Talk:Teen Girl Squad Issue 10

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 02:30, 13 October 2005 by DMurphy (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

TGS Issue Picture

Which picture should we use?
File:Mightywarrior.PNG
"Mightywarrior.PNG"
"TeenGirlSquad10.PNG"

Number one (the warrior) id say. its somthing difffernt

The lower one definitely. It shows the theme of the episode better. - Joshua 15:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Stan!

In the hidden easter egg where The ugly one's dad is advertising, the way he is waving his arms around is a striking resemblence to Stan from the Monkey Island Games. Would this be a fun fact?

Easter Egg? If this exists why isn't it listed? --jake 15:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

New Software

I think the reason for the new animation is TBC got some new animation software and they wanted to test it out. DaChazman

It's all done with Flash. If it were done with Flash 8 (the new one) we'd know. Ppk01 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Besides, with simple characters like that, you can do that with a few masks and shape tweens. —Gafaddict Image:Gafaddict sigpic.gif (Talk | Contribs.) 21:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I know there's some software that can export 3D animation to flash. It's called Swift 3D. However, I dont know if TBC are using it. -Jesselangham

They're not. There's nothing fancy with the rotation that they haven't done before, eg in funny. --phlip TC 23:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, good point. That software is expensive anyway. Too expensive for a 1 second rotation. -Jesselangham

3-D? I don't even know what that is!

I move that all instances of the word 3-D be replaced with the word 3D. Who's with me, eh? Ppk01 16:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody who knows something about 3D software confirm that the "We got a spinner" gag is a reference to the bizarre glitches that such software sometimes create (elements moving by themselves in weird ways)? —AbdiViklas 19:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I found it to be a reference to CGI animation glitches like the ones shown under special features of Pixar movies.---RatherAnnoying 19:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of; like the monster's hair in Monsters Inc. —AbdiViklas 19:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
You're wrong, BTW. 3D is an auto-redirect to 3-D. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 01:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
And m-w.com doesn't recognize 3D, only 3-D. —AbdiViklas 01:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Inside references

In the party sequence, I know all the TGS inside references are listed in the cast of characters at the beginning, but is there any other appropriate way to mention it elsewhere? Say, an inside reference that simply says "See the Cast of Characters?" Also, can someone confirm my suspicion that this contains every TGS character seen to date (even a reference to Brett!), and that it's the first TGS to include a shot of the "real world," or of regular H*R characters other than Strong Bad? —AbdiViklas 18:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your first question, but I can answer your second and third ones:
  • 2: No, it does not contain every TGS character to date. For example, the Floor Tom and the Vulture/Bat don't appear. See the Minor TGS Characters page for a bunch of characters that fail to appear.
  • 3: Yes and no. It is the first episode to show the "real world", but Pom Pom appears in episode #8.
Hope that helps. - Joshua 18:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
This is, however, the first TGS to show any character--including Strong Bad--outside of the comic's world. Pom Pom in issue 8 was still a drawing, as was Strong Bad's cameo appearances in issues 1, 8, and 9. This is the first time a TGS episode has had not-drawings in it. --DorianGray
Actually, Strong Bad Email #53, "comic" also features TGS and "not-drawings" together. Which is the "official" TGS #1, anyway?
The Vultures do appear. See the bottom left corner of the scene where Manolios is introducing The Ugly One. --videlectrix.pngENUSY discussionitem_icon.gif user.gifmail_icon.gif, 19:55, 10 October 2005 (BST)
Sorry, I meant the Vulture from issue #2. - Joshua 18:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Vowels

Vowels are A-E-I-O-U "Y" is not a vowel :p

Sometimes it is. It's being used as a vowel in this case. --DorianGray
From the Wikipedia: "In the standard English language, the letter Y is traditionally regarded as a consonant, but as a survey of almost any English text, including this one, will show, Y more commonly functions as a vowel." So our anonymous friend is right. Y is not a vowel. And sign your posts.– The Chort 19:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Also from Wikipedia: The name "vowel" is often used for the symbols used for representing vowel sounds in a language's writing system, particularly if the language uses an alphabet. In the Latin alphabet, the vowel letters are usually A, E, I, O, U, and in some languages Y, as in English. -- Mycroft.holmes 19:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah, because an entirely user-edited encyclopaedia can NEVER contradict itself. Why don't we go with the majority and accept that Y is NOT a vowel?
Encarta seems to agree as well. After all, the way most schools teach vowels is A-E-I-O-U and SOMETIMES Y. In "sorry," Y is a vowel, as it is nearly impossible to construct a meaningful syllable without a vowel. Does "syzygy" also have no vowels in it? No. ... Okay, I rambled. Sorry. But Y is a vowel in this case. Spell4yr 20:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Because it is. The word "vowel" denotes how the letter is used, not what the letter is. As it happens, Y isn't the only "consonant" that can be used as a vowel (W is common, and G and H show up often too.) It's just that the five letters most commonly called "vowels" are the ones NEVER used as consonants. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 20:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vowel" and "consonant" are phonetic distinctions, not letter distinctions. "We're sorry" is pronounced (IPA) /wi:r sɒˈri:/ - both /i/s and the /ɒ/ are the vowels. It is simply that the large majority of vowel sounds are represented in English with A-E-I-O-U which is why they're called the 5 vowels. So we then have 2 definitions of "vowel" - a vowel phoneme (which is relevant for the "there's at least one vowel in every syllable" rule) or a vowel letter (strictly A-E-I-O-U, possibly Y depending on who you ask). The confusion only comes when you get the two confused - for example a syllable does not require A-E-I-O-U(-Y), just a vowel phoneme. Getting back to the point, it's impossible to pronounce words completely without vowel phonemes, /ə/ slips in everywhere (/wər sər/ is as far as you can take "we're sorry"). "Removing all the vowels" only makes sense from a vowel letter view, in which case Y only applies if whoever it is wants it to. And now I'm rambling a bit, so I'll stop. --phlip TC 00:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You know... even after all this controversy, it doesn't make a good Fun Fact, since she never mentions taking ALL the vowels out. She says "taking the vowels out," which, yes, implies all the vowels, but doesn't say it emphatically. —AbdiViklas 07:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. Have we reached a conensus yet? -- Super Sam 11:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a horrible fun fact. Regardless of whether or not Y is a vowel... the scene is meant to be a pun on internet slang (in AIM saying sry instead of sorry). If they said "'m Srr" it wouldn't be nearly as catchy or funny. I fail to see how this is of interest to anyone. -DMurphy 02:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The other side of the paper

When the paper saying "Its over" in on screen, you can see the other side of the paper, which is the image of Strong Bad making out with the Ugly One. I dont know if you can see it on a regular screen, but I can only see it on my Laptop, if I makes the screen darker. - Lord-Z

I see it too. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 20:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and this has already been noted in the transcript. It's been covered just for you ;)—Gafaddict Image:Gafaddict sigpic.gif (Talk | Contribs.) 21:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

References

When the Ugly One's father presents her to the party, I am pretty sure that that is a reference to the MTV show, My Super Sweet Sixteen. Am I correct? --ItalianBallerina

No, this is just a common practice at sweet sixteens. —Zelinda 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Breakin?

When Strong Bad says "Arrow'd II: Electric- wait a minute!", it seems to be a reference to "Breakin II: Electric Boogaloo", a movie which has been mentioned on the site before. TheSyndicate88

Check the fun facts, dude. It's already in there. - Joshua

Olympic Coach's Voice?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Olympic coach is the only TGS character not voiced by Strong Bad. If so, do you think that's a worthy fun fact? SA2Tails 21:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Mr. Pitters?
Also the vultures as they are eating Mr. Pitters do not have a Strong Bad-type voice. Maybe Fatty's Big Chance as well. The voice is grainy and rough, but not as much as the other characters. --Gillan The Villain 22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Has 3D Been Used Before?

I think 3D was used before. On The Luau, the tofu seems to be spinning in 3D. -Lotionman 23:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Lotionman

I think what has everybody so excited is that in this one the camera moved in 3D. Though I'm not sure it took anything more than plain ol' Flash to do that. —AbdiViklas 23:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget the opening to The Interview. --phlip TC 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
True, but the animation here seems a lot smoother than that, with the spinning camera sequence, What's-her-face spinning and Strong Bad's movements at the end of the toon.
Only because the framerate is higher. Flash's default framerate is 12fps - which is about the lower limit for most people being able to distinguish animations from a series of pictures. TGS10 is 20fps - so a lot of the animations are smoother. I've looked with the decompiler - just trust me when I say that What's Her Face spinning is done exactly the same way that they do Strong Bad's head turning to look from side to side. --phlip TC 04:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Pictures from the Party

I made an image of the pan across the party, showing the minor characters appearing in attendance. It'd make a nice picture for somewhere, I think. (I had the idea of making it just a link, not an actual picture, and putting it in the issue 10 article somewhere. Duck Guardian One has an example of this in the Trivia section.) One thing though: the picture is roughly four or five times bigger in file size than what's normally recommended to upload. So I thought I'd tell people before acting, just in case. --DorianGray

Pwn

Is pwn a reference to Pure Pwnage? Because thats basically the only other place I've heard it. - Faro1

It's vice versa - Pure Pwnage is a referance to the word pwn. Look at the wikipedia link from the article. --phlip TC 04:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad they made fun of that term. Can't we just correct the typo and call it "ownage?" -Jesselangham

Goof or Remark

In the rotational scene, Cheerleader's baby daddy seems to come out of her dress.
I think this inconsistancy was a mistake made by the Brothers Chaps, therefore a goof. However, It's dot com insists otherwise, rendering it a Remark. What is it? - Joshua 19:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remark. I'm not saying they did it on purpose per se. I am saying that because this sequence is the first of its kind on the site, they would have paid it extra special attention. Therefore, TBC would have realized the type is doing what it does. Maybe they actually did do it intentionally. Maybe they saw how it turned out and liked what they got. Or maybe there was some technical limitation that made it like it is. It doesn't really matter, because the point is that they didn't mistakingly do it the way they did. I mean, let's give them a little credit. — It's dot com 19:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Second. -- Mycroft.holmes 21:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Second. I don't know how this could happen to make it a goof. There's no way they would have programmed the words to not be on the shirt and not have noticed. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 22:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Goof. Now I don't know for sure if it'd be easy to fix or not, but it seems to me they could have just omitted the "ba" and "da" to get a favorable result. If they noticed it, they probably figured it was just one frame and not worth fixing. But that doesn't change the fact that it is still a goof - missed or seen and ignored. This seems to be just as much of a goof as all the other ones written down there. - Joshua
  • Goof. When I posted it, I put it on goofs. I'm with Joshua on this one. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 19:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Goof. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 20:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Goof. Paying attention or not, the writing is off the shirt. That says goof to me. We don't know their intentions. -B 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The fact that we don't know their intentions is a prime reason for it to be a remark. I'd rather err on the side of TBC here. Calling it a remark when it was a goof doesn't make it less true, and leaves it open to interpretation. Calling it a goof when it really wasn't stigmatizes it unnecessarily. — It's dot com
  • Just because they don't bother to fix it doesn't mean it's not a goof. If we followed your standards, then we'd have to move a lot, maybe almost all, of the goofs to remarks. - Joshua 21:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not at all. I'm trying to emphasize that they would not have been careless here, since the effect is new and unique. I believe they have both of these things here exactly how they want them. — It's dot com
  • Remark. After going through it frame by frame, I discovered that Cheerleader's text is floating off the ENTIRE thing, all three times, rather than the single frame that I thought before. So now I think TBC did it to make the overall thing look better when moving quickly, to make the 3D stand out more. But it still deserves mention. And a better picture. (It's hard to see what's what in the currect pic.) - Joshua 23:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Bad's head, with and without masking
    Glitch - some explination of how TBC make things rotate is in order. Making a realistic rotation would be very time consuming, and you'd need to draw almost every frame to get it to look smooth. However, TBC take a shortcut - almost everything they make that rotates is just a plain sphere with a thing added on it, eg Strong Bad's face or his shoelace thingy - apart from that his head is perfectly round - so when they rotate his head left and right only the face and shoelace have to move, the actual head can stay still. Now for the second shortcut - when his face moves around his head, they don't actually do anything fancy to make it go "around" - they just move it straight from left to right, no distortion, no parallax, nothing. Then they take a mask the shape of SB's head and use it to crop the face to the head. The result - it looks like the face is going around the head. Look at the picture on the right if you're not sure what I mean. If the effect isn't strong enough they add things like skews to make it more real, but for the most part they don't need to. Now we come to Cheerleader's shirt. They did the same thing they always do. They animated everyone's faces and the writing on Cheerleader's dress as moving across them from side to side. Then they added a mask to their faces, but forgot to add a mask to Cheerleader's dress. Hence it is a glitch, I see no reason for them to do this intentionally, and a perfectly good reason for them to do it accidentally. As for Goof vs Glitch, I thought Goofs were things like plot holes, mistakes in the design of the toon, and Glitches were mistakes in the actual building of the toon in Flash, like this. --phlip TC 03:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Phlip. For one thing, I had been wondering about the seemingly indiscriminate and interchangeable use of "Goof" and "Glitch." Seems to me a lot of Goofs around here need moving... Also, thanks for finally providing some insight on the way the Flash stuff worked. I agree it's a Flash-generated glitch, but for the record I'm not necessarily saying they didn't notice it and think it was cool. I think it's kinda cool myself. It enhances the 3-D-ness of it all, kind of a ViewMaster moment. :) —AbdiViklas 04:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Glitch. Shifting my vote again. Phlip's explanation makes a lot of sense. - Joshua 19:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Glicth. I can go for a glitch here. — It's dot com 00:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

