Entertainment desk
< November 26	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 28 >

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.

November 27

Sally Sweetland & Suzi Miller

Does anyone have any biographical information about either of these 50s singers, both of whom sang on one huge UK hit please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.4.201 (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short story about a lawyer cheating an naive person from country

I remember reading a story many years ago in a collection of mystery short stories from the 20th century, which is about an orphan who lives with his foster mother in a remote American village. After many years when the foster mother is dying, she tells the orphan to go to a big city and meet a lawyer there, who is the custodian or trustee of the lady's savings. The naive orphan goes to the city, the lawyer cheats him of the lady's money. In the end the lawyer advices the orphan to go to the town abattoir or slaughterhouse and the orphan ends up being killed there. If anyone here heard of the story I would kindly like to know author and title of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulielmus estavius (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with your question but it reminds me of a good quote from Desmond_Tutu:"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them, we had the Bible and they had the land. "--Aspro (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Pig (short story) from the late great Roald Dahl. It's well over 40 years since I read it, but it's one of those stories that stays with you, isn't it?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of korean movie...

There was a korean movie I saw a long time ago, and I need to remember the name. I remember the film distinctly having a sex scene in it where there a man basically has sex with a woman while they're both standing up against a wall (don't know the name of the position) and the woman being in a sort of blue dress or shirt. Not much nudity is revealed and they both just end up on the ground having a normal humping thing with the girls feet in the air. If anyone can help me out, it'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks --Aackneda (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accused At 17 (2010 Film)

1. Did Fallyn accidentally kill Dory?

2. Did Fallyn kill Dory on purpose?

When Sarah gets the Asthma Attack, Fallyn refuses to give the inhaler to Sarah & it causes Sarah to die.

3. Is Fallyn sorry about Sarah's death?

4. Is Fallyn glad that Sarah's dead?

5. Is Fallyn sorry about Dory's death?

6. Is Fallyn glad that Dory's dead?

7. Is Fallyn glad that Bianca got arrested?

8. Is it true that Fallyn had no other choice to frame Bianca for Dory's Murder?(Christopher12345678 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Is this a homework question? Heck froze over (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Contessa

Why is it called Barefoot Contessa when she is not barefooted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.106.41 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was. Assuming you are referring to the cookery show, it ultimately derives its name from the 1954 film, The Barefoot Contessa in which the title character does indeed go barefoot. This isn't the only example of a cookery show for which the title should not be considered literal (thankfully). AJ Cham 20:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves, Maria Vargas in the film doesn't like wearing shoes. She takes them off to dance with the gypsies. Another time (I think), Harry Dawes finds her discarded footwear, doffed while she is dallying with a man. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the movies shown on SyFy of such poor quality?

The Syfy channel shown in the UK shows a movie or two most days. Why are these movies of such bad quality? For example, today I endured some of 2012: Ice Age, a couple of days ago it was Battle of Los Angeles, and there are many more. Each of these movies is characterised by a dreadful plot, dreadful direction and, despite being made in the last few years, special effects typical of that found in a video game. For some strange reason, even some common place action movie props (such as helicopters) are terrible video-game-effect replacements. Why does Hollywood (or whereever) even bother making such terrible movies? Astronaut (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the article on The Asylum, which appears to be the company that produced both movies. I don't think I've ever seen a "straight-to-SyFy" movie featuring great special effects or good writing. I'm not sure what the production vs. profits ratio are for these, but it seems to be enough where they can just crank them out and not worry too much about whether they win Emmys. AlexiusHoratius 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's really 2 classes of films. Some of these films often aim to be kitsch, camp, or deliberately ridiculous. Many of the Asylum's films feature 80s pop stars cast for ironic value and to appeal to their fans and the curious, e.g. Debbie Gibson in Mega Python vs. Gatoroid and Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus. Others like Sharktopus feature ridiculously hammy actors like Eric Roberts, whose presence signifies that a film should not be taken seriously. The films are meant to be fun: a bit of action, a bit of flesh, and a whole lot of ridiculousness. How can you not love Gibson and Tiffany teaming up to fight improbable CGI animals?

On the other hand, Battle of Los Angeles was just a cheap cash-in on Battle: Los Angeles and 2012: Ice Age on 2012 (film) (and/or The Day After Tomorrow) - part of the idea is to get viewers' interest by pretending to be a big-budget film and then force them to watch low-budget nonsense. But the films can still be entertaining if you're in the right frame of mind; after all, 2012 may have good special effects but in every other way it's terrible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do know that good special effects don't necessarily make for a good film (that certainly seems true for many Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay films), but in many instances it can help make a merely okay film into a good film. I have also noticed that even poor special effects can be endearing if the other parts are good enough: the story, the directing, the acting. The problem is, many of these films on Syfy have almost no redeeming factors. It makes me wonder why they bother. Astronaut (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother? Someone pays for it. SyFy buys it. They sell commercial time when they play it. If the companies buying the commercial time decided it wasn't worth their money, SyFy wouldn't buy the movie. -- kainaw ™ 13:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, is the cost of special effects large enough that there is significantly less in the budget for things like writing? Anybody know how big a percentage is spent on FX? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if SyFy spells their name that way so it can't possible be confused with legitimate sci-fi. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the name was changed, they said it was because women like SyFy more than SciFi. -- kainaw ™ 00:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women prefer syphilis? [1] ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 03:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin Op. 28 No. 20

Not sure if this goes here or at the humanities desk, but I decided here was a better idea because the main RD page says this one's for music.

Anyway, at bar 5 beat 3 and bar 6 beat 1, I'm not sure what chords those are (in terms of harmonic analysis). Enharmonically, bar 5 beat 3 sounds like a half-dimished seventh chord, but that doesn't really make sense in the key, which leads me to wonder if the chord is a full dimished seventh of c minor in root position, where the f-sharp is a non-chord note. also, for bar 6, beat 1, i am also not sure what chord that is...

If anyone can tell me what these two chords are, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance, Bramble claw x 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the m. 5 b. 3 notes are a B minor 7th while the m. 6 b. 1 is a A minor 7. All that's missing from these 7th chords is the 3rd note (the F# and E respectively), which are commonly missing. Madman (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]