Entertainment desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

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.

June 16

Smallest nation to have defeated the United States

In 2007, the United Stated national rugby union team lost to the team of Tonga, a nation with a population of about 100,000. In 2006, the American national handball team lost to Greenland, a nation of just above 55,000 people. Does anyone know whether any USA first national team has lost to the team of an even smaller country in a competition or a friendly game in any kind of team sport? --Theurgist (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The United States national cricket team lost at the 2000 Americas Cricket Cup to Bermuda (population at the time about 62,000). I'm sure they've lost at other sports that are not popular there (like handball, as you mentioned). I have the feeling the soccer team recently lost to some tiny nation, but I can't think of when or which country... Adam Bishop (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The men's soccer team were beaten by Panama (≈ 3,500,000) in a fixture of the 2011 CONCACAF Gold Cup. (They later won against Guadeloupe, which is not in FIFA's list as Guadeloupe don't have a FIFA membership.) The women's team haven't had any outstanding losses recently. --Theurgist (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian-rules football team lost to Nauru (population 10,000) at the 2008 Australian Football International Cup. Warofdreams talk 13:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there way to get fanmail address or phone numbers of agents or managers of actors besides imdbpro

Is there way to get fanmail address or phone numbers of agents or managers of actors besides imdbpro? Neptunekh2 (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the actor's official website? --Jayron32 01:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matti Pellonpää among the cast of a 2008 movie?

See. How come this?--Dondrodger (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the footage about him was filmed before his death in 1995, but only released in said film in 2008. I have not seen the film in question, but there are numerous ways this could happen. In one case, the film could have been shot while he was alive, and then not released until after his death. See Aaliyah in Queen of the Damned (film) or John Candy in Canadian Bacon. It could also be that archival footage of him was used. That is, scenes he shot for an earlier, possibly unrelated, film were recycled or used in the 2008 film. John Cazale has an acting credit for 1990's The Godfather Part III despite having died in 1978, for example. --Jayron32 12:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Rorschach talk that way?

Rorschach (comics) doesn't use articles when he speaks (in the book- I haven't seen the movie). Why not? At first I assumed he would eventually be revealed to be Eastern European (Russian?), but it turns out he's American, from Jersey. So why does he talk that way? Sometimes it makes him sound like a badass, but usually he ends up just sounding weird. I didn't notice- maybe he talks normal when the mask is off? Does he talk normally in the movie? Staecker (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, he evidently is weird, and badass. In the novel he's kind of the narrator, and in the movie he's the voiceover narrator, but most of that is really him writing in his diary (and we're just "overhearing" him); he's deliberately an poor, staccato diarist. Moore writes the speech/thoughts of different characters with a characteristic style (much like Hubert Selby's Last Exit to Brooklyn) so you can hopefully tell who is talking just from the style of their writing - Veidt is educated and rather self-important, so tends to talk at length; Osterman is increasingly distant and so his speech ... becomes ... disconnected; Kovacks is a sociopath, for whom words come out like they're covered in broken glass. And sure, it's an affectation of Mickey Spillane-ism. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the movie, Jackie Earle Haley voices him like he was a hungover Tom Waits doing a Humphrey Bogart impression; it's perhaps just a bit too noir. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that in the graphic novel (I haven't seen the film), when not diary-writing and not talking as his masked Rorschach persona his public 'alter-ego' does indeed speak with greater grammatical convention (though arguably less sanity), and I seem to recall (not having the book to hand) that when he's talking to his old vigilante colleague Night Owl, in costume but with his mask half off in order to eat, his speech falls somewhat between the two modes. The ellipticality of his writing and speaking as Rorschach could be taken to be an element of that initially assumed and now self-sustaining 'sub-personality' which might have originally been a deliberate affectation but has now become unconscious. Watchmen is a work of art and therefore a multi-sided collaboration between Moore and each of his readers, so each individual's interpretations of the ambiguous possibilities Moore presents is a valid response. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.187 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the last question, the movie is very faithful to the book*, so you'll find Rorschach's speech to be the same in the movie as it is in the book. * Except for the fortunate absence of the pirate comic, and except for one major, central plotline. Hm, that makes it sound like it's not faithful at all, doesn't it. Yet, it is. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Movies

I'm trying to identify two movies from the 1960s. The first movie begins with a boy retrieving something (a ball or kite) from a roof; his foot goes through the roof, and the family obviously is poor. He goes to a big city (New York, probably), presumably as a runaway, and is taken in by two women. Later in the movie there is a scene where the two women have been arrested and wave to him from the back of a paddy wagon. I saw this around 1967, give or take a year or two, but it could have come out a few years earlier. The second movie I did not actually see, though I wanted to (the theatre's projector broke). This was a comedy about a woman who had a lion in her apartment, which I believe was in New York City again. The timing would be the same. John M Baker (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the second movie Bringing Up Baby? --Jayron32 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it was more contemporary in tone (i.e., from the late 1950s or 1960s). In any case, I've seen Bringing Up Baby, and that wasn't it. John M Baker (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Who's That Girl (1987 film)? After that, I am running out of the "Girl owns a large predatory cat in a big city" motif... --Jayron32 20:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's about 20 years too late. Also, I'm pretty sure the lion had a mane and was not a mountain lion. John M Baker (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... as far as I know, ALL male lions have manes, only female ones don't... 69.154.180.133 (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain lions don't. John M Baker (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything that matches on List of fictional lions#Lions in film. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first film description matches the storyline of Allen Baron's Pie in the Sky (1964) with Lee Grant. Pepso2 (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the first movie is indeed Pie in the Sky, aka Terror in the City. Thanks, Pepso2! John M Baker (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

runes.cape items

hi, i remember someone telling me about a couple of items in runescape, one of which restored run energy and the other which restored prayer... can anyone tell me what those items are called, whether either is a member's item, and how much they would cost to buy at the grand exchange? thanks! 69.154.180.133 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. pls don't link if possible, I have limited access... 69.154.180.133 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]