Talk:DNA Evidence (running gag)

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Ding! DNA Evidence (running gag) is a featured article, which means it showcases an important part of the Homestar Runner body of work and/or highlights the fine work of this wiki. We also might just think it's cool. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.


Stop
This page is for discussing edits and content of the DNA Evidence (running gag) article. If you have a general comment on this cartoon, or speculation on the plot, please post it at the forum. Thanks!

Contents

[edit] Sub-plot

Is there gonna be some kinda cryptic sub-plot behind this DNA evidence? --Das654 17:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as ours. —BazookaJoe 17:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umm, this sounds like they all have to do with each other.

1. Strong Bad takes DNA evidence and tampers with it ("...and that's when I tampered with the DNA evidence!") 2. Movie character notices it's gone. ("...and that's when I noticed the DNA evidence was gone!") 3. Strong Bad puts it back and Marzipan suspects that it's been tampered with ("...and that's when I thought the DNA evidence had been tampered with!")

Now, before anyone tells me to go onto the forum, does anyone think this qualifies for a sub-plot page? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 18:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's not enough going on for an actual plot, yet. Loafing 07:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
If there ever is enough, we can assume that in your funeral Homestar was trying to find the original evidence. Bad Bad Guy 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plot to me. We do have 4 appearences, all seeming to have some sort of plot, in my opinion. I think if the next email has DNA evidence in it, maybe we should add a new section to the page about the sub-plot (although not neccessarily a new page altogether). CompGrl323 (talk · edits) 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There may be a plot behind these occurrences, but it would only be guesswork for us right now. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough if there is an actual plot behind it or not. Patience! Loafing 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope this isn't too forum-esque, but if there is an ending to this plot, I think a character will find the evidence and hold it above his head. "I found it! The DNA evidence!" --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Imagine if they do it all year and it turns out the evidence was a vital piece of figuring out what happened to Decemberween 2005! Bad Bad Guy 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Decemberween 2005 was moved to July, right? Anyway, I'm hoping that this will happen in some form... --ComputerBox 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Objection to myself! --ComputerBox 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Decemberween in July was supposed to make up for the fact that there was no Dween special in 2003. Unless we count snowglobe or what i want, they still haven't done anything to make up for 2005 (probably the May-Jun hiatus again). Bad Bad Guy 00:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be sheer brilliance if they were to continue this until email 173, culminating in The Paper's replacement somehow. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It could also build up to the departure of the Lappy. The Tandy lasted 1 year, the Compy 2, and this is the Lappy's 3rd year. Bad Bad Guy 17:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If there is a subplot, it will be hard to work that guy from the movie into it, unless he was real like in this one theory I read at the forum. Bad Bad Guy 03:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film Noir

I think it's also noteworthy that Homestar hangs up a trenchcoat and fedora when Marzipan asks if he's found the DNA evidence yet... -Cyndentia

Although trenchcoats and fedoras are a common theme among film noir, it's probably not related and could be any number of things. Knowing TBC, one would expect them to grossly exaggerate such a reference, such as reducing the entire scene to white on black and then having Homestar actually notice the change. — Lapper (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All but one?

Bad Bad Guy brought up the fact that the only email of aught seven to not include a joke about the DNA evidence is looking old. I'm kinda iffy on this one, and would like to hear peoples opinions. In conclusion, should we add it or not? Bluebry 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Given that awrt-severn only has five emails so far, I say leave it off for now. --Jay (Gobble) 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Died?

Is it possible to determined who died?I know its not: Strong Bad, The Poopsmith, The Cheat, Coach Z, Homsar, Marzipan, Homestar Runner, Strong Mad, The Robot, Strong Sad(strong badathlon),Bubs, The King of Town, Pom Pom(unnatural),Senor Cardgage,The Knight, The Hornblower, The Blacksmith,(the movies), Old Lady, and Taranchula,(your funeral). There are alot of people left,so who could have died? — Spongemaster0 (Talk | contribs) 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) (left unsigned)

Why would somebody need to die? --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bug in DNA Evidence?

Anyone think the evidence Bubs is burning in Bug In Mouth Disease is DNA Evidence? I doubt it is, but I was wondering if anyone noticed it.— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 06:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, intewesting theowy. I'll take it! I'll take twelve! DeFender1031 06:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know; considering all the inside references in the toons and emails, I think we're supposed to assume everything put up on the site takes place in the order it's released, besides the obvious (remakes, flashbacks, different time periods). So "Bug in Mouth Disease" would take place before all the DNA evidence stuff. -Unknownwarrior33 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA? no way!

I think we are getting some social satire from Homestar. I think Homestar is a spoof on the over zealous District Attorney Michael Nifong, who was in charge of prosecuting the Duke University lacrosse players for rape. Mr. Nifong found no DNA evidence connecting the players to the crime. I don’t think it is a coincidence that only 2 days after Nifong dropped the charges against the Duke players, Homestar, like Nifong, is lamenting over DNA evidence. I would guess we have heard the last of DNA evidence.

