Entertainment desk
< April 8	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 10 >

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 9

Law and Order Feature Film

Hello, wikipedians I`m asking a law and order question, yes about the tv show. Basically I`m wondering given the format of the show, which I don`t feel I have to explain since whoever answers this questions probaly knows how the show is structured. What are the chances it will hit the big screen? And how best would it translate to the big screen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.82.235 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The format of the show, in which there's basically a different set of characters for each half, doesn't lend itself to standard big screen treatment. Hollywood usually wants a main protagonist to carry a film from beginning to end. If a Law & Order film were to hit the big screen, it would almost certainly not follow the structure of the show, but instead focus on a main character, like Exiled: A Law & Order Movie did. Dick Wolf has declared that the original show is officially dead, so don't expect a feature film anytime soon. My guess is that a feature film will be made years from now with a new, movie star cast, in the way that Miami Vice was revived. —Kevin Myers 04:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the "two halves with different characters" approach wouldn't work. It would be like watching a double feature. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it could work. It's probably been done in a low budget or independent film. Just don't look for Hollywood to try this kind of experiment with an established franchise name. —Kevin Myers 14:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other Hollywood films, working with an established franchise name, which also involved multiple stories (and casts), sometimes linked together. Cat's Eye (1985 film) (written by Steven King) and Twilight Zone: The Movie come to mind. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are known as anthology films, and they do not resemble the structure of Law & Order. I can't think of any film that does, but I assume there must be. (Sliding Doors, cited below, does not.) —Kevin Myers 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly Cat's Eye, which follows a cat through 3 stories, seems similar to L&O, which follows the criminal through 2 stories. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a film, Sliding Doors, which has the plot device of what happens after the doors shut someone in, and then what happens after the doors shut someone out. It sounds similar to what you're asking. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a movie where they DID try a similar format (show in two halves, loosely connected via the plot) was Full Metal Jacket, however the result was that no one remembers the second half. The film was supposed to be about the Matthew Modine character (he's the only character to connect the two halves, and acts as the first-person perspective for the film), but the film is stolen by R. Lee Ermey, and he dies at the end of the first "act"... --Jayron32 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FMJ does have a single protagonist through the film, so it's not the classic Law & Order format, but I think we're getting warmer. The closest in structure that I've thought of so far is Zodiac, where Downey and the detectives are the protagonists early on, but by the end Gyllenhaal has emerged as the sole protagonist. The gradual shifting of protagonists in Zodiac is what struck me as being the most unusual aspect of the film.

For those who don't know, by the way, the structure of the original Law & Order series was this: the first half of the show followed the detectives as they investigated a crime; the second half followed the prosecutors as they prosecuted the crime. It was a marriage of two genres: the police procedural and the courtroom drama. What made the show unusual was that there was limited interaction between the casts of the two halves of the show. The only major connection between the first and second half of the show was usually the crime (and the criminal). —Kevin Myers 20:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case then what about another Kubrick film, A Space Odyssey, but that film is told in 4 parts (not two). Still, the distinct, disjointed acts work like law-and-order, and the "Monolith" acts like the crime does for L&O... --Jayron32 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that movie must have been two movies mashed together. There was the film about a homicidal computer, something like Terminator, which I liked, and then there was the movie about the monoliths (told in several parts), which I didn't like as much. I don't see any inherent reason why those belonged together, except perhaps that the monolith plot was rather boring on it's own. StuRat (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a feature film based on a TV series needs and wants to be "more than just a 2-hour TV movie". Given the usual approach to the "Law & Order" series, I don't see how they could make it work. But that wouldn't necessarily stop them from trying. :) I think of the "Star Trek: Next Generation" films as a good example of how to create movies from a TV series. Although the TV show's production values were very good, there's still something grander about the movies. To make it work for Law & Order, they would have to get out of the "box" that each TV episode is normally contained in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, you could stretch the length by adding a "twist", which they frequently do anyway. For example, they could catch and convict the original criminal, only to have him:

A) Escape and come after the police and prosecutors, attorneys, judge, and jury.

B) Turn out not to be guilty, requiring them to get him retried or released and also now catch and try the real guilty party.

