Talk:Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:35, 16 March 2008

Episode table needs descriptions

I created a table for the episodes, but it still needs synopses of each episode. Enjoy MGlosenger 21:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proper style for episode synopses

I think it's important that the summaries of each episode preserve some of the humor and punchlines. For example, the summary to "Carol," which I originally added, was recently expanded with something that I view as unnecessary for an encyclopedic synopsis. There's the potential spoiler, et cetera. In fact, I reduced my original synopsis to avoid this very thing. I plan on going forward with similarly condensing the synopsis for each previous episode. Comments? Suggestions? Sisyphe42 (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Chunky' screenshot

But mine is so much neater looking. MGlosenger 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move for Lock

As it appears many people dislike this show, I would consider a lock to deter vandalism. CharlieP216 18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locking a page shouldn't be a proactive move. Wait and see. If there is vandalism, it can always be locked then, but until then, leave it open. (I'm the guy who yearns for rabid wolves, but I'm not planning on vandalizing this page.) 71.122.250.69 03:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode synopses

I'm just going by what's in the episodes. Nowhere in 'Salame' does anyone say the old women are potential wives, nor in the actual episode 'Chunky' does anyone say the musicians are German.

And are you sure that that's actually Tim/Eric's MySpace page and not just someone pretending to be them? MGlosenger 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary show?

there is a note added in this show's description that says the episode is "notoriously unfunny". Is that not replete with POV? Can that statement be stricken from the description of the Anniversary episode? I mean, I personally found the episode hilarious, and surely others did not, but that is not what a Wikipedia page is for. --Frenk Melk 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already removed it, but yeah, if you see things like that, remove them. Similarly if someone put "this show is widely considered the best ever", you would remove that.. unless of course the contributor provides some sort of meaningful citation either way. MGlosenger 13:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python comparison

Okay, I just read both the cited references, and nobody compares Awesome Show to Python . . . except Tim Heidecker himself, tangentially, in the SuicideGirls interview. --63.25.5.141 23:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The cited article does not mention Monty Python. Also, if the section is called public reaction it should also include some of the negative reactions from not only those who don't like the show but also from those who question why it is on Cartoon Network. Jccalhoun 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I agree. The actual article it links to says nothing in favor of the show, let alone something along the lines of Python. I'm changing it. LikuX 10:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "with some drawing comparisons between it and Monty Python", because the article that was cited for this statment specificly says this: "I'm not making a direct comparison between Monty Python and Awesome Show, but I am saying there's a difference between comedy that works because it's been done before countless times, and comedy that really dares to be different." Chaztheweird 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a contribution

how do i upload the image though. the image is for missing

Public Response section?

thumb|right|100px|Seconded. Do we really need the 'Public Response' section? It's obvious that some people are going to like something and some people are going to dislike it.

I will shortly remove said section unless there is a huge uproar against it.

MGlosenger 13:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see a critical response, assuming of course any real critics have done a review of the show.--204.76.128.217 09:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, as per my picture. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected from 'Tim & Eric' or 'Tim and Eric'

'Tim & Eric' redirects straight to here, perhaps there should be a page about Tim & Eric; they gained recongnition long before "Awesome Show' and an article about the artists themselves (including timanderic.com and appearances) would be approriate, if not a disambiguation page with a 'red' link to 'Tim & Eric'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.202.20 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abso-lutely

"This signoff for projects from Absolutely Productions stems from the answer given by the senior Heidecker when he visited the production facilty at the end of season one of TGTTM and was asked if he enjoyed a recent vacation."

How can this be possible when the date on the clip clearly says 1991?!?Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK PEOPLE Im ASKING this question because the article obviously needs to be changed if the stated "fact" is simply logically untrue. If no one else does it, then I will. I dont give a damn that the source is from DVD commentary, it totally contradicts the date on the tape.Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thesetrixaintforkids, go ahead and change it. That's the nature of Tim & Eric's humor. Your logic is sound. I recommend leaving as much of it in as possible, with your correction appended. Just for thoroughness. Sisyphe42 (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, it seems its been revised. The old version made it sound as though Tim's dad said that during at the end of TGTTM, but the new one explains it was a long time ago, and the inspiration for their production company's name. Much better. Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Williams

Did he play himself or was someone else playing him? Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim and Eric say in an interview (the page links to it, I think) that it's an impersonator. --LoganTheGeshrat 19:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? Tim's Robin doesn't even look like Robin Williams! :) He sure has the voice and mannerisms down pat, though... waj (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB credits the actor who plays Williams as David Born. Might be worth putting a little "played by" in the synopsis in case anybody else is wondering who the impersonator was. I wasn't sure if it was the real Williams until the ending when I finally got a good look at his face. He's good. But I'm pretty bad with faces, so maybe it was just me. And Tim and Eric have some amazing cameos on Awesome Show, so it's not totally implausible that Williams might show up to act silly for a few minutes. Anyway, here's the link. If others think it's a good add, then please add it. :-) http://imdb.com/title/tt1105207/ Thx1200 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 84: / Line 84: @@
 Are you joking?  Tim's Robin doesn't even look like Robin Williams!  :)  He sure has the voice and mannerisms down pat, though... [[User:Waj|waj]] ([[User talk:Waj|talk]]) 10:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
+IMDB credits the actor who plays Williams as David Born.  Might be worth putting a little "played by" in the synopsis in case anybody else is wondering who the impersonator was.  I wasn't sure if it was the real Williams until the ending when I finally got a good look at his face.  He's good.  But I'm pretty bad with faces, so maybe it was just me.  And Tim and Eric have some amazing cameos on Awesome Show, so it's not totally implausible that Williams might show up to act silly for a few minutes.  Anyway, here's the link.  If others think it's a good add, then please add it. :-)  http://imdb.com/title/tt1105207/
+[[User:Thx1200|Thx1200]] ([[User talk:Thx1200|talk]]) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)