Talk:Brian & Stewie

Musical episode
The musical episode is completely seperate from this episode. Any information that is added saying otherwise will be promptly removed per WP:OR. Gage (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Seth McFarlene
Should there be some mention made of the fact that since Stewie and Brian are the only characters in the episode, it was entirely voiced by Seth McFarlene? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.45.111 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Gage (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Re: Narration Framework of Episode
Both in his comment above and in the "not necessary" edit summary reverting my addition, Gage seems to feel that this episode's article should have no mention of the musical framework surrounding it. While I agree "Brian & Stewie" should be the primary thrust of the episode, completely omitting the framework surrounding the episode seems to be to be completely counterfactual, and I disagree with such a omission. As I don't want this to play out as an edit war, I'm opening a thread here for discussion and consensus-building. &#151; WCityMike 05:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I should have put not necessary in the lead, which shouldn't have that information, according to other recent Family Guy GA articles, including Dog Gone, Big Man on Hippocampus, Go Stewie Go, Road to the Multiverse, etc. (all of which were nominated and developed by yours truly), which have followed a specific and consistent format. If you believe the information is important, I would not object to its inclusion elsewhere in the article. Gage (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is necessary; it's a major part of the episode, and is how it both begins and ends. To completely omit its framework is, to reiterate, counterfactual.  And while I congratulate you on your work on articles that were endorsed by the community, I respectfully don't think it gives you greater credence in this disagreement (WP:OWN), and suggest we involve the larger editor community in building consensus on this question. &#151; WCityMike 05:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm removing it from the article until there is a consensus. The inclusion of disputed information with no consensus, versus an established format having been in use for every article in the season is naive. The information does not belong in the lead, and would be better placed in the production section. Gage (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm restoring it until there's a consensus. I've started with a request at Third opinion; we should get someone weighing in there.  If that proves insufficient we can go from there to a RfC to get a wider pairing. &#151; WCityMike 05:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I guess I'll be moving it to the production section myself. Gage (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gage, respectfully, you don't own this article. Please allow editors to reach mutual consensus on this through a group decision and stop imposing your opinion unilaterally. &#151; WCityMike 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Baseless claim. Gage (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merely describing it with the adjective "baseless" is not responsive to the request. You are indeed acting unilaterally, despite repeated requests to allow consensus to be built from others' input, which is the way such disagreements as ours are supposed to be resolved. &#151; WCityMike 06:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So I see no problem having one line in the lead about this. The lead mentions that it was celebrated as the 150th so why not mention that they received an extended time slot and filled some of the extra space with musical numbers. I assume (we don't know do we?) it won't be that way on the DVD release but it is information about the original airing so give it a line. Also, WP:LEAD is pretty clear that it needs to summarize the article. If it is going to be given a little more space in the article then it should be in. Furthermore, making a mention of it would prevent any detailed fan cruft from popping in since it can be carefully added now. And Entertainment Weekly thought it was important enough to mention at the top of their story (yeah yeah not news I know) and it loks pretty good that way.Cptnono (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to mention it? Pretty trivial to me. I'm sure the musical numbers won't air on the dvd or any future airings of the episode.  C T J F 8 3  chat 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it, Gage is the main editor in the artical and i belive he knows best about what to do with it and he may not own it he is the one with more colaborations in any other case two of WP:Family Guy major editors have given there opinion on the issue i belive that is enough(Ctjf and me)....But i've you need someone else assk Bovineboy.-- Pedro J. the rookie 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, we don't know if it will be on the DVD (right up above). I assume not but my reasoning for keeping a mention in the lead is based on the original airing which deserves some room. It currently says:


 * "...The show was celebrated as the 150th episode of the series.


 * The episode aired with a framing device involving Stewie and Brian addressing the television audience in front of a red curtain, first introducing the "very special" episode and then, after its conclusion, introducing various musical numbers from previous episodes, some which had previously aired, some which had never aired."


 * I would probably reduce that even more but would still mention that it was treated as special event and there were musical numbers shown in the time slot. This will be inline with the sources. Gage can do some good work it looks like but he seems incorrect in this trivial matter to me. It happens to the best of us. User:Cptnono (signed for) 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing here which addresses additional content I just saw on Hulu which was never part of the edit downloadable from Apple. Specifically, reference to butt-licking and sexual fetish pertaining to the gun were omitted from iTunes downloads and probably other packagings. Can someone with a loftier view characterize these various edits? DulcetTone (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The "Narration Framework " was a way to deal with deleted scenes
Heard that from a veritable source. The actual episode has a kissing scene deleted and in order to meet the time frame they just pasted the musicals at the end. Maybe the "definitive version" will see light in DVD.
 * WP:OR. Gage (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, was there an unsigned comment here — one that Gage replied to — that someone can check out? In any case, that needs to either wait until it actually comes out on DVD (or a reliable source publishes confirmation of said rumor), or left out per Gage's OR conclusion. Briguy52748 (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)]]

Adult Swim airing
This episode just aired on Adult Swim, and as any devoted Family Guy fan knows, the AS airings tend to restore scenes that Fox cut. However, it seems that in this case, what happened was actually the reverse; while I didn't watch it on Fox, it appears from the plot summary that the following scenes were altered/removed:

"Stewie convinces Brian to lick his rear clean [...]"

"Stewie [...] points out a security camera in the corner of the vault, which has captured all of Brian's actions that day. Stewie offers to shoot Brian to prevent further embarrassment [...]"

None of those things happened, and the bullet ricochets because Brian and Stewie argue and the gun is dropped on the floor. Can someone who saw the episode on both networks compare the two, and perhaps make a mention of this in the article? If not, the episode airs again tonight/Tuesday morning at 3:00 AM eastern. The Mach Turtle (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to give the PTC so much publicity?
I know this is a very general point, which could be applied to almost any Family Guy episode, but I suspect this one may be read again by future FG editors. Do we really need to keep giving the oxygen of publicity to the PTC? They have an obvious agenda against the show and will always complain about anything that isn't strictly moral. I don't understand why they should hold such a presence on every single episode article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.41.2 (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, any show/episode PTC doesn't like, I love it all the more! They do provide (horrible) reviews and WP:NEUTRAL requires neutral articles, not just positive reviews.... C T J F 8 3  pride 04:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

End Credits
"The fact that the credits play in silence could be a reference to that of the Doctor Who serial Earthshock (Part Four)"

Really?! That seems like a pretty specific "silent end credits" for the episode to be referencing! Loads of shows have had silent end credits if they've been stand out episodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.213.28 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Brian & Stewie. 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/20110711021928/http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/ to http://www.foxinflight.com/tv/15/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbs.com/classics/the_twilight_zone/video/index.php?pid=dxQGcjgGKep5duXVzEKJFKteKLutQsFP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brian & Stewie. 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/20120229152741/http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z1z25z1z8&ID=6078 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z1z25z1z8&ID=6078
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112110443/http://foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z55z8z5&page=2 to http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z2z2z55z8z5&page=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505204117/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/03/tv-ratings-sunday-conan-boosts-60-minutes-a-little-while-abc-wins-a-slow-sunday/50249 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/05/03/tv-ratings-sunday-conan-boosts-60-minutes-a-little-while-abc-wins-a-slow-sunday/50249

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)