Talk:About Last Night... (South Park)

What exactly is this?
I'm pretty sure this is a parody of the Italian Job. Am I correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazylink (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's a parody of the Ocean's 11 series, but I'm not completely sure. Voltair3 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of a parody of "Heist Themed" movies in general. I got an Oceans 11 buzz from it though. 98.244.102.191 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it was a parody on Hustle(black lead guy, same music, same style in many ways.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.251.33 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'd agree about this being a parody of Hustle. The music and set up is exactly the same, and you have the British Sarah Palin as well echoing Jaime Murrays character. Richardm9 (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The tunnel reminded me of The Bank Job a lttle 134.114.111.152 (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Entrapment? I've never seen the movie, but just from the snippets I've seen, I'm reminded of it. Palin's outfit sort of resembles Zeta Jones'.

Great episode by the way.

Great episode indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.111.244 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 8 November 2008

the two comments above are forum-like and must be removed!

Cultural references
One of them was trivia, the rest were pending cites. Alastairward (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly Alastairward not this again, if you are a real fan of South Park you would add the Oceans reference yourself regardless of citation or not. Just add the reference because Matt and Trey obviously parodied Oceans, whether we can cite it or not. Jay794 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm an editor of wikipedia, that's all that matters. If there are cites for any of the "cultural references" by all means add them. Just remember to check up on what makes for a verifiable source first. Alastairward (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "I'm an editor of wikipedia, that's all that matters." AH HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! You should go write for South Park, they could use some funny these days. But seriously, by that logic everyone ELSE'S opinion is just as valid - after all, isn't this the site that touts itself as being one "everyone/anyone can edit?" On a more personal note, I sure hope that you don't put "Wikipedia editor" on your resume...trust me, it's probably not a good idea.

Does stuff have to be sourced to make it true? Jay794 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alastairward here, cultural references should either be sighted or blatantly obvious. Saying the episode was in the style of Ocean's Eleven and other heist movies would be acceptable. Saying the characters used "Boom Baby" as a reference to a video game is stretching it, and would need a source. Dayewalker (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean we can add a reference to Oceans Eleven, since that was in fact the basis for the entire episode, sourced or not. Jay794 (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I would support saying the episode was in the style of heist movies such as Ocean's Eleven. Being specific and saying is was the basis for the entire episode isn't accurate, and would have to be sourced. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Thanks for your opinion. Jay794 (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying that the episode apes heist movies in general is a generalisation of the plot, which can be read straight below. It's a bit redundant to add it. Alastairward (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But maybe some people just don't get it? AznWarlord (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's oh so very lame to mention Ocean's Eleven specifically. What about Ocean's 12? 13? If you have to be specific make it Hustle, as someone mentioned above. It has much more similarities - the number of main protagonists (nowhere near 11 in this SP episode), the women are full fledged members in the gang, not just "borrowed" for the heist like in the Ocean's movies, the music, the tone, the tall black man as the apparent leader... What's obvious to someone may not be to someone else, and the bottom line is - if you can't source it, shut up. That's why I'm changing it to heist movies/tv shows, and not to Hustle which is so obvious to me. --Bahati (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well here's an actual clue as to this being an Ocean's 11 parody: after the heist, Debussy's Clair de Lune is played in the background. That would be quite a coincidence, wouldn't it? 146.151.35.89 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just re added the heist movies reference because it was removed. Hope that's ok Jay794 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I didn't actually see it was taken out. Alastairward (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hustle reference issue
It is obviously, hustle and i am telling it for the last time.Stop changing it, i warn you.-whoever you are-Who are you to change it to oceans eleven constantly when all the people above agree that it "is" hustle ?! -20 March '10-

Guys, whoever changing the reference to Oceans Eleven, please dont!! The obama character is obviously the hustle character Mickey Bricks, with his style his team and everything, give it a break! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eozlem (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's obvious then it will be cited somewhere. Any and all uncited material may be challeneged and removed from any article, at any time. Please discuss this further on the talk page or find a cite for yoru edit somewhere. Alastairward (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does Quote section need to be included?
I am staying on the side of Alastairward on this one, since we had a HUGE discussion about this eariler (see The China Probrem). I do however feel it is unnecessary to include the Quote section. Why does it need to be in there? It has no real significance to the episode (although it does, but not an impact on the conclusion of the episode), and i think that has no place on a Wikipedia article. Please explain why that has to be on this article. There must be a very good reason for me to be convinced, since i am currently not. --J miester25 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Music
What is the Title of the music playing when Palin says "bloody idiots" and leaves, please ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.110.153 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 November 2008

Also, what is the classical music playing at the end, around the airport scene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.13.168 (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Claude Debussy - Clair De Lune —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.110.153 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 November 2008

Please remember this is not a forum
I've removed several forum-like comments. The version of this talk page prior to my change is here. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Production Information
Does anyone have any information on the production of this episode? I did a quick search and didn't really find anything. I think it would be relevant information to add since it appears much of the episode had to be produced in less than 24 hours. 24.20.236.30 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Erik


 * I added an article that verifies only one episode was produced, and they were going to do a "Dewey Beats Truman" type mea culpa if McCain won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.113.41 (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Error
When Ike is killing off the political players from the hospital's database, it incorrectly states that Michelle Obama is a "Presidential Candidate". Is there anywhere to put this in the article, or is it just useless trivia? --MosheA (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was probably a joke about Hilary running after being first lady. Needless trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.113.41 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Biden
Is there any reason that Joe Biden does not appear in the episode and is not even mentioned? --MosheA (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I would've thought he would've made a good extra, but I suppose the idea was that Biden wasn't in on it and he would've taken the reins on Presidency if B really left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.20.114 (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

McCain's
If McCain did win the election, whould the creators scrap the episode and not have aired on Wednesday, or would they still have this episode? A-3PO (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They still would have aired it. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/south-park-crea.html) Voltair3 (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Biden and campaign fund trivia
Is it necessary to include; Even if the campaign expenditure is cited, what relevance is it to the plot? Is it mentioned?
 * Obama and McCain confess that the run for President was simply "working an angle" so they could eventually steal the Hope Diamond, which they planned to sell for around $210 million dollars. The irony is that combined campaign spending of Barack Obama and John McCain totaled over 860 million dollars in 2008, over 4 times greater than the projected value of the diamond.

Also, I'm not sure of the relevance of not including Biden, McCain and Palins' family weren't mentioned. Alastairward (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the first bit of trivia would pretty much fall under WP:SYNTHESIS.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the thing about the campaign money once already. It doesn't matter that they spent more on the campaign than what the diamond was worth because the campaign money wasn't theirs to begin with, and they couldn't have kept it. It makes sense for a criminal to waste a lot of money to get a little money as long as the money that's wasted doesn't belong to the criminal, and he or she gets to keep the little money in the end.64.235.140.170 (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Gawker.com reference
Seeing as how it's not terribly good (it's a blog) and has been superceeded, I was thinking of removing it, any objections? Alastairward (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Other than "I don't like it" I see no argument here. "Not terribly good" is your personal opinion - feel free to use it on your own blog, but not a community-based site like WP.
 * I just have to ask you this: are you working for Matt and Trey for fear of copyright lawsuits? I just can't think of any other reason for someone to waste so many precious hours doing what you do here. I'm actually serious! NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL: say something constructive about the edit rather than the editor. Discuss please why you feel the extra reference is necessary and why the source you have used is a good one. Alastairward (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you'll never respond to my question as for why you are so convinced that your personal opinion and taste define WP's quality. Another thing - I've shown you a particular SP article that violates these same exact policies (and from checking your talk page, at least one other user did so as well) - I haven't seen you touch that at all and it's been a good couple of months. While I can't do much about original research, don't touch my cited references. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Bolding your text does not make what you say true. Also please give me a link to this other episode.
 * I gave you policies to look at, since you added the material, the onus is on you to provide evidence and that includes providing a reliable source. Since one was provided for you, why should this other reference stay? Alastairward (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hmm. This is a tough one. :-). Let's see. Clearly, neither a blog, nor the IGN site are up there as top-quality sources. But then, a claim about parodying Ocean's Eleven is not up there as an ultra-controversial statement either. The IGN source seems more reliable because it has an interview with the creator but, amongst blogs, gawker is reasonably respectable. My suggestion. Leave them both in and worry about something else. Plenty of other stuff yet to be done on wikipedia. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I come from Northern Ireland, silly disputes are... a cultural reference for me ;) Would you see anything wrong with removing the Gawker reference? Thanks for weighing in BTW. Alastairward (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest (and, of course, in my opinion!), given the claim being supported, they both work equally well. If removing one is contentious, perhaps best to leave it in. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS:FOLLOW
Per MOS:FOLLOW, it seems appropriate to move this article to About Last Night (South Park). I tried to perform the page move but was not able. Also, per MOS:FOLLOW, we can update the opening sentence to indicate that it was styled with an ellipsis at the end. This was done for About Last Night (1986 film). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)