Also, to make it "grander" than the usual TV show, they could make parts take place abroad, such as going there to help catch a fleeing felon or help prosecute somebody who committed a crime in the US (but isn't tried there due to diplomatic immunity, fleeing to a nation with no US extradition treaty or that refuses to extradite to nations with capital punishment, etc). StuRat (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to see is for them to bring together the main characters from all 3 shows, to solve a highly complex sex-and-murder mystery. They all operate in the same "universe", but only ever vaguely allude to each other. Imagine Munch and Goren working on a case together. That would be interesting. In any case, it would expand the normal bounds of the TV series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several crossovers between the L&O series. Couldn't find a list on WP or elsewhere. Perhaps you know Munch himself is a crossover character who started as a lead on Homicide: Life on the street. Staecker (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L&O jumped the shark (IMO) after the couple of seasons featuring Lenny and Ed Green. As someone said above, that's about when they really got away from the format where the first half of the episode followed the detectives, and the other half followed the prosecutors. Around that time was when you really started to see the spin-offs, like SVU (probably one of the better spin-offs), criminal intent, and others. I think it would be possible to do a feature film, but I don't think it would be well received. Also, there is a TV movie Exiled: A Law & Order Movie, featuring the on-again, off again L&O character, Mike Logan, that is pretty good, and might have been do-able on the big screen. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 21:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Live reports from the president not live

Fifteen minutes ago I looked at Twitter.com and saw a "top tweet" for a speech from Obama. I accessed it at [1] and, dissatisfied with the skippy playback, read the full transcript.[2] A few minutes later I switched to CNN, and heard to "stay tuned" for a live speech from the president. Lo and behold, it's the exact same speech! How long does CNN typically delay speeches like this, and why? (note: this was the speech after the midnight budget deal to avoid a "government shutdown", a very important speech relatively speaking) Was it to get the other speeches (Harry Reid etc.?) To give their talking heads a chance to rehearse their lines? And when they then told the talking head, "I have to cut you off, but a speech by Harry Reid is coming on", is that just play-acted patter, since I assume that one too is delayed by some minutes? What's the story here? Wnt (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the media sometimes lies. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many speeches are written ahead of time, and their transcripts are availible before they are given. Often, the press gets a copy of the speech before it ever is delivered. Admitedly, the president can speak extemporaneously or change things up, and may do so, but the speech is usually a decent draft of what he is going to say, and he may have just stayed on script very well this time. --Jayron32 04:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a White House video, and I watched a few seconds of it - I just turned to the transcript because it kept stopping and starting. But it looked like the same speech I heard later. Unless he stood in the same place, made the same speech, just so the media could have a "live" version ... which I doubt. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four DC-area TV stations (except WTTG, go figure) and WTOP aired the speech at around 23:10 ET, at the same time as CNN. The BBC mentioned that it was beginning at 23:12. NPR didn't send a news alert until after the speech was over, at 23:15. The White House transcript is timed at 23:04, and at 23:05 the BBC (who had ostensibly seen the transcript) said that a statement was coming shortly -- so perhaps a transcript was indeed released before the speech. At what time did you watch the website video? Xenon54 (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above I said I thought I'd seen the video on the web site around 23:57 EDT (22:57 EST) - I know it was before midnight. The news media ran it at maybe 24:05 or 24:10 EDT? I went straight here as soon as I realized it was the same speech, and posted at 24:12. I reiterate, the video of the speech was already up at the White House site before I read the transcript; it was just not playing well for me. Wnt (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

buhbees

wher do babies come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.239.80 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mendoza Province
Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.168.147 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean how is babby formed? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Human fertilization. If you feel it is too complicated, you can always come back and ask questions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the IP, they come from Brooklyn Hospital. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I heard storks delivered them ... image evidence here. Astronaut (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks definitive. Specifically, they deliver them to hospitals. They used to do home delivery, but that pretty came to an end once they unionized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rudy from the Cosby Show described it best once in an episode. Something along the lines of: A husband in wife gets in the bed together. The husband asks the wife, "Do you want to have a baby?" The wife says, "Yes." And then the baby pops out. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¿En qué idiomas va a estar OilRush ?

What languages will OilRush support besides english?

190.51.168.147 (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is ska so forgotten?

Ska and variations thereof are virtually unknown genres to many. I remember an Onion headline reading "Ska Band Outnumbers Audience", even! Why is ska so commercially unsuccessful, and what are some of the most successful ska/ska-punk groups? 75.73.225.224 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you are but here in the UK ska was fairly successful. Bands like The Selecter and The Specials had high followings during the early to mid 1980s and the most successful ska based band here with several chart hits were Madness. It's gone off the boil now, as these things do, but Madness still perform and several of the other acts are still about. Oh, and ska influenced bands like Bad Manners still show up. Britmax (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ska has, at times, been more popular than it is now. During the late 1970's and 1980's in the UK there was the 2 Tone ska movement, The Specials had a #1 hit in the UK with "Too Much, Too Young", so it was clearly popular. In the U.S., 2-tone ska went largely unnoticed, save for a lone hit by Madness, "Our House", which was a fairly big MTV hit in America. Madness was one of the most popular bands in the U.K. at their heyday, but in the U.S. they were a minor player, and no other 2-Tone ska band had any impact. The only 1980's U.S. ska band to have any impact at all was probably Fishbone. The U.S. had to wait for the 1990s and Third Wave Ska and Ska punk to take root; the vanguard of that movement was Operation Ivy, whose song "Knowledge" was hugely influential, if not popular in the mainstream. 1996-1997 was the peak of the Third Wave Ska movement. The song "Don't Speak" from No Doubt came out in 1996, and introduced a radio-friendly Pop version of Ska, and the summer of 1997 was dominated by three songs in particular, Reel Big Fish's "Sell Out", Sublime's "What I Got" and the Mighty Mighty Bosstones' "The Impression That I Get". In the U.S. market, 1997 was the summer of ska; the Bosstones song in particular was a huge crossover hit that year, while Sublime became a big song on Modern Rock/AOR stations, and Sublime remains a popular band in those formats even today. Like all musical trends, however, it washed out within a few years; and probably about 10 years ago was the end of ska as a viable popular form of music. The Bosstones are still around, and still host their "Hometown Throwdown" in Boston every winter (I went this year, was a GREAT time), and of course you can still find CDs of a lot of these bands, but you are correct that there's not a lot of current ska acts getting radio play. That doesn't mean they don't exist, there's probably underground ska acts playing clubs in a major city near you right now. Its just not the major force that it was in 1997... --Jayron32 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Coventry, where 2 Tone started, we now have a museum to it. It's still very popular here. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ska isn't forgotten, I remember it every time I play Scrabble. StuRat (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ska has always been outside of the mainstream, by necessity. Heh. I remember it showing up on an episode of the old Police Squad! tv series, when Dirk Clark used Det. Drebin's informant to ask about ska. [3] Dayewalker (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. BTW, isn't Sublime more reggae-rock than ska? Did Reel Big Fish's song actually chart? Why 1997? And relatively, what is the recognition level of the notable group Streetlight Manifesto? 75.73.225.224 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime certainly infused lots of reggae as well as ska into their music. Dial up their song "Date Rape", and it's pure ska, tho. "Santeria" has a slow-ska vibe to it as well. Since Ska predated reggae as a musical style, and heavily influenced it, its not surprising to find both styles present in the same band. Like many bands, it isn't helpful to pigeonhole them into one single tiny restrictive genre. But they certainly had ska influences. "Sell Out" by RBF certainly charted, it peaked at 69 on the hot 100; which is quite respectable for a ska-punk outfit. It got a lot of airplay on the alternative rock stations that summer; didn't quite have the pop crossover that "The Impression That I Get" did. As far as "Why 1997" Who knows? Why not 1997. Musical fads like this come and go with no discernable reasoning. Why did Punk Rock get so huge in 1977? Perhaps the best thing I can come up with for the Ska revival in 1997 was that it coincided with the Big Band swing revival. The release of the movie Swingers made 1996-1997 also a time of swing revival bands like Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Squirrel Nut Zippers, The Brian Setzer Orchestra, and Big Bad Voodoo Daddy. The swing revival coincided nicely with the Third Wave Ska movement, and the two movements share a lot of common instrumentation and styling. As far as Streetlight Manifesto, I've heard some of their stuff around the internet on underground podcasts and stuff like that, but they have had next to zero impact on wide-appeal mainstream media; unlike the earlier Ska movements. --Jayron32 03:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last song Last King of Scotland

What was the name of the song that was playing when they were showing the real footage of Idi Amin and real facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.232 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the last song on the list, Kay's Lament, is the one performed over the final credits, the song you referred to (which bridges from the section you mention into the final credits) is "Acholi Pot Song" by "The Ndere Dance Troupe". Or so I gather from the credits on my copy of the DVD (which I haven't got around to watching yet otherwise). Britmax (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And confirmed here Britmax (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]