Talk:Home Movies (TV series)

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

New Season Possibility[edit]

Shout Factory announced something in late 2006 on their myspace blog and never made an update. anyone else notice this? Wikipedia wouldn't let me link to it for some reason.. *Update* Found a link that links to it :p http://homemovies.toonzone.net/index.html click "Blog Post"

Josie[edit]

In the Home Movies article it states that Brendon's little sister Josie is adopted. But I don't ever remember seeing in any episode that she was adopted, Can someone please indicate an episode where this was stated? Otherwise I think the article should just say Brendon's little sister Josie and not include the word adopted until it can be substantiated. Misterrick 08:01, 17 April 2005 (UTC).[reply]

In an episode called "Temporary Blindness" Brendon has to do a project for school about his family. And while talking to Paula about it they say Josie is adopted. 24.63.24.77, 21 May 2005 (UTC).

I always thought this was a joke and that Josie was a child from an affair.

I think such a detail should be in a lower section that is marked with a spoiler warning

I wouldn't consider it a spoiler, since it's simply an off-comment that doesn't imact any stories or plot points.

Josie is black and was stated that she was adopted. She's adopted.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. You're wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.47.144 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple episodes state she was adopted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.161.188.11 (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only episode addressing Josie's parentage is Temporary Blindness with the subplot about Mr. Lynch's family tree project. As Brendon's family tree is filled with carnival workers and convicts, he and Paula decide to spice up Josie's heritage by lying about her adoption to make her seem interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerlockrawk (talk • contribs) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

retroscripting only in season 1?[edit]

I saw this website: here. "However, I do think the second season would have been better if Soup2Nuts still used the RetroScripting technique." Can anyone confirm that they stopped using this technique after the first season? -Hyad 08:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Per the DVD commentary on Season 1, Episode 106 "Director's Cut" (Disc Two), only the UPN episodes (1-5) were retroscripted.

I just verified it. At 2:13 into the Episode, Loren Bouchard says "Hey, this is the first episode with a script!" and then Brendon confirms it and talks about Bill Braudis (the show's writer.) -Herandar 23:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

More comments about the scripts and retroscripting at 5:41in the same episode. -Herandar 23:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Season Summary

The person who wrote the season summary made a lot of errors. He uses his own bias and makes a lot of over-generalizations about each season.

Duane/Dwane[edit]

I did see Duane's name spelled "Dwane" at one spot in one episode (a subtitle in Brendon's Battle of the Bands documentary in "Hiatus") but it hardly seems worth mentioning the alternate spelling. "Duane" is clearly how they have decided it should be spelled on the DVD covers, in multiple places at least on the Season 2 cases.

This was probably a joke about how poorly made Brendon's documentary was. Gatesofawesome!

Mitch[edit]

I think the Mitch character should be mentioned because it was the late Mitch Hedberg that played the character, and this was probably the most famous guest on the show

I'll add a celebrity guest section, including Mitch's 4 appearances, soon. --TheMidnighters 13:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason = poor?[edit]

Is Jason supposed to be poor or rich? In one episode he mentions that he sleeps in a bunkbed with his father (which would imply that he doesn't even have his own bedroom), yet in another episode he has a membership to a country club. I think there are some other references to him being poor but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

I think there are more signs pointing to his family being rich. The bunkbed doesn't necessarily mean that they're poor, just weird. In another episode Jason can't get in touch with his parents, who are in a hotel in Tunisia. Given the style of the show, and Benjamin's improvising, you could probably find justification for either option. --TheMidnighters 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, too, that Jason's family can afford to belong to a members-only country club, which Brendon makes use of in one episode by masquerading as Jason.12.162.189.80 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paula poundstone, louis ck and laura silverman are all quite a bit more famous than mitch hedberg was.(loved his humor and miss him though) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.56.132 (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science court[edit]

a few of the characters and I think some of the style of this show comes from an old show I used to watch called 'science court'. If anyone cares to track down a citation for this, then that'd add to the article. If not, i dont really care.

wikiquote[edit]

wikiquote stuff doesn't work. something with the titles.


Proposed merge[edit]

I proposed that we merge Scab (band) into this article. Currently, there are 3 articles about Home Movies: Home Movies (TV series), List of Home Movies episodes, and Scab (band). I would say Scab is hardly a major enough part of the show to deserve its own article, especially when none of the other characters have their own articles. There's not a whole lot of useful info in the Scab article, so I would suggest that we maybe merge the interesting fact or two that is there into the 'Style' section of the Home Movies article. Any thoughts? --Gpollock 05:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Season Summary[edit]

The person who wrote the season summary made a lot of errors. He uses his own bias and makes a lot of over-generalizations about each season.

Feel free to fix it yourself. VolatileChemical 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Count Popula[edit]

Is Count Popula an actual character? If not, please consider deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ng.j (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Count Popula is not a character, but he is referenced in the show. He is "the pope's cousin, a magical monster with pencils for arms." MrCheshire 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed character section split[edit]

I move the "Characters" section be moved to a new page. I think it's long enough. VolatileChemical 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. When it goes get moved, I'll try to help expand on the character bios, to ensure that the new page is justified. MrCheshire 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Those bios need some serious expansion. Serious. Ly. VolatileChemical 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's done. In case no one noticed. VolatileChemical 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Brendon's Age[edit]

In the show Brendon is repeatedly referred to as being in the 4th grade, and is also referred to as being 8. Shamas also has his 8th birthday in the first season and is in the 4th grade of another school. Brendon should then be about 10 unless he skipped 2 years. Is this worth mentioning?

No wonder he does so poorly in school. I wouldn't put it past the crappy school he attends to have just gotten the numbers wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.204.139 (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Homemovies sm.png[edit]

Image:Homemovies sm.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Song=Spinning Wheel[edit]

Is this shows theme song supposed to be an interpretation of the song "Spinning Wheel" by the band Blood,Sweat and Tears?-Sign Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Josie is not adopted[edit]

Or is she? It's not clear. I could be wrong, but there is no time in home movies where they explicitly say that Josie is adopted. This is just some pervasive roomer that has inundated the internet. As for "Temporary Blindness", the conversation is this:

(when talking about the family tree) B:"well it's good to know that we come from good stock" P:"yes it is" B"most of them seem to be carnies" P:"or on the lamb" B:"I feel like maybe not including them on the family tree" P:"I wouldn't object to that" B:"So what do we got?" P:"You, me, your father, your step-mother, your grandparents, and your sister. B:"My sister...Josie, yeah but what do we really know about her?" P:"Well she hasn't been to prison yet" B:"Well we don't REALLY know that do we?" P:"There were two days that I lost her"

Go to veoh and check it out yourself.

Not adopted: -First of all the Family tree has a branch for Josie which branches off from "Mom" and "Dad". "Josie has the same relation to "Mom" as "Mom" has to "grandma 1". However this may just be a cartoony representation. -They never use the word "adopted" in this entire show. - The interpretation of the conservation would be this: Brendon is joking around with his mother like he always does. "What do we really know about her?" should be viewed as a joke. Paula responds in kind by joking that she might have been in prison during the two-day stint when she lost her, but she never mentions any early age.

Adopted: - We have to view Brendon's comment as alluding to the fact that Josie is adopted. "Well we don't really know [that she wasn't in prison]" is referring to Josie's early life. - Her skin looks darker (but then again this could be artistic license: Paula doesn't have that same tone as her mother, Fenton doesn't have the same as his mother.)

I really don't know myself, I'm pretty sure that they never explicitly say that she is adopted. If they do, please put up some citation. Everyone seems to be copying the wikipedia article, which I worry might be wrong, so I'm going to remove adoption references until someone with further knowledge can fill it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.47.144 (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I have to watch the entire episode. It does say she is adopted right before Melissa talks about her Family Tree. Sorry for this long annoying post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.47.144 (talk) 07:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a throw-away joke in season 4, and certainly not a big deal. There is no reason at all that it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article. It possibly could be mentioned on the character page, but only because it semi-explains why Brendan has such a little sister, but just barely remembers his dad. However, there are already way too many "This one time..."s on the character page as it is. -- Marvin01 | talk 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalytic basis of characters[edit]

It has occurred to me that the characters of Brendan, Melissa and Jason represent the ego, superego, and id of psychoanalytic theory, but I haven't found any corroborating statements from the show's creators. Has anyone encountered this idea in interviews or such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.225.130 (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of the Sucker Punch[edit]

I propose that the above article is merged into this as the individual episode clearly fails the criteria of WP:EPISODE. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super strong oppose to merge There are a large amount of reliable sources to keep this. You need to recheck the criteria. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. Clearly, this article passes WP:N as there are plenty of reliable third-party sources to establish notability. The articles are well-written, well sourced and contains plenty of information beyond the plot-and-trivia-lists that most television episodes articles unfortunately end up becoming. — Hunter Kahn 01:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are: [1] a review of the series, no mention of this episode; likewise [2]; [3], one line plot tease and cast list; [4] review of the series, the episode is not mentioned; [5] three line plot summary; [6] review of the series, no mention of this episode; [7] overview of the series, no mention of this episode; [8] review of the series, with a listing of episodes; [9] DVD review, the episode is not listed as being on the DVD. None of this amounts to "substantial coverage" of the iepisode as required by WP:NOTE and WP:EPISODE, which says: "While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. (See examples listed below). Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory." The series has sufficient notability, but individual episodes don't. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point of the article, and that's the way the reception is handled, a fact which is key to the notability of an episode article (a glaringly obvious fact which you would know if you were more familiar with the workings of WP:TV, although I might be over exaggerating as to how well known that is...) and you are clearly not understand just how these sources are being used to establish it. You're not reading carefully enough to see just how these so called "no mentioning of the episode" and such is false, and how every single review quite clearly mentions the plot of the episode at the very least, and mentions a critical opinion to the themes that are used in that plot and others. Not the mention, its viewership is discussed quite critically through very reliable newspaper publications. I do not find the general logic in your argument, and think your assertion that the sources are not being used well enough is because you are not reading carefully enough in the sources to notice just how this is being critically discussed. Thank you, The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please list the refrences, which in your opinion give "substantial coverage" of the episode "The Art of the Sucker Punch", as opposed to an overview of the series. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Broadcast and Cable articles, the DVD commentary especially, the Drawn to Television book, and both DVD reviews, which (though not being entirely about the episode) "is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The occurrence is more than trivial as it gives this reviewers their specific critical opinion of the episode, its plot, and its theme. Please stop repeating the same thing over again and avoiding the facts given to you, as it is getting this discussion absolutely nowhere. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcasting and Cable "gave a Nielsen rating of of 1.0/2" (the other "article" is a rating for another episode); "the DVD commentary especially" WP:SPS; "Drawn to Television: Primetime Television from The Flinstones to Family Guy, M. Keith Booker" - I would be interested to see what specifically this book says about this episode in its 208 pages covering “The history of prime-time animation from Flintstones to modern times"; DVDTalk says about this epidsode, "'The Art of the Sucker Punch' - Brendon helps Jason deal with a bully."; DVD veridct says: ""The Art of the Sucker Punch" - When the local bully Shannon (Emo Phillips) beats up Jason, Brendon decides he's going to take revenge by challenging him to a fight. Of course he'll also make a When We Were Kings-like film at the same time. There's just one hitch—Brendon is a horrible fighter. Coach McGuirk steps in to give him some pointers."; Film.com says: oh, it says nothing about this episode, not even a track listing. Sorry, but the "substantial coverage" has either been removed from those sources by evil aliens (or should that be gnomes), or it was never there in the first place. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Real nice job looking for the specific plot/character references on the web pages that give a critical opinion of the episode! It really shows just how much you're listening! </sarcasm> I'm getting quite tired of this discussion, and dealing with someone who refuses to listen to explanations. I shall let other users give their opinion so this can reach a consensus, and it's not just one huge argument between the two of us which goes no where. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 18:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved - re: I believe that anyone searching Home Movies (with Movies capitalized) is likely intending the TV series, the ability to divine what anyone was searching for on WP among millions of users is not a basis for a title change. Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Home Movies (TV series) → Home Movies – Per WP:DIFFCAPS. I believe that anyone searching Home Movies (with Movies capitalized) is likely intending the TV series. For one, the show gets much more page views than Home movies (latest 90 is 43783 compared to 10002), so I doubt the redirect is doing anyone any favors. It also beats the other topics called Home Movies that capitalize the M by a rather large margin (89% in total). Long-term significance should not be an issue because the show has been off the air for a decade now. So yeah, follow the example set by Ice Cube/Fallout Shelter/Blank Page whatever and move the page. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, as I said though the show is definitely the primary topic out of all those. Nohomersryan (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But there doesn't have to be an absolute topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Important point that is surprisingly commonly overlooked. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

CD[edit]

Isn't it too commercial to include CD releases? Other sitcoms or animations don't have this section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:85CB:D00D:634D:E2B8 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Home Movies (TV series). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Home Movies (TV series). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Home Movies (TV series). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

one example of Why I Hate Categories[edit]

Categories are nothing but generalized magnets for useless fancruft, thus encouraging fanboy wankers to sign up for W'pedia just to one-up each other rather than do any actual progressive editing of articles. Like most Lists, Categories depend primarily upon conjecture, original research, and editorial synthesis.

How is this both 1999 American television series debuts and 2001 American television series debuts? It jumped to another network, so I also don't see how it fits American television series revived after cancellation.

I've only seen maybe half the episodes, and can't see where it belongs with Television shows set in the United States. It could be Canada, or Germany (or, really, suburban Tokyo).
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Home_Movies_(TV_series)&oldid=1210058534"