Talk:Cartoon Wars Part I

Part Two???
I'm sorry, I watched the episode last night. I think that this 'part two' isn't going to actually air, and is probably a late April Fools joke or something like when they were going to reveal Cartman's father. 71.227.173.98 19:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They've done a two parter in the past ("Do The Handicapped Go To Hell?"/"Probably") and it didn't air on April 1 so there's no evidence to suggest that it WON'T be a 2-parter.

It *could* be a prank but it's more likely legit. GuruAskew 21:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone should include something on the possibility that it is fake. 71.227.173.98 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would it be a fake? To piss us all off?  To exhibit sloppy writing?  --L T Dangerous 23:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The possibility of a fake should not be mentioned without a legit source.Jacknife737 00:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Matt and Trey like to piss people off. Like in the episode where Kenny goes to heaven to fight satan, at the end there's only a very big description of the battle and none of it is shown. Also, in the two-part episode where Cartman finds out who his father is, the 2 parts aired like 6 weeks apart or so. This should be enough to prove that there is a strong possibility that there really won't be 2 parts. A Clown in the Dark 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No original research. Speculation cannot override fact. Yes, Parker and Stone like to piss of their readers, but they wouldn't want to repeat the same trick twice; they've already expended any potential humor in the "fake-out To Be Continued" angle. The fact is that not only did the South Park episode specifically state that there would be a second part, but also hundreds and hundreds of ads for this episode, as the second and final part of "Cartoon Wars", have aired on Cartoon Network over the past 24 hours. Cartoon Network wouldn't go along with such a prank. It's true that the episode will probably break from our expectations in some way, but there's no grounds for doubt, at least at this juncture, that it will be a continuation from the previous episode, which was left off in a genuinely unfinished state, not in a type of faux "To Be Continued" parody (despite the melodramatic, cheesy ending). -Silence 12:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, Comedy Central makes South Park, and Matt and Trey don't have readers, they have viewers. But still i get your point.

Also the scenes from next week segment was very poor written and kinda cliche. There sense of humor fits it.

Nimrod1234 01:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Until we know for sure, it should be assumed that the next episode is a sequel to this episode. JQF 01:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

And the trailers for next weeks episode are anything new Nimrod1234 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if April Fool's has anything to do with this, it's still likely that the episode will air eventually. The first infamous April Fool's prank was part two of a story being aired a week later than announced, I really doubt they'd set up an episode and just not make it, that's not really much of a joke. - Ugliness Man 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, to claim that this episode is definitely two part is in itself speculation until it airs. J. M. 07:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's the opposite of true, at least in the context of an encyclopedia. When a television show has an episode that presents an incomplete story, and announces at the end of the episode that the second part will air the next week, it would be speculation to contemplate that part two might not air.  However, even if the creators of the show have a reputation for pranks and subversion is irrelevant, it's not "speculation" to take at face value the claim that the continuation of the story is forthcoming, it's a logical assumption.  And as I've already noted, they've pulled a few pranks in the past, but they've never ever announced a continuation that they didn't deliver. - Ugliness Man 10:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the source for the title for 1004 on List of South Park episodes? I don't see it on the official page... --Bahati 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, I can't see how the new episode and it's title can be announced on wikipedia if there's no official announcement. I don't care who makes the show, them saying there will be another episode is in no way a guarantee it's true. Whether intentional or unintentional the next episode may not be even made, let alone aired. And the title is pure speculation as far as I can tell. Someone please remove it, it's embarrassing...--Bahati 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * At the end of part one, they announced that part two was airing "next week". The idea that this may not be true is speculation, not the other way around.  Nobody's talking about guarantees, it's a reasonable assumption based on the available information, and sometimes reasonable assumptions are valid enough for a temporary mention in an article (it will only be a matter of days before it's known for certain anyway, so maybe someone needs to chill out).  Stating that episode 1004 is expected be part two seems perfectly fine, and is not necessarily a declaration of the expected title, it's just a description of what the episode will (likely) be.  And who exactly is being embarrassed?  What's "embarrassing" about an article simply repeating information provided at the end of part one?  The (purely speculative) possibility that the information might be false? - Ugliness Man 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The possibly non existing episode having a title on Wikipedia is what's embarrassing! Who was so bold to decide how it should be written? I don't see any reason to rush this, make up a title, deface a known title in the process ("Cartoon Wars (1)"?) just to have it redirect to something else. The Cartoon Wars article provides enough accurate information, and users trying to extrapolate a title on their own is just wrong. It's wrong! It's WROOOONG! Not to mention useless and non-encyclopedic... --Bahati 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, you seriously need to chill out. Like, if someone was to read that last paragraph out loud, phrased the way it's typed, they'd sound like either a severe coffee addict, or one of those nutcases who's always writing letters to newspapers about the most mudane things.  I'm not accusing you of being a nutcase, I'm just saying you're getting way too worked up about a possible title for an upcoming episode of a silly cartoon show.  You don't need to say "it's wrong" three times, and you don't need to yell the third time.  I just checked the episode list article, and currently part one is simply listed as "Cartoon Wars".  If there's anywhere that part one is listed with the number 1 beside it in parentheses, then correct it.  And until there's official word on the next episode, it's not a major leap of faith or logical fallacy to temporarily list it as being the announced sequel.  Two reasons for this.  First, the announcement at the end of the previous episode is "official" enough in my opinion.  Second, it's only for a few days until there is official word.  Just take a deep breath, and say calmly and slowly "it's only a few days... it's only a few days".
 * Really, if you're embarrased by edits performed by a stranger to a Wikipedia article that has nothing to do with your life, you have issues. Two words: Chill.  Out.  For your own sake.  I'm not mocking you, I'm just trying to offer some perspective. - Ugliness Man 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously did not get the joke... And since you spared me of mocking, here's some perspective for you. The title is officially announced and as of now I'm content with the accuracy of the list. No point in discussing this anymore as far as I'm concerned. --Bahati 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Better pic
Does anybody have a better pic for this episode that can be used? The current one is very pixalated, and a shot showing the entire Family Guy family would probably be a better pic for this show anyway. JQF 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Nuge | talk 02:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kenny significant role?
Kenny didn't have a significant role in this episode...

Kenny rarely has significant roles anymore.

Nimrod1234 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not since Kenny Gets A PSP

Jew Show
Is it just me, or when Cartman said, "How would you like it if there was a show that made fun of Jews all the time," did Kyle say "Um..." and point at the "camera"? You know, as if to say that South Park is that show. What do you think? --Evil Eccentric 04:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyle says "um" but does not point at the screen. The fourth wall isn't broken, although it comes close and the reference is obvious.


 * I agree, he was pointing at Cartman. It was sort of breaking the fourth wall, IMO, because it seems like he was saying "Cartman, you're a major character on a popular cartoon show, and you're constantly ripping on me for being a Jew". - Ugliness Man 00:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing Kyle point at anybody. The point is that the joke is IMPLIED, but not said outright.


 * It does look like he's pointing at Cartman, as Kenny/Cartman are standing opposite Stan and Kyle. He definitely has his hand by his side before he starts saying 'uh', and moves it upwards during that syllable.  Morwen - Talk 12:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation on Identity of the Writers
I bet the writers are crab people. Crab people seem like a good canidate for the writers of family guy because well... just because.

Might be the Super Adventure Club Nimrod1234 20:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If we're going for the "WTF" cliche plot twist, they might turn out to be a little-known Muslim sect. By causing the episode to air, it gives "their people" an excuse to declare holy war on Western culture, and this might also explain why they were able to coerce the executives into allowing the episode to air.  I know the obvious objection to this theory is that it's allegedly against their religion to depict the prophet, but keep in mind that I'm suggesting it's a specific sect, or off-shoot, with their own version of the Muslim law.  Keep in mind that if you read the law supposedly forbidding depiction and take it literally, it only warns against idolatry, and not all Muslims believe that a drawing of him is inherently covered under that law, but it's a specific interpretation (much like some Christian religions don't allow blood transfusions because of a scripture passage that condemns "consumption" of blood).  Just a thought - Ugliness Man 00:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just had another thought, since this is pure speculation... the crab people running joke is sort of ludicrous, and Matt and Trey have never really shied away from the ludicrous and obtuse when it serves the plot and their sense of humour... staying with that line of thought, it could very well be the actual Family Guy characters... or maybe The Simpsons. Hell, it might even be cartoon depictions of Matt and Trey themselves.  I don't really have a possible explanation for that last one, but I'm sure they could come up with one. - Ugliness Man 00:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Turned out to be a bunch of fat sea creatures that write the show, for anyone that didn't read the shows synopsis JayKeaton 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Scientology/Issac Hayes Scuffle Parallels

 * After watching the show, I get the impression that the show is a parallel of the 'Scientology Scuffle':

-After Kyle tells Cartman that he will join him in attempting to get the epside pulled, he says that he, "Got sound advice from an old friend". I speculate that friend is chef

-Cartman says that he's been "Doing the wrong things for a long time ... [and he] just want[s] to do something right ... just this one time." - Which parallels how Issac Hayes didn't have a problem with them making fun of other religions, but now he wants to do something about it.

Am I just grasping at straws or is this a valid point? - kirkio 04:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

While there ARE parallels, in my opinion, with the entire Scientology ordeal, I don't think the events you mentioned really factor in. The situation is definitely referenced with the "episode pulling" stuff, but I doubt Darth Chef the Pedophile came back to get Kyle to help Cartman.


 * I'm thinking they meant that the "advice" was Cartman fooling him, and the "old friend," was a truce reference to said 'fatass.' If it was intended to be Chef, they would have made a pretty big deal out of the fact that he wasn't dead and was now a Vader-clone.

Also, the whole "I've been doing a lot of wrong things...one time," seems like more of the BS Cartman pulls whenever he tries to get his way (other times this is extremely similar to is when he tricks Butters into believeing a nuclear holocaust has happened so he can go the the taco place for Kyle's birthday). The creators of South park don't seem like stupid guys who waffle on their positions, and so it seems highly unlikely they would suddenly agree with Hayes reason's for leaving, unless they are associating him with their "a-hole" character, which would then still be in disagreement with his reasoning.Gnrlotto

New Bush?
This is the first episode with a president that looks like Bush? The previous ones looked more generic, even though it was clear that it's Bush because of the time frame, and because of (presumably) Condi standing beside him. And before that it was Clinton. Am I wrong?

Anyway, I've noticed before that the president drawing doesn't look too much like Bush (before this episode), and I was wondering if there's a reason for that? Matt & Tray thinking he was to easy a 'target' perhaps? --Bahati 05:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They've tended to lay off Bush for the most part, just because everyone else in comedy has ripped it into him, it's a bit more original if anything to not portray him as an ape. (And they did make a series about him, after all.)  Nuge | talk 12:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've gathered as much from this:

Q. - I know you've had Former President Clinton and Abe Lincoln (I think), but will you ever rip on George W. Bush? A. - Matt and Trey did an entire series about him entitled "That's My Bush." It's coming out on DVD this fall.


 * But still, something has changed and I'm curious as to what, why and when will it be more obvious. And how. Basically, I just know the 'where' and the 'who' so I'm vary intrigued. :) I think it warrants a trivia mention, so I'm gonna write it if there's no objection to the factual part - this episode being the first with a more obvious Bush. --Bahati 15:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a comparison:

It goes "Super Best Friends", "South Park is Gay" and "Cartoon Wars". In my opinion the first two variants look nothing like Bush and it bothered me for some time. The third image is exactly what I would expect Bush to look like in South Park. Can anyone even confirm the usage of name Bush in a SP episode? In "Super Best Friends" a guy (probably Larry from 'That's My Bush') walks up behind the President and says "Hay George!" and that's the only reference I know of. I think this is interesting, trivial and so far not proven incorrect so please stop deleting it from trivia "on site". --Bahati 17:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He was also in "Ladder to Heaven." They make a direct jab at the character portrayed as George Bush by asking him if he's High or just stupid. There'd be no point in that jab unless they were having a go at Bush himself. I don't think it should be added to the trivia that this is his first appearance since it's a debateable issue. If you can't prove it, don't add it. --Orichalcon


 * The image is not proof enough? Bush isn't the only person to be either high or stupid so I can't se the relevance of your remark. I agree the matter is debatable, everything is, but if you can't prove me wrong don't delete it.


 * If you read it more carefully you'll see I'm not saying Bush did not appear prior to this episode, even though it could be said. I'm saying that the character of the President looks more like Bush. I've changed the wording a bit to make this point more clear. --Bahati 18:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

what are the parodies in this episode ?
it really feels like the chase scene is a specific parody of an old movie, especially with the music and the zoom in of the handle bars and wheels as cartman and kyle take off for LA. also you see cartman talking about how he has to go out and do whats right etc etc....has anyone figured out what movie or movies they are specifically referencing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.225.75 (talk • contribs)

It could be a parody of any vehicle chase scene in movies of on television. When I saw it, it reminded me of the freeway chase scene from The Matrix Reloaded, especially the music they played during it and the police car tumbling into the median. When Cartman sent Kyle off the road by dropping the Cheesy Poofs and Kyle's Big Wheel exploded after falling off the cliff seems to parody the typical hollywood style of having a vehicle explode upon impact whenever one falls from great height, though in reality this rarely happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.239.164 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm going to update the "Cultural references" section of the page to reflect the possibility that it may be a parody of The Matrix Reloaded. If anybody thinks of any other specific movies that this scene references, add them (don't add, "it looks like a generic action scene". That's not encyclopedic) Jhinman 21:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Double Entendre
Does anyone else think the title is a double entendre? not only is it refering to the violent clash over the cartoons depicting muhammed, but also over the fact south park has essentially declared war on family guy. or was that really obvious?--154.20.161.143 19:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Dylan and Sarah
The melodramatic scene with "Dylan" and "Sarah" where Dylan volunteers to have his head unburied has got to be a parody of something. Anyone know what of?

