User:Libertyernie|Libertyernie]]
 +
#[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]]
 +
#[[User:Brittany|Kishona]]
 +
# {{User:Raptor5ix/sig}}
 +
# {{User:Ilko Skevüld's Teh C/Sig}}
 +
#[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]]
 +
#{{User:FireBird/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Trogga|Trogga]]
 +
#[[User:Bigscarymike|BigScaryMike]]
 +
#{{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}}
 +
#{{User:KieferSkunk/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Hrjogger|Hrjogger]]
 +
#{{User:Trey56/sig}}
 +
#[[User:EYanyo|EYanyo]]
 +
#[[User:Point7Q|Point7Q]]
 +
#[[User:Addict 2006|Addict]] [[User talk:Addict 2006|2006]]
 +
#{{User:4kai2lyn6/sig}}
 +
{{stuffendvotes}}
 +
 +
{{stuffrevise|Homestar mentioning chocolate cake could also be a reference to strong badathlon in which [[Homsar]] mistakes The Cheat covered in [[Whatsit]] for a chocolate cake when he lands on the picnic table.|Chocolate cake again! I said chocolate cake again!}}
 +
 +
{{stuffargsfor}}
 +
*This makes it only a ''possible'' reference, not a full-blown one.
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffargsagainst}}
 +
*It doesn't change the fact that the fact is completely random and utterly coincidental!
 +
*That's just the problem - if you're going to make a reference, be firm about it. Saying it ''might'' be a reference to something sounds... tacky. The original suggestion is much better.
 +
*"Could also"? I'm not sure though.
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffcomments}}
 +
*That's probably the most obvious inside reference I've ever seen... er... heard. There should be no "could be" about it.
 +
*If Homsar's comment was in an easter egg, then it would be less obvious, but it OBVIOUSLY is/
 +
**That comment made absolutely no sense.
 +
*It's about as random a comment as could be.
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffaccept}}
 +
#{{User:NFITC1/sig}}
 +
<!--# list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffdecline}}
 +
#[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]]
 +
#[[User:0rion|0rion]]
 +
#[[User:Mycroft.holmes|Mycroft Holmes]]
 +
#[[User:BoobusToober|BoobusToober]]
 +
#&mdash; {{User:Lapper/sig}}
 +
#&mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
 +
#[[User:Addict 2006|Addict]] [[User talk:Addict 2006|2006]]
 +
#[[User:Unknownwarrior33|Unknownwarrior33]]
 +
#[[User:H*Bad|H*Bad]]
 +
#[[User:Trogga|Trogga]]
 +
#{{User:Garnet Jell-o/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Rowsdower45|Rowsdower45]]
 +
#[[User:Homsar999|Homsar999]]
 +
#[[User:EYanyo|EYanyo]]
 +
#[[User:Point7Q|Point7Q]]
 +
#{{User:4kai2lyn6/sig}}
 +
 +
<!--# list-->
 +
{{stuffendvotes}}
 +
 +
{{stuffrevise|[[Homsar]] also mentioned chocolate cake on the picnic table in [[strong badathlon]].|Chocolate cake again! I said chocolate cake again!}}
 +
 +
{{stuffargsfor}}
 +
*This one should make everyone happy; it notes the remarkable similarity of the lines, but does not immediately imply a deliberate connection.
 +
*It's at least as notable as the inside ref about shaving on the [[unnatural]] page.
 +
*"''There is no connection''." This revision doesn't even make any statement that there ''is'' a connection, only that there's a similarity; we comment on remarkable similarities all the time.
 +
<!--* list-->
 +
 +
{{stuffargsagainst}}
 +
*Either there is a connection, or there isn't:
 +
:*If there is no connection, then this is not notable.
 +
