Talk:stunt double

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Comments from ye olde wiki

(The 3D Thing doesn't work for me. I have 3D glasses from Spy Kids 3D and some Shrek thingy - Jace)

Yeah, those are the clear ones, right? You have to get the red and blue kind. The clear ones are more "high tech." You can read more abour 3D at WikiPedia. (Additionally, I've heard that one could use some red and blue markers on some clear plastic and that works okay. Like a CD jewel case. I've never tried it though.) -- Tom

Actually in this case, you won't really see anything much even if you wear the red and blue glasses. This is because it is only an outline. --DG

if you look behind bubs con.stand when sb is getting out, you can see ss's oven mitt on the ground(mabey it's a reference to the fingers email???) please respond. smooth crimnal

Does the 3D work?

Does anyone know if the 3D parts of this actually work with 3D glasses? -65.27.70.55 19:19, 11 Dec 2004 (MST)

The parts do work, just not well.

Obviously this has been brought up before. I just deleted two conflicting facts. One said the 3D works, the other said it doesn't. What's the scoop? — It's dot com 04:01, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I once tried with a red/blue pair of 3D glasses cut out from a Fruit by the Foot box. The blue did not get meshed properly with the glasses, so the illusion failed. Maybe my monitor was too bright. Who knows... it may work for some but may not work for others. —BazookaJoe 04:05, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I tried it both normal and with the colors reversed. The results were inconclusive. Complicating matters is the fact that my left eye isn't 20/20 but my right eye is, so my depth perception on stuff like that isn't reliable. (That means I can't see those computer-generated 3D posters where the image suddenly jumps out at you.) — It's dot com 04:08, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Going into too much detail to be put in a fun fact (I seem to have a habit of this...):

1. To see the effect correctly, you should see the red line in the left eye, and the blue line in the right eye.
   • Except of course for Strong Bad's reflection in the screen, which is reversed, like I said in the Goof in the article (which will probably have to be rewritten too, now...)
2. Because they are on a white background, this means that the blue filter should be on the left eye and the red filter on the right eye.
3. Most anaglyphic glasses have the red lens on the left, hence the "wrong way around" comment (which I admittedly didn't notice - I'm used to dealing with coloured-lines-on-black rather than on white, so the effect is reversed).
4. The blue lines are not a good shade of blue, and will be visible in both lenses, regardless of the quality of the glasses (though they will be less prominent in the blue lens). This makes it hard to see the effect.

For the second point, consider, say, the red lens. Through this, the red line will appear red, and the blue line will appear black. Also, the white background will appear red, therefore only the blue line will be visible. Similarly for the blue lens, except in this case the blue line and the white background will be seen as a slightly different shade of blue through the lens, hence the fourth point. --phlip ^T_C 06:19, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

FYI

Google search for lesser wimps. How cool is that? Seriously. -- Tom 10:52, 29 Dec 2004 (MST)

Now it's this section! Sort of ironic. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

More than ironic—freaky in an existential way. A comment about (I assume) the first results for a Google search became the first result for the Google search it was talking about. It's like an editorial cartoonist becoming the president! (I wonder whether Google lists you quicker if you include the word "Google." In which case I've certainly done my part just now.) —AbdiViklas 05:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Me, I just like the little bit where it goes "look for lesser wimps on eBay". That's somehow whimsical to me. --DorianGray

"Own it now for—oh, what's the use; you wouldn't have the spine." —AbdiViklas 06:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Closed STUFF

These were on the STUFF page and declined. If you wish to contest the removal of any of these, post a comment here (make sure it won't be confused with any of the original votes).

Big wusses and lesser wimps (Declined)

If it is true, that "Only big wusses and lesser wimps use stunt doubles.", then Strong bad is a big wuss and a lesser wimp, because it is obvious that Strong Sad is the stunt double. This is quite contrary to most of his comments across the site. Such as, on the "First time here?" page, he says, and I quote, "Check me out, no, seriously check me out."

• Decline That was pretty obviously the point. --Jay 00:55, 26 Feb 2005 (MST)
  • Second --Alun Clewe 01:31, 26 Feb 2005 (MST)
  • Second --Venusy 10:52, 26 Feb 2005 (GMT)
  • Second →evin290 15:26, 26 Feb 2005 (MST)
  • Second tompagenet 08:35, 27 Feb 2005 (MST)
• Decline It's called irony and/or sarcasm - not to mention the fact that Strong Bad is known for not telling the truth (case in point, stand-up)... --TheEggman 09:21, 28 Feb 2005 (MST)
  • Severe second--67.177.52.133 17:22, 8 Mar 2005 (MST)

WHat does Bubs say?

Bubs: Prepare for oblivion, ___________________________!!! The wiki said he says "Danger-skew," but to me, it sounds like, "Dangerous-kew" what do you think? -Young Roy

It's danger-skew, which makes sense because Bubs is trying to prounounce it phoneticly. — _talk Bubsty _edits 02:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that Roy the Younger's comment was before the issue was thoroughly hashed out in the accepted STUFF item right above. —AbdiViklas 04:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Unintentional mis-read of the e-mail?

I was (just) wondering if any mention should be made in the Fun Facts about how Strong Bad seemingly unintentionally inserts an extra word into this e-mail. I noticed that the text of the e-mail and the way Strong Bad reads it are properly made different, but other than that, no attention is called to this.

The reason I mention this is because in other e-mails, the Fun Facts pay special attention to Strong Bad's misspellings and grammar problems, which are "unlike him". If you review all the other e-mails Strong Bad has read, you'll find that he very rarely (if ever) adds extra words (like "just") when he reads the mails - it's been established by this one, anyway, that he pays careful attention to how the e-mail is worded and any spelling and grammar errors the original author put in.

But in this e-mail, he inserts the word "just" ("I was just wondering") when it didn't exist in the typed e-mail ("I was wondering"), and unlike other intentional discrepancies ("Oo! An L-T-W-F-T-W!"), he didn't appear to notice or intend to do this.

- KieferSkunk 22:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

A reference to pie

Yes, it's on the pie page, but that's not the point why I reverted it. --Stux 01:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Bellybutton

Is it just me, or is Strong Sad's bellybutton missing when he is dressed up as Strong Bad?Strong Rose 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Lemke

Just as a note (because it's not made specific), "The Lemmer" is the nickname given to Mark Lemke by sports commentators on Atlanta radio. Mark currently does pre- and post-game radio shows for the Atlanta Braves baseball games, and is a retired Second Baseman for the Braves. StarLion 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone even CONSIDERED...

that maybe Strong Bad COULD do his own stunts if he wanted to, but chooses NOT to in order to further abuse Strong Sad? Hmm?Neox ONION BUBS! 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that would be a good forum topic. — MichaelXX2 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

strong mad

Strong Bad definitely says "Strong Mad" when reading the email. --98.162.148.46 23:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?!!@$$$!@~!!%@ Not even close. — Defender1031*Talk 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)