Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 February 12

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.

February 12

House of Cards

Why was the entire first season of House of Cards released all at once? Dismas|^(talk) 03:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not ? I find I can't really get into a show I only see once a week or so, I just don't remember the characters and plot from week to week. However, if all the episodes of a season are on Netflix, I can watch them close enough together that I don't lose the thread. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What I get from this article is that it was all intentional after Netflix looked at their data of how people (just like StuRat here) watch episodic TV series on their site, viewing them close enough together. Producer David Fincher, who really had no experience working in episodic TV series before, also did not want to be constrained by the limitations of that medium (like trying to keep the audience captive for several months), and just wanted to make the entire thing at once as if it was another one of his films. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole point is that internet TV has in the past tried to take on regular cable TV at its own game and failed; this is Netflix trying to do something new, to carve out a niche. And get some PR to boot. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 13:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What in the world did you have to wait for? This show has been legal for two years. μηδείς (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You might well think that, but as for me, I couldn't possibly comment. StuRat (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are movie fights (armed and unarmed) so horrible inaccurate?

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

This is something, that bothers me since my early childhood (I am a fencer of the German style since age 7). Why are most movie fights such a unrealistic depiction of real fights? One example would be, that People (the enemies) get hit in the face and are outknocked for like hours. Nearly all movies (that take place in the 18. or early 19. century) show smashing cuts with smallswords (despite that the smallsword was a thrusting weapon and was not designed to cut very well) and hacking with long swords. I dont understand this. There are tons of books, educational documentaries and even YouTube-videos (a very good one can be found under http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln94E9AGYTc) which portray all fighting styles from medieval techniques to the combat systems of the second world war as they were taught. I dont understand this, why couldnt they not show a realistic swordfight (like they did in movies like seven samurai from Akira Kurosawa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjwM8NEiPww)? It seems, that I am not alone, I know people from all around the world who are highly dissatisfied, there are even videos on YouTube, where the original fighting styles are compared to the bad representations from films (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eszrMgzmgE). A stage fencer told me once, that it would be too risky to show realistic combat in movies, but that doesent even make any sense, because they are very well shown in various videos on the web, which shows that they can be demonstrated well without any danger for the practioners. Another one told me, that the clashing swords are more interesting for the audience (which is the most illogical thing I have ever heard. So people are more intersted into seeing two combatants hitting completely mindless on one another like some drunk fools with steel sticks, than to get a look at the highly advaned fighting systems of our ancestors?). Could someone please tell me, why the film industry refuses to show any realistic combat scenarios?--188.62.118.195 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is purely my opinion/s. I share your view in many ways. One reason could be that despite the use of stuntpersons the fights are performed by actors, who are generally not well trained (with exceptions of course, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, and Wesley Snipes for example) in fighting techniques. Another reason is that 'real' fighting is likely very simple, very bloody, very short and not very entertaining! I though for example that Tom Cruises' katana techniques in The Last Samurai. while entertaining, were very unlikely given his (apparently) relatively short time training.

Note also that the purpose of a movie is usually not to accurately depict 'real' fighting techniques, but to entertain. Many very effective techniques would be very boring to watch. (One trained in martial arts might appreciate them, but the general viewing public?, likely not.) One kick to the 'nuts' is very effective, but the fight is over too soon! Many Chinese Wu Shu films are very entertaining (ie. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) but I still can't fly through the air and exchange a flurry of kcks and punches the way they do!

Safety would be a very high priority in filmaking, so the weapons used are often 'fake' (ie. rubber!) and that could influence their use in a realistic way. See the end scene of Braveheart where the weapons can be seen quite obviously wobbling. The spear/shield techniques in the movie Troy for another example (I am thinking of the part where Achilles (Brad Pitt) fought Hector (Eric Bana) ) were very intriguing and looked good, though how they work 'for real' is another thing entirely. The early scene where little Hector took out the giant 'Boagrias' seemed to me good technique, (evade a frontal attack, strike enemies weak point, fight over!) but perhaps not as entertaining as it could be.

Note that I have not taken part in 'real' combat (though I have defended myself effectively) I doubt if any viewers would have been overly 'entertained'. - 220 of ^Borg 12:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, 220 of Borg. I agree. But I think they could at least try and use the real stances of the combat systems, which they would use in reality. There are movies, where the protagonist holds his sword so high over his head with both arms, which would be downright suicidal in real combat. There is a interesting video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tts0m0x0xM) on YouTube from the Austrian comedy and stuntgroup Dreynschlag, were they show basics of historical fencing techniques but also make fun of the inaccurate demonstration of fighting styles in modern cinema.--188.62.118.195 (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but it looks dramatic doesn't it! Also I think some swordfighting styles would argue that this is to get greater power to chop your opponent in two (right down the centre line!). Though a quick slash across the throat would be just as good.

Ps. One thing I hate in the movies is the metallic 'scraping' sound that is often used when a sword is drawn. Not very realistic IMHO. A Japanese katana, for example, makes very little sound on drawing (wooden scabbard). Possibly the sound is intended to bring to the viewers attention that a sword has indeed been drawn, and that action is about to commence. Entertainment trounces realism again.- 220 of ^Borg 12:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: me too. I find that sound really annoying!--188.62.118.195 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added a few colons "::" to your post to indent it. It is normal practice on Wikipedia to indent your replies. See wp:indent. - 220 of ^Borg 13:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Another thought that occured to me is that movie fights are always(?) massively choreographed. It is just too dangerous to have (real) free-form fighting, and this very likely takes away from the spontaneous nature of 'real' combat. Even with choreography and skill injuries still happen. Have you ever seen the 'shorts' that Jackie Chan has at the end of his movies, showing his preparations for stunts? (trying to stop viewers trying them themselves, I think) He always seems to get injured in some, and he has been badly hurt at times, and this is a highly trained, expert martial artist and acrobat. - 220 of ^Borg 13:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to some discussion on on the subject of cinema fight realism, "Aesthetics of sword fight in cinema" - 220 of ^Borg 13:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 220 of Borg!--188.62.118.195 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory link to TVTropes AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that this whole issue is also true of romantic scenes, even those in a genre which goes into great and specific detail. Nuff Said. Gzuckier (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is true of most scenes in movies. People who live in a city that a film is set in complain about geographic inaccuracies. Computer people complain about how computer stuff is exaggerated. Gun people complain that you don't really shoot guns like that. Airplane people complain that the 737 shown taking off in stock footage couldn't possibly fly from Tokyo to London. Spy people complain that you don't regularly hold meetings in front of St. Basil's. Etc. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Stagecoach (1939 film) is interesting because it's before they developed all the "tropes". The gunfights were over in a second, with one party dropping dead immediately. Nobody doing somersaults to avoid being hit, flying backwards 20 feet when hit, firing after they were apparently already dead, etc. And John Wayne wore something like a pilgrim hat, as opposed to the classic TV western hat we saw later. The wagon train also looked filthy and had oxen and other animals, as opposed to just horses. (On the bad side, they didn't seem to know how to do close-ups yet, so you couldn't tell who was talking, at times.) Realism later gave way to what audiences found to be more entertaining. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Suede Sofa: I think they they often make really terrible jobs. They can show a gigantic robot breakdancing while he is blowing up planets, but they cannot show real martial art techniques? I know what you want to say, but come on, we are talking here about movies, that cost like 200 million dollars. I guess it is too hard for the film makers to go to a library or ask military personnel about realistic fighting techniques. I mean, the original, medieval martial arts are awesome to look at (you can find some wonderful examples under http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKEdcCSz_8c). I am - studying German right now - have found a highly realistic respresentation of actual German fencing in a German tv show (clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgjBTI062Sc). They nearly perfectly show the actual techniques (the original can be seen on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDg1N3UAH78). Think about this: a German tv show which costs around 100 000 dollars offers a better depiction than a 200 million dollar movie. Isnt this absurd?

@StuRat: I remember a German movie from the 1930s, which included a extremely realistic depiction of 17th century rapier fencing. The fights were less than one second long and only included thrusting techniques. I have also noticed, that gunfights in old movies were shown with much more realism than today, they do not even show the blowback anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.118.195 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They did it better in the old days, at least to these untrained eyes, e.g. Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone in The Adventures of Robin Hood, Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. in The Prisoner of Zenda, and Jose Ferrer in Cyrano de Bergerac. Cornel Wilde was an Olympic-calibre fencer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Funny, I never watched Magnum PI when it was broadcast, but given [that the smallsword was a thrusting weapon and was not designed to cut very well] I was screaming at the badguy, "Stab, don't slash!" the other night as she tried to slash at the hero underwater with a steak knife. μηδείς (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: I know what you mean. The techniques were not very accurate, but a lot of the actors were great sport fencer and pulled off far superior fighting scenes than most modern actors. This entire thing is a strange phenomenon, bacause in the early 20th century, they tried really hard to show fencing as realistic as possible (there is a clip from a book under http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LR1hzc_rikc/Sb_TaIxxQLI/AAAAAAAAAsY/43-SyqXLrTw/s1600-h/90393.jpg, where you can see, how well they were taught back then).

@μηδείς: I remember that episode, I thought it looked really stupid. I think it is ridiculous, that they still show cutting techniques with the smallsword. I own a French original from the early 18th century, and it even fits in the hand as a thrusting weapon, I would never get the idea to make cuts with it against an enemy. Have you seen Sharpe's Challenge? The part where they fight with smallswords? They smash at one each other and have trouble to fight, as if the swords would be like 40 pounds massy. This is like a joke, take my original: it weights around 1.10 pounds.--188.62.118.195 (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they're rarely realistic (one of the reasons I found Reservoir Dogs so shocking (apart from the torture scene) is because of the way it shows that getting shot hurts). But that's no different really from the way that films show other things unrealistically: driving (character gets in car and immediately drives off), dialogue (how many times do you watch a film and wonder at their fluent, concise and abruptly-ending conversations?), lack of bodily functions, except where necessary for plot or laughs (the size of Kiefer Sutherland's bladder in 24 (TV series) is rightly celebrated), exceptional beauty of most leading characters, perfect grooming of people/pets/homes/gardens at all times, ability to wake and look good and be instantly alert, etc. The fact is that films are made that way because Hollywood perceives, rightly or wrongly, that we the audience want it that way. Or, in some instances, like weapons, because their ignorance on the topic isn't perceived as being a crucial flaw.