No, Homestar Runner is not a spoof on the Attorney guy. Nor is this. I gotta say, that is some massive stretching. It's simply a running gag (and a funny one) that they've kept up. I don't think it's a reference to anything. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA Evidence

This section is entirely too much information. A simple link to a wikipedia article on DNA would be sufficient. Seeing that sort of technical information on this site is inappropriate, I would think. 16 April 2007, at around 6:30 EST

I'm in agreement; there's no need for the technical 2nd paragraph. In fact, as I am reasonably certain no one will object, I'ma be bold and remove it. Anyone's free to raise an argument for its retention, of course. - Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree — I added in just a little bit more about why DNA can be used as evidence, as I thought that would be relevant to our article: [1] Trey56 06:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obligation

The way Homestar says it in Rough Copy makes it seem like the Chapmans feel obligated to include it in the emails and have sort of exhausted the jokes they have, especially since it was in an easter egg. It's possible they originally put it in with a sub-plot in mind but now it's just something they have to stick in there. It's also possible that this is leading up to email #173, in which Strong Bad supposedly changes to an inkjet printer.

Nice speculation, but this is something for the forum, not for here. Loafing 22:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The same thing happened with South Park and killing Kenny.--Kickflipthecat 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too long

The section that refers to DNA Evidence is a bit too long. Is there a way to shorten it? 68.205.128.200 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Take one look at The Virus#Harmful Effects of The Virus and you start to have doubts. Bad Bad Guy 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's organized in a bulleted system. This is just a huge paragraph that stares you in the face. - Joshua 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here. — Defender1031*Talk 13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
In any case, all the paragraph does is summarize the DNA Evidence short. Is that even necessary, considering the toon has its own page with a transcript?

[edit] New Image

Is everyone content with the current image or should someone upload one of only the DNA evidence? Bad Bad Guy 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Honestly, the name is very annoying, can't we redirect it to "The DNA Evidence"? Meaty85203 Talk To Me... Serously 00:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Homestar sighs and says "DNA evidence" with no article in rough copy. It's also called "some DNA evidence", "green DNA evidence", "this DNA evidence", and "your DNA evidence". Thus, it's not an Integral Article at all. So, no, I don't think so. --Jay (Gobble) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Aukkough, I hate these talk/forum fights. It's DNA Evidence. There's to one of it! You got "The DNA Evidence" open. It's really not that hard. Meaty85203 Talk To Me... Serously 01:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation

I changed the explanation so that it was in the order of events, not the order in which they were revealed. This was reverted for some reason. This page isn't about the toon, it's about the sequence of events leading up to it. I don't see why we should leave out details for the purpose of making it like the toon. I think it makes sense to tell the whole story is it happened, instead of revealing each part like the toon did. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense to explain it the way it was revealed in the toon, rather than the way it really happened. Right now, it's written like a plot for the toon, when it would be much more convenient to read what actually happened to the DNA evidence. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Because that's the way it's been since the toon was new. RickTommy (edits) 23:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That seems to be your reason for lots of decisions, and I'm not sure why. Older doesn't mean better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 23:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That's not the reason, nor is it typically a valid reason. As I understood the actual revert, the actual reason was to present the joke in an order that makes sense. — Defender1031*Talk 00:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
But doesn't the actual order make more sense than the order it was explained in the toon? This page isn't about the toon, it's about the DNA evidence. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't look too closely at the edits one way or the other to see which made more sense (nor do I have the time to do so at the present moment). I was simply clarifying that based on the edit summary, RickTommy's reason has absolutely nothing to do with it. — Defender1031*Talk 00:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It was reverted again. I'm still not sure why. I can't think of any reason why the old version is better. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gfd. There's no real reason to have the old version of the page just because it's the original version. Keegster2 22:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Keegster2 - Are you saying you agree with Gfd disagreeing with RickTommy? Or is it that you agree with his changes to the page?
I disagree with Gfdgsgxgzgdrc's edits to the page, but not anything to do with which version came first. Similar to a revert I made about Hremail 7 some time ago on the Tandy 400 page, it's not a good idea to have a wiki article that spoils the story right at the beginning of the article. The Knights Who Say Ni 02:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Once again I find myself in the position of being on the fence, but needing to clarify that RickTommy's reasoning doesn't hold up. If you check the "similar edit" RickTommy refers to that was reverted, you'll see that the reason for the reversion was NOT the change in order but the lack of flow, coherence, and good grammar. — Defender1031*Talk 02:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Knights - I agree with both of them. You make a solid point about spoiling the story, though. Keegster2 02:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
But that _is_ the reasoning RickTommy used when he reverted it this recent time.-166.137.8.128 04:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://hrwiki.org/wiki/Talk:DNA_Evidence_(running_gag)"
Personal tools