Talk:Quality Time

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] TMBG: Mesopotamians

They Might Be Giants just released a new album containing a song called "The Mesopotamians". Coincidence? --Pat 09:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence. Had there been some mention of Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal or Gilgamesh, then maybe it would be more likely to be a reference. I think all these strange coincidences (like The Cheat being Istanbul) are just because TBC and TMBG have similar interests. Hagurumon 11:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Pat. I'm pretty sure George W. Bush said 'the' at least once in his presidency. Think it's a coincidence? After all, 'the' was used at least once in this cartoon....Stop being so literal. Just because someone uses a word that happens to be in this cartoon doesn't necessarily make it a reference.
The thing is that TBC and TMBG have worked together in the past, and it wouldn't be their first reference to one of their works. Even a new one. (On the flip side, I'm pretty sure Bush and TBC have never even met.) --DorianGray 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yah, tone down the snark in here, guys. DorianGray is right. TMBG has worked with The Chaps: they wrote the song for "Experimental Film" and are featured in a lot of the live-action puppet stuff. The Chaps may have snuck a "Mesopotamia" ref in their to honor their friends. I don't see anything outright that would prove it so, but it's not as big a stretch as you think. -- 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with, although, when you said they wrote the song experimental film for the toon, your wrong, TBC made a toon about the song, so the toon just had one of TMBG's songs in it. It's a really good song, have you heard the rest of the spine?--Kanjiro talk 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freakishly long arms?

Is it noteworthy that Marzipan's invisible arms seem longer than her body? Maybe it merits mention in the lack of visible arms article?-- 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what?! If they're invisible, how do you know they're longer than her body? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. --Kiwi 11:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, although you can't see her arms, she was able to operate Cardboard Homestar from pretty far away. Hagurumon 15:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It could be that Marzipan has the same limited telekinesis that Homestar has, like in time capsule. wbwolf (t | ed) 16:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Or a very faint piece of string, maybe? (don't know how to sign these things, sorry.)
Maybe the string is invisible as well as her arms. ¡ɯooz + 25:02, 12 January 1954 (UTC)
Check out all these... speculations. --DorianGray 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

in the first scene she was holding the book AND manipulating cardboard Homestar, no way she can do all that with arms!

Why not? I'm holding a fan and typing on a keyboard right now, and my arms aren't even invisible. --DorianGray 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at the easter egg and honestly tell me that she has arms, if she does, thay cant be shorter than 3 feet =)

In the scene where she is playing the guitar and manipulating cardboard homestar, she cant do that with arms. --Geoblu2 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say she doesn't have three or more arms? --DorianGray 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to recite some scripture from the book of FAQ:
And lo, the question states:
I hath noticed an inconsistency in one of thou cartoons!! AHHH!
This was not good for the viewers of Holy wars were started. Some believed that TBC had intended one thing to be true. Others implied the inverse, saying that their idea was incorrect and only they knew the truth. And others believed in their own theories about how this inconsistency could be consistent. And suddenly, TBC arose to their keyboard, and in their infinite wisdom of the cartoon they had created, they told the people:
It was either done on purpose or it's just a cartoon and you probably shouldn't worry about it.
I hope that was entertaining and educational. It's edutainment! Bluebry 23:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Cardboardmens can be operated by strings!
Bluebry: C'mon, now. You've been a member of this wiki long enough to know that that's what we do: We analyze this stuff as though it were real. There's nothing wrong with that as long as every now and then we look in the mirror and say "they're just dumb animal characters" before getting right back to the overanalysis. Me, I think Marzipan is pulling on a fishing line (which are practically invisible under the right conditions). In the spots where her arms are tied up, like with the guitar, she could use her leg. Cardboard Homestar's movements aren't that complicated as to require much dexterity to operate him. — It's dot com 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't HAVE legs, remember? — Defender1031*Talk 04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
But she would use fishing line. beause she's so a smart. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
DeF: She's got to have something like legs, or a leg, or a foot, or a base, or something to hold her up and move around. — It's dot com 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Dot com: Sorry, I guess I don't have any excuse for that. If you want a REAL answer, well, I can give you one.
Bluebry's thoughts: take 2.
This long AT LEAST.
Well, if Marzipan had any invisible arms, she'd have to have three. Not to hold the book and make Cardboard Homestar talk, but to play guitar and have Cardboard Homestar talk. Now I'm no guitar expert, but listening to the sounds Marzipan played, it sounded as if she had to move one "hand" up and down the neck and strum with another. Then a third hand would have to be used to move Cardboard Homestar's head piece thing (whether he's controlled by string or her directly). However, her arms would most likely be too long to move Cardboard Homestar AND have them hang limp at her sides without anyone really noticing. Look at the image I've included. This shows how SHORT her arms could possibly be. Now, imagine her hanging THREE of those by her body. That's just plain impossible. I mean, without bumping into anyone, or having to find a larger space to sit down so she could fit all three double-sized arms somewhere (although, she could've been grabbin' Homestar's butt in 3 Times Halloween Funjob (that brings up a good point, her arms would've been touching Strong Sad in this image and he would have either been annoyed or it would've been noticed by his movements that an arm was touching him)). Of course, this brings me to my theory of resizeable arms. It would allow Marzipan to perfectly move Homestar, because she would be able to easily reach him. Now, myself, I don't believe in the telekinesis thing. It would be WAY too hard to play guitar using psychic powers, if not impossible. Therefore, three resizeable arms are what I think Marzipan has for her, um, doing stuff that requires hands situation. Bluebry 04:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think it's all part of the joke and needs neither explanation nor mention ;-) Loafing 04:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and it couldn't be a strong or fishing line. Think about it. She would have to be pulling a string on Homestar's head, but then she would need something puching Homestar's body to the wall (or floor). Think about pulling on a string attached to the top of an accordion. You pull it, and the accordion most likely either falls down, or the entire thing moves. But now think that your neighbor, Helen, is holding the bottom down for you. You pull the string, and the top moves, but not the bottom. Now imagine your hand on the, um, ruffled part thing of the accordion, thumb facing the way you want it to bend. And when you bend it, the bottom won't move. Because while you are pulling on a string to get it to move in a direction, a hand is just turning it. Therefore, it could not be a string or something string-like. Bluebry 14:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Marzipan has invisible arms and telekinesis? :) Has Matt? (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That's always possible. :) :) (Ha. I out smiley you.) Bluebry 20:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if she has as long of arms as blubry proposes, how would she be able to play the guitar that close to her body? The guitar would have to be at least like a two feet away from her, so she would have to control it using telepathic ability's, meaning she would have to have multiple telepathic ability's, and by multiple, i mean a LOT, one to hold the guitar, two to control card bored homestar, and two to play the guitar. Or she has really long arms.--Kanjiro talk 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that she would have elbows which bend at the midpoint of her, um, arm, it would be possible for her to hold the guitar just as one of us would. And don't forget the fact that they might be resizeable...? But I agree with that last sentence of yours. ;-) Bluebry 20:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya, i did consider your elbow reply, even if she did do that, it would still only put it to about a foot and a half away from, since her arms would be about 3 feet long. Still freakishly far away from her.--Kanjiro talk 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get why the guitar would be far away from her. Please respond. STOP. Bluebry 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, did i say far away, i meant low down, if she held it normally, it would be held down further, like to her legs, or feet, or, just down lower, you get what i mean?--Kanjiro talk 20:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Well, she could always hold it higher. Or have resizeable arms... Bluebry 20:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Or she could have normal size arms, to control her book and carol, and use telepathic ability's to control cardboard homestar? I think we should STUFF this. --Kanjiro talk 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We can't STUFF something that isn't a Fun Fact. Plus, that's why we have a talk topic here. It is possible that she has both. But if she has telepathic abilities AND arms, I doubt she's powerful enough to make Homestar talk. Look at my string argument. Her using psychic abilities would be about the same. But if she had ONLY telepathy, no arms, it's POSSIBLE (unlikely, but possible) that she'd be able to do all of these things considering she had to learn to do everything without arms. And it's always possible her arms can be resized at will... Bluebry 20:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Why couldn't she have powerful enough telepathic ability's to control homestar? There is nothing that says she dosn't. That's just your guess. And why can't we STUFF it? It would be placed under remarks, which is under fun facts? That way we can end this mystery.--Kanjiro talk 21:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, we shouldn't STUFF it because we really need to figure it out on a talk page. And second, explain to me how YOUR comments aren't guesses without proving that mine aren't either, and I'll leave the discussion.  ;-) Bluebry 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
All mine are guesses, i never said they weren't. All i'm saying is that she could have strong telepathic ability and short/long/resizable arms.--Kanjiro talk 21:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that you seemed to use the "that's just your opinion" line to disprove my theories. And it'd be odd for her to have BOTH strong telepathic ability and arms because if she DID have strong telepathic ability and arms, she wouldn't need arms. And then she would only use her telepathic ability, as her arms would be less powerful. And sorry for the misunderstanding. Bluebry 21:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Think about it. Think of any superhero or any person that uses telepathy, they have arms, don't they? They use them. I think it makes perfect sense for her to have normal size arms and enough telepathic ability to control homestar. And really, if you have any telepathic ability, i think you would be able to move a piece of cardboard back and forth, i do like your string theory, but it is possible to move the cardboard and not hold it down, sorry, but i don't think your string thing theory is that plausible.--Kanjiro talk 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she has a piece of fishing line attached to the back of her head somehow and that's how she manipulates Homestar (that would explain the turning and leaning). --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 21:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, but that turning and leaning doesn't match up with the movements of homestar.--Kanjiro talk 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Kanjiro's earlier post: Yes, but those are superheroes. Make believe. Homestar is real. ;-) Anyway, those guys NEED to use telepathy, mainly because they have giant alien robot pirate ninjas to defeat. Marzipan would just have to do normal stuff, however, and would be more accustomed to arms. Martyo: See my String theory above; it starts with "Oh, and it couldn't be a strong or fishing line." Bluebry 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's the same basic theory, and also, i noticed something... When homestar and marzipan are sitting on the couch, there are larges folds and bends in homestar to look like he is sitting, but since he is made out of cardboard, wouldn't the folds stay and homestar would be bent through the rest of the cartoon?--Kanjiro talk 21:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Odd. Should be a remark. Bluebry 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys. The problem with any argument you can present is that we don't know. A STUFF vote won't end any mystery, it'll just show a majority opinion on whether the fact is usable. It won't - by design - speak to the truth of the fact. Only TBC can offer that, and they haven't, and I highly doubt they ever will. This is just how Homestar and Marzipan are. There's no use in trying to explain why they are that way. It's a dumb animal cartoon, and this is how things are in dumb animal cartoons. I suggest that long discourses like the above are unlikely at best to produce any usable fact for this article, and probably ought to be resumed off the wiki. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you be so smart?

When hearing this toon's line, "Maripan, how do you get so smart," did anyone else immediately think of the line from TGS's Teeny Tiny Girl Squad episode where the TGS girls ask little Thomkins "how do you be so short?" I know it's not worded the same, but it sounds so similar to me. --Compdude

I did, but good luck trying to word that in a way that won't be reverted... — Defender1031*Talk 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Batter-E's

To me it sounds like Bubs is saying "batter-e's", with an emphasis on the last syllable that you wouldn't get from just "batteries". Seems like it's sort of a pun on "batter", plus E, the first letter of eggs. Ordinarily I wouldn't dispute "batteries", but they aren't batteries, they're eggs! Bubs doesn't seem like the type who would be figurative enough to call eggs batteries - because of, what, their nutritional power? I think it has something to do with batter. Spellchecka 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That is way to complicated and makes no sense, i wanna see you try to put it on the page in a way it would make sense.--Kanjiro talk 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
It's possible, but I think he's saying something more along the lines of batterees. Like employees. So they're battered. And then baked. Into cookies. With chocolate chips. Bluebry 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd explain the batter she was making earlier with flaxseed oil..

I don't hear anything other than Bubs's usual accent (he commonly puts extra stress on unexpected syllables). Trey56 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an interesting but absolutely speculative connection: Wikipedia:Battery cage "In agriculture, battery cages (called laying cages in the United States) are a confinement system used primarily for egg-laying hens." Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the connections everyone else seems to be; to me, Mari wouldn't use normal batteries as they're harmful to the environment when thrown away, and would logically use an alternative (a ridiculous alternative, of course). Eggs'd make a good organic battery I assume because of the calories; full of energy (Ever watch Rocky?).
But to whoever came up with the battery chicken'we sooo smawt. I'd never heard of that before. Didn't you think you were a smart?-- 05:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broomcake?

Sounded like bootcake to me. There's nothing in here but coats, and a boot.. unless it's a bootcake. Bootcake? I also heard the leathery sound of a boot colliding with his face... no bristly sounds.

To me, "coatcake" sounds like a play on "oatcake" (it's like a pamcake, but made with oats). But that seems a bit of a stretch and of marginal interest anyway. wbwolf (t | ed) 00:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Homestar says Boot Cake. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I hear broomcake. Oh, wait, broomcake? Maybe it's a broomcake! Has Matt? (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it's a coatcake. Duh... oh, and, it is 187.5% broomcake. That's how sure I am. Bluebry 00:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree now that Homestar said broomcake. Homestar-Winner (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Me too, wtf did they fix it or something? I swear it used to be bootcake but now i hear bwoom.

