Entertainment desk
< September 26	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 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.

September 27

Carnivorous Walking Palm Tree Movie?

There was a late-50's to early 70's monster movie about carnivorous trees which resembled palms. The trees walked and they engulphed their prey by splitting open along the trunk vertically down the middle. The film has a climactic seen with hundreds of trees advancing across a field being attacked by flame throwers. The film may have been dubbed. It is not The Navy versus the Night Monsters, although you might think so from the description--I bought that on Amazon and it is not the film I am looking for. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been the 1962 version of Day of the Triffids. APL (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, good guess of course, but I have seen all the triffids adaptations and should have ruled them out. I am even a fan of the Giant Hogweed. This film seemed to have been filmed in the South Pacific. It was definitely a tropicalish setting. The fact that people were engulfed by the trunk which split open like an eyeglass case or an open chest wound stands out most prominently. μηδείς (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found this website http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq1395.html with a whole bunch of movies in some way related to carnivorous plants, but none seems to be the one I am looking for. μηδείς (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TVTropes has a page dedicated to Man-eating plants (Feed me, Seymour!) here. Perhaps following some threads there may lead you to the correct answer. --Jayron32 03:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, still no luck. I have a feeling it may have been a Japanese movie dubbed in English, although I believe I remember the "US" military. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Comedian

I once saw a show on Comedy Central with a slew of comedians that came on on Friday or Saturday nights during the summer. One comedian, an African-American with an afro, told a joke I thought to be the funniest ever. It was once big joke with a big ironic punch-line at the end with other jokes in between. One in particular:

“

My girlfriend made me a sandwich. I bit into it and thought it was kind of bready. I lifted up the top and it was the heel. I looked at the bottom piece and it too was the heel! She had to actually reach all the way into the back of the bag to make a sandwich with two heels. Do you know how evil that is?!

”

— unknown

I would like to know if anyone else saw this and knows who the comedian is. Thanks Wikipedians! Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the answer to your question, but in my google search, I did find the literally worst YouTube video every made. See This video titled "My girlfriend made me a sandwich". Caveat inspectoris. --Jayron32 02:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people prefer the heel. She was prolly being genrous. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The heel is great on homemade bread, but if the bread comes from a plastic bag, forget it. Googlemeister (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have another "what the hell are those Americans talking about?" moment here? By "heel" you mean "crust", right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every slice of bread has crust on it. The heel is the the end of the sliced loaf on which one entire side is crust. -- kainaw ™ 16:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dad calls it the nose and claims dibs.μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We used to leave the heel in the sliced loaf on the theory that it would help keep the loaf from drying so quickly. At the conclusion, you have just two heels and no bread in between. The comedian's joke was funny, but not necessarily the funniest joke ever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs' experience is a common one, and a "biheelal" bread wrapper is not uncommon when all the "good" slices have been used. A heely sandwich looks funny but tastes fine, and is less subject to ruin from a filling with lots of liquid. Edison (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to add that using the nose is particularly good for dealing with overly wet sandwich fixins. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Bread#Bread crust. BTW this isn't just trying to be difficult. When I first read the question I didn't get the joke at all, I thought it had something to do with the girlfriend using her shoes to make the sandwich Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to disagree, it had a cute cat. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schyler, could your unknown comedian be Reggie Watts? --LarryMac | Talk 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so? I don't know, but he does a bit about sandwiches: see [1]. Not exactly what Schyler explained, but quite close. --Jayron32 03:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recycling characters

Now that All My Children is gone from the air, have any of the characters from that show been recycled into One Life to Live and/or General Hospital? (I'm well aware OLTL will be ending its run really soon. There's also a chance GH might be pulled when Katie Couric gets her talk show going.)24.90.204.234 (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly when did the concepts of spoilers and spoiler warnings become prevalent?

Look, I'm not trying to start a debate on whether or not spoiler warnings should be used on Wikipedia (I am against them), but rather, I am asking about the actual history of the concept. I have read the Wikipedia page, but it lacked some information, like exactly when did the concept begin, if the concept was prevalent before the Internet, or the people who actually coined (or popularized) the term spoiler. I have searched the internet for information but it seems to be little, if any information. Was it invented on the Internet, or has the idea existed from the beginning of media?112.208.115.3 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which concept, the spoiler or the spoiler warning? Certainly I would think the idea, that revealing the plot is to be avoided, has existed for an age: film, theatre or TV reviewers will not give away too much of the storyline since their purpose is to describe a show the readers may yet wish to see.

There were certainly spoiler warnings in the 1970s: every Saturday the main BBC News programme would report the most important football results, all except for one key game. For that game the newsreader would say: "Highlights of this match will be shown on Match of the Day tonight; if you don't want to know the score, look away now." The score was shown on screen silently.

