HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/Strong Bad is a Bad Guy

Explosions, Fireworks... Reference?

From: Strong Bad is a Bad Guy
Posted on: 15:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• The hat doesn't equal Uncle Sam. Just as this symbol for the NY Yankees (there at the right) is not a reference to Uncle Sam, but rather patriotism.
• On Main Page 12, Homestar isn't wearing a beard (that we can tell) or a big blue coat or anything else that goes with Uncle Sam besides the generic patriotic hat.
• I agree on that it's the second time he SHOWED up as Uncle Sam, but he never actually dressed up. He only had a tatoo of himself as Uncle Sam on his arm. Also, It would be more signifigant if it was the first time.

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Good Ol' Uncle Sam

From: Strong Bad is a Bad Guy
Posted on: 00:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• This is a legitamate fun fact that not everyone would know.
• Many people NOT from America wouldn't know who Uncle Sam is.

Arguments against:

• I really want to know who hasn't heard of Uncle Sam.

Additional comments:

• Even if there is a link to the wikipedia article, this doesn't mean a Real World Reference should be removed.
• There's pretty much no reason to remove this - it's somewhat obvious, but the War of 1812 bit was something I didn't really remember, and frankly, just because one knows he exists doesn't mean that everyone knows EVERYTHING about him... thus the link to the Wikipedia article's nice, too.
• About the argument against: Do you know who is the national personification of.. let's say.. Canada? The United Kingdom? If don't, then people from those countries maight not know who Uncle Sam is.
• On another note: Did Uncle Sam first appear during the War of 1812? I've always been taught he showed up during the Revolutionary War.
• How complicated can a simple vote be? Well, I'm about to make it more complicated. There is some evidence that the term "Uncle Sam" was around as early as the War of 1812, but Homestar is referring to the character. From the Wikipedia article on Thomas Nast:

  Notable images and icons which he created or popularized were [among others]:
  • Uncle Sam, a lanky image of the United States (first drawn in the 1830s; Nast and John Tenniel added the whiskers).

  If the character wasn't first drawn until the 1830s, then the War of 1812 predates it, and therefore the war cannot be an important part of our Real-World Reference. For this reason, I must shift my support to the revision below.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• We shouldn't have two entries for the same thing when we could combine them.
• Main Page 12 really isn't referenced other than the fact that Homestar appears in roughly the same getup. Therefore, that part should be a secondary part of this item, not one of its own.

Arguments against:

• I disagree; I don't think Inside and Real-World References should be combined.
• As far as Main Page 12 is concerned, the hat doesn't equal Uncle Sam. Just as this symbol for the NY Yankees (there at the right) is not a reference to Uncle Sam, but rather patriotism.

Additional comments:

• Obviously, if this is accepted, the item currently in the Inside References will be removed.
• The origin and date of Uncle Sam have no bearing on this cartoon, and are the sort of additional information that should stay in Wikipedia for those who really want to know more about Uncle Sam. It would be rather insular, though, to assume that he needs no explanation whatsoever, so I propose the revision below.
• Just because Homestar wears an American-ized hat doesn't mean he's actually dressed as Uncle Sam.
• NOTE: This revision was closed and split into its own item above. At the time it was closed the vote was 10–4 against. Any accept votes that conflicted with other accept votes in subsequent revisions have been omitted.

Proposed revision:

Arguments for:

• Eliminates the "War of 1812" part
• Keeps what's vital for someone who hasn't heard of Uncle Sam.
• Anyone wanting to know more about Uncle Sam can just click on the link to Wikipedia's article.

Arguments against:

• I'd be interested in knowing where Uncle Sam came from. I stick with the original.

Additional comments:

• The origin and date of Uncle Sam have no bearing on this cartoon, and are the sort of additional information that should stay in Wikipedia for those who really want to know more about Uncle Sam. It would be rather insular, though, to assume that he needs no explanation whatsoever, so I propose this revision.
• Why muddy the path of a fact upon its way to acception?
  • Because the version above is factually incorrect.
• I changed "symbolic personification" to "national personification" as per the other versions; I had changed it because I didn't realize it was a standard term.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Ouch!

