Talk:Old Lady

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 10:25, 27 March 2007 by 67.86.213.151 (Talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Speculation

Do we know that it's an old lady? And do we know it's the same in each case? I actually thought the person commenting on the desserts was a guy. Loafing 03:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal;y, i've always identified it asd a lady, but old? Hmm. See, with a nondescript voice it's impossible to say anything about the character aside what's in the toon. Suggest move to "Dessert Lover" or similar. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
He's said "Shut up, lady!" in both cartoons. I mentioned that. Retromaniac 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's true. It does seem to be the same lady. Loafing 06:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this voice and response is more of a running gag in the making, then a character. And since it was only used twice it's just a reference. It's already crossed referenced in both toons and this is enough for now. If it appeared again, then it deserve a page. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I took your advice and changed it to a running gag. Retromaniac 16:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's scarcely even the same voice, anyway. Listen to the peaceful line right after th "sinful" line in bottom 10, and you'll see that the one in your funeral sounds barely alike. Dr. Clash 20:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This character, if anywhere, belongs in the "Characters not seen or not entirely seen page. Does anyone else agree? Drippingyellowmadness CoolS.png talk 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally agree with Drippingyellowmadness CoolS.png talk, but I suppose you could put it under a page like what Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png suggested. --Collin Diver 20:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay, I mean, this Wiki is known for having pages for a lot of stuff.
It should stay, but with a pic of the duckshirtman, a rename, and a taking away of the bottom 10 voice. People, the voice in bottom 10 and the voice in your funeral are not the same voice. Dr. Clash
It's fine. Maybe you should get rid of bottom 10 and put it on unseen characters put keep the article. Like Kevin. He's in unseen characters and he still has an article. I think yes on the your funeral picture. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man

I'm thinking we move it to Lady, remove the bottom 10 mentions, and clean up the your funeral segment. Any objections? Dr. Clash 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. How do we know that the fat person in the duck shirt is a lady? I always thought that it was a man, and that the person saying Strong Bad looked "peaceful" was a lady. Has Matt? (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hair on tummy = guy. Duckshirt = Homestar. Loafing 23:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I figured the duckshirt man was the person talking. In addition, for the third time, the voice in bottom 10 is not the same voice. Seriously, listen to the 2 voices consecutively, and you'll see. Dr. Clash 23:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
And wait, how is that a pic of Homestar? Dr. Clash 23:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
There are, like, 2 years between those emails, so if the voice changes a little, that's fine. They sound extremely similar. And what they say follows the same pattern. And it's a pic of Homestar in the future. Because SB isn't dead just yet. It's the same style as future Pom Pom and Strong Sad: fat and depressing ;-) Loafing 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
And Homestar's skin color somehow changes in the process of aging? Has Matt? (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Homestar looks fine in the jar scenario. I say we keep the picture. Dr. Clash 23:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmmh, mmh.... good point, Has Matt. It's still a guy though. And when SB addresses the old lady, he's talking in a different direction. Loafing 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
All these are speculative scenarios, there's no pretense of continmuity. BTW, the fat guy in the T-shirt may OR may not be the one speaking at the "funeral" so take that under advisement. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be weird for a supposedly dead Strong Bad to turn all the way around, so they kept his motion limited for the gag. Anyway, I say we move it to Lady, seeing as the person's adressed as such, and keep the picture. Dr. Clash 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, sorry. You think it's OK for him to move a little if he's dead, but not that much? ;-) And really, the hair shows that it's a guy. There's absolutely no reason to assume that this is the lady. Or a lady, for all that matters. Loafing 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why there's the paragraph about SB's pronoun mixup. Anyway, If it's probable for a guy to pick stuff up with no arms, who's to say females can't have stomach hair? Anyway, the person's referred to as "lady" so we should keep the name as such, methinks, seeing as we've got nothing better. Dr. Clash 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, this page looks fine as it is. Should we move it, seeing as there's no proof for "old", and take away the delete 'plate? Dr. Clash 00:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, if you think that's a lady, I am not too optimistic about your future. This is a dude, dude. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we're just calling it a lady because SB does, whether or not it isn't. That's why the 3rd paragraph is there. It's not that I think it's a lady, but it could be, for all the sense H*R makes when it comes to character design. Dr. Clash 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The razor I apply here is that the simplest possibility is the most likely truth. The assumption here is that the fat man in the T-shirt is the speaker, but that complicates things as we see. So assume the fat man is NOT the speaker, but is just in the shot. This makes a lot more sense. In other words, SB is not necessarily calling the fat man a lady. In fact, he's probably not. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now that I think about it, the picture should go. I still think that "Lady" applies to the speaker in both cases, though, so IMO, it should be moved there. Dr. Clash 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I support moving but is "Lady" specific enough? Can we come up with a better title? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lady seems vague, but it's all that fits. It's the name used in the toons, anyway. Dr. Clash 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so, any last suggestions before I make the move to Lady? Dr. Clash 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... let's get a few more users' input before moving. "Lady" does seem too general to me. What about something like Effusive Lady, or something to that effect? Trey56 02:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion is Shutup Lady. --Vlad 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not bad — it describes the connection between the two appearances, and it's pretty funny too. Would it be better with a space or a hyphen or something? (e.g., Shut-Up Lady, Shut Up Lady, Shut-up Lady) Trey56 03:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Opinionated Lady? Seeing as she always has opinions opposite of what Strong Bad thinks. Dr. Clash 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Shut-up Lady sounds good. On a related note, should we ever make ne of those templates that tells when an article has an un-official name? I remember seeing a Star Wars Wiki that had that template every time they made up the page name for something. Dr. Clash 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You're not the first person to suggest that — if you feel strongly about it, Talk:Main Page would be a good place to bring it up. Trey56 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be Shut up, lady (or even "Shut up, lady!")? — It's dot com 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Those would be good for an article about Strong Bad's statement (in which case, it would be a running gag with only two appearances). As an article about the character, though, I think it's better without a comma. Trey56 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're trying to say this is a character, then I say this mess should be deleted because the instances are not related (bottom 10 doesn't even sound like a woman). I think it has a better shot at being a running gag, but it should still be deleted because there aren't enough appearances for a page. — It's dot com 03:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone bother to go back and watch the two? The voices are obviously different. The one in "funeral" is higher-pitched. ¤ The Dang, Pom Pom, you see that? That's a nice golbol. Talk to me. 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've listened to them, and they are slightly different, but they're pretty close. I think it's debatable whether they're supposed to be the same or not. Trey56 02:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually noticed that this lady (?) is not a character in any way, shape or form? She is merely a quasi-announcer, included to make products sound better. She has no use for even having a page at all. Why not just delete it? Haldo, I'm Dakmor. You probably have never heard of me, but that's fine. I don't have the time to be the first one with a transcript or to find a new easter egg or anything of the sort, but I do sometimes put my input if I see a page to be deleted, or if there's a reference that other people didn't catch. The rest is as follows: (I may go ever-so-slightly overboard...)

HRWiki:Userboxes
WP
IM
EM
TEEN
RIGHT
CL
PQ
MEH
LP
06:24, 27 March 2007

Merge

Okay, there's significant disagreement about whether this is even the same person in the two cases. On top of that, each one of those speaking parts is very brief. Why don't we just merge this page with Unseen Characters? A lot of the characters on that page have even more speaking time than this poor lady; it doesn't seem to make sense for her to have her own page. Finally, upon reading this article again, it seems like we're stretching it by having paragraphs as long as they are about a few very short lines. Trey56 04:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We should do that, and in addition, add the fat duckshirtman to Unnamed Characters. Dr. Clash 04:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools