# Talk:The Juice Is Loose

Was that rant necessary at all? If i remove anything it get put up again so i wont do it without asking. First off if new evidence is introduced i do not believe that's double jeopardy. If someone confesses to murder after being acquitted of it they can still be charged with it. Even if its true than does it really belong here? the entire thing does not look encyclopedic at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.42.207.35 (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC) 

VERBATIM FROM THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 
Q: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
A: IT MEANS NO MATTER WHAT, A PERSON CAN NOT BE TRIED FOR THE SAME CRIME TWICE.  PERIOD!  THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT. OJ COULD GO ON LIVE TV, ADMIT IT, AND NOTHING COULD BE DONE ABOUT IT.--Subman758 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how Stewie's utterance of "Good Grief!" has anything to do with his failure to kill Lois: it does not fit the context. He probably said, "Good Grief," because he'd just been spiked as a football; plus, he's lying on the ground, just like Charlie Brown would be after being tricked by Lucy with the football trick. So, whoever put that in there needs to fess up, and agree to never use Wikipedia again! Or, you know, fix it, and try to keep their facts straight when editing Wikipedia. Whatever.

Next time, when you want to start a new conversation in a talk page, start a new section. Also sign your name with "~~~~". Sarujo (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material moved from article to talk page. Should not be added back to article unless sourced. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


### Cultural references
{{unreferenced}}
This episode was the third where a clip of Conway Twitty singing on Hee Haw was shown. The song, played in its entirety, was 1974's "I See The Want To In Your Eyes." The other two episodes are Bill and Peter's Bogus Journey and Peter's Daughter. Peter used the clip as a distraction while he explained to Lois why Stewie was found on the roof of the house. At one point Mayor Adam West, leading an angry mob, says "We don't want you in our town, Simpson! We don't love you like we did in 1993" before cutting to Homer Simpson uttering his trademark D'oh!. When reading a teen magazine, Peter exclaims "Oh, Nick Jonas is so cute!" right before Joe starts a pillow fight. Peter also suggests that the family stay in, pop some popcorn, and watch Jimmy Kimmel try. The episode features an anachronism due to the episode being set in 2007 instead of 2009 - when Brian mentions "Academy Award winner Diablo Cody". Cody would not win an Academy Award until 2008, when she won one for the screenplay to Juno (which did not even premiere until September of 2007, when it was first shown at the Telluride Film Festival.) When Stewie is up on the roof and the storm rolls in, Marty McFly from the Back to the Future series comes along and yells "I have to tell you about the future!" This is a reference to the ending of the first film in the series. (Also, Stewie also says to him, "No Michael, I need to tell you about your future," referencing Michael J. Fox, the actor that protrayed Marty McFly, being diagnosed with parkinson's disease.) When OJ sees Stewie, he picks Stewie up and throws a perfect spiral to Chris, which refers to OJ being a football player and Stewie's head being football-shaped. Then when Chris catches Stewie, Chris 'spikes' Stewie and Stewie utters "Good grief!", Charlie Brown's famous quote in Peanuts.


### Connections to previous episodes
Ironically, in Long John Peter, Lois tells Chris that Peter was the one responsible for the murder. In an even earlier episode, Peter Griffin: Husband, Father...Brother?, Stewie was the one who, while they were drinking together, put O. J. up to it (incidentally, when Peter first mentions O. J. Simpson, Stewie responds with, "Who?"). In the episode Love Thy Trophy, in a news report with Tom Tucker and Diane Simmons, it is stated that O.J was proven innocent and that they'd be back with the identity of the real killer.
In Stewie Griffin: The Untold Story (and also Stu & Stewie's Excellent Adventure), the slogan on the Quahog Time Travel Vacations office is shown as "Watch O.J. Do It", a reference to the supposed murder.

Juno came out DECEMBER of 2007 and the Oscar that Diablo Cody won [which was referenced in the episode] was given to her in February 2008. The episode was said to take place in March 2007, well before Juno or The Jonas Brothers. Macshill (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

this episode had to been one of those episode put on the backburner during the 2007/2008 WGA strike. that strike screwed up TV during the 2007-2008 TV Season. so Seth decide to finish these lost episodes while working on the Cleveland show spin off and new American Dad episodes. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, Family Guy plays fast and loose with continuity all the time. Example: "Brian, I'm one." "Still?" "What?" Lots42 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the OJ opera a spoof on a particular opera?  It sounds very familiar. Ceresly (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The episode was finished after Simpson was jailed for robbery. One idea that the producers considered to explain it would be the continual timeline but that Obama pardoned OJ. 69.143.110.86 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Juice is Loose/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this right away, just thought I'd set up the review page now. Canadian Paul 01:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Some comments:

Reference #4 is not working.
Done, replaced the reference. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Under "Plot", the first sentence of the second paragraph is way, way too long. It needs to be split into two, maybe even three, separate sentences because it's very difficult to read in its current state. The same goes with the first sentence of the third paragraph - just because half of it is bracketed off doesn't make it any easier to read.
Done. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Same paragraph, "but instead they are met with an angry mob intent on driving Simpson out" - you can't use the pronoun "they" here because it is unclear to whom it refers (I'm guessing Simpson and Peter, but that's not how the sentence is set up)
Done. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Same paragraph, "The mob went on a chase;" you switch to past tense here despite the rest of the paragraph being in present tense - this needs fixing.
Done. Gage (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Under "Production", first paragraph, - "executive producer Chris Sheridan had to explain to the Fox executives why the segment should be featured in the episode." - Considering how critical the Twitty segment was to the negative reception, I would be interested in knowing what justification Sheridan used. It would make the article more informative if we knew how Sheridan convinced the Fox executives - is this information available?
I don't believe a reason was given, to my knowledge. If the statement is irrelevant without an explanation, do you suggest removing it? Gage (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Is "The TV Critic" considered a reliable enough source for reception? I have absolutely no idea, so I'm just curious.
I've removed the review. I agree with your questioning of its reliabilty. Gage (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 02:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I tided up the prose a bit, but overall I think that it meats the Good Article criteria now, and thus I will be passing it as such. I wouldn't remove the Sheridan comment, since it's important to understanding the segment, it's just too bad that there isn't more of an explanation. Anyhow, congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Juice Is Loose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422083404/http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/03/16/sunday-ratings-kings-premiere-beheaded-desperate-housewives-keeps-crown/14602 to http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/03/16/sunday-ratings-kings-premiere-beheaded-desperate-housewives-keeps-crown/14602
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)