Entertainment desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

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.

October 24

Future Academy Award winners in a movie cast

I just saw Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which featured Sean Penn, Nicolas Cage, and Forrest Whitaker - all of whom later won an Academy Award. Are there any other films which featured three or more future Academy Award winners? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.252.113 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that there would be dozens, if not hundreds. But ask me to name one off the top of my head - sorry, no can do. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Bridge Too Far (1977) of all films. Michael Caine won in 1987 and 2000; Sean Connery in 1988; Anthony Hopkins and his fava beans in 1992. Depending on your criteria, you could also throw in Gene Hackman, who won in 1992, but also in 1972, and Robert Redford, who won for directing in 1981. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also How the West Was Won (1962): Henry Fonda (1982); Gregory Peck (1963), for a different film; and John Wayne (1970). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca (1940), The Player (1992), and Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (1973) are other films with 3 future Oscar winners (Olivier, Sanders, Fontaine; Robbins, Sarandon, Roberts; Robards, Dylan, Coburn), but A Bridge Too Far is the only film I can think of with more than three. This page discusses films with the most winners regardless of future/past. --193.172.19.20 (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would discount The Player from there as two of those future winners were playing themselves. But that's just my view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another war epic, The Longest Day (1962), has future winners Sean Connery, Henry Fonda, Rod Steiger, and John Wayne, making 4 future winners (and several past winners). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.19.20 (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epics are good fodder. The Ten Commandments (1956 film) starred Charlton Heston, who won his Oscar for Ben-Hur in 1959; Yul Brynner, who won for The King and I in the same year as TTC, but this award was made after TTC was released, so he’d count as a future Oscar winner; and Edward G. Robinson, who was awarded an honorary Oscar in 1973 (arguably not an Oscar-winner, but an Oscar-awardee). -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Yori Dango Soundtrack

I've just started watching Hana Yori Dango(Live Drama),and I want to know the name of a song in the show.It starts playing when Makino and Domyoji are stuck in an elevator,and Domyoji got sick.Makino helped him take some medicine,and she wrapped him up in her jacket,and scarf.He fell asleep,and she layed down next to him,and that's when the song started playing.It was a slow song,and a girl was singing it.I can't seem to find the name of it anywhere,but if you know it,it would help if you told me!Thank you!

-FlowersOverBoys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.242.56 (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film end credits

Why is it that, up until at least the 1970s, the end credits on films were very short, maybe one or two cards if that. Yet, in the last 10 or 20 years, end credits seem to go on for 5 minutes at a time (or maybe more). Is there a reason for the switch? Approximately when did end credits start being so long? Thanks everyone!!121.44.51.63 (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood films especially have grown to be the product of hundreds of people working together and they all want to be credited for their work. In the 70s there were simply less people to on the job. I have no idea when things started, but I think it might be the early 90s since I can still remember films with short end credits. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were always tons of people working on a film, but now they are simply contractually obligated to be given credit for it (and in a specific order - "best dolly grip" or "assistant to Mr. Spielberg" or whatever always appear in the same places). Adam Bishop (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair call to acknowledge the contribution of anyone who was associated with the end product. That principle applies not just to films, but generally. The acknowledgement sections of books often list pages of people, sometimes even down to their pets. You can skip over that page in a half-second if you want, but it's there for those who wish to read it. Film credits take somewhat longer, and most people don't have either the patience or the interest to sit through them. For those who do, they're perfectly entitled to remain seated till the very end, when the theatre is otherwise spookily deserted and the cleaners are starting to move through the theatre cleaning up drink and popcorn containers and crinkly lolly bags. (I'm speaking from experience here.) There was a time when people in cinemas would generally stay seated till the end of the credits, which is why the music was always designed to end not just at "The End" but to continue till the actual end, when the last credit had appeared. (For those who've never waited, this still happens, btw.) Credits these days have become an artform in themselves, but almost a self-defeating artform because most people choose not to expose themseves to it. Which has made it a virtually pointless exercise to get down to such fine detail as who provided the food for the director, for example. But it's still a great principle. Our society nowadays (at least in theory) does many things that were formerly not done: ensuring workplaces are safe; providing equal access to employment regardless of ethnic origin, marital status and other irrelevant factors; and generally being more considerate and tolerant and inclusive and non-discriminatory. So, it's an interesting thing that society generally supports and encourages the human desire to be acknowledged for some positive contribution, which has seen its most notable manifestation in film credits, while very few individual people not associated with the making of the movie care to know the details, and exercise their right to walk out. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Adam has it right -- this is about contractual obligation, not social. Specifically, what changed is the breakdown of the studio system. It used to be that that people would have a full-time job as an grip or a sound recordist or a cameraman or an actor, and would work on whatever project the studios assigned them to. (People at the top of their profession might be able to negotiate other arrangements, but I'm talking about the typical film worker.) So if they wanted to apply for another job, they could put on their resume "Warner Brothers, grip, 1950-55" and the new employer could call Warners and get that verified. Today they get taken on for individual projects and the way a new employer can verify their previous work is by looking at the screen credits on each film. Since the 1970s the unions for the different crafts have all been insisting on screen credit for everyone, whether they made a creative contribution or not. --Anonymous, 22:25 UTC, October 24, 2008.

I have asked about this subject earlier, please see Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/April 2006#Closing credits. Thuresson (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Immortal versions

Why Evanescence's My Immortal video differs from that on the album? Every mp3 which I downloaded was a piano/violin version with some differences in vocal and IMO sounds worse than the video. --217.14.103.45 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for different media to have different versions of songs. Jennifer Lopez's videos often have a musical interlude for a dance scene, while these don't appear on the radio edits or the album edits. The album version is generally what the artist would want as a song only, but they're often cut down or changed for the radio or video due to length concerns or to match the video images. --WORM | MЯOW 12:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you downloading the song. I have the version that you speak of. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very poor question requesting the name of a piece of music

I recently heard someone playing a relatively new piece of music (I assume) from his iPod, exhibiting the following characteristics:

Completely instrumental, with no vocals of any sort
Electronic in style and instrumentation
Main melody played on a synthesised electric organ sound, with repeated arpeggio patterns, with a middle section playing on variations on this theme
Overall a rather 'simple' track, with simple harmony, no countermelodies or anything 'complex'
A strong rhythmic feel
Most likely to be relatively mainstream (based on the person playing the music)
The person in question was of UK origin, suggesting the music may well be from the same area

I'm afraid I can't give you any more information that that off the top of my head. Any ideas you may have about the name of the track/artist would be greatly appreciated. --80.229.152.246 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has come to the party, I'll mention that Pachelbel's Canon satisfies most of these criteria (but not necessarily others) - instrumental, repeated patterns, variations, simple, rhythmic, mainstream. But it's not relatively new; not electronic in style (although it could be and has been played on electronic instruments and every conceivable arrangement for other instruments); there are some arpeggios but most of the patterns are not arpeggios but they sort of sound like they are; it does have countermelodies, but it's not what I'd call complex; and it's certainly not of UK origin. --JackofOz (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, she or he was listening to techno!! And is completely out of your league. Forget 'em!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.170.127 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very courteous comment, and your super-confident assertion that it was techno has been demolished below. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea, but it wasn't Pachelbel's Canon. However, it has raised a few other points:

The rhythm is quite fast (definitely faster than Pachelbel's Canon)
It wasn't techno
The music must have been done by a rather 'mainstream' artist that doesn't necessarily do electronic music
The arpeggios were about a bar long and repeated in sections, with a change in pitch every couple of bars or so, followed by a change in pattern a bit later.

And yes, I still realise it's a rubbish question. Thanks anyway. --80.229.152.246 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only thing I can think of--Popcorn? Laenir (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and song incidently, but not what I'm after I'm afraid. Thanks anyway. --80.229.152.246 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were that interested you should've just asked the guy.

Vita-chamber vs. Regular saving

I am trying to figure out whether it is easier to play Bioshock with Vita-Chambers turned on, or with them turned off but saving fairly regularly. With them turned off you have to kill a given enemy in one go and if you die and reload, any you killed are back (but so is your health and all of your resources), whereas with the Vita-Chamber anyone you kill stays dead, and any you injure stay injured, but you also come back with less health and less resources. Any ideas how to figure out which is more difficult? Thanks WAYB (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Driver numbers

Which driver in NASCAR has driven in cars with the most different numbers. Such as Mark Martin - 6,60,5,8,01,etcCwbrgb (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]