Talk:Lazy Sunday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Comedy Portal This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 discussion 2 SNL Digital Shorts 3 Actual Lyrics 4 Copyright review 5 References in other media 6 Red Vines 7 Revert 8 Response 9 External links 10 Eyebrow move 11 Catalyst for YouTube Boom? 12 Video description 13 Allusions in the song

[edit] discussion

Shouldn't there be some sort of mention of how difficult the actual video is to find online because of the fact that every idiot and his cousin felt the need to post a spoof.

It's too soon to say whether this will "prove" to be a breakout for Samberg.

I suppose it could be phrased differently, but it did establish him as more than a guy who, if he's lucky, gets half a dozen lines in an episode. People actually recognize the name now. -R. fiend 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNL Digital Shorts

The content of this article is nice, but is every single segment on SNL worthy of its own article? I don't believe so, but if this information was collected into an article about SNL Digital Shorts and included a bit about The Lonely Island connection as well as a summation of the "Lettuce" short, that would be better. --sigmafactor 22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

According to MSNBC, since the skit was put on the NBC.com website, its been downloaded 1.2 million times. On top of that, the report also mentioned that there might be t-shirts released aswell. So yeah, its notable.--Kross | Talk 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, color me amazed that the short has taken off to such an extent. Would anyone else still be up for making a Digital Shorts article once a few more are produced? --sigmafactor 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

By my count they've had around 5 of them in the last 4 episodes. Might warrant an article soon. --waffle iron 03:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Though all were subpar in coomparison. Though the Lettuce Council ad was amusing. BabuBhatt 03:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought Young Chuck Norris was great, though the two last wekend weren't anything too special. Probably could use an article, if there is any verifiable information available that isn't just first hand accounts of the skits. -R. fiend 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actual Lyrics

When I had edited the article, I changed one of the lyrics to "68th to Broadway". Now I know that in normal speech, when referring to an intersection of 2 streets we say "68th AND Broadway", but if I'm not mistaken, the actual lyric is "to", not "and". I'm going to change it back, if anyone has any comments, please let me know. I've listened to the part a few times, and I'm almost positive I have the correct lyrics.

You're right, they definitely say 'to'. Also, I've made some more minor corrections — take a look. jareha 04:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I really think they're saying "and." I don't hear "to." They're starting in the Village and naming a location on the Upper West Side. Why would they be saying "68th TO Broadway"? I neither hear "to" nor think it's plausible. Moncrief 03:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"68th and Broadway" and "Lazy Sunday" returns 80 Google hits, whereas "68th to Broadway" and "Lazy Sunday" returns all of three. I am happy to take this to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment if it continues to be reverted. Moreover, there is a large Loews movie theater at 68th and Broadway. In keeping with the realism of the piece, it makes sense they would reference a corner with an actual theater where, in fact, Narnia is playing. Moncrief 03:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think it matters at all, but I just saw this discussion and thought I'd listen to it again... they definitely say 68th to Broadway. It doesn't really matter what Google says--people often mishear song lyrics, especially because "and" makes more sense in this context. And *does* make more sense in this context, but "to" isn't entirely wrong, either. It could be short for "take 68th to Broadway". It's more common for people to use "and" to denote an intersection, but some people say "to" in that sense. Ario 20:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think they say "68th to Broadway," as in "take 68th to Broadway." They have checked Yahoo Maps for the dopest route, and are informing the cab driver of their preference...take 68th to Broadway (rather than going up Broadway to 68th, I suppose).Silarius 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

But they ARE going UP Broadway to 68th Street. Look at the video, during the "Yahoo Maps" lyric/graphic. It clearly shows a route from A to B going from around Magnolia Bakery to Lincoln Center. Nobody would ever say "68th to Broadway". If they were on 68th, they would just say "To Broadway". And for that matter, almost nobody would take a cab on 68th to Broadway, because it would be a ridiculously short ride; on the Upper West Side, 68th St. is about two or three blocks long, since it is cut short by Central Park and some oddly shaped blocks. They line is clearly "68th AND Broadway", and it's just an acoustic quirk that makes it sound like "to".72.11.217.44 07:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well put. I vote for it to remain and. Since that is what is said. BabuBhatt 08:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly right. They are saying "and". If you listen to it real closely a few times in a row at that exact spot in the song, they almost over-pronounce the "th" in "68th" and I think that's what makes it sound like "to". And yes, from the village you most certainly take a cab or subway up Broadway to 68th, unless you really enjoy the excercise. The other way around (68th to Broadway) wouldn't be worth the money in cab fare; they'd probably charge you extra for the inconvenience. But anyway, they are saying "68th and Broadway" because that's a corner, plus I don't think they are on either street when they get into the cab (that is, if they just left Magnolia's with their cupcakes they are near 11th somewhere); and usually you presume with all the oneway streets that the cabbie knows the best routes anyway (s/he might take the West Side Hwy and cross over to Broadway later, who knows). But after about 15 or so listens with the stereo blasting, it is definitely "68th and Broadway".

I just reviewed the part in question roughly 20 times and I have come to the conlusion that it is, in fact, 68th and Broadway. But if you aren't paying attention, it could be taken as either. Sk8tuhpunk 18:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright review

I have asked for copyright review as I don't think that including all the lyrics qualifies as fair use. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics are copyrighted. They have been removed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What about the recent addition of the link to the mp3 file? Is that really appropriate? --sigmafactor 07:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a pseudo-policy about not linking to pages which do copyright violations, so I would tend to remove it. It's also just a Google search, which we shouldn't be linking to anyway, so I'm going to delete that. If there is a legit page with the video or the mp3, then we can link to that. User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

true that Jaybenad 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What is the pseudo-policy of not linking to pages with copyright violations? Does linking to them actually put wikipedia at risk for a lawsuit (I actually don't know but would suspect not)? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References in other media

As other articles have commentary on certain kinds of humor being cross-referenced in other media, I will point out the political website ThinkProgress using "Alexander Strategy Group + Congress = Crazy Scandalicious" at http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/06/scandalicious/ as an article title. If more instances pop up, there may be enough information to warrant one of these cross-reference sections. JoeMeyerowitz 17:17, 6 January 2005 (UTC)

On a similar vein, should this be linked to internet meme articles; it's evolving into one Barry Zuckerkorn 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Vines

Um, Red Vines are availble heavily in NYC. Really, I can take pictures! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.208.124.76 (talk • contribs) .

Please do, I'm sick of that paragraph disappearing and reappearing. --waffle iron 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This would seem to indictae you're correct. -R. fiend 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And to confirm you can get them in the city: Stores they can be found at. Locations of CVS stores. Locations of Target Stores.
I am going to remove the paragraph again. (And the Mr. Pibb website link is a dead link.) --waffle iron 05:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted the recent changes. If by chance someone doesn't knwo what the Chronicles of Narnia is, there's a link at the beginning of the article. -R. fiend 22:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The last item in this section is (to put it kindly) inappropriate. If a high school decides to call its talent show "Fowlerville Idol", it is still a high school talent show. This has absolutely no business in this article (an article that is quite frivolous to begin with, at least in the opinion of this editor).Swatson1978 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't that opinionated editor just remove it? Why dis the article just for an unnecessary item? BabuBhatt 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedians are to work by a code and part of that code is not chasing away (possibly new) editors with pretension and derision. However, I felt that simply removing the offending piece of information would not work. I felt strongly that the editor that had put it there in the first place would simply put it back. So, my aim was to have someone else remove it. I just put my opinion out there. Reality by consensus, right?Swatson1978 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of these don't belong there. A few that have been mentioned in news sources are worth mentioning ourselves (one even had a Jim Davis cameo, which seems moderately notable), but we don't have to mention every single parody someone's uploaded to youtube... --Delirium 01:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Here all the extra external links. If any of these are used as references they should be footnoted inline and placed in a "References" section not "External Links". See WP:STYLE, WP:CITE, and WP:EL. Links follow---

• The Lonely Island

News and media

• Slate.com, December 27, 2005, "The Narnia Rap, Deconstructed"
• The Village Voice, Dec. 20, 2005: "SNL Narnia-Rap Skit: Better Than Actual Rap?"
• Slate.com, Dec. 23, 2005: "The Chronicles of Narnia Rap: It Won't Save Saturday Night Live, But It Could Save Hip Hop"
• New York Daily News, Dec. 24, 2005: "Video shoots 'SNL' rookie into the show's spotlight"
• New York Times, Dec. 27, 2005: "Nerds in the Hood, Stars on the Web"
• The Hollywood Reporter, Feb. 18, 2006: "NBC Uni to sites: Clip the clips"
• New York Times, Feb. 20, 2006: "A Video Clip Goes Viral, and a TV Network Wants to Control It"

Also all the external links in the article itself should be removed and placed in proper section. L0b0t 20:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eyebrow move

"When Chris Parnell moves his left eyebrow in the second scene" -- can we get more specific than that, such as a time? I don't even know what constitutes a "scene" in this thing. I've just watched it several times and don't see any noteworthy eyebrow-moving from Parnell (or Samberg, for that matter).

Sorry, the above was me. Upon further consideration, that trivia entry has GOT to be taking the piss. Jerry Kindall 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalyst for YouTube Boom?

I think it's a fair analysis that Lazy Sunday was one of, if not the main, catalyst for the boom in popularity YouTube saw in late 2005/early 2006. If there's a credible source that echoes this thought, we should definitely add it. --Savethemooses 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Youtube did experience a boom in popularity around the time the Lazy Sunday video was posted, but assuming the two things were related is still just idle speculation at this point. I say add it only if there's been a serious study into the subject. --TankRamp 23:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video description

I added a one line describing what the actual video was about. Looking over the page it seemed that, amidst all the information, someone forgot to actually say what was in the film.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk • contribs)

Why when I type Lazy Monday I get here? There is Lazy Monday and Lazy Sunday, two different videos. Can we fix that?

[edit] Allusions in the song

I thought the deprecated "References in the song" section was informative and useful, as it helped me to understand the allusions and therefore understand the song more thoroughly. (It also inspired me to learn more about Alexander Hamilton.) To me, this indicates that such information is more analytical than trivial.

Perhaps most editors still consider the information too-trivial to include in the article, but if not worthy of an "Allusions" section, could it perhaps be in a separate article that provides the allusion information? Or alternately, can we find an(other) external site with the information that we could link to in the External Links section? The "Narnia Rap, Deconstructed" site doesn't have all of the information that the deprecated "References" section provided.

Recently, to help them understand the cultural references in the song, I sent my colleagues a link to the Lazy Sunday article, thinking that the "References in the song" explanatory notes were still there, but now I'm not sure where to direct people for such information. Thanks, and apologies for any non-conforming content here. (My first editing-discussion post.) Memetics (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)