Talk:Disney

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 01:09, 2 March 2008

Notable?

Maybe it's just because it's such a short article, but I find the notability of this gag pretty questionable. Bad Bad Guy 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The works of Disney are so numerous and expansive that there's bound to be some references to them in any American show. As listed on the page, the references to Disney don't seem at all related, and unless someone can come up with more references to make me think otherwise, I don't think this article should be kept. — Has Matt? (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote keep. Just because Disney references are popular doesn't mean we shouldn't note them; Nintendo ('80s video games in general) references are popular too. If anything, their popularity makes them more notable. Though the references listed here are quite varied, they are each still relevant not because they're direct references to each other, but to Disney works that are equally various. — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 11:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

While I would generally say that Disney references would be notable and deserve their own article, I'm not happy with the current one. Cinderella would for example be a movie that I would accept in a Disney references list. Golden Girls or The Nightmare Before Christmas not. Yes, I know that they're Disney by name. But not in spirit. Just because TNBC happened to be financed by Disney doesn't make it a typical Disney movie. It's a Tim Burton movie. Yes, this is a problem. In my opinion, it's meaningless to list a movie such as TNBC here, on the other hand, where do we draw the line? Can we draw the line? Loafing 12:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggest scope of page be narrowed to "classic" Disney animations and films, as well as the theme parks, and exclude Touchstone, ABC, and other loosely-associated media. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  13:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This would mean fewer references, but they're more related and wouldn't need as much explanation. EDIT: Wow, there are even fewer than I thought. A lot of the references on the page were not productions by Disney himself (I'm assuming that's where we draw the line for "classic" films). Only the appearances in licensed would stay in the Films section (though the Lion King reference actually doesn't belong, I don't think it should be separated from Cinderella because they occur at the same time), and the two Theme Park attractions would stay. It's shaping up to be a pretty short page, but are we okay with that? — ^Sam_{Fisher (Come in, Lambert.)} 16:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The need for subheadings would be lost. But we have short pages here, that's fine if they are both complete and notable. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the article with these changes. Now it makes sense and is interesting. We should keep it. Loafing 06:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I say definitely keep!! MHarrington 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nightmare Before Christmas

I would actually consider putting The Nightmare Before Christmas back in the list. Granted, it's not a "classic" Disney movie in the strictest sense, but Disney has embraced it pretty strongly since then. As a few examples: The 2006 3D version was released under the Disney banner, Disney included Halloween Town in their Kingdom Hearts game right alongside all of the other "classic" Disney environments, and Jack Skellington even appears as a "meetable" character at some of the Disney Theme Parks. -DAGRON 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Nightmare Before Christmas ride at Disneyland (it's only open in the fall and the winter) and Jack and Sally appearing in the 2007 Disney DVD logo. I think the original version still bears the Touchstone name, though. Bad Bad Guy 04:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If we agree the scope of the page includes the theme parks, then there's fodder for the argument for including TNMC. If Disney chooses these characters to represent them, I'd suggest they are references to Disney. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

1980's Movies

Shouldn't we still get rid of Homestarloween Party and 12:00's references? Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? — Defender1031*Talk 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with removing them because they were actually produced by Walt Disney Pictures. Bad Bad Guy 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cinderella.

Disney does not own Cinderella & didn't create it & isn't the only one to have animated it. The Cinderella dress Strong Bad is wearing looks nothing like the one in disney.

The most famous incarnation of cinderella is still disney's. All of the others are knock-offs such as SB is talking about. — Defender1031*Talk 08:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The mouse calls to my mind the talking mice in Disney's version, somehow. I believe Disney's version is the only 1 that makes mice that prominent. Bad Bad Guy 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

dang straight about sequels and knock-offs!

yeah, I feel sorry for the kids who are growing up with "Cinderella 3" or whatever. oh, yeah! and they (the Chapman bros.) did reference "The Nightmare Before Christmas", the King of Town was dressed up as The Mayor of Halloween Town. you had a good childhood, Chapman bros. you had it good.

Cheat Commandos

Would it be possible to put in this page how the Cheat Commandos all have a marking on them that resembles the shape of the Mickey Mouse logo? Hooray4Homestar 00:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain this has been discussed already (perhaps someone could help me find it). I believe the consensus was that it's just a coincidence. — It's dot com 01:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a coincidence it should not be under Cheat Commandos#Fun Facts either. Bad Bad Guy 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Shopping for Danger. Consensus was for "Accept" and then the fact was moved to Cheat Commandos. OptimisticFool 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't have a direct bearing here. The shape is there, so it's okay, as part of a description, to state on the Cheat Commandos and toon pages that the shape is there, but to put it on this page would be to say it's intentional, which I don't think it is, and which I don't think previous discussions have supported. — It's dot com 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)