HRWiki:STUFF/Archive/candy product

[edit] (She Was A) Morphing Detective

From: candy product
Posted on: 09:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

A visual comparison

• The two sequences are staged and timed similarly.
• Some of the content is thematically similar; cf. chainsaw and syringe with knife and ashtray.
• Both sequences end with a bust of a famous U.S. president.
• TBC have referenced TMBG frequently.

Arguments against:

• The bust of Van Buren is a running gag that has been around since Monday, July 14, 2003, long before any recorded collaboration between TBC and TMBG. Not a reference to the video.
• They aren't even the same images at all. If they wanted it to be a reference, they probably would have used the same images.
• Mentally morphing from one object to another searching for the right image is present in many videos and shows, and is a case of TTATOT.
  • This has even happened in other places in other cartoons.
• Let us not forget that the order of the images isn't remotely similar no matter how you look at it.

Additional comments:

• The bust of Van Buren being an older reference does not preclude this being a reference to the video...
  • Yes, it does. If not for it being an older reference, it doesn't even look like Lincoln. It's just a running gag, not a reference. Any connection to the video is completely coincidental.
    • Well, actually, it doesn't. Assume this *is* a reference and you wanted to end this sequence with a president. Which president is most closely associated with HSR? That's right, Old Kinderhook himself!
      • But the fact is that it's a bust of Lincoln (the fun fact, that is), and the fact as written is patently false.
        • As written, the fun fact appears to posit that the one sequence is reminiscent of the other. I don't understand why you feel it claims Van Buren is equal to Lincoln. Can you suggest a revision to avoid this confusion?
  • The bust of Lincoln doesn't look like Lincoln? C'mon ... does the bust of Van Buren look like Van Buren? I'm sorry, but beard+stovepipe hat=Abraham Lincoln.
    • Um, I didn't say the bust of Lincoln doesn't look like Lincoln. I said it didn't look like Van Buren. Read more carefully before you flame, thank you.
      • Oh! I have to admit that I could not imagine anyone positing that point as an argument against. Of course the bust of Van Buren doesn't look like Lincoln. But they're both presidents.
        • But that's NOT the fact! The fact says that the bust in the email is similar to Lincoln. Just because they're both presidents doesn't mean anything. To reiterate, this fact is false.
          • Again, I don't see where the fun fact states that. Please, suggest a better way to word it if that's what you infer.
            • Just to clarify: grammatically, the fact just says that "The scene ... is reminiscent of the music video." Although the correlation between the busts is implied, it certainly isn't stated (VanBuren's never even mentioned). And for that matter, it doesn't try to say that the chainsaw looks like a knife.
• Hmmmm ... both sequences reference a weapon, an addiction, and a president. Not sure that I'm convinced yet, but verrrrrry interesting.
  • That argument is a matter of perspective. The Chainsaw is easily seen as a tool rather than a weapon, and the needle is easily associated with healing rather than an addiction to drugs.
    • Lets see....knife with chainsaw...both can injure (the knife seems its been used for that purpose already!), a cigarette and a needle...both can be forms of drugs (needle can be for meds), and a lincoln and van buren bust....both busts....wow.....close.....ok.
• By itself, the fact sounds like a rather lame connection. Having the visual comparison, though, makes this seem more compelling. If we could include the comparison image with this fact, then I'd be okay with accepting it. Otherwise, I feel people will take it as too much of a stretch.
• In spite of trying to compare knife with chainsaw and so forth, let's try comparing the images in the order they appear:
  1. Revolver - "piece of crap"-shaped candy bar (no connection)
  2. Keychain - Chainsaw (well, they both have "chain" in the name...)
  3. Noose - Dollar Sign (no connection)
  4. Ashtry - Thumbs up (no connection)
  5. Doorknob - Syringe (no connection)
  6. Knife - Campfire (any connection here would be very tenuous)
  7. The numbers don't even match, so Indiana and the moustache have nothing to compare to.
  8. And the presidents are last in both cases.

