Talk:Pip (South Park)

Re-runs

Why has Comedy Cenral never aired this episode again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andman8 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, a lot of people didn't find it very funny and actually found it quite boring (though, in my opinion, it's got some highly funny moments, especially the third act). The Terrance & Phillip April Fools episode's never been repeated by them, either, and that one was definitely down to fan reaction. --L T Dangerous 06:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I liked it too, especially when it got ridiculous in the third act, but I liked the first two, as it was a refreshing change of pace.--Jaybob1222

I loved it, but if you haven't read Great Expectations, it's probably pretty dull.69.72.41.60 03:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Pip and the April Fools episode have been shown on Paramount Comedy 1 in the UK very recently. I live in Britain, and haven't read Great Expectations, but loved the episode anyway. --Rai 15:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This episode aired OTA tonite in syndication on UPN (soon to become CW Network). Having read Great Expectations does seem prerequisite, precisely because it's such a long, tedious, and aimless piece of "great British literature" (with two endings!) Remembering Malcolm McDowell ("British person") from A Clockwork Orange probably helps too. 71.162.255.58 04:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Great Expectations, but I found this episode hilarious. Also, it does seem to be repeated in syndication, it's been shown on UPN frequently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.232.27 (talk • contribs)

I think what helps is going into with an expectation that it won't be great. It won't be South Park, it won't be South Park humor, and all in all, it will be very silly. Knowing the plot to Great Expectations is very helpful. I've always thought that if I ever happened to teach Great Expectations to a group of kids, I'd show them this episode after they read it. I wouldn't expect them to laugh, necessarily, but I think their expressions would be priceless. Especially when the robot monkeys show up. 69.251.45.144 (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Underrated

Highly underrated IMHO, and reminiscent of How to Kill a Mockingbird... Or the Quahog version of The King and I from the show what uses manatees for writers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.124.11 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Made more sense

If only the real Great Expectations was like this, actually made a bit more sense than the real book. (This is a little hyperbole but the plot from the actual book did make very little sense and had a lot of convenient coincidences that I wont spoil, although you could look at the wikipedia entry for it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.203 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Heroes

Does it bother anyone that in the trivia it says The British person is also Lindermen in the NBC show "Heroes" I feel that It should atleast be changed to Malcolm McDowell. Also if we are going to list his credits they should all be there. Heroes seems like another "lost" good the first season but something next season will steal heroes viewers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.215.14 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

References to A Clockwork Orange

It worries me that this episode is mis-quoted. Malcolm McDowell never says the line "Your 'umble narrator". Although there are references to A Clockwork oranges, this is not one. So could this bit of triva be removed?

Also missed out is the line that Pip says to the escaped convict, "Did we breaky-wakys out of prison?" which to me is a sort of reference to the NADSAT spoken by Malcolm McDowell's character in A Clockwork Orange. Indeed his character talks about "Eggiwegs". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cundallmark (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Havishams

In Great Expectations, the lady's name is Miss Havisham - however at 03:29, it is quite clear that the Estate is called the 'Havesham Estate' - surely meaning that she should be Miss Havesham. Is there any other information to say otherwise? Chrislawrence5 09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

British Interpretation

The music that is playing at the beginning of the episode (when 'A British Person' is introducing the episode)and during the closing credits is Spring from The Four Seasons, by Vivaldi - an Italian composer. Just thought I'd point it out. NIN 21:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, the reason Vivaldi is used in this context is to parody Masterpiece Theater, an anthology series on public television in the U.S. that starts with similar Baroque music, opens with an introduction by a "British Person" (originally Alistair Cooke), and features mostly adaptations of great British literature. 75.73.101.252 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

O, now I finally come to fully understand Sesame Street's Monsterpeace Theater, featuring Alistair Cookie! :-) You see, in Europe we don't get such jokes as we can't see American tv. Btw, it's a pity that this episode is so unpopular, I just watched it and loved it! (I love the real Great Expectations, too, by the way). Steinbach (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshire Puddings with nutmeg

