Talk:rough copy

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 01:56, 17 April 2007

DNA Evidence

Is this easter egg more evidence that TBC read the wiki?— Bassbone (^TALK ^CONT) 07:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How so? They make the running gags, not us. My own speculation is that this will ultimately end in email 173 with something happening to The Paper. Or maybe in 175. —BazookaJoe 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that in this email Homestar seems almost resigned to saying it leads me to believe that they've figured out we've been looking for it. Or perhaps it's there because they realized they've been putting DNA evidence into every email and they're making fun of themselves. I was just speculating, that's all. No need to jump down my throat.— Bassbone (^TALK

^CONT) 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to jump down your throat. It would probably be really unhealthy anyways. They've got a great thread going on the Forum about this, if you want to add your voice to the mix. Seems like most people think that this will culminate with sbemail 173. Personally though, I don't know how TBC could accidentally go 5 emails in a row with unconsciously writing DNA evidence into them. —BazookaJoe 07:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally think TBC *have* been messing around with us lately. They threw Drive-Thru at us totally randomly, and it was such a non-sequitur that we struggled for days to find references to virtually anything else in the HSR universe. Then the DNA evidence, which is itself a non-sequitur through the last six emails... TBC, if you're reading this, you're really funny! Keep it up! :) —

KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Something about that windy sound and Homestar's sigh of resignation, combined with the strange non-sequitur and the suburban comfort of Marzipan's sofa reminded me of the scary moments in David Lynch's movies, particularly the recent Inland Empire. Anyone else here see a connection? Henebry 15:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he's just desperate at finding a way to fit in DNA Evidence. 71.231.56.40 16:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Second -JamesDean 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's exactly what they want you to think. Anyway, we ought to cease discussion of this here, as it's irrelevent to the article. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Sad being somewhat violent upon Strong Bad...

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but is this the first time that Strong Sad has ever been violent upon Strong Bad? - Ren Foxx 08:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He did join the Homestarmy... But this is the first act of actual violence, according to Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship.—Shwoo 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

He also yelled at Strong Bad and Strong Mad in Experimental Film. Not physical violence, but close. 0rion 11:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actual physical violence was what I was looking for. Thanks! - Ren Foxx 15:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Preloader?

Is it just me, or does this toon not have a preloader? Might be worth watching to see if this changes. »Blendage t.c :: 10:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the Loading screen? There's one in the Flash file, but you're right, it's not used. This happened recently in another toon, but I don't remember which one offhand....

Trey56 10:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was your funeral, I think. —Shwoo 10:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one — good call.

Trey56 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The script for frame 1 simply says

ifFrameLoaded(15) gotoAndPlay(16);

. I assume that TBC simply forgot to subsitute 15 for a frame number that makes more sense. Loafing

10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, there's definitely a loading screen. I distinctly remember it taking a longer-than-usual time to load. Ppk01 12:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something else is up, but i can't view the swf file directly. It just stays blank. Even after i downloaded it and ran it locally -JamesDean 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a loading screen... for me. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 22:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Sad: Executive Lawyer?

Is Strong Sad's lawyer alter-ego part of the Rough Copy TV Show sequence, or is that really his profession? Strong Sader 12:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The scene with Strong Sad the lawyer was after the Rough Copy opening credits, so I don't think it was part of it. It might be his profession, but he was a temp in the last email. —Shwoo 12:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To further that, Strong Bad specifically mentioned a "credits sequence," so nothing after the credits would be part of it.

Todd Goldman

Does anyone think that this toon is a reference to the Todd Goldman copyright infringement accusations? It's been getting a lot of attention in the webcomic community. Here's a link that explains what happened and links to a lot of the responses. --Maxamegalon2000 13:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

After looking through that SomethingAwful thread, you're probably right on this. Would it be safe to put this as a Remark or a Real-World References? - Ren Foxx 15:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is almost certainly a real-world reference to the controversy. Should we put it to a vote?

Henebry 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A vote definantly sounds like a good idea. - Ren Foxx 16:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter Egg Goof

Did no one notice that goof at the end when you click on the candy bar? Strong Bad's left cheek and his arm freak out when he backs away from Senor Cartgage! That's the kind of thing TBC will probably fix within a day or so, it's painfully obvious. -- Abelhawk 13:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that. --

Super Martyo boing! 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sam & Max

The action-packed credit sequence reminded me of the "pleasantly understated credit sequence" in Sam & Max Hit the Road, especially the music... is it a possible reference? ShiversTheNinja 16:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The car-surfing at the end I thought was a dead give-away.

The music, the guns perspective and the surfing at the end are obvious sam & max references...

SB2O versus Sb2O

The current explanation states that the SB2O drink is diantimony oxide. This would be Sb2O, not "SB2O" (as the drink bottle labels clearly state), which would be a mixture of one sulphur atom, two boron atoms and an oxygen atom. I think this needs to be corrected. Jimmy91 17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the bottle has "B" insted of "b" so no change.

That's what he's saying. It would only be diantimony oxide if it were a lowercase b. With "B" instead, it would be one sulfur, two borons, and an oxegen atom, like he said. Exhibit A (talk · edits) 18:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Diantimony Oxide would be Sb₂O, as opposed to SB₂O. --Jnelson09 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm... Under explanations it said that SB stood for antimony, but I corrected it and wrote it as "Sb." I didn't really mention sulfur or boron except in my edit eummary. Feel free to correct this page as you see fit. EYanyo 22:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But it's the name of a flavored water, it isn't intended as a chemical formula. This is simply trivia, and ought to be noted there, if at all. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Right... but when I see something on a page that is incorrect, I prefer to fix it rather than outright remove it. I saw "SB is the chemical symbol for antimony" and I said, "Hmm. That should be 'Sb.'" Then I made it so. I don't really know/understand/care about all the nuances and stuff for the wiki, so you can take appropriate action for this fact. EYanyo 22:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if a chemical formula is going to be referenced at all, it should at least be the one that the name resembles. Sb would never be written SB in a chemical formula as they represent two entirely different things. The reference should either be corrected or removed.--H-ko 22:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bwoke

My computer keeps giving me the 404'd message when I try to watch this email. Suggestions?-- DongleGoblin 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear your cache. --DorianGray 19:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Snowball in the Freezer

StrongSad keeping snowballs in the freezer has "been done" by the likes of Bill Cosby and Calvin and Hobbes. It's not so much a reference as an old joke, possibly a nod or parody. Sorry, don't know how to leave my name. -KanineKommander

Very yes. Very old joke. Very TTATOT. Loafing

21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

However, the way Strong Sad says it is more specifically reminiscent of Bill Cosby's routine. We should probably STUFF that fact. —

KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

STUFF it. My opinion has not been decided yet... but... --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 22:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gremlin

If I'm not mistaken, the Gremlin from one of the Christmas cartoons appears in the credit sequence. This should be mentioned in running gags.

Ah, the AMC Gremlin. Go ahead. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cheat's Mouth

I noticed that the Cheat opens his mouth for the soft tacos, he looks incredibly similar to The House That Gave Sucky Treats when he eats the pops rocks. Also, should we put that he is acting like a seal in this, too? - Pants 3000 16:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The seal bit is noted, I believe. As far as him opening his mouth, is that really notable? I don't think so at all. - Qermaq - (^T/C)

23:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's just the way The Cheat opens his mouth, and one would expect TBC to use the same animations for similar actions in the cartoons. --Lux Acerbus 00:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Senor Cardgage Glitches

Those reasons for deleting those facts are bogus, in my opinion. The arm one is totally obvious, and I see no reason why Strong Bad's cheek would swell and shrink back to normal size like that, since his mouth would be moving if he was chewing, and the right cheek does nothing similar. I will agree that my comment of "you're blind" was most juvenile, however, Qermaq, regardless of the reason for why this person was unable to see the glitch. --Lux Acerbus 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Senor Cardgage Easter egg, Strong Bad's arm holding the candy bar moves upward slightly as he leans back. However, when he moves back to his original position, the hand moves back, but the arm stays in its lifted position until the Easter egg ends.
- Also in the Senor Cardgage Easter egg, Strong Bad's left cheek appears to move more slowly than the rest of his head as he leans back, then swells and shrinks once he leans forward back into place.

EDIT CONFLICT:Those are there for reference. Now, I agree with the cheek one and not the arm one. --

Super Martyo boing! 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This person has a name, you know. Anyways, I misread the fact about the arm not moving. You're right, that's a goof. The cheek moving like this still seems to be obvious chewing to me. So I agree with SMB. Loafing

00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I know your name, it was in the email confirmation the wiki sent me. I just didn't want to give any names, y'know... Don't ask why... Anywhoozit, I don't see how that could be considered "chewing." As I mentioned, his other cheek and his mouth don't move, and chewing wouldn't really explain why his right cheek freaks out like that - it just swells and shrinks really suddenly. --Lux Acerbus 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: Loafing: I said the exact opposite of what you did, do you just like me? Anywayzers, I went back and watched the easter egg again, and I figured it out. They're a result of the goTo tag. The easter egg looks perfectly fine until it goes back to the original end. That's where everything jumps. --

Super Martyo boing! 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, play nice, childrens. Now for my two cents: Does it make sense for Strong Bad to be chewing on only one side of his mouth in such an odd fashion and not the other? If you watch his right cheek, it doesn't move with respect to his head when his head moves, but his left cheek does, and seemingly independently of his head.

As for the arm glitch: I'm not sure how you can not see it. I don't have a seek bar that can show frame numbers, but if you look at the last few frames of the Easter egg before it jumps back to the "end of toon" point (where animation stops), you can see that his arm is in a different position before the jump than it is after the jump. And if you follow the animation closely throughout the egg, you'll see that the arm animates exactly as described in the above-referenced Goofs. (If you are truly not seeing that, it's possible that TBC fixed this goof and I've got an old copy in cache.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see both glitches. They're fairly obvious to me and I can't see how they're not glitches. I'm'a try in IE to see if I get different results. --Jay (Gobble) 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, still see 'em. --Jay (Gobble) 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I have simply misread (again!) what SMB said. I definitely think the arm jump is a goof. As for the cheek, I see what you say the left cheek does, but I don't think it's a goof. It may not be the best animation ever, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's a goof. To start with, it's not uncommon for cartoon characters to only chew on one side. Also, note how his right cheek grows and shrinks when he chews before the Easter egg. His left cheek seemingly not moving back when his head does could be a goof, but it can also be explained by him moving the bar inside his mouth at the same time. Hence, we shouldn't claim that one's a goof. Hope this clears the confusion about what I think is a goof and what not. Loafing

01:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

barbed wire goof

Does anyone think we should put when SB and the cheat are in barbed wire and silouetted and their bodies are cut off where the barbed wire is as a goof? Homestar-Winner (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I think the silhouette effect was to make it look like the "comic" characters had "come to life" or somesuch, then zooming in to reveal it was just Strong Bad and The Cheat covered in barbed wire was the gag. Or, um, something. That was a bit garbled, heh. -YK

00:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put it in the "Goofs" section, I put it in the "Remarks" section since I thought there was a good chance that it was on purpose (or almost no chance it wasn't, rather), but still something that seems strangely unrealistic, and therefore worth noting. --Lux Acerbus 00:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was intended. Loafing