# Talk:Saving Private Brian

As of today there's no official verification for this episode. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
During "Hell Comes to Quahog" I saw an ad for this episode, giving airdate November 5. Can't yet verify this on official website as of today. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As of today, October 24, official website still doesn't have confirmation of this episode's airdate. ShutterBugTrekker 23:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The main website hasnt been updated yet this season...anyways you can usually rely on thefutoncritic.com or planet-familyguy.com for any information about upcoming episodes....Grande13 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, those might not always be good enough for the deletionists. ShutterBugTrekker 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well they should be as the futoncritic pretty much only posts press releases by fox for its upcoming episode recaps.
== What was the old timey vaudeville guy playing on his piano?  I heard that song before obviously.  What is it?

What was the song that all the recuits did a dance number to? It was funny. Koolgiy 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"There are references to the musicals West Side Story, Anything Goes, Miss Saigon, and Cabaret."  I don't remember exactly which was which, but it was how Cabaret and another were overrated, and the other two were good. Now that I've ruined all the humor... --Charibdis 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It was "Dance in the Gym" from West Side Story Koolgiy 02:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where to find a script (official or not) for this (and future) episodes? In particular, I want to know the script for the Zinedine Zidane spoof in the episode. --Charibdis 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't really Manson portraying himself in this episode. It doesn't sound anything like the real Manson. And which character did Macaulay Culkin play? =frontside= 20:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Culkin is not listed in the Credits of the episode!!   (----G!!)

Image:Savingprivatebrian.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How many times is 'Full Metal Jacket' going to be mentioned in the references section? Lots42 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of links in this article where the link-text isn't clear about what's being linked to.  In one, "posse"->"pussy", the text is referring to a double-entendre in the show's plot and the link appears as the surface meaning, but the link points to the alluded meaning.  Should that be changed?  It's clever, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  Other possibly-confusing links are “Fraggl-Iraq,”->"Fraggle Rock" and "playing poker with the dogs"->"Dogs playing poker"  --Rob* 07:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the Censorship section, because the cutting of the Star Wars line is nothing to do with censorship of obscene or offensive content, but rather a cute to keep the episode to time. Also it stated that Yoda always sits at a desk, while in fact it's the Emperor. Anyway, the section served no purpose!
Randomsoup (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  See above  b (MoS):  See above notes.
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.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
After a full review of the article and a check with the user on IRC, it passes for GA.Mitch32contribs 18:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this article passed as a GA 56 minutes after it was nominated. In the two minutes I spent looking it over, I found a typo ("there 'service in the military…") and the Reception section lists only one source from one website. Do other folks feel that this meets the GA criteria? I have my doubts. – Scartol • Tok 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This review was performed after a request by myself on IRC. There only needs to one reference in the reception section, as all the information is covered by that one reference, thus it seems silly to have [8] after every sentence. I will fix any typo's, as they are hard to spot. Thanks, Qst 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is my point – I would think a show as popular as Family Guy, on a major network like Fox, would need a much more comprehensive section for "Reception", discussing its reception in a variety of review forums and media. Not simply what one guy at IGN thought. – Scartol • Tok 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


### Not GA
Here are some comments for you all to consider. I have just watched this episode, and it is an important one, but actually, the real reasons--this is a piece of biting social satire on American mores--are not mentioned in the article at all. To sum this up: America is plagues by violence--just today there were two shootings in Colorado, in the wake of the mall shooting Omaha last week. In conservative circles, it is common to blame "rock music," especially as personified by Marilyn Manson, as being the root of this youthful fascination with violence. On the other hand, the US has been involved in an unpopular war in Iraq for almost seven years now, and this is series of violent escapades is lauded by the same people who blame rock music for violence. No wonder the two segments were combined in a single episode. Note too how Marilyn Manson is portrayed as a rational, sensible individual--the writers reject the notion of violence originating in music. In contrast, the two Iraq protagonists are Stewie (a baby, the symbol of innocence) and Brian (a dog, the symbol of loyalty). Note how they are drawn into the violence and degenerate as a result. The goal? To create a commercialized American utopia out of Iraq, ignoring the cultural heritage of the indigenous population and converting them to a hedonistic (but rock music-free) society. There's some real analysis. What this article currently portrays is nothing more than trivia in prose (and the prose ain't that great either). Danny (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mh, I value your comments, put I'd say this is more of an opinion, rather than that of commenting on the article not meeting the good article criteria. I have worked extensively on this article for a while, removing the silly trivial information, and replacing it with important production and/or cultural references which were referenced on the DVD. I have based the layout of this article on The Simpsons episodes (they have 60 good articles, most of which are episode articles), so although I beg to differ on your comments, I value your comments. Qst 13:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure that the steers and queers line is from Full Metal Jacket?  I'm like 95% certain that line comes from Officer and a Gentleman (As I think about it, I'm 99% sure.... the drill sgt uses it twice) SirChuckB (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's possible that it was referencing that movie too, but I know for a fact that it was in Full Metal Jacket as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFSdj1J5Vw (granted the line is slightly different) 
edit: it's closer to the Officer and A Gentleman one.  FMJ he says "you don't look like a steer so that narrows it down" whereas O&J he says the horns bit.
Disturbed286 (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there potentially any point to mentioning that "Major Awesome" is clearly not a Major.  I didn't count the stripes, but Major Awesome is clearly enlisted.  This may well be something that is better left to IMDB than Wikipedia.  But I thought I'd ask before making a change, as trivia sections are discouraged now and really has nothing to do with the crux of the episode.
97.112.151.218 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC). 

Almost all of the training scenes are taken from Full Metal Jacket. Anybody have any refs for this? P. S. Burton  (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  I feel like the half-eaten dead bird is a direct nod to the jelly doughnut in FMJ.  I'll try and find some sort of a reference myself.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saving Private Brian. 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/20140811094227/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=110706_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=110706_05
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) 00:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)