In the Trivia section, it says that yorkshire puddings do not traditionally contain nutmeg. I assume this for people who have never actually eaten a Yorkshire pudding before (notably the American audience), and I can't help thinking "Well duh!" This seems obvious to anyone with a BRAIN, as the fact that a Yorkshire Pudding is not a sweet dessert does make it obvious that it would go HORRIBLY with nutmeg. NIN 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but not every English speaker is English. For people like you and me it is a given, but for other people, who do not know what a Yorkshire pudding looks/tastes like, they could probably make no correct guesses other than that it comes from Yorkshire. :)

So, we allow them things like that. Hey, the more people learn about Northern cuisine, the better, right? :P --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC) as an aside, I have actually spoke with some Southerners, and Scottish people who also had not heard of Yorkshire puddings before, for some reason. I guess this could help them, too. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that no American has a brain? 76.202.59.91 19:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to imply it. ~~Lazyguythewerewolf . Rawr. 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nutmeg may not be a part of the traditional Yorkshire Pudding, but that doesn't mean that -as NIN states - only sweet dishes may contain nutmeg. I know plenty of non-sweet recipes that contain nutmeg. So, yes, the part with traditional Yorkshire Pudding NOT containing nutmeg should be included, since probably only Englishmen would readily know that. -92.226.199.127 (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nutmeg can [1] go with Yorkshire Puddings, just FYI. Griever89 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, Yorkshire Pudding CAN be a sweet dish, served with syrup. It's traditionally eaten this way in some parts of North Yorkshire, at least. --83.67.100.40 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Python of the Monty Nature

I can't help but wonder if the voice of Joe in this episode was none other than Eric Idle. I can't find any proof of it, and its not in the credits, but gosh darn it it really sounds like him. I know Trey and Matt are highly influenced by Monty Python and that Idle has lent his voice in the movie. Even if it wasn't him, the scenes with Joe are extremely reminiscent of Monty Python particularly, from the abstract humor of Joe's character to the signature Monty Python-esque man-doing-a-woman, scratchy voice of his wife. Your thoughts? Mac OS X 22:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for this article to look for Monty Python references; this episode definitely seems to refer to it. Joepnl (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe was voiced by South Park staff writer Kyle McCulloch. I added this info to the article. --Mondotta (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:405 dance.gif

Image:405 dance.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Music at Beginning & Credits

Sorry this is just bugging me. What is the name of the song that is played when the episode opens on McDowell & during the credits? I know it's widely known but I can't place the name, could someone please tell me what it is? --76.255.82.119 (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The song is mentioned higher up on this page. If you actually read the page you would have known this. 157.252.152.95 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BWhahahah 76.255.82.119 got pwned!

What's all this then?

It says at the begin of this article that "The character Pip appeared in an unaired pilot for the series, which was not released until 2009 on the South Park Studios website." Well I checked the site an found no such thing, if "74.131.138.98" could explain, that would be lovely.--Sir Joe Cool (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The unaired pilot was made available on SouthParkStudios.com only for a short period of time. However, it actually had been released before on DVD (limited release), and the information is correct. I added info regarding this. --Mondotta (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Shouldn't there be a reception section for the episode? The episode received a LOT of negative reviews, with even Matt Stone ad Trey Parker saying this is one of the most hated episodes of the series. TJ Spyke 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you've found a lot of negative reviews, why not add them? Alastairward (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I have removed the notability tag from the article, as I believe the episode is notable for being one of the most unpopular episodes of the series, as well for its rather unique presentation. (These are reflected now in the article.) --Mondotta (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pip (South Park)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Basilisk4u (talk · contribs) 01:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this article. I'm sorry you have had to wait so long! I'll start it ASAP.

Review

Lead

• "The episode is a parody and comedic retelling of the Charles Dickens novel Great Expectations..." For some reason, the "parody and comedic retelling" part sounds a little strange. Maybe "satirical and comedic retelling"?
• "...stars the South Park character Pip, who assumes the role of the protagonist of the novel, who is his namesake." This is a bit confusing. I know what you are saying, but it could possibly be reworded. And isn't Pip from the show the same character from Great Expectations? Like he was just taken from the book and put into the show?
• "Pip as a character was established..." --> "Pip was established as a character..."
• "To achieve this look, a lot of assets had to be built from scratch." Don't use "a lot", use "many" instead. Also, I think "aspects" would be better to use than "assets".
• "The concept of the episode changed a lot during this time..." Again, use "significantly" instead of "a lot"
• "...the episode was planned to be a musical originally." --> "...the episode was originally planned to be a musical."

