Entertainment desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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 5

old tv show

I remember only watching this show one time . I think it was called dungeons and dragons. but all my searches comes up empty. So I am beginning to believe that it went by a different name. The one scene that stands out the most was in a bar or inn and there was a arm wrestling table and 2 main adventures. The thing about the arm wrestling table was that there was 2 holes in the table and the loser arm would have gotten bitten on the arm and would have died. I am trying to figure out the name of the show, every where I ask they don't know of what show I am talking about. I would have to say the TV show was in the late 70's to the mid 80's, maybe around 1978 to 1987. I remember waiting for the next part of the show but I don’t think they ever showed it. I believe it was supposed to be a TV series. This show was not an animated series.Cavemanmd 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed your e-mail address. As it says at the top of this page, responses will appear here. Comet Tuttle (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons and Dragons was an animated series in the early 1980s, and there was also a questionable feature film in the last decade, so that's probably not it (unless you saw the movie on broadcast TV). --McDoob AU 93 02:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not the animated series, and I don't think it was the movie, either. I vaguely remember this scene: I think there were snakes in the holes, and if you're arm was pushed too close, one of the snake heads would come out and bite you. I know I saw it in the middle 80's to middle 90's, on either network TV or basic cable. I remember the bar being very dark with grungy washed out colors. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.100.92.26 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons & Dragons related products lists some other media including the 2005 cable TV movie. Rmhermen (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it helps a bit, atlease I know of 1 other that remember that scene, Now if only someone could remember the Name of the show.I think I saw it on network TV, I don't think my family had cable yet,and thank you to all that responded and going to respond.Cavemanmd 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I also vaguely remembered that scene and suspected that you were referring to the show, Wizards and Warriors. I googled "Wizards and Warriors" and "arm wrestling" and found a page that mentioned the scene in question (approximately halfway down the page).[1] FreeKresge (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female pop stars

As I'm sure most of you know, there's a popularly held belief that sexually attractive female pop stars who aren't considered to be particularly talented are only successful because of their sex appeal. However, I just realized that the fanbase of most of these artists consist of straight women and gay men (just my personal observation though, I don't have any professional research to back up that observation), two groups of people who aren't going to have any sort of sexual interest in a woman. So that kind of blows a hole in the theory that sex appeal is the sole reason a not-so-talented female pop star is successful. I think it makes a lot more sense when that theory is applied to male pop singers like say, Usher or Justin Timberlake, seeing as their fans do mainly consist of people that would be sexually attracted to them, hetero women. But why do people say this of female pop stars? How does it hold any water? And why would they choose to sexualize their image to make themselves more popular if they know that their fans aren't the type of people who will salivate at the sight of their half-naked bodies? 173.2.165.251 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that belief is popularly held by the sort of people who are much older than the intended fanbase. And as any popular belief, it is probably not accurate at all. The fanbase for these people is actually fairly young, probably mostly teenagers. Physical appearance is important to teenagers, but in a way that goes far beyond sexual attraction. When was the fat nerd ever the most popular kid in school? The football jock and the cheerleader are the popular kids, because the other boys and girls want to be like them. The cheerleader is not popular because all the boys want to have sex with her, but because all the other girls idolize her. Likewise for musicians. It wouldn't be socially acceptable to idolize an ugly musician. Adele, for example, is much more talented than, say, Rihanna, but will Adele ever be a superstar like her? Of course not, not with a fanbase of teenagers anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That kinda makes more sense now. Something that's visually appealing is going to sell a lot better than something that isn't, regardless of its actual quality. I just couldn't understand why sex appeal in particular is always frequently cited as a reason, since one could also argue that Justin Bieber is only popular for his image, but he's not by any means considered a sex symbol, nor is he marketed as one. But still, women like Madonna and Kylie Minogue still make sex a large part of their image, even though their fanbases are no longer teenagers. 173.2.165.251 (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't claim to speak for either Madonna or Kylie, I think a large part of their appeal is that they are breaking the stereotypes of what age is, how "women of a certain age" should behave, act, what sexiness is, what attractiveness is... --TammyMoet (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They say 'SEX SELLS', rather 'CONTROVERSY SELLS', because Controversy keeps it alive, in the media, headlines, word of mouth <--best form of News travel did you hear who kissed who? or guess who's doing who?. We create young superstars so that we can milk that label for as long as possible, folks don't like change. So in serving your public, and they love gossip, give them something to talk about. Enter Oprah, all she does is talk, and in that talk everyone goes out and buys what she's talkin about. 'OPRAH SELLS' --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One approach to solve this problem is to have two musicians, one ugly and talented, and another attractive and less talented. This can be done honestly, as in the case of The Mamas and The Papas, with Michelle Phillips as the eye candy and Cass Elliot doing the bulk of the female vocals, or can be done covertly, with an up-front, pretty singer who lip-synchs to the work of the hidden, talented artist, who might be lucky to get a credit as a back-up singer. StuRat (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of your example brings C & C Music Factory to mind. Dismas|^(talk) 10:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Black Box! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]