Entertainment desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

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 29

Secret Invasion

Some years ago there was a comic book crossover in Marvel Comics, the Secret Invasion. There's a part of the plot I did not understand, which I though would be explained later, but I never saw an explanation.

The storyline begins (in the narrative meaning) when the New Avengers fought against The Hand, their leader Elektra is killed, and they find out she was actually a Skrull (those green shape-shifting aliens). The New Avengers, who were outlaws, were unsure what to do, and Spider-Woman proposed to take the corpse to Iron Man, head of SHIELD (and so, the man with the highest power and resources to organize a resistance); the plane crashes, she leaves the group and takes the corpse to Iron Man. Iron Man then becomes aware of the invasion, and begins to prepare everything. Some time later, it was revealed that Spider-Woman was a Skrull as well.

Granted, it was really unexpected. Nobody could have thought she was a skrull, being the one who informed Iron Man of everything. It seemed to made no sense, if the invasion was a stealth operation, which could have been the sense in spoiling the secret to the one who should be the last one in suspecting anything? Well, the issues kept going on, the story kept advancing... and the answer to that question stayed unexplained. Which was supposed to be, after all, the master plan? Why let Iron Man know of it, why not lure him to a trap and let him know of the Skrull invasion when it was too late, or not even by then?

I have considered as well that the plot may be that the death of Elektra was unexpected, and Spider-Woman improvised as best as she could, but a Migthy Avengers issue detailing the abduction of the real Elektra points that there was indeed an (unexplained) master plan, involving the fake Elektra's death and the New Avengers discovering it. Cambalachero (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that sometimes, people who write fiction are not able to reliably predict how every one of the hundreds of readers of their fiction will interpret it. They write what they think is a good story, however what makes a "good story" is clearly subjective and sometimes readers are left unsatisfied by what they perceive as glaring plot holes. You wouldn't be the first to note glaring plot holes in otherwise popular media. (I.E. how didn't Obi Wan Kenobi, in Episode 4, recognize the very same droids he spent episodes 1-3 hanging around with... Or how does Luke pack years of intense martial arts and religious training into a weekend... but I disgress). The point is, these works of fiction aren't subject to rules of logic and reality in general because they aren't reality. The authors work hard to make them work out and make sense, but sometimes they screw up, and there isn't a greater explanation than that. --Jayron32 02:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster knows all that. Why answer, Jayron32, if you don't know the answer? Comet Tuttle (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least he tried to answer, as opposed to playing the "nanny". In future, try to confine your personal attacks to the talk page, where they can be properly disposed of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, that was not even remotely a personal attack. Merely observing or asserting that someone's knowledge is deficient is a personal comment, but it's not any sort of attack. A personal attack might have been, for example, "You're an idiot for not knowing the answer". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did know the answer, or at least part of it. The answer is "it is fiction, and not reality, so it does not have the completeness that reality does". Works of fiction begin and end with the contents of the work (excepting in rare cases where the sheer OCD of the author causes them to create entire volumes of unpublished background and commentary, c.f. J.R.R. Tolkein). Most often, there is no possible explicit explanation for extratextual information about works of fiction. The background explanations for why characters behaved a certain way in a comic book are usually (excepting a sort of Tolkein-like situation of which I am unaware of existing for this particular work of fiction) complete speculations, since the information cannot be gleaned from the work itself. In other words, the OP is asking a question which, in all likely probability, is impossible to answer with factual references, since the answer simply does not exist. If it existed, it would exist within the very work of fiction the author is asking about, and presumably they could simply read the explanation themselves. --Jayron32 05:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the nature of fictional works, thank you. The thing is that this was a complex storyline, and unlike books or movies it did not took place in a single media but in several contemporary comic books set in a same fictional universe. So the chance could also be that I did not understand the plot, or that the explanation was given at some issue which I had not read. Did any of you actually read the crossover I'm talking about, or are you just giving the standard answer for questions about plots? Cambalachero (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the story, but my guess (outside of "even the writers didn't know the answer and were making stuff up as the went along" - especially likely with multiple authors) is that the answer might lie in your last sentence "there was indeed an (unexplained) master plan, involving the fake Elektra's death and the New Avengers discovering it". If the plan called for Skrull-Electra to die and be discovered, the plan probably called for Iron Man to find out about the Skrulls. Therefore, Skrull-Spider-Woman was ensuring things were going according to plan when she brought him the body. That still leaves why part of the master plan for a secret invasion called for being discovered. I don't have enough info to speculate. You may find the answer if you reexamine why it was said that the death and discovery of Skrull-Electra was part of the master plan (did they hint at what that was supposed to accomplish?). One option is that the master plan really wasn't for a "secret" invasion, but involved outing it to the New Avengers (to distract them, perhaps, or draw them into battle?). -- 174.31.220.158 (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put it shortly, the plan was to create mistrust and confusion among the super-heroes (or rather, exacerbate the tensions that had already started during the so-called "Civil War") so that they would be unable to form a cohesive battle plan when the time came for the Skrulls to begin the attack in earnest. In-story, the replacement Skrulls had been there for some time, waiting for an opportune time to act. That time came during the Civil War, with the Avengers split in two. Now, if the Skrulls had tried anything in the open, there would have been a danger of the Avengers banding back together to defeat the common enemy. What they needed was to drive the teams further apart so it was in fact quite clever to tip their hand in the way they did. Revealing the Skrull Elektra not only put the Skrull Spider-woman somewhat above suspicion (which was important), it also allowed the heroes to know that they had no way of detecting their opponents - literally anyone might be a Skrull. That was a vital piece in driving the heroes further apart. Matt Deres (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sweet Soul Music"

When did Sam and Dave record their cover of Arthur Conley's 1967 hit "Sweet Soul Music", and where does it first appear? I wrote the Wikipedia article about that song, and I can't find the Sam and Dave cover version on any of their albums. The closest I could find was this listing on Allmusic, which raises more questions than it answers, as Sam and Dave had well and truly broken up by 1995. Graham87 05:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, artists frequently record many many more songs than are ever released. The songs exist in back cataloges somewhere, and when someone who has the rights to the song decides to cash in, they end up getting released. It gets particularly silly when you have a situation like Tupac Shakur who released 4 official albums when alive, and six official albums after he died! Your best source, if any exists at all, would be the liner notes to the single, which may have additional recording information. --Jayron32 05:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, makes sense ... I hadn't thought about the back-catalogue! Rather frustrating though. Graham87 05:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the single you linked to was released by K-Tel suggests to me that they may have recorded the song as part of their 1978 sessions for the K-Tel album Sweet & Funky Gold, recorded in Nashville according to our article. But I don't have any corroborative evidence for that. I certainly don't think they recorded it when they were at Stax or Atlantic - the track isn't mentioned in this discography, or this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you appear to have almost nailed it! Turns out it's on the K-Tel album The Original Soul Man. Graham87 02:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Detroit skyscrapers appear in Eminem's Super Bowl commercial?

I asked this question before but it was archived and no one answered after I added new information.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Detroit has bluelinks for everything, and all of those articles have accompanying pictures. A few minutes worth of research and you should be able to work it out for yourself. --Jayron32 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I already tried that. I was hoping someone who knows Detroit would see the video and the times I identified.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the archived question again. I think the second one was the Penobscot Building. Looking at the link Jayron provided once again, I'm going to guess that the first one was Westin Book Cadillac Hotel but I'm not absolutely certain.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that was the Penobscot Building. I was thinking it was a hotel. It's really spectacular architecture.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had replied at the earlier question (Link). Further the doorman actually works at the Guardian Building where he also gives tours but was filmed outside the Penobscot.[1] Other buildings/areas shown include Campus Martius and the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Art shown included the J. Massey Rhind's sculpture on top of the Wayne County Building, the Joe Louis fist sculpture, Diego Rivera's Detroit Industry Murals, and Marshall Fredericks's The Spirit of Detroit. Rmhermen (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I did see your response there but figured it was better not to answer an archived response. It was the two shots of the Penobscot Building that I was interested in. I'm assuming these are the shots in the shorter version of the commercial that has aired since.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SACD XRCD

What is the difference between SACD & XRCD? I know that SACD requires a special player but I understand XRCD does not. I also know some SACDs are multi-channel and XRCDs are not. Sound quality?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkrops (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read SACD and XRCD? The latter article says that XRCD follows the Red Book (audio CD standard), so does not need a special player. The articles give some details about sound quality, but I don't know whether there is enough there to answer all of your questions? 81.98.38.48 (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 2014 World Cup qualifications

Which website is a great website to update the scores of the qualifications for all rounds in each confederation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.14 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/index.html has all the info you need; currently only Asia is playing any qualifying matches, but as more confederations start up their tournaments, the information there will grow. --Jayron32 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop stars and the Year of F-bomb titles