[edit] Baby break

Homestar having been locked in a closet for three weeks refers to the fact that hadn't had many big updates for the past three weeks before this toon was released so Matt and Jackie could take care of their new baby.

I admit I hadn't considered this until I read it here. I originally just figured it was a normal joke. Does everyone else think it was a reference to the baby break? — It's dot com 00:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought so when I watched it, but it would be more clear if Matt hadn't done any voice recording for this toon... Trey56
Most possibly! But, seriously, I think it is a reference. Bluebry 00:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In case some people don't know that I added the fact, I think so. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The baby break was about five weeks, not three, so I say no. Has Matt? (talk) 00:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but didn't Main Page 24 come out, like, three weeks ago? Meaning they finished up a Main Page and continued on their baby break. Bluebry 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
To Has Matt: Who knows? What if it's just an expression? I vote yes. Homsar44withpie 00:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Main Page 24 was two weeks ago. And both Homestar and Cardboard Marzipan (in the Easter egg) say it was three weeks, so I doubt it was just an expression. Has Matt? (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No, MP 24 came out three weeks ago. Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
July 24 to July 31 = 1 week. July 31 to August 7 = 2 weeks. Has Matt? (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Whoops! My bad! Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The last update was six weeks ago, not five. The game was four weeks ago, and the main page, like you said, was two weeks, but nothing was three weeks ago. I think it might be a stretch to draw a definitive conclusion here. — It's dot com 01:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm certain (I hope I am, anyway) Dot com did not intend the italicized quote to be seriously considered as is, as it's baldfaced speculation. But to the more pressing question of whether this is a reference to the baby break - in what way? Can anyone provide something con crete that's not full of guesswork? The number of weeks is so convoluted and can be interpreted in so many ways, as evidenced by all your comments above, that won't fly. So, I doubt considerably it's any sort of reference. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. They did a main page last week, which, in my opinion, might actually be MORE work than a short such as this... — Defender1031*Talk 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Qermaq: I'm not sure what you mean, whether I intended for it to be taken seriously. I brought it up on this talk page because I don't think it should be in the article. As of this writing, it is. — It's dot com 02:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As of this one, it isn't. Perhaps supporters would argue, but it's a rather dicey connection, IMO. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was a reference to the baby break. Should we STUFF it? Bad Bad Guy 02:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the connection at all. The toon would make perfect sense without the baby break. They also talk about a "vaction", not a "break". There's neither a direct connection nor a clear reference. Loafing 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The original Cardboard Marzi toon was made because Missy was unavailable for voicework. This one could be likely the same; it was Matt's baby, after all. He doesn't have as much free time with that around. The connection works. --DorianGray 03:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The flaw in your logic is that he WAS available for voicework. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
But only briefly. He has slightly more free time than Jackie for reasons I probably don't need to go into. But it was still a Missy-centric voice-acting toon. Anyways, with the main page message saying sbemails return next week, that also proves his free time is coming more and more. A brief line or three for Main Page 24, a slightly lengthier line or two for the short, and back to full-scale email next week. --DorianGray 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Still, while it's clearly a Missy toon, his input is more than nominal. I can't accept this as evidence that this toon is a reference to his business. (Remember, he did Bubs too.) Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

They've already made a reference to one of their long breaks through an "explanation" contained within the fourth wall (Weclome Back), and I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing it again in this toon. As it stands, though, it's not as obvious as it was in Weclome Back, and there is fair disagreement among all of our opinions, so it's best just to put no fact in the article and let people believe whatever they want to believe. —BazookaJoe

I'm often amazed at what great lengths people on here go to arguing whether something is a reference or not. As far as I know, none of us know TBC personally, so practically all listed references are just speculation. There's probably at least 20 that we say are intentional references that really aren't and vice versa. Thusly, it's irrelevant whether or not it's intentional. If something in a toon makes people think about something else in another toon, then it's worth mentioning even if it is sheer coincidence. In this case, the connection between Homestar locked in a closet for 3 weeks and the baby break for X weeks hadn't occurred to me at all, and when I saw it on here I thought "Hey, that's a good point." I still kind of think it's coincidence, but why can't good points be part of an encyclopedia article?--Antisexy 04:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that since we can't get it perfect we may as well not try our best cause we're gonna fail anyway, is that it? No, while I agree that we're never gonna get it 100% of the time, it's still worth doing the best we can, hence we do. — Defender1031*Talk 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No. I'm saying that it doesn't always have to be "This IS what TBC wanted to do!" If we notice an interisting point that someone else might not have noticed, coincidence or not, we should include it.--Antisexy 04:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We do do that, on occasion, if enough people feel the inherent speculation is outweighed by how interesting the item is. If we did that all the time, however, our articles would be stuffed full of nonsense, and so we have to draw a line somewhere. — It's dot com 04:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, but I don't think the line gets drawn far enough sometimes, because we're too concerned with whether or not it was intentional. Like I said above, this particular fact is something I think is very interesting and should be included in the article for the non-dorks who don't argue about it on the talk page, but I still think it's coincidence--Antisexy 04:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't be counting weeks to decide whether or not to include it. If it was intentional, I doubt they counted weeks. (Well, I guess they are, but for a much diffrent reason.)--Antisexy 04:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we count weeks? I think if they had said "six weeks" then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's not that hard for them to count. The baby's birthday is written down somewhere, and they know what today is. You have to understand, some things just don't have enough support to be included in the article. When that happens, you should take at least some comfort in the fact that it is being recorded here on the talk page. People who want the in-depth scoop on toons should always read the respective articles' discussion pages. — It's dot com 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I just have a more liberal idea of what should be included, and I don't guess I'll ever change anything. I just think that fun facts should be more about fun and less about facts. Especially in here, since there are no facts, other than the occasional interview or commentary with TBC. We can't exactly cite our sources.--Antisexy 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd argue that encyclopedic articles must be based in fact, and not based in speculation. While in this topic some mild speculation inevitably creeps in, this is too far. If we cannot reach concensus that the time-frame mentioned refers to the "baby break" - and it would seem that the evidence is sparse at best - then we cannot really include it in the article, as it's hearsay and not fact-based in any way. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Antisexy: That's not true. Some things are clear references, some things are borderline, and some things we've almost certainly made up along the way. On top of that, we don't agree on which things fall into the categories I just described. We have to draw a line somewhere, and we do the best we can. It's perfectly reasonable to exclude those things that a consensus of editors don't agree should be in an article. — It's dot com 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
(sorry to jump in, but isn't that was STUFF was created for? --ISlayedTheKerrek 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))
(not imn most cases - talk page consensus is normally good enough. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC) )
And we have a proven record of reversal when it's revealed that what we thought was not as it was. Anyway, the comparison of Matt being too busy with the baby to be able to do work on the site being referenced with Homestar boarded up in a closet for 3 weeks is a little more than bearable, I think. I don't know that Jackie would be terribly thrilled with that. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, "Matt had a baby" is the very first thing spoken in the commentary. Does this mean we should move the fact back, or was he trying to be random? Bad Bad Guy 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations

The first explanation is obviously wrong. Matt isn't married to Missy, Mike is. Someone revert this ASAP. Seriouswy, did no one notice this ridiculousness?

  • I dunno. Cleverer than most vandals. I've moved it here so people know what you're talking about. 14:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and removed the quote, since it's not really the kind of content that's good for a family wiki. It can be found in the page history for those who really want it. Anyway, it's just simple vandalism; nothing to worry about. Heimstern Läufer 14:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks

Hello, someone just deleted my edit to remarks about thrstrange invisible arms of marzipan. Why? It's true that it's writing was a little jumbled, but to say that "none of this is true"; is just... untrue! I watched all three toons carefully and there's even a topic in the discussion page about the exactsame thing. What are your reasons for this?

Cardboard Homestar doesn't move anywhere, the string/long arms discussion did not reach consensus, and they do not move at the wrong angle. Hence, it was removed. — Defender1031*Talk 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Think/See

Okay, in the line that goes "Seriously, Marzipan, how do you get so smart? Don't you ____ you are a smart?" I hear "think" what does everyone else think/see? — Defender1031*Talk 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I distinctly hear "see", which also makes more sense context-wise. --DorianGray 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You're talking about the opening scene on the couch, right? It sounds to me like it's "think", just pronounced a little weird as a result of Marzipan trying to imitate Homestar's speech impediment.--Antisexy 03:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I hear: "Seriouswy, Marzipan, how you get so smart? Don't you think you are a smart?"

