Talk:The Animated Adventures of Puppet Homestar

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 05:17, 6 November 2022 by The Cheatbot (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I believe strong sad actually says: "Once upon a time, here's the type of thing that happened."

I think what Shark Tooth Bubs says is "or a beach resort pile?"

Maybe he did! I wasn't listening to it loud enough! --FangoriouslyFotoshopStar.png 14:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Non-Integral Article

This toon is listed as "Animated Adventures of Puppet Homestar" (no the) on the toons menu. The "the" only appears in the title screen, which is why my initial links to it lacked the "the". I am of the opinion we should go by the toons menu (Quality Time, for example). What says everyone else? --DorianGray 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Some toons don't even display the title. NMRodo 22:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it needs the "The". The "The" is given equal weight on the title card as the rest of the words. Furthermore, it sounds better to say such and such happened in The Animated Adventures of Puppet Homestar versus such and such happened in Animated Adventures of Puppet Homestar. — It's dot com 16:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Piles upon Piles?

Is it time for a "Pile" running joke article? There've been hideous piles, directions to piles, etc. Is this enough for a new article or should it go into Nondescript Nouns?— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And let's not forget "What a pile!" in Trogday 08. I think the page could work. --Jay (Talk) 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"Leg up on the pile", "pile of electronics state", pile of swe-atshirts, KoT eating a pile of salt... — Defender1031*Talk 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
"Leg up on the pile" works, but all the rest seem to be very specific piles. I was aiming more towards nonspecific piles, such as The Cheat's disguise in bike thief.— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. As per Bassbone's suggestion, I only included piles that weren't followed by "...of X". Might have missed a few. --Jay (Talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I might still suggest separate sections for piles as nondescript objects, and for specific piles. — Defender1031*Talk 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Do a search on the word "pile" and tell me how feasible that would be. Hint: not at all. The word is used in normal contexts everywhere. --Jay (Talk) 19:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I did a search. However, they do have an above average number of piles appearing in their toons, and i think it should be documented. — Defender1031*Talk 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm very surprised to find we DON'T have a pile article yet. User:Bwahboo/sig 19:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we do! Here's the Pile article, as linked to in Jay's post. – The Chort 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Wall Breaks? Really?

Puppet Homestar breaks the fourth wall by both showing disgust over Puppet Strong Sad's line "-until he finally went." and with the line "You guys got to help me! You're the only puppets left!"

According to our article, a Fourth Wall Break is when a character displays awareness that he or she is in an Internet cartoon. Bearing this in mind, I do not believe these are really fourth wall breaks. First of all, Puppet Homestar talks to the narrator, Puppet Strong Sad, at the end of the cartoon. Because both characters are in the same cartoon, which is about a group of puppets performing a play, they can interact with each other without realising they're fictional characters. In fact, characters talk back to the narrator all the time in cartoons; another example is in Teen Girl Squad Issue 14 when the Team Manager complains after Strong Bad describes him as a Towel Boy. Is that a fourth wall break too? Or is it just interaction between characters? I say the latter. Secondly, I always thought that all the puppets already knew that they're puppets all the time; Strong Sad even calls Puppet Homestar "the Animated Adventures of Puppet Homestar". However, just because they know that they are puppets, it doesn't necessarily mean that they know that they're in an Internet cartoon too. It's not like in Jibblies 2 when Strong Bad describes themselves as characters rather than residents of Free Town Country, USA. Of course, I could be wrong about all this, and if I am, then please explain if these really are indeed fourth wall breaks. – The Chort 20:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. By common definition, a fourth wall break occurs when the characters of any work acknowledge the work in any way. At the very least, there is acknowledgment that they are part of a puppet show, and therefore that constitutes a fourth wall break. Whether they break a fifth wall in acknowledging that the puppet show is part of an internet cartoon is irrelevant. 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I still don't agree. The way I see it, all the puppets have decided to put together a play and we get to watch it. Responding to Strong Sad's narration isn't a fourth wall break, because if it was, so too would be talking to Strong Sad at the end of the toon. More strictly, a Fourth Wall Break is when the characters either realize their world is fictitious or show their awareness of the audience in such a way that the only explanation is that they know they aren't real. Talking to the narrator, who happens to be another puppet in the same cartoon, doesn't really count in my book, nor does puppets referring to each other as such because Marshie and Doreauxgard are the only puppets left to appear in the play. It might be worth looking at this talk page to see how our definition of a Fourth Wall Break has been narrowed down from the general definition of any form of acknowlegment (otherwise, every Sbemail would have to be included on that article). – The Chort 12:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it's definitely a fourth wall break. They know they're puppets and they acknowledge being in a show. What more do you need? — Defender1031*Talk 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't say for certain if this is a fourth wall break or not. I'm not familiar with the definition. But, The Chort is explaining his reasoning and he seems to have pretty good reasons. If you want to convince anyone to your position you need to give your reasons. So far, The Chort is the only one that's doing that. Philip8o 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to add that on the Peeing article, it is suggested that Homestar Runner stops walking and says "ew" "as if he had just peed, or possibly did something else." In this theory, he's not responding to the narrator, it's part of the play. Anyway, my main argument is that, yes, they know they're puppets and, yes, they acknowledge being in a show, but do they know that we, the viewers, are watching them on a computer screen? For all we know, there could an audience, possibly of children or the main characters, watching the show from off-screen without making a sound. Perhaps there's no audience and they're rehearsing, or they're just performing the play for themselves for fun. And because they know they're in a play, they can communicate with each other if they wanted to. Another example: in A Decemberween Pageant, the main characters also put on a play, during which characters talk to each other on stage out of character in some scenes. Would these too be Fourth Wall Breaks? The point is there's other ways of explaining these things without having to resort to Fourth Wall Breaks (the Fourth Wall being in this case between us and the puppets). – The Chort 14:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The point is that they acknowledge that they are puppets and not real people. Like if I made a puppet and put on a puppet show, I would maintain the facade of the show being real. If I had the puppets call themselves puppets, it would be a FWB (Also, I'm gonna go tweak the peeing article). Basically, consider it in the case of [someone] putting on a puppet show, not the puppets themselves putting on a show. - 14:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Chort, it doesn't matter whether they acknowledge every single detail of the HR Web Site and the means by which we view it. By acknowledging that they are puppets within a show, they have broken the fourth wall. End of story. So no, it doesn't matter if they even know what computers are, or even the internet. What's important is that they acknowledge that they are part of a fictional world (in this case, puppets) and that there is a reality beyond their fictional world (which is done when HR interacts with the narrator). Your argument from A Decemberween Pageant is moot, because the characters themselves are performing a play within their fictional world. Even if you argued that this was a puppet show being performed within a fictional universe, the acknowledgement of their puppet nature and the interaction with the narrator WOULD BE A FOURTH WALL BREAK WITHIN THEIR PLAY WITHIN A PLAY. So it still stands. Nevertheless, at no point within the narrative are we let to believe that there is such a narrative within a narrative, whereas in A Decemberween Pageant, we all know from the start that it is a play within the scope of the HR narrative. So clearly these are not the same thing. Bottom line: these cases within this short are fourth wall breaks. To claim otherwise is to abandon common sense.
I agree, and that's exactly the reason i think that sbemails should count as 4th wall breaks too, but alas, the community disagrees... still this is slightly more of a break than sbemails, and i think it counts too. — Defender1031*Talk 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I can see why the sbemails wouldn't generally count, since it presupposes audience interaction within the fictional narrative, whereas, generally speaking, fictional narratives tend to keep that demarcation between the fictional world and the real world. In other words, it can be argued that, in sbemail, the window on reality (assumed audience interaction) fits within the fictional narrative, and therefore does not break the wall. I know, in truth, any overstepping of the boundaries between the fictional and real worlds is by definition a fourth wall break, but I can see why presupposed interaction can be argued to fit within the established boundaries. But in this case - puppets acknowledging that they are puppets and interacting with the narrator of their fictional narrative - does in fact break the wall, since, in doing so, they are going beyond the boundaries of their fictional narrative.
The term "Breaking the Fourth Wall", if taken literally, means that the characters look beyond the front wall of the stage and interact with the people on the other side. Whether the audience in question is us or an audience in the toon watching the play that we never see, there is no where in this toon where any of the characters talk or otherwise interact with anyone on our side of the wall. (Unless you count interactions with Strong Sad. I personally wouldn't, but I'm not worried about it.) The characters can see that they are puppets, they can see the human hand holding Bubs, and they can see that Homestar's skeleton is a human hand. It's not a fourth wall break for them to acknowledge what is clearly visible to them as well as us, any more than it would be if they commented that the ball of spaghetti was abnormally large. I'll agree that it's something strange that characters in a story normally aren't expected to do, but it isn't an interaction with the audience.--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 03:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

However, "Breaking the Fourth Wall" is also commonly used to mean drawing attention to something the audience expects to just be part of the medium, i.e. the audience would not expect Homestar to know that he is a puppet any more than Huckleberry Finn knows he is words on a page. However, I agree that the Strong Sad thing isn't breaking the fourth wall, since Puppet Strong Sad could easily be just off-screen narrating. Flicky1991 07:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson

An IP added a line stating that Homestar (being a glove) refers to Micheal Jackson's glove. I know that is going to be removed, but I want to say I agree. Don't remove it till we have a consensus, please. I think it is a good idea.--Jellote wuz here 20:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a real connection. Michael Jackson wore the glove to conceal his skin disorder. Homestar simply shed his puppet body, revealing the hand manipulating him. StarFox 06:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree, no connection. - 14:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Puppet Homestar is not a glove. He is a puppet. So what's the connection? I have no idea why Marshie called him "Jackson", but I highly doubt it had anything to do with the late King of Pop. – The Chort 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it's valid actually. The hand/glove thing is enough of a connection IMO. — Defender1031*Talk 17:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm split, but leaning no. --Jay (Talk) 19:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I would also have been split normally, but his relatively recent death put it over the top for me. — Defender1031*Talk 19:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, people that support the fact so far: Defender, Jellote, IP who added it
People who disagree: StarFox, myself, The Chort, Jay, Bad Graphics Ghost.
So, pending further support, I think it should stay removed, for the time being. - 22:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll also vouch support for this fun fact, it does explain why Marshie called him Jackson. So, it's 4 Yes, 5 No.-- 07:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There has to be a reason why Marshie does anything? It never occurred to me at all there was a connection between the two. It was just Homestar taking off his skin to horrify them and Marshie saying a name. Hey, you know in Sickly Sam's Big Outing, Old-Timey Marzipan calls Sickly Sam "Jackson"? And she was talking about dancing! That must be connected to Michael Jackson too! (I will block anyone who takes that seriously. Erm, not really... But still.)
So, yeah. No connection. Just a name. --DorianGray 10:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"C'mon Jackson, cut yourself a slice of rug!" is a quote from the 1945 Looney Tunes cartoon Hare Tonic with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd.
So...yeah. There is a reason why Marizpan said that name, it was an real-world reference, and I suspect there was a reason why Marshie used that name too.-- 16:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget in Main Page 25 Marshie says "Hey guys, wanna play some James?" Obviously he was making a reference to the band "James," and he meant play as in playing instruments, not games. Right?!!? Come now, people. NMRodo

And what Marsie said had a reason: as an inside joke about mispronunciation of g"! I do believe there is a reason for this reference, and I don't like not documenting reasons in the wiki, because people may not get the reference.-- 21:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Or there could be no actual reason whatsoever as to why they used the name "Jackson", mainly because H*R is a surreal cartoon about dumb animal characters which, more often than not, doesn't make any sense. I fail to see why this wiki is obsessed with creating tenious explanations for every single random thing that ever happens on the website. Peter Jackson made some movies with scary monsters in them, so it must be a reference to the Oscar-winning filmmaker from New Zealand! Samuel L. Jackson starred in a movie about snakes on a plane, and fingers are like snakes, so it must be a reference to the American actor! In the good old days, these so-called references used to be called "stretches", since if they are this unlikely to be true, then they probably aren't. Any reference to Micheal Jackson is a stretch. – The Chort 17:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Little bit harsh, but I'm actually not split any more. Yeah, this is a reach. --Jay (Talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, not seeing that at all. Too many possible Jacksons, and no actual gloves involved here. 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

Is it notable that the "Puppet Homestar" hanging from strings at the beginning is in the same font as the title screen from City (comma) state? cash money tc 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only in one place. — Defender1031*Talk 23:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 3D?

Strong Sad's hand looks like it is Computer Generated. Anyone else notice? --Jellote wuz here 00:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Gray latex glove? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Glove, yes. But I doubt it was gray. They probably desaturated the image in post. — It's dot com 01:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a glove. I think it's simply a CGI rendering of Strong Sad's hand, although it seems to be drawn differently than Strong Sad's normal hand. StarFox 06:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, since it's animated, its appearance in front of a puppet video would make it appear strange. StarFox 06:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was a picture of one of TBC's hands with something wrapped over it to make it gray. You can tell by the fact that the fingernails are faint, also wrinkles can be seen on the forearm. Also, the eyes were drawn in Flash. That'sBupkis! 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This edit

Is it really a reference? I'd just like to see what people think before reverting it. Flicky1991 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"The animated adventures of x" is the kind of title you see all the time. I sincerely doubt it's a reference to anything in particular. I concur with your decision to revert. Nightsong81
I'm kind of torn on this. on one hand, it is a really common thing to see, but on the other, I feel like the burden of proof for an inside reference is less than the burden of proof for a real-world reference. — Defender1031*Talk 05:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools