Talk:Imaginationland Episode III

Icarus?

Guys, I'm pretty sure the winged creature in imagination land was not Icarus, because he had wax wings and his wings in the episode were metal. I think he was Archangel from X-men. Inaccurate information like this is the cancer that is killing wikipedia, as well as the world, I believe we need an expert to sort this out. 128.226.199.59 20:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is the Arch-angel character from X-men, as you can clearly see by comparing the image from the episode with a classic image of the "Archangel" that the one from the episode alludes to a Mediterranean-style figure. The short toga, sandals, and wooden-framework suggest that this is a classical more ancient structure. Whereas the x-men "Archangel" clearly shows that the wings are attached to his figure. The episode one shows a wooden framework separate from his body with . Please do some research before you start accusing articles as having "inaccurate information".
Images: "Archangel" from X-men - [1], [2] Icarus from the episode: [3] --Phatheon 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I recall there was also one soldier-like winged creature. I'll look for it, so, don't be to fast yourself. Mallerd (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he was supposed to be one of the Hawkmen from the 1980 movie Flash Gordon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.43.95 (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was convinced it was the dream sequence version of Sam Lowry in the Terry Gilliam film Brazil (film), the character defiantly resembles Jonathan Pryce who played Lowry in the film. Tomgreeny (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC) I've just re-watched the segment, the character with mechanical wings (Sam Lowry I think) is on a few minutes before a different winged character (obviously an angel) appears having captured Stan. Tomgreeny (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL

"It will premiere in 4 minutes." LOL! This is real Wikipedia humor! Keep up the good work. :-) --212.247.27.81 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this technically mean

That Kyle, Stan, Cartman and the military guys from the Pentagon are all imaginary? Since Butters was the only one who survived the blast and since he had to re-imagine the entire world from scratch. Or was it one of those "reverse time" things such as seen in the end of the South Park movie a few years back? --166.102.104.53 07:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Most likely a "reverse time" because the makers cannot kill off their central characters, can they? They're scheduled to stop at least at the end of their next season, although I've read somewhere that it will be until 2011, but how can they do this with 3 of their 4 central characters dead? Grieferhate 09:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They are dead aren't they? Technically all three of them are now figments of Butters' imagination... but in the real world... --Pretty Green 09:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

yea but if you think about it, the whole basis of the trilogy was that the things we imagine are "real", like when manbearpig passed through the portal into the real world. Its assumed that stan, kyle and cartmen are real because of the conclusion the pentagon came to near the end of the episode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.208.240 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In the end, when butters tries to change reality to not get grounded, the only thing that happens is the comedy central logo disappearing. I think this should be added as a break of the fourth wall. Great way to make fun of the fact that southpark is imaginary, too.

Oh, and the revived "real" people must be real. Cartman is a "creator", too. The one feature the imaginary creatures lack in contrast to real people is the ability to imagine new imaginary things, and cartman does so. The other way to think about this issue would be, that as butters now knows that whatever real people imagine comes true in imaginationland, he imagines the others, therefore beeing imaginary, but with the same abilities as real people, because he beliefs they are real. And even this way round, there would be no difference anymore between the imaginary southpark kids and the real ones.

An even more complicated question is how butters manages to survive or re-create himself out of nothing, beeing nothing left of him to even have an imagination...

PS: Sorry for spelling- and grammar-mistakes I sure did, english is not my native language.

It is also strange that by nuking imaginationland, everything is destroyed: as if the imagination, or creativity if you will, is destroyed as well. So either at least 1 person in the real world must be imagining all the creatures at once for them to exist, or, they have to be thought of 1 time and they live forever. The latter is the case since Stan is the only one to know about the Christmas critters I believe? From that perspective, it is impossible to destroy imaginationland and its inhabitants. It would only be able to destroy imaginationland if you annihilate every thought on earth and beyond. But that means the first possibility is the case, which is impossible due to aforementioned. Mallerd 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Stan is not the only one in the 'real' world to know of the Christms Critters. The pentagon did get the reports of them raping that actor. Plus, Cartman and Kyle knew of them as only something Cartman made up, IIRC. Lots42 00:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Critters were already there when the pentagon heard of them, so at least the Pentagon never imagined the Critters. And do you mean that Cartman and Kyle knew of them only as something Stan made up? In that case, I don't recall they know how Stan's Critters look like, so, there should be 3 gangs of Christmas Critters out there since Cartman and Kyle give their own intrepretation to the rabbit, bear etc. But I have not seen Cartman's and Kyle's Critters in Imaginationland. That can mean they don't know anything about Christmas Critters, or the creators of Southpark didn't bother. To stay in Southpark's reality, the former must be the case, and then we are back to my other post of Stan being the only 1 that knows of them. Perhaps.. Mallerd 12:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth it to put too much thought into the logic of all this. After all, this is the show that killed off one of its main characters every episode for a large part of its run. And South Park got destroyed several times. I guess the great thing about making this show must be that you can adhere to logic and continuity if you want to, but also can just shove it where the sun doesn't shine if you feel like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.58.253 (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The theory that Kyle mentioned that imaginare things are real because they influence your life is an philosophical theory about what is true. I will check out what the theory was called again. It is 1 of 3 main theories. Mallerd 17:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the English terms if I read this globally but I think it was Pragmatic theory of truth. :) Maybe it can be mentioned in the article. Mallerd 17:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

When you're in imagination land, you're imaginary. When you're in the real world, you're real. What don't you get?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking to me, friend? I was referring to the pragmatic truth article. Of which I am quite sure now that Kyle was telling about when trying to convince the government that imaginary things "are" real. Mallerd 21:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Logic and rationality: South Park is not these things. Cburnett 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The inhabitants of imagination land also include the founder of the mormon religion....who ISN'T imaginary. And jesus (who has before been shown to be real) is also an inhabitant. They're really not playing by rules that are all that strict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.57.215 (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Inhabitants of Imaginationland

Wasn't there a seperate article for all the characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.220.125 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Yes but it was too small to be any useful.(Emigdioofmiami 19:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Neo

Should it be added that Butters was basically Neo? 71.246.76.223 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess :) Mallerd 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pics of all the characters?

Any place to see a pic of each/all the characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.111.235 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

-- should we break up the list of references to the good and bad sides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.228.1.211 (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

See Talk:Imaginationland#Merge poll for a centralized proposal

eddie

oh, what the hell. eddies on the good side?Д narcistPig 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is eddie..? Sorry If I'm being stupid here. --The F50 Man 20:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Eddie the Head? Mallerd 23:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah sorry Eddie the Head, Iron Maiden's mascot. he wears a yellow shirt and jeans in the episode and faces left on the battle field with the other good things, so he's good apperentlyД narcistPig 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ok wait im watchin it now and the little red mose thing eddie was fighting was with the good guys after the evil fled so maybe eddie just got turned around.Д narcistPig 04:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Huge unmaintainable list

I've removed the ridiculously large list, but it's been restored. What encyclopedic function does it perform? --Tony Sidaway 11:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? we have a list on every Imaginationland episode page. There was one page dedicated to the inhapitants but it was removed Jay794 16:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it's a huge list, it's largely unverifiable, it's an unnecessary amount of detail, and it's going to be impossible to maintain. Suppose somebody adds a "reference" to a character or show, how do we know it's valid?

Moreover there are currently some 140 "references" listed. Typically a South Park episode lasts less than 25 minutes, so these so-called "references" must be of the "blink and you missed" it type. In the circumstances, unless a reference is important enough to put into the plot summary (which for a program of this length should be perhaps 200-300 words or so), it cannot be of enough significance to list in this article.

Some material that may be suitable for an article residing on a fan site (and might even add to the article quality of such an article) is patently not suitable to an encyclopedia article. Items of only tangential significance are typically of this type. --Tony Sidaway 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

references take a bit, this page [4] is a good start, but it is missing some characters that are 100% in the episode like Cylons (shown in image 12), Flynn (image 7), Jinx (a few seconds before image 5), Tripod (shown in image 4), etc... -- UKPhoenix79 01:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with not having the list. Slap it up on Geocities and link at the bottom of page. List of all characters who appear in Imaginationland. Lots42 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The only way to have a near 100% complete list of the characters is that everyone can add charaters because i do not think one single person has the will and ability to do so. And I for one find it intereting browsing through the list just to see whom they have put in this episode. So to keep the list complete and easily accesible for viewing and editing I say leave it on wikipedia, or make an article "List of characters in "Imaginationland"" in which there is one big list where every character in that list is somehow marked with attributes such as "appeared in first episode", "appeared in second Episode", "appeared in third episode", "good side", or "evil side". I also think its a good idea to split the list into plot-relevant and -irrelevant. Of course then nobody should delete that. sorry for my bad english, soy alemán 217.82.32.234 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hippies

Should it be mentioned that the first two hippies shown looked like the guys that terrorized Boston with Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters on lite-brites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.252.133 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All hippies look like that. Professor Chaos 05:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The hippie who states: "Don't nuke my imagination, bro'" is referencing the student who disrupted John Kerry at an appearance and was just about to be tasered by security when he shouted: "Don't taze me, bro'." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.240.18 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Parody of Post-modern art?

Is it just me, or does this trilogy through its use of appropriation, critique of universalism and its later parody of this critique (with its rejection of paradox) just scream post-modern art? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio 518 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all you. Captain Infinity 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah those big words are confusing me and im going to treat them as disrespect. so... unless you elaborate on them then your "Parody of Post-modern art" can just be quiet. Philbuck222 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The message I'm getting is that the terrorists are not as dangerous as many people think they are. I don't know anything about art. Mallerd 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Are Matt n' Trey actually making such a ridiculous and dangerous claim as to say that "terrorists aren't as dangerous as many people think?" ... cuz I seriously doubt it. Killing people is about as dangerous as you can get. Still, if that isn't the 'message' of the episode, I'm sorta confused as to what it is.

Individual terrorist that actually detonate bombs in crowds, yes, are dangerous. But I believe the message was that the chances of a terrorist actually attacking [America] aren't that big. The problem is made look worse than it actually is. Mallerd 12:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's impossible. The danger is significant enough that it can't possibly be exaggerated, and we can't be too careful. There's no arguing that, so surely that isn't the point they were making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think, it's about what the creators think. The creators often had strange ideas in the eyes of the people, but that does not say anything about what is true and what is not. Mallerd (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Compare the number of deaths due to terrorist attacks and the number of deaths due to road accidents in the last decade and then compare the spending on road safety compared in that time to the cost of the war on terror. I think Matt and Trey make a good point. Tomgreeny (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore?

What happened to Gore after he messed with the portal's controls? He wasn't seen sucked in, nor was he recreated by Butters if he was sucked in and destroyed by the nuke. Kap2319 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Gore wasn't recreated by Butters because he was never in Imaginationland in the first place. In fact, it is sort of a continuity goof (albeit a not very important one) on the part of the South Park creators that they never showed what happened to Gore after he messed with the controls. He was not shown being sucked into the portal, nor was he shown falling from the sky into Imaginationland. I think we would've seen him because of his cape. Actually, it's possible that not everyone in the portal room was sucked in, although it seems unlikely. The bottom line is that there is no explanation. It's a mistake, but it's not a big deal. If you want to mention the disparity in the article, go ahead, but it's not as if something special happened to Gore. They probably just forgot to show what happened to him. 71.125.91.77 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt they really CARE. They seem to like embarassing him whenever they get the chance. I mean, really. They'll probably stick him in AGAIN if he decides to run for president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.215.221 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I really didnt care if Gore was in Imagineationland other than to see what he would do, I was just really confused as to what happened. I think I got some answers out of it. Thanks. Kap2319 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he died in the real world? Dunno how but....yeah! 85.228.165.63 (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Censoring Section Has Been Censored!!!

Why don't you think it's important that it's the fifth episode in which "shit" is spoke uncensored? (Although it is fair enough that the different words normally censored on the show do not have to be enumerated here.) Still, the Censoring section was not a Trivia section. So what gives? 71.125.91.77 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it has happened so often that it is no longer a big deal. Instead, maybe in a censorship section in the main South Park article there should be a note that in five episodes "shit" has been left uncensored. At this point mentioning it in any but It Hits the Fan is almost as lame as noting that Kenny or Kyle didn't appear in an episode. If it was the only time it would be noteworthy. Besides, you just wanted to say "shit." Professor Chaos 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have requested comment from neutral editors to hopefully have this merge dispute resolved.--Swellman 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Who's that girl?

Is anyone else seeing a semi-nude woman where the graphic of Cartman as Pope should be? Captain Infinity 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um...No...--Swellman 23:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

you need to get out more, you're seeing things. Professor Chaos 23:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Somehow the Cartman thumbnail got crossed with an image in my cache. Once cleared the Cartman thumbnail shows fine. So, nevermind. :-) Captain Infinity 23:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Butters in the Bubble.

When Butters was floating down onto the battlefield in a bubble was clearly a reference to "The Wizard of Oz" when Glenda the Good Witch floated down to meet Dorthy, because a few secpnds prior to that scene, Butters was getting yelled at by her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.253.215 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Compromise

I'm all for merging this article the way Cartoon Wars is, and for merging other split episodes as well. But if we're not going to merge this one, we should at least move the list, so that there is only one single comprehensive list in one place. I'd rather it were deleted, since it's stupid, but that's not going to happen. I say that a list of "good" and a list of "evil" Imaginationland characters be put in the list of minor characters in South Park. If the episode articles remain seperate, then if there is no link to the original character (as in Gandalf links to Gandalf's page in the LOTR universe), then the link should redirect to the episode the character first appeared in. I'm not worried about the list being full of references that didn't actually happen, that will eventually sort itself out, even if it may take a long time. Meanwhile, there's other editing that could be done on these articles, but they've been protected. Plenty of "allusions" (really just trivia, renamed so the too much trivia tag can't be put in there) that can be worked into the main article. Professor Chaos 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A list such as describe did exist until just recently. The result of the debate was "delete", and now it's gone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhabitants of Imaginationland. Captain Infinity 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read what my post says! I did not advocate an entire article for Inhabitants of Imaginationland, that would be retarded. If you recall, I'm against the list altogether! If there must be a list, and such lists are inevitable, it should be part of the list of minor characters in South Park!! Who is more minor than characters that were seen in two or three frames of a single episode? Seriously. Professor Chaos 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Butters scene after imaginationland has been nuked

doesn't it remind you of those Ice Age trailers (butters walking on the white bcakground)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.18.52 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.62.185 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let me think... No! --123.51.103.64 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yooo relax 123.51.103.64, ;) Mallerd 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say the scene is out of "The Neverending Story". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.184.119 (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

TMNT

Who is the turtle with the black mask? Mallerd 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE

Why would you merge this pae with Imag. Pt 1 and 2? It's a whole different episode

Also, when imaginationland was nuked, the nuke was real, so why did it not kill butters, and the boys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodarulz90 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There is precedent for merging, and don't even say "we don't merge Star Wars, or The Lord of the Rings, even though LOTR was intended as one volume." There's not nearly enough material here to fill three articles, even with the stupid list. Three 22 minute parts adds up to 66 minutes of footage for one episode, only half as long as an average movie that only gets one page on Wikipedia. Also, Butters survived because of the bubble around him, and he imagined things back the way they were including the other kids, who were vaporised with everyone else. Professor Chaos 06:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Butters wasn't inside the bubble when the nuke landed. The Chronic 20:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that South Park ISN'T a movie, it's a television show. Every other episode of South Park has its own page, including the two-part episodes in Season 10. Therefore there is no reason that these should be merged. They were aired as separate episodes, and to avoid confusion and maintain consistency here on Wikipedia, they each get there own page. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.247.187 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

wheres goku or ichigo

i seen the episode twice and i cant find them..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.58.81 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

Whereas Ryan simply removed the sections, I felt that , if sourced, they can return. The following trivia bits from allusions need to be reliably and notably sourced (and no, a fan forum is not such). they cannot be added without aforementioned citation.

Allusions

• The beginning sequence where Aslan explains what has happened in Imaginationland, as well as their current situation, is based on a scene in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. In that scene, King Theoden gives a mournful speech while a montage is shown, including a sword being sharpened (which Popeye is shown doing), a young boy being fitted with a helmet (as Snarf was), and a massive army of Uruk-hai marching to war (portrayed in the episode as an army of evil imaginary characters). Also the haircut of Jesus resembles the one of King Aragorn, as does the way he heads into battle with his sword held high, pointed at his enemies.
• When Kyle is trying to convince the military not to nuke Imaginationland, he says imaginary characters are real because they have an influence on people's lives. This is what the pragmatic truth theory also states.
• The scene in which Kyle is sitting in front of the Lincoln memorial questioning his ability to stop the military from nuking Imaginationland is an allusion to a scene from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the reference to a theory can be sourced..it just is what it is. You don't source the fact that Kyle often wears a green hat now do you? Mallerd (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? No, it's obvious Kyle wears a green hat. But it's not obvious Kyle in front of the Lincoln Memorial is a reference to Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. If Trey says in an interview it is, then fine, it is. That'd be a source. Lots42 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the uncited "cultural references" that sneaked in again, awaiting references;

• The scene at the beginning, where the good characters are preparing for battle is reminiscent of the Rohirrim's preperations for battle in The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.
• The battle sequence between the good and evil imaginary characters resembles the fighting at the Black Gate in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.
• The evil army contains Pinhead, a Xenomorph, Darth Maul, The Joker, Freddy Krueger, Venom, and the critters from Woodland Critter Christmas, among others.
• The good army includes a Hawkman from Flash Gordon, Popeye, Wally from Where's Wally?, Robin Hood and other fantastical creatures, i.e. griffons.

Alastairward (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Stan and Kyle

It says in the article that Stan and Kyle had a telepathic link, but I figure it was because Stan was in Kyle's imagination. I would not consider that as telepathic. 12.215.95.187 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) South Park Fannah 101

Why are one or two dissenters allowed to put the "general notability" tag on this article?

So, one or two people apparently have decided that this article "does not meet the general notability guideline", and have placed that tag on this article. Despite the fact that I have argued that 1). the three-part Imaginationland is a very popular story arc in the Sotuh Park series 2). It has been released on DVD, and perhaps most importantly, 3). IT WON AN EMMY AWARD, and thusly I have tried twice to remove this notability tag, because it doesn't belong. But, my efforts are reverted and I am accused of edit warring. Can we get some consensus, please, that this article IS notable, and remove the notability tag? I would also like to see the notability tag that ONE editor has put on a lot of other South Park episodes removed. He has apparently made it his life's mission to deem South Park episodes unworthy of Wikipedia articles, and one or two other editors have decided his cause is worth taking up. Personally, I'd like to see this nonsense stopped. 98.220.135.184 (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for this topic taking place: here. – Richard BB 13:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)