Talk:You're Getting Old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article You're Getting Old has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
September 20, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Animation / American / Television (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Comedy (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject South Park (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Park, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles related to South Park. If you wish to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


This episode is notable. Delete every other episode article, but an episode that virtually writes out the main character and splits his family is pretty damn significant in the overall run of the series, at least until it's resolved -- (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


You have no reason to believe 1) That Parker and Stone will make any acknowledgement of what happened at the end of this episode ever again (seriously, I wouldn't put it past them to just ignore it all). 2) Stan will not return to South Park in the next episode (or sometime soon) 3) Randy and Sharon won't get back together in the next episode (or sometime soon)

That being said, the episode is obviously notable.-- (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

re "you have no reason to believe -ignore it all -stan comes back -randy & sharon get back together" : we do have a reason to believe this. sharon says ~"how much longer can we keep doing this, it's like the same shit just happens over & over & over, then in a week is just all resets until it happens again. every week it's the same story in a different way, but it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous" -- the episode ends with a serious non-mocked song, also, which i believe(no citation, i'm not sure) has never happened before.

Actually, the quote, "then in a week is just all resets," is pretty clear evidence that things are just going to "reset." Knowing the style of South Park, this is undoubtedly the same sort of thing that happened in a certain episode of Futurama, where they note how everything can be a total mess one week, and by the next, everything is back to normal and as if nothing ever happened.Igglybuff63 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

however, since this episode is also the "mid-season finale" as advertised on south park studios[1], we might not be able to put it into context via an article until season 15b opens. let's just do what we can in the meantime.

It is also notable that Kenny was completely unhooded( no mask or hat ) which is a first in the shows 15 years. The only other time was in the movie. Harlequence (talk)

What about when Mr Jefferson chucks him into the roof? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

nope he had a mask that covered 1/2 his face. Same for the baseball episode and for Mysterion. The only time we have gotten a pic this clear is the movie After surfing the SPstudios forums for a long time, I can pretty safely say I take back my previous statement - BUT it should be noted that they used a Stevie Nicks song at the end, and they despise Stevie Nicks. They think she sounds like a goat. It's unlikely that they would use her music to create a somber and sentimental moment marking the beginning of the end of the series, rather than doing so in some kind of twisted satirical manner.

Okay, I'll stop treating WP like a forum and leave now -- (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


this episode is clearly a milestone for south park - it is the first episode that tells of and ends on a genuine split in the friendship between stan & kyle. this episode just aired a few hours ago, and should require extensive analysis & gathering of cited information, in which of course a team (let's assemble now) of us will participate.

on the question of whether this episode is noteworthy enough to require its own article: yes. please do not consider suggesting otherwise without posting a rebuttal here. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlequence (talkcontribs) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The template says "please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." No one's advocating deletion, the article is currently just a plot summary, which is unacceptable. There are a lot of SP episode articles which don't establish notability. And your opinion doesn't make something notable, availability of sources does. There will be sources, we just need to check all the usual spots (AVclub, IGN etc.) and add them to the article. - filelakeshoe 08:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thank you for the information, somehow the topic of deletion came up in discussion & i wrongly associated said topic with the templates. what you say of opinion seems rude, as "should require extensive analysis & gathering of cited information" is either not an opinion or is an opinion applicable to virtually every (pseudo-)encyclopedic document. unless you mean that "extensive analysis" implies opinion in the editorial sense, and you've brought a question to mind for me here: with the mysterious nature of this south park episode, i would like to see analysis included in our article, but i realize we must steadfastly keep in line with our NPOV policy - if analytical/editorial ideation, which by definition borders on opinion, is common enough & published such that a few respected sources may be cited, should we include it? i suppose the answer is "check the NPOV guidelines" but i couldn't find anything specific to this type of situation. so i'd be grateful both to people who know of a policy answer &or to people who could provide logically-sound-enough-to-be-obviously-'right' guideline ideation.--Harlequence (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fan attempted suicide?[edit]

One of the members on South Park Studios own forums may have attempted suicide after watching this episode, not sure if it's legit yet, but maybe it will be something worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It will be if it gets reported, sure, until then it's just speculation. I can't read the forum post since my IP (possibly range?) has been banned from the SP forums for "spamming scientology blogs", which I'm quite amused by (I've never posted there in my life...) - filelakeshoe 10:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not a rumor hound, but I can confirm it is real due to being a friend with him on facebook and getting updates from his FB page and family. He almost attempted this after "Mystery of the Urinal Deuce", where Stan pulls a gun on Kyle. I know it doesn't make it notable or wiki worthy as it isn't reported in the news, but wanted to just put it out there before some people started calling it a fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra information. Now this should be removed. There are no news reports of any suicide attempts after previous episodes. The account that posted the "suicide note" and the account "that the police called back" were created within a month of each other back in 2004. If this is not one individual running two accounts for the attention (my opinion, but I reiterate, this is not the place for opinions) then it is probably a minor (underage) individual who can not be discussed in media reports. Either way, the potential to improve this article with this information is zero. (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Just to make sure I was doing my due diligence, I contacted Erin Richards of the Journal Sentinel with the story tip. She wrote an article on the subject back in 2006 (involving a girl who did commit suicide) and she continues to write other online-viewable articles with the same paper today. A good Samaritan saving the life of a fellow forum user with very little personal information certainly deserves proper recognition. (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

some links from a guy too lazy to incorporate them[edit]

Not a lot of separate secondary links for this episode specifically yet. I haven't found any interviews with Trey and Matt where they talk about it or where they specifically mention what they plan to do with "South Park". The fans have been talking about it on the forums and raised some decent points, I dug out some of the ones which were verifiable and which I could track down other sources for (since not everyone can get at the SP Forums). I also took a look around some other places. I'm not really sure how to determine if these apply as far as notability rules, so rather than try to put anything in the article I'll just list some here and you guys can sort them out if you want to. Go ahead and delete or modify this info if you need to.

South Park has renewed their contract through Season 17. (

Stan says everyone is ten years old, just a couple of episodes ago. (

Kyle got skipped? Kyle's birthday is May 26th. Stan's birthday isn't until October 19th. ( and ( Here is an in-universe citation, a picture of Stan's facebook entry which can currently be seen at ( but it looks like the kind of site that will lead to linkrot, and I couldn't find one for Kyle. If they're useful, maybe someone could take a screen shot and it could be hosted on wikimedia. I don't know. Other articles on this wiki already have citations for their birthdays, so it's probably not necessary to go above and beyond.

The PAs have not been posting production blogs for season 15, but it's not a conspiracy, they are just working on making them better somehow. 2nd page, 1st post, by nall, an admin, and other comments in the thread by the same poster (

An article from last year, Parker says they no longer want to be doing it when they are 45, rather than 40 as they said previously. (

From a few seasons ago... The final question specifically talks about cynicism and its place (if any) in their work. Making South Park has sucked (but not really) from day one. Executive meddling is mostly a new thing for them. A little about the difference between writers with families and those who have the time to dedicate to their projects. (

Song at the end is "Landslide" by Fleetwood Mac. (,57155/) Matt Stone says he hates Fleetwood Mac's singer, Stevie Nicks. ( Lyrics for Landslide "Well, I've been afraid of changing 'Cause I've built my life around you But time makes you bolder Children get older I'm getting older too So..." from (

Trey Parker had(as of 2008) plans to end the series with another film. (

Season 15 is "Year of the Fan" on all the forums, as well as other related products. Is this the first time they've had an overall "theme"?(

There's also an article I lost the link for at the moment where Trey is talking about watching South Park with his girlfriend's kid, and being worried about the influence Cartman has. It might be in one of the ones I put up there. I'll look into it later, that should be enough to get the team started at least. (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The China Probrem[edit]

In the DVD commentary for this episode (about Lucas and Spielberg "raping" Indy), Matt and Trey discuss some aspects about why this sort of things happen, and speculate on their eventually getting too old for this and ending up "raping" the boys, also in later episode commentaries referring to molesting them. In light of this episode, this seems relevant to a possible (beginning of the) end to the series. - (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


I know it's kind of small but added the fact that Kenny isn't with Kyle and Cartman towards the end. I know he's more or less the prop/punchline, even after all the Mysterion hype, but even so when he's in the episode and it's just either all or even one of the other main 4 Kenny is usually present, unless of course he died. So I find it siginificant that when Kyle and Cartman, the two mortal enemies btw, are hanging out and he is not with them. So I assume they either kicked him out along with Stan/left him out or he died before the ending. (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is very remarkable and happens more often, just another sign that Kenny is not really important anymore. Also, saying he's kicked out/dead is jumping to conclusions and has absolutely no proof.
Please see WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH.


I do not believe that the source stating South Park has been renewed through 2013 is reliable. All mentions of the show going until 2013 have been made by third party web sites that have not cited where their information came from and all official sources (Comedy Central, South Park Studios) say 2011. If the show had been renewed through 2013 a press release from Comedy Central would have been made by now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is idle speculation, because all the facts I've seen point to them only being under contract for 7 more episodes. (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Connor

While I agree with the interpretation that the episode was about Matt and Trey tired of making the same "shit" every week and are getting tired of it, I believe the other common interpretation is that this episode was instead a criticism of their critics. In other words, they were saying that most of their shows viewers were becoming "cynical assholes" and were constantly shitting on the show they love. It could be speculated the two men who saved the Marsh's underwear were Matt and Trey saving their show from being shit on by all their detractors.

From what I've read, the two parties are split somewhere around down the middle 50/50. Because of that, I think adding in the other popular opinion on the events that transpired would be appropriate.

And as an aside, there is a distinct minority out there saying, "Haven't we learned anything from Scrottie McBooger Balls? Sometimes you can read too much into something." (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Connor

Here is a post from saying they're renewed through 2013: --Mwn3d (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Film trailers[edit]

The article used to say which trailers were being parodied, I think someone should put them back. The kids went to see X-Men: The Last Stand, but we didn't see any of that. What we did see were spoof trailers for Jack & Jill and Mr Popper's Penguins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhBee1 (talkcontribs) 11:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the kids went to see X-Men: First Class. – PeeJay 05:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Refered band[edit]

The band that is refered to in the episode is BrokeNCYDE (wikipedia page). They have been dissed by numerous critics like this one and refered to as turds as in the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the episode was a slam against either current pop music or the growing popularity of dubstep. The music Stan listens to sounds distinctly like Skrillex or Borgore, both dubstep groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The samples on stans ipod are far from dubstep, perhaps the above user is projecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Someone ought to add that when Randy is playing in the bowling alley, he's standing in front of an arcade version of Custer's Revenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:TRIVIA and WP:SYNTH. Also, new discussions go at the bottom, not the top, and remember to sign your talk page posts. Nightscream (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning the fact that the credits roll over silence? I believe this is the only time in the series this has happened (correct me if I'm wrong), and due to the content of the episode, that does seem a significant thing to mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

New posts and new discussions go at the bottom, not the top (unless they make a relevant fit in a pre-existing section). Also, please be sure to sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of htem.
As to your question, we can certainly mention it if it comes from a reliable, verifiable source that we can cite in the article, per the WP:V, WP:IRS, WP:NOR and WP:CS policies. Nightscream (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In the episode where the boys "saved" the "talking" orca by sending it to the moon, the credits roll over dead silence in tune to a picture of dead space. So it's not unique, but I'd say it's notable. But yes, Nightscream is right. Unless a "reliable source" makes a note of it, and someone finds and cites that note here, it's not officially good enough for Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Surprise series finale[edit]

It's stated in the article that many people are wondering if this episode was a "surprise series finale". Has there ever been a "surprise series finale"? Obviously a cancelled show doesn't count because that's quite different; but I've never heard of a show willingly stopping the show unannounced. It'd be nice to have an example for a little more context. Geeky Randy (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose they could, if they are willing to break their contract with Comedy Central and pay big fines. - (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the source says that many people (fans and people involved with South Park production) are/were wondering if this episode is/was a "surprise series finale". However, my question is: I can't think of another example of a surprise series finale. Naturally, if a show is cancelled, it ends without notice and that could be a surprise. But by definition, I've never seen a series with a "surprise series finale". Has there ever even been one? Geeky Randy (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Put the Rumors To Rest[edit]

They just did an interview on the Daily Show where they said they loved doing South Park and were surprised at the reaction to the episode. The page should be edited to reflect that. (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Largely seen as a metaphor[edit]

One citation is way insufficient to support a claim that says this episode " was largely seen as a metaphor for the frustration experienced by creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone stemming from the show's continued production" in the introduction; this is nothing more than speculation of one IGN editor. KRBM (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point that "largely" is a bit of an overstatement, though it's at least two of the critics, not one, as Sean O'Neal of the A.V. Club also said it. And while Alan Seppinwall of HitFlix did not echo this sentiment, he did mention how the episode was seen as an unofficial, or "stealth" series finale, so I added that to the Lead. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Contractually obligated to only spend one week?[edit]

This assertion under production is not supported by the sourced article at all. The article states:

"A week after they leave New York around March 28, the pair hurtles into the 15th season of South Park, part of a new pact with Comedy Central that keeps the show on the air through 2013 and is said to be even richer than their previous $75 million deal. They’ll have just one week to create each episode, with no time to prep."

The one week deadline is due to their busy schedules and not starting on time, not some ridiculous constraint imposed by the contract. Could someone who can edit this article fix that before ridiculous rumors start flying around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually according to DVD commentaries going back as far as season six (perhaps farther), the one week per episode thing is sort of tradition with the show. They air on wednesday, come up with something new on thursday and work it out over the following week. Also they have writers retreats twice a year (as far as I can tell from commentaries) where they come up with new ideas for episodes they can shelve for later. - Redmess (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is their[edit]

'crappiest' episode ever... Seriously, other than the Christmas Poo this episode had to set their record with the most references to fecal matter ever. Any of the sources compare Stan's worldview to a case of acute major depression? (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not read them to see? Nightscream (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • ^ Parker, Stone, Trey, Matt. "South Park Studios". You're Getting Old. Comedy Central. Retrieved 07/08/2011.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)