Talk:Old-Timey

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Ding! Old-Timey 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.

Contents

Anyone else out there think TBC may not exactly be movie history buffs? I mean, I'm definitely not, but I know this:

  • The first successful talking picture, "The Jazz Singer", was released in 1927.
  • "Steamboat Willie", the first suncessful cartoon with synchronized sound, was released in 1928.
  • By 1933, the time when the silent Homestar cartoons were supposedly released, talking pictures were common, and by 1936, the time that the first talking H*R cartoon supposedly came out, silent films were on their swift way out, if they weren't already nonexistent.
  • Using their current formula, any old-timey H*R cartoon released next year will be dated 1938... but in actuality, the next year, 1939, saw such movies as "Gone With the Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz", which would definitely be considered modern films, as compared to the more revolutionary, experimental days of the 1920s.

Thoughts? Comments? 209.221.24.137 01:09, 25 Nov 2004 (MST)

Excellent point. This kind of thing is absolutely "Fun Fact"-worthy IMHO. Please feel free to add this to the topic. Render 08:02, 25 Nov 2004 (MST)

-Well, we aren't sure that Parsnips A-Plenty IS supposed to be the first talking Homestar cartoon. Hey, maybe they'll start making color old-style cartoons. More like Looney Tunes.

in a way I think that next year if they do another 1937 toon they should just leave it at 1937 because sooner or later it wont be as old timey, like they will go in to that ww2 period of cartoons, next those god awful hanna barbra type toons, and ect. i think you know what im getting at here right ?

I think the article should mention that the whole "Old-Timey" universe, despite referring to actual dates, incorporates tons of anachronisms from different "old" time periods; I think it basically just stands for "old," whether that means 19th-century (Strong Bad's use of a telegraph?!), 1910s-20s (flappers, prohibition, WW1 allusions), or 1930s (Great Depression). Clearly, the point isn't for it to be historically accurate; it's simply a TBC conflation of "the past," as 20X6 functions as "the future." --notstrongorbad 07:39, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Add to all this the fact that the atomic-age references such as jetpacks, ant-communist sentiment, and the atom symbols that show up occasionally are from the 1950s and you reach the conclusion that these cartoons are not exactly supposed to be historically accurate. Either that or TBC are ignorant of that historical period.— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nineteen Thirty Ecks

Is it really appropriate to call them the "1936" characters when they've now moved on to 1937? In fact, given that 1936 apparently corresponded with 2003, wouldn't they be in 1938 by now? Shouldn't we start calling them the "Old-Timey" characters? --Jay 02:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1936 is inaccurate, and updating it every year would be a pain. I'm up to changing it to "Old-Timey" too. - Joshua
Um... opinions anyone? - Joshua
Agreed. The Chaps refer to them as "old-timey". — It's dot com 02:09, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1930s Homsar?

Homsar appears to be the only main character without a 30s version. But I noticed that "The Bossman" in Mr. Shmallow has the same bowler hat as him. He also looks kinda like a big, fat version of our favourite song from the sixties. Could he be Homsar's Old-timey equivelant, or is it too much of a stretch?

Huge stretch. He doesn't look like Homsar at all, except for that hat. Nice work spotting that hat though. Kvb 21:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cartoons? Films?

All of the Old-Timey flicks claim they are cartoons, which would mean that they are animated. However, they also feature editing mistakes (as pointed out) characteristic of films, most notably the slight movement of objects between reel changes. For example in Parsnips-A-Plenty, there is a flash when the camera shows the characters at the very beginning (indicating the reel change and splicing) and the characters are in slightly different positions after the flash than before. This would occur when actors take a break during reel change, and cannot move back into the exact same positions as before. However, cartoons would not be susceptible to this kind of glitch because the figures can be fixed on the cel, plus drawn figures would not need to take a break so they could be left in the exact position for however long it takes to change the reel. Even if they did move about (say the draught blows it), they wouldn't be different sizes because they'd only move on the surface of the paper but not closer to or further away from the camera. In many instances, however, characters do change size slightly (though it might just be me...) indicating that their distance from the camera changes, which would certainly have the implication that they are actual actors being filmed.

Sorry, this is kind of verbose, but I hope I'm getting my point across...

--Not a user yet :)

[edit] Really 67 years difference?

I noticed a discrepancy in the 'toons: the "first Homestar talkie" was Parsnips-a-Plenty, dated 1936... but the 'toon was released in 2002 (in the real world) which doesn't correspond to the 67-year rule. Similarly, 50 emails was released later (and contains speech) but, in the timeline on this page, it's listed earlier because it was also released in 2002. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 03:50, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well, that seems to debunk the 67-year theory. Unless we expand it to be "just about" 67 years. I do bet, however, that if we got an Old-Timey toon this year, it would be dated 1938. The order of the toons on the article page definitely needs some work... It looks like Parsnips comes after all those that it comes before. On a side note: has it really been that long since 50 emails? I remember when it was new!It's dot com 04:11, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Eh, I started watching in 2002 and everything since then blurs together to me. --Jay o'Lantern (Haunt) 04:17, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ww2

anybody eles think that tbc will have a world war two old timey toon or Reference ?, like "Who put a Bengal tiger in The hitler's ( or tojo's ) latrine? (Ach Du lieber!)"because of most the cartoons of the time usualy done that kind of stuff back then.

no. — talk Bubsty edits 03:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] animation quality

as a kid that grew up watch old cartoons like betty boop, felix the cat, koko the clown, the old mickey mouse(no I am not 80 years old Im 14 ), cartoons i am kinda offended that tbc make cartoons of the time look like there bad quality when there not because most cartoons or the time used a wikipedia:rotoscope to trace there animations on to make it look more realistic

This is a subject for the forum, not the wiki. The wiki talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the subject. 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging the old article 1933 with this one

Give me some canonical references for declaring 1933 distinct from 1936. Had you not had such good grammar and formatting, I'd have just deleted this page, but here's your chance. — InterruptorJones[[]]

I only just stumbled onto this topic, but the page does seem to be justified, if only as a reject. The copyright date on the Kick The Can shorts is 1933, but the only connection to Main Page 10 is that both pages are silent. Render
I think that whoever 198.37.16.36 is was making the distinction that Kick the Can has the date "1933" at the beginning, and is silent, and Main Page 10 is also silent, whereas toons such as Mr. Shmallow (toon) and Parsnips-A-Plenty are talkies, and Parsnips-A-Plenty is dated "1936" at the beginning. This could imply that the 1933 toons are the silent ones, and the 1936 ones are the talkies. Would this warrant dividing them into two categories, or just keep a generic "Black-and-white" category? -- thejesterx 21:20, 6 Oct 2004 (MST)
I think it's definitely not worth it to split them into two categories. It's worth noting that Kick the Can was dated "1933", but it's still a 1936 toon in every way that matters, especially to people who've just stumbled upon the Wiki and are looking for information. Can somebody revert this guy's changes? I'm a bit busy this morning. — InterruptorJones[[]]
Now we have the toon That A Ghost, which is dated 1937, causing the creation of the page 1930's. We need to nail down the name for this whole era to prevent further confusion. - Drhaggis 16:52, 22 Oct 2004 (MST)
TBC have on several occasions referred to such toons as "Old-Timey". That works for me. What do you think? — InterruptorJones[[]]
TBC also refer to the era as "1936" in the G4 Interview. I could go either way. Would we rename 1936 Marzipan -> Old Timey Marzipan ? - Drhaggis 19:49, 27 Oct 2004 (MST)
Works for me. Anybody else care to chime in? — InterruptorJones[[]]
I think Old Timey Marzipan sounds better, and it would be better than having a bunch of different dates. --No Smorking 14:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I posted something like that on this page and next, why aren't we having this on that^ page? Technochocolate

After browsing over the above conversation, I'm tagging this article as it doesn't seem needed. I see no information here that couldn't be merged to Old-Timey. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

I concur. Although it seems that all of the information is already on that article. Noting that 1933 was the earliest date is like having an article for the year 2000. —THE PAPER PREEEOW 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If the plan is to merge, then why delete? Don't forget about the redirect feature. We should merge and redirect, not merge and delete. -- Tom 00:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge complete. - Joshua 21:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Strong Bad

Wasn't SB's 1930s name "The Strong Bad", not "Old-Timey Strong Bad"? The "old timey" is what we use when we don't know the actual name. What's The Strong Bad then? Dripping yellow madness 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

He's referred to as all sorts of things. In Parsnips A Plenty, The Homestar Runner calls him just "Strong Bad". He's also been "Sir Strong Bad", "The Strong Bad", and "Uncle Strong Bad". --DorianGray
Exactly. See also the discussion here. Thunderbird 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 67 year difference.

Suppose that's true. So:

  • 2008-2012 Wartime cartoons (going to color at some point).
  • Late 2020s-Mid 2030s: The 1960s (Flintstones, Jetsons, Rocky & Bullwinkle)
  • 2057: The Simpsons

This is all hypothetical, but what if this all happens?--Jnelson09 16:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering That a Ghost doesn't appear to match much of the spirit of Looney Tunes or Snow White even though they are all apparantly from the same year, it doesn't seem likely. Bad Bad Guy 03:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

umm.... in 2057 Matt Chapman will be 81. Homestar Runner and Strong Bad might sound a Teensy bit different. --Pfamily Pfargtl

[edit] Changes needed to be made regarding "Old-Timey" content

  • I generally avoid Old-Timey cartoons, but from what I can see "1936" is a more common name for the era (or alternate universe) than "Old-Timey." I know my opinion is likely to go ignored, but I think it should be changed.
  • Although he apparently has been given many "monikers" as that other one would say throughout the series, it may be a good idea to give the Old-Timey Strong Bad article a new name. After all, if we can go around calling the storybook Strong Bad, Tiny-Handed Strong Bad just because he was called that more than once, then we can definitely jump to small conclusions with Old-Timey Strong Bad. Man, even I've been brainwashed by the wiki fancruft; I almost capitalized the word "storybook."
  • This post contains 100% pure USDA inspected beefs; no additives, no fillers, no extenders, no lame heavy metal puns. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
But not all of these toons were 1936. Just some. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 14:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Darth, please read the whole talk page of the article. What you suggested was already discussed here and here. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
And I'm getting extremely annoyed by your "fancruft" comments. Plus it's clear you haven't done a lot of research of this subject, as it originally was called 1936, but then switched to Old-Timey because it was more accurate. Not to mention that you're sugguesting we use fancruft by calling Old-Timey Strong Bad something other than his name "Strong Bad", with the Old-Timey before it as disambiguation. - Joshua 15:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You could be nicer to me, Joshua. Not to hold this against you at all, but I should bring up the fact that I'm hosting your game for you. Anyway, thanks for throwing the rotten tomatoes, peoples! I'm actually starting to like them... Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
Well, it wouldn't hurt for you to be nicer to the wiki as well. Then we can all get along. But you completely ignored my question: Old-Timey Strong Bad's official name is simply "Strong Bad". How would using a nickname to address him be more official? - Joshua 12:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Me no good at listening, or reading for dat madder. Anyways, it was just an idea and I don't know anything about Old-Timey stuff, and I didn't feel like reading all the year-old Homestar propagander. Me going to grammars shcool now to lern. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)

[edit] Holy Speculation Batman!

In the article it reads

Each new toon appears to take place in a later year than previous toons. It is possible that the Old-Timey
dates are following the current date, with a difference of slightly less than 67 years. Kick
the Can, dated 1933, was released in 2000. Later cartoons released in 2003 are dated 1936, and
That A Ghost, released in 2004, is dated 1937. Should this be true, then the Old-Timey timeline would be:

1933 – Kick the Can, Main Page 10
1935 – little animal
1936 – Parsnips A-Plenty, 50 emails, 20X6 vs. 1936, 2 emails, Ballad of The Sneak, Mr. Shmallow
1937 – flashback, That A Ghost
1938 – radio
1939 – highschool, Marzipan's Answering Machine Version 13.2, alternate universe
1940 – 4 branches, Decemberween Short Shorts
1941 - pet show, Sickly Sam's Big Outing

This seems like wild speculation to me. I would appreciate if someone would enumerate what we know vs what we think, and then what other assumptions are built around this. When reading the article, the content seemed very weak and speculative. I R F 00:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is 4 branches set as 1940? It was released November 13, 2006? — 68.94.235.178 (Talk | contribs) 68.94.235.178 (left unsigned)
IMO, this article has a lot of speculation and I will wait a week or two for any objections to trimming some of the fat on this article to get back to what we know and not deviate into the realm of wild speculation. I would like to hear discussion on the subject before making any substantial changes. I await your input. I R F 04:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the timeline is that speculative. As long as each new toon that has an old-timey date follows the same format, I think we can safely leave that in. Though it seems 4 branches is dated wrong in the timetable. Besides that, I'm happy leaving it. Thunderbird 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But where are we getting our facts from? This look all made up. I R F 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If there is a correlation between the release dates listed for the Old-Timey toons and the real-world release dates, and it holds up with no fudging (I haven't done any research), then that much at least should be mentioned. On the other hand, I'm not sure we should speculate on things like 4 branches without some kind of continuing evidence (like, if a new toon had a '40s date on it). — It's dot com 07:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
We also need to list all the Old-Timey toons somehow. --Trogga 02:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That we can do without speculation. Really, where's the evidence that TBC are subtracting so many years from the current one to date the Old-Timey toons? Look at the "evidence" - Kick the Can is ancient H*R, and the date cannot be relied upon as meaning anything. They probably used 1936 to balance 20X6, so that year is what it is, and no more. That A Ghost is in 1937. But no other toons are so dated. It really is the height of speculation to date the Old-Timey portions of 4 branches as 1940. This info is fine mentioned here on the talk, but it has no place in the article. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 02:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree'd. And it no longer is. Loafing 02:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think the date thing should be noted. --Trogga 20:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Before we put it back, we need proof that it was intentional. I have my doubts, because Parsnips-a-Plenty was released in October 2002 and set 66 years earlier, while That A Ghost was released in October 2004 and set 67 years earlier. I believe this makes it clear there is/was no pattern. Bad Bad Guy 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's consider the actual release dates of Parsnips and Ghost. The former was released on October 21, 2002 (and set in 1936) and the latter was released on October 18, 2004 (and set in 1937). So it's possible that they switch over from one year to the next on either the 19th or 20th of October. That's why I had initially put 4 branches (and Decemberween Short Shorts, too) under 1940 as being the release year. That is also why I was considering pet show and Sickly Sam's Big Outing be supposedly released in 1941. I hope this helps. MHarrington 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronisms

There seem to be many anachronisms among the various Old Timey cartoons. THe most glaring of which is in the Mr. Shmallow cartoon showing a man and a woman with jetpacks and clear space helmets in front of a background consisting of four-pointed stars. Also, the character of Rumble Red. Setting aside the fact that the Red Scare was not as prevalent in the '30s as it was after WWII, those images of jetpacks and aliens in the style of Rumble Red are more along the lines of popular science-fiction settings of the late '50s-early '60s. Should these anachronisms be noted in the article?— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 05:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda explaining the joke, isn't it? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 08:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it would be... I suspect that those anachronisms aren't part of the joke, but rather TBC not understanding the era that they are trying to portray. Those sorts of inaccuracies always make me enjoy Old-Timey cartoons less, which is a shame because I really enjoy the Old-Timey idea.— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 02:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
They are obviously aware that the images aren't from the era they are portraying, they're not morons... and the reason that it's "part of the joke" is that it's a certain type of absurdism. Absurdism seems to be the underlying theme for most of the humour on the site, mangled eras in a fictional past version of a fictional present is just going with the flow. What you call anachronisms are more like intentional absurdities. - Ugliness Man 09:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
If that is in fact the case, then I guess I don't like the joke. To each his own, I guess. I just feel the joke would be more effective if it were an accurate parody of the era.— Bassbone (TALK Strong Mad Has a Posse CONT) 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

How's this for a template of all the Old Timey Characters?


<noinclude>[[Category:Navigation_Templates|C]]</noinclude>

--Jangles5150 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 67 difference? uh oh!

Is there a 67 year difference? Does this mean that we won't see any more Old-Timey cartoons? Because as of this year, 67 years ago would be 1940! Religious Corn   23:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out that the 67 year difference was unintentional, but it is somewhat bizarre that you say that and there happened to be no Old-Timey toons (at least from what I remember) Bad Bad Guy 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumble Red

Isn't Rumble Red Old-Timey Nebulon? Or did I just invent that myself? --kitoba

That's fan speculation that has never actually been confirmed. — Defender1031*Talk 16:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I apologize for the enormous amount of edits. I'm trying to categorize the out-of-period references. I'll just do a few more. StarFox 21:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you once again to use the "show preview" button, but I don't know how to do that a 2nd time without sounding rude. BBG 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steal me fresh jam!

Here's something I've been wondering about. The line 'steal me fresh jam!' said by Old-Timey Strong Bad in the 50 emails easter egg... Back in history class I learned that during the Great Depression, jam was an extremely valuable and often traded commodity, worth more than money (It was edible, good tasting, never spoiled etc.)

I suppose you could just say TTATOT, but how often do Depression-era toons reference jam? TsuyoiWarui 04:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1936?

Well this is a real world type disscusion, but even though Homestar Runner is a cartoon, in 1936, color should come out already. While Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs[1] came out a year later, shouldn't the Old Timey toons have at least a little bit of color and still keep the Old Timey character style?

The forum's that way. The Knights Who Say Ni 23:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools