Jump to content

Talk:Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Fatty Foods

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I moved the page back to 'Off' following Wikipedia:WikiProject_List_of_Television_Episodes guidelines. Off is not a preposition here it is part of a two word verb so should remain capitilised. Discordance 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why they don't like Roger Ebert and make fun of him in this episode?--198.105.45.201 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The description of Dr. Adams' pronuncation of "planetarium" is wrong. He doesn't say "planeh'arium", he says "planet arium" with a distinct stop after the t, as if he were talking about a planet named "Arium", as in "Welcome to the planet Arium". 70.232.82.89 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Dr.T.[reply]

...I'm pretty sure he specifically mentions not being able to say "t". On another note - what the hell happened to the section explaining why the episode is named after Roger Ebert?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, rewatching it, he does pronounce it "plane'arium" except while hypnotizing the students about halfway through the episode, where he just says "planetarium" normally. Odd.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the sentence "Also, viewers can see an alien during the scene when Cartman's mother tells him not to pick his nose." I've just watched the scene several times and I see no alien. Mildly amusing vandalism? Eggsyntax (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look again.. image It's in the last seconds of the episode. And aliens in South Park are pretty common in the first seasons... Nielssonnich (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the strong wording of the pop culture reference. The 'entire' episode is not 'directly' based on a Star Trek episode. While this episode is based on a Star Trek episode it has many scenes and elements that have nothing to do with Star Trek. Shatner does not sing the cheesy poofs song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.139.151 (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-*-*-*-

The "Roger Ebert..." episode has two "plots": one about a planetarium, the other about Cartman appearing in a "Cheesy Poofs" commercial. The planetarium plot is the primary one, the Cheesy Poofs plot is secondary. The Cheesy Poofs plot has no connection to Star Trek. The planetarium plot, however, IS A DIRECT PARODY OF THE STAR TREK EPISODE "DAGGER OF THE MIND"!! This is a fundamental fact known to most of the world. It is extremely relevant, and important to understanding the episode -- but this fact has probably not been the subject of a "scholarly treatise". Requiring a formal "citation" makes no more sense than requiring one to verify that the episode is about a planetarium or "Cheesy Poofs". The fact that SOMEBODY erroneously stated that William Shatner sings the "Cheesy Poofs" song in no way detracts from the basic truth that the episode is based on "Dagger of the Mind"! In the past, various contributors have TRIED to make the basic point about the parody, or have tried to point out particular aspects of it; but the end result is that the editor has removed all such information. This is simply UNBE-F-ING-LIEVABLE! Again, the fact of the parody is so clear and obvious as to be beyond any conceivable doubt. Furthermore, there are a number of specific details that drive the point home:

  • The name of the planetarium, "Tantalus V" (Roman numeral five), is the same as the colony in "Dagger of the Mind" (DotM).
  • The planetarium's director is called "Dr. Adams", the same as the director of the colony in DotM. In the cartoon he is drawn to resemble the Dr. Adams from Star Trek (actor James Gregory).
  • The name of a planetarium mind-control victim is "Van Gelder", the same name as the plot-corresponding mind-control victim in DotM.
  • A girl working at the planetarium states blankly, "I love my work", exactly as does a female colony staffer in DotM.
  • Mr. Mackey performs a "mind meld" on Van Gelder to get at the truth -- an OBVIOUS nod to the Vulcan mind-meld from Star Trek -- which, by the way, is exactly what Spock does with Van Gelder in DotM.
  • The operation and effect of the planetarium's mind-control device is identical to the "neural neutralizer" in DotM.
  • At the end of "Roger Ebert...", Dr. Adams is subjected to a full blast of the mind-control device, with no one operating it, exactly as happens to Dr. Adams with the neural neutralizer at the end of DotM. The comment "Imagine [...] a mind, emptied by that...thing!" occurs both at the planetarium and in DotM.
  • The music in several scenes in "Roger Ebert...", notably the mind-meld scene, is clearly music from Star Trek, further crystallizing the connection.

In addition, as a further nod to Star Trek in general, the motto of the planetarium is the best Latin approximation of "Beam me up, Scotty" (there being no Latin word that directly means "beam" in the Star Trek transporter-sense).

All this overwhelming evidence notwithstanding, and with the clear indication from this that the very purpose of the planetarium story is to serve as a parody of "Dagger of the Mind", and that any proper understanding of the episode can only occur in the context of "Dagger of the Mind", no mention of this has been permitted by the editor in the "Roger Ebert..." article. The mind boggles at this incredible miscarriage of "information."!