I think it was probably just a pun at how there are always these anonymous people in the crowds in South Park, but it's always the known characters who come forward and talk. The name choices may be random, however there is a song "Sarah Jane" by Bob Dylan - Orichalcon 11:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's just parodying scenes in movie where this one guy takes the fall for everyone's safety and his wife tries to coerce him not to and whines. Evan

Seth MacFarlane's response
Here. --Fallout boy 15:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good for Seth. All the south park creators do is put him down whenever his show is compared to theirs. Personally I tried of this show in the first week. There's only so long you can watch horrbly drawn kids mutter profanity contantly. I find it an insult that a clever funny show like family guy is compared to such immatue repetitive trash such as this.


 * At least dogs don't constantly date humans on south park. The same is not true of family guy.

Wikipedia isnt a forum, but since we are treating it like one, IMHO, family guy uses more 'shock' humor, while south park relies on thick parody.

Is it fair to judge South Park solely on the pilot episode? I mean, it isn't construction paper anymore for a long while now. - Redmess (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise and Promotion
Could we cite the source that says that Cruise didn't promote MI: 3? I seem to recall seeing him doing a lot of promotion.

Super Best Friends?
I think its funny that no one seemed to care when south park showed muhhamad in the super best friends episode.


 * ... you're right. They did show him. And there was no rioting.


 * Probably has something to do with it not being on some Muslim's political agenda back then. - Redmess (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

MacFarlane
"Seth MacFarlane actually spoke highly of this episode at his Harvard speech." Are you sure he wasn't just being sarcastic? It didn't seem that earnest to me. --206.53.68.186 21:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Plot needs a re-write
The Plot section could use a good re-write to clean up the English, remove convoluted sentances etc. etc. 207.69.137.7 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge parts 1 and 2
In my opinion that would be foolish, they may be 1 episode split into 2 parts but they are still two 30 minute episodes and were meant to be seperate. Besides, due to all the controversy involved in the second episode with regards to censorship it would seem silly to merge the 2 parts as then it would be just one stupidly long episode article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.17.86 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles cannot be merged if Imaginationland is not. They both must be merged or separate. I could care either way.--Cartman005 23:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I undid the merge by Painbearer because I think the articles should be sepearate. Any editors planning on merging Cartoon Wars Part I and Cartoon Wars Part II should discuss it here. --Pixelface 21:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How about telling us WHY you think the articles should be seperate? The two articles are nothing but the plot and trivia/pop culture references. And the "Real-life censorship controversy" and "Critism and Phraise" sections in part 2 apply to BOTH articles. Merging is not a bad thing; it is for notability and readability purposes, which improves wikipedia and the articles themselves.--Swellman 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They're two separate episodes. The episodes are notable enough to have their own articles. Every other South Park episode has its own article. I can see how a merge may be good, it is a continuing storyline and one article might present the full story better. I just don't like the idea of editors merging articles then removing content. --Pixelface 08:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no content removed. The same info was presented, just in a more organized manner. They're practically the same article anyway, the only difference being the plot summaries.--Swellman 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-merge, with extension to Go God Go - Swellman's right. Pixelface, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with the third sentence. Yes, for readibility's sake, merges are best. With my merge with GGG, I just cutpasted the plot from one into the other. Any content removal afterwards would probably have happened sooner or later anyway (see WP:WAF, which suggests ~10 words a minute). There also seems to be precedent with television episodes to merge identical-titled (with the exception of "Part/Episode X" subtitles) episodes/story arcs into one consolidated article, e.g. Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story, "Encounter at Farpoint", "Pilot" and "Exodus" (both Lost). I tend to find this a bit easier not only for the reader, but also for the editor - production information would most likely be found to apply to both episodes, not just the one. For example, my rewrite of Doomsday (Doctor Who) was harder than Invasion of the Bane. With the former, the primary (mainly used) source I used had production information for both Doomsday and its preceder, Army of Ghosts, so I had to pick the things relevant to that episode. With Invasion of the Bane, it was easier, as I didn't have to pick and mix. Will (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-merge. Having two separate articles is less readable, and presents no advantage. The unmerge appears to be WP:POINT, essentially an objection to not having separate articles for every episode. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Old Episodes section?
If you notice when they are all running into the center place you can notice the chicken f***** nude with his arms covering his parts. Should this be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 345tom (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken Link at the Bottom of the Page
The link at the very bottom of the page, Seth MacFarlane's (Family Guy Creator) response to "Cartoon Wars", is broken. When you click on it, nothing happens at all. Opening it in a new tab also does not work. Does anyone know if the article has moved or been deleted, and if so, is there anything we can replace it with? PoddingtonGirl (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It linked to another website, not a Wiki article. I'm guessing the website took the page down - I've removed the link; thanks for pointing it out ≈  The Haunted Angel  21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)