Why is it that this year, and maybe the past couple of years, have seen an unnerving proliferation of number-one songs with (originally) profane titles? I know at least Pink and Cee-Lo Green have done that, and I think I saw others. I won't even bother ranting on the quality of "hit music" of today, but what's with the profanity? 75.73.225.224 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a new thing. See the history of The "Fish" Cheer/I-Feel-Like-I'm-Fixin'-To-Die Rag, a fairly popular song from the distant past... --Jayron32 02:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I was listening to only this morning - Kick out the Jams by the MC5. Only about 45 years old!--TammyMoet (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't get it. That's not an explicitly profane title. But why the recent abundance? Is there a lot of anger today, or is it just the "appropriateness standards" going down again? And btw, the Vietnam War is not the "distant past". 75.73.225.224 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kick out the Jams caused a lot of outcry because of the opening profanity in the song. As for your issue with "anger". Why assume that this is caused by anger? For example, Eric Idle filled a whole song full of profanities and it was in humor, not anger. I figure it is just a fad. For example, hard rock bands had to use satanic imagery during the 80's to fit in. That doesn't mean they worshipped satan in any way. It was just a fad. -- kainaw ™ 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not anger per se, but I do stand by my theory that the standards for what is publicly acceptable have fallen. But some anger may be included. I once remember Cee-Lo commenting that he performed "F*** You" so frustrated and/or recession-stricken people could have an excuse to say it. Could trying times be the cause? But, yeah, it's likely a fad. 75.73.225.224 (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what is the song with the most profanity that has been played on standard top-40 radio, and how much censoring was there? And one different question: I once heard that Linkin Park didn't include profanity in their songs because they felt it was a lazy way to express emotion, but I thought I saw one of their albums with an "explicit content" logo. What gives? 75.73.225.224 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standards are always changing. The go back and forth in the United States. In the 80's, late-night broadcast television contained profanity and nudity. Then, that changed to only allowing some profanity. To get some nudity in, the news and talk shows always found some way to discuss breast enhancement (with live models). Then, a boob showed up during the Super Bowl and no nudity is allowed. So, profanity is gaining ground. Soon, that will be boring and there will be attempts to get more nudity on television (ie: Lady Gaga's penis shoes). The only constant in the United States is violence. The more the better. -- kainaw ™ 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Standards of what is publicly acceptable have changed (I don't know what fallen means in this context, downward motion doesn't really have meaning here.) For example, the film MASH is often cited as one of the first major Hollywood films to make prominent use of the word "fuck", prior to that the Hayes code wouldn't have allowed such words in wide-release movies. TV shows used to completely refuse to air it, as recently as perhaps 10-15 years ago it just never came up in recorded TV, and only rarely when it "slipped" out in live TV. Now you can hear people say "fuck" on daytime TV, so long as a cursory "beep" is placed over the sound of the word, it comes up all the time. I'm not sure this is necessarily a "bad" thing; Lenny Bruce once said "Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government."" If we don't want our children to hear the word, it is our responsibility as parents to see to that; we cannot abrogate our responsibility to manage our childen's environment simply because we can't be bothered to keep a close eye on what TV shows they spend time watching or what is playing on the radio around them. --Jayron32 15:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You only answered part of my question, the one with less relevance. Reference desk people, no offense, seem to rather give you a history on your topic broadly than even a remote shot at answering a question like mine. Read the question and answer it. 75.73.225.224 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that someone has done a study on the names of popular songs released in the last couple years? If so, that would be a reference. I doubt such a reference exists. So, all we can provide is either opinion (which is useless) or history. If you really really really want to know why some artist put Fuck in a song name, ask the artist. I seriously doubt the artist edits the reference desk here. -- kainaw ™ 16:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer about songs containing profanity "on the radio", there has long been a practice of releasing two versions of songs: the original "album" version, and a sanitized "radio edit" that would also double as the official "single". However, American Album-oriented rock radio stations often played the "album" versions of tracks rather than the singles versions, so there are LOTS of songs where "fucks" and "shits" and other profanity would "slip through" often for years, without any legal objection from the FCC. The Who song "Who Are You" contains the line "Who the fuck are you", and until fairly recently, you used to always hear the word "fuck" uncensored. Other songs which used to slip past the censors (though, paradoxically, in the past decade or so you only hear the "censored" version anymore) include Pink Floyd's "Money" ("Don't give me that do-goody-good bullshit") and Steve Miller Band's "Jet Airliner" ("Don't want to get caught up in any of the funky shit going down in the city"), as well as the Tesla version of "Signs", which contained the line "Fucking up the scenery" in place of "Blocking out the scenery". "Signs" in particular used to play in uncensored version (I distinctly remember so on WAAF in Boston in the early 1990s), and since the word "fuck" appears in the chorus, it would have several reoccurances throughout the song. --Jayron32 16:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry for being testy and confusing. I just like to string questions together sometimes, and the second might not occur until later. And, to me, opinions are not useless. I just prefer the opinions of Wikipedians than the weirdos that frequent internet forums. Original research on the reference desk does not bother me. Do I have to post another query if I want my other questions answered? 75.73.225.224 (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rapp of the band Pearls Before Swine got the word "fuck" in a song played on radio back in 1967 - albeit in Morse code. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the top of this page you will see a directive to look elsewhere for advice or opinions. While the regulars indulge ourselves sometimes (more than we should?) in offering opinions, this is not the appropriate place for forum-like chats about "Today's Subject". Certainly, if you have other questions where research may be helpful, please ask in a new section. While it is flattering that you prefer the world views of responders here to those found other places on the net, we keep our quality of responder high because we do not encourage personal opinions or chat. We try to provide referenced, factual answers. It is an orientation that generally results in a high signal-to-noise ratio. We would appreciate your kindness in not tempting us to stray from the righteous path. Bielle (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of a song from the television series Parks and Recreation

I am trying to identify a song from Season 3, Episode 13 - The Fight from the TV series Parks and Recreation. Here is a short sample. http://gtabfans.com/~andrew/nameme.mp3 Computerwiz 222 (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot identify this song. However, if you have a smartphone, you can try using the Shazam application, which listens to music and typically is able to identify it. TheGrimme (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]