:*If there ''is'' a connection, the fact should be stated more clearly. Somebody reading this version of the fact on [[unnatural]] would say to themselves, "So what?" unless they looked it up on [[strong badathlon]] and came to the same conclusion this fact is hinting at.
 +
*You can try and revise this till you're blue in the face. ''There is no connection''.
 +
*Homsar didn't technically mention a picnic table, just the cake.
 +
 +
{{stuffcomments}}
 +
*I would also love to add a comment about this debate to the FF...
 +
**We don't link to internal discussions in articles. We will, however, link to these discussions on the talk page once the STUFF items have been closed.
 +
*As someone who's not convinced by the connection, I would still rather have the clear statement in the original fact accepted than this ambiguous version.
 +
*The absolute worst-case scenario here, if TBC did not intend the line to be a ref, is that we will end up using the wiki to comment on one line's exceptional similarity to another, a similarity made all the more striking by the facts that: a) it seems to echo the immediately preceding sbemail, and b) it comes just moments after an indisputable inside ref. And we certainly don't have any more TBC confirmation one way or the other than we do for any other FF on the site. So the issue here shouldn't be whether there was a deliberate connection; the question we should be asking when adding a FF is, "Will the inclusion of this fact add to people's enjoyment/understanding of the toon?" Even if it is a coincidence, that's still worth at least a bullet in the "Remarks" section. Jeez... remind me again why we call these "''fun'' facts?"
 +
**I second that opinion!
 +
*"''There is no connection''." Why don't you try and prove that based on something other than your own opinion? I still don't see anyone trying to disprove this as a reference based on whether or not it's likely that TBC intended to make a reference. All these arguments about whether or not it would be logical for Homestar to mention chocolate cake based on Homsar's mention have no place on this page - he ''did'', therefore, in all probability, TBC intended it as a reference. It's like arguing that there's no reason for Strong Bad to have been talking about DNA evidence since he wasn't present during Marzipan's conversation. Are you going to try to tell me ''that'' isn't a reference?
 +
*I like this revision. I think it's good that it focuses on the real fact that there is a striking similarity between the two mentions rather than stating that it's clearly a reference. I think it should be a little more specific though, like maybe "Homsar also mentions chocolate cake on the picnic table during Marzipan's conversation about DNA evidence."
 +
 +
{{stuffaccept}}
 +
#[[User:Rowsdower45|Rowsdower45]]
 +
#[[User:Retromaniac|Retromaniac]]
 +
#[[User:Hrjogger|Hrjogger]]
 +
#[[User:Kiwi|Kiwi]]
 +
#[[User:Homsar999|Homsar999]]
 +
#{{User:Shwoo/sig}}
 +
#[[User:Addict 2006|Addict]] [[User talk:Addict 2006|2006]]
 +
#{{User:Theyellowdart/sig}}
 +
#[[User:LuxAcerbus|LuxAcerbus]]
 +
 +
{{stuffdecline}}
 +
#{{User:Loafing/sig}}
 +
#{{User:Trey56/sig}}
 +
#[[User:ISlayedTheKerrek|ISlayedTheKerrek]]
 +
#[[User:EYanyo|EYanyo]]
 +
#[[User:Point7Q|Point7Q]]
 +
#[[User:Mycroft.holmes|Mycroft Holmes]]
 +
#{{User:KieferSkunk/sig}}
 +
#{{User:YK/sig}}
 +
#{{User:4kai2lyn6/sig}}
 +
#&mdash; [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]]
 +
#{{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}}
 +
 +
{{stuffendvotes}}
 +
 +
{{stuffend}}
 +
{{stuffbeginblue}}
{{stuffbeginblue}}

