Talk:Films from narrator

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] What's this about Whatsit?

I'm pretty sure the Homestar and Marzipan thing was supposed to be a separate film from both Homsar and Whatsit All About. --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. kai lyn 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to think that Homsar and the Poopsmith are in the same film. But I agree that Marzi and Homestar are not in that film. Heimstern Läufer 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it's one film. The music, voice stylings, are all the same, and I don't think TBC would have forgotten to give a title to something that was supposed to be separate. — It's dot com 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I'm beginning to think they're three separate films because of the three different release times mentioned (this summer, this holiday season, this Arbor Day). So count me as confused. Heimstern Läufer 02:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the three release times is part of the joke. — It's dot com 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
But that just makes no sense; how could it have no dialogue if Homestar and Marzipan clearly speak to each other? --Jaycemberween (Ho ho ho!) 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's part of the joke too. The transition between all the other previews involves a sequence of three frames where the entire scene moves on or off the screen (see frames 710–712, 1066–1068, 1454–1456, and 1729–1731), and the music and style completely change at those times. On the other hand, there is no break in the music beginning with frame 1069 and continuing to frame 1453. Furthermore, when Strong Bad says, "this summer, this holiday season, this Arbor Day," his style is the same and there isn't even a fade in between them. On top of all that, there's only one title given. If you consider all these things together, I feel the best conclusion is that they're somehow part of the same preview.It's dot com 02:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Although seemingly unrelated, the narration for the three strongly suggests that they are from the same movie. That's how many trailers are done. Loafing 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So here's a question: Why does this film seem to have no continuity whatsoever? The other trailers all take place in basically one place (Dump in the Night does move around the House of The Brothers' Strong, but that's it) and focus on one set of characters. This one goes from a love (or lack thereof) inside a house story to a hovering guy in the Field to the someone shoveling crap outside the KoT's castle. I still lean toward thinking this is a sort of montage of multiple films. Heimstern Läufer 03:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It has no plot and no dialogue, so why should it have continuity? Seriously, I think they just decided to switch gears in the middle for comedic effect (which I found pretty funny). If it weren't for the "no dialogue" bit, I don't even think we'd be having this discussion, and the only reason that was there was because the Poopsmith was on the screen at the time. — It's dot com 03:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I always saw the "this summer, this holiday season, the Arbor Day" bit as being a brief montage of pieces of various trailers. There's no explicit transition between the Homestar/Marzipan one and the Poopsmith one because the montage is the transition... that's how it looks to me, anyways. The idea that they made one movie trailer that, for all intents and purposes other than the lack of transition looks like two movie trailers, but is actually one for comedic effect... just rings false to me. --phlip TC 03:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ya, I'm still not swayed on it being one movie. Three different ones says I. I always thought the Brothers Chaps just got goofy at one point, and smooshed 3 different movie intros together. Their joke wasn't about 1 really stupid, lacking-continuity-type movie; I thought it was about all those really annoying, cliche movie intros you see on TV being morphed into one 'cause Strong Bad's got better things to do than to worry about any fancy-shmancy editing jobs... (but this's just poorly worded speculation)....kai lyn 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I also think it's actually three movies. What we have is three different characters placed in three different locations and with three different release dates. Occam's razor tells us it's three different film, and not a big one that contradicts itself several times. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Reading this discussion suggests to me that we aren't going to come to a consensus concerning whether these are seperate films or the same film. Is it possible to reflect both possibilities in the article since this is disputed? I think finding some way to do this is our best hope in this case. Heimstern Läufer 07:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. Is it possible that we could consider them one film but put a footnote or a sentence at the end that explains why this might be three different movies? I know footnotes "make us look stupid" (I don't think they do), but we might need one in this case. -Brightstar Shiner 13:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I saw them as the same films due to the fact that the same music played throughout the cut to the 3 different characters. Anyway, can anyone think of a better way to categorize them seperately besides (name unknown, character), 'cuz that looks kinda messy. Dr. Clash 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

E.L. Cool: Wait just a minute. You can't claim Occam's Razor here, because there's at least as much evidence on the other side. If it's supposed to be three movies, then give a good explanation as to why the music is all in one piece, why the style doesn't change like it does for the other previews, why there are no transitions like between the other previews, and why there's only one title. I think it's a lot easier to explain away the apparent contradictions in release dates and dialogue as jokes than to assume these are three previews, two of which are untitled. — It's dot com 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We aren't getting anywhere by using the background music and obscure paradoxes as evidence for one side of the issue or the other. What we need to do right now is decide how to present both points in the article so it compromises and makes sense. I suggested a footnote; what other possibilities could we throw around? -Brightstar Shiner 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's separate films because the "no dialogue" part is clearly a referance to The Poopsmith's "Vow of silence". -- 21:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no information here that cannot be found in the article for narrator. Repeated use of terms like "appears to," "evidently," "presumably" means it offers only speculation, and therefore cannot be definitive. So in what way is this page necessary?

Personal tools