Talk:rated

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 17:14, 8 April 2008

Klown Kare

This page needs some serious klown kare, and not just the funny kind. No, I'm talking DEATH METAL KLOWN KARE! Y'know, cause I heard of this band with a clown mascot or sumtin. Whatever, just fix it! --Homfrog 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The page doesn't look too bad to me, but I cleaned some of it up. —Shwoo 11:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we also get a different image to match the current caption or give the current image a different caption? Seriously, the line is not said at that part, and you don't want the Bros. Chaps to use the current image when they post the email on Podstar Runner in the next few months, do ya? --Charlie Jr. 14:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing Scene Transcript?

What about the scene that follows the film-rating screen where Strong Bad attempts to get into a movie he isn't old enough for, along with Bubs and Coach Z? This article seems to end just before that scene. What gives?

on it, y'all --Zatchman (Neumannz) 17:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Explaining the R

Does someone want to take a stab at explaining how this is kind of a twist on how before movie ratings had the NC-17 designation, they got an X rating, but there were XXX ratings as well, but there was never any official explanation to the public as to what the difference was between X, XX, and XXX? It really does seem to be based on this, as despite TBC's strong desire to not reference pornography directly, their blurry "RRR-movies" is clearly a reference to the early days of cable with the blocked out pornographic channels, which was also when the X vs XXX issue was public.--64.193.79.137 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, there is not and never was an official "XXX" rating - according to Wikipedia (and some other source I read in the past) adult movie makers deliberately gave movies an "XXX rating" on their own to make their movies look even more enticing. --Jay (Talk) 16:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The only rating that exist is the X-rating. However, you have to pay money to have your movie be rated, so adult movie makers just add in an "XXX rating", both to make the movie exiciting, and to save money sending it over to the review board. Nobody has given an "XX"-rating movie, because it just sounds plain dumb.--149.169.205.74 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right...I'm aware of both of those...but at the time, there were all sorts of unofficial explanations thrown around. (Remember, this is before wikipedia, this was back in the days when there wasn't a ready available source of answers on popculture.) And, at the time, explaining the difference between an X rated a XXX rated movie included all sorts of weird claims. Yes, it was pure advertising, but the assumption of those who were looking felt that there was some basis for the rating. And yes, I've never heard of a XX movie either, but in the urban legend explanation, I assure you, people were coming up with classifications for them. --64.193.79.137 20:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

SB's dad?

I'm probably reading way too far into it, which is why I'm not putting it on any article, but how telling is it that he says Coach Z "only kinda" looks like his mother, but says nothing about Bubs's resemblance to his father? --Jay (Talk) 17:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Posters

yo's, can somebody start trivia-ing and inside reference-ing the movie posters? --Zatchman (Neumannz) 17:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't the movie posters the same ones as the RRR-rated movies SB had only just mentioned? --Jay (Talk) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, oh, OOOOOOHHHHHH!!! You meant the people ON the posters. Wight, wight. --Jay (Talk) 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there seem to be some hidden jokes there. For example, I did catch Cherry Greg listed in the credits of one film. wbwolf (t | ed) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I also caught A. Chimendez on one of them. I think it was the second. -YK 17:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fists of One-Through-Twenty Four

would the fists of knuckles series be a reference to rocky, which is not only a fighting series, but is the prototypical--and unless i am mistaken, the most made-fun-of--"too many sequels" series...? --Zatchman (Neumannz) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Coach Z, fuh-ree-kee!

Coach Z really wants to be a mom doesn't he? First it was garbage sale and now this! He is confuuuuuused!

-Alex H.

Scrambled

has anybody unscrambled the image on the tv at the end? I don't even know if it's possible, but it looks like there's a puppy in it.64.244.131.194

Here's two images from the decompiled Flash file. That's as good as they get in the actual toon. --DorianGray 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The top one looks like it has Trogdor's beefy arm in it, and the bottom one reminds me of the snowman from the ClayFighter series. I'm sure they're both coincidences, though. Trey56 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you invert the colours, the image becomes more clear. A minotaur-like man weilding a bone against a black-haired fellow in jeans can be pieced together from both pictures. They need to be, um, degaussed or something to fully restructure them. Something that requires technology beyond my grasp. --DorianGray 21:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmyeah, one can even make out which Chap is in the picture when you undistort it slightly. Someone with better tools or skillz than me should get to work on this. Loafing 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm... Minotaur-like man? Weilding a club? Against a man? On Homestar Runner? Asking many question fragments? Or is that me? Anyway, mayhap it's from Peasant's Quest Trailer? --Jay (Talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, when I hit the "edit" button to reply to that, the slightly-unscrambled picture wasn't present. I'm not entirely sure whether I was right or wrong with my guess, seeing it. --Jay (Talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Kerrek! Check out around 3524 in the PQ's Trailer! Trey56 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And the bad cable smote the Kerrek, and all was laid to staticnation. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Though Kerrek looks a LOT less menacing in that picture than I usually imagine him. --Jay (Talk) 22:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mayeb that's why we only see him in extreme close-up in the trailer. Loafing 22:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What I think it is, it's just Mike (or some other actor?) with the Kerrek head costume menacing Matt in the peasant robe, holding Jhonka's bone. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 22:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I went into photoshop and fixed it a bit more -- THe Kerrek isn't the one holding the bone, it's Matt that's holding it. I went ahead and replaced the image with my version. Yadaman 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Trey56 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rating card confusion

Um, it says in the Trivia section that green rating screens are only for G-rated screens. Not true. --Abelhawk 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Noted and removed. --DorianGray 21:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still not quite accurate. The green cards are given when the trailer itself is approved for all audiences, even if the movie is PG or R rated. Red (and yellow) cards are for instances where the trailer is restricted.

Good point. A side-note, the band, in this case, should actually be yellow. Since previews for "certain audiences" (as stated in toon) or "age-restricted" (as in real life) previews on the internet are this way. However, it's hard to even state that as this rating card says "the following FILM" instead of "the following PREVIEW" as it should. Multiple non-important errors are present in that card. But not really a big issue. The current revision of this Trivia tid-bit is fine. joshr915 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's factually incorrect. Updating. Wfaulk 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second here. The rating screen is NOT for a trailer. It's for the actual movie. --Jay (Talk) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The trailer rating card color is in reference to the trailer's appropriateness. An R-rated movie could get a green card if the content is appropriate for play with films of any rating. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer_%28film%29 or the movie "This Film is Not Yet Rated."

Above comment, ID your responses, thank you. The current revision is totally incorrect. The card itself states it is appropriate for 'certain audiences' although not to be taken seriously, literally it is incorrect. As stated on wikipedia, internet trailers for only certain audiences (age appropriate) are to be yellow. I suggest total removal of this item as people can't seem to get the correct information here. And as Jay states above, this isn't really a rating for a PREVIEW it is for a FILM. The Film as a whole. Again, removal would avoid any further confusion and debate. UPDATE: Removed and noted as such. joshr915 (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have to wholeheartedly disagree. I view the humor in Homestar as very similar to the way I view the humor in XKCD; and I think the wiki facilitates that. What I mean is, I don't know how many times I've 'kipediaed the punchline of and xkcd comic about programing or science or whatnot, and actually learned something practical. I have never felt the need to google something that was referenced on H*R because I always knew that I could use the wiki, as well as contribute to it. I think this information is something worth noting for the simple facts that it is:

1. Interesting
2. Factually Accurate
3. Relevant to the Cartoon

It is important, nay, necessary for the continued useful of this Wiki that facts such as the one in question stand. If I can't find out about the colors used for different ratings of movie trailers on HRWiki, what hope is there left for this community. Flashfight15:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with item #2 is that different users' understanding of the wikipedia entry is different. It's technically an internet trailer not for all audiences so shouldn't it be yellow? But wait, it's not labeled as a PREVIEW, but the card is labeled as a FILM rating (RRR). The errors in this card make any logical comparison to a real life rating card impossible, hence why I suggested removal. In the case of this card, the color can be whatever the Brothers Chaps want it to be since it is not formatted like an official mpaa rating card. This fact makes any trivia we insert, incorrect no matter what info we put in it. I also recommend adding an 'in-progress' or 'being debated' banner (unsure if hrwiki has the debate banner) to this section so it is not constantly being changed back and forth. The item should remain off until the debate is settled. joshr915 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While we don't have a debate banner, to my knowledge, I would have to say that the information you just laid out, about the MPAA color system, about how this is a preview banner not a film banner, is exactly of the ilk that would make a good fact. Flashfight 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. A properly neutral trivia point could be nice. Something along the lines of "This toon uses a variation of the MPAA rating card (<-link) used for movie trailers." That, of course, could be expanded to include more info, or one could just rely on the wikipedia link to provide the info. Anyone feel free to expand on this idea, just don't use my exact quote please. Thanks joshr915 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now we get down to wordsmithing. Maybe something along the lines of

• The Rating Card used is model after that of the <'kipedia link> Motion Picture Association of America </'kipdedia link>; however the colorized cards are used for trailers, as opposed to films themselves.
  • Also, the rating of 'certain audiences' would suggest a restricted rating, which are colored in either yellow or red, as opposed to the unrestricted green used here.

Actually, I kinda hate that wording, but I'm going to throw it on the page, and we can tweak it from there. Flashfight 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice! That's not at all bad. I think it is quite neutral. Nicely done. It could be tightened up somewhat I think, but I'll let you ponder that since this is your quote. Again, I like it. Oh, and of note, I fixed a small typo, 'model' to 'modeled.' joshr915 (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Come Back When You're All Growed Up

Is it a Rugrats reference? Bad Bad Guy 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what about this is referencing The Rugrats? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 07:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The Rugrats had another series a few years ago under the premise that the Rugrats had grown up to become preteens. The name of the program was called something like "Rugrats: All Growed Up" Flashfight

It was called All Grown Up!, but the Rugrats special it was based on was called All Growed Up. —Shwoo 10:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a delete-heads reference?

the easter egg with strong sad and homsar a delete-heads refance perhaps?

In what conceivable way? - Qermaq - (^T/C)  08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my first impression upon viewing this, it was very clear that Gron Sad and Homsar [both card carrying Deleteheads] are engaged in fan clubery. Whether that's worth a mention of not is debateable, but I definitely agree that the connection is there. Flashfight

What is that fweaking wooowd?

I hear Bu-hubs say "Trina," not "Gena" (which I've never seen spelled as anything but "Gina" anyway). I was thinking it went along with the Women's Pen (etc. etc.) star, but that poster may have just biased my hearing. Can somebody with better tech skills or more-awakeness than me slow down the audio and check? In the meantime, I'm-a gonna change it m'self. -- Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 14:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

e.email cummings

Does anyone _else think we should put SB's erratic typing into a sender's-email-style box, to accurately depict the erraticness (erraticity? errata? Erik Estrada?)? We don't really have a precedent for him doing this sort of thing, unless you count when he typed in different fonts to pretend to be legions of screaming girls. I'd argue that this example is considerably different from that one, though. Unfortunately, I'm not enough of a computer genius man to format wiki font in that way. Anybody agree it should be done/up to the task? -- Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree for what its worth. -JamesDean 15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sausage King, your concurrence leads me to believe that, without any dissent, this is a worthwhile endeavor. However, I am a bit worried how it will effect the readability. I would say that the best course of action would be to have someone actually create the page you're talking about, either in the Sandbox or on a personal sub-page. Flashfight 15:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)