Talk:View Askewniverse

=cleanup tag added=

This article needs serious work, so I added it to the cleanup list. It's a fairly important and oft-linked-to article, but right now it's a mass of incoherent lists, incomprehensible writing, in-jokes and unexeplained references and abbreviations, which makes it of limited use to anyone not already well-versed in the films (like, say, me). I'll do what I can, but I think someone more expert that me is going to have to come along if we want to turn this into a decent article. --Misterwindupbird 00:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add about this article, but I would like to say that Misterwindupbird's page is funny. Thank you. Wikiwarlock

I removed the clean up tag, because it looks pretty good now, and I did a few additons, and because Clerks II has come out, and people go online for info and if they come to the page, its a bit of an eye sore. Add it again if you feel you need to. tourettes1992


 * this is something i usually work on so I will probably get to it soon.--Torourkeus 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can thank me for the recurring characters table ;-) Someone please reorder the actors alphabetically by last name. F15x28 03:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

=Motifs= Please note that I officially moved the motif's to here: View Askewniverse Motifs. I also restructured it in a way explained in the first talk entry for that episode. I don't know how to add it to the Kevin Smith box though. BTW, I'll also move the following to the Motif page.--Torourkeus 22:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A note on motifs
When I revised this section, my idea was to keep it to a few examples of each, rather than listing every single reference to Star Wars, Jaws, hockey, etc. After several additions, I've again edited down some of the entries, as this seems to be the main thing that bogs down the entry (and primary source of "incoherent lists" -- among other things, people have added DVD deleted scenes and the "37" jersey in Mallrats (on which the number is never clearly seen on screen).

Is there some overarching need for Wikipedia to have a list of all VA references, particularly since there's zero chance such a list would ever be complete and comprehensive? - Hedgey42 06:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(Added later: And are hockey, Star Wars, Jaws and Degrassi necessarily Askewniverse motifs, or just director's trademarks? - Hedgey42 07:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I would suggest maybe separating "View Askewniverse Motifs" into a new article. I'd also suggest that hockey, Star Wars, Jaws, and Degrassi are directors trademarks, as well as motifs.  While in Clerks references seemed to be for his own amusement, in some of the later movies references have been purposely thrown in as you can hear on any of the DVD commentaries.  Also I'd suggest the motif section be more succinct.  Meaning, it follows the following format:
 * In Clerks ...
 * In Mallrats ...
 * Etc.
 * rather than the mention of the movie be grammatically and semantically random. It may actually reduce the number of bullet points because there can be one for each movie rather than one for each time a motif occurs.  --Torourkeus 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Should smoking be added to the motifs?

 * i don't think so. I can't think of a notable reference to suggest it is a motif.  Jay and Silent Bob smoke but I can't think of any other characters that do.  The only other reference involves Dante and Randal at the quick stop in both Clerks and Jay & Silent Bob Strike back.  In Dogma, it almost seems like the issue's avoided to some degree: i'd imagine the mooby empire could have much easier been done to a cigarette company or something but it wasn't.--Torourkeus 13:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire principle cast of Chasing Amy smokes. SChaos1701 (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Motif
Randal mentions carbonite when in jail in Clerks ii. Han Solo was frozen in carbonite. Somebody please elaborate on this and add it to the main page when ready.

Well should it?--Greasysteve13 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * go ahead--Torourkeus 13:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Girl

 * I thought Jersey Girl was outside of the View Askewniverse. --Torourkeus 17:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Director's Trademark: 37 section removed
I removed the section "Director's Trademark: 37" because it appears also appears in the article, List of View Askewniverse motifs, with more details.

Location
"The View Askewniverse is centered on the towns of Leonardo and Red Bank, both located in Monmouth County, central New Jersey."

Wasn't it Asbury Park?

82.176.211.33 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clerks.jpg
Image:Clerks.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a part of the View Askewniverse
Why are films and television shows that are not part of the View Askewniverse listed within these sections? At least they should be moved to a Reference section. --Joe Christl 15:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Recurring actors
Why has Jake Richardson been included in recurring actors? He's in one film.. as an extra.. This should be removed untill he has Recurred in a future film.

Edit: Has been removed

Philbuck222 00:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The recurring actors section is messy... why not put the same table that Kevin Smith has in his article? --Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also under recurring actors, I thought Joey Lauren Adams appeared in Clerks II as a bank clerk. It's a brief shot wherein she's screen left and revealed for a split-second when a customer moves.  I seem to remember hearing it confirmed in the commentary.  Should that be included in her listing then?  (Unless, of course, my @$$ is itchy and I'm rembmering it all wrong.)
 * Medleystudios72 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Motifs (agian)
Um, so, the list of Motifs was deleted. Any chance of bringing it back to the main page? --Scorp Stanton (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Animated Series
Is very, very much not cannon and should be moved to that section as well as removed from the table. -MichiganCharms (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you. The 6th episode pretty much cemented that conclusion.  Although, I've seen nothing by Kevin Smith wherein he delineates what is and is not canon.  Is there something out there by him making the distinction?  After all, they break the 4th wall in J&SBSB, so Smith himself might consider it canon since he has that right.  Medleystudios72 (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not outright, though. I'd say a pretty reliable basis is how well it fits with the rest of the films. Without J&SSB as canon, the idea that Jay and Bob having the money to buy (or at least invest in the buying) of the Quick Stop and RST in Clerks II is pretty outlandish. Smith admits as much on the commentary. Jay even mentions it outright in a deleted scene. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:View Askew.gif
The image Image:View Askew.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

=Blanking of Recurring Characters Section=

Page Merit Itself
My position: the 'recurring characters' section should not be blanked/removed from the article in favor of the casting article. The recurring characters section is preferable in that it documents the recurrence of characters in the different films within the universe, which is appropriate for a wiki page about the story universe itself -- and, as well, the table supplementarily documents which crew repeated the same behind-the-scenes roles from film to film. The 'casting' article that is suggested to be superior only uses 'X's documenting the recurrence of actors (and actors only). Further, some actors listed in this page's 'recurring characters' section are not even present on the casting page held out to be superior.
 * Well, why not incorporate the information in your table with the casting article instead of insisting that it be in this article? That would be a very constructive compromise and would keep this article clean and trim.  DP 76764  (Talk) 00:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about the film universe in which the characters created by Kevin Smith inhabit. Documenting said characters' appearance in the universe is not only appropriate to, but an intrinsic element of, an article on said universe.  Additionally, casting is a word that restricts a subject matter to actors.  The table thoroughly documents the recurrence of behind-the-scenes roles that individuals have performed (i.e., producer, director, writer, editor, D.P.).  For these reasons, moving this data to a separate casting article strikes me as an entirely poor move. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Resignation of position. I can't believe I let myself get sucked into this again. Do whatever you like.  I was pissed off that you came along and completely wiped out about 90 minutes' worth of work on the article without even so much as a token "hey, this is what I think, let's come to a consensus", and, you know what?  Prior experience should have taught me that this is the result of actually investing any substantial amount of time into improving Wikipedia.  The place is a sinkhole: infighting defeats everything, and absorbs hundreds of manhours of time that need to go elsewhere anyway.  Do whatever you like.  I'm back to occasional typo patrol. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposing position (held by JpGrB/Dp76764): the 'recurring characters' section is "malformatted"/"scrambled"/etc. and is somehow deficient when compared to 'recurring characters' section. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Behavior
My position: Abruptly removing information from the article without any attempt at salvage or correction -- information that is not duplicated in the so-called "better" article -- is blanking. Furthermore, simply labeling those who disagree with you a "troll" (see talk pages), and repeatedly doing so, demonstrates a lack of committment to WP:AGF. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, an editor acting in good faith would not participate in such behavior as: edit warring, ignoring repeated requests for discussion and falsely accusing others of vandalism. Second, if one compares the facts of the situation to the examples in WP:BLANKING, one will find your suggestion that the content removal in question was vandalism to be false; none of the examples listed in that section coincide with the edits today, on the contrary, the edits today coincide more with the next section in that article: "When blanking is almost certainly not vandalism/testing".  DP 76764  (Talk) 00:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to feel that your, and the other editor's, actions met the "blanking as vandalism" point of "when all or large amounts of obviously appropriate articles (including featured articles) are blanked", in this case the section you were removing being a "large amount" (35% of the original page size -- 6k/17k) of an "obviously appropriate article."
 * Further, reversion of page blanking does not fall under 3RR ("edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking").
 * While I would not hesitate to continue discussion in this section, it strikes me as the most likely to personalize, and raise the ire of, all two (or three) editors in this situation who should instead be focusing on coming to a peaceful resolution.
 * I'll admit that your talk page banter with the other editor was what raised my ire and led me to create this subsection of the "working it out" area.
 * If you want to continue hashing out the behavioral aspect of who was at fault and who wasn't, I'm certainly ready to continue doing so. However, leaving this section open strikes me as most likely counterproductive.  Therefore, I move we close it. 207.181.228.210 (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Characters of View Askewniverse?
That article had no consensus at AfD. It's unsourced, and it was proposed that it be merged here at the AfD. Is this a good way to deal with this content? Fences &amp;  Windows  17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Three major points:
I am leaving this open to discussion. I assure you a consensus will be reached before I make these changes. (That being said, the motifs section was informative and should be reinstated, as should a separate section for in-jokes. Things like hockey and Star Wars are motifs, things like 37 and 90% of Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back are in-jokes. Perhaps, in light of J&SBSB, delegating the in-jokes to the individual film pages might be a better idea.)
 * 1) Clerks the Animated Series is not canon and should not be treated as such. The laws of it's reality are clearly different from that of the rest of the Askewniverse, if such laws exist. (Let us not forget that it's hard to tell what the series itself accepts as it's own canon, as one episode has a Duck Amuck-esque ending, another has multiple endings, and yet a third has the episode hijacked by the overseas animators.) If this is not enough evidence, let us not forget that the same episode with the Duck Amuck-esque ending began with the characters attending a fan convention for the film as guest speakers. If, hypothetically, the film and show are in the same continuity, then the film itself would not exist in much the same way depicting The Simpsons merchandise in Futurama (and vice-versa) set them in different canons. Therefore, it should be removed from this article or at least moved to the "Non-canon" section and taken off the "frequent cast" table. On that note...
 * 2) Due to the listing of crew credits as well as cast credits, the table in that section is hard to read. I suggest relocating the crew information into a separate table to make things less muddled.
 * Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

quote in leader potentially whack
Smith has recently stated that the "Askewniverse" may be effectively abandoned as he feels the Jay and Silent Bob characters may be played out, and citing his desire to move forward in his career.

this is a quote to which i cannot follow the link.

whattup with dat? LazyMapleSunday (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The future of the Askewniverse characters
Smith has said in recent interviews that he would be open to using the Askewniverse characters in mediums other than theatrical films, like TV and internet media. This should be noted in the article.

Chart needs to be fixed
The chart of "Recurring actors" is messed up as someone went and added production credits, which have nothing to do with actors. As a result, things like the reference to Smith's second character cut from Clerks I is rendered very hard to read. I tried to remove this stuff but just ended up messing up the chart format. All references to writer, producer, etc need to go - this chart is for acting roles only. 70.72.221.229 (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

So You Redirected Mooby the Golden Calf Here
You've redirected this page here but there is absolutely no mention of Mooby on this page anywhere at all. 68.170.222.129 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Unhappy Reader

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on View Askewniverse. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060721120720/http://newsaskew.com:80/ to http://www.newsaskew.com/
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070110182540/http://www.fbi945movies.libsyn.com:80/index.php?post_id=132290 to http://www.fbi945movies.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=132290

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) 11:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

True North Trilogy
With Jay and Silent Bob featuring in Moose Jaws, and with said film existing in the same universe as Tusk and Yoga Hoosiers, should not all three at least be mentioned here? One could argue they are fully part of the View Askewniverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:E748:0:0:0:A100:D293 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Vulgar
The film Vulgar, while not a Kevin Smith movie, mentions Walt Flanagan's dog canonically. Should there be a mention of Vulgar as a potentially-connected film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.187.196 (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Zack and Miri
Should Zack and Miri retroactively be added to the list? Smith has said Justin Long's character in Reboot, who is unnamed, is meant to be Brandon St. Randy, but couldn't be called that for legal reasons. So he doesn't get a name at all.--Aresef (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)