Production and broadcast

• "Pip had a somewhat bigger role in the original, unaired version of the pilot, but most of his scenes have been cut from the reworked and shorter broadcast version." Use a different word for "bigger", maybe "more significant". And say "were cut" instead of "have been cut"
• "However, given the complicated nature of the episode's look..." Maybe use "artistic direction" instead of "look".
• "To achieve the style, a lot of assets had to be built from scratch..." Again, use "aspects" instead of "assets".
• In any uses of "South Park Elementary", South Park does not need to be italicized.

Cultural references and themes

• "The episode is, of course, not a straight adaptation of the novel, but a comedic retelling thereof." The "of course' is not needed

Reception and home release

• ""Pip" is a relatively unpopular episode of the series." Who is it unpopular with? Critics, fans, or both? If both, say ""Pip" is a relatively unpopular episode of the series with both critics and fans."
• Is there any info about ratings?

On hold

• I have placed the review on hold in order for concerns to be addressed. Good luck! Basilisk4u (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the editor is still active (at least on this page) any more...--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The editor seems to have made a couple edits recently, but nothing here. I'll give it another 48 hours then fail it myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and failed it. If the issues above can be fixed, I'm sure it can be GA'd one of these days.--Gen. Quon (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Bring Pip Back to Life

He needs to come back. I like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.101.88 (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

animation terminology

"To achieve this look, a lot of assets had to be built from scratch." ... "To achieve the style, a lot of assets had to be built from scratch"...

Those are the only two uses of the term "asset" in the article, with no clear direct attribution to support the imperative tone ("HAD to be built... from SCRATCH!!"). And what sort of lumber does one use to build these assets? nails, screws, glue?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

For that matter, what is the definition of "a lot"? Who determines such threshholds? Is "a lot" more (or less) than "a whole bunch"? Why is it of any relevance (let alone significance) that "a lot" were (was?) required?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

relevant reference information, or crass marketing plug?

The DVD contains a short audio commentary on every episode from Parker and Stone. Episodes of season 4 have also been released digitally, on services such as Amazon Video,[31] the iTunes Store,[32] and Xbox Live Marketplace.[33] Like most episodes of South Park, "Pip" was formerly available to watch for free on the show's website, SouthParkStudios.com, but is now available to watch as part of the Hulu Plus subscription-based streaming video service.

Is any of that particularly relevant to this specific episode??

And FWIW, Comedy Central's site (cc.com) makes a rotating slate of free episodes available for viewing (35 at the moment) selected apparently at random from South Park's twenty seasons.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

what unpopularity?

There appears to be some strange bias on display in this article, where editors compete over just how terrible "Pip" is, and precisely how loathed it is by fans. Nobody questions whether it is in fact disliked.

When Stone/Parker are asked about the worst episodes they'd made (to that point), they cite "Pip"... after the first 48 episodes. Those first seasons contain more than a few respected gems, not least being "Chef Aid." No comment is made as to whether "Pip" is somehow worse, or better.

According to the stats thumbnail for the episode (at southpark.cc.com), "Pip" has been viewed 2.2 million times. Two Season 4 episodes have 3.3 million each. These numbers reflect online views since being moved to the current platform. As all episodes (to that time) thus began at zero, this is likely an accurate running tally of viewers who actually sought out individual episodes.

While "Pip" is lowest of that season, the count is typical for the early years (particularly Season 2), with few episodes having yet topped 4 million views. Maybe "Pip" is a guilty pleasure, but people have clearly gone out of their way to watch this "failed" installment.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pip (South Park). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531142228/http://www.spscriptorium.com/Southparkpdfs/105.pdf to http://www.spscriptorium.com/Southparkpdfs/105.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514234428/http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353438 to http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/353438

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)