Talk:Main Page 26

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Button Number 26

Hey, I don't see any button for Page 26 on most Main Pages. I see it on #23, but no others. --Neumannz 06:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Might be your cache. I see it on all the pages I've checked, including the oddball 23, with its reversed button Flash file. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 06:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Me too. I added that on the Main Page 23 page.TheFunmachine 06:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Deeper voice for final spikes?

Is it me, or does H. Star's "toonx" sound deeper when the last spikes pop out? TheLupineOne 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just the sound effect behind it. 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Marshie and Main Pages

Is this and Puppet Marshie on Main Page 25 the only times Marshie has appeared on a Main Page? TheLupineOne 15:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I ran a search, and these are the only two Main Pages that he appears, but as different variations.

[edit] Three spikes, then seven?

Isn't that, like, right out of the book of Daniel?

Probably a coincidence. StarFox 18:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Going to go Through With it?

Anyone think that the brother chaps are going to make a cartoon with this? koiboi59 15:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

With the new main page, it's possible. We need a WP:CRYSTAL page like Wikipedia has though for speculations. ColdReactive 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
We have the forum. That's plenty. — It's dot com 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Xtreme Pronunxiaxionx

H. Star didn't use an extreme pronunciation for "Did I say that right?" in Xeriouxly Forxe either. Why is it so notable now? --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 20:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

regarding the last part of this edit summary, i didn't mean to suggest that that belongs. i was just unclear about that part of the previous edit's reason. What I hear H. Star saying is "toon, games, characters, download, tore (probably behind the lightning The Stick sound effect), meh-meh (or something to that extent)" yeah, actually i don't think it's notable. The Knights Who Say Ni 20:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it might be notable because when he said "Did I say that right?" he was breaking character, but here he would presumably be in character. — It's dot com 20:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] H. Starms?

  • H. Star's left metallic arm does not show up in this main page.

I removed this once, but it got re-added. I really don't see how it's all too important that one of the arms isn't shown. It seems about as worthwhile as a fun fact saying, for instance, "Ch8t is not present in this toon." Moreover, with only two Xeriouxly Forxe "toons" so far, it isn't as though H. Star's mechanical arms are entirely essential to his character... Thoughts? -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 01:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be notable if his right arm was visible the entire time and his left arm wasn't, but he only raises his right arm for a few seconds, then lowers it back down. I'm sure that his left arm is out-of-screen too, just like his right arm is for most of the time. StrongAwesome 01:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
strong awesome - it can't be out of screen b/c it has to attach to his shoulder in the angle you're looking at him. on the other hand, it is perfectly logical to believe that H. Star's body is hiding his right arm the way he is positioned. YK, did you read my second edit summary? The Knights Who Say Ni 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I just assumed that H. Star was doing a pose in Xeriouxly Forxe. I mean, when (or maybe IF) TBC make a Xeriouxly toon, H. Star— and all the others —won't be standing in those same positions for the entire toon. Same here. H. Star is just standing, probably with his arms at his sides, then lifts one of them up. It's not like one of his arms grows out from his shoulder area and the other grows from his side. StrongAwesome 02:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
No one ever said anything about arms growing from his side though. they should both come from the shoulder area. and the arm that the camera ought to be pointing straight at isn't there. his arm wouldn't go under his shirt when it's down. does that make sense? The Knights Who Say Ni 02:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Personally, we're getting nowhere here, just between you and I. Perhaps if we gained some other opinions, then we could decide wheather or not it makes sense. StrongAwesome 03:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That would make his left arm be positioned behind him, and not to the side as pictured in the intro. I say leave it in. ColdReactive 04:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the opinion that because these are robot/mechanical arms, he can take them off. Or only wear one. But really, we just don't know enough about that character to decide if he should or shouldn't have a left arm. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm against this fact. His right mechanical arm comes up from the bottom of the screen, lower than it would be on a human; there's no reason his left arm can't be in the same position as his right arm is when it's not raised. Nothing's out of place here; it's not notable. Heimstern Läufer 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Elcool - the removable arms is something i've never thought about before. btw, are you suggesting to remove the fact or leave it in? Heimstern - it still looks to me like the back half of his right mechanical arm is never shown, and his right forearm is all we see. meanwhile, the removable arm idea Elcool brought up sounds like a great solution. oh, and ColdReactive - just to make sure you know, his right arm is on our left and vice versa. i can't tell whether or not you posted from that POV. The Knights Who Say Ni 05:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Removable arms is possible but speculation. However, the right arm isn't attached that low to his body in this toon, and neither arm is anywhere near low enough in Xeriouxly Forxe. If the left arm was just as low as the right, we would be able to see it anyway from that angle. --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you figure that? We have no idea how low the right arm rests, only how high it comes up to when you scroll over "Games". Without some further info, we've know way to know there's anything out of the ordinary with his left arm. A fact noting that the arms are not attached in the same place as in Xeriouxly Forxe seems reasonable, but noting any difference between his left and right arms in this main page does not, since we cannot see if there actually is any. Heimstern Läufer 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't rise, it rotates. Rotation generally requires a pivot. And it's not hard to tell where the pivot is. --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 10:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Then you're saying it's attached out of view, in a spot that is visible to us on his left side. I'm still not convinced this is unambiguously out of place, nor that it's notable. If we must keep it, at least a reword is in order: as it stands, the fact looks obvious and pointless. Something more like "his left arm does not appear to be in the same place as his right" would be a lot clearer what it's actually trying to say. Heimstern Läufer 10:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
But in Xeriouxly Forxe they're attached much higher on his body than ANY position his invisible left arm would imply. And, again, just because you can't see his right shoulder doesn't mean you can't tell where it is due to the way it rotates. --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 12:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Noting the difference between this and Xeriouxly Forxe is probably a good idea. I'd even be fine with mentioning the possible difference between left and right here if we make it a lot clearer. Like I said, I really think the wording right now doesn't make it clear what we're talking about. Heimstern Läufer 13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the pivot point is his elbow, and his upper arm is pointing straight down. The bentness of the visible part of the arm, instead of being an elbow, could possibly be a result of bending the wrist. But still, I think that this argument is a bit much. It's probably just his shoulder bending. Sure, it's inconsistent with its beginning position, but cartoons are full of physical inconsistencies for ease of animation. Would you rather make one arm and tween rotation and position for it, or animate it bending frame-by-frame, including the little lines representing articulations? — fuchsiania 01:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sword vs crystal

The stick clearly turns into a sword, not a crysttal. I changed it but, someone change it back. Why?

Because it's not clear at all. It looks nothing like a sword, except maybe in general shape. It is much more clearly a crystal and nothing else. It also makes more sense to be just a crystal, as there is no reason to leave a sword in the ground (but a stick or crystal naturally occuring there does). --DorianGray 04:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Also agree that it doesn't really look like a sword, just some crystal rod in the ground. Heimstern Läufer 23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree on the idea that it's a sword. I mean, tons of JRPGs and animes have mary-sue swords. Also, i've never seen a crystal that looks like that. nova scotia 04:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I bet you've never seen a sword that looks like that, either. It's a futuristic/fantastical image; it's not going to look proper no matter what. The shape just isn't very convincing for it to be a sword; it's too quasi-cylindrical (rounded with faces, I'm afraid my geometric terms are failing here). "Sword" is speculation. "Crystal" not so much (though if someone can think of a better word, I'd be up for that). Heimstern Läufer 05:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

that is most totally a sword. ive never seen anything more sword like. look closely. 00:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sword-shaped crystalline polyhedron. Vertigo1990 00:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] SwordQuest?

When I saw the stick's Xeriouxly Forxe transformation, I instantly thought of the title screens from the SwordQuest series for the Atari 2600. Does anyone else agree? MichaelXX2 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 21:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They do look alike, but it's probably a coincidence nova scotia 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Loading intentional?

When I first saw this, I had taken it that the loading glitch was intentional. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's possible that they were doing it just to be funny.-- 03:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Masters of humor that the Bros. Chaps are, I think they'd spend their time trying to make funny things that are actually, you know, funny. I see no humor in a glitchy load. --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Jay, though I'd add the caveat that it MIGHT have been funny for Main Page 22 where it'd sort of fit. — Defender1031*Talk 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd be FAR more likely to accept it as a joke on Main Page 22. But not here. --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 21:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools