Talk:Forget-Me-Not (Family Guy)

Quagmire cookie officeposter

the poster makes no sense on Danish - translated is says - play on the ice and I love pies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.180.51 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultural references - for the hard of reading

Quoting the supplied source:

The Joe/Quagmire fight over whether to watch La Vie En Rose or Reindeer Games[...]

[...]when Peter, Quagmire, Brian, and Joe saw a bright light, got in a car crash, and woke up in a hospital to find themselves the only remaining inhabitants of Quahog, I briefly thought a sort of 28 Days Later parody was afoot.

The small commentary on Twitter[...]

[...]Peter referencing My Name Is Earl.

Patrick Warburton voicing Tweety Bird[...]

[...]Quagmire teaching Brian to shake with both paws, then telling him to “shut the fuck up” when Brian says it reminds him of a quote from Milton.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay here's the thing...

• Too trivial.
• Does not verify that 28 Day Later was referenced. Rather the critic thought that the episode was going to parody the film until he continued watching.
• What does Twitter have to do with anything.
• Can work.
• Can work.
• Too trivial.

Also, I would suggest refraining from making comments like this one as they can get you in a lot of trouble. Sarujo (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, it was in the heat of the moment, as it looked like you didn't bother reading the source before dismissing the references.
• Regarding the 28 Days Later issue, the critic specifically tells us that the premise itself reminded him of the film. This is what I added – no more, no less. This is how Wikipedia works.
• Twitter is referenced when they tweet and react to each other's tweets, then Quagmire clicks "Unfollow". It's a valid cultural reference that is mentioned in the source.
• I would like your concrete definition of trivial in this context, as all references seem valid for inclusion. As far as I know, "trivial" is reserved for something that is not referenced in secondary/tertiary sources, which is obviously not the case here.
• Finally, the paragraph, as it is right now, is fairly well-constructed prose in chronological order, and its length is proportionate. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. The critic only said that they thought that the episode was going to be parody of 28 Days Later, but realized it wasn't upon watching the rest of the episode. In short, the critic was merely speculating what they thought the story was before they started watching. They did not say that the concept was lifted, spoofed, borrowed, or connected to anything regarding 28 Day Later. Besides, 28 Days Later is not the only film ever produced where a main character is caught in a post apocalyptic human eradication - that is if the episode is truly borrowing anything from any of those stories.

Your claim that the paragraph is illustrating what the critic is incorrect. The line reading as, The premise of the four friends waking up in the hospital after being blinded by a bright light and subsequently crashing their car, then finding out they are the last humans in Quahog, is reminiscent of the film 28 Days Later, still insists that there truly was some connection to 28 Day Later when this claim is based merely on predetermined speculation. The only way the claim can work is if MacFarlane, Iles, or Goodman stated somewhere reliable that it truly is a node to that film. Sarujo (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you even know what "reminiscent of" means? It means "reminds someone of". That someone can be anyone, in this case it is the critic. If the added sentence would have been "The premise is a reference to 28 Days Later", you would have had a point there... but you don't. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sarujo here, one critic being slightly reminded of something and later feeling that this expectation was not actually met is not the same as the episode actually setting out to make a reference. I can watch Cannibal Holocaust and find that scenes remind me of Heart of Darkness, but given Deodato's prior work it's probably just a wonderfully brutal coincidence. Same thing here, from reading that AV Club page. The critic made the connection himself, found himself proven wrong, but mentioned it in passing. It's a trivial aside in their article, and even properly phrasing it here doesn't serves much good. GRAPPLE X 22:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

...and knowing Family Guy's prior work, you also know in the back of your mind that it's a reference to the movie. We should keep this based on WP:COMMON SENSE and wait for another reference to appear somewhere. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Knowing Family Guy's prior work, it's as likely a reference to 21 Grams as 28 Days Later; one critic specifically saying the episode isn't a parody of a film, even though they got a brief vibe that reminded them of it, does not mean the episode parodies that film. GRAPPLE X 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like my replies are falling on deaf ears... the sentence only claims that the basic premise reminds some people of the basic premise of the movie. No one claims to a parody. The critic didn't find himself proven wrong, he was disappointed that the similarity didn't go beyond the basic premise. This is what the sentence is saying. No more, no less. The guys see a bright light in the sky, crash the car, wake up in a hospital with amnesia and find out there is no one else left around. This is the only thing that the critic found similar, about which he is crystal clear. This is what I seek to keep in the article. No speculations. No synthesized additions. Hopefully, I'm clear this time. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the source, I didn't see anything to say that the critic was "disappointed" that the show didn't follow the premise of 28 Days Later. In the context of the article it seems to be more of an aside than anything else. I'm not sure it's especially significant what an episode makes a critic thinks is going to happen unless they have a more clearly stated reaction to the episode living up to it, or not. Doniago (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, it looks pretty clearly stated. The critic went into detail to describe the exact premise that reminded him of the movie: "when Peter, Quagmire, Brian, and Joe saw a bright light, got in a car crash, and woke up in a hospital to find themselves the only remaining inhabitants of Quahog". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I'm not sure that one critic being briefly reminded of a film makes the fact significant, especially when the episode doesn't ultimately go in that direction and there's no evidence (yet, anyhow) that the reference was intentional. In any event, the critic never seems to feel disappointed that the episode didn't go in that direction; if anything, they seemed hopeful about the direction the episode did go in, if ultimately let-down by its execution. Doniago (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is why I said earlier: let's leave this for now (since it falls into everyone's WP:COMMON SENSE) and wait for an additional reference to surface. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)