Talk:Everybody Everybody Poster

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] List Needed

We need a list of every character on here. I know this will be hard to do, since there are so freakin' many of them, and it'd be hard to list them in a certain order, but I do think we need one. Anyone want to tackle this? →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

I'ma go try it. I'm also buying the poster soon, so I'll be able to get a more accurate list soon. --Gafaddict 14:02, 11 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Dangeresque?

Is dangeresque on there? -SgtKeeling

Response to Dangeresque question: I don't think he is on there, in that Dangeresque is not a character in his own right - just Strong Bad doing some acting. If anyone notices any counter-examples to my arguement then I will retract my statement. - Tweek

Yeah, when you think about it like that, you're probably right. -SgtKeeling

Though it is interesting that the 1936 and storybook/sketchbook equivalents of some characters are on it. The poster might have a legend on it - many pictures of this sort do. But I'm just speculating; until someone gets the poster for real, we can't really say. --Jay 21:37, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)
Actually, come to think of it, I hope a legend IS included - it would clear up the official names of many characters (not the least of which is The Kaiser - who I always want to call The Kaiser of Town - and 20x6 Homestar - whose real name is some variation on 1-up Extraman according to many sources, but the exact spelling is unknown.) --Jay 21:54, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Bigger Picture Wanted

I wish there was a bigger picture. I was continuously trying to figure out what the big green thing was (I thought it might be the Poopsmith in one of his halloween costumes) before I realized it was the Bad Graphics Ghost. 152.163.100.203 15:24, 15 Mar 2005 (MST)

There WILL be, once someone here actually gets the poster. Likely tomorrow for me. --Jay 15:37, 15 Mar 2005 (MST)

I don't mean to be impatient but...are they really behind on delivery or what!? - BlackWidower 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homeschool Winner

.. and the unguriats :) I wonder how many characters from our rejects section are not there. MetaStar 13:47, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)

Why should they be there? They were never characters from the start. Plus, the rejects section doesn't exist anymore. --Gafaddict 21:27, 12 Mar 2005 (MST)


[edit] Character List Organization

How should we do this? Right now we've got it going from bottom row to top (since that's the only way I could do it right now). Should we split the poster into four different squares and list all the characters in each square? →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

I like the way it's going currently better than the square idea. It helps people find the character they're looking for better. --Joshua 19:28, 15 Mar 2005 (MST)
If you have the poster you can see that the rows might get a little mixed up. But for the bottom two rows it looks pretty good. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
They do get a bit mixed up, but I still think people could sort them into lines. I don't like the square idea too much at all. --Joshua 20:53, 15 Mar 2005 (MST)
Due to the sheer number of characters, maybe it's be an idea to use more than 4 squares? Maybe 9 (like a naughts-and-crosses [tic-tac-toe] board)? Or if someone could get a larger scan of the poster, maybe they could outline/monotone highlight each individual character (there must be some software that could do the job) and number each one? The current image scan would be way too small for this. Was a legend included with the poster? --Tweek
No, there was not. But so far the rows are working out nicely. I think we're going to stick with them (for now). →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
I STRONGLY disagree with Joshua. I put them in the four blocks earlier because THAT made it easier to find the characters - the "rows" are much more vague (how can you tell the fifth row from the sixth, aside from who's in it?) But I'm adding characters in the row-format anyway... --Jay 15:09, 16 Mar 2005 (MST)


I think that the rows are much better. The point isn't that you count the rows up to find the character you want. With the rows, you can tell who's on either side of the character, and that makes it much easier to find. The squares just give all the characters in the square in a semi-random order, so all you know is that the character is in that square.
Well, no. Look at my square-by-square listing above (done before I actually received the poster). It does go row-by-row, top-to-bottom, left-to-right - within each square. But I've scanned a picture of the poster onto my computer - I might MAKE a legend if I'm so inclined (though it's be a tiny bit distorted - I took the picture from a slight angle. --Jay 15:38, 16 Mar 2005 (MST)
Oh, okay, that sounds good. Aurora Szalinski 16:49, 16 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Not Included Section?

Should characters (that appeared before animal) that were not included in this poster have their own list? Like, possibly in the empty slot in the 3 by 3 square of lists? Now that there is a definite list of characters, this would be possible, and could be interesting. --Joshua 18:59, 17 Mar 2005 (MST)

Interesting idea. The problem? If such a section is created, newbies will try to add characters created after Sterrance (and, as thus, are off-limits for more obvious reasons.) I'm neutral to the idea itself. Realize, though, that the list of unused characters would be MUCH longer than any of the "rows". --Jay 19:04, 17 Mar 2005 (MST)
Actually, this is a pretty obscure page, and newbies may find it difficult to find. And I don't think a newbie attack would be too much of a problem if this thing was created. And you're right, it probably be much bigger than the lines, so it should probably be by itself. --Joshua 19:28, 17 Mar 2005 (MST)
Alright, if no one says anything against it, I will start working on the Not Included list sometime soon. --Joshua 15:37, 18 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] Wow.

It ain't until you see that picture that you realize just how many H*R characters there are. Although of course many are just variations of one another. - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the song?

I spend a long time trying to find out where the "Everybody, Everybody" song was, and I kept coming across this page. A link to the Intro page would have helped me a lot. Does anyone think this would be a good idea?

Well, I went ahead and did it anyway.

[edit] Vector Strong Bad?

Was Vector Strong Bad left off intentionally, or does he need to be added to the "not shown" list?wave o' babies 04:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scan

Does anybody have a higher resolution scan of the poster? I'd like to make something like this for the page. - link_icon.gifThe Joe(Talk) 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion for a wallpaper on my computer. --70.226.166.254 04:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We need a bigger picture of the poster.

300 x 300 pixels? Are you serious?

Yeah, whatever happened to those plans back in 2005? --DorianGray 04:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering it's a product that's sold from the store for money, the use of a small picture comes under the heading of fair use. If it gets too much larger you're running into copyright violation. Besides, 300x300 picels is a good deal larger than the sample given on the store website. The point of the image is to illustrate the article, not to allow people to see the poster in all its glory without spending money on it. --Belthazar 04:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Worm

The Goofs section mentions that it would be impossible for part of The Worm's hole to be in front of part of the Grape-Nuts Robot. I'm not so sure... this is a Sweet Cuppin' Cakes character we're talking about after all.

[edit] Cheatball vs. Sterrance

Cheatball was on the Not Shown list but created after sterrance. I removed Cheatball. Jay put it back. Sterrance was created in 2004 and Cheatball was created in 2006. Below it says the poster was created in 2005. --206.116.143.157 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I did that because Cheatball was actually introduced in July 2004, while animal was from November. --Jay (Talk) 22:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
But in 2004, You could only see his face. If you can't see the rest, How did you know what shape his body was in 2004? You didn't know. Do You see anyone on the poster that they're faces could only be seen? --lBryIxA.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyone agree? --lBryIxA.png Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 00:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools