![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this really verifiable:
I would imagine this is just a guess at best. -- Ubergenius 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be included in the article that the name is a parody on the naming issue of Go, God. Go!.
The XII is a reference to Final Fantasy XII. It has nothing to do with anything else. FF XII was the corporate sponsor of the first episode. Tdewey 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't that bit of info be added then?
When I saw the title of this episode on my Tivo I thought the same thing (after having played the game all day (-: ). But I wonder if there is a connection. Would someone please find out and post the results? The only FFXII similarity I noticed in the episode was the bird riding. Of course the birds were ostriches instead of chocobos, but could there exist an abstract connection? Probably not (-:
Might the XII have something to do with the fact that there seemed to be a lot of episodes skipped over? The last episode ended with Cartman with the UAA, then to start this episode, he is with the sea otters travelling to get the Wii. If you watch the parodied theme introduction, you see lots of scenes not in either episode.
Its named XII becuase of how many diffrent plots happen in the episode. Pacman 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
it is named XII so people would endlessly debate why it was named that, until there is some kind of source keep the debates to the discussion page and not in the article KarlJohannes 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, everyone's saying "it's named because of blah blah blah" while none of you have any verification, until someone actually coughs up something we should hold off on the name debate.
Roman numerals were used long before the Final Fantasy series. Just because the game had the same numerals doesn't mean there is a definite connection. Maybe later you guys will be saying it's also linked to the Rocky movies because it also used Roman numerals. Or the Star Wars films. My theory is (and it's only a thought, I'm not saying it with any certainty) maybe it is a play on the name Wii. The letter X is after the letter W, and because the episode is set in the future, maybe that's grounds for it. - Deep Shadow 04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the name is a reference to Star Wars, i.e. when George Lucas made 'Star Was Episode IV' he chose to make one of the middle Episodes first, even knowing that there may never be another one made just to make it more interesting. There are XII different "episodes" to the Go God Go story, and they only show parts one and XII. Like another user stated previously there are many references that would lead you to believe that there were many adventures between the two episodes. I could go into detail and list them, but only if necessary. That seems to me to be by far the most likely reasoning behind the title. Ytdb 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fools! You all have different answers to the Ultimate Question! I must kill you all! The fact that it is an absurdist comedy show implies that there is no reason for anything, other than to be funny. The XII is in he title because it's more absurd than "Part II," and plus maybe because it's futuristic and futuristic things in fiction tend to have high numbers (like, "[Insert Future Technological Device Here] 2000" or something). That is the most rational answer--kill all the heretics! Mac OS X 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The name is to signify that there is a large gap in time between episode 12 and 13. the question was asked on the south park studios website. http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=2&year=2010 70.110.246.195 ( talk) 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is a mistake here! AAA is not Allied Atheist Alliance, but Allied Atheist Allegiance, as it is metioned at the end of Go God Go! It seems Matt and Trey are confusing the names of the AAA! Can't somebody fix it, for once?! -- Angeldeb82 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So we shall leave it as it is until we get official word of the mistake? - Deep Shadow 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this "mistake" isn't a mistake at all, it may be attributed to the fact that the timeline in the episode changed once Cartman started calling the past, so maybe their name changed slightly with other minor differences.
after reviewing the episode, they refer to them as the alliance before the timeline changes therefore i highly recommend adding it as a goof, as there appears to be no reason besides a mistake on the part of the producers for the name change KarlJohannes 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, if there is supposed to be a time "continuium" between the two episodes then the name of the group could have changed. More likely it was a goof, but there is always that possibility.
way too long. IT NEEDS TO BE summarized andd NOT STATE everything that exactly happend.
There are some references to other shows that aren't captured. For instance, the Star Trek type video conference. There are many I don't understand- like riding the ostriches. Tedder 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
it seems a lot of the references people are making are just general future references like the otters battle rifle, i dont think parker and stone were tryiing to hybridize aliens and halo but rahter were just giving them a generic battle rifle. New new hampshire is your standard ruined city of the past that so many different future shows have, i dont think this episode is a carbon copy of individual shows but rather a commentary on the entire genre of futurism. Of course there are some clear references mostly buck rogers, but i really think the whole reference section is too long and too filled with peoples own pet hobbies and interests and not reflective of the intent of the show's creators. KarlJohannes 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
the ostriches remind me of the gungans riding kaadu in the star wars movie: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kaadu and the search for the wii in the old museum is like the cowboy bebop episode 'speak like a child'
New New Hampshire is probably a reference to the New New York of "Futurama". If no one has a problem, I'll add it.
The commercial just before the one for the phone looks like it could be a reference to the comic book "Plastic Forks".
Why are the see also links so abstract? I think some over-zealous philosophy student created these (-: Perhaps more relevant links would be appropriate.
I am not here to start a debate about trivial philosophy. I am here to discuss with other Wikipedia users their oppinions of the presence of the following links in the "See Also" section: "Anti-Intellectualism," "Humanism," "Rationalism," "Irrationality," "Logical fallacy," "Cognitive bias," and "Anti-science." I believe that they are only vaguely relative to the topic, pretentious, and not in the best interest of the Wikipedia users. An appropriate link for this section would be something undeniably relative and relevant; something like "South Park," "Cartman," or "Matt Stone."
this is not the place for a discussion about any of those topics, this is an article about an episode on a television show, if you are going to add those links then you might as well add one for sea otters or buck rogers in the 25th century, or go back to every other south park and put in a link that colaterally relates to the subject matter of the episode, wikipedia is not a soapbox, this is far too argumentative and unrelated to have a place here, this is not a discussion forum on logic or rationality KarlJohannes 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
i agree, i dont know who keeps putting that in there, but they seem to forget this is a comedic television show with talking otters KarlJohannes 06:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
this is not about arguments, its about the rules and precedent. i love a good philosophical discussion as much as the next guy but i also know that wikipedia is not a place for me to throw links onto a page to flaunt my knowledge about a particular topic with the intent to advocate a particular argument, its got to go and i hope someone can back me up on this KarlJohannes 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
the show is comedic and satirical but anyone who has been watching it for the past 5 years knows it has political undertones. trey and matt tried to dip their heads into philosophy and made themselves look like idiots doing so. even if they made themselves look smart in this episode, i'd expect someone to still put links to ANY of the concepts discussed in the episode. anything that is relevant is fair game to be included. atheism, irrationality, falsifiability, and philosophical idealism would be fine. something like existentialism or causal determinism would not. some of you guys are making too big an issue out of this. -- Ubiq 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
you stated in your original post (assuming that you are the same person who doesnt sign the posts) that your reasons for putting the links in the page was that you do not agree with the logical implications of the shows creators. they are subjects that are only colaterally associated with the topic of the show, and illustrate more your criticism and point of view instead of the intent of the creators, that is my argument against them and you have placed them in the article to advocate a particular biased argument and as such they do not belong in a page describing a television show, if you insist on continuing this argument then explain to me please how anti-intellectualism, logical fallacy and cognitive bias are relevant in any way aside from espousing your criticism on the point of view of the show. i agree with your criticism and believe that these articles are interesting and informative, i do not agree with your use of this page as a soapbox for your critique of the episodes content. also please do not make assumptions about my education or my understanding of a subject, unlike you i do not come here to show off my intellect but to make sure that this site is maintained properly and that the sites do not become overblown and remain concise, this article is no different and should conform to the relatively sparse precedent set by all other descriptions of a south park episode none of which (aside from the scientology, cartoon wars and other shows which recieved a large amount of published criticism from the outside press) contain links to articles on subjects which the show does not directly address KarlJohannes 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
the flying spagetti monster links, as well as the others were taken out as those terms were already linked in the body of the plot summary, and to add a separate link to them would be redundant. KarlJohannes 05:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not writing this from a biased standpoint, but rather a standpoint of logical difference. Please all interested in this page seriously consider adding the following section, permanently, to this page:
This argurament is irrevalant. The proposed critism section is purely the opinions of someone (who i don't know because he/she never signs their comments) and not actuall ctritism from a source. For example, Janet Jacksons super bowl 38 incident was critisized because over 50,000 people complained to the FCC. Noone has stirred up contaversy on this yet, so the personal opinions of users (who need to start signing comments) is useless for this article. And it probally doesn't make sense with most of wikipedia users anyway. Pacman 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What about the horrible way in which the series treats transsexuals? I doubt the real Richard Dawkins would care if someone he was in love with is a transsexual - he doesn't share Matt and Trey's bigotry.
PfHyde, WP:NPOV is not the main issue- Wikipedia:No Original Research is. Please read that carefully. Borisblue 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the criticism section can be added once this has been revised to follow the guidelines. I believe the criticisms have objective merit. Kralizec 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not much with editing this thing, so forgive me if this is out of line, but the show doesn't treat transsexuals in a horrible way- just Garrison and his/her absurd jumps from one minority to another. Guessing what the real Dawkins would have done is irrelevant to the point of the episode. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.105.103.49 (
talk) 01:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Come now, isn't it blindingly obvious to any speaker of English slash watcher of Western television media? K-10 is a play on K-9, which is both Canine, and an abbreviation used in quite alot of TV shows and movies.
Kit-9 would be a play on K-10, where the number is misplaced (Kit-10 would be kitten).
I see two problems with my article as of this moment:
November 2006 (UTC) -- Ineffable3000 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is a fantastic resource about a fantastic episode. I had no idea the cultural refernces went so deep. Keep up the good work, nerds! -- 216.57.222.134 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain how this is a paradox? Whoever wrote this claims that Cartman could not call his past self from the future (because the author thinks his past self will be frozen?) but, in the future with the prank call phone, Cartman could use the phone to call himself (at a time prior to him freezing himself)just by selecting how far back in time he wanted to call (a feature offered on the phone). Because of that, I don't see how he would be unable to call himself. If anyone else agrees the quote is incorrect, we should probably pull this. If anyone else agrees with the quote, please explain.
"Cartman crying out that he has been sent back too far is reminiscent of the director's cut of Army of Darkness when Ash (Bruce Campbell) has been sent too far into the future (into a post-apocalyptic wasteland)."
first Ash is sent into the past, not the future and then the scene it is refering to is a very accurate copy of the beginning from Buck Rogers and the 25th century
216.113.99.43 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)shodan
-Actually, if you saw the last movie with its original theater ending, after taking one too many drops of a juice that causes him to sleep a 100 years per drop, Ash wakes up to find himself 100 years after his original time period. The world has become a desolate wasteland of garbage and random collapsed buildings (sort of like a giant junkyard mixed with a bunch of buildings.) It seems human life has ceased to exist at this point (pretty morbid if you consider it was only a 100 years into the future.) Ash then curses the heavens that he was sent too far into time. The ending on the DVD release was a director's cut ending which gave the movie a happy ending due to the large criticism over the extremely anti-climactic, WTF original ending. In the new ending, Ash successfully reaches his own time period and resumes his life working at a department store with what appears to be two hands instead of just one. It ends with him telling one of his co-workers his story with the man not believing a word of it due to it obvious implausibility. -- PokeHomsar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.105.167 ( talk) 04:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I copied the text (slightly changed) from "Go God Go" (first part), because k-10's first appearence is in "Go God Go XII" I hope I haven't done any mistake. But if this is the case, please forgive a German student, because this is the first time I changed something in the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Big-B_36 19:05, Dec.26th 2006 (CET)
Can someone explain why it is called go god go XII, which is roman numerals for twelve? The first time i watched this episode I thought It was a twelve part continuing series like the The Simpsons Treehouse Of Horror series. Why isn't it called II?
I see no reason in merging this article with Go God Go. If nobody has any objections, I'll remove the request of a discussion, since none has been carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothervessla ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just seen this episode on southparkstudios.com. On 6:07, when Eric is viewing commercials, there is a brief scene viewing a black newsspeaker next to a picture saying "Under attack" in red letters on a fiery background. Is that a reference to anything?-- 88.77.50.165 ( talk) 00:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Any cites for these?
If so, we'll add them to the main article again. Alastairward ( talk) 10:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you want as a "cite"? Do you need like actual evidence, or do you want someone in an article saying it? I mean, the Buck Rogers thing is blatantly obvious, but I'm not sure how I'd "cite" it to satisfactory standards. - Anon
There is an information about serie between two parts, that was banned for its cruelty. It has a scene when Cartman make sex with two otters. Is it fake or real? 31.42.227.206 ( talk) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this really verifiable:
I would imagine this is just a guess at best. -- Ubergenius 15:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be included in the article that the name is a parody on the naming issue of Go, God. Go!.
The XII is a reference to Final Fantasy XII. It has nothing to do with anything else. FF XII was the corporate sponsor of the first episode. Tdewey 23:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't that bit of info be added then?
When I saw the title of this episode on my Tivo I thought the same thing (after having played the game all day (-: ). But I wonder if there is a connection. Would someone please find out and post the results? The only FFXII similarity I noticed in the episode was the bird riding. Of course the birds were ostriches instead of chocobos, but could there exist an abstract connection? Probably not (-:
Might the XII have something to do with the fact that there seemed to be a lot of episodes skipped over? The last episode ended with Cartman with the UAA, then to start this episode, he is with the sea otters travelling to get the Wii. If you watch the parodied theme introduction, you see lots of scenes not in either episode.
Its named XII becuase of how many diffrent plots happen in the episode. Pacman 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
it is named XII so people would endlessly debate why it was named that, until there is some kind of source keep the debates to the discussion page and not in the article KarlJohannes 06:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, everyone's saying "it's named because of blah blah blah" while none of you have any verification, until someone actually coughs up something we should hold off on the name debate.
Roman numerals were used long before the Final Fantasy series. Just because the game had the same numerals doesn't mean there is a definite connection. Maybe later you guys will be saying it's also linked to the Rocky movies because it also used Roman numerals. Or the Star Wars films. My theory is (and it's only a thought, I'm not saying it with any certainty) maybe it is a play on the name Wii. The letter X is after the letter W, and because the episode is set in the future, maybe that's grounds for it. - Deep Shadow 04:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the name is a reference to Star Wars, i.e. when George Lucas made 'Star Was Episode IV' he chose to make one of the middle Episodes first, even knowing that there may never be another one made just to make it more interesting. There are XII different "episodes" to the Go God Go story, and they only show parts one and XII. Like another user stated previously there are many references that would lead you to believe that there were many adventures between the two episodes. I could go into detail and list them, but only if necessary. That seems to me to be by far the most likely reasoning behind the title. Ytdb 04:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fools! You all have different answers to the Ultimate Question! I must kill you all! The fact that it is an absurdist comedy show implies that there is no reason for anything, other than to be funny. The XII is in he title because it's more absurd than "Part II," and plus maybe because it's futuristic and futuristic things in fiction tend to have high numbers (like, "[Insert Future Technological Device Here] 2000" or something). That is the most rational answer--kill all the heretics! Mac OS X 10:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The name is to signify that there is a large gap in time between episode 12 and 13. the question was asked on the south park studios website. http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/faq/archives.php?month=2&year=2010 70.110.246.195 ( talk) 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is a mistake here! AAA is not Allied Atheist Alliance, but Allied Atheist Allegiance, as it is metioned at the end of Go God Go! It seems Matt and Trey are confusing the names of the AAA! Can't somebody fix it, for once?! -- Angeldeb82 03:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So we shall leave it as it is until we get official word of the mistake? - Deep Shadow 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this "mistake" isn't a mistake at all, it may be attributed to the fact that the timeline in the episode changed once Cartman started calling the past, so maybe their name changed slightly with other minor differences.
after reviewing the episode, they refer to them as the alliance before the timeline changes therefore i highly recommend adding it as a goof, as there appears to be no reason besides a mistake on the part of the producers for the name change KarlJohannes 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, if there is supposed to be a time "continuium" between the two episodes then the name of the group could have changed. More likely it was a goof, but there is always that possibility.
way too long. IT NEEDS TO BE summarized andd NOT STATE everything that exactly happend.
There are some references to other shows that aren't captured. For instance, the Star Trek type video conference. There are many I don't understand- like riding the ostriches. Tedder 06:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
it seems a lot of the references people are making are just general future references like the otters battle rifle, i dont think parker and stone were tryiing to hybridize aliens and halo but rahter were just giving them a generic battle rifle. New new hampshire is your standard ruined city of the past that so many different future shows have, i dont think this episode is a carbon copy of individual shows but rather a commentary on the entire genre of futurism. Of course there are some clear references mostly buck rogers, but i really think the whole reference section is too long and too filled with peoples own pet hobbies and interests and not reflective of the intent of the show's creators. KarlJohannes 06:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
the ostriches remind me of the gungans riding kaadu in the star wars movie: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Kaadu and the search for the wii in the old museum is like the cowboy bebop episode 'speak like a child'
New New Hampshire is probably a reference to the New New York of "Futurama". If no one has a problem, I'll add it.
The commercial just before the one for the phone looks like it could be a reference to the comic book "Plastic Forks".
Why are the see also links so abstract? I think some over-zealous philosophy student created these (-: Perhaps more relevant links would be appropriate.
I am not here to start a debate about trivial philosophy. I am here to discuss with other Wikipedia users their oppinions of the presence of the following links in the "See Also" section: "Anti-Intellectualism," "Humanism," "Rationalism," "Irrationality," "Logical fallacy," "Cognitive bias," and "Anti-science." I believe that they are only vaguely relative to the topic, pretentious, and not in the best interest of the Wikipedia users. An appropriate link for this section would be something undeniably relative and relevant; something like "South Park," "Cartman," or "Matt Stone."
this is not the place for a discussion about any of those topics, this is an article about an episode on a television show, if you are going to add those links then you might as well add one for sea otters or buck rogers in the 25th century, or go back to every other south park and put in a link that colaterally relates to the subject matter of the episode, wikipedia is not a soapbox, this is far too argumentative and unrelated to have a place here, this is not a discussion forum on logic or rationality KarlJohannes 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
i agree, i dont know who keeps putting that in there, but they seem to forget this is a comedic television show with talking otters KarlJohannes 06:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
this is not about arguments, its about the rules and precedent. i love a good philosophical discussion as much as the next guy but i also know that wikipedia is not a place for me to throw links onto a page to flaunt my knowledge about a particular topic with the intent to advocate a particular argument, its got to go and i hope someone can back me up on this KarlJohannes 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
the show is comedic and satirical but anyone who has been watching it for the past 5 years knows it has political undertones. trey and matt tried to dip their heads into philosophy and made themselves look like idiots doing so. even if they made themselves look smart in this episode, i'd expect someone to still put links to ANY of the concepts discussed in the episode. anything that is relevant is fair game to be included. atheism, irrationality, falsifiability, and philosophical idealism would be fine. something like existentialism or causal determinism would not. some of you guys are making too big an issue out of this. -- Ubiq 14:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
you stated in your original post (assuming that you are the same person who doesnt sign the posts) that your reasons for putting the links in the page was that you do not agree with the logical implications of the shows creators. they are subjects that are only colaterally associated with the topic of the show, and illustrate more your criticism and point of view instead of the intent of the creators, that is my argument against them and you have placed them in the article to advocate a particular biased argument and as such they do not belong in a page describing a television show, if you insist on continuing this argument then explain to me please how anti-intellectualism, logical fallacy and cognitive bias are relevant in any way aside from espousing your criticism on the point of view of the show. i agree with your criticism and believe that these articles are interesting and informative, i do not agree with your use of this page as a soapbox for your critique of the episodes content. also please do not make assumptions about my education or my understanding of a subject, unlike you i do not come here to show off my intellect but to make sure that this site is maintained properly and that the sites do not become overblown and remain concise, this article is no different and should conform to the relatively sparse precedent set by all other descriptions of a south park episode none of which (aside from the scientology, cartoon wars and other shows which recieved a large amount of published criticism from the outside press) contain links to articles on subjects which the show does not directly address KarlJohannes 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
the flying spagetti monster links, as well as the others were taken out as those terms were already linked in the body of the plot summary, and to add a separate link to them would be redundant. KarlJohannes 05:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not writing this from a biased standpoint, but rather a standpoint of logical difference. Please all interested in this page seriously consider adding the following section, permanently, to this page:
This argurament is irrevalant. The proposed critism section is purely the opinions of someone (who i don't know because he/she never signs their comments) and not actuall ctritism from a source. For example, Janet Jacksons super bowl 38 incident was critisized because over 50,000 people complained to the FCC. Noone has stirred up contaversy on this yet, so the personal opinions of users (who need to start signing comments) is useless for this article. And it probally doesn't make sense with most of wikipedia users anyway. Pacman 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What about the horrible way in which the series treats transsexuals? I doubt the real Richard Dawkins would care if someone he was in love with is a transsexual - he doesn't share Matt and Trey's bigotry.
PfHyde, WP:NPOV is not the main issue- Wikipedia:No Original Research is. Please read that carefully. Borisblue 03:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe the criticism section can be added once this has been revised to follow the guidelines. I believe the criticisms have objective merit. Kralizec 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not much with editing this thing, so forgive me if this is out of line, but the show doesn't treat transsexuals in a horrible way- just Garrison and his/her absurd jumps from one minority to another. Guessing what the real Dawkins would have done is irrelevant to the point of the episode. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.105.103.49 (
talk) 01:22, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Come now, isn't it blindingly obvious to any speaker of English slash watcher of Western television media? K-10 is a play on K-9, which is both Canine, and an abbreviation used in quite alot of TV shows and movies.
Kit-9 would be a play on K-10, where the number is misplaced (Kit-10 would be kitten).
I see two problems with my article as of this moment:
November 2006 (UTC) -- Ineffable3000 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is a fantastic resource about a fantastic episode. I had no idea the cultural refernces went so deep. Keep up the good work, nerds! -- 216.57.222.134 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain how this is a paradox? Whoever wrote this claims that Cartman could not call his past self from the future (because the author thinks his past self will be frozen?) but, in the future with the prank call phone, Cartman could use the phone to call himself (at a time prior to him freezing himself)just by selecting how far back in time he wanted to call (a feature offered on the phone). Because of that, I don't see how he would be unable to call himself. If anyone else agrees the quote is incorrect, we should probably pull this. If anyone else agrees with the quote, please explain.
"Cartman crying out that he has been sent back too far is reminiscent of the director's cut of Army of Darkness when Ash (Bruce Campbell) has been sent too far into the future (into a post-apocalyptic wasteland)."
first Ash is sent into the past, not the future and then the scene it is refering to is a very accurate copy of the beginning from Buck Rogers and the 25th century
216.113.99.43 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)shodan
-Actually, if you saw the last movie with its original theater ending, after taking one too many drops of a juice that causes him to sleep a 100 years per drop, Ash wakes up to find himself 100 years after his original time period. The world has become a desolate wasteland of garbage and random collapsed buildings (sort of like a giant junkyard mixed with a bunch of buildings.) It seems human life has ceased to exist at this point (pretty morbid if you consider it was only a 100 years into the future.) Ash then curses the heavens that he was sent too far into time. The ending on the DVD release was a director's cut ending which gave the movie a happy ending due to the large criticism over the extremely anti-climactic, WTF original ending. In the new ending, Ash successfully reaches his own time period and resumes his life working at a department store with what appears to be two hands instead of just one. It ends with him telling one of his co-workers his story with the man not believing a word of it due to it obvious implausibility. -- PokeHomsar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.105.167 ( talk) 04:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I copied the text (slightly changed) from "Go God Go" (first part), because k-10's first appearence is in "Go God Go XII" I hope I haven't done any mistake. But if this is the case, please forgive a German student, because this is the first time I changed something in the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Big-B_36 19:05, Dec.26th 2006 (CET)
Can someone explain why it is called go god go XII, which is roman numerals for twelve? The first time i watched this episode I thought It was a twelve part continuing series like the The Simpsons Treehouse Of Horror series. Why isn't it called II?
I see no reason in merging this article with Go God Go. If nobody has any objections, I'll remove the request of a discussion, since none has been carried out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothervessla ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just seen this episode on southparkstudios.com. On 6:07, when Eric is viewing commercials, there is a brief scene viewing a black newsspeaker next to a picture saying "Under attack" in red letters on a fiery background. Is that a reference to anything?-- 88.77.50.165 ( talk) 00:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Any cites for these?
If so, we'll add them to the main article again. Alastairward ( talk) 10:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you want as a "cite"? Do you need like actual evidence, or do you want someone in an article saying it? I mean, the Buck Rogers thing is blatantly obvious, but I'm not sure how I'd "cite" it to satisfactory standards. - Anon
There is an information about serie between two parts, that was banned for its cruelty. It has a scene when Cartman make sex with two otters. Is it fake or real? 31.42.227.206 ( talk) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)