Current revision as of 19:56, 21 March 2007

These HRWiki:STUFF items are preserved here as an archive. Do not add new votes.

Contents

Emergency Marketown Meeting! Jaws?

The emergency town meeting scene could be a reference to a similar scene from the movie Jaws.

From: unnatural
Posted on: 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

  1. "There are a lot of movies with similar scenes." Jaws is still probably the most well known, though, so I'd say it's more likely that that was what they were referring to.

Arguments against:

  1. TTATOT, there are a lot of movies with similar scenes.
  2. Re arg for #1: I'd say it's more likely that they were refferring to the sbemail "unnatural". As in, they made up a scene that is a likely occurence at that point in the plot. Nothing more.
  3. Re arg for #1: The very definition of TTATOT is "if it could apply to several things, it probably refers to nothing in particular." Your argument sports a "most likely". A clear sign of TTATOT.

Additional comments:


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. Lux Acerbus
  1. DeFender1031
  2. Trey56
  3. Some kind of scientist
  4. Bluebry
  5. EYanyo
  6.  Loafing
  7. Collin Diver
  8. DorianGray
  9. Mycroft Holmes
  10. TotalSpaceshipGirl3
  11. — Elcool (talk)(contribs)
  12. Crazyswordsman
  13. YKHi. I'm Ayjo!
  14. Dangeresque, too?
  15. Yadaman
  16. Rowsdower45
  17. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Chocolate cake again! I said chocolate cake again!

Homestar mentioning chocolate cake is also a reference to strong badathlon in which Homsar mistakes The Cheat covered in Whatsit for a chocolate cake when he lands on the picnic table.

From: unnatural
Posted on: 22:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

  • Strong Bad is mentioning tampering with DNA evidence just before homestar appears, saying that. When The Cheat was referenced to as chocolate cake, Marzipan had just mentioned that she realized DNA evidence was tampered with.
  • In strong badathlon, The Cheat was clearly described by chocolate cake, and was even on a picnic table at the time. And, it's a consecutive reference, too.
  • Complete and utter coincidence? Homestar might be a pretty incoherent guy, but the Brothers Chaps are quite coherent. Since they're writing the scripts for these cartoons (not Homestar), it's almost certain that Homestar referencing chocolate cake on top of a picnic table is just as much a reference as Strong Bad's mention of DNA evidence (especially since they both happened in the same scene in the last email). Whether or not it's likely that Homestar would lend credence to Homsar's ramblings is totally irrelevant.
  • Homestar has been known to seemingly back up Homsar's ramblings, like in theme park, when he got excited about "tasteball." It was probably just Homestar being clueless as usual, and so is this.
  • The important thing isn't that there's actually a whatsitburied the Cheat on the table for Homestar to mistake as chocolate cake. He just thinks it's there, which is what makes it a reference. Saying that the two tables are different and that there's no reason for Homestar to mistake anything on the table for chocolate cake aren't valid arguments because by making those arguments, your'e trying to make the reference logical only in the context of the email it's in. Inside references, however, don't always make sense when you take them out of context to what they're referring to.
  • It is possible that Homestar was still talking about turning into ants. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have been confusing the image of a whatsitburied The Cheat with chocolate cake. Just because the reference might not seem to make sense doesn't mean it's not a reference - I think TBC would remember what they put in the immediately preceding email. If it's not a reference, why, of all things, would they mention chocolate cake? Especially in the context of a teaset and picnic table, which is exactly how the whatsitburied Cheat appeared in the last email.
  • I too dont agree with the wording, i think that a refrence to DNA evidence in the actual fun fact would clear the foggyness.

Arguments against:

  • A complete and utter coincidence. Not only is it a random statement, why would Homestar lend any credence to Homsar's incoherent ramblings? Two consecutive appearances of the term "chocolate cake" do not an inside reference make. We might as well say that the term "email" is an inside reference every time it's used in a SBEmail.
  • This time, there is nothing that is whatsitburied. In fact, there is no whatsit anywhere in the scene. The table can't still have whatsit on it from last week, because it's not the same table (just because it uses the same vectors does not make it the same).
  • When Bubs stomps into the scene, the table goes flying away from The Cheat, so Homestar couldn't even be mistaking The Cheat for whatsit. This is too much of a stretch to call it a reference for sure.
  • Chocolate cake is a very general thing that is fairly standard for a picnic table; tampering with DNA evidence is not an everyday topic.
  • Moreover, ants can steal chocolate cake from a picnic. Ants are what Homestar thought Bubs turned them into.
  • Re: "He just thinks it's there, which is what makes it a reference." We don't have nearly enough information to guess what Homestar is thinking here. Any attempt to do so is pure speculation.

