Entertainment desk
< May 29	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 31 >

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.

May 30

What is the name of the single-frame girl on countdown leader?

Film leader and this brief section here, Countdown#Film, didn't mention her. There are multiple girls, a brunette and blonde and sometimes varying other girls (I think), and from what I remember in college, there was an actual name for this girl... I don't remember it obviously. Usually after a film, there was more leader that included SMPTE bars and/or crosshairs and sometimes a flash frame of this girl. Any ideas? Btw, Lenna triggered the memory. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She is usually four to eight frames. She's called China Girl. There are hundreds (thousands?) of them over the years. She is spliced into the Academy Leader negative each day to balance the color timing before printing from that reel. On timing sheets she's usually listed as "CG". For black-and-white printing there is just a "gray scale" spliced in. Also see Girls on Film exhibition. Pepso2 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Association Football and American Football

Is there an article for this? I did a search or two, but I admit my search was limited. Doc Quintana (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be one out there somewhere but there are so many differences that I, personally, don't see a point. About the only similarities are that they involve teams fighting over the possession of a ball that they are each moving to a goal while playing on a rectangular field. That pretty much sums up the similarities. Dismas|^(talk) 16:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The sport names are very misleading. Lacrosse and Ice Hockey are more similar to each other (and to soccer) than American Football is. To be more specific, though, American football has:

several different ways to score a variety of points;
frequent stoppages of play;
permission to carry the ball;
to different goals (crossing the line at the end of the field or kicking the ball through a goal);
limited opportunity to score before teams switch possession of the ball;

and so on. Aaronite (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's why it's good to either start an article on it or make a graph on the football article comparing all the codes. Wasn't sure if there was already an article out there though. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you couldn't start such a table. Dismas|^(talk) 18:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are more similarities between American Football and Rugby Football (both Union and League). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE: Comparison of American football and rugby league, Comparison of American football and rugby union. I think a comparison with "soccer" would be essentially pointless for the reasons stated above. The two games are so different that they don't invite a comparison. I can see an overall table including all the different types of football in the world (including Aussie Rules and Gaelic football etc.) being MARGINALLY useful but then again maybe not simply due to the sheer number of football codes and the number of different concepts existent in them. For one thing, how would you illustrate the concept of "downs", something that rugby union and soccer have no concept of, or "off-side" which for union and soccer would require almost entire articles dedicated to explaining how their intricate rules work? Zunaid 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the games mentioned above are games involving a goal at each end of the playing surface. At a very high level, they are all "similar". There are also similar concepts such as offsides and out of bounds and penalties. Getting more detailed, the sports diverge. But to do it right, you'd need a pretty good sized grid comparing all of the "goal games" (including basketball). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling that the only reason American football and association football are often mentioned in the same sentence is just the fact that they are both called "football" by large proportions of the world - although particularly in the case of the American version it's a fairly misleading name. If alternate names for them were instead the norm, I doubt there'd be much interest in comparing "gridiron" and "soccer" once you remove the common name. ~ mazca ^talk 14:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain these mysteries of modern culture

1) Football, or soccer as some call it. Why get so excited about some people kicking a ball around. Who cares, its just a ball. Why be so childish. Is it something tribal?

2) Supermodels. There are lots of pretty slim tall young women around, especially in the UK. I expect it would take about 20 minutes or less to learn to walk down a catwalk or otherwise pose. Why does anyone pay them more than say about twice the minimum wage?

3) Film stars and other celebs. Why does anyone care tuppence about film stars? There are gazzillions of competant actors who could do the same job. You have to be really dumb to be taken in by their smiles to camera and imagine that they like you, as they've no idea who you are and they would not want to meet you, in fact they have a ring of security to prevent such meetings. And they are a thousand times more wealthy than you'll ever be. 92.15.0.255 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To #3, why people care tuppence about celebrities is a large topic and has been of interest to academics; see Celebrity#Celebrity as a mass media phenomenon which names a book and several articles which are apparently the canonical references. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-answer to #1, why does anyone like anything that you don't understand? I don't mean this mockingly; I don't get Twilight, Justin Bieber and Baseball. They all seem like a waste of time to me, but I like stuff that others don't either. But seriously, there is an article on it: Fan Aaronite (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a serious point to those questions, or are you just trying to show off how little you care about pop culture? There are a lot of sports that make no sense to some people (e.g. curling, golf), but they obviously exist for a reason, and just because you don't get it doesn't meant that it doesn't have its purpose. Why do supermodels get paid more, I don't know, but I personally think it has largely has to do with the industry they're in. Fashion photographers get paid insane amounts too, do you want to complain that anyone can take fancy pictures as long as they have a good camera? And yeah, there probably are a ton of actors out there who are just as competent as the ones that are currently famous. You could also raise that argument for musicians. But there are also a myriad of reasons why very few choose to follow that profession and even fewer become successful at it. Luck has a lot to do with it. There are many reasons why people like celebrities, and people like them in varying degrees. Some admire them for their work, others like their looks, their personalities etc. Not everyone obsesses over them, and not everyone imagines that they somehow personally know those celebrities, or that they ever will. It all depends. Does that answer it for ya? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, no. I've been through your answer and removed the put-downs, repetition of the question, and where you say you do not know. This is what is left: "Sports exist for a reason. Supermodels get paid more because of the industry they're in, which is OK because fashion photographers get paid a lot too. There are very few actors and even fewer become successful at it, mostly due to luck. Some people like celebrities for their work, others for their looks or personalities etc." You have described your view of the status quo, and implied that it should be accepted without being investigated or criticised. You have not provided any causal models or description of processes or evaluation. In addition from my own knowledge I do not think the average fashion photographer earns much over a year, and there are lots and lots of unemployed actors not few. You may believe in a variation of the Just-world hypothesis, where you think most things in the world are as they should be. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not unique to modern culture: take Oscar Wilde complaining about the shallowness of 'modern' celebrity, for example. History of football should be enough to illustrate that this, too, is not a modern phenomenon. As for models, I assume you've never seen America's Next Top Model or any of the variations? While not terribly interested in it myself, I have watched it with others to be companionable: what is interesting about it (to me) is that not everyone can do what is required of the models. As you watch the different shoots, you can see when the models do and do not perform as required, you can see the different skills involved and the different approaches. It is clearly shown as something they learn to do, that also requires certain physical attributes and talents. When the professionals are discussing the pictures of the models, they have very specific references for all the subtle variations in pose and expression, which a good model needs to be aware of and able to control. The human face is capable of thousands of combinations representing subtle shades of meaning and expression: being able to control that effectively is not a skill the majority of people have. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all above, but I was hoping someone could explain football fandom in psychological or sociological terms, and in addition in economic terms also for the other two issues. The links given do explain some of that. 92.28.254.179 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if you want to understand why people enjoy watching football, you need to find someone who enjoys watching it and watch a premiership match with them. This may not change your own enjoyment, but if you pay attention and listen you will see all the subtle (and not so subtle) things the other person is watching for. A good football match is like a good dramatic film, to those who enjoy them. But you have to approach this in an open-minded manner: if you try to do this while conveying that you think it is stupid and childish, you're unlikely to learn anything.

I mean, sure there are some people who are in it for the tribal element, enjoying belonging to a team and joining in with others, but that doesn't explain why so many people watch matches that their own team isn't in. People watch football because it is enjoyable and interesting to them. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "people watch football because it is enjoyable and interesting to them", but why is it enjoyable and interesting to them? 92.28.254.179 (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the easiest way to understand this is to watch a decent game with someone who enjoys watching football. If you convey that you are interested, they will most likely share their thoughts and feelings about the game as it progresses. That way, you will be able to see all the complex interactions, tactics and athleticism that they are seeing. This goes for just about anything people enjoy: share the experience with a fan to see the layers that they see. 86.163.2.99 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I have done that, and it was still boring and uninteresting. I was expecting a psychological explaination verified through research. 92.15.1.82 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This may not change your own enjoyment, but if you pay attention and listen you will see all the subtle (and not so subtle) things the other person is watching for." That you find it boring and uninteresting is irrelevant, since you only want to understand why other people enjoy it. I find many things that other people enjoy boring and uninteresting, but I can understand that these things contain layers that other people find interesting. My brothers find the science of colour vision uninteresting, but they can understand that I find it fascinating. They do not need a just-so story for why I find it interesting. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think observing one person in an uncontrolled intuitive way is going to result in learning anything, particularly not to the standards of scientific research. 92.15.16.39 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure, but if you wanted science you would surely have asked for it on the science ref desk. Instead, you asked "Why get so excited about some people kicking a ball around. Who cares, its just a ball. Why be so childish. Is it something tribal?" on the entertainment reference desk. I can tell you, on the entertainment desk, that most of the people I know who watch and get excited about football, enjoy it the same way that people enjoy films, or TV dramas, or a good novel.

Is it tribal that people pay money to watch other people pretend to do things on a big screen? Possibly. Is it childish? Some would say. Who cares, it isn't real. Is it tribal that people pay enormous amounts of money for unrealistic depictions of dead people? That certainly plays a role. If you find art boring, must you assume that everyone else has some tribal motivation for getting excited about it?

If you want references to science, I suggest asking at the science reference desk, and being more specific about what you're actually interested in. 86.164.69.239 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To address Question 1 only: yes, it probably is something tribal, or so thought the zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris, best known for The Naked Ape (1967) and The Human Zoo (1969) who investigated this phenomenon and wrote a book called The Soccer Tribe (1981) about it. He was well placed to do so, being also a Director of (if I recall correctly) Oxford United F.C. at the time.

Regrettably we don't have an article on the book, and it's been over 25 years since I read it, but to brutally summarise what I remember, Morris argued that the instinct to identify with one or more small cultural subsets evolved in humanity's deep past, most of which was probably spent in tribal settings, and that soccer and similar games are a kind of abstracted hunting activity, which has similar roots and similar subconscious appeal, particularly for men (though many women seem to share it). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] :P 86.164.69.239 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I once read a nice satire of "The Naked Ape" and "The Human Animal", etc., titled "Man, The Mobile Mineral". Can't find it any more, but I'm sure you can imagine the gist. 81.131.10.146 (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I was expecting a psychological explaination verified through research". Yeah, you want scientific answers to a question that mostly has to do with personal opinion more than anything else. Sorry, but that's just plain impossible. Other people have tried to answer you the best they can, it's not their fault if you can't ever get around to liking soccer. It's basically like demanding factual explanations to why a certain band/movie you don't like is so popular. It can't be really explained other than the fact that it just has to do with personal preference, something that a lot of the time, is unexplainable itself. But your insistence that someone explain to you why a sport is so appealing to so many people, when you happen to not like that sport, and therefore will never understand its appeal no matter how it is explained to you, is ridiculous. Same goes for your theory about actors. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that personal preferences cannot be studied by science - psychology and sociology cover this area, and although they now usually use scientific methods are still regarded as more in the category of humanities rather than science. But the questions aare primarily about Entertainment. 92.24.178.172 (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be instructive to ask the OP what he DOES find interesting, and explain to us WHY he finds it interesting. That might be a good start on the road to his determining why someone else finds something interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a passionate defense of sports from ESPN Magazine's Rick Reilly: [2]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article - the same principles may also explain why reality television is so popular. 92.24.181.176 (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]