Entertainment desk
< February 11	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 12

Classical Music on Radio

Ludowicisissy (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)As a child, I remember listening to classical music conducted by Walter Damroush (not sure about spelling). Can you tell me something about this man? I think he may have been located in Chicago in the 1940s. Thank youLudowicisissy (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Ann ParkerLudowicisissy (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Damrosch has some info. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Advanced Battle

I like Pokémon, but I'm not a total fanatic, so I was wondering if anybody knows one of the characters shown in the opening [[1]]

The character I am asking about appears, if you watch this video, on the 27-9th second of the time. It is shown as a shady character in a alleyway, only shadows, and the character quickly jumps away. In coordination with the lyrics, my character appears right after the second "Oh oh oh oh oh oh" right after the first verse, at the "I'm unbeatable." I hope I described it well enough, thanks.

Is it Gligarman? I don't think so, but that's all I could think of, lol. --Ninjawolf (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon characters might be a good place to check? I, personally, have no idea but I thought it might be helpful to provide that link. Category:Lists of Pokémon characters might also be of assistance. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American version

Wasn't there an American version of Cash in the Attic on HGTV?72.229.136.18 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was. --LarryMac | Talk 13:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will any more episodes be made?72.229.136.18 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing no, based on looking at the page "Be on HGTV", and not seeing CitA listed. This is only a guess. --LarryMac | Talk 14:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do seem to remember something about an american version being mentioned in commercials on BBC America. But I may be wrong, I know they show the UK version on the station all the time. SunshineStateOfMind (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new line cinema

I just read with interest that the Tolkien Estate is suing new line cinema for a previously agreed 7.5% share of the gross on the lord of the rings films.. My question is - is it 'par for the course' that writers/intellectual property owners have to sue in order to get contracts honoured in hollywood ie is it more the rule than the exception?87.102.81.140 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about films in general, but Saul Zaentz and Peter Jackson have already had to (successfully) sue New Line over tLotR, so it seems that these films at least have marked by seriously dodgy accounting. Algebraist 15:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if maybe I should take all this hollwood suing with a pinch of salt (as it is of course all good publicity) - from an external perspective (any other business?) it would look like New Line is basically bent/trying to operate frauduantly. Anyone got any insight into this?87.102.81.140 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It primarily has to do with the language of the contracts. Entertainment law is an entire area of law all to itself. Here's a monstrously over-simplified example. You write a script and I say that I'll make it into a movie and give you 10% of the profit. You say yes and we sign a contract. The movie grosses a million dollars and I send you a check for $100. You complain that 10% of a $1,000,000 is $100,000, not $100. I claim that the cost of making the movie and promoting it was $999,000. So, the profit was only $1,000 and I gave you 10% of the profit. You discover that I paid myself, the director, $850,000. We go to court. You win a settlement of $50,000 (half of what you expected). Then, the movie goes to video and brings in another $500,000. I don't give you anything. You have to sue me again because that was profit. I claim that it wasn't the movie. It was the DVD. You never asked for profits off the DVD. We go to court and you get more money. Then, HBO licenses some of my movies (of which yours is included) for $200,000. I give you nothing because this is for my distribution control over a group of movies, not yours in particular. Again, you sue for part of that. Finally, the movie is purchased by NBC for broadcast. I give you nothing (again). You sue (again). Then, someone licenses the sequel. I give you nothing because it isn't for your movie. This is a license to write an entirely new movie. You, of course, sue. The sequel makes a lot of money and we sell $20,000,000 worth of toys using the characters from the sequel (which are the characters you made up). Again, you have to sue for intellectual property rights. Over and over, it is all about suing to clarify what the intent of the contracts are since everyone perceives what appears to be simple wording slightly differently. -- kainaw ™ 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice then.. thanks.87.102.81.140 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And we even have an article on Hollywood accounting. --LarryMac | Talk 15:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say "standard practice then" is still a gross simplification. It's not so much that the contract participants are trying to act fraudulently as that all participants are acting in their own best interests. Remember that the company in Kainaw's example sees that scriptwriter as a greedy money-grubbing scrooge who won't adhere to the contract he signed, and if he'd wanted these excessive terms up front, we'd never have done business with the robber baron. — Lomn 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the reason why many people tend to feel it is the company that is being unresonable is they tend to be the ones with the expensive lawyers. If they really wanted to exlude profits from the DVD, sequels, broadcast rights etc, surely it would be fairly easy for them to draw up a reasonably iron tight contract that does so. Surely the most likely reason they did not do so was because they knew that the person wouldn't accept such a contract and therefore they hope that they can word the contract in such a way that it may be excluded without the person and his or her far less experienced and less capable lawyer realising. I mean sure there are obviously some thigns that are not predictable, for example 20 years ago no one would have thought about internet rights and so it's understandable the contract doesn't directly talk about these but it seems to me that some stuff could have been excluded easily. It could also have been included easily if the person and his or her lawyers were smart enough to know about this stuff but as I say, it is the perception anyway that the media companies tend to have the far better lawyers. Also the Hollywood Accounting article also sheds some light on why many people feel the practice is unfair. I mean even if the contract technically allows WB to charge you for a studio in Botswana which you in no way used, was this ever what was intended? Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

additional

If I write a book or whatever and then sign a contract allowing a business to make a film of it, when the contract includes the clause 'I(me) will receive x% of the gross revuenes for the film and associated merchandising in all regions' .. is that clause still open to interpretation or is the term gross as simply interpreted as the definition found in wikipedia?87.102.81.140 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the legal interpretation. While this isn't one of those prohibited requests for legal information, the other part of that disclaimer holds: Wikipedia is not qualified to give you a definitive answer. — Lomn 16:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

to my satisfaction. Thanks for your creative explanations (above)87.102.114.245 (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360

I have read List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360. I am in Hong Kong, which version (column) should I read? Visit me at Ftbhrygvn (Talk | Contribs | Log) 14:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what version of the game you bought. I assume that would be one of the NTSC releases eg either those marked JAP or NA87.102.81.140 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should give this info on the back of the box, bottom right hand corner (probably) specifically the region it was made for..87.102.81.140 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Elfstones of Shannara

Whilst on the subject of film adaptations (two questions above) - I was wondering about the proposed film above... Can't seem to find much about it searching.. Anyone know anything, is it being made yet, where, when , how etc... Thanks87.102.81.140 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, imdb has an article here: [2]. It only mentions it being "in production" with an unknown status. The article mentioned in the header seems to say that Warner has the rights till 2010, meaning they have to make it within that time... But apart from that, I would assume it go to into production this year which is what all available sources are saying. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that they have to have completed a film by 2010, or actually begun filming by that time? Corvus cornix_talk 19:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask a movie expert that question, friend. I would assume they'd have to have it filmed and produced in that time... but that's just a slightly logical guess. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - There's the actual ref. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 19:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]