Talk:Stewie Loves Lois

Untitled

As of today, familyguy.com -> Upcoming Events -> Upcoming Events -> September confirms that the season premiere is indeed titled "Stewie Loves Lois" and will indeed air on September 10. Cromulent Kwyjibo 16:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Takei's Three

"George Takei's coming out as a homosexual was parodied three times throughout the episode."

I only remember two. One in the Dr. Jekyl cutaway and one in the Dr. McCoy cutaway. What is the third one? --Liberlogos 04:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

When Peter finally gets his prostate exam, the doctor finds some sort of blockage. We then hear Takei say "Hello!"--Alanhwiki 06:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. I remember that I did not get that joke; now I understand better. Thank you! --Liberlogos 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pre-air plot summaries are worthless

Here's a comparison in regards to this episode:

Incorrect plot summary from non-logged in user	Plot summary of actual episode
When Rupert is ruined in the washing machine, Stewie is extremely miserable. But once Lois fixes Rupert, Stewie immediately becomes attached to her and stops his murderous plans towards her.	When Rupert is ruined in the park by a dog, Stewie is extremely miserable. But once Lois fixes Rupert, Stewie immediately becomes attached to her and stops his murderous plans towards her.
Meanwhile, in the subplot, Meg visits her sick friend in the hopsital (the episode does not state how her friend became sick) and soon her friend dies. Meg, like Stewie, is extremely sad about the incident, as she has one less friend and thinks she will become the most unpopular girl in school. However, she soon finds out that her friend wanted to give her $10,000 in her will and Meg becomes instantly happy when she learns this. She goes on a shopping spree and everyone wants to be friends with her at school. She enjoys this popularity but is reminded by Peter (who for some reason does not appear in this episode until he lectures Meg) that the kids at her school only want her for her money. Meg replies to him, "I hate you, you fat bastard!", as she always does. Later, she realizes that he was telling the truth and keeps her money for college. Consequently, the kids at school don't talk to her and neither does Peter when she apologizes to him.	Meanwhile, in the subplot, Peter goes to see the doctor for an flu vaccine. But he's informed that he needs a prostate exam. But Peter believes that the doctor attempts to molest him during the exam, and takes him to court, and wins the case. Doctor Hartman loses his medical license, and Peter believes himself to be victorious, until he begins needing to urinate frequently. He goes to see Dr. Hartman, who reveals the problem to just be some swelling. Dr. Hartman gets his medical license back, and the episode ends in a parody of All in the Family.

Therefore, all plot summaries posted prior to an episode's airdate should be treated as garbage and removed from the article. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would opt for the middle ground by: 1. Adressing in text the uncertainty and nature of the synopsis and 2. Expect references. --Liberlogos 09:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Additional cultural references

Aren't the "joy jump after the 'that was the test'-test" and the self-dehumanizing lipstick aplication and hair cutting sequences references to other works? --Liberlogos 09:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the grainy flashback references the movie Sudden Impact (1983) where Peter is down on the ground and there is a carnival and a merry go round. 19:31, 11 July 2016 (CST). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.13.33 (talk)

Elmer Hartman

>>>Hartman was nameless before this episode. We find out his first name is Elmer.

Actually, "Dr. Elmer Hartman" appears on his door in "Fore Father". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.13.117.89 (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Adult Swim nipple scene

that was also on Fox, at least in re-runs so taking note that it was on Adult Swim is kinda useless because it was on all networks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.196.115.179 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Eliminated confusion.

I eliminated confusion between two regions. I did it because everyone should be able to double-check this without problems. And because most people using Wikipedia are either for England or the United States I included two regions, what do you think? TheBlazikenMaster 16:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good, I have the season DVD's, not the regions, hence forth — I am unsure as to what episode the region would be included in. Qst 17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried looking up Family Guy DVDs on Wikipedia? TheBlazikenMaster 17:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Qst 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): See above b (MoS): See above notes.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Well done again. Passes.^Mitch32^contribs 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Overall format of article

Why won't the people who run the article let any edits be made to the plot synopsis? They keep putting up the same summary that always seems painfully unorganized. Also, the list of cultural references is not really in list form, and there is no episode navigation at the bottom of the page. The same can be said for several other episodes' articles around the beginning of season 5. I once engaged in an edit war that I really didn't mean to get into. It's just that the way this article is formatted makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. Please tell me why we can't edit without it changing back to what's already there. Immblueversion (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody owns the article as such, but your changes to the plot have often been to change it back to a very similar design from before I rewrote it, or to undo my rewrite completely. What makes you uncomfortable in the article? Qst 10:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of all the issues I have with this article that make me uncomfortable. You know those episodes that have two plot events within them? The plot summaries in the articles for those episodes seem to summarize each plot separately. This article, however, just intermixes the two plots in a way that seems unorganized. I know nothing can be perfect, but I have some personal issues that I don't feel too keen about. Sorry if you take this personally; I mean no offense whatsoever. I just want the first paragraph(s) to summarize one plot entirely, then have the last paragraph(s) go through the other plot. In addition, the resolution of Stewie's story is not present in this summary the way it is now, and the list of cultural references is not complete. Finally, there is no episode navigation at the bottom of the article. The same issues I have can be said about several other articles of episodes throughout season 5. I really feel that each episode should have a navigational device at the bottom of each article for the episodes of this series. Once again, I mean absolutely no offense to you; this is just what makes me feel uncomfortable. (Immblueversion) (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been told many times that they are unnecessary, we already have full list at the infobox, well I'm glad you finally decided to use talk pages. That makes it a lot easier to you, and we have more respect for you. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Immerblueversion has expressed no desire to argue. I tell you what, when I get a spare few hours, I'll rewrite the plot to make it a little less cluttered, will that be okay? :) Qst 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing, if the comment looked that way I apologize. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't, its just we all want the same thing (to achieve the highest possible potential for FG articles), so we shouldn't argue; thats all I was saying. Qst 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just felt I should let you all know that the only reason why I haven't used the talk pages before is because I had no idea how to use them; I just sort of figured out how to do this myself just recently. So for all of you who thought I was being rude, I honestly did not want to seem that way. And to Qst, that rewrite does sound pretty good. And it would be better if all the other episodes' articles would be like that, but I know that would sound like too much work, so you can leave them if you feel it's necessary. (Immblueversion) (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note on the fake flashbacks

I can't remember if the flashbacks in The Accused were actually black & white and grainy ... whatever McFarlane says, I thought those were just spoofing re-enactment cliches. But I did find it interesting that Peter is shown being "raped" on not a pool table as in the movie but a pinball machine. That recalls not the movie but the actual Big Dan's rape in New Bedford, Massachusetts (something we should have a separate article on, not just about the victim) that inspired it. Has McFarlane ever been asked about this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Hellraiser reference

"The episode (the part were Peter is in the courtroom) also refers to Hellraiser II, the part were the doctor engages tiffany the autistic girl and pinhead." - Ermm... If there was a Hellraiser reference I missed it, but more to the point, this sentence is barely English. Could someone please alter it to something that makes sense?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stewie Loves Lois. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329105539/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=091206_11 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=091206_11

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) 00:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)