When Strong Bad rewinds the 3-D spin around, the "SO GOOD!" speech bubble disappears.
Same deal here as above. The bubble was there, then it wasn't. All that happened was a rewind and replay. OOPS. Seems pretty clear, and the note is still there. -B 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remark. I really can't imagine how this could be accidental. I just don't see TBC watching this toon later and slapping their heads: "We forgot to keep the speech bubble there!" — It's dot com 21:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Second. I know I wouldn't want to deal with animating a speech bubble if I had a Monday deadline. I don't know how a rotating speech bubble would work realistically, so I think they probably took it out so people wouldn't look at it and say "wow, that just doesn't look good" if they got it wrong. small_logo.pngUsername-talk 22:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Look closely - they already did a rotating speach bubble the first time they spin around - it's just not there when they spin the second time... So, Glitch. --phlip TC 03:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Goof. But this differs from the above. Although I doubt TBC did this without noticing, it is an "inconsistancy," which officially makes a goof. - Joshua (You know, we really are fighting over nothing. :P)

The wording of the Standard you linked is: "...if things mysteriously vanish or appear (and it's not obviously intentional...)." Personally I have a problem with that wording; I would move it be changed to "obviously not intentional." Little change, big difference. First of all, let's all notice that they did animate the rotating speech bubble on the first rotation, okay? Then it disappears because they're done talking. Now if it was in fact an omission, it was a pretty big honkin' one; it's not like the grass around Strong Sad; it's a huge... well, thing. My personal opinion is that they left it off the second time because this rotation is essentially a visual effect, and they didn't want it to get in the way of the effect. If it was in fact an omission, it would have to be a last-minute, bleary-eyed, semi-conscious one (which doesn't fit the quality of the rest of the 'toon). I'm staying non-commital as usual, but I find the arguments for not even mentioning this one pretty strong. —AbdiViklas 04:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"Not obviously intentional" conveys the meaning I intended when I wrote that better than "Obviously not intentional." For instance, with the "baby daddy" thing, it's not obviously not intentional, but it's not obviously intentional either. (If you can parse that.) However, the disagreement here is on just what IS obvious in this case. This much is obvious: they didn't just reverse and repeat the scene, since the speech bubble is missing. Maybe they just felt like drawing it twice, maybe the second time was an earlier version, or maybe it was intentional. And, at any rate, I'm not willing to call it a "Goof," because it's really not needed (speech bubbles are not physical objects in the real world, so its non-inclusion doesn't really affect what's happening in the scene at all.) So remark. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 06:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with what Jay is saying and I maintain that it is a remark. On the other hand, it is pretty obvious by just watching the toon, so like AbdiViklas hinted, perhaps it should just go unmentioned. — It's dot com 00:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Making out

Is this the first time we've ever seen Strong Bad actually make out with something? I mean, he's always gone on about it. If it really is the first time I think it's worthy of a mention in the article somehow.

It think this is the first time we've seen him... kissing. I think it's noteworthy. - Joshua 02:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

i thought that was discusting....i had too close down the window and turn the volume all the way down!-User:Timmy!

Accents

Possible goof - when one of the three scotsmen speaks (to say 'BAGH! Only 23 metres!), he's speaking with an irish accent.

What? I think that it's Scottish. Plus, corn is no place for a mighty warrior! --The 386 My talk 23:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

People do that often (try to do a Scottish accent and wind up Irish). What we hear here is only a rough approximation hinting at a vaguely British-Isles accent. But please see the definition of a goof (also linked just a little way up the page). A goof is not when TBC fail to meet our expectations; it's when they fail to meet theirs. —AbdiViklas 00:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools