Entertainment desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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.

April 14

Why do child actors often play characters younger than their real age?

I've heard that some say that children look younger on the set? But why? What would skew our perceptions that way?

76.64.54.174 (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they want actors who are mature enough and have enough experience to handle the role, and the older kids are usually thus better qualified. However, they want them to look younger, so tend to choose actors who are short and/or look young. This explains actors like Gary Coleman and Michael J Fox. They also sometimes go to extremes to make them look younger than they are, such as attempting to hide the breasts on a "budding actress", like Soleil Moon Frye on Punky Brewster. StuRat (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They did the same with Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz, I believe ... the taping of her breasts, that is. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. It wasn't fun, but it was part of the job. Still, she was about the tallest "little girl" that ever appeared on-screen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have also been many adults playing little kids, usually for comic effect, like Lily Tomlin: [1]. StuRat (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the the last question, it's not hard. There are many cultural stereotypes associated with what a kid should look like. For instance, if you give a young female actor pig tails, the audience is going to assume that the character is a few years younger than they might otherwise believe. This is because many people are used to seeing only children with pig tails. Dismas|^(talk) 10:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another obvious method is that males old enough to have facial hair remain clean-shaven, to look younger. They may either avoid scenes where body hair is visible, or they may shave that, too. StuRat (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For females, in addition to strapping down and hiding breasts behind loose clothes, there's also avoiding the use of make-up like eye shadow and lipstick, and choosing younger clothes styles, like overalls. StuRat (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For scenes where the body can't be hidden (like a girl in a bathing suit), they may also employ a younger body double, and only use the older actress for face close-ups. CGI can also now be used to flatten the curves. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason to keep child actors in younger roles is to extend a TV series, sequence of movie sequels, or formulaic series of movies. For example, the Shirley Temple movies all featured a common formula with a girl "talented and wise beyond her years". This formula doesn't work once the girl becomes a woman. For a movie or TV series, they may choose to age the characters more slowly than the actors. The ultimate way to keep the characters young is to do cartoons, like The Simpsons, where they don't age at all (although the voice actors will eventually start to sound older). StuRat (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not necessarily, StuRat ... as to your last point. They often employ adult actors to voice child roles. A tried and true trick is using an adult female to voice a male child (e.g., Bart Simpson is voiced by female voice actress Nancy Cartwright). Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

But even then, after 50 years or so they will start to sound older. And, if they're in their 50s or 60s to start with, you may get a lot less out of them. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor that should be mentioned is that it can take a couple years between casting and filming the last shot, so kids will age in that period. They could cast kids younger than they want for filming, but there's obviously a limit on that. Would you cast 1 year olds to play 3 year olds ? They might not even be able to talk, yet. StuRat (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, StuRat ... all good points. Thanks. (64.252.65.146 (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wear and tear of the shoes and other clothing of actresses/actors?

When a character wears the same wardrobe, say throughout a film or TV series, and the filming takes the span of maybe years, are multiples of the same item generally needed to be worn and disgarded? For instance, I'd imagine that a pair of shoes an actress wears would get pretty run down from walking during filming and unless the show purposely wants to show her with new shoes at the start of the series, and more scuffed ones by the end, wouldn't many pairs be needed?

76.64.54.174 (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple copies of the same stuff are commonplace. There were several copies of Dorothy's ruby slippers, for example. I recall that when Superman (1978) was made, there were quite a few suits for Chris Reeve, and he would switch them out when they started to show perspiration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any respectable production (even a stage production) has an entire department just for maintaining the wardrobe. So, if something is getting worn out, it will be fixed or replaced quickly. -- kainaw ™ 04:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that many films are shot out of sequence, and having the same shoes be well worn in the first scene and brand new at the end would be bad. So, they would need multiple copies even if they did want to show increasing wear throughout the show. In this case, they would need to have different pairs which had different levels of wear, and choose the proper wear level for each scene. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Costume continuity" or "wardrobe continuity" is the term used for the job. The person or persons responsible must provide and maintain the correct costumes, in the correct condition, for each scene as it is shot, and this includes the provision of duplicate items in various different states as required, just as StuRat says. Ka renjc 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, professional wardrobe people have 2 or 3 copies of every piece of clothing used by the main actors. More than that if the actor is involved in, for example, a fight scene. Having just one is a problem waiting to happen: "one is none", as the saying goes. Actors of course cannot leave the set wearing their wardrobe, for the most part. —Kevin Myers 06:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of Random Song

Resolved

Since I can't figure out where it might lie, what is the title and artist of an Irish-esque song that utilizes the phrase "I get no doubt", or something like that, as well as something about mixing drinks, and probably most importantly "Danny Boy". Is the latter the song title? Does anyone know what I'm talking about?? 2D Backfire Master ^{sweet emotion} 12:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Chumbawamba Tubthumping lyrics: [2]. StuRat (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's "I get knocked down", not "I get no doubt". StuRat (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyright debate

I removed the link to a copyvio lyrics site. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've restored it. Copyright status gives us a reason to remove it from an article, but not a talk page like this, AFAIK. Do you have any policy that says you can do that ? If not, then the policy on not editing the talk page posts of others rules here. StuRat (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of that linked section talks about a "Wikipedia article", and there is no mention of talk pages in that section. StuRat (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) There is also WP:ELNEVER, which says much the same thing. StuRat's point, however, is that these policies only apply to article space, not to the reference desk. The point is moot, there is probably no guidance that explicitly refers to copyvio links on the RD, but the spirit of the thing is clear: no linking to copyvio sites. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Please use small text to indicate comments which aren't answers to the original Q.) Policy regarding articles is moot. If there's a policy on talk page links, then that would apply to the Ref Desk. If not, then there is no policy on links here. Also note that we have no indication that the band objects to their lyrics being posted at that site, as it's difficult to imagine how they suffer financial harm from it. Indeed, it may be considered free advertising for their music. Do you have any indication that they object ? StuRat (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

(e/c) You seem to think that "moot" is a synonym of "irrelevant", which it is not. Anyway, lack of a policy on this is neither here nor there. Just because there is no policy on copyvio links on the RD, doesn't mean you can just go ahead and link to copyvio sites here regardless. Ask yourself whether the spirit of the ban on copyvio links in article space ought to apply here. If your answer is "yes" – and I don't see how it can't be – then you should not link to them, regardless of whether there is a policy on the matter. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:moot does mean irrelevant, at least in North America. See def 2. When I ask myself if article rules should apply to talk pages like this, the answer is a resounding "no", since articles require a much higher standard. For comparison, first imagine if someone wrote "He's a retard" in an article about a person with limited mental abilities. It would be appropriate to change it to say "He's suffering from mental retardation". Now imagine that this was posted on the talk page for that article. Would it be appropriate to edit the post to change the wording ? No, although it would be fine to post a follow-up suggesting the proper term. The same thing applies here. If you want to post a follow-up saying that you believe that site violates copyright laws, that's fine, but don't change the posts of others, unless there's a policy specifically for talk pages that says you are allowed to do so. StuRat (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone do that fancy show/hide thing on this subthread? I don't know how to do that. I disagree entirely – the same reasons for not copyvio-linking in article space should apply here, i.e. that directing others to copyvio material may be considered contributory copyright infringement and sheds a bad light on Wikipedia. On your last point – policy schmolicy, we always redact people's email addresses from here although there's no policy telling us to should do so. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel this needs debating, take it to the ref desk talk page so that everyone can get involved. Vimescarrot (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see here. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Scheiße 04

Is “FC Scheiße 04” a derogatory nickname for “FC Schalke 04”? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though not a very clever one. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering "Scheisse" means "shit" in German, I don't see why not. TomorrowTime (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Futurama intro

Which episode of Futurama has the music video to Psyche Rock (dancing electrical components) as its 'screen gag'?--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 16:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word Meaning & Origin

In the movie River of no Return starring Marilyn Monroe there is a song called River of no Return. In that song there is a word "wail-a-ree". What is the meaning and origin of that word? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinRob (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a youtube of it.[3] I've found plenty of lyrics references but no explanation. My guess would be it's the songwriter's twist on "wail", a wail being a lamenting call, and she's hearing the river of no return calling "wail-a-ree". I'll see if I can find anything else about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the Rhine maidens sing " "Weilalala leia." ? Could this be what it is referring to?..hotclaws 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe: Rhinemaidens#Rhine Maidens' music. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking maybe a variation on "wait a wee", a Scottish phrase and Scottish song, also used in Robert Burns' poetry. At any rate, when you google "wail-a-ree", every result with one or two exceptions refers to "River of No Return", a strong indication that the origin was lyricist Ken Darby. Pepso2 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]