Talk:Quality Time

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Freakishly long arms?)
(Baby break)
Line 92: Line 92:
::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.--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:11, 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.--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 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. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:15, 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. — [[User:It's dot com|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--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:22, 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--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 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.)--[[User:72.161.170.161|72.161.170.161]] 04:30, 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. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:05, 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. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:72.161.170.161: 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. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
:72.161.170.161: 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. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:08, 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. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:17, 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. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:30, 8 August 2007

Contents

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)

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?--89.1.99.123 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 homestarrunner.com. 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 movement's 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)

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)

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)

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)

Baby break

Homestar having been locked in a closet for three weeks refers to the fact that homestarrunner.com 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?--72.161.170.161 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.--72.161.170.161 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--72.161.170.161 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.)--72.161.170.161 04:30, 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)
72.161.170.161: 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)
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)
Personal tools