Talk:Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Mystery of the Urinal Deuce is part of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Hardy vs Hearty
Changed the Hardy boys reference, it is wrong. They are a parody of the food network stars, The Hearty Boys.
This is correct. Good work on changing it back to WRONG.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.41.170 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Citation Needed
It would be nice to have a citation for this in Trivia:
- The basis for the episode came after Trey Parker found that Mick Thomson of Slipknot believed that September 11 was a cover-up by the US government. Trey and Matt wanted to highlight how Thomson is indeed retarded. Mick responded by telling South Park to go 'blow him' on his myspace.
As it would give the ability to follow-up more closely. This seems to be unfolding now. -- Ubergenius 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kyle's age
I suggest that this be added to the trivia section. Some mention of the shows floating timeline may need to be made.
- Although Cartman claims Kyle received spelling test twelve days after 9/11, nine year old Broflovski would have only been four years old at the time of the attacks, about two years younger than the age at which most American children first take such tests.
Xargon666x6 12 October 2006
Except for the transition from eight to nine, the South Park kids haven't aged since 1997. They should all be in their mid-twenties by now.
- Math not your strong suit, eh? 8 in 1997+9 years=17 in 2006. Mid-20s?
- Clicking on links not your strong suit, eh? Click on the link above, to see why the South Park kids were not 8 in 1997.
The problem is, floating timelines don't work the way you seem to think they work, especially not in a case like this, where the plot is directly tied to real-world events and references. At best, if a character says something happened 5 years ago, that refers to 5 years ago in THEIR timeline, from THEIR perspective - NOT the timeline and perspective of the viewer.
Episodes (like Prehistoric Ice Man) explicitly mention the date, which utterly ruins the idea of retroactively dating their age backwards from the present moment in such a fashion. Other episodes refer to multiple real-life events, which implicitly date themselves as well. Saying "it's 2007 now, and since they're 9 years old, they were born in 1998" is inherently flawed logic. At best, one could say that EVERY event that has occurred in the real world between 1997 and 2007 has occurred during a single year or two of their timeline. From their perspective, 9/11 would have occurred only a few months ago, not when they were 4. Hossenfeffer 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Best line of the episode
"Yeah, at least one-fourth."
- I dunno... "REALLY?!?" was awfully hilarious, as was "dude, a bunch of pissed off Muslims..." -- Ubergenius 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- "I can't base my logic on fact" was a funny one two.
"beautiful money ahahahahaha" KarlJohannes 06:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Those were all good lines, too, but I return to "Yeah, at least one-fourth." It has the additional benefit of being true.
[edit] Nancy Clue
For anyone who didn't know (like me two days ago) Nancy Clue and the Hardly Boys are parodies of the better known Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys. In other words, the Hardly Boys were not a South Park invention. I have changed the wording to better emphasize that they are pre-existing parodies, as someone changed Nancy Clue to Nancy Drew earlier. I also removed the link from "The Hardly Boys" to the Hardy Boys because the Hardy Boys have their own link already in the trivia section. Mapache 21:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pip?
Is it true he hasn't been shown in any screen shots in a long time or that it is that rare?
[edit] Trivia
When The 911-Truth guy was shot, right after, he looks back at his bloody head even though he's dead. This is a short moment but it can be seen, and it is a hint to the fake act.
This is indeed true, but is it an error or intended? Any ideas,experts? --70.187.163.141 04:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] voice
i did notice a change, but still, it is very difficult to confirm. is there any clear source for it whoever added it.
Bush's voice, is that what this is reffering, because i also noticed a change in later airings of the episode.
The itunes download version of the episode has the new Bush voice -- the voice is completely different from the original Weds airings and its quite noticable (compare the sheeple speech in the original to the itunes download or the speech by Bush at the end in the Hardley mansion). There were several comments made right after the original airings by various fans on the southparkstudios BBS on how bad the original Bush voice sounded.
[edit] Photoshopped image?
The 9/11 truth guy is suppose to have "9/11truth.org" across his shirt but in the image it seems to have been taken out. You can see a video of the episode here on YouTube of the particular scene where he clearly has it on his shirt [1]--Jersey Devil 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's already mentioned in the article. I'm sure promotional images sometimes differ from the aired episodes. --Pixelface 12:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quotes
Is there really a good purpose for such a large "funny quotes" section? There is an entire website for quotes: Wikiquote. The page even has a _link_ to this quotes section. Perhaps this is the South Park episode guide precedent, but it clutters up the page and adds a lot of redundant information. Cheers, 69.19.14.26 09:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur 24.25.131.211 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11 researcher shot
I've removed this from the article.
When The 911-Truth guy was shot, right after, he looks back at his bloody head even though he's dead. This is a short moment but it can be seen, and it is a hint to the fake act.
His eyes roll into the back of his head, he doesn't look back at his bloody head. A screenshot should be provided if someone wished to include this again. --Pixelface 11:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:George.W.Bushshooting.PNG 'm pretty sure he is looking back at his head. This screenshot is already in the article and was submitted by someone else, to proove my point. It is most likely intended for the creators because the screen where he looks back at his head is quite long and noticable for many.
I really don't like this bit of trivia. I read about it and went to watch the episode again to see if I could spot it. It is there for a tiny fraction of a second, it is barely noticable even if you know what to look for. Plus it's debatable as to why he's looking back, maybe he was acting as though his eyes just rolled back as he died, or maybe with his last ounce of strength he was turning to the boys for help. It could be that the animators didn't even go into it that deeply and just made his eyes roll back as if he was dead. Whatever the reason it's barely noticable and as such I don't think it should be mentioned as a 'hint that he is not really dead'131.227.185.60 11:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed this bit of trivia again. I've seen the screenshot, I've seen the episode. What does "looking back at his head" prove? The researcher is seen again with no explanation. Kenny used to die every episode and be back, with no explanation. It's speculation and doesn't belong in the article. --Pixelface 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Agreed, pure speculation. Sabar 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
If you ask me, it could be foreshadowing a false murder, since the South Park animators could do different things to the eyes of the 911Truth guy. What I saw is that he actually closes his eyes at the moment of the gunshot, and opens with his pupils pulled back. Also, consider that his eyes stay shut when shot by the father of the, ugh....horny-ass Hardly Boys. Further, it may be a reference to conspiracy theorists saying that some 9/11 hijackers were seen alive later, and he said "I just do what they say *weep*", so he's well aware of the act. Even though death is possible in South Park with open-eyes (Kenny), I would expect the choice of the animators to be consistent within at least the same episode, unless for a specific reason. But if it's really this contentious, then we should at least mention that incident, but not conclude it for ourselves what its true meaning is. Vindictive Warrior 01:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Leroy
Do we really need a mention of leroy? he probably will never be back
Well, let's just see. If he doesn't reappear, then we probaly should remove that info.
Just wait. 24.25.131.211 20:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remove this info at once, it violates Wikipedia Is Not A Crystal Ball!!!
lol Just kidding, I don't really care. Leave it in, what harm will it really do?
[edit] Picture
The Hardly boys image should not be the picture in the inbfobox because it is not a good representation of the episode. A better image would be Cartman with a picture of Kyle smiling and the world trade center behind him. Pacman 13:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Andy120290 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert? is the glasses thing cartman does in his presentation a parody of what stephen colbert des to set a serious mood? i found it odd how cartman put glasses on only to take them off and raise his eyebrows, can anyone get back to me on this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.213.92.130 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Many newscasters have taken off their glasses when reporting a story. Colbert makes fun of the phenomenom. And so does Cartman. It's not a parody of Stephen Colbert. --Pixelface 21:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, Cronkite used to do that a lot, at the serious points.
[edit] War in Iraq
So far I think this article is good... but I think that it misses something important: mentioning that the urinal incident is supposed to represent the war in Iraq. How do you think we should approach this? There are the obvious parts: the PTA meeting where Mr. Mackay says "No no, I'm not saying they're related..." (referring to the fact that a lot of Americans think the war in Iraq is related to 9/11) to Ms Garrison's "Mr Mackay... we got him" parodying the famous press conference when Saddam was finally caught.
I know you probably think this is obvious but I think it needs mentioning, since it was kind of one of the main political points in the episode.
[edit] Voice changes
They have a different voice for Bush in the rerun tonight. He sounds more Texan and tough-guy.
Why the heck have all the trivia and the list of references to 9/11 theories and stuff been removed? The article's kinda worthless if it's only a rundown of the plot. 207.108.214.249 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Raging Clue/Erection
I think when the Hardly Boys were saying something like they "have a raging clue thats pointing the the left", or they "had the biggest clue ever". I think it was an innuendo for an erection. They also said somewhere in the episode that their clue was going to squirt something out or something like that. Don.-.J 16:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
duh, you think?
Well incase you havent noticed it has now been added to the article and wouldnt of been if i didnt mention it. Don.-.J 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 911 Conspiracy Theories At the Bottom
This episode does nothing but parody 911 conspiracy theories, not support them. Why does this page have a significant portion of it devoted to links of 911 conspiracies at the bottom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.67.115.80 (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
