Talk:Jibblies Painting

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Stub

I think that we have all we know about the painting. I think we can remove it as a stub. Rogue Leader / (my talk) 14:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The stub has been removed. 18:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
This is both scary and funny. It kinda creeped me out to think of it, but it instantly made me laugh. Espeacialy when Strong bad got the jibblies. Sb100 (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (left unsigned)

[edit] Rocoulm

The recent QotW has a file name of "rocoulm"... you suppose that signifies anything? Like, is that its name? --Shadow Hog 23:00, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've been wondering that myself... It seems fairly random, but I bet it means something. I just can't, for the life of me, work out what. --DorianGray 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
That could be a scary name. Or maybe it stands for something. Hopefully we haven't seen the last of our shadowed, er, friend. — It's dot com 23:15, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Although slightly hard to pronounce, it sounds a tiny, tiny bit like 'Gollum', who bears a slight resemblance to this creature. The thing in the painting is sitting on a rock... Maybe it's a mishmash of 'rock' and 'Gollum'. Of course, this is all speculation... If we don't see more of it soon, maybe we can add it to that list of questions we'd like to ask the Brothers Chaps someday. --DorianGray 23:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I added this question to Thunderbird's list. —THE PAPER PREEEOW 01:51, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna do that myself... I just figured I'd wait a little. Well, better to add it now than to forget to add it later. --DorianGray 01:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the XML file names this guy "Rocoulm." The same happened with 1-Up - we weren't sure if 1-Up was his name or not (since we were basing this on the XML file at the time), and bam - there, in the game, is 20x6 Homestar under the name 1-Up. I think we should trust the Weeklies XML and rename this guy "Rocoulm." —Gafaddict Image:Gafaddict sigpic.gif (Talk | Contribs.) 16:48, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. This is most certainly the painting's name- Camalex(talk) 16:54, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree too. But he'll always be 'The Horrible Painting' to me. --DorianGray 16:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

AGREE: Yes, it's most logical. He is now knowen as Rocoulm! H * R 7 0 0 17:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, ummm, should we move the page? - Camalex(talk) 17:22, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should move the page. I think the note It's dot com put up will suffice. We don't know whether is name is actually "Rocoulm" or if that is an abbreviation for something else (like 1-Up isn't actually "1up", and The Homestar Runner is not "oldhomestar"). Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 19:42, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I concur, until we get something that proves his name is Rocoulm (what we have now is just speculation) the page should still be 'Horrible Painting'. (P.S. He always did remind me of Gollum) The Pardack 02:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Jibblies 2: "The Rocoulm" appears on the Painting's tarot card. - 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we call the actual demon "Rocoulm" and give him his own page? Homestar is apparently in there for "eternity". Should we make this page just about the painting itself? StrongBadFan99998 03:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's enough info to make separate subjects on the two. --DorianGray 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The painting is the painting and Rocoulm is the subject of the painting. Rocoulm has become a character in himself and therefore deserves a page as a character, and the Horrible Painting is both a significant object as a painting, and it has become a place, so clearly it deserves a page. Whether or not this can/should all be fit on the same page seems to be the question, and I vote for separate pages with an explanation at the top of each, i.e.:
This article is about the the painting itself. For the character, see Rocoulm. OptimisticFool 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I know no one's going to like this, but I think the "most" official name of the painting is The Jibblies Painting. Until now, it had only been referred to as "horrible painting," but Strong Bad's line was "That horrible painting..." merely describing the painting. It has since been adapted as the name, because it's not named as anything else. But now it's been named by Homestar as the Jibblies Painting, not in description but as an actual name. Again, I'm sure everyone wants to stick to the name they're used to, but unfortunately I do think "Jibblies Painting" is more legitimate. — (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (left unsigned)

With the new Fanstuff coming out, doesn't this make 'Rocoulm' even more legitimate. I am in firm belief that a name-change should be forthcoming. Flashfight 02:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image Invasion

How many images do we really need on this page? Seems a little overkill to me. OptimisticFool 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They overwhelm the reader. And also, the one on the bottom left has a capitalization error in the caption (I don't know how to fix that). Dementedc 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definite Article

Does anyone else think that the thing's name should be "the rocoulm" since that's what the card says? 01:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just Rocoulm, or maybe The Jibblies Painting or something. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I do think the creature's name should contain the definite article, since the card does. And since for the most part, in H*R, the definite article is often an integral part of names (ex. The Cheat, The Stick, etc.). 00:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
somehow I think its name is simply "Rocoulm" without "The", where is it actually stated that it is officially "The Rocoulm" except for the tarot card. That instance doesnt count seeing as that would most likely be a reference to the tarot style, similar to "The Loading". Also I read that the quote of the week had just "rocoulm". Anyone know of any other mentions of its name? 21:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The name on the xml does not conclusively establish the name without the article. Kingoftown and Uglyone, both normally having a definite article, are without one in the listing. I say we keep the article in place until some authoritative source establishes that the creature's designation does not have an article. And for clarification, the Painting or the Horrible Painting is the picture, and the Rocoulm is the creature that lives inside the painting. 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The Halloween point and click game calls the secret objective "The path of the rocoulm" (note the 'the's).

[edit] Voice

Does anyone know who voices the Rocolum? Is it one of the brothers? Because it sounds a LOT like a voice used in some old film I've got on VHS somewhere - it is most obious when he says "I plan to redo the kitchen" MJN SEIFER 23:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure its Matt. They don't usually call in guests for voices, especially when its a lead-type role. DevonM(talk·cont-ribs)

Thanks for answering, I guess it was conincidence then MJN SEIFER 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

to be honest with you, i think that he was voiced by Mike. remember? Matt does the voices of the MAIN characters, Mike does the voices of the other characters that are not called upon as "Main Character/s" Jibblejibblejibble 02:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Umm, no. Matt does 99% of the voices, and mike does an occasional voice here and there. Matt's the accomplished voice actor and there are far more non-main characters than there are main characters. — Defender1031*Talk 02:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike is known for doing the voices of the PBTC characters and Craig. I couldn't tell you right away if he did anything else. The Knights Who Say Ni 02:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category time?

With Fan Costumes '09, this marks the 7th appearance of The Rocoulum, which is usually the signal for creating a filmography category. However, are we counting him as a pseudocharacter (thus no filmography), or a real character, since in just about every appearance he does speak (if it's only "Come on in here!")? wbwolf (t | ed) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In my book, i call him a Main Character. Jibblejibblejibble 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of "Rocoulm"

From the bottom 10 Commentary:
MIKE: That was based on a, um, painting that, uh, my friend Jason Fields had in college that his mom did that he had on the wall of this weird creepy goblin.

MATT: Well and the thing that it says is the, uh, another, yet another thing we owe my friend Neil thousands of dollars for because it's idea number twenty-two that came from Neil. Uh, was— It's the voice of a rocoulm, which is a crook or a criminal and he's a creepy guy that hides in an alley and when you walk by, he says "Come on in here..."

So apparently it's a goblin, not a demon (or at least based on one), and a "rocoulm" is some word for a criminal, although I haven't found anything close to that in my "exhaustive" searches. Not sure how much is relevant, but since it's buried in a commentary I thought I'd just make people a little more aware. --TimMierz 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Except strong bad calls it a demon in Jibblies 2. — Defender1031*Talk 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's a demon, because 'The Rocoulm' is just a name that reminded TBC of the painting. i don't think The Rocoulm is a criminal, and he does not live in an alleyway, so i think he is a demon, because he is not a criminal, as far as we know, and he definetly does not live in an alleyway, because he is a painting! and so, i think he is a DEMON. Jibblejibblejibble 20:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In name only, I'm sorry to say. Yes, his actions and name is based on a past experience of TBC, but he is a demon. It is stated that he is a demon, and we already know how the imagine goblins, and they look distinctly different. I agree with 3xJibblie.--Jellote wuz here 20:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Answering a hard question...

When I was watching the SBemail, Bottom 10, Strong Bad got the jibblies. we were disscusing that because, in the SBemail, Strong Bad only gets them for 8 seconds, but in the cartoon, he gets them until the Horrible Painting says his saying backward. we were disscusing why he got the jibblies for a short amount of time. I think I have the answer to that. he might have gotten them for a short period of time, MAYBE because when Strong Bad closed the closet, the painting might have said "Come on in here" backwards when he closed it so we couldn't see it or hear it. that, or TBC might've wanted to save time. Jibblejibblejibble 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the best statement i've heard all day. I always thought that in your friends and bottom 10, the gag had just been created, so there really was no real time period to it, also, not much was known about the painting either. But in Jibblies 2, the whole point of the 'toon was to dejibbilies everyone, it'd be pointless if the jibblies wared of after six seconds. This is A Website (T/C) 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was just thinking, becuase when I saw it, i got to thinking, hmmmm.... then I thought that he only got the jibblies for a few seconds, but in the 'Toon, he got it until the painting says "come on in here backwards", so maybe we can round up a few ideas and disscuss this.... hmmmmm.... Jibblejibblejibble 23:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I always thought it was because Bottom 10 was made 2 years before Jibblies 2 and for that reason Strong Bad only got it for a limited time because TBC didn't think of making it unlimited until Jibblies 2 (where it would focus as the whole plot) which would explain it (like A Website was saying). C-Son-L Sweaters 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
But if they made Bottom 10 2 years before, they would've made the Cartoon's jibblie period the same length, and changed the story up a little, like they all stop, then gather together in a place where the Horrible Painting would NEVER find them, and figure out a way to resist the Jibblies, and in the meantime, also see if they can destroy it, or they could've changed Bottom 10 to Strong Bad having the jibblies, but he won't stop until it just cuts off the screen and goes back to the Bottom 10 screen comes back, or, Strong Bad just jibblies himself off the screen by the shaking he does, like how he manuvered on top of the celing in the actual cartoon. Jibblejibblejibble 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know for a fact that Jibblies 2 was the Halloween 2007 Cartoon and that Bottom 10 was made in 2005. I think TBC changed the rules up a little bit for Jibblies 2 albeit with some continuity errors in the process. But I'm saying that TBC might have changed the rules just for Jibblies 2 and we can't actually count the continuity errors as continuity errors unless the painting makes one more appearance (other than in the game wherein it only lasts a few seconds because if it did last forever you wouldn't be able to play after that so the game doesn't count) and when that happens we'll see if the Jibblies 2 rules still apply or if it has been returned to normal. Which I think it has been changed back to normal because Jibblies 2 doesn't count as continuity because in that 'toon Homestar was trapped with the Rocoulm forever but he's been seen in Free Country, USA after that so, obviously, Jibblies 2 doesn't count as continuity and therefore the rules might have been changed back (which I strongly beleive they were) but just to figure out we're all gonna have to wait for another appearance. C-Son-L Sweaters 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur. it's all uneven here. we don't know much. I just observed that and wanted to get some posts for opinions. Jibblejibblejibble 02:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] How's It Going, Man?

Ok, here is a little thing that has left me itching to post. Is the rocoulm NICE?!?! from the phrases he said when Homestar came into the painting, it sure looks like it. "HOW'S IT GOING MAN?", lets focus on that. A nice greeting many of US would say to guests. He does not look nice, for sure, but in truth, he just wants guests! he is lonely! lets discuss this.... Jibblejibblejibble 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Forum. — Defender1031*Talk 17:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
MAN! EVERYTHING I POST should be on the forum. Thinking of joining. Jibblejibblejibble 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Jibblies Painting

The painting has usually been referred to as...
Horrible Painting: bottom 10, Jibblies 2, The House That Gave Sucky Tricks
Painting: Baddest of the Bands, 8-Bit is Enough, Jibblies 2
The Rocoulm: Jibblies 2
Jibblies Painting: Jibblies 2, The House That Gave Sucky Tricks, Later That Night...

Whenever it's referred to as a "horrible painting", it always has an "a" or "that" before it, making it seem like a description rather than a name. But when it's referred to as the "Jibblies Painting", it always has a "the" before it, so it seems to be its official name. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 07:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Because "Jibblies Painting" is its official name and "horrible painting" is simply a description, this page should be moved. Anyone else? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 05:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed! TheThin 05:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
That does make sense. — It's dot com 16:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
If the page were more about the creature depicted in the painting, I'd be inclined to move it to "The Rocoulm", but since it seems more like it's about the painting itself, and I can't really think of a reason to have separate articles for the painting and the creature, I'd also say to move it to "Jibblies Painting". DEI DAT VMdatvm center\super contra 18:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Flat surfaces

Why is it even relevant that you don’t jump through a flat surface in big boos haunt? That’s like saying “ironically, in big boo’s haunt you jump into a model of a carousel.” It’s true, but unrelated. It would be notable if it were the only world you don’t enter through a painting, because it’s the Jibblies painting, but that’s not the case. - 14:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The idea is that it's ironic that it's the only one that isn't entered the way homestar got into the jibblies painting. It's the only one that uses a completely different mechanic for entering a level. All the others are the same mechanic. — Defender1031*Talk 14:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Personal tools