Talk:You May Now Kiss the... Uh... Guy Who Receives/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hoax

Is this a hoax episode? Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, at least not anymore. See the official Family Guy website. ShutterBugTrekker 23:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Reason for clean up?

Whoever tagged this article for clean up didn't bother to put the reason why here.

Anyway, the only problem with the article is that it had a plot summary, the reliability of which can't be ascertained because the episode hasn't aired yet. So I just placed it into the temporary comment-out section. Once the episode airs, we can evaluate whether that plot summary is any good or rewrite one from scratch. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Another lazy tagger tagged the article for clean-up, again, this time for "tone." I did the clean-up and it was pretty easy, only slightly harder than slapping a tag on. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

"Ricardo could possibly be a man who leads Quagmire to think he was a woman back then because he said he was a Filipino woman."

What the heck does that mean? ... discospinster 17:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever put that in was probably thinking of the episode "The Thin White Line", in which Brian detected that Quagmire had had sex with "two Filipino women... and a [Filipino] man." But to say that man was Ricardo, Jasper's fiancee, is pure speculation. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shark sighting: weakening continuity

When a joke is funny, it makes you laugh. End of story.

When a joke is not funny, it doesn't make you laugh, and if it makes you question the continuity of the show, it means that the show might be getting ready to jump the shark.

Family Guy has had great continuity, yet so many people are eager to dismiss it casually, to diss all the hard work the writers have put in (well, maybe not the writers of the two most recent episodes as of this writing). Seth Macfarlane says he and the writers spent two days arguing whether Brian should have his own car for "North by North Quahog". The writer of this episode apparently couldn't be bothered to ask Seth if Brian really is as celibate as he made him out to be in the dialogue. ShutterBugTrekker 22:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

An article's talk page isn't the place for this kind of discussion. 72.200.132.221 01:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, let's get some manatees in here, they'll fix everything up.124.168.24.81 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Family Guy has great continuity? No it doesn't. That is one of the jokes. Whty else would we see Peter being born born a boy, and also see Peter after a succesful Female To Male sex change? Why else would Brian be born in 1993 but have hung around with Andy Warhol in the 70s? Or Lois being a side-show freak AND the daughter of the Pewter-Schimdts or Stewie with his oval head immediately after being born (and while in the womb) yet also see a scene with him having a normal shaped head before an accident makes it oval OR Meg being killed at the end of Jungle Love but alive and well in the next episode. I can go on and on, but I think I've made my point now. There IS some continuity in it, but you try picking out the 'real' facts from all the throw-away jokes. Idiot. The Kinslayer 09:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Margaret Cho reference

Margaret Cho, in her tour "Assassin", has highlighted the stereotypical nature of this belief.

Is this depicted or directly referenced in the show? If not, that sentence needs should be deleted. Adding the word stereotype to the previous sentence will make the same point more consisely and without the confusing distraction. – edgarde 05:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Brannon Braga?

I didn't notice this the first few times I watched the episode, but in the video the priest shows Lois, in the second segment, the man with corrosive acid for blood is named "Mr. Braga". Now, Seth MacFarlane is quite a Trekkie, so I wonder if he stuck the name in there intentionally (whether or not he's making any statement about Braga's sexuality is another question). HaganeNoKokoro 05:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is! It's in the DVD commentary. But it was executive producer David A. Goodman, who worked under Brannon Braga on Star Trek, said he put the name in on purpose.

Commercial shows unaired scene?

I remember the week this aired, the commercial showed a small bit from a scene where Peter and Brian are walking through the mall, discussing something. I know this scene was not in the show. Was it a deleted scene restored on the DVD or accessible as extra content? Cole 07:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Warhol reference from A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Bucks

But in the episode A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Bucks, Brian reveals that he hung out with Andy Warhol in the 70's thus adding to the confusion about Brian's age.

I deleted[1] this trival reference to another episode and gave the reason that it is speculation on timelines which actually don't matter much in Family Guy. I would imagine most of us could agree that this show generally will break continuity in the service of a joke. Yet this was restored[2] by ShutterBugTrekker (talk · contribs) for the reason Family Guy timelines are more consistent than they get credit for. I'm deleting it again because it is trival, not relevant to this episode, and not notable enough for Wikipedia.

I would suggest that whoever desires to restore this information should restore it to the Family Guy Wiki[3], instead of here. / edgarde 00:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)