  This fact has now transformed into a comparison between two "chains" and two presidents. Only maybe the presidents are left with a significant enough comparison left.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] I STUFF 'em, you vote on 'em

From: candy product
Posted on: 17:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• TBC are constantly referencing stuff from their childhood.
  • Especially rare and little-known phenomena. Also, the way Strong Bad says it implies that he is familiar with junk food products that use similar marketing ploys.
• No other treat I know of has a bite-mark shape taken out of it.
• SBLOUNSKCHED! would likely be a consumer flop, just like Grizzly Chomps were.

Arguments against:

• Too much of a stretch; the reference so old and obscure that it's likely just a coincidence.
• The secondary details, such as why the bite was taken, do not match; if this truly were a reference there would be some supporting evidence.
• Grizzly Chomps aren't even candy; they're cupcakes.

Additional comments:

• An argument could be made that SBLOUNSKCHED!, containing pepperoni, is not candy either.
  • It's supposed to be candy, though.
    • Even if pepperoni isn't candy, marshmallows, licorice, nougat, and chocolate certainly are.
• I've never heard of the Grizzly Chomps, but I find this information sufficiently interesting, even if it's a coincidence.
  • If it's not reasonably certain that TBC put the bite in the candy in reference to the Chomps, then it shouldn't be mentioned.
    • I agree that it shouldn't go into "Real-World Reference", but is there a place for interesting information like this in "Remarks"?
      • If you looked hard enough, I bet you could find a handful of remarks similar to this one. On the other hand, including this item in the article puts us on a slippery slope, and I just don't see enough evidence to warrant that.
        • Fair enough.
      • I would vote for it if it were under "remarks", because it's interesting and I didn't know it.
        • Of course, no matter what the result of this vote is, it will be listed on the talk page. Sometimes that's the best place for interesting coincidences.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Song about Sibilance

From: candy product
Posted on: 01:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Sibilance is NOT a common word.
• The way that Strong Bad says it is almost exactly a direct quote, including intonation of the way Hanks' character says it.

Arguments against:

• As stated below, this word is commonly used to test microphones. It probably doesn't reference anything but that fact.
• Although quite true, this fact has little importance if the second one can't be proven true. If the Jon Stewart one is true, it would be very significant to this email; this fact would then only be necessary to explain Jon Stewart's. On its own, though, it really says nothing more than "There is at least one pop-culture use of 'sibilance' as a microphone check."
• I have seen many a sound guy check a mic with the word "sibilance." The SNL and Jon Stewart sketches are merely making light of that fact.

Additional comments:

• THIS vote is for the other part of the item below.
• It's not just sibilance, the "checks" were also used.
  • So what? The word "check" is even more common in a mic check. Something should be said about sibilance as a mic check word in general, but the direct pop-culture references aren't necessary because we could probably find hundreds of them.
• Strong Bad saying it sent me an hour long Google search to figure out where it came from. It was immediately recognizable, but not immediately placeable. Why not just put that it is POSSIBLY a reference? Tom Hanks Wayne's World skit transcript.

  Here are the relevant portions of the transcripts:

  BARRY: ...and then, the most important thing—I gotta do a sound check. {pulls the mike forward} Check. Check. Check one. Sibilance. Sibilance. Check. Check. Check two. Sibilance. Sibilance. And that's pretty much what I do.

  STRONG BAD: Check one, check two. Sibilance. Sibilance. SBEmail.

• Both this and the one below are inherently the same issue. Since they were originally together, wouldn't it make more sense to STUFF them together?
  • There is a distinction. THe SNL reference is more well-known, for example, and The Daily Show is more current. Let's allow them to develop independently.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Chocopantsurglar

From: candy product
Posted on: 09:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• The resemblance IS striking.

Arguments against:

• It's general burglar attire.
• It is striking, but that's because Hamburglar is the most famous example of someone in this attire. That doesn't mean it's a reference to him.
• He's missing the hat, tie, and jacket. What's more, the mask is different. Only the shirt matches.