Additional comments:

  • While I don't disagree with the connection, I don't like the way it's phrased, as there is no clear connection between this instance and the one in the previous email. Perhaps it would be better to say "could be a reference to" instead.
  • The picnic table and tea set from both emails share the same vectors, and only differ in color.
    • This means they're not the same table. The tea set is also different.
  • "We don't have nearly enough information to guess what Homestar is thinking here." You're missing the point of my argument. You're trying to make the reference make sense out of the context of the last email. Maybe you've noticed, but everything Homestar says doesn't necessarily make sense.
    • The problem is that you people are trying to make this make sense like it's something that's not out of a cartoon. In order for you to prove that this isn't a reference, you shouldn't be trying to prove that Homestar's mention of chocolate cake doesn't make sense on the grounds of logic. What you should be trying to prove is that there's no way that TBC threw the mention in there with the intent of referencing the immediately preceding email. I haven't seen a single argument like that up until now.
      • The cartoon's aren't exactly completely illogical just because the they're cartoons, though. At any rate, there is no way to prove that TBC didn't make a reference here, but there is a way to present reasonable doubt, and that is what the above arguments are doing by suggesting that the correspondence between the two events is weak and that it's likely a coincidence.
        • Maybe you should be providing reasonable doubt as to whether or not there's any POSSIBLE chance that TBC threw the mention in there as a reference. Is there some law that says that everything they do has to make sense? I think that'd already be in pieces if there was one. Besides, if they weren't going to make a reference, why in God's name did they throw "chocolate cake" in there of all things?
          • It's the other way around. We need to show that it is a reference. Otherwise, everything they say is one.
            • This wiki rarely lists possible chances of reference. We tend to stick with those that are at least rather likely. As for why they said chocolate cake, well, I think you answered that yourself: there's no reason everything they do has to make sense. Therefore, there's no reason Homestar couldn't have just thrown that out for no reason.
  • What do we do if it stays on a split descision?
  • Perhaps it's a running gag.


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. DorianGray
  2. Sharp
  3. H*Bad
  4. 0rion
  5. Jay (Talk)
  6. Wario64
  7. Parp11
  8. Snickjames55
  9. Chimpdudex
  10. Coveredinharmony
  11. Bungalo
  12. Kiwi
  13. · · T2|Things
  14. Gerkuman
  15. — Has Matt? (talk)
  16. Hrwikisbetterthanmyspace
  1. ISlayedTheKerrek
  2. --Dacheatbot · Communicate
  3. MNGoldenEagle
  4. Mycroft Holmes
  5. BoobusToober
  6. גשמלדרברגן (Geshmalder)
  7. Drippingyellowmadness talk
  8. — It's dot com
  9. Libertyernie
  10. Unknownwarrior33
  11. Kishona
  12. Raptor5ix-Image:Raptor5ixsiggy.png
  13. ISTC
  14. BazookaJoe
  15. —FireBird|Talk
  16. Trogga
  17. BigScaryMike
  18. Heimstern Läufer
  19. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) —
  20. Hrjogger
  21. Trey56
  22. EYanyo
  23. Point7Q
  24. Addict 2006
  25. kai lyn

Proposed revision:

Homestar mentioning chocolate cake could also be a reference to strong badathlon in which Homsar mistakes The Cheat covered in Whatsit for a chocolate cake when he lands on the picnic table.

Arguments for:

  • This makes it only a possible reference, not a full-blown one.

Arguments against:

  • It doesn't change the fact that the fact is completely random and utterly coincidental!
  • That's just the problem - if you're going to make a reference, be firm about it. Saying it might be a reference to something sounds... tacky. The original suggestion is much better.
  • "Could also"? I'm not sure though.

Additional comments:

  • That's probably the most obvious inside reference I've ever seen... er... heard. There should be no "could be" about it.
  • If Homsar's comment was in an easter egg, then it would be less obvious, but it OBVIOUSLY is/
    • That comment made absolutely no sense.
  • It's about as random a comment as could be.


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. —NFITC1talk
  1. ISlayedTheKerrek
  2. 0rion
  3. Mycroft Holmes
  4. BoobusToober
  5. — Lapper (talk)
  6. — It's dot com
  7. Addict 2006
  8. Unknownwarrior33
  9. H*Bad
  10. Trogga
  11. ~Garnet Jell-o~
  12. Rowsdower45
  13. Homsar999
  14. EYanyo
  15. Point7Q
  16. kai lyn

Proposed revision:

Homsar also mentioned chocolate cake on the picnic table in strong badathlon.

