Entertainment desk
< November 17	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 19 >

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 18

Questions about movie studio Wikipedia articles

Just have a few questions:

1. Should Joseph Kennedy's name be removed from the heading of founder(s) on the RKO article? Because only David Sarnoff owned the controlling interest in RKO from its formation.

2. Paramount Pictures, as we know it today, was formed as a merger between two companies in 1916. Should I change the founding date from 1912 to 1916, and should I add Jesse L. Lasky's name under the founder(s) heading?

3. Is it ok if I add the names of William Swanson, Patrick Powers Mark Dwitenfass, David Horsley, Julius Stern, Nathaniel Elsberg, Jules Brulatour, Charles Baumann, Adam Kessel, Charles Kessel, Frederick Balshofer, and Mae C. Kenney as founders of Universal with Carl Laemmle? Because their names were listed as a partnership with Laemmle: http://books.google.com/books?id=-ncLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA581&dq=carl+laemmle+jules+baumann&hl=en#v=onepage&q=carl%20laemmle%20jules%20baumann&f=false Rebel Yeh (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of question should really be asked on the talk pages of the articles you want to change, but if you have a reliable source for your information, then by all means add it (with appropriate references). Tevildo (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery man on History Channel documentary

A few months ago, I remember watching on History a documentary on Harry Houdini. For some unexplained reason (or maybe it was mentioned in another part, since I only watched the second half of it), there was some guy whose face was totally darkened. You know, like those people whose faces are censored to protect their identities. However, I could not remember his "description." Like for example "Giorgio Tsoukalos - Publisher, Legendary Times Magazine" or "George Noory - Radio Host, Coast to Coast AM". What was his "description", and what was the reason for his anonymity? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the man at roughly 4:20 in this video? If so, that is Teller. As part of his regular act with Penn & Teller, he doesn't speak... even though he is perfectly able to. So to keep that pseudo-mystery going, they obscure his face. Dismas|^(talk) 11:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It's him precisely! For some odd reason I thought he was some guy who won Houdini merchandise in an auction and wanted to keep his identity secret or something. Thank you very much. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And if you get the chance, check out their magic act. Dismas|^(talk) 11:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Just as an aside, Teller does speak, he just doesn't speak much. The "shtick" in the Penn and Teller act is the bombastic Penn and the reserved Teller, Penn often talks so much that Teller can't get a word in edgewise. He's not mute; I have been at live shows where Teller does speak a tiny bit. After the show, both performers were in the lobby hawking merch and signing autographs. Teller spoke plainly then. He has a quiet voice, but does talk. I've also seen several documentary shows where he speaks freely; often explaining how he does tricks or discussing his act or relationship with Penn. --Jayron32 20:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, however, did the documentary "black out" Teller's face, yet still identify him in a graphic on-screen? That is hardly concealing his identity. Everyone knows what he looks like. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is also part of Teller's normal trademark "shtick": If he speaks, he usually obscures his face in some way. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have built their careers on that 'shtick' and are quite dedicated to it. I saw them a few years ago and after the show Penn lifted me up off of the floor in a rib-crushing hug. After setting me down, he insisted that Teller hug me too. Teller complied, although quite reluctantly as though I was made of spun glass. Very funny! Helene O'Troy - Et In Arcadia Ego Sum (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Souls World tendancy

Hello there. I am slogging through Demon's Souls and have a question about World Tendancy. Right at the beginning of the game there is a gate which only opens if the world is pure white or pure black. It is determined by an aggregate of people's actions on the server. Now the gate is closed in my game, but I can see the white spirits of other players merrily running through the gate, indicating it is open for them. If they are on the server, how can this be so? If they have gone offline to affect the tendency themselves, how can I see them?

The Discoteques

Hi, I've just passed an article for GA but something had to come out because nobody could find a suitable online reference for it. The entry was that German group The Discoteques had a 1972 hit with with a cover of the George Harrison song "What Is Life" which charted in Sweden. Can anyone help? Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any good? Tevildo (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, but wasn't sure if it would be an acceptable source to use for a GA article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it proves the record exists. However, this and this are the best I can find for definitve Swedish charts for 1972, and the record does not appear on them. (Interesting to see pre-Eurovision entries for "Björn, Benny, Agnetha & Frida", incidentally). I don't think the Discoteques will be a major omission from the article, in any case. Tevildo (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Entry for Movie "Casablanca"

I don't know how to get a comment in about "Casablanca." Here's a quote from the article:

'One of the lines most closely associated with the film — "Play it again, Sam" — is a misquotation.[121][122] When Ilsa first enters the Café Americain, she spots Sam and asks him to "Play it once, Sam, for old times' sake." After he feigns ignorance, she responds, "Play it, Sam. Play 'As Time Goes By'." Later that night, alone with Sam, Rick says, "You played it for her, you can play it for me," and "If she can stand it, I can! Play it!"'

Actually, "Play it Again, Sam" is not a quote. It' the title of of Herbert Ross' film starring Woody Allen, where he "channels" Humphrey Bogart, in a way "resurrecting" the rick of Casablanca. Hence the title, "Play it AGAIN, Sam." It's Rick come back to life, re-playing Casablanca. I'm so sick and tired of everyone getting this wrong! Can this be commented on in the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.151.68 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point. The reason that Ross' 1972 film used that title was precisely because the phrase was widely, though wrongly, thought to be a line from Casablanca. I'm not sure where to find a documentary reference for this if it isn't already in one of the relevant articles in this encyclopaedia, but I am old enough to have been familiar with the ubiquity of the mis-quote (and the fact of its inaccuracy) well before 1972. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.19 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I'm not sure I follow you. The text you quoted includes these words: "One of the lines most closely associated with the film — "Play it again, Sam" — is a misquotation". That means that the phrase "Play it again, Sam" was NOT heard in Casablanca, but many people believe it was and have well-meaningly spread this misinformation ever since the movie came out. Hence, the need for someone, somewhere to stand up and say "Hold on, this exact line never appeared in the movie". That is what our article is doing: telling the world the truth. Why does it need to be changed?

The misquotation long predated the Woody Allen movie. He simply took a well-known misquotation and cashed in on it. He did not invent it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's associated with the film, it just doesn't quite happen to be in the film. As with the early Mae West film where she said "Come up and see me sometime", only what she actually said was "Come up sometime, and see me... Come on up - I'll tell your fortune." And in a twist on the idea, in Apollo 13, Tom Hanks repeats the famous line, "Houston, we have a problem", although the producers knew it was actually "Houston, we've had a problem", but the slight misquote is what everyone remembers, so they used the misquote in the film. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's dozens of misquotes that get remembered wrongly. Everyone seems to remember Gordon Gecko saying "Greed is good" in Wall Street. He never said that phrase. What he said was "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good": [1]. But everyone leaves out the middle part. The Federales also never said "We don't need no steenking badges!" in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. The actual line was "We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!" Shakespeare never wrote "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet." He wrote "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet." And on and on. It's a wonder we get anything right... --Jayron32 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We focus on what we wish they had said or think they should have said, and then pretend that's what they actually said. The rotten media does this all the time, by enclosing in quote marks sets of words that no speaker ever said. They take the raw material, the words that were spoken, then massage them to suit editorial imperatives, but still put quote marks around them and pretend they were the actual literal verbatim words actually literally verbatimly spoken. We know this because we can read different reports of the same incident and see different sets of words reportedly spoken by the same person at the same time, all in quote marks. At best, only one of those quotes can be correct. Probably, none of them are. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can "massage" quotes by using ellipses, for example, "Greed ... is good" and "We don't need no ... stinking badges", but I am always leery of any quote that uses ellipses to omit sections, because it is very easy to alter the meaning of a quote by using ellipses to remove vital parts. I agree with Jack that this poor practice in the media is partly to blame. --Jayron32 19:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, ellipses introduce issues of their own, about what was omitted and why, and we readers can legitimately wonder whether we're being manipulated into believing something that simply isn't true ("I did not kill him", and "I did ... kill him" are rather different in their meaning). But the ellipses at least acknowledge that the words presented are not all the words actually spoken, which "Greed ... is good" does but "Greed is good" fails to do. Another aspect of this is parenthetical expressions; they're defined as words in a sentence that can safely be removed without causing any damage to the main sense. The bit left out of Gordon Gecko's statement is parenthetical, so it's not such a hanging offence. The "not" in my other example is not parenthetical, and no amount of ellipses will ever make up for its excision, which reverses the meaning. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some more examples (though not exclusively cinematic), see also List of misquotations at wikiquote, listing most examples mentioned here. Note that the entry on "Play it Again Sam" mentions A Night in Casablanca (1946) as a possible (and intentional) early source of this misquote, but other sites say it's just another misquote ... I guess someone has to re-watch the film very soon! The Gecko quote mentioned by Jayron, is given in an even fuller version: "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works.", there's a specification of what kind of "good" is meant, and of course that's yet more expandable, and we still don't know the exact context without watching the movie and being able to understand where he's coming from, etc. See also contextomy at Wikipedia and, more relevant, "Beam Me Up, Scotty!" at TV Tropes. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]