Talk:The Kids in the Hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous[edit]

What's the name of that sketch with the dude who had a list of things to do in the day and wouldn't divert from the path even if he was held hostage by bank robbers?

On the DVD and most episode guides, it's listed as "Things To Do".Raymondluxuryacht 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really needs cleanup. The opening section is too long and should be divided into a few more sections, such as history and style of comedy. ReverendG 00:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IS THIS A radio comedy or Tv? if so in the List of Comedies it should go in the TV section. - fonzy
  • According to the offical Kids in the Hall website, their troupe name comes from Jack Benny, not Steve Allen.
  • My longtime-question is, who is the actress who played the, "It's A Fact" girl?  :-o

Adding the King of Empty Promises to Infamous Sketches?[edit]

What is the consensus on this sketches popularity? Is it well known enough to make it into the list?--68.206.175.114 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's as valid as any on the list. It's easily recognizable and (IMHO) one of Kevin's funniest bits. --Happylobster 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely ranks as one of the troupe's most popular sketches. There was a follow-up sketch (which features Kevin's character in prison) which should be mentioned as well.Raymondluxuryacht 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the Fuzzy Bunny sketch to Infamous Sketches[edit]

I'm not even sure whether it's Fuzzy Bunny or Fluffy Bunny, but there is a recurring theme on one episode--three or four members of the cast are in bunny suits and speak in rhyme. Later it is revealed that they are actually drunk college students. Everybody I know loves this one.

Nutty bunnies, mate. They're nutty bunnies. --Happylobster 21:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Men...[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section on here about business men? I recall these guys were constantly making fun of the concepts of yuppies and business people...great stuff.

TVRage.com Link[edit]

I added a link to TVRage.com's page for the show. The place has an actual episode guide, which is more than I can say for the rest of the links posted at the bottom. It also has dates, sketch information, and a number of other sources of info that the others do not have. This is not an ad site, this is an actual guide to the show. If you bothered to check it and not just delete it on the fly Cleduc, you'd see that. If you're going to list IMDb and it's horrible excuse for a guide, then TVRage gets to stay. JohnQ.Public 10:12, 16 October 2006

No spam and external linking to websites, especially ones where you have an obvious personal stake. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. --Madchester 17:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Infamous Sketches[edit]

Was that really necessary? I don't think it was particularly "long-winded", although I would've removed "the Soaking Competition" and "Sixth Kid in the Hall." - BNLfan53, Saturday, 2006-11-04 T 14:54 UTC

I think the move could be supported easily. Wikipedia is about verifiability, so by whose standards are they infamous? With no way of objectively deciding if a sketch was "infamous" or not, the list was growing as everyone's own personal "infamous sketch" got added to the list. This could be re-added, but only after some means of objectively deciding if a sketch should be added or not is determined. - Vedexent (talk) - 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do think there should be a listing of notable sketches outside those featuring recurring characters, simply for completeness's sake. As for what criteria to use to determine notability... that might be trickier. We might try drawing from the sketches included on the seasonal "best-of" releases. Those episodes have commentary from the Kids themselves, so we might glean from their comments which sketches they feel are noteworthy. We could also look up critical reviews of the show, or perhaps check for fan polls.Raymondluxuryacht 17:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CabbageHead[edit]

When watching repeats of the shows on CBC and the Comedy Network in Canada, I noticed a complete lack of sketches featuring the CabbageHead character. Was this because the character was only featured in a few seasons (and those seasons were not being shown) or was there some other reason? Mruss 16:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was most likely because of his hyper-sexist attitude, although it was still funny. --24.57.97.56 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or indeed you happened not to see the episodes in which he appeared. —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name[edit]

I'm going to have to check this out: The name of the group came from Sid Caesar, who, if a joke didn't go over, or played worse than expected, would attribute it to "the kids in the hall," referring to a group of young writers hanging around the studio. For years this was erroneously attributed to Jack Benny, though the Kids themselves offer a corrected version of the origin of the troupe's name on the DVD release of the show's pilot episode.

One of the earliest edits attributed it to Steve Allen. I corrected it to Jack Benny (after finding sources) There's this Boston Globe article for example:

With comedy that is by turns arcane, lurid, absurdist and sly, whu are
these clever men known as kids? "When Jack Benny would walk into 30
Rockefeller Plaza to do his radio show," McKinney explains, "there were
all these comedians who were not hired by show but people were hoping to
sell a gag. As Benny walked to the elevator, they would pitch these gags,
and if he used one on the radio and it worked he would say, 'That was one
from the kids in the hall.'"

-***NEW KID IN TOWN; Mark McKinney Comes in From the Hall to Talk About the Comedy Troupe's First Movie*** from the Boston Sunday Globe, April 7, 1996 by M. Gilbert

Actually, this is a little suspect since Benny did most of his shows from Hollywood. -Dhodges 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated this with the Caesar info.

I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but it's the Kids themselves (minus Bruce) who offer the Caeser version of the story on their most recent DVD release. It's in the extras on the pilot episode DVD which just recently began shipping from their official site and will be available in stores on August 14. The extras are pretty recent too. The troupe sans-Bruce was recorded together during the clip where they offer up the Caesar version of the name's origin, and while that means it wasn't recorded at the same time as the audio commentary because Scott & Kevin were in Toronto and Dave & Mark were in LA it does look as if they were recorded very close together and in the audio commentary was recorded the day Tony Blair announced his resignation (Mark refers to it) which would put the commentary recording session on May 10 so these are recent clips of the Kids.

Perhaps the best way to present this info would be to list Allen, Benny and Caesar as possible sources of the name since there seems to be some uncertainty but I doubt anyone will be able to find a more recent attribution than the pilot episode DVD release.GuruAskew 04:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Benny's show, as the other poster pointed out, originated in California, why would you even consider him as the source of the quote? The facts would seem to exclude this as a possibility. And I certainly find it impossible to believe that Benny, or other comedians at the time or today, would offer credit for a joke live on the air, especially with a bizarre, cryptic quote such as "That was one from the kids in the hall" that would baffle the audience. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Kurt Cobain thing[edit]

Where's the proof about that whole thing of Kurt being a fan of the show, having met Scott and all the members attending his memorial service? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herecomesyourpixie (talk • contribs) 03:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC). Scott Thompson talked about it when he was a guest on the internet-based Tom Green talk show.

Removed section[edit]

I took the liberty of removing the entire section for other (non recurring) sketches, as none of them are significantly notable. Calgary 06:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live as We'll Ever Be and Death Comes to Town[edit]

First of all, the 2008 tour is called "Live as We'll Ever Be." Secondly, since this tour has been publicized fairly well, a lot of interviews have been recorded/documented on the internet, along with some new sketches, in the past few months. If there are any KitH fans on Wikipedia, they might want to observe them for new information, such as on the troupe's reasons for breaking up or reuniting.

Also, the Kids announced a new movie project called Death Comes To Town. It is listed on IMDB and a few other (mostly fan) websites. I don't know how to cite references or anything yet, so I just wanted to put that here in case anyone would have the time to update the article. 71.127.124.181 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Death Comes to Town, "Death" wears The Friendly Giant's old vest [1]. The Friendly Giant is an old children's show that many Canadians watched as kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.84.145 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Tisane[edit]

This surely should be one of the recurring sketches? Gimme a tea, ya bastard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.201.204 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Exactly 2 appearances.Vonbontee (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin and Cancer Boy[edit]

Recently added:

Among the characters portrayed by McCulloch in Brain Candy is a slightly modified version of Gavin, known as "Cancer Boy".

Well, they're both young and played by the shortest Kid. Is Cancer Boy's angelic politeness a slightly modified version of Gavin's steel-plated insensitivity? Is Cancer Boy's spooky optimism in the face of certain death a slightly modified version of Gavin's obsession with fanciful trivia? Perhaps my memory of Cancer Boy is too faded to see a resemblance. —Tamfang (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that Cancer Boy was a character from an early episode but subsequently cut. While the Cancer Boy and Gavin characters are extremely similar in voice they are two distinct characters. I am wondering if anyone knows of a Cancer Boy sketch that was subsequently cut? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.232.166 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fop[edit]

Smitty in "Steps" is described here as a fop, which I don't think fits at all: the word suggests making an effort to be ahead of fashion trends, but Smitty's clothing is prissily conservative. How about "prig"? —Tamfang (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armada[edit]

I just saw the final episode ("But do we make it?") in which Rod's name is clearly Torfelson on the drum and a poster; interestingly this spelling is not mentioned in the article. I believe it was shown as Torfulson at least once. —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy![edit]

Darcy, Darcy, Darcy Pennell, she makes your life a loveless hell. Darcy!

It sure sounded to me like "a lot less hell" (from which it was recently changed). What do y'all think? —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python: "verging on nonsensical"[edit]

There is nothing "nonsensical" in Monty Python that hasn't been put there for rational reasons (e.g. as a reference to something like Alice). It is also misleading to imply that the Python team "verges" on anything; normally, they either do it or they don't.--JO 24 (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Frequently utilizing drag"[edit]

The article currently says: frequently utilizing drag (not primarily for comedic effect but merely to allow female characters in the skits). Nowadays (as opposed to the Elizabethan theatre), convention dictates that female characters are played by female actors. I cannot see why using drag would be for any reason that isn't comedic, particularly since TKITH is a comedy team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JO 24 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also conventional to have old men played by old men, and funny to violate that convention; would you say that incongruity was the primary reason for using bald-wigs or grey mustaches? They played in drag because they wanted to have women characters in the skits, without going out of their way to hire women to play them. They said so. According to a DVD (i think), they had a hard time getting the makeup staff to understand that they wanted to look like women, not drag-queens; not "Oo, look at me, I'm in drag." —Tamfang (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image?[edit]

Would it be possible to find a better image, where we can see everyone's face? --DrBat (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Entry About Show? Or The Group Itself?[edit]

The entry reads as an overview of the group, but the infobox is written as if it is solely about the original show. This should be two separate entries. (24.62.126.170 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Too much fancruft!!![edit]

The "Show Contents" section is FOURTEEN PAGES LONG in my browser. This is completely unacceptable by Wikipedia quality standards. I see no reason for the section to even be there because it's nothing but a list of fancruft. 71.49.82.44 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good gosh! The removed section was TWO-THIRDS of the size of the article. The article was 61K bytes before the removal and is now 21K. 71.49.82.44 (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It prints to fewer pages in my browser, incidentally. In your edit & here you use a lot of subjective terms like "useless" "mind-bogglingly lengthy" "fancruft" "trivia", and "no reason for the section because it's nothing but a list of fancruft".
Most of those terms are in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What it is, is a section about the sketches and characters of the long-running show that ran 6 years. It's exactly like having a plot section in movie or TV show articles. It discusses the genesis of the characters, influence; some referenced to DVD making-of stuff, some outside. It could do with some editing, but that's an argument for editing.
In blanking the section, you removed all the sub-article (summary style) interlinks, sections linked from other articles, all the characters – those appearing in the troupe's theatrical movie Brain Candy, or in Saturday Night Live, or referenced later elsewhere; sketches directed by notable director Michael Kennedy, or sufficiently iconic to give a noted comedy trio their name, as well as those reprized in the Montreal Comedy Festival reunion. I'm going to restore it shortly. –Whitehorse1 02:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some cleanup editing. –Whitehorse1 03:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine. I will re-remove the section with the following non-subjective uses of WP policies: it is an indiscriminate collection of information, it is incredibly poorly sourced (kithfan.org? Really?), it contains tenuous wikilinks, and it is almost entirely original research. 71.49.85.130 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the revert because it undid Whitehorse1's cleanup to the other sections of the article. The content that is under debate is simply the Show Contents section, which I have removed for the time being in the spirit of BoN's reply, though I do not entire agree with the reasoning. BoN makes a strong point that there is too much fancruft in this section and much of it counts as original research. However, many of the characters began on this show and have their own standalone articles, e.g. Buddy Cole, Chicken Lady, etc. At the very least, a section on Show Contents should include several major recurring characters and any notable, referenced cultural impacts of particular sketches/characters. The section should be monitored from growing full of fancruft. -Krasnoludek (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the article about Chicken Lady, it really is difficult to justify its stand-alone status. 71.49.83.81 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an indiscriminate collection of information, quite the opposite. It's discriminate: Specifically, it comprises recurring sketches and characters from the long-running six-year run 111 episode show The Kids in the Hall, with a selection of further sketches such as those directed by a notable film director or which gave their name to a noted ensemble, often with information on the genesis of the relevant item or its appearance in related works; and all within the context of the show's composition. The effects of the straightforward or blanket style reversion could be described as indiscriminate, as Krasnoludek had to restore changes made to the rest of the article.
I don't understand what's meant by tenuous wikilinks. I think all the wikilinks are on terms for which it's reasonable to provide a contextual/explanatory link, taking into account systemic bias and complexity. I suppose 'jazz' and maybe 'hanging' could be delinked, but don't see it's laden with overlinks.
Calling it incredibly poorly sourced by singling out kithfan.org is cherry-picking, if you take into account our norms for sourcing such content. It ignores all content on the genesis of sketches being sourced through in-text attribution to production material "According to Bruce McCulloch (in the Oral History segment of the Season 1 DVD set)...", for example. Even information presented without using superscript blue cite.php links counts.
Plot summaries—and undoubtedly recurring characters/sketches of a sketch show are equivalent, "do not normally [per WP:TVPLOT] require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question." This is true even of featured articles (inc. recent ones), which are supposed to represent our best content. Take the article for the movie Fight Club: impeccably researched, a labor of love over more than a year by the Film Wikiproject's lead coordinator, and contains not one cite in its plot summary.
On that basis, it would seem it isn't indiscriminate, is sourced in the usual i.e. appropriate way for such content, it's in broad terms wikilinked in a reasonable manner, and is as a whole free from original research. Does this help address your concerns? –Whitehorse1 13:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 7 days and no response nor any other objections have been brought forward. As the original concerns seemed in large part to stem from confusion, and clarifying information has been provided, allowing for a little more time in interests of fairness--in case anyone would like any further discussion, I'll otherwise restore it later today. –Whitehorse1 07:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

It might be a good idea to remove the link to the "Kids in the Hall Message Boards," as while the board is still there, nothing has been added since 2008, and almost all the entries are spam about "beautiful handbags."2001:558:6026:9:14A:9662:3B45:1517 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed and done, thank you. –Whitehorse1 13:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other appearances[edit]

I don't see the need for any of the "other appearances" except those which feature more than one member of KITH; propose removing all the instances of single-alumnus appearances from this list. PacificBoy 04:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Kids in the Hall. 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:

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) 06:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


2022 Amazon Series[edit]

I may be missing it, but i couldnt find anything about the recent return of the kids in the hall. havent watched it yet, seems to be accompanied by a documentary on amazon as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A45B:CBC9:1:54F5:1AC3:F301:8DF4 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Kids_in_the_Hall&oldid=1206682562"