Additional comments:

• If the email actually had something to do with fast food or a McDonald's style restaurant, this argument may have had more weight, but as it stands, it just looks like a run-of-the-mill burglar outfit.
• Check it against the King of Town's outfit in 3 Times Halloween Funjob for comparison, if you like.
• Please compare
• On the one hand, he is a burglar stealing food. On the other, he's dressed very generically.
• His actions provide more of a resemblance than the outfit itself.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Crappyshack

From: candy product
Posted on: 07:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Caddyshack is such an important film, a reference to it must be acknowledged.
• This fact is also mentioned on the Wikipedia page for Baby Ruth, giving it significance.
• TBC have made references to Caddyshack to the past; for example, Homestar's costume in Halloween Fairstival.
• Caddyshack is the most famous example of this particular juxtaposition.

Arguments against:

• This fact is sort of a stretch. Couldn't it be that they are just referencing the candy's shape itself and nothing else?
• I can attest that this has been done before: it was a joke among my 12-year-old friends long before any of us had seen or heard of Caddyshack.
• It isn't a reference to anything.

Additional comments:

• Baby Ruth's appearance is a relatively common joke, but Caddyshack is where it all started.
• Its been years since I've seen Caddyshack, can someone state what in Caddyshack this is supposedly referencing?
  • A candy bar was thrown in the pool and everyone thought it was, well, not a candy bar.
    • Then they evacuated the pool. They were cleaning, and one of the pool guys ate it. Gree-ose. And the snobby rich woman fainted.
• Maybe it's not necessary, or in poor taste, but I'd be more inclined to explain why he singled out Baby Ruth than to name-drop Caddyshack.
  • Caddyshack is simply the most well known instance of the Baby Ruth being mistaken for something nasty.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Junkmail Filta... sorta

From: candy product
Posted on: 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

Arguments against:

• I don't see any relevance at all...
• We don't know if we are seeing a full list. This might be a screenshot after SB has scrolled in a bit.
• Plus, perhaps the previous emails have already been deleted.

Additional comments:

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] I betcha I will by the end of this voting

From: candy product
Posted on: 02:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• We often list obvious things in Inside References.

Arguments against:

• Obvious to anyone who has watched a lot of emails.
• Even if it's not obvious, it's the joke.
• Inside References was designed for comments to help newcomers to the HR site, and this seems obvious to most people who even watch a single email.

Additional comments:

• Explanation or Inside Reference?
• Some rewording probably wouldn't hurt either.

[ Back to STUFF index ]

[edit] Daily dose of sibilance

From: candy product
Posted on: 21:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for:

• Email was a day late, and a mainstream comedy show aired Monday night uses the same reference. Entirely too likely to be a reference to exclude.
• How often is it used in pop culture?
• Both parts of the FF are saying the same thing: they're showing other times it's been used in pop culture. Niether one says it's a direct reference. If we can accept one, why can't we accept the other? Also, I think the part in question is more worthy than the other part if we're only going to use one, because whether it was a reference or not, it still was the night before (whereas the SNL thing was a long time ago).

Arguments against:

• Very likely coincidence.
• Because the email was a day late, it was probably already most of the way through production the time that show aired.
• "Siblants" is a common word to use in testing microphones; there's no reason it had to refer to anything else.
• Let's say that TBC were watching The Daily Show, that still doesn't make it a reference. If they heard it decided, "hey let's use that word" It still isn't any more noteworthy than the fact that they talked about colloids on the discovery channel last week.
• This is just a case of the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon.

Additional comments:

• ONLY the full-sized section is being voted on, NOT the small part.
• even tho the intro comes at the beginning of the email it may have been made or redone after the rest of the email.
• To the comment about how often it's used in pop culture: obviously at least one other time. The small part of the fact is not in question, just the big part.
• And to the comment about how often it's being used in pop culture: We tend to decline facts about things that don't look like references, such as shows getting cancelled after just one episode.
  • In that case, I think we should be questioning the entire FF, not just the part about the Daily Show, because there's really no solid reason to believe either one is a reference.
    • What's strange is, one reference is losing, while another is winning. What makes them so different?
      • See above item for an explanation.
• I suggest that because niether the part for which we're voting nor the part that's already on the page is a clear reference, we move the whole thing to a different section of the page.
• Note that there have been quite a few of these "near misses" in recent months, where a toon or SBEmail is released within a very short period (either direction) of a real-life event that has something to do with the toon. At first, it looked to me like mere coincidence, but I'm beginning to see a pattern.

[ Back to STUFF index ]