70.17.165.223 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223[reply]

-*-*-*-

Rather than comparing the two, how about you find a source which clearly states that these two things are connected - a reliable source, also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining to ME how two items that compare in this manner can POSSIBLY NOT be connected? Are all these things just "coincidences"? They are all verifiable by examination of the entities involved. You (or whoever did it) surely arrived at the description of the plot used in the article by simply VIEWING THE EPISODE. Surely this is inadmissable "original research" just as much as anything I have stated. If the connection between them is not obvious, then NOTHING is! Would you rather stand out as the lone voice in the world that says, "There's a rumor going around that 'Roger Ebert Should...' is somehow a takeoff on Star Trek's 'Dagger of the Mind', but that's just heresay. We prefer to refrain from such wild speculations." View "Roger Ebert..." with someone else, who laughs when the girl says, "I love my work!", because THEY know it's identical to "Dagger of the Mind"; but YOU just stare and say, "Why is that funny?"

Or maybe, live dangerously. Take that slim chance that is NOT all an elaborate hoax. Draw a conclusion other than that you don't want to draw any conclusions. If you can analyze at all, such as the appropriateness of content, then at SOME POINT you OUGHT to be able to decide that some fact is "clear". 70.17.165.223 (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223[reply]

Unfortunately, this is the way that Wikipedia works. To allow this on because you believe that they are connected (no matter how certain you are) does constitute original research - the line is drawn on whether or not you have a reliable source proving it. Without a reliable source, no matter how certain you are on the connections, it is original research. It's not a matter of me agreeing with you and adding this in myself, the point is that it's against Wikipedia regulation ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I wish I knew of anything that constitutes a 'reliable source' that discusses the episode, that would either corroborate my claim, OR NOT corroborate it. Do you know of any? At any rate, it still seems to me that a person making the judgment that this requires a citation is doing just that -- making a judgment, which has the possibility of being a "bad", "poor", or "wrong" judgment, however well-intentioned! Call it an overly-strict interpretation of the "regulation".

Or, alternately, allow the parody information to remain IN, with the attached notation "citation needed". There's plenty of that going around without serious harm being done. This would save face for the article in the eyes of readers who would gasp at its appalling lack of insight regarding the episode's inspiration.

Also, I note under "Uncite Materials", which adds "Cite and/or relevance please", that:

  • The item for the planetarium motto, "Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!", DOES both cite the relevance, and GIVES A SOURCE (Latin for Even More Occasions by Henry Beard).
  • On a different note, "[Roger] Ebert is represented in one of the constellations, providing the source of the episode title" is valid and relevant as a plot point, if suppositional as an explanation of the episode title; although it provides more of an explanation than anything ELSE, there being NOTHING else to explain it. Perhaps all the constellations displayed at the star show could be listed (which is certainly valid), without elaborating on the meaning of "Roger Ebert". Thus, the article would not be committing itself on supposition, but the inference could be made at the reader's discretion.
  • Concerning "The poor child with her mother during the callback auditions looks like Cosette from the novel Les Misérables", or more specifically, the poster for the stage play of Les Misérables, which even I noticed with my limited knowledge of that subject; I gather that this would also constitute a "supposition". However, that "on the wall behind them there is a poster that says 'Who will be the next Cosette?'", if true (I don't remember), would be a fact not open to "interpre'ation" (sorry, I have a bone disease) in itself, and is clearly planted by the animators as a further hint for anyone who "still didn't get it", much like the planetarium motto. The real point is that these things indicate that they WANTED us to understand the nature of the parodies, and to ignore these things is to defy the episode's creators. Or something like that.

In the end, it all boils down to being overly-sensitive on what constitutes "supposition".

70.17.165.223 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223[reply]

Possibly, but unfortunately, rules are rules. If this truly is a parody of the ToS episode, then the reader will be able to interpret that themselves - unfortunately, I do not know of any websites or sources that could back up this claim, and still be reliable. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO THEY AREN'T! WP:IAR. If the rules make the encyclopedia worse, we don't follow it. This was the first rule, and preempts all others. If the rule doesn't make sense in a given situation, we don't follow it. — trlkly 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though, in my own experience those who loudly proclaim IAR to be the only solution, never really have much of an idea what it is a solution to and what solution it's providing. In any case, a cite was found and added. Makes you wonder if those demanding it be added sans cite might not have better spent their time looking for that cite... Alastairward (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was still amending. I will say that, rules being rules, they are carried out by someone interpreting them, and the interpretor could err on what makes a "supposition". On a point this important to the episode, leaving it that "the reader will be able to interpret that themselves" consiti'utes a glaring omission.

70.17.165.223 (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223[reply]

Very true - but I think it's simple enough to draw the line at this. I think if it's that obvious that it's a parody, then there's bound to be a source about somewhere to prove this - otherwise it simply is original research. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A source! A source! My kingdom for a source!

"www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTVT1Yfrmzg" - At 1:25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LupusRexRgis (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

70.17.165.223 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)70.17.165.223[reply]

Matt and Trey mention the "Star Trek" reference explicitly in the introduction to this episode, included on the "Season Two" DVD set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.119.247 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited materials

[edit]

Trivia, removed;

  • The "I Love Cheesy Poofs" song is sung to the melody of NPR's "All Things Considered".
  • The laser rock shows at the planetarium are to the music of Kenny Loggins and James Taylor.
  • For his audition, Cartman sings the Donna Summer song She Works Hard for the Money.
  • While Cartman was auditioning, he does Michael Jackson's moonwalk.
  • Additionally, on the wall behind them there is a poster that says "Who will be the next Cosette?"
  • There is a scene which features a mind meld.
  • The text "Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni!" appears over an archway at the planetarium. This Latin phrase translates to "Bring me up, Scotsman" (see Beam me up, Scotty), and it was previously featured in Henry Beard's book Latin for Even More Occasions.
  • When the school nurse is inspecting Van Gelder, music taken from Star Trek can be heard in the background.
  • The uniforms worn by the volunteers at the planetarium have the same design as those worn by the sanitarium staff in the Trek episode.

Plot reiteration;

  • Dr. Adams brainwashes Officer Barbrady to think he's Elvis, whom Mr. Mackey confuses for Charlton Heston.
  • Dr. Adams says at one point, "Stars are actually made of hot gas, which is exactly what comes out of Roger Ebert's mouth".

Uncited;

  • During Cartman's first audition, Cartman sings the Cheesy Poofs theme and adds, "I'm talking Night Court in its fifth season lame!"
  • The poor child with her mother during the callback auditions looks like Cosette from the novel Les Misérables.
  • This episode is based on the original Star Trek episode "Dagger of the Mind", including the names of the guest characters.
  • The name of the planetarium is the "Tantalus V Observatory", a reference to the Tantalus Penal Colony in the Star Trek episode.
  • A news anchor refers to a news reporter as a "34-year-old Asian man who looks strikingly similar to Ricardo Montalbán." Montalban played the title character in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, whose full name was Khan Noonien Singh, named after an Asian friend of Gene Roddenberry.
  • Near the end of the episode, right after Dr. Adams has been hit by his mind control machine, Kyle's line "Can you imagine it, Stan? A mind...emptied by that thing..." is identical, in text and delivery, to Captain Kirk's line from the end of the episode Dagger of the Mind, when the same thing happened to the director of the sanitarium.
  • Ebert is represented in one of the constellations, providing the source of the episode title. He is shown with a scowl and a thumbs down.

Alastairward (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the citing rules here are not applicable. What exactly would constitute a valid source? You can very well watch the episode and analyze the trivia to see that is correct. It would be stupid to wait for Matt and Trey to confirm the 'uncited' material. For example, saying that a soccer ball and a tennis ball have similar shapes would have to be removed, as it's not cited material, if you understand what I mean. Does Wikipedia need a citation for 1 + 1 = 2? Or is a citation needed for 'if you shoot yourself in the head, you will die'? I believe logic can take place of citations in a lot of cases. Such is the case between this episode and the Star Trek one.

And one more thing: why did all the SP episodes lost their trivia and reference sections? They were pretty nice, and although uncited (trivia tends to be uncited in most cases in this world, not just wiki) they were very correct and verifiable. 92.80.23.71 (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dagger of the Mind" spoof

[edit]

I have found a citation for the "Dagger of the Mind" spoofing in this SP episode. I have added a sentence noting the spoof in the lead section. Ventifact (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IMDB cite though, they're not particularly reliable from what I've seen. They're supposed to have some sort of check in place, but it's only been added recently. Alastairward (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. I have added more references to substantially corroborate. Ventifact (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, at least three of those are fan/user editable sites. Nothing better? Alastairward (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are the present references inadequate? Ventifact (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that since both of the episodes can be watched, citations are not needed. Go watch them if you believe the references are incorrect; As far as I know citations are needed in cases where information is not easily verifiable by most people. 92.80.23.71 (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roger_Ebert_Should_Lay_Off_the_Fatty_Foods&oldid=1244552800"