Arguments for:

  • This one should make everyone happy; it notes the remarkable similarity of the lines, but does not immediately imply a deliberate connection.
  • It's at least as notable as the inside ref about shaving on the unnatural page.
  • "There is no connection." This revision doesn't even make any statement that there is a connection, only that there's a similarity; we comment on remarkable similarities all the time.

Arguments against:

  • Either there is a connection, or there isn't:
  • If there is no connection, then this is not notable.
  • If there is a connection, the fact should be stated more clearly. Somebody reading this version of the fact on unnatural would say to themselves, "So what?" unless they looked it up on strong badathlon and came to the same conclusion this fact is hinting at.
  • You can try and revise this till you're blue in the face. There is no connection.
  • Homsar didn't technically mention a picnic table, just the cake.

Additional comments:

  • I would also love to add a comment about this debate to the FF...
    • We don't link to internal discussions in articles. We will, however, link to these discussions on the talk page once the STUFF items have been closed.
  • As someone who's not convinced by the connection, I would still rather have the clear statement in the original fact accepted than this ambiguous version.
  • The absolute worst-case scenario here, if TBC did not intend the line to be a ref, is that we will end up using the wiki to comment on one line's exceptional similarity to another, a similarity made all the more striking by the facts that: a) it seems to echo the immediately preceding sbemail, and b) it comes just moments after an indisputable inside ref. And we certainly don't have any more TBC confirmation one way or the other than we do for any other FF on the site. So the issue here shouldn't be whether there was a deliberate connection; the question we should be asking when adding a FF is, "Will the inclusion of this fact add to people's enjoyment/understanding of the toon?" Even if it is a coincidence, that's still worth at least a bullet in the "Remarks" section. Jeez... remind me again why we call these "fun facts?"
    • I second that opinion!
  • "There is no connection." Why don't you try and prove that based on something other than your own opinion? I still don't see anyone trying to disprove this as a reference based on whether or not it's likely that TBC intended to make a reference. All these arguments about whether or not it would be logical for Homestar to mention chocolate cake based on Homsar's mention have no place on this page - he did, therefore, in all probability, TBC intended it as a reference. It's like arguing that there's no reason for Strong Bad to have been talking about DNA evidence since he wasn't present during Marzipan's conversation. Are you going to try to tell me that isn't a reference?
  • I like this revision. I think it's good that it focuses on the real fact that there is a striking similarity between the two mentions rather than stating that it's clearly a reference. I think it should be a little more specific though, like maybe "Homsar also mentions chocolate cake on the picnic table during Marzipan's conversation about DNA evidence."


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. Rowsdower45
  2. Retromaniac
  3. Hrjogger
  4. Kiwi
  5. Homsar999
  6. —Shwoo
  7. Addict 2006
  8. TheYellowDart—(t/c)
  9. LuxAcerbus
  1.  Loafing
  2. Trey56
  3. ISlayedTheKerrek
  4. EYanyo
  5. Point7Q
  6. Mycroft Holmes
  7. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) —
  8. YKHi. I'm Ayjo!
  9. kai lyn
  10. — It's dot com
  11. Heimstern Läufer

[ Back to STUFF index ]

The Legend of King Bubsgonzola

The title and growl observed during King Bubsgonzola Supreme's appearance is reminiscent of the beginning of boss fights from the Nintendo game The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and later games in the series.

From: unnatural
Posted on: 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

  • Bubsgonzola's appearance mirrors the pre-boss cutscenes of the 3-D Zelda games perfectly: the boss appears, a title like "Parasitic Armored Arachnid: Queen Gohma" appears at the bottom of the screen in a two-line format, and then the boss roars.
  • TBC have made numerous previous Zelda references.
  • Zelda games have used similar panning

Arguments against:

  • Too specific a comment. There's no Zelda boss that starts panning up from a giant pair of feet. It's more likely just a panning camera trick. The title doesn't match any of the Zelda boss titles either. If it said "Supreme King: Bubs" then maybe, but it doesn't, so it's not.
  • Bubs' entrance may have indeed been inspired by those of Zelda bosses, but if TBC had intended for viewers to identify it as such, I think they would have made it more obvious.
  • This sort of intro isn't even exclusive to Ocarina of Time. Brave Fencer Musashi (Playstation) also does the same thing before boss battles. Skies of Arcadia (Dreamcast/Gamecube) introduces major villains/new airships in a very similar manner. And I've heard Wild Arms 2 (Playstation) introduces bosses in a similar way...

Additional comments:

  • Even if this is declined, the fact will remain on the talk page, which I think will be a good outcome — it's an interesting connection and a possible inspiration, but I don't think it's clear enough to be in the main article.


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. 16BitJorge
  2. Retromaniac
  1. —NFITC1talk
  2. Jay (Talk)
  3. DorianGray
  4. H*Bad
  5. Trey56
  6. -Brightstar Shiner
  7. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk)
  8. Trogga
  9. — Image:kskunk_fstandby.gif KieferSkunk (talk) —
  10. Rowsdower45
  11. EYanyo
  12. YKHi. I'm Ayjo!

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Bubzilla

The scene with Bubs going into the water and the Japanese symbol is a reference to Godzilla.

From: unnatural
Posted on: 13:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

Additional comments:

  • It is possible that it could refer to Strong Bad's idea that Bubs came out of the water.
  • May just be a reference to Japanese monster flicks in general
  • Needs to be more specific, as it may actually relate to the ending of the movie King Kong vs. Godzilla.
  • Someone already added this in there. Still, their description was a lot more specific, so I think it looks good as is.
  • Just a note: there were two similar facts that I removed from the article — if these are valid, should the fact at hand be reworded to encompass the scope of the reference?


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. AtionSong
  2. Raptor5ix-Image:Raptor5ixsiggy.png
  3. Dripping yella (talk)
  4. TheYellowDart—(t/c)
  5. Jay (Talk)
  6. DorianGray
  7. WeirdAl (talk ·
  8. 16BitJorge
  9. — Lapper (talk)
  10. —Shwoo
  11. H*Bad
  12. 0rion
  13. Jangles 5150
  14. TotalSpaceshipGirl3
  15. I R F
  16. Wario64

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Weeee!

In the toilet Easter Egg, Strong Sad saying "Weeee" is an inside reference to the Cheat Commandos episode Shopping For Danger. Gunhaver says "Weeee" in the same way when he's sliding down the ripcord.

From: unnatural
Posted on: 4:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for:

  • If Homestar Runner, thinking he's an ant, talking about chocolate cake is supposedly an inside reference, then this definitely is.

Arguments against:

  • Matt Chapman does the voices for both Strong Bad and Gunhaver in a very similar way. It's mere coincidence that they sound alike.
  • If anything, it's more similar to What's Her Face in Teen Girl Squad Issue 10, though I don't think that's a reference either.
  • Besides, Gunhaver says it with a different tone.
  • People say "Weee" all the time when they're having fun, whether they're on the swing, going down a slide or being flushed down the toilet. It's not an inside reference.
  • I don't think the two relate to each other properly.

Additional comments:

  • How could "weee" be an inside reference? The Brothers Chaps didn't invent the word. If they did, then it might possibly be an inside reference even though it's only one word. Regardless, that isn't the case.


Votes to accept: Votes to decline:
  1. -Brightstar Shiner
  2. Dripping yella (talk)
  3. TheYellowDart—(t/c)
  4. Mycroft Holmes
  5. Jay (Talk)
  6. DorianGray
  7. WeirdAl (talk ·
  8.  Loafing
  9. — Elcool (talk)(contribs)
  10. – The Chort
  11. Hrjogger
  12. 16BitJorge
  13. — Lapper (talk)
  14. LuxAcerbus
  15. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk)
  16. —Shwoo
  17. Addict 2006
  18. H*Bad

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Retrieved from "http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/unnatural"
Personal tools