[edit] Algonquin Stew

Rather than the book title merely being a reference to the Indian tribe (as suggested in the explanations section) it is probably referring to the Algonquin Round Table, the famous group of 1920s intellectuals who met at regularly at New York's Algonquin Hotel to trade quips. Marzipan probably fancies herself a later day Dorothy Parker, having Cardboard Homestar slavishly compliment her intelligence.

[edit] Formatting

Sorry about the constant edits, I was trying to get the formatting right. {hits head multiple times} Awexome 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cardboard Homestar has an invisible back?

Looking at this image, is it just me, or can you see the background color in Homestar's side? Shouldn't it be BB? Boring brown? Bluebry 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Absoludiddledy. Loafing 23:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I sure can, if we add it to goofs we might be able to fix the image battle were having with the two images that are in remarks.--Kanjiro talk 23:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cutting her some flax

I learned this weekend that the phrase "cut me some slack" comes from the nautical realm, where you would ask this of a rope-cutter to allow you extra rope to account for errors you might make in tying knots and such. THought it was interesting, but likely not article-notable. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You never heard that before? wow. well, it's common enough a saying that i think to mention it would be explaining the joke. — Defender1031*Talk 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eggs not a fruit!

One could make organic batteries out of fruit. This refers to Homestar's declaration of "eggs not a fruit".

I removed this as a stretch, but it got re-added without any reason as to *why*. This is a clear case of scraping for a reference where there isn't one via reinterpretation:

  • Bubs calls eggs "organic batteries".
  • "Organic batteries" can be made from fruit.
  • Homestar once declared eggs "not a fruit".

But does that mean it's actually a reference? Probably not. It seems to just be Bubs being Bubs, and Marzipan being Marzipan. In my opinion, it seems far too veiled, and requires that pesky obscure little extra "step" to link to another incident. While TBC have done things like that before, the concept of them assuming everyone would know that organic batteries can be made of fruit, then linking eggs/fruit to a throwaway gag in an old SBEMail seems unlikely. Furthermore, apparently nobody here even *knew* about the "organic batteries made from fruit" until an IP added it. Ergo, it all adds up to a fantastic stretch. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's such a stretch, and your comment about an ip adding it is invalid. I knew that they could be made out of fruit, i just didn't see the extra step till after that, you'll notice i removed it then put it back in. — Defender1031*Talk 18:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you need to reinterpret the fact for it to make sense is what makes the fact a stretch. The comment about the "IP adding it" was in regards to none of the regulars seeming to know/care about that bit. There is *no* info in the toon itself whatsoever to link one to the other. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
True, not in the toon itself, but the Homestar Runner Universe is broader than just one toon, don't you think? — Defender1031*Talk 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if Marzipan said "I thought organic batteries were made from fruit..." or something, you'd be on to something. But as it stands, no such thing is said, and thus, that extra outside step is needed. That's a neat observation, but seems to be talk page material, not a concrete reference. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the "fact". One of the best stretches ever. Loafing 05:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference?

Does Anyone think that Cardboard Homestar saying that one line is a reference to Three Times Halloween Funjob? --Super!SantanaDuper! 15:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Esteem or Ego or What?

Marzipan usually doesn't strike me as a character with low self-esteem or an ego, but it seems in this toon that she's either using affirmations to improve her self-esteem, or she just likes to hear that she's smart to satisfy her ego. I thought about putting an entry about this in the article, but it just isn't worth it.. curious to know what other people think. OptimisticFool 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From Explanations

"The boards are probably on the closet door because all closet doors can be opened from the inside, but not the outside." This sentence is a little confusing to me, but I don't want to just pull it without at least trying to figure out what the author meant by it. Can anyone clarify?--Big Dog 23:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Cake Is a Lie

How's this for a reference? The popular Internet meme "the cake is a lie" comes from the game spoilers here, but for those who have played, the use of cake to entrap Homestar does seem kinda similar...

[Nebulon] 11:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Given this toon came out several months before Portal... I doubt it's a reference. And even if this came out after Portal I wouldn't think it was a reference... tricking someone into doing something by promising them something, and then not delivering, is a time-honoured technique, and cake, being the supremum of foodstuffs, is an obvious choice. --phlip TC 12:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Hormones as harmful

In the line:

The "organic batteries" refers to organic food, which is supposed to lack toxic pesticides, or any harmful artificial ingredients such as hormones.

I believe "or any harmful artificial ingredients such as hormones" should be removed since it states that hormones used in food production are harmful, something the FDA has said is not true.

Not only considering that, eggs do not contain hormones, nor do the chickens that lay eggs in the us.

It's a misleading statement, and should be edited out.

Personal tools