Talk:Scott Tenorman Must Die

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Meaning of Life[edit]

someone back me up on this...when Cartman says "le ol' scheme" it's a parody of a sketch on the Monty Python movie "The Meaning of Life". Matt and Trey are known to use Monty Python parodies all the time...Peaceman 6 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Um, which sketch do you mean?
Anyways, does anybody know the name of the Maupassant story this is supposed to be based on? Eaglizard 23:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The sketch is the one right before the Zulu War sketch...if you've seen the movie you would know. Peaceman 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words?[edit]

Resolved

"Many fans often consider it to be the best episode ever.".. a bit 'weasely'? Is there a survey somewhere..?220.101.147.163 10:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It just is the funniest episode ever watch it . it might be a subjective opnion but it has definetly risen to cult status.amoung fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.201.98.196 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Information on the episode's fan reception has been added. --Mondotta (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead[edit]

Resolved

Anyone know if its actually their voices? I was under the impression that it was, but in Radiohead overview and influence it seems to imply that it wasn't. Anyone clear this up? Jdcooper 13:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the episode credits them as providing their voices. --Vyran 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy's[edit]

It's funny with the finger in the chili, sort of relating to the Wendy's incedent...although it happend 4 years after. Crazydog115 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the woman who found the finger in the chili got the idea from this episode, which in actual fact is kinda disgusting Sanbuster 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of incident keeps on popping up. Wierd, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.28.237 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section[edit]

Why has the entire trivia section for this episode been deleted? Throatybeard 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The trivia items should be written into the articles themselves not in a seperate section. To help ensure that we maintain an accurate, neutral, and verifiable encyclopedia; edits have to be able to withstand editorial scrutiny. Some resources for learning more about policies and guidelines governing episode articles can be found at: WP:EPISODE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV, WP:WAF, WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOT. The problem with the trivia is often not the information itself but rather, the way in which it was presented. Any claim has to be sourced to a reliable 3rd party publication. The work itself may be cited as a primary source but only to make descriptive claims of the work itself. NOR says-- "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sourceswherever possible. This means that we publish the opinions of reliableauthors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read the primarysource material for themselves." I hope I've been able to provide a useful answer. Cheers. L0b0t 01:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the end Stan says that they should never get Cartman angry again. But in later episodes, they seem to forget this vow and call him many different names.

I removed this Trivia entry for three reasons.

  1. It's non-notable.
  2. It constitutes original research.
  3. It's uncited.

Inconsistencies do not constitute "trivia." Television writers make lots of mistakes, with regard to both what's real and what they've written before. These mistakes, in and of themselves, are not notable — especially when the alleged "mistake" is just an offhand comment about not getting someone angry (as opposed to, say, changing the boys' names in Everybody Loves Raymond, or the one-time reference to George's brother in Seinfeld) — and therefore they do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia articles, even as trivia. But please remember that, even if this weren't the case, all trivia must be cited and referenced. See L0b0t's explanation above. Saying, "I've seen the episode and it's true" is not sufficient. Cribcage 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of an edit conflict, L0b0t's changes overrode mine. Great minds think alike. :-) Cribcage 23:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tucker Must Die parody in trivia?[edit]

How could the title of this episode (which came out in 2001) be a parody of John Tucker Must Die (which came out in 2006)? I doubt the movie had even been written at the time this episode aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.103.24 (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely the title was based off Romeo Must Die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.117.45 (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics[edit]

"Scott has red hair, therefore his pubes should be red too, which they were not in the episode."

Is that genetic fact? It seems a bit of a silly comment to me. Not everybody's hair colour correspondes with their pubic hair colour, as far as I'm aware. But maybe it's different for redheads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.37.143 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though i cant believe I am adding this to an article's discussion, i know my friends old girl friend was a red head and the carptet matched the drapes if you will. Ugghh....Cosmic Larva 08:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was the "ugghh" really necessary? :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.33.53 (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the carpet matches the drapes, as was just said. I don't know if it's possible for them not to match in a redhead, I've never checked. I am removing, however, the comment that his friends may have chipped in. He is seen bragging to those very friends that he sold his own pubes. Professor Chaos 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be into the article but I think most red hairs will have red pubic hair. According to red hair it is caused by a red hair is caused by a recessive mutant allele. Human hair color in general varies because of a difference in the amount of eumalanin. From blonde to black. Red is a special case since the mutation results in a greatly increased production of pheomelanin as opposed to eumelanin. Human pubic hair colour can vary from human scalp hair colour in the sense it can be lighter or (more usually) darker. If someone has recessive allele I would suspect they would have red hair due to a greatly increased production of pheomelanin. The level may vary so it may not necessarily be the same shade of red but I would suspect it would still be red. There is a chance the the level would be low enough that it would appear blonde however Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know a brown-haired guy with a ginger beard --Jan-da-man (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titus andronicus[edit]

Doesnt any1 see the paralells between this episode and shakespeares "titus andronicus"?, i found these:

1) circle of revenge

2) the act of making someone eat their kin

really just the act of getting revenge and plotting and shit. someone should look it up on sparknotes or something and add it in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.209.25 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you getting mixed up with one of the stories in Ovid's Metamorphoses where the King is served a dish made from his son? I don't remember anything reminiscent of this in Andronicus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.70.118 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there is a whole part like that in Titus Andronicus, and actually there are references to the Ovid story (like literally it says "Metamorphoses" in the text). But anyhow, I don't really think the idea of the show came to Matt and Trey by any of these literary works. This "I'll make you eat your parents" thing isn't really that hard to come up with I think (it's basically the same thing as how they were accused of stealing the idea for Up the Down Steroid from the Johnny Knoxville movie, which [as I heard] involves Knoxville joining the special olympics...). --Szajd (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other stories where people are tricked into cannibalism. I don't see how there's much connection with Titus Andronicus, except the very thin connection that someone is tricked into eating a relative (though in TA it's a parent eating children, in the SP episode it's the other way around). There are no other similarities. Lacking any kind of source that Parker and Stone had TA in mind, I think this ought to be removed--and I'll go ahead and do it. -- Narsil (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Titus Andronicus is the most culturally known example of a story where someone is tricked into cannibalizing a relative, and I think its where Stone & Parker got the idea from. Not to mention it happens in a similar manner, with the relatives in question killed on an errand of the antagonist to thwart the protagonist in what the antagonist "thinks" the protagonist's plot for revenge is. The facts that the cannibalism takes place right at the end of the story, at a banquet, in front of a higher authority than either the protagonist or antagonist (in TA its the Emperor, in SP its Radiohead), and is based on the parent-child relationship (although as previously stated, its reversed in SP from TA) make it seem to me like Stone and Parker were definitely paying some tribute to TA. I don't think you need to find a source where Stone or Parker explicitly said so to leave the reference in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lwriv7 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this entire conversation is original research; and you can't just "think" that "its where Stone & Parker got the idea from."—DMCer™ 17:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced information about the similarities to Titus Andronicus have now been added. --Mondotta (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny's Spirit[edit]

Resolved

I've looked at that scene many times and don't see even a hint of a "laughing spirit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.20.253 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.51.102 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2007
shortly...yes. i also saw it laughing (holding his hands to the belly) 87.177.215.192 23:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The laughing spirit was only added at the second airing of the episode. --Szajd 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information has been written about the addition of the ghost after the episode's first broadcast. --Mondotta (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense[edit]

Resolved
Cartman excitedly brags to the rest of the gang that he is the first to reach puberty, since he's gotten his first pubes. It turns out, however, that he has only bought the pubic hairs from a 15 year old boy, Scott Tenorman (voiced by Toby Morton), rather than growing them himself. Cartman is outraged at having been conned.

The above from the plot summary seems to be missing something to me. How exactly was Cartman conned? Was he somehow not aware that he had bought the pubic hairs? Were the pubic hairs not really pubic hairs? Was he lead to believe that attaching pubic hair would make them grow? Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I've clarified it from the Scott Tenorman article. It appears Cartman thought buying them would be sufficient for him to reach puberty Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

All those things in the censorship category that are claimed to be censored, are not censored in the US. I'm watching the episode right now, and I saw all those scenes that were claimed to be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stripedtiger (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since there seems to be many areas where this episode is not censored and there are no sources that claim these censorships to be true, I'm going to go ahead and remove the Censorship category until sources are provided.--Stripedtiger (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tenorman[edit]

Resolved
 – Details removed from plot summary. --Mondotta (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but before they can go any further Cartman spots Mrs. Tenorman undressing and shifts his focus there."

I'm pretty sure Ned is the one that spots Miss Tenorman undressing, since Jimbo asks him what's going on. Cartman leaves right after discovering Scott's love of Radiohead. AznWarlord (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cartman spots her undressing and then gives Jimbo the binoculars. Did it not occur to you to actually check the episode? Philip Reuben (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grade?[edit]

It's not really worth noting, but at the start of the episode kyle states that Scott Tenorman is a 9th grader but later when Cartman gathers everybody together Stan says that he's in grade 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.25.137 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct airdate?[edit]

Resolved

I'm certain that the airdate and positioning in the season listed here is incorrect. I've always seen 'It Hits The Fan' broadcast as the first episodes of the fifth season, with 'Scott Tenorman Must Die' broadcast fourth, between 'Super Best Friends' and 'Terrance and Phillip: Behind the Blow'. TV.com also lists it in this order. Jay Firestorm (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The episode guide at Southparkstudios lists it as the first episode of the fifth season, but its original airdate of Jul 11, 2001, comes between episodes 504 and 505 (Jul 4 and 18 respectively). Alastairward (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct information about the episode's placement within the season has now been added. --Mondotta (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler.[edit]

The description beneath the picture is not nice to people who didn't watch the episode yet. I changed it to avoid that spoil.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Tenorman_Must_Die&oldid=1207827215"