Talk:Bear Holding a Shark

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Filmography?)
(Filmography?)
Line 42: Line 42:
:::::The main reason I thought of the filmography thing is that the purpose of the filmography template is twofold: not only does it list the different toons that character has performed in, but it also informs whoever is reading a given toon that the given character had an appearance in that toon in a uniform manner (if I go to [[date]] I'll know that the Bear-Shark was there).  I think Qermaq made a very important point: are these characters "real" enough that they'd need filmographies, or even if they were real enough once, should we list all their entries in a category.  And then there are other issues i shall not go into at this moment. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::The main reason I thought of the filmography thing is that the purpose of the filmography template is twofold: not only does it list the different toons that character has performed in, but it also informs whoever is reading a given toon that the given character had an appearance in that toon in a uniform manner (if I go to [[date]] I'll know that the Bear-Shark was there).  I think Qermaq made a very important point: are these characters "real" enough that they'd need filmographies, or even if they were real enough once, should we list all their entries in a category.  And then there are other issues i shall not go into at this moment. --[[User:Stux|Stux]] 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
::::::The bear-shark is more real than Biscuit Dough Hands Man, who has his own filmography. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
::::::The bear-shark is more real than Biscuit Dough Hands Man, who has his own filmography. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]]
 +
:::::::Where is BDHM's filmography? Not linked from his page. [[User:Qermaq|Qermaq]] 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe we should go for it. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe we should go for it. {{User:Bluebry muffin/sig}} 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:21, 14 February 2006

Waugh! Why was my screen of the black-and-white hidden camera feed image of the Bear-Shark taken down? I'm putting it back up! --VolatileChemical 01:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, it appears to not be here. — talk Bubsty edits 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

So do we move this to "Bear-holding-a-shark" now? Crystallina 21:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should, considering that "Bear-Holding-A-Shark" is his "real" name. I mean, if the Shadowy Figure from 20X6 gets a name, shouldn't we make a new page for him? -Marth 99 21:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

PseudoCharacter

I added the Bear shark to the cast in the toons it's appeared in. With the recent email it's really become a character in itself. It was also on the Everybody Everybody Poster, so obviously The Brothers Chaps consider him a character, even moreso than The Paper. Thunderbird 22:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I added it to the list of pseudocharacters. — It's dot com 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference?

I noticed the admin, ItsDotCom, has put down the entire section on possible "references" for bear-shark. Can someone explain to me why this is not relevant to the character(s)? SargeAbernathy 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's It's dot com. Second, my being an admin has nothing to do with it. Third, one of those "references" was already mentioned, and the other two were coincidental at best. — It's dot com 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for any offense, and I did not mean to suggest that your Admin status had anything to do with it nor did I mean to offend you by mis-spelling your name.
I made the section on references because I thought that it was information that was important to the character. If a character was a reference to something, then I thought it would be important to note that on the character's page itself. I originally tried putting the section in myths and legends, but I was directed to put such information directly into this article. I agreed with this.
I did notice that the third reference was already mentioned in the article date and it is from that article I brought it from. I did not mean to double any information on the site.
The second reference was unecessary for the site, I realize this now. I apologize for .... being too wordy :)
However the SpaceGhost reference was something that I had caught way back when date first appeared. I didn't know the method of finding out what was a reference or what was coincidence. However, since I was under the assumption that it was a clear reference, I thought it would be important to write down this info ... (Where in literature are you going to see sharks and bears put together for a documentary so humorously save for absurdist humor?)
I do not mean to argue or insult you at all. I merely wanted to ask and debate this section. Again I apologize. SargeAbernathy 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to seem offended, because I wasn't. I was simply pointing out how my name is spelled and the fact that being an admin doesn't mean that I have final say-so on what goes in the articles. That said, I think a bear holding a shark could be thought of independently by several people, and I don't think that TBC were basing theirs on anything. — It's dot com 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh good then ^^ I was afraid you were offended. You're right that the bear/shark will probably be seen as independent by most people, seeing as SG:C2C hasn't been seen by most people who watch Homestar Runner and it is a show that is no longer aired. And, being an English Major right now, I know the insane frustrations that comes with trying to figure out if the author intended something or not ... so what TBC mean to say in any of the stuff they make will be mysteries forever .... just like the legendary bear holding a shark!
I still think the section is needed, but without anything concrete to say, I'm not willing to defend my section just yet. SargeAbernathy 23:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Filmography?

If bear shark's a character of sorts, does it need a filmography? What's our "cutoff" when deciding wether or not to do filmography categories? Some pseudocharacters only appear once. Others appear a lot (like The Geddup Noise). I'm starting to really think that most PseudoCharacters like The_Stick, The Geddup Noise, Chairscoot and this one should have their own filmography category (and for The geddup noise and chairscoot additions to the cast list of the toons/emails they are a part of). What I am proposing is no easy endeavour, and may need to be added to HRWiki:Projects. What are your opinions on the matter? --Stux 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me filmographies are only for characters who are "real" or interact or are interacted with as if they were real as a rule. I think a filmography of Geddy would be senseless as it was only trated as a "real" character in one email. The Stick and the Bear-Shark would also not merit a filmography. In fact, myths_&_legends all but screams "fake myth", so I can't even see an argument for a filmography for the "Homestar-spotted" Bear-Shark. Qermaq 01:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The filmography would be nice if someone's like, "I wonder what other toons the bear-shark has been in?" But on second thought, it looks like that information is on the bear shark page, under "appearances". Trey56 17:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it needs a filmography. When it's appearances hit 15 or 20, then maybe. Bluebry 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Characters with short filmographies: Nebulon, 1-Up, Gavin, Blue Laser Minion, Marshie, Biscuit Dough Hands Man, ... And a bunch of others. --DorianGray
The main reason I thought of the filmography thing is that the purpose of the filmography template is twofold: not only does it list the different toons that character has performed in, but it also informs whoever is reading a given toon that the given character had an appearance in that toon in a uniform manner (if I go to date I'll know that the Bear-Shark was there). I think Qermaq made a very important point: are these characters "real" enough that they'd need filmographies, or even if they were real enough once, should we list all their entries in a category. And then there are other issues i shall not go into at this moment. --Stux 21:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The bear-shark is more real than Biscuit Dough Hands Man, who has his own filmography. --DorianGray
Where is BDHM's filmography? Not linked from his page. Qermaq 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should go for it. Bluebry 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Radiohead Hommage?

just wondering if anyone has noticed the similarities between the bear and the bear images from the artwork of Radiohead's OK Computer and Amnesiac albums... --thereddestraddish

Personal tools