About the actual word 'spoiler', that may well have arrived with the Net. Sussexonian (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first heard the term in the political sense in reference to John B. Anderson's 1980 independent candidacy. Prior to the internet I had only heard "ruin the plot" From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spoiler: “one who mars another’s chance at victory” is attested from 1950 in U.S. politics, ... “information about the plot of a movie, etc., which might ‘spoil’ it for one who has not seen it” is attested by 1982. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One usage not mentioned in EO, perhaps because it's not the exact word used, is when your mother would warn against before-meal snacks: "You'll spoil your supper!" Same general idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The modern term "spoilers" seems to come from an article of that name by Doug Kenney, which appeared in the April 1971 issue of National Lampoon. It gave away the ending of a number of famous works with notable endings. John M Baker (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase often used in 1950s movie promotions was "Do not reveal the surprise ending!" Then in 1960, Hitchcock upped this considerably with Psycho ads which stated, "No one will be seated after the film begins." In the era of continuous showings that was unprecedented. Previously, many people just walked into theaters when they got there (and stayed to see the first part they had missed). Some movie ads showed Hitchcock pointing at his watch alongside several paragraphs of copy about no one being allowed in except at the Psycho start times, ending with his signature. Before the word "spoiler", the term "surprise ending" had considerable use. Pepso2 (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it started much before the Usenet? Wow, I didn't know that. – b_jonas 10:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard it before the www, but that is not unusual. Many trends have slow obscure beginnings. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Uderzo and Goscinny's daughter"

This phrase is used the caption of the picture in this BBC news item [2] and also in the article Albert_Uderzo#Family. Is it a mistake (being propagated by copy-paste, perhaps) or does it mean Goscinny and Uderzo (both male, and married, and not to each other) really acted as her parents? Card Zero (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article René Goscinny says, he died in 1977, survived by a daughter, Anne. His daughter, along with Uderzo, accepted the trophies for the creation of Asterix et cie. That is, it's "[Uderzo] and [Goscinny's daughter]", not "[Uderzo and Goscinny]'s daughter". Deor (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see - I had a parse error. Well, I'll insert an extra "by" into the article in case anybody else gets caught out the same way. Card Zero (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ringer (TV series) : familiar plot.

The new Ringer (TV series) story line has identical twin sisters, played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. One sister is on the run, as a witness to a gang slaying. When the other (rich} one seems to have died in a boating accident (or by suicide), the one on the run takes her place, moving right in to her luxury penthouse lifestyle, fooling her husband, her best friend, and her lover. Then someone tries to kill her. This reminds me of a bestselling novel of ten or twenty years ago, and perhaps a TV miniseries. Any ideas what it was called? Edison (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The novel/miniseries I have in mind was definitely not any of the "look-alike women swap identity" stories "A Stolen Life" (1946), "Dead Ringer" (1964) or "Sisters" (1973).Edison (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a television movie called Deceptions if the old noggin recalls it correctly. Starring the lovely Stephanie Beacham of Hart to Hart fame - check out the description here old chap - http://www.videorarities.net/tvmovies.html. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By George, that's it! "Deceptions" was the 1982 novel by Judith Michael. Lady Sabrina led the glamorous life in Europe, while identical twin Stephanie was a housewife in a dysfunctional marriage in a midwestern US college town. They swapped lives for a bit, and Sabrina got stuck when Stephanie was killed. Later made into a 1985 TV movie, starring Stephanie Powers, per IMDB, not Stephanie Beacham. It was in fact Powers who was in Hart to Hart. It was indeed a four hour (with commercials and breaks) miniseries, and IMDB lists a running time of 181 minutes for one version. Thanks. Edison (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the appropropiate internet vernacular I'm supposed to use in these new fangled ages is "facepalm" for managing to confuse Ms. Beacham and Ms. Powers - ah well, at least the general thrust of my info was right! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What songs were featured in Almost Famous and what were the filming locations?

--FilmGuySuper8 (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, see Almost Famous (soundtrack). --Jayron32 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the second, putting "Almost Famous locations" into Google gives this as the first result. IMDb lists several as well. Dismas|^(talk) 23:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of the film depictions of Romeo and Juliet in the public domain?

Specifically, what's the status of the 1936 version? SDY (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is not presented as legal advice. In the US there is the "Mickey Mouse" copyright extension law for films, which congress passed to help the Disney company keep early Mickey Mouse cartoons from falling into public domain. It extends the copyright to the indefinite future, since it is likely to be extended when the end of protection falls near. Presently copyright extends 95 years from "publication" of a film, which going back from 2011 would be 1916. The 1908 Vitagraph silent version, starring Paul Panzer and Florence Lawrence, is likely public domain: [3]. Ditto the 1911, 1912, and the 1914 version. The 1916 version should be PD Oct 22, 2011 in the US, although at present no one seems to have a copy of it. 1936 for the "publication" of the version the OP mentioned + 95 would imply protection through 2031 for that version. Other countries likely have other laws, and perhaps ones displaying less corporate control of the lawmaking process. Edison (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison's interpretation seems to be flawed. Anything published in the U.S. (as well as almost anything published anywhere in the world) before 1923 is in the public domain in the U.S. See Wikipedia:Public domain. Also the Mickey Mouse act sets a definite term as required by the Constitution; the likelihood of further extensions is not part of the law. Rmhermen (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1923 limit apparently overrules the 95 year law, per the article Rmhermen cited. The article I cited on the Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension law only briefly mentions 1923 in the lede, with no further explanation, and even that terse claim is tagged as needing clarification. (Rmhermen, you could do a great service if you would edit the "Mickey Mouse" copyright extension law article to make it more encyclopedic.) The former copyright law, replaced by the Mickey law, also "set a definite term," which congress then extended at the request of Hollywood, snatching the first Mickey Mouse cartoons from the jaws of public domain just in time. There has been discussion in articles about US copyright law to the effect that Disney and others will just go to their friends in Congress again when the time comes to keep extending the copyright protection for the Mouse. Edison (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]