I agree with the film-makers on many, although not all counts. I don't really want to watch a film where someone gets to their car and then spends 15 seconds looking for their keys in all their pockets (like I often do) unless it's plot-relevant. But I do wish they'd get their history right in films on historic topics. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, can I recommend Unforgiven, as a film that works extremely hard on this score, in fact, much of the story is about explaining why it is that when it comes to a big gun fight, a certain type of personality trait (not skill with guns) will be successful with their shooting, while most others are not. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dweller. Yeah, most conversations in movies are done weird and mostly out of place. I thought I was the only one who noticed, that Jack Bauers Bladder must be bursting after 24 hours. I think, that Hollywood cant be blamed, look at most French and Russian movies which take place during historical events: there are always the bad representations of gunfights, sword duels and hand-to-hand combat (despite the fact, that all of these nations have thousands of fencing masters and close combat specialists, who could make the scenes look really well). So they decide to use historically correct costumes, places, weapons and even the right furniture, but show crappy combat scenes that look like a cartoon fight? This would be like a director would make a precise movie about the Elizabethan era, but would show machine guns and robots in the middle of the movie.

Do you know which part I hate the most? Duels in armor in medieval movies. It is so horrible how they show the combat arts of our ancestors as "smashing at each other with swords until the armor is dented". There are around 60 books from the medieval period, which describe a highly advanced combat system, where you have to thrust in the open parts of the armor (like the visor). A original fighting book can bee seen here http://www.kb.dk/da/nb/materialer/haandskrifter/HA/e-mss/thalhofer/thott-2_290.html. Smashing with a swords against chain mail and plate armor is about as effective, as throwing knives against a tank.--188.62.118.195 (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but it's not something that bothers the average movie-goer, so they're not too bothered themselves. In contrast, when they made the Prince of Egypt, the film-makers hired a number of biblical scholars (I attended a lecture by one of them), from different perspectives, because they rightly recognised that departing from accuracy would potentially be noticed and objected to by large numbers of viewers. Which is not to say that they followed all of the advice. Another example? Bond sliding down the London Underground escalators in Skyfall. Anyone who's travelled a few times on the tube would tell you that doing that would be a very painful experience. But the filmmakers correctly reckoned that even Londoners wouldn't really care about such a "mistake". It's clear that it wasn't an oversight - the film makers had to adapt Charing Cross Station's escalators to make it possible: "All the metal sections on the central area between the escalators were removed and replaced with rubber ones that bounced out of the way as Craig slid towards the bottom". --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This is terrible (thanks for the link). So people start to take absolutely inacurrate, horrible misrepresentations as realistic interpretations? Some people who learn Karate are wondering themselves, why they are not able to do all the things from the movies, but seem to fail to realize, that in most of these movies the actors are using wire based tricks and stunts. The misinformations they are creating with the images of the modern film industry are baffling!--188.62.118.195 (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with ID'ing Film

I remember watching a film years ( i'm thinking around early to mid 90s) that I thought was a third installment to The Philadelphia Experiment but when I've tried to 'google' it over the years I've found no refs to a The Philadelphia Experiment 3. All I can remember is at the beginning, which is it starts of with this guy complaining to his wife (I think) about all the noise that his neighbour is making, than the scene cuts to guys in nazi uniforms in a building with machinery. I tried trecording it when it was on TV (Ch 05(UK) when it was on but I could only get the first 5 or so minutes of the film. Scotius (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

fly wrangling

The beginning of a recent episoe of Raising Hope reminded me of my continuing minor obsession with this question.... started with a fly flying around, lands on a sandwich, blah blah. So; for the occasional scene featuring insects who need to do something specific in a movie/TV show, I assume they don't train the little fellow specifically for that scene, so do they just keep trying until they get it right? In the scene in question, the fly appeared to be pretty much loose in the kitchen so it's not like it had nowhere else to land on. Or do they have some specific fly attractant? Or is it CGI? Gzuckier (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what they need the fly to do. They certainly can't be trained, but, as you said, will go to an attractant, if they need them in a specific area. If something really specific is needed, like it landing on the tip of a person's nose, they would have used practical special effects in the old days (placing a plastic fly on the nose), but perhaps CGI today.

Another option, before CGI, might just be to go with quantity. For example, say a fly is supposed to land on a clue to a murder, thus drawing attention to it. Aim a camera at the object, and put lots of flies in the room, and eventually a fly will land on the object. Cut out that piece of film, and intersperse it with footage of the actor first waving at a fly, then seeing the object after we see the fly land on it.StuRat (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Flies may be difficult to train, but their chemotaxis is quite good. You can easily attract a fly to a specific object with a dab of putrescene, cadaverine, or indole. Without the access to fancy chemicals, wranglers could simply rub the object with a corpse or feces. I'm sure multiple edits or flies, and SFX are also used in some movies, but googling reveals that bug wranglers do exist, e.g. this guy [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)