Talk:Super Fun Time
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Super Fun Time 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] Follow that Egg! recreation?
Isn't Butters' final line "Teacher...My partner is back on the bus," before passing out similar to that scene in Follow that Egg!, where Stan says to Mrs. Garrison "Teacher... Our Egg is... Ok," before collapsing? Grieferhate (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia sections
Wow, this South Park articles without the "Trivia" category are terrible... why would I want to read a page long plot outline??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.21.233.130 (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I keep trying to post a "trivia" section but someone keeps deleting it... So can someone explain to me what and why this is happening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude7324 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I generally agree with the Wikipedia guideline to not include Trivia in the articles, I feel South Park represents an important exception to the rule. In short, the pop-culture references are one of the most appealing things about the show. I often look up episodes because I recognize a reference but can't recall from where. They represent a valuable part of the wiki and I'll ask that other editors respect that and not delete the whole section...or better yet for those who are sticklers to form, propose an alternative section for this kind of content and then update it if you take issue with it. The Sigue Sigue Sputnik song 'Love Missile F1-11' is definitely the song parodied during the montage, and the head terrorist is clearly a caricature of Hans Gruber from Die Hard so I'm adding them back (User:snafu7x7 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- Whatever people may feel about trivia and South Park, if its not verified, it can be removed Alastairward (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, I posted a similar comment on a Futurama episode talk page, therefore I'm sorry if people have read this before, but I'm going to go into it here, too. Verifiability, as a general idea, is absolutely necessary in certain contexts of wikipedia articles; this is a result of the ability of nearly anyone to edit a page. However, the concept of verifiability takes on a different meaning with regards to cultural references in a TV show episodes. There exists a group of shows that use cultural references as a central part of their humor; South Park, The Simpsons, and Futurama all come to mind. As such, a "Cultural References" section of an episode's page is absolutely an integral part. User:snafu7x7 made this same point above, where he/she talks about how visitors to episode pages are frequently trying to figure out what a certain part of the episode was referencing. However, there are two kinds of cultural references that exist within these shows: blatant ones, and subtle ones. It's my opinion that the two should be treated differently. Fortunately, this episode provides solid examples of both types. Blatant cultural references are those that can be verified by simple observation. They are unambiguous, and not subject to interpretation; they will be immediately clear to anyone who is familiar with both the episode and the original material. In fact, if they weren't a specific reference to the source material, they'd almost certainly qualify as plagiarism. With this episode specifically, I'm referring to the song Love Missile F1-11 and Cartman's "Life Moves Pretty Fast" line. The Love Missile reference is empirically true; the non-vocal parts of the real song and the one in the episode are nearly identical. Anyone with the ability to hear tones and pitches can match one to the other. Similarly, the fact that Cartman and Ferris use the exact same words (except for Cartman's addition) make it observable to anyone. These types of references should not require sources to verify them. Typically, the sources used (when they are used) are website reviews of the episode. However, in these types of cases, the writer of the review is exactlyas qualified as the casual observer to make the connection between the two; this hinges on the fact that no interpretation is necessary to get the reference.Contrastingly, Subtle cultural references are those that are either not immediately obvious or are subject to interpretation. In this episode, Cartman and Butters leaping over the fence in slow motion is a perfect example. I personally interpreted this scene as part of an overall homage to Ferris Bueller; many others saw similarities to action movies (specifically Die Hard, which correlates to other in-show references as well). Since it's not easily clear to everyone what the reference is, and since there are differing viewpoints, this sort of reference requires a source with more authority on the subject than I or any other poster here has. This is the sort of information that would most ideally be sourced to statements made by the creators, whether in the form of DVD commentary or interviews given to reporters. The reference being made is not easily determined by simple observation, and so necessitates a source.Do people agree with what I'm trying to say here?Choiniej (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Frivolous trivia belongs on a fansite. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Major influences are appropriate, but belong in the intro or plot summary, and do not merit their own section. There are times when there is enough to make a whole section for a reference or references, for example the internet memes for "Canada on Strike," reaction to "In the Closet" or "Bloody Mary," or what the deal was with Mohammad in "Cartoon Wars." A list consisting of "Kenny wasn't in the episode," or "Cartman didn't wear a hat" is not encyclopedic and should be left to fansites. It's not just a question of verifiability. Professor Chaos (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Choiniej you summed it up very well, thank you::::User:Professor Chaos, it would seem that you do not take issue with the inclusion of these pop-culture references in the articles provided they are valid and 'non-frivolous' in nature, you're just adamantly against them having their own section? Why is this notion so offensive to you? You should really ask yourself what the true value of an online encyclopedia is. For myself and most others, its the ability to find exactly what I want quickly without having to sift thru pages of content, this is why subsections like this are invaluable. You're so hung up on 'form' you can't appreciate the value of function and usability. I completely agree that crap like "Cartman didn't wear a hat" have no place in the article because they add no value, but that doesn't imply that all trivia is 'trivial'. If you don't agree with having a Trivia section thats fine, propose another taxonomy for the content but don't just delete it as a matter of course. In my opinion that's incredibly shortsighted and it does a disservice to the users of the site.::::That all said, I agree with Alastairward that references must be verifiable, its just somewhat unclear how to accomplish this to the satisfaction of all. Lets use the initial reference I added to this article Love Missile F1-11 as an example. When I first added it, I cross-linked it to the Wikipedia articles for the song and its original artist Sigue Sigue Sputnik. This seems to be all that is required for other references in the article and Wikipedia as a whole...take for example the part in the article that reads "In a parody of The Defiant Ones..." I've personally never seen that movie so I have no means of determining whether that reference is accurate or not, but its cross-linked to the wiki page...should I remove it because I'm ignorant? More importantly to the case of Love Missile F1-11, what more can I do to establish its veracity? Would linking to the actual track on YouTube suffice or do I need more? I still have the record, and I have the South Park episode tivo'd perhaps I could invite detractors over to listen to both? lol Snafu7x7 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Trivia is by definition trivial. The main thing is that there's not enough notable stuff to merit a whole new section, so something like that (which is probably true, just like Cartman's advice to Butters) should be worked into the plot synopsis. People will complain "but I come to Wikipedia for trivia!" They can go to a fansite, which Wikipedia is not. Or they can take two seconds to skim the plot synopsis, and find the link. As far as verifiability, sometimes it's really very blatant, but even so (and especially if it's more subtle, which South Park isn't these days) it is best to verify it with a link to a comment from one of the creators that yes, that was actually their intent. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, you completely missed the point...I'm not arguing FOR trivia, my argument is that alot of the content that people post to the 'Trivia' section is not trivial at all, its actually valid, interesting and relevant to the article. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water, propose an alternative to calling it 'trivia'...call it "Cultural References" or "Extras" or whatever. Granted not every episode has dozens of allusions or references but I guarantee every episode has at least a few so how you can argue that a part of the show as intrinsic as this is not worth documenting?. If you wanna delete fluff entries, speculation or unverified sources knock yourself out, I fully support you but don't delete the whole section by default just to be a dick, thats incredibly childish and is at odds with the goal of this wiki Snafu7x7 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a closer look at my edits. Typically if I delete a whole section it's because 80% is fluff like "Kenny didn't die," 10% is redundant, and the rest is unsourced. I'll do this a few times with a new article, and each time it reappears better than it was before. Then I go and work whatever is likely to stick into the main article. Sometimes there's something that actually merits its own section; for example, it was partly my efforts that resulted in a list of similarities/differences to "Heavy Metal" in the "Major Boobage" article, much cleaner and more relevant that what used to be there. The goal of this wiki is not to be a fansite overloaded with trivia. Also, calling it "Cultural References" or anything else doesn't change the content of the section, it's still trivia. If there's a single source that the entire episode is obviously a parody of, the best place to put it is in the intro to the article, in my opinion. Professor Chaos (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK well I think we're going to continue to disagree on this but at least you incorporated my references into the article instead of deleting them outright. So explain to me if you will how the section you added on "Heavy Metal" in the "Major Boobage" article does not qualify as trivia and why you feel it belongs in the wiki instead of on a fansite? Is it trivia? By your definition, yes it is. Is it in its own section instead of incorporated into the article as a whole? Well damn, yeah it is. Personally I think it makes for a great addition and I commend you for adding it, but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? None of us want to see articles overloaded with trivia but you 'deletists' continually ignore the first tenet of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I think your approach is unnecessarily harsh and hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafu7x7 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sraight-up deletion of a trivia section a couple times within a day or two of a new South Park article works well in my experience as a sifting process. It gives a feel for what's going to stick in the article whether it's notable or not. At that point I typically find a good place for it, and add tags if necessary. My thought is that even if I think it's not worth mentioning, if it's going to be there anyway, it might as well be well-written (these articles are notorious for being poorly written). There's no point to an article rewrite so soon, since they're so volatile anyway. Here's something to consider that might explain "Major Boobage:"
Above that it says not to categorically remove trivia, I know. Like I said, I do that a couple times to sift it, then work it into prose, as the guideline says. Also:Not all list sections are trivia sections. In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.
I'd love to see more than a plot summary for all South Park episodes, but most unfortunately don't warrant it. In some cases, such as "Major Boobage," there is an opportunity for a separate section, a "focused list" of information. The whole point of that episode was to pay homage to Heavy Metal, with everything else secondary, or a vehicle to take the audience to the next "Heavy Metal" scene. For many people such as myself who have never seen Heavy Metal, such a list is useful, and encyclopedic, not disorganized irrelevant trivia, and it is enough to be better presented as a list than in the summary. Additionally, that section will not go away, no matter who deletes it. It is a permanent fixture in that article. Therefore, I renamed the section and deleted anything not "Heavy Metal," and others filled the section. No pot, no kettle, nothing black, nothing hypocritical. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot)
- Whoever is deleting the Trivia sections, please stop. Sometimes I wonder where South Park gets it's references and songs from. So I go onto Wikipedia to check for more information. I'm pretty sure other people do this too. It's not like having a Trivia section is doing any harm, gosh.
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sraight-up deletion of a trivia section a couple times within a day or two of a new South Park article works well in my experience as a sifting process. It gives a feel for what's going to stick in the article whether it's notable or not. At that point I typically find a good place for it, and add tags if necessary. My thought is that even if I think it's not worth mentioning, if it's going to be there anyway, it might as well be well-written (these articles are notorious for being poorly written). There's no point to an article rewrite so soon, since they're so volatile anyway. Here's something to consider that might explain "Major Boobage:"
- OK well I think we're going to continue to disagree on this but at least you incorporated my references into the article instead of deleting them outright. So explain to me if you will how the section you added on "Heavy Metal" in the "Major Boobage" article does not qualify as trivia and why you feel it belongs in the wiki instead of on a fansite? Is it trivia? By your definition, yes it is. Is it in its own section instead of incorporated into the article as a whole? Well damn, yeah it is. Personally I think it makes for a great addition and I commend you for adding it, but isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? None of us want to see articles overloaded with trivia but you 'deletists' continually ignore the first tenet of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I think your approach is unnecessarily harsh and hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafu7x7 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please take a closer look at my edits. Typically if I delete a whole section it's because 80% is fluff like "Kenny didn't die," 10% is redundant, and the rest is unsourced. I'll do this a few times with a new article, and each time it reappears better than it was before. Then I go and work whatever is likely to stick into the main article. Sometimes there's something that actually merits its own section; for example, it was partly my efforts that resulted in a list of similarities/differences to "Heavy Metal" in the "Major Boobage" article, much cleaner and more relevant that what used to be there. The goal of this wiki is not to be a fansite overloaded with trivia. Also, calling it "Cultural References" or anything else doesn't change the content of the section, it's still trivia. If there's a single source that the entire episode is obviously a parody of, the best place to put it is in the intro to the article, in my opinion. Professor Chaos (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dude, you completely missed the point...I'm not arguing FOR trivia, my argument is that alot of the content that people post to the 'Trivia' section is not trivial at all, its actually valid, interesting and relevant to the article. So don't throw the baby out with the bath water, propose an alternative to calling it 'trivia'...call it "Cultural References" or "Extras" or whatever. Granted not every episode has dozens of allusions or references but I guarantee every episode has at least a few so how you can argue that a part of the show as intrinsic as this is not worth documenting?. If you wanna delete fluff entries, speculation or unverified sources knock yourself out, I fully support you but don't delete the whole section by default just to be a dick, thats incredibly childish and is at odds with the goal of this wiki Snafu7x7 (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Trivia is by definition trivial. The main thing is that there's not enough notable stuff to merit a whole new section, so something like that (which is probably true, just like Cartman's advice to Butters) should be worked into the plot synopsis. People will complain "but I come to Wikipedia for trivia!" They can go to a fansite, which Wikipedia is not. Or they can take two seconds to skim the plot synopsis, and find the link. As far as verifiability, sometimes it's really very blatant, but even so (and especially if it's more subtle, which South Park isn't these days) it is best to verify it with a link to a comment from one of the creators that yes, that was actually their intent. Professor Chaos (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Choiniej you summed it up very well, thank you::::User:Professor Chaos, it would seem that you do not take issue with the inclusion of these pop-culture references in the articles provided they are valid and 'non-frivolous' in nature, you're just adamantly against them having their own section? Why is this notion so offensive to you? You should really ask yourself what the true value of an online encyclopedia is. For myself and most others, its the ability to find exactly what I want quickly without having to sift thru pages of content, this is why subsections like this are invaluable. You're so hung up on 'form' you can't appreciate the value of function and usability. I completely agree that crap like "Cartman didn't wear a hat" have no place in the article because they add no value, but that doesn't imply that all trivia is 'trivial'. If you don't agree with having a Trivia section thats fine, propose another taxonomy for the content but don't just delete it as a matter of course. In my opinion that's incredibly shortsighted and it does a disservice to the users of the site.::::That all said, I agree with Alastairward that references must be verifiable, its just somewhat unclear how to accomplish this to the satisfaction of all. Lets use the initial reference I added to this article Love Missile F1-11 as an example. When I first added it, I cross-linked it to the Wikipedia articles for the song and its original artist Sigue Sigue Sputnik. This seems to be all that is required for other references in the article and Wikipedia as a whole...take for example the part in the article that reads "In a parody of The Defiant Ones..." I've personally never seen that movie so I have no means of determining whether that reference is accurate or not, but its cross-linked to the wiki page...should I remove it because I'm ignorant? More importantly to the case of Love Missile F1-11, what more can I do to establish its veracity? Would linking to the actual track on YouTube suffice or do I need more? I still have the record, and I have the South Park episode tivo'd perhaps I could invite detractors over to listen to both? lol Snafu7x7 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Frivolous trivia belongs on a fansite. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Major influences are appropriate, but belong in the intro or plot summary, and do not merit their own section. There are times when there is enough to make a whole section for a reference or references, for example the internet memes for "Canada on Strike," reaction to "In the Closet" or "Bloody Mary," or what the deal was with Mohammad in "Cartoon Wars." A list consisting of "Kenny wasn't in the episode," or "Cartman didn't wear a hat" is not encyclopedic and should be left to fansites. It's not just a question of verifiability. Professor Chaos (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, I posted a similar comment on a Futurama episode talk page, therefore I'm sorry if people have read this before, but I'm going to go into it here, too. Verifiability, as a general idea, is absolutely necessary in certain contexts of wikipedia articles; this is a result of the ability of nearly anyone to edit a page. However, the concept of verifiability takes on a different meaning with regards to cultural references in a TV show episodes. There exists a group of shows that use cultural references as a central part of their humor; South Park, The Simpsons, and Futurama all come to mind. As such, a "Cultural References" section of an episode's page is absolutely an integral part. User:snafu7x7 made this same point above, where he/she talks about how visitors to episode pages are frequently trying to figure out what a certain part of the episode was referencing. However, there are two kinds of cultural references that exist within these shows: blatant ones, and subtle ones. It's my opinion that the two should be treated differently. Fortunately, this episode provides solid examples of both types. Blatant cultural references are those that can be verified by simple observation. They are unambiguous, and not subject to interpretation; they will be immediately clear to anyone who is familiar with both the episode and the original material. In fact, if they weren't a specific reference to the source material, they'd almost certainly qualify as plagiarism. With this episode specifically, I'm referring to the song Love Missile F1-11 and Cartman's "Life Moves Pretty Fast" line. The Love Missile reference is empirically true; the non-vocal parts of the real song and the one in the episode are nearly identical. Anyone with the ability to hear tones and pitches can match one to the other. Similarly, the fact that Cartman and Ferris use the exact same words (except for Cartman's addition) make it observable to anyone. These types of references should not require sources to verify them. Typically, the sources used (when they are used) are website reviews of the episode. However, in these types of cases, the writer of the review is exactlyas qualified as the casual observer to make the connection between the two; this hinges on the fact that no interpretation is necessary to get the reference.Contrastingly, Subtle cultural references are those that are either not immediately obvious or are subject to interpretation. In this episode, Cartman and Butters leaping over the fence in slow motion is a perfect example. I personally interpreted this scene as part of an overall homage to Ferris Bueller; many others saw similarities to action movies (specifically Die Hard, which correlates to other in-show references as well). Since it's not easily clear to everyone what the reference is, and since there are differing viewpoints, this sort of reference requires a source with more authority on the subject than I or any other poster here has. This is the sort of information that would most ideally be sourced to statements made by the creators, whether in the form of DVD commentary or interviews given to reporters. The reference being made is not easily determined by simple observation, and so necessitates a source.Do people agree with what I'm trying to say here?Choiniej (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Go to a fan site for trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Professor Chaos (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever people may feel about trivia and South Park, if its not verified, it can be removed Alastairward (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I generally agree with the Wikipedia guideline to not include Trivia in the articles, I feel South Park represents an important exception to the rule. In short, the pop-culture references are one of the most appealing things about the show. I often look up episodes because I recognize a reference but can't recall from where. They represent a valuable part of the wiki and I'll ask that other editors respect that and not delete the whole section...or better yet for those who are sticklers to form, propose an alternative section for this kind of content and then update it if you take issue with it. The Sigue Sigue Sputnik song 'Love Missile F1-11' is definitely the song parodied during the montage, and the head terrorist is clearly a caricature of Hans Gruber from Die Hard so I'm adding them back (User:snafu7x7 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Jumping the fence
How is jumping the fence a parody of Ferris Beuler? This seemed more of a generic action movie scene than a reference to Ferris Bueler.146.94.177.211 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not that I'm the one who first made mention of it, but it's part of a pattern of Ferris Bueller references throughout the show (the others being Cartman's repetition of the "Life moves pretty fast" line and the inclusion of a song remarkably similar to Love Missile F1-11). I'm putting it back in.Choiniej (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- No way, jumping over the fence from the truck has more to do with Die Hard, or any one of a dozen action movies then anything remotely resembling Ferris Bueller. An over the top slow motion sequence from traffic light to truck top over a giant fence onto a building roof has nothing to do with Bueller's day off. 75.85.186.70 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree that it's not a Bueller reference, unless there's a scene in Diehard that is the same as the one in the episode, but I suppose I do agree that there's nothing definitive about it being a reference to anything specific, so I'll leave it out. I still think Cartman's behavior in the episode, as a whole, is a reference to Bueller - right down to trying to sneak out without getting caught.Choiniej (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)"#
- No way, jumping over the fence from the truck has more to do with Die Hard, or any one of a dozen action movies then anything remotely resembling Ferris Bueller. An over the top slow motion sequence from traffic light to truck top over a giant fence onto a building roof has nothing to do with Bueller's day off. 75.85.186.70 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 007 Reference
While inside "Super Phun Thyme", Butters and Cartman get on a motorcycle ride where they sit in positions similar to those Pierce Brosnan and Michelle Yeoh used when handcuffed together in Tomorrow Never Dies."I noticed the 007 reference as well. I don't know if there are any other movies where the driver flips his passenger over to the front of the bike because they can't release hands (in Tomorrow Never Dies, they are handcuffed). I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.225.222 (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Garrison
Don't confuse personal opinion with fact.I think they still don't actually know what to call Garrison, as the children constantly called him Teacher, rather than address him/her by name. (Warpsoapstone (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC))
[edit] References
Nice to see the references have been cleaned up! Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Two different names
Don't know if this is big enough to merit mention, but the Blacksmith character is given two different names in the episode. When confronted about his digital watch, Pioneer Paul calls him Chad, but while being interrogated by the robbers his name is given as David Palmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.180.234 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- David Palmer is the name of the first President on 24. Seems like a 24 spoof to me (in addition to Die Hard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiveinNightCity (talk • contribs) 07:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Continuity
I'm not sure where this would go, or who to point it out to, but right before the bartender gets shot in the gut, he gives the first one or two numbers of the cypherlock. But instead of starting with 18 he says 5(something) then is shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.239.149 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm listening to my brother watch the episode. One of the employees breaks character and says the code starts with 5-2- *shot in the chest*. However at the end of the episode the code is 1864. I know wikipedia frowns upon trivia, so just wanted to put it here Piepants (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- piepantsI have been really confused by that to.But I guess that’s just an honest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NannaKP (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm watching the Friday night rerun and they've bugfixed it. Now the guy just says "1" before being shot. For posterity: I noticed the discrepancy on Wednesday too. We may never hear that "52" again. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- There may be a way to put the discrepancy into the article. It's not enough to warrant a whole section, though, so I don't know. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- If something was changed, then i guess we can put it in the article. Moccamonster Talk 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have a copy of the video with the original "52" dialogue.71.37.20.250 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, ok. Professor Chaos (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have a copy of the video with the original "52" dialogue.71.37.20.250 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If something was changed, then i guess we can put it in the article. Moccamonster Talk 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- There may be a way to put the discrepancy into the article. It's not enough to warrant a whole section, though, so I don't know. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm watching the Friday night rerun and they've bugfixed it. Now the guy just says "1" before being shot. For posterity: I noticed the discrepancy on Wednesday too. We may never hear that "52" again. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 04:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- piepantsI have been really confused by that to.But I guess that’s just an honest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NannaKP (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The moral
what's the morale? Rules are bullshit? Mallerd (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- or maybe that rules cannot replace judgement? 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, in Dutch moral is same as morale. Anyway, didn't you notice that anyone who lived by the rules had a really hard time? Butters dragged Cartman into that life, the actors of that camp even got shot. Mallerd (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, just noticed your comment here. I see what you're saying. I think (opinion here) that it's just a coincidence. Butters was just being butters, Cartman was just being Cartman, and also they were making fun of annoying people at places like that who won't break character. Butters did his best, and did have a hard time, but I think was happy with himself in the end. Cartman got away with it, but also got beat up. The actors were just idiots, following a stupid rule at the wrong time. I don't think there was a moral to this one, just a parody. Interesting insight, though. Professor Chaos (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
-
Use your head. Rules are not set in stone. That is it.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.112.35 (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Police
Did anyone else see that the policeman is the same guy that was evil and died in “Lil' Crime Stoppers”? It is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NannaKP (talk • contribs) 17:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's just a generic South Park style police officer. Professor Chaos (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Real-Life Counterparts
I believe Pioneer Village in the episode is a stand in for Harold Warp's Pioneer Village in Minden, Nebraska. I was editing video for a school project and noticed that several shots and elements throughout the episode mimic closely shots and elements in the Pioneer Village promotional DVD (including living history re-enactors with modern watches!), and the layout of the two sites is similar as well. "Super Phun Thyme" is a stand-in for Fun-Plex in Colorado, which is now called Fat City. If anyone wants to verify and include in the article feel free. 76.25.245.5 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good call. My suspicion is that all pioneer village type places look the same. Most likely it's a parody of an actual place in Colorado, just like Casa Bonita (I've been there, they did an amazing job re-creating it). If we can find that place, great. I bet you're right about Fun-Plex, though. I'd be curious to see, but I don't know how to verify it. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, that is for sure Fun Plex, they say its off of Kipling in the show, and so is Fun Plex (Fat City). I think the Pioneer Village is either 9-mile Park in Denver or the Littleton Historical Museum. Oh, I am new at contributing to Wikipedia, I am sorry if I committed a faux-pas.Damnedcracken (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with Professor Chaos; I think all these Pioneer Village places look the same, and it is fairly irrelevant to the plot whether "Super Phun Thyme" was based on a real place. 71.255.92.6 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there's a possible spot within Colorado, then it's likely a deliberate reference by Matt and Trey. They love to put real Colorado references in there, like the College Know-It-All Hippies from University of Colorado, Boulder (I used to live in Boulder, and the whole place is like that). It's irrelevant to the plot, but if there's a way to work in the real life counterpart (with a legitimate reference, of course) without it being a trivia section, then Damnedcracken is probably right on the money. Professor Chaos (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it might be at least partially inspired by South Park City. I mean, what with the names being the same and all, it seems like sort of a weird coincidence, but I guess it could just be a...well, yeah, a coincidence. VolatileChemical (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I didn't even know about that place, but I would bet money that's exactly what they intended. Too bad that's not enough for a reference. I'll see if I can verify it. Thanks for that find. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it might be at least partially inspired by South Park City. I mean, what with the names being the same and all, it seems like sort of a weird coincidence, but I guess it could just be a...well, yeah, a coincidence. VolatileChemical (talk) 04:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, that is for sure Fun Plex, they say its off of Kipling in the show, and so is Fun Plex (Fat City). I think the Pioneer Village is either 9-mile Park in Denver or the Littleton Historical Museum. Oh, I am new at contributing to Wikipedia, I am sorry if I committed a faux-pas.Damnedcracken (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kyle = Butters ??
did anyone else notice on the way to 'super phun' cartman refers to butters as kyle, to be specific he says come on kyle, this is gonna be so awesome, but then in the very next seen cartman refers to butters by his actual name again, to be specific he says butters if you dont let go of my hand, everybodies gonna think we're gay,
- I know what you mean but to me it sounds more like "come on man" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoneintraining (talk • contribs) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems to me like it was "come on Kyle," because I recently watched a re-run where they'd bug-fixed it just as they did with the numbers (he now says "come on Butters"). 71.251.42.70 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well now we're getting somewhere. That's very possible, as they've been getting sloppy lately, but yours is the first compelling argument. This is now worth looking into. I will check stansdad.com, to see if they have the original version. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- It sounds like "AWWW MAN" which as any Trey Parker fan would know is his... well.. standard line.... but there is definitely a hard C sound before... cawww man, so it could very well be a bug-fix.. but that doesn't make much sense considering it's an animation and they could re-record this line over and over...
- Well now we're getting somewhere. That's very possible, as they've been getting sloppy lately, but yours is the first compelling argument. This is now worth looking into. I will check stansdad.com, to see if they have the original version. Professor Chaos (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems to me like it was "come on Kyle," because I recently watched a re-run where they'd bug-fixed it just as they did with the numbers (he now says "come on Butters"). 71.251.42.70 (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