From: Strong Bad is a Bad Guy
Posted on: 13:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Both instances feature tattoos and very similar wording.
• TBC usually make real-world references to events in the 80's and 90's, and this took place in 1991.
• This event was significant enough to make it to #8 in this list of 100 significant moments in rock history (which, to be fair, was generated by NME).

Arguments against:

• "For Real" is a common phrase.
• I think that for something that is referred to as "infamous interview" should be something well known or notable. These is neither.
• If it's not a clear reference, it's not a reference. It's interesting info that should stay on the Talk page, though.
• I never heard of that, chances are, neither have alot of people. Too obscure.

Additional comments:

• For the record, this was a much bigger thing in England than it was in the US. They certainly remember it across the pond. I think it's possible that indie rock fans like the Chaps keep up with this kind of thing.
• The issue isn't really the notoriety or common knowledge of the referent; it's the solidity of the connection. Grover (on Sesame Street) is pretty well-known, but that doesn't mean for kids was referencing him.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

A Glowy Box!

From: Strong Bad is a Bad Guy
Posted on: 19:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• May explain why it's "Personal" to Strong Mad

Arguments against:

• May be.
• Probably just a coincidence.
• Strong Mad's box shaped. That's probably why he likes them so much. They aren't nessecarily referencing each other - it could just be a personality trait.
• Strong Mad is just weird. He likes to say weird things.

Additional comments:

• I'm sorta half confident on this one, but I thought I'd put it out there and see what people think.
• I think trying to find any definitive meaning in what Strong Mad is saying here is like trying to determine what Homsar is saying with a rope in his mouth.
• This could possibly become a running gag page, what with the numerous combolations of Strong Mad and boxes/cubes. How about something like Strong Mad's Boxes?
  • I dunno. I could be wrong, but they just don't seem that funny. Maybe an inside joke?
    • There are lots of other instances on the site of cardboard boxes roughly 2 feet cubic. I haven't figured out which ones interrelate, but it might be worth looking into.
      • You're right. I could swear that we've got a page on boxes...
        • We do have a page on the Box Computer, the cardboard box, and the Soapbox, to name a few.
          • If you notice, two of those three boxes relate to Strong Mad. Thatw was SM's computer box and also he wanted that box to dance.
            • I was thinking particularly of the Strongbadia Riverquest Adventure and R.Q. 2. There's the BOX FOR THROW GAME in there too, although I was thinking more of cardboard boxes.
• Maybe we should mention Strong Mad's attraction to boxes on his character page?
  • I'd agree with that. He certainly has an affinity to boxes.
• Strong Mad's pretty much a beefy Homsar. Except he's not white. And he has no neck. Or little derby hat. And he has arms. But, yeah, you get my point.
• I agree with making it a Running Gag of some sort. There are many boxes relating to SM.--Martin925 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[ Back to STUFF index ]

Revelation?

From: Strong Bad is a Bad Guy
Posted on: 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Homestar seems unaware that he has no arms in this cartoon.
• Strong Bad said that he "didn't have the heart to tell" Homestar about his arms, implying that Homestar didn't know before.

Arguments against:

• In fingers, it was implied that Homestar knows about it.
• Who cares when it was first mentioned to him. What's at stake is whether this reveals the true status of Homestar's arms, which it doesn't really (see comment below).

Additional comments:

• Just to clarify, the previous time was in The Interview, where Strong Bad referred to Homestar as a "no-armed whitey".
• This is a running gag. It has been brought up before, and I think that, even taking this toon into account, TBC are keeping this ambiguous. After all, it was Strong Mad who said "You don't have arms," and what does he know.
  • We could revise this to mention it as the continuation of a running gag.
    • In the bird, Homestar flips the bird to Strong Bad, who seems to be able to see it.
      • You need to set up a page that documents the running gag. I suggest Invisible Arms, since it affects other characters besides Homestar. Also, it ties in with How Do You Type With Boxing Gloves On?.
        • I'm surprised that we don't have an Invisible Arms page yet, as it is one of the more common running gags.
          • Well, we do now. Somebody go to town with it.
• Are we sure Strong Bad's lack of heart was about Homestar's lack of arms and not something else, like the dumbness of Homestar's tattoo ideas?
  • Yes.
• Strong Bad didn't get a very good response when he told Homestar about his pants, or his lack thereof. So he probably didn't want to be the one to tell him.

[ Back to STUFF index ]